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

Full text of "Scope of Soviet activity in the United States. Hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress, second session[-Eighty-fifth Congress, first session] .."

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



HflARING 

SUBCOMMITTEE. TO .IN^VI^STIGATE THE 

ADMINISTEATION OF THE IFrEENAL SECUEITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 



OF THE 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE 
UNITED STATES 



DECEMBER 17, 1956 



PART 38 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
72723 WASHINGTON : 1957 



> .*«5->JICV,-^"3U 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

MAY 3 - 1957 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

ESTE7S KEFAUVER, Tennessee ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Soutli Carolina WILLIAM LANGER, North Dalsota 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jii., Missouri WILLIAM E. JENNER. Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arlfansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois 

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming HERMAN WELKER, Idaho 

MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 



Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internai, Security 
Act and Other Internal Security Laws 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina WILLIAM E. JENNER. Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr.. Missouri HERMAN WELKER. Idaho 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 

Robert Morris, Chief Counsel 

J. G. SouRWiNE, Associate Coutisel 

William A. Rosher, Administrative Counsel 

BENJAMIN MANDEL, Director of Research 

11 



CONTENTS 



Witness : rage 

Waldman, Henry S 2109 

m 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1956 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF THE Internal Security Act and Other 

Internal Security Laws of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 30 a. m., in the Old 
Supreme Court Chamber, United States Cai)itol, Senator Olin D. 
Johnston presiding. 

Present : Senators Johnston and Jenner. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, associate comisel; William Rusher, 
administrative counsel; and Benjamin Mandel, research director. 

Senator Johnston. The committee will come to order. 

You may call the first witness. 

Mr. Sourwine. The Honorable Francis Wilcox, Assistant Secretary 
of State. 

Senator Johnston. Will you please come around, Mr. Wilcox, and 
hold up your right hand to be sworn. 

Do you swear the evidence you give before the subcommittee to be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Wilcox. I do. 

(Testimony of Francis O. Wilcox at this point in the hearing is 
printed in the preceding volume of this series, part 37 of Scope of 
Soviet Activity in the United States. ) 

]Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Waldman. 

Senator Johnston. Do you swear the evidence you give before this 
subcommittee to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Waldman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY S. WALDMAN, CHAIEMAN, INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYEES LOYALTY BOARD, ELIZABETH, 
N. J. 

Mr. Sourwine. Will you give the committee your full name and 
your present title ? 

Mr. Waldman. My name is Henry S. Waldman, of Elizabeth, 
N, J., Chairman of International Organizations Employees Loyalty 
Board. 

Mr. Sourwine. And in that post you succeeded Mr. Pierce Gerety ? 

Mr. Waldman. I did, sir, in March 1954. 

Mr. Sourwine. And what are your duties in that position, Mr. 
Waldman ? 

2109 



2110 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Waldman. My duties in that position are: (1) I preside over a 
seven-member board; (2) assist in the administration of the duties of 
the board ; and to hold meetings, and of course to look over the inves- 
tigations, hold loyalty hearings if same are necessary, and to generally 
supervise the work. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Who are the other members of the board, sir ? 

Mr. Waldman. There is a Col. H. Grady Gore, of Washington, 
D. C. ; C. Ed Winton, who is school superintendent, of Kearny, N. J. ; a 
Mr. George Kauffmann, who is an attorney in Kentucky; and Mrs. 
Catherine Carpenter, of Pennsylvania; a Mr. Richard Biggers, of 
Charlotte, N. C. ; and Mrs. Gilman, of Connecticut. 

Mr. SouRMiNE. The Board was organized in July 1953 — at the end of 
July 1953? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is it correct, sir, that the effect of the two Executive 
orders, concerning which Mr. Wilcox testified, is that every United 
States citizen who is an employee of, or is considered for employment 
by, an international organization of which the United States is a 
member, becomes the object of an investigation either by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation or the Civil Service Commission Investiga- 
tions Division, depending on the nature of his employment ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is true. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And every employee who is in a professional capac- 
ity or has a high-level job must be the subject of an FBI full field 
investigation ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is true. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Waldman, would you describe for our record 
the process the Board uses in gathering and evaluating information on 
employees or prospective employees ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. You mean in applicant cases ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Waldman. In applicant cases, the application comes into our 
office. As soon as that comes in, we give it for investigation, let us 
say, to the Civil Service Commission, if the applicant is not on the 
international recruited staff. The Civil Service Commission starts an 
investigation. If in the course of its investigation derogatory infor- 
mation appears, immediately it is converted into a full field investiga- 
tion by the FBI. 

Now, we also have adopted a new policy, of late, in an effort to give 
Americans quicker and more employment. We make now, by agree- 
ment with the State Department and with the approval of the Justice 
Depai'tment and the concurrence of the international organizations, 
what is known as a name check, and that takes us 10 days to make. 

The name check, as you know, is a check made of the records of the 
FBI, Senate committee, House committee. Military Intelligence, 
Army, Navy, and things like that. If the response is favorable, we 
notify the organization that the man is apparently all right, in the 
first instance. 

We reserve the right, however, to continue our investigation, and 
if anything derogatory appears, the man is just employed on a tempo- 
rary basis, as it were, subject to the right to be disaffiliated with that 
organization. 

Mr. SouRwiNK. You are clearing them, now, initially, for employ- 
ment on the basis of a name check ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2111 

Mr. Waldman. We are, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This procedure that you discuss, of having either 
the Civil Service or an FBI investigation, was instituted after this 
committee had exposed cases of communism in the United Nations ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Waldman. I would say that the greatest deterrent of any dis- 
loyalty in goverimient, and the greatest thing which has been done, 
was the committee hearings in 1952 which, for the first time, pointed 
out very graphically the situation which existed in a certain interna- 
tional organization. 

Mr. SoTjRWiNE. Mr. Waldman, does the Board receive information 
from any sources other than the Civil Service Commission and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir ; we do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You do receive information compiled by those 
agencies from other sources? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

We have not, and we do not on our own initiative — that is, we direct 
further inquiry from time to time, but we do it through the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. 

Mr. Sourwine.'Now, to what degree is this information analyzed 
by the staff of the Board after you receive it ? 

Mr. Waldman. I didn't get your question. 

Mr. Sourwine. To what degree is this information which you re- 
ceive analyzed by the staff of the Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. Two members of the staff read it, and with each 
investigation we have an analysis made by members of the staff. In 
addition to that 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that a written analysis ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir; that is written and all have copies — and 
in addition to that, three members of the Board, if there is any slight 
derogatory information, must further read that and come to their own 
conclusions and sign that there was not, for instance, a reasonable 
doubt as to their loyalty. 

Mr. Sourwine. That almost answers my next question, which was 
the degree to which Board members participate in this evaluation. 

Mr. Waldman. I would say, sir, that it is microscopic. 

Mr. Sourwine. In other words, the Board members do not, largely, 
participate in the evaluation ? Or do I misunderstand you ? 

Mr. Waldman. No. The evaluation is made by members of the 
staff who are trained in the loyalty field. But in addition to that, 
each of us reads it, and we come to our own conclusion. We are not 
influenced, necessarily, by the staff recommendation. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. You mean that the whole Board, each individual 
member, goes over each individual case? 

INIr. Waldman. I am sorry. I should have said a panel of at least 
three will read it if derogatory matter appears. 

If it is a simple case where there is no derogatory information 
then one member only need read it. 

Mr. Sourwine. If there is no derogatory information it can be 
cleared by one member who concurs with the staff ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. 

Let us saj^, a secretary who is employed, who has led a quiet life 
and never joined anything, those are very simple cases. 



2112 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And if there is any derogatory information it must 
go to at least a panel of three ? 

Mr. Waldman. It must go to three. And before it is cleared at 
least two members must concur in it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, is there any higher requirement for cases 
which you send to the agencies with an advisory that the Board feels 
there is disloyalty or there is doubt in that regard to it ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, generally, that has been preceded by a hear- 
ing in w^hich a panel of three has adjudicated it. 

Senator Johnston. Say the panel is divided; 2 will pass on it 
favorably and 1, we will say, will not. Do any other members of the 
Board look into that? 

Mr. Waldman. No. We have entrusted it — in other words, it would 
mean otherwise — if you had a 7-man Board, it would be uneconomic, 
and it would take a long time for 7 to read it. 

What I meant was, if there was no derogatory information 2 of our 
examiners evaluate it independently, and 1 member of the Board 
affixes his name after he has read it; however, when any case comes 
up — let us say a man has been a member of a few front organizations, 
or is suspect as to his conduct, in such case it is known as a loyalty 
case, or one containing derogatory information. 

Now, such case gets the following treatment : First, two examiners 
read it and then draw an analysis. And we don't let it go at that. 
Three members of the Board must then pass upon that case. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Of whom two must approve it ? 

Mr. Waldman. Of whom at least two must approve it. 

Senator Johnston. Say, you turn it down by 2 to 1. Does the 
applicant know why he is turned down ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

But even before that the case would be marked as a hearing case. 
No applicant is merely turned down as the result of our reading of the 
files. If we believe that it is of sufficient importance, that it looks 
prima facie as if the man ought to be removed, we convert that into 
a hearing case. We notify the man of the time and place, generally 
near his home, either in New York or in Washington, we give him — 
we serve him first with an interrogatory or questionnaire. We let him 
know, within the limits of national security, what the charges against 
him are. We give him an opportunity to reply to those charges. 

Not in every instance is there a hearing. If the man gives us a 
reply that, to three reasonable men, appears to be — and in the evalua- 
tion of our examiners — appears to cover a few of the doubts which 
appear on the record, we will close that case out on the ground that 
there has been no reasonable doubt as to his loyalty. However, if his 
reply to our questionnaire still leaves doubt, we will give him a hear- 
ing and give him an opportunity to orally explain himself. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the Board have the power of subpena ? 

Mr. Waldman. No ; we do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would it be helpful if you had that power ? 

Mr. Waldman. We have long felt that it would be. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the Board have the power to administer oaths ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes; we do have that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you have the powder to compel testimony ? 

Mr. Waldman. No ; we do not. But I would say that, in a large 
number of the hearing cases we had, no one has ever taken the fifth 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2113 

amendment, no one has ever refused to testify as to those actually 
before us. Of course, we had the UNESCO cases in Europe, a few 
days ago, where we went there, and while some members of that organ- 
ization did show up, there were seven who did not appear. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. As a matter of fact, you heard Mr. Wilcox's testi- 
mony that there had been no incident in which a witness had refused 
to give evidence ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. As a matter of fact, have there ever been any cases 
where witnesses have refused to answer the questions, or some of your 
questions ? 

Mr. Waldman. Singularly, there have been practically none, yet 
with this reservation : We have had a few who said, for instance, that 
by reason of conscience they would not tell whether they, in turn, had 
associated with somebody, where we knew their father, let us say, was 
a Communist, and we had the son in front of us, he would say, "I will 
talk to you about anyone," for instance, "who is dead, but I will not 
speak against my father," We liave had about five cases of such. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Were they all strictly in that category ? You had 
no cases in which they refused to talk about themselves ? 

Mr, Waldman. No ; they talked about themselves very freely, but 
they w^ould not talk about the others. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You take the case of Mr. Behrstock ; are you familiar 
with that? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes; I am. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Mr. Behrstock refused to testify ; didn't he ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. He refused to testify about questions having to do 
with himself? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. That was at least one case in which a witness 
refused ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. We have had several. I might point out, Mr. 
Sourwine, that Mr. Behrstock came back to the United States at his 
own expense, and he made, as it were, complete confession in the sense 
that he did talk. 

Mr. Sourwine. We will get to Mr, Behrstock's individual case, I 
didn't mean to bring it up out of turn, but I wanted the record to 
speak clearly as to whether there have been witnesses that refused to 
answer questions, because I want the record to show here whether the 
Board feels that it should have the power to compel testimony. Let 
me explain. 

You have the power to administer the oath, the oath calls for the 
whole truth, but if the witness declines to give you the whole truth, you 
have no sanction to apply, you have no way at the present time to get 
him to ansAver the questions. 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. But I might point this out to you. If we 
have the file of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we ask the 
witness questions, and if the witness does not answer, we, of course, 
have the right to adjudicate the case on the basis of the evidence m the 
file, and must somehow bear in mind his refusal to answer questions 
which he might easily have done as bearing on the question of his 
loyalty. 

Mr. Sourwine, But you do feel that it would be helpful if you had 
some kind of a sanction that you could apply? In other words, if 



2114 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

it were possible for you to hold a witness in contempt, if there were 
authority by which you could hold a witness in contempt for refusal 
to answer questions before you ? 

Mr. Waldman. We have long favored that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. IVhat legal remedy is available to the employee who 
is dismissed by an international organization ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, of course, technically, after we have heard the 
case and made our advisory determination, our function stops there. 
But it has been brought to our attention — the man of coui^e could in 
the first instance, if we recommend his dismissal, he could ask us for 
a rehearing. Let's assume that the status is still the same. If the 
Secretary General should dismiss him, then by various complicated 
means and some continental theory of jurisprudence the man finds his 
way to international tribunals — he has that remedy. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. He has the right to go to an appeal board, doesn't 
he, in his own organization ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And then goes from that appeal board to the three- 
man tribunal, which is the high administrative tribunal of his 
organization ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. But generally that is in Geneva. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And then he goes from that to the second or sub- 
sidiaiy of the International Court of Justice, such as the ILO 
Tribunal? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the Executive order under which you operate 
provide for furnishing the individual in question — with offering him 
a hearing and summary of the information against him? 

Mr. Waldman. The individual gets the summary of the evidence 
in the files against him by the fact that we have asked him interroga- 
tories. The interrogatories which we give him and ask him in the 
first instance to answer give him quite a definite idea of what is 
sought concerning him. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would it be a fair statement that the individual is 
not given any summary of the information against him, but that he 
is in a position to gather, from the nature of the questions in the 
interrogatories generally, what the nature of the information is? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, because we will ask him a number of questions, 
do you know so-and-so, it is reported that on the blank date of blank 
that you addressed a writers' conference in New York City, what was 
your purpose in being there, and what did you say ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. In other words, the interrogatory information is 
all covered in the interrogatories ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. He would come to a meeting and know 
pretty much what he is called upon to meet. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. But there is no specific summary of the interroga- 
tory information furnished the employee and labeled as such, is there ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the Board have authority to require answers 
to its questionnaires ? 

Mr. Waldman. We do not have authority, no. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Would it be helpful to the Board if you had such a 
power ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, I think it would. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVIlTf IN THE UNITED STATES 2115 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know whether such authority would be 
given to the Board by Executive order, or whether it would require 
legislation ? 

Mr. AValdman. Frankly, on that I wouldn't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Waldman, does the Board ever recommend the 
dismissal — has the Board ever recommended the dismissal of an inter- 
national employee, or does it merely furnish advisory opinions as to 
whether there is reasonable doubt of an individual's loyalty to the 
United States? 

Mr. Waldman. We can only give advisory opinion. But I might 
say, sir, that we have the right at any stage under the Executive order 
to advise an international organization. We have had instances 
where we believed that the man was a bad case, either from suitability 
or a loyalty risk. AVe have communicated that to the State Depart- 
ment, that we thought there was some urgency, and the State Depart- 
ment, in turn, has communicated that to an international organization, 
and there have been instances where the man was relieved of his work. 

Or, we may have cases of applicants where there is a working 
arrangement with international organizations, so that if it is a bad 
case, so-called prima facie 

Senator Johnston. In every case have they acted upon your recom- 
mendations ? 

Mr. Waldman. I do not believe so, sir, in every case. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How many hearings has the Board held, Mr. 
Waldman ? 

Mr. Waldman. My secretary may have that. I am sure it is much 
over a hundred — it is 177, including 9 hearings where individuals did 
not appear to testify. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Can you tell us how many of those have been held 
in the last 6 months? 

Mr. Waldman. About a dozen. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And how many of them within the last 30 days? 

Mr. AYaldman. One. 

Mr. SouR^vINE. Would that indicate your work is continuing; it 
is not wound up by any means, is it ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. In other words, we feel that it is a constant 
process of being vigilant. I might say that, by hearing our last case, 
we completed every single employee case, every one is now inves- 
tigated. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. Could you give the committee, sir — I don't expect 
you have the figures here now, although if you do it would be fine — 
could you give the committee for the record a statement showing how 
many cases for each international organization have been subject to 
examination and evaluation by the Board, and in how many of those 
cases there have been advisory memorandums respecting doubtful 
loyalty ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, I have here a list of all of the organizations, 
showing all that we have done, making in all a total of over 7,072 
cases. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. Could that chart be furnished for the record, sir? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

(The chart referred to above is marked "Exhibits Nos. 363, 363-A 
and 363-B" and appears on following pages.) 



2116 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



CO 
CO 

cc 

6 

n 
H 









o 



S 



00 

o 

O 

"! 

S 

o 
e 

OS 

« 

s> 



ft 

a 



ft 

a 

o 

O 



o 



0. 

•s 

o 



O 

O 



.-HOOO >^ cc »- t- oi c^ c c^ :c o j^i-o 



ooooo 



O rH w O MOOOOOO*^ O •-' O J;-; 



■«*< 000"<**00000 oooooo 



^H o o o o o o o ooo 



iO eSOr-lONOOOCOO OOWO— 1>-<0 .-IOOOOOO"5 o-<o 



pq 



lO 1-1 o o o 



o 



a 
o 



00 O CC '-'5 rH 



Ort ooo 



■<j<r-4'-coooo**oo cccroooo ^oooooco 



f^ O CO ^H Oi CO t* m r-* O 
00 1— « r-t OO l^"^ >0 O !0 

rr- C<1 •-< N i-l 



00 -^ -^ t-"^ O 

OC(N r-< rt 



OiCCrHOOf^cOt^ 

o f^ 



•^ CC OOOi'SCQ O OCD»0 



o 

CO 

o 



h- -isj* t^ litl r-l 
(M 



cq 



o 



.-H lO CO O O 
CO lO i-i IM 



■^ lO O O CC N '-^ O: C^ O 
CD t-H t-H C- -^ 

TO 



OOi-HOOOOcO O M <-* 



M M* CO "^ 00 O CD ^ ^H o 
lO Tt^ T-H •»!* CO C^ ■'J^ f-i 
CD —< —<•■-' 



CD O O O O C^I TT ^^ O O IM 

to w 



CD t~ 00 r-i O t~ 1^ •* O C31 >-<-»> 00 "CO O (N CO -H O O t~ CD £2 C^ S °° 






■* WOOO 

s 






o 

rjj 

o 






CM -^ 1^ iO»H 

CD-* C<I 
■"J" 



CM-«^0CDt-*O OOt-tOOOOr; C? ' 
CD CO 1-H C^ CO ' 



00 CO-* OCDiOCOOO ^ o 
00 ^t-tm-^c^ -^^H 

CD ^ l-H t-t 



r^ o o ooc-i ■* '-' oow 



o 

a 

a> 
be 

< 



I I I 






a; 

'3 
O 

So 

•dra 

ft 

CO 






cnS 



'H ail- 



ht* 



<G 






ii 



So 

*-> 

O 



Cjo 



S-2 

PQ c 
o o 

So 
S-a 

g C! 

KO 



fl^ 



•ig 

K o 

? s 

•a i 

COM 



S c<i 
r; O CC 

-iOE 
o ri c 

fL,fficO 
n ^ ^ 

a c3 (S 

.^ c3 c3 ce 

C E C C 

2 .£ .2 .2 

g '^ '^ 'Xj 
O C3 C3 173 
o G a fl 
-— ^ ^ *- 
_. C^ O OJ 

o fl c: c: 

*J|-H>-11— t 

C3 






ft 

ft 



o 



s 
a 

o 

••^ 

C 
o 



a 

o 



.g 

■O 

3 

.g 

■4-3 

o 



o 

p 



pa 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2117 






o 






O 

CO 
O 






lO *-*•-* o o 



"i<0000 



C-l O t-l o o 



t^ i^.-HC5Tt*cNoc^ioo ^5^^o-^^o eooooooo*/? Of^o 



■^ OOO-^OOOOO OOOOOO iHOOOOOOO ooo 



— <oooooo« o^o 



■^ ^ t^ oo 0'«it< o o Mtooooo i-hooooooo ooo 



?3 



o 



o 

CO 

o 






O I^CO OS GO CO 

I—' CO -H TJH (M 

O « T-^ "tl 



o^o o o 



CO O ^ CO Tt< O CO M O OS ca Cn» WD 00 r 

oi »o t^ 00 i-< «— < -r -— .— I ca Tt< -^ 

(N CCCOi-i -t^ CO coca 



o"-i>»o»-Jcao505co 



CO O i-H o^ o 



carrioo^c-icoioo uoi— ic^icc^i-h 

(N r>.C^T-» cOCi to 00 CO 



'^ ^ i^ CO r^ 

^ to TT 0'2 

as CI 



cococaior-QC— 'C50 
cs -^ I- -r CO CO o 

C^ C^ CS ,-! w 






o 



VI ci 



t£C3 



.g 

o 



o 



•a 



O 
O 






CS CO <-« 



O CO ^«lt^OO00t-O 

00 o lO 00 a> '-<'—' *^ ^-< 

I^ fO fO ^0 ^^ "^ CO 



c<j 05 c^ «:? 05 T 

■^ CS •«*< TtH 

COO 



<ooo 



lO ^COt^CN'-^0<MCiOO 
O lO CA CS CO o< 



CO O T-H o^ o 
^co 



CO (M 1^ CO t^ 

»o lO -^co 

05(N 



lO'Tfl^OOOIM^CO "OCJCslCOCOt-t 
W t^ C^ i-H t^ O CXiOO CO 

C-> C^ .-I 



OINCTi-lOOMCO 



h-'<ro>iot^oouoaio 

IM ^ t^ lO CO CO O 
(M (M CA >— rH 



^ r^ c» o »o o 

-"it* I— I CO »-l 



r^cAcooci-^^oo 

05 i-H 



a 



C8 
ft 



3 

CI3 

o 

a> 



.a 

K 

P 



> 

a 

3 
"3 

.a 

§ 



o 

Q 






I I I I I 



^.1 
t> So 

__.C3Q 
Ol-'l-l 

a:) 
ft 



o 

n 

at 



(S 



.9.S 



ca 



o h 

5 a 

CO G^ 



a 
3.2 

c3 crj 

0^ CO 

|s 

O c 

so 

G 
"3 



03 

C 

, 3 



en H 

.2 H 

So 

r, 3 



a 

as a 






°-2 
Ho 



a o 

1^ 
O 3 

a-c 

o°^ a 



• • ■*^ w- 

M t- o 
d C 03 

tn , 

a a 

Baa 

O CS C3 

"33 
^^ ^ ii I 
ca » a) ' 

£^ .*-; 4-» < 

u 3 3 I 



a 



CQ fl "5 "^ f-^ *-5 



03 

O 



n 



2118 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



m fa 

a J. .a 

f^ 03 



09 



&q 



to 

<3i 



so 



e 

a 



05 

©J 



K5 



e 

S 



as 

■•■a 

e 



^o-^oo 



-HOtN^'OOOMO CMOOOOC- COOOOOOO COO 



o 



o 

o 



pq 



t^O-HOO 



— OWOOOOMO DIOOOOO OOOOOOOO OCO 



•<i<oooo 



OOi-iCJOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOO ooo 



a 

o 



C3 

o 



o 



pq 



00 CO O C^ "^ 



^^ O-^-^i-tlNC^lfOOS 



OC'».-Hr-HOOC<ICS Ot*0 



O C^ TO O 0» (M ■-1 1^ i-HiOf 



c 
o 



(3 



o 
6h 



o 

CO 

o 



pq 



Oi t^ ^* n< t^ 

O CC t^Cl 

00^ 



t^ Tf »oco toco ^ CO O COOOOOOO-'*' 
00C0CD(N»O 00^": COOiC^tN 



r-^ o-^tTi-hc^c^coo: t-.c^r-. 



04 -< OCCO 

lO T)^ TT 

CO 



1—1 0(N 1-1 •— 00(N(N Ot^O 



OiOOl O:C^C^t^0CO OO'-COOIMO OC^COOC^M^I^ 
t^COlNO-^ ^ Ci r^ iO C^ CO 



be 



I I I I 



:2;q 

.03 
O (J 



o 
o 






'^ 



pa 






'*^ 

C3 

^^ 

5 'a 

c5 03 
bjo 



« 



c 

Q 

b a R " 

fea'^ao 

w o) y O ^-1 

'o .2 S" c " 

^ ?3 S 03 



o 
(In 






:ia 

CO 



' CIJ 03 







c 

03 

o 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2119 

But I wouldn't know as to — I don't think it shows doubtful loyalty 
in each organization. Our two heaviest ones have been U. N. and 
UNESCO. 

]Mr. SouRwiNE. If that chart could be furnished, and then if you 
examine it later and find it does not answer the question, would you 
endeavor to give the committee the information, organization by 
organization ? 

Mr. Waldman. It is very simple. We could give that to you in a 
few hours. 

(The information supplied by Mr. Irwin was marked "Exhibit 
No. 364," and is as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 364 

United States Civil Service Commission, 
International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, 

Washington, D. C, Fehr-uary 5, 1951. 
Mr. J. G. SouRWiNE, 

Associate Counsel, Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the 
Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laics, 

Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Sourwine: I have your letter of January 7, 1957, wherein you set 
forth two matters on which your chairman requests reports. 

In response to the request for the nnmher of cases from each international 
organization and the number of cases of doubtful loyalty, there is attached hereto 
a breakdown, by international organization, showing the number of cases ad- 
judicated by the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board as of 
November 30, 1956 (the latest such figures available), and the number of adverse 
advisory determinations of the Board. 

With regard to the request for the number of advisory opinions or memo- 
randums presented by the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, 
in each case adjudicated by the Board, a determination, as an advisory opinion, 
is issued to the head of the particular international organization involved. In 
each case in which the Board renders an adverse determination, sunch determi- 
nation is accompanied by a memorandum of the reasons for the determination. 
This is in accordance with the provisions of part I, paragraph 5, of Executive 
Order 10422, as amended, which states : "The Board shall transmit its determi- 
nations, as advisory opinions, together with the reasons therefor stated in as 
much detail as the Board determines that security considerations permit, to 
the Secretary of State for transmission to the Secretary General of the United 
Nations * * *." 

If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to call upon me. 
Sincerely, 

Fredbirick D. Irwin, Executive Secretary. 



2120 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Enclosure No. 1 



International organization 



United Nations (SYG) 

United Nations (UNKRA) — 

United Nations (UNICEF) 

United Nations (UNRWA) 

United Nations (UNHCR) 

Total, United Nations --- 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

World Health Organization 

International Labor Organization 

International Telegraphic Union 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Finance 

International Monetary Fund 

Pan Americau Union 

Pan American Sanitary Bureau 

Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences 

Inter-American Defense Board 

Pan American Institute of Geography and History 

Inter- American Radio Organization 

Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

Cotton Advisory Committee 

Interparliamentary Union 

International Hydrographic Bureau 

Caribbean Commission 

South Pacific Commission 

Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 

International Pacific Halibut Commission 

International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission 



Completed 


Ineligible de- 


cases 


terminations 


4,016 


8 


337 





113 





49 





8 





4,523 


8 


296 


7 


50 





374 


1 


383 


2 


114 





10 





446 





312 





319 





222 





42 





45 





8 





1 





139 





7 





5 





1 





2 





9 





9 





46 





1 





41 





15 






Mr. SouRwiNE. Does this chart, sir, show the information with re- 
spect to UNESCO ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, it will show, for instance, how many FBI 
investigations were made for UNESCO, how many civil service cases, 
where they were 90-day cases in process. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would you run through that list and give us the 
figures for UNESCO, so that we will know what the figures are on the 
chart? 

Mr. Waldman. UNESCO. At the end of November 30, 1956, 148 
FBI investigations, 17 Civil Service Commission, 51 90-day cases — 
that, for instance, I might explain to you gentlemen, someone might 
be called upon to address a convention in Denmark, or just be called 
on a consultant basis, he is what is known as a 90-day case; a total 
of 216 UNESCO. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the cliart show- how many hearings were held ? 

Mr. Waldman. Those were employees. Then tliere were applicant 
casts— UNESCO, 227; FBI, 25 ; Civil Service Commission, 51, 90-day 
cases — this is total investigations, emplovees and applicants — 303 
UNESCO. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you have a figure on how many hearings were 
held as a result of those investigations, or as a part of them ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, I think I could give you an intelligent guess. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. It isn't shown in the chart ? 

Mr. Waldman. No; it is not. 

I think we have had about 14 UNESCO cases. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, do you have the figures on the number of 
cases in which there has been a memorandum respecting doubtful 
loyalty ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2121 

Mr. Waldman. You mean advisory determination ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Waldman. Eighteen. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Sir, if the chairman will so approve, I would like 
to request that you furnish the committee with the information by 
agencies as to the total that has been subject to examination and 
evaluation, and the total in which there was a memorandum advising 
you respecting the loyalty.^ 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir ; I w\\\ do that promptly. 

Senator Johnston. We would like to have that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Can you tell us in how many cases employees have 
refused to testify before the Board? 

Mr. Waldman. You mean, sir, when they absented themselves and 
did not come? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When you asked them to appear to testify and 
they refused to do so. 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir ; I think seven UNESCO cases. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Weil, there were seven in Paris. 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And then there had been at least two previously. 

Mr. Waldman. One in Eome. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. And then there had been one prior to that, had 
there not ? 

Mr. Waldman. I am not too sure ; there might well have been. 

Senator Johnston. Did they before or afterward give any excuse 
why they did not appear ? 

Mr. Waldman. No. 

And I might say this, sir : We had notified them time after time, 
and had representatives of the United States State Department notify 
them. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I might say that we are going into 
the question of these seven. They have all been offered an oppor- 
tiniity to appear before the connnittee. I will offer the correspondence, 
showing that the committee offered to pay their way, as the chairman 
knows, to appear, and tliey have all declined and refused to come. 

I was attempting to lay the foundation here before discussing the 
individual cases, if that is all right. 

Do you know of any recent cases, any cases since the refusal of the 
UNESCO people in Paris ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. 

We were in Rome this summer, and there were threats that several 
would not appear, but they did appear. 

Mr. SotTRwiNE. When Mr. Gerety testified before us, he told us 
about a worker in Sagiiara, Mexico, who refused to answer the inter- 
rogatory, and the contract was not renewed. Do you know of any 
similar cases? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir; we have not had any similar cases. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That was Simon Harold Singer. The Board sent 
him an interrogatory, and he notified the Board he wouldn't answer, 
because he wouldn't be working there much longer. Do you recall 
that case? 



1 See exhibit 364. 

72723— 57— pt. 38 2 



2122 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Waldman. No ; I do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you don't know of any similar cases? 

Mr. AValdman. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, you said there were 18 UNESCO employees 
where there were hearings. Is that the figure you gave? 

Mr. Waldman. No. There were 18 cases, not only UNESCO but 
others, where we recommended we send an advisory determination 
through the State Department where these people were of doubtful 
loyalty. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How many were there in UNESCO out of the 18 
total ? 

Mr. Waldman. Seven. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. There were only seven cases, then, where you fur- 
nished an advisory to UNESCO that the individual was of doubtful 
loyalty to the United States ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether all of those seven have left 
the employment? 

Mr. Waldman. It is my understanding that the services have been 
terminated. 

Mr. Soitrwine. Mr. Waldman, what is the UNESCO Staff Associa- 
tion? 

Mr. Waldman. I must talk now from my conversation with their 
counsel in Europe. The UNESCO Staff Association is evidently a 
group composed of employees of UNESCO whose alleged purpose is to 
secure better conditions for their employees, and to unite, and to aid 
those wlio get into difficulty, apparently. 

Mr. Sourwine. It is an association of UNESCO employees; is it 
not? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Has it been active, to your knowledge, in persuading 
people not to appear before your Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. I have no active — no active knowledge about that. 
Tliere were some inferences. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Waldman, that UNESCO Staff Association 
circulated a mimeographed resume of legal advice concerning a visit 
from the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board visit 
to Europe in 1954. Have you seen that? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. In effect, they advised and counseled the employees 
not to appear ; is that so ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is so. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the text of that 
mimeographed statement for the record at this time. 

I may say it is already in the committee's record in executive session. 
I see no reason for this witness, having testified that he saw it — I see 
no reason why it shouldn't go in now. 

Senator Johnston. It will become a part of the record. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2123 

(The mimeographed statement referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 
365," and is as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 305 

UNESCO Staff Association 

St.A/Memo/2168. 
Paris, July 1st 1954- 
From : President, Staff Association. 
To : Members of U. S. Nationality. 
Subject : "International Organizations Employees' Loyalty Board." 

In accordance with a decision of the Council taken at its meeting on Tuesday, 
June 29th, on the powers and activities of the above Board, a statement prepared 
by the Staff Association's legal adviser has been sent to all Councillors and 
members of the Executive Committee and may be obtained by personal request 
to any one of them or to the Secretary of the Association in Room 198. 

Tlie Staff Association's legal adviser is at present in Rome acting as consultant 
to Staff members of FAG invited to appear before the Loyalty Board. He will 
attend the meeting of the Council to be held on Monday next, 5th July, at 1 
p. m. in Room 5, to report and to answer questions. You are cordially invited to 
attend. 

Habby Dawes. 

St. A. Memo/2169. 
Paris, July 1st 1954- 

Resume of Legal Advice From the Staff Association Lawyers Concerning 
THE Visit of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board 
to Europe 

June 28, 1954. 

International civil servants in Paris, Rome, and Geneva are confronted with 
a new situation, arising from the impending visit of the President's "Interna- 
tional Organizations Employees Loyalty Board" to these cities during the 
month of July. This event constitutes the third phase of the investigation 
of American citizens employed by U. N. agencies, launched by Executive Order 
10,422, which President Truman issued on 9 January 1953. Unlike the two 
earlier phases — the questionnaires and the interrogatories — this latest de- 
velopment directly concerns all international civil servants in Europe, of what- 
ever nationality. 

The questionnaires distributed in February of 19-53 ostensibly affected only 
American citizens. It was only several months after they appeared that the 
following facts regarding these questionnaires became clear : 

(1) there was no legal compulsion upon Amei'ican citizens to comply 
(as evidenced by the McCarran Bill S. 3, which would institute such com- 
pulsion) ; 

(2) there was no compulsion for Unesco employees, as such, to com- 
ply (as confirmed by the Executive Board in April of 1953). 

Approximately one year after the questionnaires, numerous Americans em- 
ployed by U. N. agencies in Europe received "interrogatories," which asked 
specific questions as to their political opinions, activities and associations. 
Some of the "interrogatories" expressly requested the individuals concerned 
to give similar information about their colleagues in Unesco, of whatever 
nationality, notably about those engaged in Staff Association activity. The 
"interrogatories" affirmed that the purpose of the "loyalty" investigation was 
to determine the individual's "suitability for employment" by Unesco. 

The "Loyalty Board" arrives in Rome on Wednesday, June 30th; it plans 
to sit in Paris from July 9th to 22d, and then proceed to Geneva. The Im- 
pending arrival of this body poses a grave problem not only for Americans but 
for their colleagues in the international civil service : 

Americans who may be invited to appear should be aware of the following 
facts : 

1. There is some question as to the legal validity of this "loyalty procedure" 
and of the Executive Order which created it. 

(a) The standard of "loyalty" to the American government applied by 
the Board is essentially based upon a list of "subversive" organizations 
established by the Attorney-General of the United States. Thfs list does 
not possess the force of law, and indeed its very legality has been questioned 
by the United States Supreme Court. 



2124 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(b) The Executive Orders rely upon the findings of a "Commission of 
Jurists" empanelled by Trygvie Lie, former Secretary-General of the United 
Nations. The findings of this Commission were in part repudiated by the 
Secretary-General, criticized by many member nations, and essentially set 
aside by the U. N. Administrative Tribunal in its decisions of August, 1953. 
Needless to say, these findings were at no time binding upon Unesco, which 
practices automony from the United Nations in its personnel policy. 

(c) The government of the United States has enunciated the doctrine 
of the "host country" to justify its investigation of the "loyalty" to the 
United States government of American citizens employed by the United 
Nations. This thesis is without support in the U. N. Charter, was not 
endorsed by the U. N. General Assembly, and of course in no event is ap- 
plicable to the secretariat of Unesco (Paris), FAO (Rome), WHO (Geneva), 
etc. * * *. 

2. The "Loyalty Board" hearings scheduled to take place at the American 
Embassy in Paris from July 9th to 22d, do not constitute a judicial proceeding. 
Legal rules of evidence do not apply. However, it should be noted that all 
declarations are made under oath, and expose the interested party to the pos- 
sibility of future perjury prosecution. All proceedings are recorded in ver- 
batim minutes. Appearance before the Board is by invitation, and is not obli- 
gatory. The Board is without power to compel the attendance of individuals 
under investigation. 

3. Persons electing to appear are entitled to be represented by legal counsel, 
and assisted by one other "bonafide assistant." 

4. Following the hearing, the Board is required to make a determination as 
to the "loyalty" to the United States of the individual concerned, and to forward 
its recommendation to the Director-General (through the State Dept.). This 
recommendation is accompanied by supporting evidence, if derogatory. A copy of 
the recommendation (but not of the supporting evidence) is furnished to the 
individual concerned. 

5. Under existing staff rules and regulations, the Director-General of Unesco 
is not required to act upon derogatory information supplied to him by the 
"loyalty Board". However, it is understood that he may take such information 
into account. 

6. Under the proposed new staff regulations, to be considered by the General 
Conference at Montevideo, the Director-General would presumably be authorized 
to dismiss staif members on whom he had received such derogatory information 
as to their past or present political opinions, activities of as.sociations. 

7. Existing Unesco directives on the subject of "loyalty investigations" 
leave the issue up to the judgment of the individual concerned. A decision nor 
to appear before the "Loyalty Board" may not form the basis for any adverse 
inference whatsoever ; an individual may quite justifiably reach a decision to 
abstain in his personal appraisal of his obligations as an international civil 
servant. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That mimeographed advice, Mr. Chairman, ques- 
tions the validity of the Loyalty Board procedure and advises em- 
ployees that they need not attend; that is couched in terms which 
purport to influence employees of UNESCO not to attend. 

Mr. Waldman, when Mr, Pierce Gerety testified before this com- 
mittee, he expressed the opinion to us that there was a clique of people 
in UNESCO who placed the interests of the Communists and Com- 
munist ideology above any service to UNESCO, and above their own 
country. 

Do you have an opinion on that point ? 

Mr, Waldman. I do not, excepting that I believe that Mr. Gerety 
must have had a very well defined feeling for that. It was apparent 
to us that there was some concerted action somewhere which was 
inimical to the best interests of this country; now, just exactly who 
did it, I don't know. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. Do you have any opinion as to whether this condi- 
tion still persists? 

Mr. Waldman. They still have the staff association. We have had 
no evidence since that time of any, shall I say, concerted effort. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2125 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Waldman, does the Board deal with any matters 
other than loyalty ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. You do not deal with improprieties or sexual per- 
version or criminal records or narcotics addiction? 

Mr. Waldman. No, excepting this, sir : That, as we o;ather informa- 
tion, and something comes up through the FBI or Civil Service Com- 
mission reports along the lines of what you mention, we may put it 
under suitability to advise the employer of facts pertaining to the man, 
and we have had instances where a man did not get his job because of 
that. We felt that we would pass it along so that they would know 
wliom they were hiring. 

For instance, if the man were a swindler and had been arrested for 
embezzlement. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is that provided for under the Executive order ? 

Mr .Waldman. I don't believe it is. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. It is an extracurricular activity for the benefit of 
the international organization ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Waldman, do you think, under the procedure, 
you are able to prevent, and do prevent, the employment by the inter- 
national organizations of any American national of questionable 
loyalty to the United States ? 

Mr. Waldman. Of course, sir, I could eagerly give an affirmative 
answer, but it is my considered judgment that we certainly can, and 
we have tried valiantly. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Your program, in other words, is working, in your 
judgment? 

Mr. Waldman. I would hate to evaluate it, but I like to think that 
it is. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would it be helpful at all if American nationals em- 
ployed by international organizations could be required to answer your 
questionnaire ? 

Mr. Waldman. Well, they answered to us. For instance, we have 
personnel and identification forms ; when a man wants to work for an 
international organization he makes that up. We have not had any 
who deliberately refused to make out that form. In other words, 
that form asks: "Have you ever belonged to organizations which 
sought to overthrow the Government?" and things like that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You did have, in the case of some of these UNESCO 
people, refusals to fill out the questionnaire ? 

Mr. Waldman. I am sorry. I did not think of it in that respect. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I just want to find out what the fact is. Were 
there some of those UNESCO people who did refuse to fill out the 
questionnaire? 

Mr. Waldman. It might well be. I am not too conversant on that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You don't know whether there may be any others ? 

Mr. Waldman, No; not to my knowledge; but, to my knowledge, 
everyone has filled out a questionnaire. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Then you don't think you need any authority to 
require them to fill out the questionnaire ? 

Mr. Waldman. I don't think so, sir. That isn't as important as the 
subpenaing of witnesses. 



2126 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You do feel that it would be helpful if American 
nationals employed by international organizations could be required 
to appear and give testimony before the Board i 

Mr. Waldman. Absolutely. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you do feel that it would be helpful if the 
Board had the right to get answers from those who appeared before 
it, except as they might plead the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Waldman, do you know whether the Board 
has — ^Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that question; I think it is out of 
order at this particular time. I would like to go into the matter 
of case histories of these UNESCO seven, if I may. 

Senator Johnston. Proceed. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. We have been furnished with a summary of the 
case histories of these individuals, and I would like to ask, Mr. Chair- 
man, that they may be ordered at this time into the record, but that 
the order be that the case history of each such individual will appear 
at that point in the record where we take him up and discuss him. 
That would save ordering them seriatim. 

Senator Johnston. It is so ordered. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The first one here, taking them alphabetically, the 
first one is Julian Robert Behrstock. The summary of the adverse 
information with regard to Mr. Behrstock, as given to the committee 
in executive session, is here on page 1, and with your permission, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to read it into the record. 

Senator Johnston. You may proceed. 

Mr. SouRwiNE (reading) : 

Reports of the investigation in the case of Julian Robert Behrstock contained 
information from various sources to the following effect : 

That he was sponsor and a speaker on the panel of the American Students 
Union while he attended Northwestern University at Evanston, 111., at a time 
when the American Students Union was under the domination of the Communist 
Party. 

That at Northwestern University, in his capacity as editor for the Daily 
Northwestern, he wrote articles opposing the anti-Communist policy of the 
Naval ROTC at the college. 

That thereafter he was active In the affairs of the United Office and Professional 
Workers of America, a Communist-dominated union. 

That he resigned from the Foreign Broadcast Information Service in October 
1947 rather than face security charges arising from his membership in the 
Magazine Writers Guild, and because of articles written by his brother, Arthur 
Behrstock, criticizing the United States occupation policy in Germany. 

That his brother, Arthur Behrstock, with whom he lived in 1948, has been 
active in the Communist movement for many years ; and that Julian Behrstock 
is sympathetic with and approves his brother's activities. 

That, during his employment with the Foreign Broadcast Service in Tokyo, 
Julian Behrstock sympathetically associated with a reporter who took refuge in 
the fifth amendment when questioned regarding membership in the Communist 
Party and membership on the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy; 
that he was also sympatehetically associated with a Canadian Communist who 
is an associate of his brother Arthur. 

That he was a close friend of a Communist Party member who was associated 
with numerous Communist-front organizations. 

That Jack Sargent Harris, who was dismissed from the United Nations be- 
cause he refused to testify regarding his Communist Party membership, had 
refused to testify concerning his associations with Julian Behrstock on the 
grounds that such testimony might tend to incriminate him, Harris. 

Now, did Mr. Behrstock appear before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldivian. Yes, sir. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE imiTED STATES 2127 

Mr. SouRWiNE. "Wlien he appeared before the Board, did he refuse 
to answer questions ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouKWiNE. Did he refuse to answer, among other questions, 
questions as to when and under what circumstances he lived with his 
brother Arthur, whether he had knowledge of his brother's Com- 
munist acitvities, whether he aided his brother in any Communist 
activity, whether he engaged in activities in concert with other mem- 
bers of the Communist Party, and so forth ? 

Mr. Waldman. That was the first time in Paris, in the summer of 
1954. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You told us he subsequently appeared and testi- 
fied before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When was that? 

Mr. Waldman. I believe that was April 1955. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That was almost a year later ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. That was after you had sent an advisory to the 
UNESCO officials respecting his apparent disloyalty ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, in his testimony before the Board the second 
time, did Mr. Behrstock answer fully and freely all the questions the 
Board put to him ? 

Mr. Waldman. He did, sir, and, if I might say so, I was on the 
panel at that time. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were all of these questions, all the questions raised 
by this derogatory information, thoroughly covered at this hearing? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it the opinion of the Board that Mr. Behrstock 
was without question a loyal American ? 

Mr. Waldman. Oh, yes; we had him over the grille for at least 3 
hours. 

Mr. Sourwine. Who were the individuals who considered this case 
besides yourself? 

Mr. Waldman. I wish that I could remember. I was one of them — 
I am sorry, sir, I don't know at the moment. 

Mr. Sourwine, Was that considered by a panel of three? 

Mr. Waldman. It was considered by the same people which heard 
the case in Europe. And we felt that he had amply explained — he 
said it was largely a matter of conscience, that in Europe he felt that 
way, and that he was not going to testify. And then when he came 
to America, he said that he realized the error of his ways, and we 
questioned him in all these matters. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did he state whether he had ever been a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did he deny it ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

And I might say, there was nothing in the file to indicate it. 

Mr. Sourwine. And the board was satisfied that he was not, and 
had not associated with Communists and not served the Communist 
purposes in any way ? 



2128 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Waldman. We were satisfied that he hadn't served their pur- 
poses. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. In other words, all of the derogatory information 
in the file was negatived when he testified ? 

Mr. Waldman. We felt that it was satisfactorily explained. 

(The summary of the case history of Julian Robert Behrstock was 
marked "Exhibit 366" and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 366 

Julian Robert Behrstock 

Julian Robert Behrstock was born on December 14, 1916, at Chicago, 111. 
He attended Marshall High and Senn High Schools in Chicago from September 
1929 to August 1933. He attended Northwestern University from 1933 to 1937, 
receiving a B. S. degree. He entered Columbia University in September 1938 
to take four courses, but withdrew on November 10, 1938. 
Mr. Behrstock was employed as follows : 

June 1937-July 1937 : Paris Herald Tribune, Paris, France. 
July 1937-June 1938 : Time and Life magazine, Paris, France. 
April 10, 1939-December 15, 1941 : F. E. Compton & Co., Chicago, 111. 
December 15, 1941-April 1942 : OflBce for Emergency Management, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

April 1942-October 16, 1947 : Federal Communications Commission, For- 
eign Broadcasting Intelligence Service. 

July 15, 1948 : United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul- 
tural Organization. 
Executive Order 10422 forms for Mr. Behrstock were received by the Depart- 
ment of State on February 20, 1953, and the appropriate investigation was initi- 
ated on that date. 

An interrogatory was issued by the International Organizations Employees 
Loyalty Board on March 15, 1954, and was sent to Mr. Behrstock at the address 
given on his identification and personnel data form. It was returned to the 
Board unclaimed. The interrogatory was re-sent to the employee, in care of 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris, 
France, on April 20, 1954. His reply was received on May 24, 1954. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 15, 1954, in Paris, France. Mr. Behrstock 
appeared and testified before a panel of the Board. Thereafter, an unfavor- 
able advisory determination was made by the International Organizations Em- 
ployees Loyalty Board on September 15, 1954, and was forwarded to the Secre- 
tary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. This deter- 
mination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 17. 19.54. 

Although Mr. Behrstock replied to the interrogatory and appeared at the hear- 
ing, he refused to answer certain questions posed by the Board and declined to 
discuss certain matters pertaining to his case. 

Mr. Behrstock requested that his case be reopened and a panel of the Board 
met with him and his counsel in New York City on March 31, 1955, to consider 
his request. Mr. Behrstock agreed to answer fully each and every question 
propounded to him by the Board and his case was reopened and the hearing 
held. 

On April 7, 1955, a favorable advisory determination was made by the Inter- 
national Organizations Employees Loyalty Board and was forwarded by the 
Board to the UNESCO liaison oflice at the American Embassy in Paris, France, 
for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I stated earlier that the committee 
had invited all of these individuals to testify before the committee. 
I would like to ask the Chair's leave to have in the record the cor- 
respondence which the committee had with these individuals re- 
specting their attendance. 

I point out that the committee sent identical letters to each of 
these individuals, reading as follows: 

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is giving consideration to hearings, 
tentatively scheduled to begin December 13, 1956, on proposed legislation dealing 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2129 

with the problem of security measures to be applicable to American nationals 
employed by UNESCO and other international organizations. 

In view of the fact that your name and record might constitute a part of the 
testimony to be presented, we believe that, in all fairness, you should be given 
an opportunity to be present at these hearings and to answer any and all ques- 
tions which may be raised affecting you. Therefore, the committee has made 
arrangements whereby your transportation will be paid to Washington and re- 
turn, and you will be given a per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence, in order 
to enable you to attend these hearings. 

Please notify me by return mail regarding your readiness to take advantage 
of this opportunity, subject to arrangements as to date. A franked envelope 
addressed to me, and a form which you can use for this purpose, are enclosed. 
Sincerely, 

James O. Eastland, 
Chairman, Internal Security Su'bcommiUee. 

The committee has received a number of replies, but no acceptance — 
one case, Gordon Mclntire, might be deemed to be a conditional ac- 
ceptance; ^ye can discuss that case more fully. But I would like to 
ask that this correspondence be ordered in the record at this time. 

Senator Johnston. All this correspondence shall become a part of 
tlie record. 

(The correspondence referred to was marked "Exhibits Nos. 367 
and 367-A to F," and is as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 367 

[Air Mail — Registered] 

45 Rue De L'Aebe Sec, Paris, Lere, 

8 December 1956. 
James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, United States Senate, 
Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D. C, U. S. A. 

Deak Mb. Eastland : In reply to your letter of 31 October 1956, please be advised 
that I cannot accept your invitation to be present at the hearings of the Sub- 
committee. 

As your letter states that the purpose of the hearings is to consider proposed 
legislation applicable to persons employed by Unesco and other international 
organizations, I would advise that my employment with Unesco terminated in 
February 1955. 

Accordingly I have informed Unesco of receipt of your letter. 
Sincerely, 

Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein. 
Mme. K. Bernstein. 



Exhibit No. 367-A 

December 5, 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastl^vnd, 

Chairman, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Dear IVIr. Chairman : This note is to advise you that I am unable to attend 
the hearings which, you are considering. As the proposed legislation is of 
interest to Unesco, 1 have taken the liberty of informing them of the matter. 
Sincerely, 

Annette Wilcox 
(Mrs.) Annette Wilcox. 
12 rue Pierre Mille, Paris XV, France. 



2130 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Exhibit No. 367-B 

Paris, 30 Novemher 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Senate Office Bunding, Washington, D. C, U. S. A. 
Dear Sir. In reply to your better of 31 October 1956, I wish to inform you 
that I cannot accept your kind invitation to be present at the hearings of the 
subcommittee. 

As you state in your letter that the purpose of the hearings is to consider 
proposed legislation applicable to persons employed by Unesco and other inter- 
national organizations, and as I myself have not been so employed since June 
1955, I have communicated the contents of your letter to Unesco. 



Sincerely yours, 



Helene van Gelder. 



Exhibit No. 367-C 



1. Avenue des Quatke Fusilles, Chatenay-Malabry (Seine), 

8 December 1956. 

Hon. James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Eastland : This will acknowledge your letter dated 31 October, 
which was delivered to me on 17 November. 

Yonr letter advises me that the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is 
planning to hold hearings on proposed legislation dealing with, "* * * security 
measures to be applicable to American nationals employed by Unesco. * * *" 
You point out that my name and record might constitute a part of testimony to be 
presented, and offer me the opportunity to attend these hearings at the Subcom- 
mittee's expense, and to answer "any and all questions" affecting me. 

Any future national measures applied to international employees of Unesco 
would affect that Organization, rather than a former staff member such as myself, 
unlawfully dismissed from Unesco as a consequence of similar national measures 
applied in the past. Therefore, upon receiving your invitation, I immediately 
communicated its contents to Dr. Luther H. Evans, Director-General of Unesco, 
and to the Unesco Executive Board, meeting at New Delhi. 

The Executive Board had in fact just received an Advisory Opinion (dated 
23 October 195G) from the International Court of Justice at the Hague, upholding 
the validitv of a judgment in my favor, handed down last year by the ILO Admin- 
istrative Tribunal. This judgment (dated 2G April 1955) declared illegal my 
dismissal from Unesco for declining to comply with certain measures applied by 
the United States government to American nationals employed by international 
organizations. 

The Tribunal ruling stated that to apply such purely national measures within 
the Secretariat would create, "* * * for all international officials, in matters 
touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and insecurity prejudicial to the 
performance of their duties and liable to provoke disturbances in the international 
administration such as cannot he imagined to have been the intention of those 
who drew up the Constitution of f Unesco]." 

It is mv understanding that the United States, as a member government of 
Unesco, is bound by that organization's constitution, which under American law 
constitutes a foreign treaty taking precedence over domestic laws. Hence it 
would appear that legislation such as that which may be before your Subcom- 
mittee would find itself in conflict with both international and American legality. 

In the light of the very recent and pertinent jurisprudence established by the 

Hague Court, reaffirming the absolute indeijendence of the international civil 

service from national control, I do not feel it would be proper for me to testify 

at the impending hearings. However, I trust that the Subcommittee will find the 

foregoing information of value when it examines proposed legislation affecting 

the employment of American nationals in Unesco. 

Respectfully, ^ „ ^ 

David N. Left. 

cc: Dr. Vittorino Veronese, Chairman, Unesco Executive Board; Dr. Luther 
H. Evans, Director-General, Unesco; President, Unesco, Staff Association. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2131 

Exhibit No. 367-D 

Pakis, November 26th, 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Senate Office Building, Wanhington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : I have received your letter of October 31st, and I sincerely regret 
that I am unable to accept your invitation to appear before your Subcommittee. 
As the subject to be discussed by your Subcommittee concerns proposed new 
legislation to be applicable to United States staff members of international 
organizations, and as my employment with UNESCO was tei'miuated in June 1955, 
I have taken the liberty of bringing this matter to the attention of the Organiza- 
tion where it is a matter of immediate concern to them. 
Sincerely yours, 

Ruth Froma, 
54 Bd. Exelmans, Paris 16. 

Exhibit No. 367-E 

32, Rue Lamennais, Chaviixe (S.-et-O.) France, 

December 8, 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastland, 
United States Senate, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sik: This is to advise you that it is impossible at this time to avail 
myself of the opportunity which is offered to me in your letter of October 31. 

While I do not know in what respect my name and record can contribute to 
the purpose of your committee, I consider it an honor for a citizen to be called 
upon to assist in the formulation of legislation which is within the power of the 
Congress to enact. I must therefore state that I believe the Constitution of 
UNESCO excludes the possibility of national legislation relating to the employ- 
ment by UNESCO of international civil servants. In this connection, may I refer 
you to the judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor 
Organization, 17-19, of April 26, 1955, and 21-24, of October 29, 1955, and to the 
advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. October 23, 1956. 

Due largely to the fact that I have not been employed by UNESCO for the 
past 2 years, and believing that the questions raised in your letter are of concern 
to the Organization, I have submitted this matter to the Director General and 
to the Executive Board of UNESCO. 
Very truly yours, 

Peter DuBerg. 

cc: The Director General, Chairman, UNESCO Executive Board, President, 
UNESCO Staff Association. 



Exhibit No. 367-F 

c/o UNESCO, 19 Avenue Kl^ber, Paris XVI, France, 

December 12, 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Senate Internal Security Suhcommittee, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Eastland: Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1956, 
inviting me to be present at hearings on proposed legislation dealing with the 
problem of security measures to be applicable to American nationals employed 
by UNESCO and other international organizations. 

I am sorry I was not able to reply sooner to your letter. It did not reach me 
until December 1, after having been forwarded from Paris to New Delhi, where 
I was attending the General Conference of UNESCO. 

I have carefully considered what contribution I could usefully make to the 
hearings. As a citizen of the United States employed by UNESCO, I was duly 
investigated under the provisions of Executive Order 10422, as amended. The 
investigation resulted in a favorable determination with respect tt r.y employ- 
ment by UNESCO. Notice to that effect was sent to me in a letter of April 7, 
1955, from the Chairman of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty 
Board. 



2132 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Consequently, there would appear to be no issues affecting me in the applica- 
tion of the Executive order. Nor do I have any comment to offer on proposed 
legislation in this field. 

Under these circumstances, I consulted the Director-General of UNESCO as 
to the reply I should send to your letter. On the basis of the information so far 
made available to him, the Director-General did not consider that my participa- 
tion in the hearings was advisable. He pointed out that under the staff regu- 
lations of UNESCO I could not, as an international civil servant, pronounce 
upon proposed legislation in a member state. Moreover, he observed that it 
would be inconvenient for the Organization to release me from my duties in 
Paris for a trip to the United States. 

In the light of the above, I hope you will appreciate, sir, why I do not feel that 
I should avail myself of the invitation which you were kind enough to extend 
to me. 

Respectfully, 

Julian Behrstock. 



Mr. SouRwiNE. Sir, the Board considered the case of Mrs. Kathryn 
Bernstein ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, the adverse information with regard 
to Mrs. Bernstein was as follows : 

Reports of the investigation in the case of Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein contained 
information from various sources to the following effect : 

That she was a member of the International Workers Order, which has been 
cited as Communist controlled by the Attorney General of the United States. 

That she was married to a man who was a member of the 52d Ward Club of 
the Commimist Party in Philadelphia and who was also a member of the Wynne 
Park Club of the Communist Party. 

That she was previously employed by a radio station in Philadelphia, to which 
she brought recordings which had a definite pro-Soviet slant, attempting to 
introduce them on the program, as a result of which she was discharged. 

That she and her husband regularly subscribed to or read Soviet Russia Today, 
the Daily AVorker, and The Worker, the latter two being official organs of the 
Communist Party in the United States. 

That her interest in Communist propaganda was so intense that she became 
emotionally disturbed when the librarian where she was employed canceled the 
official library subscription to Soviet Russia Today on the grounds that it was 
Soviet propaganda. 

That she gave as a reference a person who had a lengthy record of affiliation 
with Communist organizations and activities. 

Can you tell us whether Mrs. Bernstein appeared before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldmax. No ; she did not appear. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. She refused to appear ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And an advisory with respect to her was submitted ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes ; on AugustSl, 19.54. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was she subsequently dismissed from her position 
with UNESCO? 

Mr. Waldman. I understand she was. 

(The summary of the case history of Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein was 
marked "Exhibit No. 368," and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 368 

Kathrtn Bernstein 

Kathryn Bernstein, nee Glenn, was born March 10, 1915, at Philadelphia, Pa., to 
American-born parents. She married Herbert Bernstein. 

Mrs. Bernstein graduated from Frankford High School in 1931 and received a 
B. S. degree in music education from the University of Pennsylvania in 1935. 
She also attended Strayers Business College in 1935 and Temple University in 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EN THE UNITED STATES 2133 

1942 and 1943, taking courses in history and accounting. In 1944 she enrolled 
at the Drexel Institute and received a B. S. degree in library science in 1945. 
In 1950 and 1951 she also attended the University of Paris in Paris, France. 
The employee has been employed as follows : 

June 1951 to February 14, 1955: United Nations Educational, Scientific, 
and Cultural Organization. Paris, France. 
1950 : New Yorlj School of Social Work. 
1949: WFLN, Franklin Broadcasting Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
1948 : Piasecki Helicopter Corp., Morton, Pa. 

1947 : Moore Institute of Art, Broad and Masters Streets, Philadelphia, Pa. 
1946 : Philadelphia College of Osteopathy, Philadelphia, Pa. 
1940-44: Fourth Naval District, Staff Headquarters, Philadelphia Naval 
Shipyard. 
1939-40 : Department of Justice and War Department, Washington, D. C. 
1936-38: Temporary jobs, including Philadelphia Electric Co. and Yale 
and Towne Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
Executive Order 10422 forms were received by the Office of Internationid 
Administration on February 24, 1953, and the appropriate investigation wa« 
initiated on that date. 

An interrogatory was sent to Mrs. Bernstein at the address given on her identi- 
fication and personnel data form on January 7, 1954, but it was returned un- 
claimed. It was remailed February 8, 1954, to a new address, but was again 
returned unclaimed. On March 9, 1954, it was mailed to the employee in care ot 
UNESCO in Paris, France. No reply to the interrogatory was received, although 
the return receipt for registered mail was received. A followup letter was sent 
to the employee April 15, 1944. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 9, 1954, at Paris, France. Mrs. Bernstein 
did not appear at the hearing. 

An unfavorable advisory determination was made by the International Organi- 
zations Employees Loyalty Board on August 31, 1954, and was forwarded to 
the Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. 
This determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 3, 
1954. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The Board considered the case of Norwood Peter 
DuBerg? 

Mr, Waldman. It did, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The adverse information in the case of Mr. DuBerg, 
Mr. Chairman, was as follows : 

Reports of the investigation in the case of Norwood Peter DuBerg contained 
information from various sources to the following effect : 

That he has admitted being a member of the Communist Party for many years 
and has attempted to recruit others into the party. 

That he has attended Communist Party meetings, signed Communist Party 
nominating petitions, subscribed to the Daily Worker, and to another Communist 
publication known as the National Guardian. 

That his present wife is a member of the Communist Party. 

That his divorce from his first wife resulted in large measure from his failure 
to convert her to communism. 

That, while a member of the American Newspaper Guild in 1945-46, he actively 
advocated and supported the policies, ideologies, and objectives of the Com- 
munist Party and associated with members of the pro-Communist faction of 
the organization. 

That he was employed for 2 years as an organizer of the American Newspaper 
Guild at a time when it was Communist dominated and withdrew from the 
organization immediately after the leftwing forces were defeated in an election 
of officers. 

That he has been closely and sympathetically associated with members of 
the Communist Party and Communist thinkers for many years. 

That since his employment by UNESCO he has identified himself and as- 
sociated with a small group of Americans in that organization who are alleged 
to be Communists. 

That he registered in 1938 and 1942 to 1948 with a branch of the American 
Labor Party which was Communist dominated. 

That information critical of the Hungarian Communist regime which was 
conveyed to DuBerg in confidence by a Hungarian national was immediately 



2134 scopb: of soviet activity in the united states 

transmitted to the Hungarian secret police under such circumstances as to 
suggest that DuBerg had communicated with them overnight. 

Did Mr, DuBerg appear before the committee? 

Mr. Waldman. He did not, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did the Board finally arrive at an adverse decision 
with respect to Mr. DuBerg? 

Mr. Waldman. It did, on August 27, 1954. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And an advisory to that effect was furnished ? 

Mr. Waldman. It was, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did Mr. DuBerg subsequently cease to be employed 
by UNESCO? 

Mr. Waldman. I understood he was terminated. 

(The summary of the case history of Norwood Peter DuBerg was 
marked "Exhibit No. 369" and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 369 

Norwood Peteb DuBero 

Norwood Peter DuBerg was born November 27, 1910, at Des Moines, Iowa. 
He attended New Haven (Conn.) High School from 1925 to 1928, and later at- 
tended Yale University at New Haven, Conn., from 1928 to 1929. From May 8, 
1931, to October 21, 1943, and from October 8, 1945, to October 4, 1947, he was 
employed as a rewrite man with the New York Daily Miri-or. During the 
period November 1943 to October 1945, Mr. DuBerg was employed as a union 
organizer for the New York Newspaper Guild. From October 6, 1947, to Decem- 
ber 31, 1948, Mr. DuBerg was employed as a press officer with the United Nations 
Appeal for Children, New York, N. Y. He was employed with the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris, France, from 1949 to 
December 31, 1954. 

Executive Order 10422 forms were not received but an investigation of Mr. 
DuBerg was initiated by the Department of State on March 31, 1953. 

An interrogatory was issued by the International Organizations Employees 
Loyalty Board to the employee, in care of United Nations Educational, Scientific, 
and Cultural Organization, Paris, France, on April 22, 1954. No reply nor the 
registered mail return receipt was received. A foUowup letter was sent to him 
on May 17, 1954. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 15, 1954 in Paris, France. Mr. DuBerg did 
not appear. 

An unfavorable advisory determination was made by the International Organi- 
zations Employees Loyalty Board on August 27, 1954, and was forwarded to 
the Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. 
This determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 
3, 1954. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did the Board consider the case of Miss Ruth 
From a ? 

Mr. WaldMan. It did, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, reports of the investigation in the 
case of Miss Kuth Froma contained information from various sources 
to the following effect : 

That from 1948 to 1949 she lived with her sister and brother-in-law, both of 
whom have admitted that at one time they have been sympathetic to Communist 
causes and the Communist Party line. 

That for 5 years she lived with an admitted Communist. 

That she herself was described by a close friend of her paramour as a "real 
Communist." 

That she was associated with a former schoolmate who was employed by 
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the executed atomic spies. (The schoolmate was 
associated with other espionage agents and is herself suspected of being engaged 
in espionage against the United States.) 

That she was also associated with various other Communist sympathizers in 
New York. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2135 

That since hei' employment by UNESCO she has identified herself with a 
small group of American Communists. 

That in July 1943 she signed a petition issued by the New York County 
committee of the Communist Party. 

That in February 1946 she registered for a Russian-language course, sponsored 
by the American-Russian Institute, an organization cited as subversive by the 
Attorney General. 

That from 1947 to 1949 she was an oflScial of a union which was expelled by 
the CIO in 1950 for consistently following the policies of the Communist Party. 

That she I'egistered with the American Labor Party at a time when it was 
Communist dominated. 

Did Miss Ruth Froma decline to appear before the Board? 

Mr. Waldman. She refused to appear. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did the Board subsequently make an adverse rec- 
ommendation ? 

Mr. Waldman. It did, sir, on the 27th day of August 1954. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And she ceased to be employed by UNESCO ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. I might say, noting the date of the adverse 
determination, that we felt that this was a serious matter, and as soon 
as we came back to the United States steps were taken to write up 
all these determinations and get them out with due speed. 

(The summary of the case history of Ruth Froma was marked 
"Exhibit No. 370," and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 370 
Ruth Fkoma 

Ruth Froma, nee Gassel, was born in New York, N. Y., on February 23, 1920, 
Her parents were both born in Russia. She was married to one Leon Rosebaum 
from 1941 to 1946. 

Miss Froma attended Hunter College, New York City, from 1935 to 1939 and 
received a B. A. degree. 

Between 1939 and 1943, Miss Froma was employed in saleswork with cosmetic 
houses in the New York City and New York State area ; she was employed by 
the Columbia Broadcasting System, New York, N. Y., from 1943 to 1949 in a 
clerical and administrative capacity. She received a secretarial appointment 
with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 
1950 and in 1953 was employed with that organization as a Sales Officer in the 
Sales and Distribution Division, Documents and Publications Department, Paris, 
France. Her employment with UNESCO was terminated on June 20, 1955. 

Executive Order 10422 forms were received by the Office of International 
Administration on February 20, 1953, and the appropriate investigation initiated 
on that date. 

An interrogatory issued by the International Organizations Employees Loyalty 
Board on February 15, 1954, was returned unclaimed. The interrogatory was 
reissued to the employee on March 9, 1954, in care of UNESCO in Paris, France, 
and the registered mail return receipt was received. A follow-up letter was 
sent on April 15, 1954, inasmuch as the reply to the interrogatory had not been 
received. On May 3, 1954, a letter was received from Miss Froma, dated April 29, 
1954, stating she could not "conscientiously respond" to the interrogatory as to do 
so would be "inconsistent with my status as an international civil servant." 

A hearing was scheduled for July 19, 1954, at Paris, France. Miss Froma 
did not appear at the hearing ; however, she did address a letter to the chairman 
of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, dated July 12, 1954, 
in which she stated she must regretfully decline the invitation to appear l3efore 
the Board for the same reasons she refrained from replying to the interrogatory. 

An adverse advisory determination was made by the International Organi- 
zations Employees Loyalty Board on August 27, 1954, and was forwarded to the 
Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. This 
determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 3, 1954. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did the Board consider the case of David Neal Leff ? 
Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 



2136 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Reports of the investigation in the case of David 
Neal Leff contained information from various sources to the following 
effect: 

That while he was employed by UNRRA ( United Nations Relief and Rehabili- 
tation Agency) in Yugoslavia, from 1944 to 1947, he joined the Communist Youth 
Railway Organization, which was under the direction of the Central Yugoslav 
Communist Party. That during that period of time, although not required to 
do so by virtue of his official duties, he associated with a number of foreign 
Communists, and continually indicated his sympathy for the programs and 
l)olicies of the Communist Party and his contempt for those of his own country. 

That after he returned to the United States from Europe, in the spring of 
1948, he attended classes for new members of the Los Angeles, Calif., branch of 
the Communist Party. 

That in 1949 he became a member of the Aarone Club of the Communist Party 
(California). 

That he also identified himself with a group of Communist Party members 
in the Los Angeles area. 

That he lived with, or in the home of, a professional Communist, spoke at 
meetings of Communist-front organizations, married a member of the Communist 
Party, and returned to Europe on a vessel owned by a Communist-controlled 
company, booking his passage through a Communist travel agency. 

Did the Board consider the case of Mr. Leff ? 

Mr. Waldman. It did, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did he refuse to testify before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. He refused to testify, and within 48 hours an 
advisory determination issued on July 23, 1954, recommending that he 
be disassociated from UNESCO. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did Mr. Leif subsequently leave the employ of 
UNESCO? 

Mr. Waldman. He did, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. It wasn't quite as rapid as your adverse determina- 
tion, was it ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, there is some additional information 
about Mr. Leff which should be in our record. Mr. Leff was the 
gentleman who refused to testify before a grand jury and who was 
held in contempt in absentia for his refusal. I have here a statement 
of chronology with regard to Mr. Leff's case. I won't take the time 
to read it to the committee, but to complete the record I would like it 
to be ordered in the record. 

Senator Johnston. This shall be ordered into the record. 

(The statement of chronology with regard to David Neal Leff was 
marked "Exhibit No. 371," and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 371 
David Neal Leff 

Prior employment: Farm Security Administration, Department of Agricul- 
ture, State Department Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation, United 
Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. 

April 1953 : Senator Jenner reported Leff refused to come home and appear 
before the Internal Security Subcommittee. 

July 1953: State Department refused to renew Mr. Leff's passport making 
his passport good only for his return to this country. As an international 
worker in Paris, Mr. Leff had a special French permit. 

May 1946 : The Peoples World reported a reception in Mr. Leff's honor spon- 
sored by the American Committee for Yugoslavia Relief, an organization cited 
by the Attorney General as subversive. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2137 

March 1954 : Contempt of court action was instituted against Left, U. N. 
employee in Paris, for failing to appear before a grand jury investigating sub- 
versive activities. 

If Mr. Left fails to answer the show-cause order, it was said a warrant 
for his arrest will be issued in Federal court. 

Mr. Left's position in Paris has been as information officer of the Rehabilita- 
tion Service of the UNESCO. 

Officials said that in 1953 Mr. Leff refused to submit to being fingerprinted 
and refused to till out a questionnaire furnished by UNESCO to United States 
citizen employees under an Executive order. The questionnaire included the 
question : "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party or any Communist or Fascist organization?" 

Luther H. Evans, Director General of UNESCO, ordered Mr. Leff to return 
to this country to answer the grand jury subpena, giving him until last Decem- 
ber 17 to do so, but Mr. Left refused to comjjly. Mr. Leff appealed Mr. Evans' 
directive to the UNESCO staff appeal board, and the directive since has been 
held in abeyance pending the appeal. 

March 12, 1954 : The 5-man UNESCO Appeals Board ruled that the Director 
General of UNESCO was "unjustified" in ordering an employee to return to 
the United States and testify on possible subversive activities. 

Suspended May 1953 ; Reinstated July 1953: Mr. Neff was suspended from his 
U. N. job after his refusal to come back and face the grand jury last year, but 
2 months later was reinstated. 

The UNESCO Staff Association had demanded the suspension be lifted because 
it said no proof of bad conduct on Mr. Leff's part had been established. 

March 16, 1954 : Telephone call from Jim Cardiello who was in touch with 
Kilsheimer to the effect that Leff was cited for contempt by a Federal district 
court in New York City and that the statement to this effect was sent to the 
Department of Justice to forward to the State Department with the recom- 
mendation that it be sent to Luther Evans, head of UNESCO, so that he might 
have grounds for firing Leff. 

March 23, 19.54 : David Left' has not revised his refusal to answer a subpena 
of the Federal court of New York. His principal objection to appearing before 
a congressional committee investigating subversion activities has been that 
because he has no passport he has no assurance that he will be allowed to 
leave the United States after testifying to rejoin his family here (Paris) and 
resume his position with UNESCO. 

March 23, 1954: Luther Evans, director general of UNESCO, ordered David 
Leff to comply with United States judicial proceedings that have been brought 
against him. Mr. Evans' order hinted at disciplinary action against Mr. Leff 
and added he would "attach the greatest importance to the judgment to be 
rendered by the United States district court." 

March 24, 1954 : A bench warrant was issued by Federal Judge Henry W. 
Goddard for the arrest of David N. Leff. He was served by registered mail 
with a court order calling for his appearance to show cause why he should not 
be punished for contempt. 

Mr. Leff requested postponement of the date on which the show-cause order 
was returnable in court on the ground that he had not received valid notice 
of the order until today. 

Mr. Leff wrote Director General Luther Evans appealing an order issued to 
him Tuesday "to satisfy the requirements of the judicial authorities." 

March 29, 19-54: Dr. Luther Evans announced that he was withholding action 
in the case of David N. Left'. He stated that if the court refused Mr. Leff's 
motion to vacate the arrest warrant he would order him to appear in court 
"under pain of immediate dismissal." 

June 1, 1954: Federal Judge Gregory F. Noonan ruled that David N, Leff 
would have to return to New York City from Paris and answer a grand jury 
subpena. 

July 17, 1954 : David Left' has not accepted an invitation to appear before a 
visiting United States loyalty board. During the period in which he was 
called back to the United States to appear before a grand jury, he refused and 
was quoted as saying he would be happy to appear if he could be heard here. 

The United States Loyalty Board was presided over by Pierce J. Gerety, Board 
President. 

August 23, 1954 : Four Americans who refused to testify before a United States 
loyalty board will not have their contracts renewed when they expire in a few 

72723— 57— pt. 38 3 



2138 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

months. The four were not indicted ; however, David Leff's contract expires 
December 31, 1954. 

LefF has appealed to the administi-ative tribunal of the International Labor 
Office in Geneva against an order by Evans to obey the New York court. The 
case will be heard September 6, 1954. 

At present, Mr. Luther Evans does not consider himself authorized under 
existing staff regulations to tire the seven who refused to testify [before the 
United States Loyalty Board]. 

August 24, 1954 : The administrative tribunal whose jurisdiction extends to 
the three largest si)ecialized agencies of the U. N., opened a series of hearings 
here today, two of which involve American "loyalty" or "security" cases. 

Mr. Left is challenging an earlier decision of Mr. Evans that he was obliged 
to comply with a request of a United States grand jury to testify as to his 
background, associations, etc. 

September 6, 1954 : A three-member international tribunal riiled today that 
UNESCO lacked the authority to order an American it employed in Paris to 
testify before a Federal grand jury in New York. 

The tribunal also ordered UNESCO to pay $300 toward Mr. Leff's legal 
expenses in contesting the first order and allowed him 15 days to submit his 
protest on the second to the appeals board. (The fir.st order held that he must 
testify before the Federal grand jury investigating American personnel of the 
U. N. The second order held that he must respond to a New York Federal court 
demand to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court for 
tailing to appear before the grand jury.) 

October 18, 1954 : Four American citizens involved in United States loyalty 
investigations began today an appeal against a decision not to renew their 
contracts as members of the staff of UNESCO (1 of the 4 is David Leff). 

A UNESCO spokesman said today that individvial reports on the 15 members 
questioned by the Gerety board reached the organization during September. 

The four maintained that Dr. Evans' action "constitutes an abuse of power 
in that it was taken for reasons external to the organization and could not be 
taken in conformity with the rules and regulations of the organization." 

October 16, 1954, New York Times, page 1 : The United States, through Henry 
Cabot Lodge, Jr., denounced the American head of a United Nations agency today 
for not having immediately dismissed eight United States citizens who had 
received adverse loyalty reports. He stated Dr. Evans was frustrating Wash- 
ington's efforts to make sure no suspect Americans were on the international 
payroll. 

In his statement. Lodge said that eight Americans employed by UNESCO had 
received adverse loyalty reports from the United States International Organiza- 
tions Employees Loyalty Board. 

The United States delegation to the U. N. believes Dr. Evans' powers are broad 
enough to dismiss the eight outright on misconduct charges. 

Lodge stated further: "The fact of being employed by UNESCO gives no Amer- 
ican the right to be a law unto himself." 

October 16, 1954 (UP), New York Times, page 1: Dr. Evans was quoted as 
saying in August 1953, at his lieadquarters in Paris, that the security drive in 
the United States against Communist infiltration of United Nations agencies 
was threatening to destroy UNESCO. He said he would oppose efforts by Wash- 
ington authorities to influence, through loyalty investigations, the hiring and 
firing of his Agency's American employees. 

November 1.3, 1954, New York Times, page 15 : The Director General of 
UNESCO called on the Agency's General Conference here (Montevideo, Uruguay) 
to give liim wider powers to dismiss members of his staff who are considered 
security risks. 

Dr. Evans said that he had lost confidence in the seven (United States citizens 
who refused to appear before the Gerety board) but that he could not abro- 
gate their contracts. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2139 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The order to show cause against Mr. Leff was issued 
by, I believe it was, Federal Judge Newman, in New York City. 

Mr. Waldmax. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That Avas in July of 1954. Mr. Leff had refused to 
return to the United States to testify before the grand jury on the 
ground that the subpena had not been served on him within the terri- 
torial limits of the United States. The court then issued the order 
to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. And Leff 
appealed both orders. 

It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that in September of 1954 in Geneva 
a three-man international tribunal ruled that UNESCO lacked au- 
thority to order Mr. Left" to testify before the grand jury of the 
United States, UNESCO had ordered him to return, and he had 
appealed there. 

I have here, Mr. Chairman, from the Civil Service Commission a 
record of Mr. Left's employment with the Government of the United 
States, and I would like to ask that this also be put into the record 
at this point. 

Senator Johnston. This will become a part of the record also. 

(The record of the employment of David Neal Leff of the Civil 
Service Commission was marked "Exhibit No. 372," and reads as fol- 
lows:) 

Exhibit No. 372 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, March, 19, 1954. 
Mr. Benjamin Mandel, 

Research director. Internal Security Svbcommittee, Committee on the Judi- 
ciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Mandel : In accordance with the request in your letter of March 12, 
1954, I am forvparding herewith photostatic copies of all application forms avail- 
able in our files for Mr. David N. Leff, and a transcript of his Federal service as 
it appears in our service record file. 
Sincerely yours, 

John W. Macy, Jr., Executive Director. 
Enclosure 3427. 



2140 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT 



Stondard Form No. 57 
Approved April 9. 19-12 
(Kavlsed June 1942) 
U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 
C. S. C. Dept. Cir. No- 332 

X INSTRUCTIONS.— Anvwert very CiLeitlor.ckarl) and con.t'Uiely. T> pewtiie o; ttriie lr«ibl/ in BLACK INK, 

z on pfinteJ siac ONLY, lo assure cli^ar photographic copie» lor appomtiiig atfcficici. //you are applying for a ipe- 
cific United Statcx CivH Serxice Examination, read it.c ExaniinatioQ Announcement carefully, fallow all directions. 
O and mail ihis application lo the <^>ffice named therein: if not. mail with an explanatory letter to the U. S. CIVIL SERV- 
2 ICE COMMISSION. WASHINGTON. D.C.. unlesi oiherv^iTc directed. Notify same office of my change of addreas. 



r ancoi'V us*: 



1. Name of exomlnofion, li any; or name o! posi'Jon applied lor; 



2. Place ol Maminadon {If a wriltsn teat), or place of employment applied lor; 



tCity and Stole) 
3. Optional suhlect (if mentioned in examination announce roent): 



AV. 



Tliia 



r U- 3. Civil Ser* 



,_ Appor. 



''-jE7...M7ID ...K. l^W... 

(First name) (Middle) (Maiden, if any) (LasO 

5 .Uni ted. S.tates.. Embassy:. 

(R. D. or streel and number) 

lfexiGC>^.5*.-F.<.* -Mexi-CQ... 

(City or post otfice, and Slate) 



6. Dale of birth (month, day, 
yeor): 

.sep-t...a,..i9ia...... 

9. Logal or voting reaidence: 

State .....C.alifQrrda. 



7. Age inst birthday; 6. Dole of this opplicalion: 

.2li..., I.J.urjs..l.7^..19U... 

10. Telephone numbers: 



(b) Check one; 



11. (a) Check one. 
*. Male. 
,. Female. 
13. Where were you born? . 



Widowed. 
Single. ..Separated, 
Married. ,. Divorced. 



(Residence phot 

12. Height, with- 
out sho^: 

.5..1t.82..,n 



b) [Busine^ phone) 

Weigh I; 

..1?0 _.......„ 



O. S,. 
Gr..,. 

E&E. 
P&D- 
Ini.... 



.. Preference 
Alloweci — 
.. Veteran. 
.. Disability. 
., Wile. 
.. Widow. 
._ Disallowed. 
-. Closed. 



Adm'd oxam. 
Approved by _ 
Exam, dale ._ 

Not. Ra 

Dale Reg 



.. Material att'd. 
_. Material (lied. 



.J:Jew.Xork,.ifew.Ji3rk... 

(Town) (SlQte oi 



Indicate "Yes" or "No" onawer by placing X In proper cc^lumn Yes 



Indicate "Yea" or "No" answer by placing X in proper column Yes 



14. Are you o clticen of the United Stale?? - 

Unless otherwise instructed, nalurolired ciUiens mast submit, 
along with this appllcolion, Nalura.izalion Certilicate; other foreign- 
bom, documentary proof ot ctlzenshtp, E?ocument3 will b^ returned. 



■«■ 



IB. Hove you ever been arrested, or summoned into court as a de- 
fendant, or indicted, or convicted, or fined, or imprisoned, or 
placed on probation, or ha3 any cate against you been tiled, or have 
you ever been ordered to deposit collateral lor alleged breach or 
violation of any law or police regulc 'ion or ordinance whatsoever? — 
If BO, Ii3l all cases, wilhoul any exception whatsoever, under Hem 
45, page 4, giving m each cos© (I) the date, (2) your age ot the time. 
(3) trie ploce where the alleged offense or vloloiion occurred. (4) the 
nome and location oi the court, (5) ihe noture ol the ofiense or viola- 
tion, (6) the penalty. l( any, imposed, or other dispos-tion. The above 
question includes arrests by military or naval authorities and dis- 
clplinory action Imposed by courts martial, as well as in civil cases. 
If oppolnted, your tingerpnnta will be token. 



18. (a) Have you ony physical defect or disability whatsoever? 

(b) Hove you ever hod a nervous breakdown? 

If your answer to either (o) or (b) is yes, give lull parllculara under 
Item 45. poga 4. 



17. Do you advocate or have you ever advocated, or are yoli r\ow 
or hove you ever been a memb<?r of any organization that advo- 
cates the overthrow of the Government of the Lfnited States by force 
or violence? ...... 

» so, give complete details unier Item 45, 



IS. Hove you ever been discharged for misconduct or unsatisfactory 

ser\'ice, or forced to resign iron any position? 

n so, state {under Item 45) when ard where employed and give ihe 
name and addre«s of your emplorer and the reason lor your dla- 
charqe or forced reslgnotlon In each case. 



19. Within the past 12 months, have you used intoxicoting beverages' 
II so, specify; 



.. OccosionQlly. 



. Habitually, -. To excess. 



20. Are any members of your family or relatives (either by blood or 
by mornoge), employed by the United States Government, ex- 
cluding persona In the armed forces? — 

It so. give name, address, relationship, and branch of eernce of 
each such relative under Item 45- 



21. Are you NOW employed by the Federal Government? . 

(a) If 3o,USIlA,j|.-I^m-Secxirity. A(injin.. 



-MexlCQ7"J5^'^e->-;He^c.O.. 



(b) 11 you now ore or have ever been so employed, give dates: 



22. (a) Were you ever in the U. S. military or naval service? 

If so, give branch of service and dan> of last discbarge: 
-. Army, ,. Navy. Marine. .. CoastGuard. Date 

] (b) Were all dicchorqes granted under honorable condllionr.?, . 

I (o) Have you already established military preference with the 

Civil Service Commission? , 

 If so, check kind of preference below: 

I ., Veteran. ._ Disabled _. Wife of disabled .. Widow of 

j veteran. veteran. veteran. 

I If you are applying for a specific examination and wish to claim 
veteran preference in connfcction with it, attach C. S C- (Prefere.nce) 
Form 14. together with the evidencv -pecihed therein 



23. Hciv© you registered urder Il;e Selective Service Act? 

li so, give address > '-, v.4 ^rtvxfi -'A 

and numt-9r ol local boarda.APIUvQpa JTW 

....Glendale,_. Arizona, 

fossiiied Q.ve )|„P 2ll^'^ 

Ak A. Your order r,umber_^H-?--^.. 



your classiiicalion . 



(a) Are you now a member of any branch o! mihtary or naval 

reserve? — . . 

If so, give name 

ol orgoniiation - :_ -._ . 



(b) Are you now on active duty?.. 



25. Give number oi persons completely dependent on you, other than 
husband or wife NOIie 



2(, Would you accept short-term appointment?, 
._ 6 months, __ 3 months. .- 1 month. 



27, (a) Would you accept appointment anyv/here oifered In the 
United States'- , 

'"pTel^S'S.Eas.t.er.ii.Seabpar.d , 



(b) Would you accept appointment outside the United States?. 

''aL'e'?.aS:.FreuQh..or..SEa.ni.sh... 



.s.pfiaking..loaa.tioa.. 



(c) Would you accept appointment in Washington. D- C-? 

If so, and ll you ore applying for a specific examination, refer to the 
examination annrauncemcnt to see if the Certificate of necidence 
(C, S. C. Form 12) is to be submitted. Proof ol residence la required 
for mony liinds of losi'ions 



28. What Is the lowest entrance salary you will accept? $._Ji<Cv.y.-_ per. Jf^.*, 

You will not L-e consi jer&-| tor positions payinc; less. 



29. If you ore willing 

to trovel specify ,- Occaelonally. 



. Frequently, •ft Constantly. 



!0. How much notice will you require to report for work? TWJD--Wfi£lCS 

o —29004- 1 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2141 



DAVID N. LEFF 



31. (o) Hove vo.j evnr filed irpI'f^atifnR br any Federal civil service oxammaUons? ., 

ai so. hsithem below.) Ye» No 


TiUfs o' pxominntions 


Examined in what cilies 


Monlh and year 


Ratings 


Jr.*. Writing- ic Editing AssU _ 


-OaJclanH, Cali fornia ipril..!iil- 


.85.6 



























(b? Hove you posseil any Si^le cr o')ier civil service eiaminaljon ioltier lhan ihe above? w^thm the lost 5 yeari? (li so give dela.U under Item -15, Page 4).. - .-.??. 

^__ Yes No 

32. EDUCATION: fa) Circle highest grade completed, elementary or high school: 1 23456789 10 11 ( 12 J Did you graduate? ^., 

^ Yes No 



N^rre and location of school 



Dales attended 



Years completed 



(b) College or unhe,^u7...Stanford U.rdyersity.. 
California 



.1235. 



Day 



..1939.. 



Degrees conlerred 



A.B. 



1532. 



Semester 
hours 
credit 



120 



(c) otherUniyers ity. .of California ,_ L9rl4l.. 

.._Berkeieyj,, California _.. \ifiiZ. 



iMir 



.5-li.2 



VT 



1/3.. 



studies- -Time. .&. lio.ti.on. 
Ag... Labor.EcQnj ..- 



(d) Li;rt your four chiel i. 



groduale subjects 



-His-tory- _ 

- P.Qlitiaal. .Science . 

-English.,.. 

..Erench 



Semester hrs ; 



List your lour chiel graduate subjec 



- Time-.& -Motioa. Engineering.. 
-Agric- Labor -Economics 



.1/3.. 
-1/31- 



33. Indicate youf knowledge oi 

foreign language;. 



..FVench,. 

.Spanish, 



Gooi 



understand!) 



34. Are you now a liconsed member of any Iradfl or profession (such as 

electrician, radio operator, pilot, lowyer. CPA, elc.)? .___„. 

If not, have you ever been licensed? *_ 

Give kind o( Iicen!« and State DeCit.Cgjdet^ ..C.ali£«. 

Earliest license (yeor) SSj^M ... 

Most recent licenst- (yearl Xir J/- 



No 



3S. REFERENCES: List five persons, who are not related to you by blood or marriage, who live in the United Slates, and who ar« or have been mainly responsible (or 
close direction of your work, or who ore in a position lo judge your work critically in those occupahoni; in which you regard younell as best qualified. 



. -Ifc-« - . Harry. . .F<, . . Brown. 



..?&"«-- Jesse.. .L,...Farr 

.-Mri!.-MaXcoim.-i,..Pitts..... 

.->jrj.--Lelan.d..N..-.Eryer 

..Mr«.-JDhii-.I.,..ArraS-trong... 



U.S. Emba s.sy ,. Mexico j, . .D ..?.,. . 



. y. , S , .Dep.t, . . Agr., . . San . .Pr.anci-S-CJa 
.Ki.ttre-dge-B-ld.-,-Den7:er-,.-Co-lQ....- 

-F3jnn.-Se-C.uri-ty-A.d'n..-P-or.t.land 

.FarnL.S.e.c«rity.,..¥asMn&t.oii,-.D...C.. 



Buiiness or occupation 



-He.ad^-Mex.-LabQr-PrQgram. 

.Regional Attorney 

JExecuti-v^-Asst.; 

Executi-ve.Asst. 

Aaat...fleJiab».J2ir* 



3$. May inquiry be mode ol yriur present employer regarding your charactar, qualifications, etc.?.. 



.^. 

Yes No 



37, EXPERIENCE in the space iumished below give a record of every employment, both public and privot^j, which you have had sinre you first began to work. Start 
with your pr*s«nt position and work back to the &rst position you hold, accounting for ail penck.s ot unemployment. Descnbe your field of work and posi- 
bon and. except for employmenis held less Ihon three month?, give your duties and responsibilities in scch detail as to make your qualifications clear. Give name 
you used nn pay roll if different from that given on this application 



Ploce IfeXlCQ..-D..F,....M(5XiC-0........... 

From -No-V-.!';?.'-.. 19 .Ii2- to prBS-ent 19 . 

IMon-.liI (Veu-t >M4ii(l. 

Name of employer; 

X Fann-5ec.urily..Adrainlstr3-tiojr... 

H Address .-l!«-S.»..EraJ3as-5y 

.Mexi.co.-...D*-F-.....l;lexiCQ 

Kind of business or organization; luSCITlllt & 

.transport Ilexicaii . labor. 

'Jumber ar.J doss ol "^ ^ «3 T^— 

employees you supervised ^™p .-iDr«.--XrailSp»- 



I 



Name and title of your . _ 

immediate supervisor xL:.j}^ 



-Tarlock- 
. TranspoT-tati^fi- Superyis or . 



Exact title ol your posiHon AS S.t* - -TranSpOrt^rt Salary: Starhnq. S--27-0.0. 

-tioc-Supsr.- - - --.- p«r .an. F.noi, $-2.7DQ.;... 

Duties and responsibilities -Superyisg. -Tail  shipm&tits . o£. Mexi can . 
-labor-to--eniploynaent-area-in--U*S-. -Perform- -general... 

.a-driiniS-tratise.-diitieS--in-]iexicO- -City. involving 

.relatiQiiS--with-Mexicaii-railroad.&.-gavEmraent. 

.£)fficials^-Hitli-War--ManpQwer-CQiniiia3lQn. &-£.«- Jl. 

.He.tirement-BDard.-At j^eginning- oi- -prograia^ - devised 
_&. installed. entiir-e-pr.acedure,--farraS-&L-r-epQr-ting-.... 
- .system . for . recruitment, . .transportation,- . engjloyment 
-&-repatriation. -- - 

Machines and equip- 



2142 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



37.— Continued. 



pioc«... San. ?Vanciscq,._ Calif. 

From ..J»iy.....'.''i9il2... To J^OV._ 






W' 



Mama ol em^jloyet: 

..?.arm. .Se.curi.ly . Admnis tratipn , 

Address. 30... Yan.Ifess.. Ave. 

.. San. Francis.co,.. Calif... 



Exact liliooUoucposillcn.AdmmStratiyie salary. Starting. 



2100 



Assistant 



Per .^. Flnol. $ 



2700 



Duues and ,c.pon«ibii,t;e, ...Devi.s.ed...& i.nsta.lled. detailed. .system.^ 
.of . budget. .&: . pers.Qnnel c.ontr.ols. . .for. . foffi-.sta tie. .region. 
Analyzed .ii.s.tandardi.ze.d . repprtiJ!g..syst.e!T'iS....Assist.ed 
xn area. prQg.r.ain. planning, 



Kind ol business or organirati^r. 

. .Regional . Director l.s .Staff 

Number and class ol ^ c +--i+ -i e + -i f»aT 

.clerka. 



Nome orvJ titlo ol your ^ . 
inme<diate supervisor -.jI. 



'■•/m... . A . . .iinglin . 

..Execj..A5St...to..Reg.,..Di.r!,. 

Rea«.n for leaving .Tran.s.Cer . .to . .I'fexi.can . 
prot^am of sajie a-^ency. 



Machines and equip- 
ment you used 



■^IDD" 



Place .Sa.n. .FV.ano.isc.Oj . .c.alifo . 



From?.iar.ch....l';T9k2... to 

(Mootrt) (Vcul 

Name of employe.-; 

..Farm Sacyritjr Admn, 



July. 



9^2. 



„,„ Chief, _ Reports & 



2100" 



Address . 3Q,.V3n.l'es.s..AYe.,. 

.".San.Prancis.co^..Cali.f,.. 

Kind ol bus.nes! or organltclicn JapanOSO B'^CUa' 

..tiQn-i:ar..WQCA,.of Army 

Number and class ol -i -x-x.: . + -i ^i an 
employees you uupervlsed ,.4-. .??-y^.V-A?. K4>'.J-.=*;* 

.,l.s.ec.'y.,..kr6..c.l.erK-.typi.sts 

Name and Vtl© of your t. p »T--] -.-j„ rhipf 
immedlole supervisor !•..«. .V.?..U?.4.Y?Xl.. y.'-M:".-!-.- 

..V/.QCA.-ES.A.Pr.Ogr.ajn 



E«ocl l:!la ol your pos,l,ir, .y.tii-.'r^K.tr^-t^. r-.~...y:-. Solary Starting. $. 

..Analysis Section p„ an_ p,^^, , 

Duties and respon.,b,i,ti« As_sist.ed..in..se.tU.ng..up..emergencj. pr^^ 
.for . .t}:e . Aiy.j. . to . .handle . agricultural phases of 



.evacuating. .J.aj:anese ..fro:?. .V'es.t..CqaGt,Pr 

h. . op.er.a ting . .pr pc.o_dure_ _ for. .--.t. .fi.eid . offices in .f oijr_ _ 

 . .5 ta.tes ...Set. up . .t . operate d . .reporting. .£;. , analysis 

oys tern to .keep ArT:OC. .adyis od .of progress . VJrote cornpre- 

hensiye. report, at end of .evacuati^^ 

analy z ing its agricultural .a spec ts for t he t .'ar 
.Dep.artinent, 



R.o.on lor leavingEnd.of ..emergency.. 
promotion 



Machines and eguip- 
ment you used 



From A;t«  19 111- To Ilarch..!.'i9 

^^'TSRoth) T7.,fi IMonlh) 

Name ol employer 

--^E^imi-Security._Admin.o 

Add„M3.Q..Ya.n..Ne.s.s....Aye.o 

. .S.a.n. .Eranci s c o j C alif i 



fe, 



Kind of business or organization .'igraXOrj'' 

. .Lab.or . II o.us.ing Prograrii 



Number and class of t -,4._»-^«— «t-,Vi«*» 

employees you supervised . .1 . .S.te.nOgr aphCr. . 



Exact title .jl your fosillon. ASS.t.o.-Chie£, Soloryi Starting, $..lp.O.O. 

.Records-.i-fieriew. Section Per .an. Fmoi, $.,1.600 

Duties ond responsibilities .Conduoted. .field..5.tji.die5..0.f ..mlgratory.... 

. labor, caii^.. management,.. opera.tioxi..&.coiisnun.i.ty 

organization... Devised. <".:.install.ed..apEr.opr.ia.te.. pro.-... 
.cedur.es.^. S.et..up..syakera..a^..^.epor.ting.&..a.na.ly.zing.p.ro- 
. jec t . .activities , . .employment . .&. .pppula.ti on » As sis ted 

in. planning. .^,. co.oduc.ting.region.-yji.de. .training 

acti3ri-tie5..Xcu:..ir^;j3gerial.&.cle.rica.l.c.aT5).p.er.spnnel. 



Name ond title ol your »^_ ry v n^^^^ ^m 

Immediole supervisor Jir....R...C...COnOye.r .. 

...C^efj-Jlecords...!:. Review.. .Sect... 
Reason lor leaving .Ener^:ency ..d.ett.il.Si.... 
pror.otion 



Mochlnes and eguip. 
meni you used 



pioce. Arizona . i."; . .California 

From..AUC«^ 19ilQ-. To .(jCt«.... 

tSTDttLt.) {Tiu> iMorMti) 

Name of employer 

...EariiL.S.eciu'i.ty..Admi,na 

Address.. 30. .Vau..I\es.s...A.y.e.,. 

..5an..5ii3nci.5Co,..Ca.lif, 

Kind of business or organization. i''-*-Qr2.X>OI^ 

. . .Lab.or . .Grant. .Aid. .Fr.ogr.am. . . 



;'-.9iii. 

lyfxi 



Number and class ol 
employees you super. 



Name and tiUe ol your st« p n HrtrimrroT' 
Immediate supervisor .V-r 9...tt.o...iJ.. ..V.OnO.Ver .. 

...ChieX^..Reco.rds..&..Reyi.ew..Sect,. 

Reoson lor leaving.. ..I.'r.O.IiOtiOn 



Exact bile ol your posltion..C.aS.e. ..ReVieW ..Sup.V., Salary; Starting. $.14^0 

Per .an F,„<,|, $.15.00 

Duties and responsibilities .Super.vlsed. iiaiutenance. .of .filgibili.ty ... 
.s.tandards. .by. grant. office, in.. California. f;..Ari&o.na».... 

.Conducted. .field..dJivestigatioiis..o.r..E.p.ee.ial..ca.ses..& 

. problem . areas .. . Prepared. Z: . .T--Tr.-t.o. . I^e.de.ral . g.ran.d. 

. j urie s . .e.vidence. . a f .claim, frauds . ,D.e vis.ed . pr o.c.edu,r.es .. , 
, .governi-ng. .policies. . & . r.ou tines. . Q £ . adBunis.te.ri.ng . grants 
-to..— .r--T-....Cariled.Qa.inT5£r.\lc.e...tr.aAni.ng..actiyiti.es 
i'or.AEat.x...5rant..£uper.Yi.so.r.. 



Machines and e«4uip- 
ment you used 



If more space Is required use a CanUnuolion Sheel [Standard Form No 38) or a sheet of THIN poper. size 8 Jt lO^i inches. Write on each sheet your name, (ull 
oddress, date of birth and eKomlnatlon title ^il ony) Use one side only. Encloie. unattached, with opplicatton. 

0— MOM— I 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UlSriTED STATES 2143 



30. D? rou held any position or o(floe undor onr State. Terrllory. 



43. Space lor detailed oniwera to other questions: 



county, or municlpaUly? 

If eo, give details under Item 45. 



•Yet No 



W. Do you receive ony pension or other benefit (excluslre of Adiusled 

Service Certificate) for mlUlary or naval service, or an onnulty „ 

from the U, S. Government under any Retirement Act? - .... Si.. 

If !o. give detolis under Item 45. Yes No 

40. Show nome and address ot wiie's (or husband's) employer (l( none, write 
■Nona'): 



.none. 



41. (Ok) Were any ol the following members of your family bom out- 
side Continonlal U. S. A.? ^- 

„ Yes No 

.,_ Wile ._- Husband *. Father ... Mother. 

II BO, Indicate which by marking the appfvpriole space, and show under Item 

45 lor each, {U full nome. including maiden name of wife or molher (2) 

birthplace; (3) notivecibzenshlp; and (4) U U. S. naturaU=ed. dale of naturalization. 

(b) Have you any relatives, by blood or by marriage [excluding 
persons m the U. S. armed forces), now hving in a foreign 



country? 



■5*- 

Yes No' 

II so, for each relative show under Item 45 the (1) name, (2) relotionshlp, 
(3) place of residence, (4) birthplace, (li) present dUzenship. and (6) whether 
transient or resident. 

42. Llrt any Bpecia! skills not shown in Question 37, such as operation of short- 
wave radio, multihth, key-punch, turret-lathe, or scientific or profeseionol 
devices: 

SKUX SKILL 

SKILL SKILL 

Words per minute In typln? : stenography 

Do you hove a license to operate an aulornobile? -.. ,tc. _.,. 

Yes No 



43. Siote what kind oi work you prefer J^eld- Jj.aiSOn-2>epre' 

.sentatiga.or..unl-t-.super-vlscr--abroad 



Horn Write In left column numbers of items to which detailed 

No. answers apply 



23... 



hi... 



31. 



20 



44. Give ony special qualifications no* covered elsewhere In your application, 
such as (q) your more importanl publlcahons (do NOT submit copies unless re- 
quested); (b) your patents or inventions: ic) hobbies, construction of Inslruments. etc. 

-:—--—- ^.^r^.T^^^r^r^:.=^^^^^^„._Isaetsn 

StaiifQrd..IJnivErsi±y-PEess-(1939-),-a. - 

his±Drjr.-Qf..lesser--U^.».possess.ions-iB 

the-.EaxiiCic.. 

Researched,. jdesigned-t-drew-maps-for-T^-JU 
Bailey.'.a..'.'Di^Qina±ic -His±ory..af- -the -A-nerwan 
Eeople."...CrDi:ts..(l939)-the-definiti-ve-text 
Qn.-thi Fi.-Sjubjcctt 



..JIir.F..S.e.lec:'fciTre..Seryice..Claaaifloation 
,.due..to..yision..c.Qr.rected..by..glasses«. 



..(lLM...X...Xeff...lIJl.. 

..(2i.Rus.sia _ 

..(jJ-.Rus.sian 

..(]jJ..Mti....U.....S.....Citizen.a9ia.. 



..Present, sslary.iii l&ricQ.Citjt.is 

.. v27-O-0- - per. . annum . plus. . nv.er. . .S15QQ - in - . . 
...<3.vej:.tme..&.Xor£ign.Sjer.Yice.xii££erential, 



Mr. J, Jacobson 



.Radio. . Me.c.hanlc. . .Fir s_t. , .C la 5.5. . 

.Ka.Yal.T<3xp.e.do...S.ta.ti.oii 

.Alexandria.,. ..Virginia 



Jfc§<i..J«..Jsc.obEoa 

..Cpri53tQme.ter...f^era.tDr 

..General..Accoun.ting.. Office.. 
..Washington,.. D...G...... 



If more space Is required, use a sheet of THIN paper, sue 6 x \0M inches. 
Wnte on each sheet your name, EuU address, dale ol birlh. ^nd esanimaiion title 

',ii any). Use one side only Enclose unattached, wilh jpplirnlir.fi. 



li you claim preference for the Indian Service as cm Indian, you .-nu»t file with thin appIicaHon u cortificole from the siper.nlendent oE the Indian 
Qoency where you ore registered, or from the Comn^issioner. Bureau of Indian Affain. ahowing that you hav. ol Uast ons-fouilh Indian blood. 

JURAT (OR OATH).— This jurat (or oath) must be executed. 

The lollowing oath must be taken before a notary public, the secretary- of a United States civil service board of exairiiners, or other 
officer authorized to administer oaths, before whom the applicant must appear in person. The following are among those not authcnzed 
to administer this oath: Postmasters (except in Alaska), Army officers, post-office inspectors, and chief clerks and assist arTchief clerks 
in the Railway Mail Service, 

The composition and work in connection with any material required to be aubm^itted for this examination ore entirely my 
own, except where I hove given hill credit for quoted matter or the collaboration of others by quotation marks and references, 
and in the composition of the same I have received no assistance except as indicated fully in-my explanatory statement. 

I, the undersigned, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) that the statements made by me in answer to tlie foregoing 
questions are full and true to the best of my knowledge and belief, SO HELP ME GOD. 



li female, prefix "Miss" or "Mrs.." and \l mamed 
use your own given r.ome, as "Mrs. Mary L Doe." 



(Signoture of applicant)..., .(l^^-Vid .Ujl . .1*6 £f)_ 



(Sign WITH PEN .^ND INK your nam? — one given nam?, Initial or inltiaU. and surname) 



Subscribedandduly sworn to before me according to law by the above-named applicant this-. day 

of — _ 19 at city [or town] of 

county of — „ , and Slate [or Territory or District] of - .: 

rSignatun of officer) 

u.8.GovnmMnn^pRr»TWote^n<«:.o-»0H-i (OHJcioI title) 



2144 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



[Continuation sheet] 
David N. Leff. Address : U. S. Embassy, Mexico D. F. Date of birth : Sept. 3, 



1918. 

( Item 37, coutinued : ) 
Place : Phoenix, Arizona. 

From Jan. 1940 to August 1940. 
Name of employer : 

Farm Security Administration. 
.\ddress : Phoenix, Arizona. 
Kind of business or organization : 
Migratory Labor Relief Office. 
Imm. Supv: Mr. Wm. Keen, Sr., Grant 

Supv. 
Reason for leaving : Promotion. 
Place: San Francisco, California. 

From Sept. to Oct. 1939. 
Name of employer: 

San Francisco Newsletter-W^asp. 
Address: 624 Market St., San Fran- 
cisco, Calif. 
Kind of business organization : 
Weekly literary magazine. 
Imm. Supv. : Miss Lois Whisler, Man- 
aging Editor. 
Reason for leaving : Return of perma- 
nent employee. 



Exact title of your position : Asst. Grant 
Supv. 

Salary : Starting, $1,440 per an. Final, 
$1,440. 

Duties and responsibilities : Inter- 
vieveed applicants for migratory labor 
grants. Investigated living condi- 
tions; determined need; prescribed 
aid in kind, cash, medical care, sur- 
plus food stamps. Referred eligibles 
to other agencies. 

Exact title of your position : Reporting, 
feature-writing, proofreading, edit- 
ing. 

Salary : Starting, $50 per month. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2145 



UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 

Service Record Division 
w4shimgt0n js, d. c. 



March 17, 19a 



r 



1 



L 



J 



STATEMENT OF FEDERAL SERVICE 



Notice to indiTiduals - This record ahould bo preserved - Additional copies of 
service histories can not be furnished due to limited personnel in the Commission, 
Ihis record may be presented to appointing officers for their inspection. 



NAME 

LEFF, David N. 



DATE OF BIRTH 

9-3-18 



Authority for original appolntaent (ExaBlnatlon froa which appointed or other author it y* -Execat iv« 
Ordar. Law. or other eseaption) 

i,9 Statute 115, Act of A-8-35 



Elttctir* Dmf 

4-15-^0 

6-1.S-41 

5-16-43 
7-1-43 



Kmtuf of *g fion 



foaition, 0rm4», S»i mry , Etc 



9-19-43 



iixcepted Appoir.tment 



Reassignnent and Transfer 



Change in Head'-juarters 



Transfer 

V/ar Service 

(Transfer is pursuant to 
War Food Administrator's 
MeraoranduTi No, 2, Revised, 
dated June 21, 1943) 

Sepai-ation - Transfer 

Appointment by Transfer 
War Service 
(Reg. IX-2-a) 



Assistant Rural Rehabilitation (Migratory 
Labor Prograin) Super^'isor, BO-4, $1440 
per annum, AGRICULTURE, Farm Security 
Administration, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Assistant Clerk, EO-5, $1440 per annum, 
AGRICULTURE, Fann Security Administration, 
San Francisco, California. 

Assistant Transportation Supervisor, CAF-7 
$2700 par annum, • AGRICULTURE, Farm Securit r 
Ad-iiinistration, Region 9, Mexico City, Mex , 

Assistant Transportation Supervisor, CAF-7 
$2700 per annam, AGRICULTURE, War Food 
Administration, Office of Labor, Mexico 
City, Mexico 



Associate Divisional Assistant, P-3, $3200 
per annum, STATE, Office of Foreign Relief 
and Rehabilitation, V.'ashington , D 



d 



7'>7. ,<jJLC^^<y l,i 

(Chitf. Audit Smction) JbH 

changes, Int ra^egency tranifer* within an 



a/ 



The above tranacrlpt of service history does not include all salary changes, 

ertanliat ional unit net Involving chanjes from one official headquarters or duty station to another, and prosto- 

tloni or demotions, since Federal sger.cies are not required to report all such actions to the Connission. 



■ASHINSTON D C 



(Over) 



am 



DS 84-U3 

JANUAKY 1954 



2146 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY m THE UNITED STATES 



9-30-A3 



Separation by Transfer 



10-1-43 Aopointnient by Transfer 
(E. 0. 9380) 



Divisional Assistant, P-3> $3200 per annum, 
FOREIGN ECX)NO^aC ADKINISTRATION, Washington, 
D. C. 



2-23-44 Leave vdthout pay 

(Transferred to United Nations 
Relief and Rehabilitrition 
Administration, effective 
January 1, 1944, under War 
Service H^fe. IX, Section 4) 



Assistant Divisional Assistant, P-3, ?3200 
per annum. 



10-21-45 Transfer 

(E. 0. 9630) 

(On leave v/ithout pay from 

FEA. to U1>IRRA) 



Associate Divisional Assistant, P-3, $3200' 
per annvoa, STATE. Washington^ D.C, 



10-13-47 Separation - No return from 

War Transfer Leave vdthout pay 



Associate Divisional Assistant, P-3, 
$4149.60 per annum. 



Mr. SouRwiNE. These, Mr. Chairman, are several newspaper clip- 
pings in the New York Times dealing with the Leff case. They ex- 
plain the chronology of it quite fully. I would like to ask that they 
be ordered in the record at this point. 

Senator Johnston. These clippings shall be made a part of the 
record, also. 

(The clippings referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 373 and No. 
373, A through M" and read as follows :) 

[New York Herald Tribune, March 12, 1954] 
Exhibit No. 373 

Theeatexs Arrest for Contempt : Grand Jury Orders Unesco Man to Retubn 

From Paris 

A Federal grand jury began contempt proceedings yesterday against an Amer- 
ican employed in Paris by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul- 
tural Organization (UNESCO). 

The grand jury, in its first official action since it was formed a year ago to 
investigate alleged subversion among American employees of the U. N. ordered 
David Neal Leff, a Government employee since 1940 and attached to UNESCO 
since 1949, to appear before it in New York on March 25 or face arrest for 
contempt. 

The 35-year-old Leland Stanford University graduate, the jury charged, ignored 
a grand jury subpena issued May 15, 1953 ; refused to obey an order of Luther H. 
Evans, Director General of UNESCO, to return to America, and spurned a sub- 
pena of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, which is also investigating 
U. N. activities. 

Thomas J. Donegan, Special Assistant Attorney General, said that if Mr. LefC 
does not return by March 25 "to show cause why he should not be held in con- 
tempt," a warrant will be issued for his arrest. When the first subpena was 
served on him in Paris, he was offered free passage but refused to return. 

Mr. Leff, Mr. Donegan said, also refused a UNESCO order to be fingerprinted 
or to fill out a questionnaire furnished by the Organization pursuant to an Execu- 
tive order. The four-page questionnaire asked, among other things: "Are you 
now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party or any Communist 
or Fascist organization?" 

suspended, reinstated 

Mr. Left was suspended from his $5,000 a year tax-free job on May 22, a week 
after he refused to return to this country, but was reinstated July 29 when his 
appeal against the suspension was upheld by UNESCO's appeal board. He said 
at the time that he would be willing to testify but felt he would not be allowed 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2147 

to return to his Paris job if he went to New York. At that time the State Depart- 
ment lifted his passport and stamped it valid "only for return to the United 
States." 

Before he was employed in the UNESCO division of voluntary assistance, 
which solicits money from more prosperous member nations to be used for educa- 
tion projects in less favored countries, Mr. Leff worked for the Farm Security 
Administration and Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation. 

James B. Kilsheimer 3d, assistant United States attorney, said that in May 
1946, the People's World, which he described as "The west coast edition of the 
Daily Worker," reported a reception in Mr. Left's honor, sponsored by the Ameri- 
can Committee for Yugoslav Relief, an organization cited by the Attorney Gen- 
eral as "subversive." 

Mr. Donegan explained that the reason the grand jury had not acted sooner was 
that it "hoped UNESCO would order him back." He added : "When the matter 
became muddled in red tape, the grand jury decided to take action." 

In Paris, Dr. Evans said he would "strongly urge and counsel Mr. Leff to appear 
as cited, to respond to the citation to show cause and to present his side of the 
case." He said he had i-eceived no official information of the grand jury action. 
Mr. Donegan said a certified copy of the order was being sent to Dr. Evans 
through the State Department "for such further action as he sees fit." 

In a dispatch from Paris, Mr. Left' was quoted as saying : "As an international 
civil servant, I'm barred from talking about the matter on my own account." 

Exhibit No. 373-A 
[New York Times, March 12, 1954] 

Contempt Action Filed on U. N. Aide 
american in unesco refuses to return from paris for inquiry on subversion 

A contempt-of-court action for failure to testify before a Federal grand jury 
investigating subversive activities was instituted yesterday against an American 
employed by a United Nations agency in Paris. 

Federal Judge Henry W. Goddard signed an order for David N. Leff, a Re- 
habilitation Service information officer of the Ignited Nations Educational, Scien- 
tific, and Cultural Organization, to show cause on March 25 why he should not 
be cited for contempt. 

Mr. Leff, 35 years old. has refused to come here from Paris to be qupstioned 
by the grand jury or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, James B. 
Kilsheimer, 3d, assistant United States attorney, said. 

Thomas J. Donegan, special assistant to the Attorney General, who has been 
presenting evidence to the grand jury for a year, said this was the first time a 
Federal panel had taken action against a United States citizen working abroad 
for a specialized agency. 

The contempt proceeding resulted from Mr. Leff's "failing and refusing to 
appear before the Federal grand jury here in response to a subpena served upon 
him last May in Paris." 

Mr. Donegan said Mr. Leff's refusal to appear "is seriously hampering the 
gi'and jury's investigation into subversive activities." 

United States Attorney J. Edward Lumbard said that in 1053 Mr. Leff refused 
to submit to fingerprinting and refused to fill out a questionnaire furnished by the 
United Nations agency to United States citizens pursuant to an Executive order. 

The order said that United States citizens employed by the United Nations 
and its specialized agencies were required to furnish their fingerprints and to 
fill out a four-page questionnaire that asked, among other things, "Are you now 
or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any Communist or 
Fascist organization?" 

In Paris, Mr. Leff refused to comment on the contempt action, saying that 
UNESCO rules forbade staff members from making public statements without 
authorization from the agency's Director. 

The Director General, Luther Evans, of the United States, said, however, that 
he would "strongly urge and counsel Mr. Leff to comply and appear before the 
grand jury." 

Mr. Leff was suspended with pay by Dr. Evans, former Librarian of Congress, 
last May after he failed to appear before the grand jury in New York. Mr. Leff 
appealed, and the Appeals Board of the United Nations ordered his reinstate- 
ment in July. 



2148 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Last December, it was learned, Dr. Evans ordered Leff to comply with the sub- 
pena. It was uuderstood that the Director offered to transfer the United Nations' 
employee to New Yorli, but that ]Mr. LelT declined. Mr. Leff appealed this order. 

Last Monday the Appeals Board handed down a decision that said the Director 
General had no ri^ht to srive such an order, because as an international civil 
servant he could not substitute himself for the authorities of a particular 
government. 

In July, the State Department refused to renew Mr. Leff's passport, making 
has passport good only for his return to this country. As an international worker 
In Paris, Mr. Leff has a special French permit. 

It was said that Mr. Leff was reluctant to return to New York because of the 
fear that he would be unable to return to Paris. 

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee announced last April that it had 
been trying, without success, to get Mr. Leff to appear for questioning. 

The grand jury, Mr. Donegan said, had hoped that UNESCO oflScials would 
order Mr. Leff back. But in view of the Appeals Board's action and "red tape," 
the panel decided it was necessary to take the contempt action, he added. 

Should Mr. Leff fail to appear before the panel on March 25 a bench warrant 
for his arrest will be sought, Mr. Kilsheimer said. 

However, it appears that there is no legal way the grand jury can force Mr. 
Leff to return. During the Teapot Dome scandal, in the early 1920's, a witness 
fled to Europe, and, it was noted, United States authorities could not force his 
return. 

Pi'ior to Mr. Leff's employment with the United Nations, which started in 1949, 
he was employed by the following agencies: the Farm Security Administration, 
the Department of Agriculture, the State Department Oflaee of Foreign Relief and 
Rehabilitation, and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. 



Exhibit No. 373-B 

[New York Times, March 18, 1954] 

U. N. Aid Spurns Wkit 

UNITED STATES CITIZEN IN PARIS AGAIN DEFIES SUBVERSIVE INQUIRY 

Paris, March 17 (Reuters). — An American citizen wanted for questioning 
about subversive activities before a New York Federal grand jury was said today 
to have invoked his rights as a United Nations employee here to refuse a subpena. 

It is the second United States court order David Leff has declined. He is 
employed as an information officer by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, 
and Cultural Organization. 

Mr. Leff refused to accept the subpena, sent by registered mail, when a UNESCO 
official handed it to him. The Organization's Appeals Board ruled last Friday 
that the earlier order was "unjustified." 

On March 11 Federal Judge Henry W. Goddard signed an order here requiring 
Mr. Leff to show cause by March 25 why he should not testify. James B. Kils- 
hemier 3d, assistant United States attorney, said that if Mr. Leff did not appear 
by that date a bench warrant would be sought for his arrest. 



Exhibit No. 373-C 

[The New York Times, April 23, 1954, p. 8] 

Special to The New York Times. 

Paris, April 22. — David Leff, United States employee of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, has not revised his refusal 
to answer a subpena of the Federal court in New York. His position, it was 
learned today, has not been altered by the experience of Mrs. Rowena Rommell. 

Mr. Leff intends to await the verdict of the court on his petition for annulment 
of the subpena, which was heard in New York on Tuesday. 

His principal objection to appearing before a congressional committee investi- 
gating subversive activities has been that because he has no passport he has no 
assurance that he will be allowed to leave the States after testifying to rejoin 
his family here and resume his position M-ith UNESCO. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2149 

Exhibit No. 373-D 

[The New York Times, March 30, 1954, p, 9] 

Leff Decision Delated 

unesco nicad threatens firing if coukt rules against aid 

Special to The New York Times 

Paris, March 29. — Dr. Luther Evans, Director General of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Oi'ganization, announced today that he was 
withholding action in the case of David N. Leff, a staff member. An arrest 
warrant was issued against Mr. Leff last Thursday in Federal district court in 
New York. 

A bench warrant was issued by Judge Henry Goddard when Mr. Leff did not 
appear before him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for 
refusing to testify before a Federal grand jury investigating subversive activities. 

Mr. Leff has filed a motion to vacate the warrant on the ground that he had 
officially received the order only on the day it was returnable. 

Dr. Evans said that if the court refused Mr. Leff's motion to vacate the arrest 
warrant, he would order him to appear in court "under pain of immediate 
dismissal." 



Exhibit No. 373-E 
[Herald Tribune, March 13, 1954] 

UNESCO Board Backs Leff 

Paris, March 12 — The Director General of the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco) was unjustified in ordering an 
employee to return to the United States and testify on possible subversive 
activities, a Uuesoo appeals board held tonight. 

The employee is David N. Leff, an American citizen working in the Information 
Section of Unesco here. He has been cited for contempt because he failed to 
answer a subpena to appear before a Federal grand jury at New York. 

Mr. Leff was subpenaed last May but refused to return to New York. Director 
General Luther A. Evans, after repeated requests, finally ordered him to go to 
New York, but Mr. Leff appealed to the appeals board. 

The 5-man board, 2 of whom were appointed by Mr. Evans, is empowered by the 
organization's bylaws "to give an opinion" to the top executive on appeals arising 
out of administrative rulings. 

The board termed Mr. Evans' order "unjustified." 



Exhibit No. 373-F 

[New York Times, March 26, 1954] 

Bench Warrant Out for Leff, U. N. Aid 

A bench warrant was issued yesterday by Federal Judge Henry W. Goddard for. 
the arrest of David N. Leff, an American employed in Paris by the United Nations 
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Mr. Leff has refused to return 
here to appear before a grand jury investigating subversive activities. 

James B. Kilsheimer, third assistant United States attorney, said Mr. Leff, 
3.5-year-old Rehabilitation Service information ofiice, had been served by regis- 
tered mail with a court order calling for his appearance yesterday to show cause 
why he should not be punished for contempt. 

The grand jury wanted to question Mr. Leff because he failed to fill out a 
questionnaire as directed under an Executive order. The questionnaire asks, 
among other things, about Communist Party affiliations. 



2150 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Special to the New York Times 

Paris, March 25.— David N. LefE received news of a warrant for his arrest 
without comment tonight at his home in the suburbs. 

Earlier it was learned that Mr. I-eff had requested postponement of the date on 
which the show-cause order was returnable in court on the ground that he had 
not received valid notice of the order until today. 

In a letter to Unesco Director General Luther Evans, Mr. Leff said he had 
appealed an order issued to him Tuesday "to satisfy the requirements of tbp 
judicial authorities." 

Exhibit No. 373-G 

[New York Times, March 30, 1954] 

Leff Decision Delated 

unesco head threatens firing if court rules against aide 

( Special to the New York Times) 

Paris, March 29— Dr. Luther Evans, Director General of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, announced today that he 
was withholding action in the case of David N. Leff. a staff member. An arrest 
warrant was issued against Mr. Left last Thursday in Federal District Court in 
New York. 

A bench warrant was issued by Judge Henry Goddard when Mr. Leff did not 
appear before him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for 
refusing to testify before a Federal grand jury investigating subversive activi- 
ties. 

Mr. Leff has filed a motion to vacate the warrant on the ground that he had 
officially received the order only on the day it was returnable. 

Dr. Evans said that if the court refused Mr. Leff's motion to vacate the arrest 
warrant he would order him to appear in court "under pain of immediate dis- 
missal." 

Exhibit No. 373-H 

[Evening Star, March 11, 1954] 

U. N. Employe in Paris Faces Court Order in Subversive Probe 

(By the Associated Press) 

New York, IMarcb 11. — A contempt-of -court action was instituted here today 
against David N. Leff, 35, United Nations employe in Paris, for failing to appear 
before a grand jury investigating subversive activities. 

Mr. Leff, a United States citizen, is a U. N. information officer in Pans. A 
Federal court order was obtained requiring him to show cause why he should 
not be held in contempt. 

Thomas J. Donegan, Special Assistant Attorney General, said a subpena order- 
ing Mr. Leff to appear before the grand jury was served in Paris last May. 

hampering inquiry 

He said Mr. Leff failed to respond and that his refusal "is seriously hampering 
the grand jury's investigation into subversive activities." 

If Mr. Leff fails to answer the show cause order obtained today, it was said, a 
warrant for his arrest will be issued in Federal court. 

Assistant United States attorney James B. Kilsheimer III said Mr. Leff has 
been in Paris since 1949. Mr. Leff's position there has been an information officer 
of the Rehabilitation Service of the U. N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Organization. 

Officials said that in 1953 Mr. Leff refused to submit to being fingerprinted 
and refused to fill out a questionnaire furnished by UNESCO to United States 
citizen employees under an Executive order. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2151 

Under the Executive order, United States citizens employed by the U. N. 
are required to furnish fingerprints and fill out a questionnaire asking among 
other things : "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party or any Communist or Fascist organization?" 

KEFUSED TO RETURN 

Luther H. Evans, Director General of UNESCO, ordered Mr. LefE to return 
to this country to answer the grand jury subpena, giving him until last December 
17 to do so, but Mr. Leff refused to comply. 

Mr. LefE appealed Mr. Evans' directive to the UNESCO staff appeal board, 
and the directive since has been held in abeyance pending the appeal. 

Mr. Leff was suspended from his U. N. job after his refusal to come back and 
face the grand jury last year, but 2 months later was reinstated. 

The UNESCO Staff Association has demanded the suspension be lifted because) 
it said no proof of bad conduct on Mr. Leff's part had been established. 

In April last year. Senator Jenner, Republican, of Indiana, chairman of the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, reported that Mr. Leff had refused 
to come home for questioning by the subcommittee. 



Exhibit No. 3T3-I 
[New York Times, April 20, 1954] 

Special to the New York Times 

Paris. April 22. — David Leff. United States employee of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, has not revised his refusal 
to answer a subpena of the Federal court in New York. His position, it was 
learned today, has not been altered by the experience of Mrs. Rowena Rimmell. 

Mr. Leff intends to await the verdict of the court on his petition for annulment 
of the subpena, which was heard in New York on Tuesday. 

His principal objection to appearing before a congressional committee investi- 
gating subversive activities has been that because he has no passport he has no 
assurance that he will be allowed to leave the States after testifying to rejoin 
his family here and resume his position with UNESCO. 



Exhibit No. 373-J 
[New York Times, June 2, 1954] 

Red Jury Action Is Valid Abroad 

judge noonan holds unesco aid in paris is obliged to answer subpena here 

Federal Judge Gregory F. Noonan ruled yesterday that David N. Leff, an 
American citizen employed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
Cultural Organization, would have to return here from Paris and answer a 
grand jury subpena. 

Mr. Leff, an information ofl3cer with UNESCO in Paris, refused to return on 
the grounds that the subpena had not been served upon him within the territorial 
limits of the United States. The grand jury that subpenaed Mr. Leff was 
investigating subversive activities. 

Judge Noouan's ruling, believed to be the first of its kind in the United States, 
said that an American citizen served with a grand jury subpena overseas must 
return to this country and appear before that body. The law provides that the 
United States must pay his traveling expenses. 

Arnold Bauman, assistant United States attorney in charge of the criminal 
division, said the decision would greatly facilitate grand jury investigations into 
subversive and criminal activities of Americans abroad. Such persons now may 
not claim immunity from appearance before grand juries so long as they remain 
outside the United States. 

Mr. Leff, who has refused to comply with the subpena. now faces a contempt 
of court proceeding that was Instituted last March 11. 



2152 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Exhibit No. 373-K 

[New York Times, July 18, 1954] 

BaKS LOYiLLTY HEAKINQ 

DAVID LEFF, WHO BALKED HEKE, REJECTS INQUIRY IN PARIS 

Paris, July 17 — David Leff, American civilian employee of the United Nations 
who refused to appear before a New Yorli grand jury, has not accepted an invita- 
tion to appear before a visiting United States loyalty board, informed sources said 
today. 

Mr. Leff is employed by the United Nations Educational, Scientilic, and Cultural 
Organization. He was called back to the United States to appear before a grand 
jury but refused and was quoted as saying he would be happy to appear if he 
could be heard here. 

President Eisenhower's International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board 
has spent a week in Paris hearing those among the 14 doubtful cases at 
UNESCO who wish to appear. 

Now, according to Pierce J. Gerety, board president, it will stay on to hear 
Americans from agencies in Switzerland. The Swiss Government banned the 
board from holding hearings thei-e. 



Exhibit No. 373-L 

[New York Times, August 26, 1954] 

Appeal U. N. Oustee 

ROME official LAYS DISCHARGE TO STATE DEPARTMENT 

Geneva, Switzerland, August 25 — A former United States Government employee 
charged today he had been dismissed from his $10,000 a year job with the United 
Nations because of adverse comment about him in a letter from the United 
States State Department. 

Gordon Mclntyre was removed as section chief of the Rome headquarters 
of the Food and Agriculture Organization after 10 months of service. Today 
he appealed his dismissal before a special United Nations commission here, 
charging it had been engineered by the State Department. 

Mr. Mclntyre said he had been dismissed by his superior at only a week after 
he had been told he was being confirmed in his post. The official reason, he said, 
was "unsatisfactory service." 

He said he would demand that the alleged State Department letter be produced 
at a subsequent hearing. Both the State Department and the FAO thus far 
have refused to comment on Mclntyre allegations. 



(The summary of the case history of David Nea] Leff was marked 
"Exhibit No. 373-M," and reads as follov^s :) 

Exhibit No. 373-M 

David Neal Leff 

David Neal Leff was born September 3, 1918, at New York, N. Y. His parents 
were both born in Russia. 

Mr. Leff attended Far Roekaway High School, Queens, N. Y., from September 
1932 to June 1935 ; Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., from 1935 to 1939, and 
the University of California, Berkeley, Calif., from 1941 to 1942. 

During his adult life, Mr. Leff has been employed as a reporter, feature writer, 
and business manager in private enterprise. He has also been employed with 
the Federal Government in the following agencies : Farm Security Administra- 
tion, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of State. 

Mr. Leff was employed with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation 
Agency from 1944 to 1947. He was employed by the United Nations Educational, 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2153 

Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 1949 and his employment was terminated 
December 31, 1954. 

Executive Order 10422 forms were not received but an investigation of Mr. 
LefE was initiated on March 31, 1953. 

An interrogatory was issued to the employee in Paris, France, by the Inter- 
national Organizations Employees Loyalty Board on March 3, 1954, and was 
apparently delivered on March 9, 1954. When no reply was received, a follow-up 
letter was sent on April 15, 1954. That, too, was not answered. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 16, 1954, at Paris, France, but Mr. LefE did 
not appear. However, a letter was received by the Chairman of the International 
Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, dated July 13, 19-54, from Mr. LefE in 
which he stated he "must refrain from attendance" at the hearing as he considers 
that "any participation on my part in the investigation would be inconsistent 
with my status as an international official." 

An adverse advisory determination was made by the International Organiza- 
tions Employees Loyalty Board and was hand delivered by the Chairman of the 
Board to the Director General of UNESCO on July 23, 1954. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. Mr. Waldman, did the Board consider the case of 
Mrs. Kathryn Pankey ? 

Mr. Waldma>7. It did, sir. 

Mr. Soum\^NE. Mr. Chairman, reports of the investigation inthe 
case of Mrs. Kathryn Pankey contained information from various 
sources to the following effect : 

That during 1946 and 1949 she was employed by the Civil Rights Congress, 
which is an organization cited by the Attorney General of the United States as a 
Communist-controlled organization, and which is reliably reported to have 
employed only Communists or Communist sympathizers. 

That she was married to Aubrey Pankey, who has a lengthy record of Com- 
munist activities dating from 1944. (Aubrey Pankey was a member of the 
Communist Party in 1945 ; has been affiliated with a number of Communist-front 
organizations and activities, such as the National Negro Congress, the Lenin 
Memorial Meeting, the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Appeal, the Bronx County 
Committee Red Army Meeting, and the National Council of American-Soviet 
Friendishp. In addition, he has actively participated in Communist-sponsored 
rallies, parades, and demonstrations in France and in Soviet-controlled countries, 
and has contributed to the success of such enterprises by appearing as a guest 
artist.) 

That Kathryn Pankey is under her husband's domination. 

That in 1946 she registered as an affiliate of the American Labor Party and 
continued her registration with that party in New York for several years, in an 
area where the American Labor Party was under Communist domination and 
control, and at a time after it had been publicly stated that the American Labor 
Party was Communist-dominated. 

Mr. Waldman, did Mrs. Pankey refuse to testify before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. She refused to testify, and on August 31, 1954, an 
adverse determination was filed. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did she subsequently leave the employment of 
UNESCO? 

Mr. Waldman. She did. 

(The summary of the case history of Kathryn Pankey was marked 
"Exhibit No. 374," and reads as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 374 
Katheyn Pankey 

Mrs. Kathryn Pankey was born at Mobile, Ala. Her date of birth is unde- 
termined inasmuch as investigation reflected various dates of birth as follows : 
December IG, 1904, December 16, 1902, and February 16, 1902. 

Mrs. Pankey attended Maniemit School, Pawling, N. Y., in 1935 ; Bard College, 
Annandale-on-Hudson, N. Y., in 1935 and 1936; and Katherine Gibbs School, 
New York, N. Y., in 1921 and 1922. 

72723— 57— pt. 38 4 



2154 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

She married Robert L. Sieving at Yonkers, N. Y., on August IG, 1927, and ob- 
tained a divorce from liim on January 20, 1945, at Reno, Nev. She married 
Aubrey Panliey at New York, N. Y., on April 22, 1945. 

During her adult life she has been employed as secretary and publicity agent 
with various organizations in the New York City area. She has resided in the 
New York City area since 1943 with the exception of periods in 1947 and 1949 
when she accompanied her husband on concert tours abroad. She returned to 
Europe in early 1951 and has remained abroad since. 

Mrs. Pankey was employed at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization in Paris, France, about May 1952. Her employment 
was terminated on June 20, 1955. 

Mrs. Pankey failed to fill out the Executive Order 10422 forms on the grounds 
that she considered such a violation of her own personal rights and her rights 
as an international civil servant. However, appropriate investigation of her 
was initiated by the Department of State, on March 31. 19.53. 

An interrogatory was issued by the International Organizations Employees 
Loyalty Board to the employee on March 8, 1954, in care of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France ; and a foUowup 
letter was sent on April 15, 1954. No reply was received to either of these letters. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 13, 19.54, at Paris, France. Mrs. Pankey 
did not appear at the hearing. However, she did acknowledge receipt of the in- 
vitation to appear, by letter of July 9, 1954, in which she stated : "I am sure you 
are aware that from the outset of this investigation, in February 1953, I have re- 
frained from participation for reasons of principle * * *. Accordingly I wish 
to advise you that I am unable to accept your invitation to appear." 

An adverse advisory determination was made by the International Organiza- 
tions Employees Loyalty Board on August 31, 1954 and was forwarded to the 
Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. This 
determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 3, 1954. 

INIr. SouRwiNE. Did the Board consider the case of Miss Helene 
Jn.lie Van Gelder ? 

Mr. Waldman". Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, reports of the investigation in the 
case of Miss Helene Julie Van Gelder contained information from 
various sources to the following effect : 

That she was an active member of the Washington Bookshop, which has been 
designated as an organization under the domination and control of the Com- 
munist Party. 

That she claimed at one time to have been employed by the Daily Worker, 
an organ of the Communist Party in New York. 

That she was affiliated with a branch of a political party in 1946 which had 
been under the control and domination of the Communist Party since 1944 (Amer- 
ican Labor Party, New York County or Brooklyn branch). 

That she is a Communist sympathizer and apologist of the Soviet Union; 
that she attended language classes at the American-Russian Institute, an 
organization cited as subversive by the Attorney General. 

Did Miss Van Gelder refuse to appear before the Board ? 

Mr. Waldman. She refused to appear, although every facility was 
offered her, and on September 16, 1954, there was an adverse determina- 
tion. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did she subsequently cease to be employed bv 
UNESCO? i J J 

JNIr. Waldman. Yes ; she was terminated. 

(The summary of the case history of Helene Julie Van Gelder was 
marked "Exhibit No. 375," and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 375 

helene julie van gelder 

Miss Helene Julie Van Gelder was born November 9, 1907, at New York, N. Y. 
She attended Columbia University, New York, N. Y,, taking one night class during 
the years 1926-27. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2155 

Miss Van Gelder indicated the following employments on her identification 
and personnel data form : 

1926-Jiily 1927: F. Friedman Diamond Trading Co., New York, N. Y. 
Fall 1927-April 1930: National City Bank of New York, Brussels, Bel- 
gium. 

May 1930-June 1934 : Bank of International Settlements, Basel, Switzer- 
land. 

Three months in fall of 1934, a Scotsman importing dress lengths (vaguely 
recalls name as "McGregor"), Montevideo, Uruguay. 

1935-October 1936 : William Cooper & Nephews, Ltd., Montevideo, Uruguay. 
Few weeks at the end of 1936 : National City Bank of New York, Brussels, 
Belgium. 
End of 1936-October 1940 : American Embassy, Brussels, Belgium. 
End of 1940 to end of 1944: Belgian Embassy, New York, N. Y., and 
Washington, D. C. 

Beginning 1945-May 18, 1948: Agence France Presse, Washington, D. C, 
and New York, N. Y. 

July 1948-June 20, 19-55 : United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul- 
tural Organization, Paris, France, in a secretarial capacity. 
An interrogatory was issued to Miss Van Gelder by the International Organi- 
zations Employees Loyalty Board on February 8, 1954, and her reply thereto was 
received by the Board on March 10, 1954. 

A hearing was scheduled for July 22, 1954, at Paris, France. In a telephone 
conversation with a representative of the International Organizations Employees 
Loyalty Board on the morning of July 21, 1954, Miss Van Gelder advised that 
she did not intend to appear at the hearing. By letter of July 22, 1954, she con 
firmed her telephone call of July 21 that she did not intend to appear for a 
hearing, stating, "I feel that, having replied to the written questionnaire and 
interrogatory submitted to me, I have provided all the facts, information, and 
answers I know and that, consequently, with all the data already on record, 
there is nothing further I could add." 

An adverse advisory determination was made by the International Organiza- 
tions Employees Loyalty Board on September 16. 1954, and was forwarded to 
the Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. 
This determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 21, 
1954. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did the Board consider the case of Mrs. Irene 
Annette Wilcox ? 

Mr. "VValdman. It did, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, reports of the investigation in the 
case of Mrs. Irene Annette Wilcox contained information from vari- 
ous sources to the following effect : 

That prior to June 1942 for quite some time her residence in New York was 
a station for Communists entering and leaving the city. 

That one of those who resided in the house with the employee was an Italian 
national who was the chief of the Italian Communist underground in European 
countries and one of the indefatigable builders of the Communist Party in Italy. 

That the employee procured the release of this Communist when he was de- 
tained for illegal entry in the United States. 

That she was the one who put up the bond for him to get in here in the first 
place. 

That from 1940 through 1945 she worked as a research worker for a library 
owned by an alleged Communist Party member, most of whose employees were 
also Communist Party members. 

That as recently as 1944 she was a member of the Sacco-Vanzetti Club of the 
Communist Political Association in New York. 

That in 1940 she registered as an affiliate of the American Labor Party and 
continued in the section which was later described as under Communist domi- 
nation and control, and that she continued that registration for several years 
after its exposure as a Communist organization. 

That the man to whom she was married from June 1935 to May 1940 was 
registered as an affiliate of the Communist Party in 1936. 

That the man to whom she was married from February 1943 until April 1945 
was also a member of the Sacco-Vanzetti Club of the Communist Political Asso- 
ciation in New York, as recently as June of 1944, and had previously registered 
in Spain for the Communist Party. 



2156 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

That, since going to Paris, she has been closely associated with and is an 
influential member of a group of American citizens who are alleged to be 
Ck)mmuuists. 

Did Mrs. Irene Annette Wilcox refuse to appear before the Board? 
Mr. Waldman. She refused to appear, did not appear, and on Sep- 
tember 3, 1954, an advisory determination was filed. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Did she subsequently cease to be employed by 

UNESCO? 

Mr. Waldman. That is true. 

(The summary of the case history of Irene Annette Wilcox was 
marked "Exhibit No. 376," and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 376 

Irene Annette Wilcox 

Irene Annette Wilcox was born August 17, 1907, at Brooklyn, N. Y. She went 
to high school in Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1921 to 1922, and attended the Pratt In- 
stitute, School of Fine and Applied Arts, Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1925 to 1928. 

At the time of the investigation, the employee was single. However, former 
husbands were listed as Russell Englis Melcher, Stephen Britten Runyon, and 
Lee Simon, all deceased. 

During her adult life, Miss Wilcox has been employed as a copywriter with 
various firms in the New York City area. She has been employed as a program 
specialist with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organi- 
zation, such employment beginning January 1950. Her employment with 
UNESCO was terminated December 31, 1954. 

Executive Order 10422 forms were received by the Office of International 
Administration on February 20, 1953, and the appropriate investigation was 
initiated on that date. 

An interrogatory was issued by the International Organizations Employees 
Loyalty Board on February 15, 1954, and a follownp letter was sent to the 
employee on April 15, 1954. Miss Wilcox acknowledged receipt of the inter- 
rogatory and the Board's letter of April 15, 1954, by letter dated April 30, 1954, 
received by the Board on May 3, 1954. In the letter of April 30, 1954, Miss Wilcox 
advised that "I find it incompatible with my status as an international civil 
servant employed by UNESCO" to reply to the interrogatory. 

A hearing- was scheduled for July 16, 1954 .at Paris, France. Miss Wilcox, 
by letter dated July 14, 1954, acknowledged the Board's invitation to appear at 
the hearing and stated, "As you know, earlier this year I declined to reply 
to an interrogatory which you sent me. For the same reasons of conscience 
and principles, both as an American citizen and as an international civil servant, 
I must once again decline." 

An adverse advisory determination was made by the International Organiza- 
tions Employees Loyalty Board on September 3, 1954, and was forwarded to 
the Secretary of State for transmission to the Director General of UNESCO. 
This determination was forwarded by the Department of State on September 
8, 1954. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, all of these UNESCO j)eople who 
were dismissed following the receipt of advisories from the Board 
were subsequently ordered reinstated, or in the alternative, ordered to 
receive large payments of indemnity. 

Is that correct, Mr. Waldman ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is correct. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The reinstatement contains this statement, that a 
charge of disloyalty to one member government is not necessarily m- 
consistent with the standards of integrity required of employees of 
United Nations organizations. 

I have here the New York Times story with regard to the order, with 
the Geneva dateline. I ask that this go into the record at this point. 

Senator Johnston. It may become a part of the record. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2157 

(The New York Times article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 
377," and reads as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 377 

[New York Times, October 30, 1955] 

U. N. Court Bids UNESCO Reinstate Foue United States "Bisks" 

Special to the New York Times 

Geneva, October 29. — The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal or- 
dered the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization today 
to reinstate four Americans discharged for failure to cooperate with United 
States Loyalty Board investigations. 

Failing reinstatement, the tribunal ordered UNESCO to pay each former em- 
ployee 2 years' salary and the costs incurred in the legal proceedings leading up 
to today's decision. The indemnities totaled the equivalent of more than $30,000. 

The tribunal thus recognized that it had no power to enforce its reinstatement 
order. It does have the power, however, under the General Assembly resolution 
establishing the tribunal to force UNESCO to pay the indemnities. 

The persons involved were Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein, Mrs. Kathryn Pahkey, 
Miss Ruth Froma, and Miss Helene Van Gelder. All had refused to appear be- 
fore a United States loyalty board, which met in Paris to review the records of 
employees of international organizations against whom some derogatory infor- 
mation had been filed. 

In each case, the United States subsequently informed Dr. Luther H. Evans, 
Director General of UNESCO, that there was reasonable doubt as to the loyalty 
of the employee in question to the United States Government. 

On the basis of these reports, the Director General refused to renew the 
Bernstein appointment and discharged the three other employees. He based his 
action in the Bernstein case on his authority to use his discretion with respect 
to renewing fixed-term appointments. 

In the other cases, in which the appointments were of indeterminate dura- 
tion, he based it on the staff regulations of the organization. One section makes 
failure to "conduct themselves at all times in a manner benefiting their status 
as international civil servants" grounds for discharge. 

The tribunal found that the Director General himself had put the Bernstein 
case in the same category as the others by issuing a press release indicating that 
the grounds for nonrenewal were Mrs. Bernstein's refusal to appear before the 
loyalty board. The tribunal ruled that by giving the reasons for his action 
he in effect had waived the right to assert that it was merely to exercise his 
discretion. 

The four decisions constitute a thorough examination and complete rejection 
of the principle that "disloyalty" to one member government is necessarily in- 
consistent with the "standards of integrity" required of employees of United 
Nations organizations. 

EULINQ OF tribunal 

The tribunal found that both in the case of Mrs. Bernstein, who held an 
appointment that automatically ended on February 14, 1955, and in the three 
other cases the Director General of UNESCO had exceeded his powers. 

"The Director General cannot disassociate himself with the execution of the 
policy of the government authorities of any state member without disregarding 
the obligations imposed on all international oflScials without distinction and, 
in consequence, without misusing the authority which has been conferred upon 
him solely for the purpose of directing that organization toward the achieve- 
ment of its own, exclusively international, objectives," the tribunal said. 

The tribunal declared that the attitude of the employees toward the United 
States Loyalty Board "in no way justifies the existence of serious doubts as to 
[their] integrity, judgment, and loyalty toward the defendant organization." 

In the Bernstein case, tlie court went even further in this direction by 
ruling that even if the facts showed that an employee had been engaged in 
"militant political activities" prior to his joining an international organization, 
such facts were "irrelevant." Only "criminal or dishonorable acts" from an 
employee's past record should be considered, the tribunal said. 

In all four decisions, the tribunal included a paragraph noting that if a 
Director General were upheld in dismissing these American employees he would 
be obliged to consider the act a precedent. Then, the tribimal said, he would 



2158 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

have to apply the same rule to all employees and discharge any employee 
to whom a national government objected. 

The indemnities amount to about $7,400 in the case of INIrs. B3rnstein. about 
$6,400 to Miss Van Gelder, $10,800 to Miss Froma, and $1,600 to Mrs. Pankey. 
In each case, the court awarded $300 in costs and 4 percent interest on the in- 
demnities from June 20, 1955. 

The members of the court were Albert Deveze, of Belgium, president ; Jonkheer 
van Rijckevorsel and lasson Stavrophlous. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The decision, Mr. Chairman, contained this state- 
ment : 

Loyalty toward a state is entirely different from the idea of integrity of the 
body of tiie staff regulations and rules of UNESCO. 

I will ask you, Mr. Waldman — yon heard the testimony of the pre- 
vious witness with regard to nationals of other countries holding the 
interests of their countries very close to their hearts — you did hear 
that testimony ? 

JNIr. Waldman. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you feel there is anything incompatible with 
service on an international organization, as an employee of an inter- 
national organization, with being loyal to the Governnient of the 
United States or the government of the country of which the em- 
ployee is a national ? 

Mr. Waldman. I can be loyal to the United States and be a good 
international civil servant. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That is the whole basis of the program that is the 
justification of the Executive order under which this program is 
operated, is it not? 

Mr. Waldman. That is right. 

But as I see it, it is the desire of the United States to make as 
certain as possible that its citizens are loyal. And I think that there 
is a side of this program which perhaps has been overlooked, at least 
not emphasized. And that is, it is a good thing to know that, out 
of the thousands of people who work there, that the vast majority 
of them could stand up to a loyalty or security check and come, 
through it all right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I have here the texts of the orders of 
the International Labor Organization administrative tribunal which 
ordered the payment of large sums to the individuals in question. I 
would like to ask that these'decisions be printed in the record at this 
point. 

We are a little late, but I think ^Ae are making here the first and 
probably the only complete chronological record in this case, and it 
would be well if they were ordered in there. 

Senator Johnston. This will be ordered in the record. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE WSTITED STATES 2159 

The decisions referred to vrere marked "Exhibits Nos. 378" and 
378-x\. through F, and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 378 
[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tkibtjnai. 

Judgment No. 21 

FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION (PART II), OCTOBER 1955 

Sitting Of 29 October 1955 

In the Matter of Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein Against United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation on 28 June 1955 by Mrs. 
Kathr.vn Bernstein, a former official of that Organisation, aslving that the 
Tribunal be pleased to rescind the decision of 18 February 1955 and to enjoin the 
Director General to renew her contract for an indefinite period, or in default of 
reinstatement to pay to the complainant by way of damages a global sum equiva- 
lent to three years gross salary, namely, 4,665,000 French francs, together with 
interest at 4 per centum from the date of termination until payment of the said 
damages. 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by the 
defendant Organization on 22 July 1955 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name on 3 October 
1955 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the Staff Association of UNESCO ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) The complainant took up her duties with the defendant Organization in 
August 1951 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken the complainant 
was the holder of a contract of one year's duration expiring on 14 February 1955 ; 

(3) In February 1953 the complainant received from the representative of the 
United States to the defendant Organisation a questionnaire to be completed and 
returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10,422 of the President of the 
United States dated 9 January 1953 prescribing procedures for making available 
to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information concerning 
United States citizens employed or being considered for employment on the Sec- 
retariat of the United Nations," whose provisions apply to the defendant Organi- 
sation by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the complainant answered 
this questionnaire ; 

(4) In March 1954 the complainant received an interrogatory from the Inter- 
national Organisations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission set up by Executive Order No. 10,459 of 2 June 1953 amend- 
ing Executive Order No. 10,422 of 9 January 1953, interrogatory to which the 
complainant did not, however, reply ; 

(5) In June 1954 the complainant received an invitation to appear as from 
9 July 1954 before the Loyalty Board meeting at the United States Embassy 
in Paris ; 

(6) By letter dated 13 July 1954 the complainant informed the Director 
General of the reasons of conscience on which she based her refusal to appear ; 

(7) By letter dated 13 August 1954 the Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and 
Management recalled to the complainant that her appointment would expire on 
14 February 1955 and informed her that she would not be offered a new contract. 
By letter dated 30 August 1954 the Director General confirmed the above, stating 
inter alia: 

"* * * In the light of what I believe to be your duty to the Organization, I have 
considered very carefully your reasons for not appearing before the International 



2160 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Employees Loyalty Board where you woiild have had an opportunity of dispelling 
suspicions and disproving allegations which may exist regarding you. 

"It is with a deep sense of my responsibilities that I have come to the conclusion 
that I cannot accept your conduct as being consistent with the high standards of 
integrity which are required of those employed by the Organization. 

"I have, therefore, to my regret, to inform you that I shall not offer you a 
further appointment when your present appointment expires * * *." 

(8) By letter dated 31 August 1954 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision ; 

(9) The Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and Management informed the 
complainant in a letter dated 7 September 1954 of the Director General's refusal 
to do so ; 

(10) By a letter of 10 September 1954 the Director General received a com- 
munication of the report of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination), in 
which it was stated : 

"It has been determined on all the evidence, that there is a reasonable doubt 
as to the loyalty of Kathryn Bernstein to the Government of the United States" 
and that "this determination, together with the reasons therefor, in as much 
detail as security considerations permit, are submitted for your use in exercising 
your rights and duties with respect to the integrity of the personnel employed by 
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization" ; 

(11) On 23 September 1954 the complainant submitted an appeal to the 
UNESCO Appeals Board asking that the above-mentioned decision should be 
rescinded. 

(12) On 11 February 1955 the Appeals Board by a majority expressed the 
opinion that the decision should be rescinded. 

(13) By a letter dated 18 February 1955 the Director General of UNESCO 
informed the Chairman of the Appeals Board that he could not act in accord- 
ance with this opinion. 

(14) The complainant having been transferred to hospital on 11 February 
1955 consequently could not take cognizance of the foregoing decision until 
leaving hospital on 28 March 1955 ; 

(15) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision the Director General, on 
28 September 1954, set up a Special Advisory Board consisting of members of 
the staff whose task was to "to examine the cases of certain staff members on the 
basis of certain information which has been brought to the knowledge of the 
Director General and in the light of the standards of employment and conduct 
prescribed by the Constitution and Staff Regulations" ; 

(16) By reason of her ill health the complainant was not questioned by the 
Advisory Board at a sitting, but by the Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and 
Management ; 

(17) On 10 December 1954 the complainant was placed on special leave. The 
complainant having brought a further appeal against this decision before the 
UNESCO Appeals Board, the said Appeals Board on 8 June 1955 stated the 
opinion that the said decision should be withdrawn, the Director General on 
24 June 1954 rejected this advice. The complainant notified the Tribunal that 
in view of her termination she did not intend to formally appeal to the Tribunal 
against this second final decision, but she requested that this factor be taken 
into consideration as an issue of moral prejudice ; 

On receiv ability : 

Considering that whereas the complaint was not submitted within the period 
of time of 90 days provided in the Regulations running from the date on which 
the decision impugned was taken (18 February 1955), such was due to the 
transfer of the complainant to hospital on 11 February 1955 ; 

That whereas the complainant could only take cognizance of this decision at 
the conclusion of her hospitalization, namely, 28 March 1955, she brought her 
complaint in due form within ninety days from that date ; 

Considering furthermore that the defendant Organization does not take issue 
against these facts and does not plead nonreceivability following the late notifi- 
cation of the complaint ; 

Considering that the delay is clearly due to vis major and that, besides, the 
complainant fulfilled the requirements of the ninety-day period from the time 
that it was physically possible for her to introduce an appeal ; 

That under these circumstances the complaint must therefore be considered 
as receivable. 

On competence: 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2161 

Considering that tlie character of a fixed-term appointment is in no way that 
of a probationary appointment, that is to say of a trial appointment ; 

That while it is the case that UNESCO Staff Rule 104.6 issued in application 
of the Staff Regulations stipulates that : "A fixed-term appointment shall expire, 
without notice or indemnity, upon completion of the fixed term * * *", this text 
only deals with the duration of the appointment and in no way bars the Tribunal 
from being seized of a complaint requesting the examination of the validity of 
the positive or negative decision taken regarding the renewal of the said 
appointment ; 

That it is established in the case that the Director General by a general meas- 
ure, of which the whole staff was informed on 6 July 1954, indicated that staff 
in the general service category who had given satisfactory service and whose 
services were required would receive an indefinite appointment unless otherwise 
provided in their terms of appointment. 

That the complainant, having been made the object of an exception to this 
general measure, holds that the Director General could not legitimately thus 
make an exception of her on the sole ground which he invoked against her as 
justification for the view that she did not possess the quality of integrity recog- 
nised in those of her colleagues whose contracts had been renewed, and in the 
absence of any contestation of her qualities of competence and efliciency ; 

That the complainant requests that this decision be rescinded and, alterna- 
tively, that an indemnity be granted : 

Considering that the question is thus a dispute concerning the interpretation 
and application of the Staff Regulations and Rules of the defendant Organisa- 
tion ; 

That by virtue of Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute, and in accordance 
with the precedents established by the Tribunal in Judgments Nos. 17, 18, and 
19 dated 26 April 1955, the Tribunal is competent to hear the said dispute; 

On the substance : 

Considering that the facts in the case are similar the Tribunal considers 
itself bound to follow the precedents established in the above-mentioned Judg- 
ments Nos. 17, 18, and 19 : 

A. Considering that the defendant Organisation holds that the renewal or 
the nonrenewal of a fixed-term appointment depends entirely on the personal 
and sovereign discretion of the Director General who is not even required to give 
his reason therefor ; 

Considering that if this were to be so, any unmotivated decision would not be 
subject to the general legal review which is vested in the Tribunal, and would 
be liable to become arbitrary ; 

Considering that, in fact, it may be conceived that this might exceptionally 
be the case when, for example, it is a matter of assessing the technical suitability 
of the person concerned for carrying out his duties : 

Considering, however, that in this matter the question does not affect the 
issue inasmuch as the Director General has not only given the reason for the 
decision taken by him but has also made it public in a communique issued to the 
press ; 

That this reason is based solely on the refusal of the complainant to cooperate 
in the measures of investigation provided in respect of certain of its nationals 
by the Government of the State of which she is a citizen, and in particular on her 
refusal to appear before a commission invested by that Government with the 
power to investigate her loyalty to that State ; 

That the Director General declares that he concludes from this that he can 
no longer retain his confidence in the complainant and offer her a new appoint- 
ment, her attitude being incompatible with the high standards of integrity 
required of those who are employed by the Organisation and being, further- 
more, capable of harming the interests of the Organisation ; 

Considering in relation hereto that it is necessary expressly to reject all un- 
certainty and confusion as to the meaning of the expression '"loyalty towards a 
State" which is entirely different from the idea of "integrity" as embodied in the 
Staff Regulations and Rules ; and that this is evident and requires no further 
proof ; 

B. Considering that if the Director General is granted authority not to renew 
a fixed-term appointment and so to do without notice or indemnity, this is clearly 
subject to the implied condition that this authority must be exercised only for 
the good of the service and in the interest of the Organisation ; 

Considering that it is in the light of this principle that the facts in this case 
should be examined ; 



2162 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Considering that Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations of the defendant Organ- 
isation, as it stood at the moment when the complainant was notified that her 
appointment would not be renewed, was as follows : 

"Members of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner 
consonant with the good repute and high purposes of the Organization and their 
.status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in any activity 
that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties. They shall avoid 
any action, and in particular any kind of public pronouncement, which would 
adversely reflect upon their status. While they are not expected to give up 
religious or political convictions or national sentiment, they shall at all times 
exercise the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their inter- 
national responsibilities." 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of conscience 
recognised to international officials in respect of both their philosophical con- 
victions and their political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the duty 
to abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them with 
propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever : 

Tliat this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organisation to which they owe their loyalty and devotion ; 

C. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of tlie defendant 
Organization on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff to reply to 
questionnaires is.sued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
(luences which the refusal to reply might have for him. 

Considering; however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board, it is established that the complainant simply informed the Direc- 
tor General after the date on which she had been called on to appear, of her 
decision not to appear ; 

Considering that it is desirable to determine whether the attitude adopted by 
the complainant in this respect may be considered as .iustifying the loss of 
confidence alleged by the Director General ; 

D. Considering that it is undoubtedly true that if the Director General has 
been informed that a member of his staff has acted in a manner prohibited by 
Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations, the Director General has a duty to check 
the accuracy of such information either himself or through persons appointed 
by him from within his Organisation, in order that he may take decisions or 
even sanctions, if necessary, in the full knowledge of the facts : 

That in this light the enquiry procedure within the Secretariat to which 
the Director General resorted in the present case in full exercise of his authority 
can in no sense be subject to criticism ; that it is in accordance with the 
undertaking made with the State Member concerned under arrangements ap- 
proved by the Executive Board and General Conference of the defendant 
Organization ; that this was solely an undertaking that any information which 
the Government of the State concerned might desire to submit to the Director 
General would "be studied with care" and that he would "certainly give every 
consideration to it, in the light of the Constitution of UNESCO and all other 
relevant provisions and policies which may have been or may be laid down by 
the appropriate organs of UNESCO" ; 

Considering that it is quite different when the ground for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the official to participate 
in measures of verbal or written enquiry to which his national Government 
considers it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international organization cannot associate 
himself with the execution of the policy of the government authorities of any 
State Member without disregarding the obligations imposed on all international 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has been conferred on him solely for the purpose of directing that organi- 
zation toward the achievement of its own, exclusively international, objectives; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, para- 
graph 5, of the Constitution of the defendant Organization, in the following 
terms : 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be ex- 
clusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties they 
shall not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any 
authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action 
which might prejudice their position as international officials. Each State 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNTITED STATES 2163 

Member of the Oi'ganization undertakes to respect the international character 
of the responsibilities of the Director General and the staff, and not to seek 
to influence them in the discharge of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the matter involved is an accusa- 
tion of disloyalty brought by a Government v/hich enjoys in all respects the 
highest prestige, must be without any influence upon the consideration of the 
facts in the case and the determination of the principles whose respect the 
Tribunal must ensure ; 

That it will suffice to realize that if any one of the seventy-four States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organization brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to an 
enquiry in similar or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Director 
General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to 
such enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory conse- 
quences, the same withdrawal of confidence, on the basis of any opposal by 
the person concerned to the action of his national Government ; 

That if this were to be the case there would result from all international 
officials, in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and insecurity 
prejudicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provoke disturbances 
in the international administration such as cannot be imagined to have been 
in the intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant 
Organisation ; 

Considering therefore that the only ground for complaint adduced by the 
Director General to justify the application to the complainant of an exception 
to the general rule of renewal of appointments, that is to say her opposal to the 
investigations of her own Government, is entirely unjustified ; 

Considering that it is in vain that it is alleged that the terms of renewal set 
forth in the Director General's circular of July 6, 1954, provide that the services 
of the person concerned must be needed ; that this expression cannot mean that 
the person concerned must be irreplaceable, in that no successor can be found ; 
that it means only that the requirements of the service to which the person con- 
cerned is assigned must be permanent and that the said person must give full 
satisfaction therein and otherwise in all manner in the performance of his or 
her duties ; that on this last point the appreciations contained in the annual 
reports of the complainant are entirely laudatory : 

Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be rescinded, 
but that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order the renewal 
of a fixed-term appointment, which requires a positive act of the Director 
General over whom the Tribunal has no hierarchical authority ; 

That in the absence of such a power and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the 
Tribunal is nonetheless competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
suffered by the complainant by reason of the discriminatory treatment of which 
she was the object ; 

F. Considering that it results from the documents produced by the parties 
during the hearing that the enquiry made by order of the Director General 
himself within the defendant Organisation, the legitimate and regular character 
of which has been shown above, did not bring any evidence to show that the 
complainant failed in her duties, as defined in Article 1.4 of the Regulations, 
during the period that she was an official of the defendant Organisation ; 

That this Special Board considered that it could find no evidence either in 
the reports of the Loyalty Board or as a result of its own enquiries that the 
complainant, during her employment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organi- 
sation, had engaged in or was engaging in activities that could be shown to 
constitute misconduct under the terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules; 

Considering that it is irrelevant to seek whether or not the complainant was 
engaged in militant political activities before being appointed to the interna- 
tional service and at a time when she was not hound by the obligations involved 
in joining this service, unless it has been proved that she had been guilty 
of dishonourable or criminal acts (actes deshonorants on criminels) ; 

That any accusation of this nature could only be admitted if drawn up both in 
due form and with all the precision required to ensure respect for the right of the 
accused person to defend herself, 

That it is not so in this case ; 

Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the complaint 
toward the Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious doubts as to 
her integrity, judgment, and loyalty towards the defendant Organisation ; 



2164 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

That it does not therefore appear that the complainant placed her own interests 
above the true interest of the Organisation, which interest consists above all in 
safeguarding erya omnes its independence and impartialitj' ; 
On prejudice 

Considering that an official who combines all the necessary qualities has a 
legitimate expectancy of being offered a new appointment in the position which 
he or she occupied, and that this expectancy was fulfilled for all the persons 
concerned, with the exception of a certain number, of whom the complainant; 

That not only is such an almost absolute quod plerumque fit but also that in 
thus acting the Administration of the defendant Organisation has as its objective 
to create a permanent body of officials experienced in their duties, who are 
destined to follow a career in the Organisation concerned ; 

That the decision not to renew the appointment is one which should not only be 
rescinded in the present case, but also constitutes a wrongful exercise of powers 
and in abuse of rights which consequently involves the obligation to make good 
the prejudice resulting therefrom; that this prejudice was aggravated by the 
publicity given to the withdrawal of confidence as being due to lack of integrity, 
this ground having been given in a press communique issued by the defendant 
Organisation, without it being possible seriously to maintain the view that there 
could have existed the slightest doubt as to the identity of the persons to which 
the said communique referred ; 

Considering that it is to no purpose that they have been reproached with 
having communicated the measures of which they were the object of the Staff 
Association recognised by the defendant Organisation, as the upshot of a pro- 
cedure to which the said Association was a party with the knowledge and consent 
of the Director-General himself ; 

Considering that should the defendant Organisation not rescind the decision 
taken, there should be ordered the payment of damages in order to compensate 
the complainant for material and moral prejudice caused to her by the exception 
of which she was the object ; 

That in evaluating such prejudice account may not be taken, as the complainant 
requests, of her placing on special leave with salary on 10 December 1954, the 
Director General having the right within his powers to take such a measure, and 
which may not be considered in the circiimstances as having inci'eased the 
prejudice suffered ; 

That the state of health of the complainant may also not be taken into con- 
sideration since it is not possible for the Tribunal to determine in what measure 
her state of health, which was previously delicate, may have been aggravated by 
the measures taken against her, and since in any case she is at present enjoying 
the entitlements of the Sickness Fund and continues to have the right to an 
eventual invalidity benefit ; 

On the grounds as aforesaid 

The tribunal. 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions. 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form ; 

Declares that it is competent ; 

Orders the decision taken to be rescinded and declares in law that it consti- 
tutes an abuse of rights causing pi'ejudice to the complainant ; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
renew the complainant's appointment, orders the said defendant to pay to the 
complainant a sum equal to two years' net salary, excluding nonresident's allow- 
ance, that is to say 2,600,000 French francs, together with interest at 4 per 
centum from 15 February 1955 ; 

Orders the defendant Organisation to pay to the complainant the sum of $300 
by way of participation in the costs of her defence ; 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet ; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by M. 
Henquet in his own name ; 

That in this instance the fact that the intei'vener holds an indeterminate 
appointment and not a fixed-term appointment does not prevent the present 
dispute from bearing on principles applicable to the legal position of the whole 
staff; 

Considering that the intervener is however entitled to bring into issue solely 
his own interest in the case ; 

Considering that the intervention is founded only in so far as recognized by 
this judgment ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2165 

Orders the defendant Organisation to bear the expenses for which justification 
is provided by the intervener up to a maximum of $40. 

In witnesses of which judgment, pronounced at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, 
in public sitting on 29 October 1955, by his Excellency M. Albert Deveze, President 
Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judge, Acting Vice President, and M. lasson Stavro- 
poulos, Deputv Judge called upon to sit owing to the inability of a titular judge 
to attend, the' aforementioned have hereunto subscribed their signatures as well 
as myself, Wolf, Registrar of the Tribunal. 

Albert Deveze. 

A van Rijckevorsel. 

Iasson Stavropoulos. 

Francis Wolf. 



Exhibit No. 378-A 

[Unofficial translation] 

International Labour Organisation 

Administrative Tribunal 

Judgment No. 17 

ORDINARY session OF APRIL 1955 

Sitting of 26 April 1955 

In the Matter of Mr. Pkter Duberg Against United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organisation 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 5 February 1955 by Mr. 
Peter Duberg, an official of that Organisation, asking that the Tribunal be 
pleased to rescind the decision taken by the Director General on 13 August 1954 
and to enjoin the Director General to renew the contract of the complainant and 
to pay him the sum of one franc in respect of damages and legal costs ; 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by 
the defendant Organisation on 19 March 1955 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name of 20 April 
1955 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the Staff Association of UNESCO ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing and in particular the statement by the complainant that his 
alternative claim for damages would amount to the sum of $67,300 ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) The complainant took up his duties with the defendant Organisation on 
2 June 1949 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken, the complainant 
was the holder of a fixed-term contract of one year's duration expiring on 31 
December 1954 ; 

(3) In February 1953 the complainant received from the representative of 
the United States to the defendant Organisation a questionnaire to be completed 
and returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10,422 of the President of 
the United States dated 9 January 19.53 prescribing procedures for making 
available to the Secretary-General of the United Nations certain information 
concerning United States citizens employed or being considered for employment 
on the Secretariat of the United Nations," whose provisions apply to the de- 
fendant Organisation by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the com- 
plainant did not answer this questionnaire ; 

(4) In February 1954, the complainant received an interrogatory from the 
International Organisations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission set up by Executive Order No. 10,459 of 2 June 1953, 
amending Executive Order No. 10,422 of 9 January 1953, interrogatory to which 
the complainant also did not reply ; 

(5) In June 1954, the complainant received an invitation, dated 18 June, to 
appear on 15 July before the Loyalty Board meeting at the United States 
Embassy in Paris ; 



2166 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(6) By letter dated 13 July 1954, the complainant informed the Director 
General of the i-easons of conscience on which he based his refusal to appear ; 

(7) By letter dated 13 August 1954, the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that he would not offer him a new contract on the expiry of the 
contract at that time in force. This letter stated, inter alia : 

"* * * In the light of what I believe to be your duty to the Organisation, I 
have considered very carefully your reasons for not appearing before the Interna- 
tional Employees Loyalty Board where you would have had an opportunity of 
dispelling suspicions and disproving allegations which may exist regarding you. 

"It is with a deep sense of my responsibilities that I have come to the conclu- 
sion that I cannot accept your conduct as being consistent with the high standards 
of integrity which are required of those employed by the Organization. 

"I have, therefore, to my regret, to inform you that I shall not offer you a 
further appointment when your present appointment expires * * *" ; 

(8) By a letter dated 23 August 1954, the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision ; 

(9) The Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and Management informed the com- 
plainant in a letter dated 30 August 1954 of the Director General's refusal 
to do so ; 

(10) By a letter of 10 September 1954, the Director General received com- 
munication of the report of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination) in 
which it was stated that "it has been determined on all the evidence that there 
is a reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of Norwood Peter Duberg to the Govern- 
ment of the United States" and that "this determination, together with the rea- 
sons therefor, in as much detail as security considerations permit, are submitted 
for your use in exercising your rights and duties with respect to the integrity 
of the personnel employed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
Cultural Organization" ; 

(11) The complainant was himself informed of the conclusions of the Loyalty 
Board by letter of the Chairman of the Loyalty Board dated 10 September 1954 
and was also informed of the fact that the report of the Loyalty Board had 
been transmitted to the Director General of the defendant Organization ; 

(12) On 23 September 1954 the complainant submitted an appeal to the 
UNESCO Appeals Board asking that the above-mentioned decision should be 
rescinded ; 

(13) On 2 November 1954 the Appeals Board, by a majority opinion, expressed 
the opinion that the decision should be rescinded ; 

(14) By a letter dated 25 November 1954, the Director General informed the 
Chairman of the Appeals Board that he could not act in accordance with this 
opinion ; 

(15) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision, the Director General 
on 28 September 1954 set up a Special Advisory Board consisting of members 
of the staff, whose task was to "examine the cases of certain staff members on 
the basis of certain information which has been brought to the knowledge of 
the Director General and in the light of the standards of employment and conduct 
prescribed by the Constitution and Staff Regulations"; 

(16) The complainant appeared and explained his position before this Special 
Advisory Board. However, in a letter to the Director General dated 4 October 
1954, he expressed certain reservations to the procedure followed and asked for 
any measures affecting him which might result from this procedure to be 
cancelled ; 

(17) By a letter dated 11 October 1954, the Chief of the Bureau of Personnel 
and Management informed the complainant of the rejection of this request ; 

On competence : 

Considering that the character of a fixed-term appointment is in no way that 
of a probationary appointment, that is to say, of a trial appointment ; 

That while it is the case that UNESCO Staff Rule 104.6, issued in application 
of the Staff Regulations, stipulates that "A fixed-term appointment shall expire, 
without notice or indemnity, upon completion of the fixed term * * *", this next 
only deals with the duration of the appointment and in no way bars the Tribunal 
from being seized of a complaint requesting the examination of the validity of 
the positive or negative decision taken i-egarding the renewal of the said appoint- 
ment ; 

That it is established in the case that the Director General, by a general meas- 
ure of which the whole staff was informed on 6 July 1954, "decided that all 
professional staff members whose contracts expire between now and 30 June 
1955 (inclusive) and who have achieved the required standards of efliciency, 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2167 

competence, and integrity, and whose services are needed, will be offered one-year 
renewals of their appointments" ; 

That the complainant, having been made the object of an exception to this 
general measure, holds that the Director General could not legitimately thus 
make an exception of him on the sole ground which he invoked against him as 
justification for the view that he did not possess the quality of integrity recog- 
nised in those of his colleagues whose contracts had been renewed and in the 
absence of any contestation of his qualities of competence and eflaciency ; 

That the complainant requests that this decision be rescinded and, alterna- 
tively, that an indemnity be granted ; 

Considering that the question is thus a dispute concerning the interpretation 
and application of the Staff Reg"ulations and Rules of the defendant Organisa- 
tion; 

That by virtue of Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Ti-ibunal is 
competent to hear the said dispute ; 

On the substance : 

A. Considering that the defendant Organisation holds that the renewal or the 
nonrenewal of a fixed-term appointment depends entirely on the personal and 
sovereign discretion of the Director General who is not even required to give 
his reason therefor ; 

Considering that if this were to be so, any unmotivated decision would not be 
subject to the general legal review which is vested in the Tribunal, and would be 
liable to become arbitrary ; 

Considering that, in fact, it may be conceived that this might exceptionally 
be the case when, for example, it is a matter of assessing the technical suit- 
ability of the person concerned for carrying out his duties ; 

Considering, however, that in this matter the question does not affect the issue 
inasmuch as the Director General has not only given the reason for the decision 
taken by him but has also made it public in a communique issued to the press ; 

That this reason is based solely on the refusal of the complainant to cooperate 
in the measures of investigation provided in respect of certain of its nationals by 
the Government of the State of which he is a citizen, and in particular on his 
refusal to appear before a commission invested by that Government with the 
power to investigate his loyalty to that State ; 

That the Director General declares that he concludes from this that he can 
no longer retain his confidence in the complainant and offer him a new appoint- 
ment, his attitude being incompatible with the high standards of integrity re- 
quired of those who are employed by the Organisation and being, furthermore, 
capable of harming the interests of the Organisation ; 

Considering in relation hereto that it is necessary expressly to reject all un- 
certainty and confusion as to the meaning of the expression "loyalty towards a 
State" which is entirely different from the idea of "integrity" as embodied in the 
Staff Regulations and Rules ; and that tliis is evident and requires no further 
proof ; 

B. Considering that if the Director General is granted authority not to renew 
a fixed-term appointment and so to do without notice or indemnity,' this is clearly 
subject to the implied condition that this authority must ))e exercised only for 
the good of the service and in the interest of the Organisation; 

Considering that it is in the light of this principle that the facts in this case 
should he examined ; 

Considering that Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations of the defendant Organi- 
sation, as it stood at the moment when the decision complained of was taken, 
was as follows : 

"Members of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner 
consonant with the good repute and high purposes of the Organisation and their 
status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in any activity 
that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties. They shall avoid 
any action, and in particular any kind of public pronouncement, which would 
adversely reflect upon their status. While they are not expected to give up 
religious or political convictions or national sentiments, they shall at all times 
exercise the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their interna- 
tional responsibilities." 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of conscience 
recognised to international officials in respect of both their philosophical convic- 
tions and their political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the duty to 
abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them with 
propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever ; 



2168 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

That this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organisation to which they owe their loyalty and devotion; 

O. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of the defendant 
Organisation on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff to reply to 
questionnaires issued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
quences which the refusal to reply might have for him ; 

Considering, however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board, it is established that the complainant approached the Director 
General only at a late date, so that the latter would not have been able to give 
him advice in sufficient time ; 

Considering that it is desirable to determine whether the attitude adopted by 
the complainant in this respect may be considered as justifying the loss of confi- 
dence alleged by the Director General ; 

D. Considering that it is undoubtedly true that if the Director General has 
been informed that a member of his staff has acted in a manner prohibited by 
Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations, the Director General has a duty to check 
the accuracy of such information either himself or through persons appointed 
by him from within his Organisation, in order that he may take decisions or 
even sanctions, if necessary, in the full knowledge of the facts ; 

That in this light the enquiry procedure within the Secretariat to which the 
Director General resorted in the present case in full exercise of his authority 
can in no sense be subject to (Criticism ; that it is in accordance with the under- 
taking made with the State Member concerned under arrangements approved 
by the Executive Board and General Conference of the defendant Organisation; 
that this was solely an undertaking that any information which the Government 
of the State concerned might desire to submit to the Director General would 
"be studied with care" and that he would "certainly give every consideration 
to it, in the light of the Constitution of UNESCO and all other relevant provi- 
sions and policies which may have been or may be laid down by the appropriate 
organs of UNESCO" ; 

That the objection raised in this regard liy the complainant is totally 
unfounded ; 

E. Considering that it is quite different when the ground for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the official to participate in 
measures of verbal or written enquiry to which liis national government con- 
siders it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international orizanisation cannot associate 
himself with the execution of the policy of the government authorities of any 
State Member without disregarding the obligations imposed on all intei-nntional 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has been conferred on him solely for tlie purpose of directing that organi- 
sation towards the achievement of its own, exclusively international, objectives ; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, paragraph 5, 
of the Constitution of the defendant Organisation, in the following terms: 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be exclu- 
sively international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall 
not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority 
external to the organization. They shall refrain from any action which might 
prejudice their position as international officials. Each State IMember of the 
Organization undertakes to respect the international character of the responsi- 
bilities of the Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them 
in the discharge of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the matter involved is an accusa- 
tion of disloyalty brought by a Government which enjoys in all respects the 
highest prestige, must be without any influence upon the consideration of the 
facts in the case and the determination of the principles whose respect the 
Tribunal must ensure; 

That it will suffice to realise that if any one of the seventy-two States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organisation brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to an 
enquiry in similar or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Director 
General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to such 
enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory consequences, 
the same withdrawal of confidence, on the basis of any opposal by the person 
concerned to the action of his national Government ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2169 

That if this were to be the ease there would result for all international ofla- 
cials, in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty aiid insecurity 
prejudicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provoke distvirbances 
in the international administration such as cannot he imagined to have been the 
intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant Organization ; 

Considering therefor that the only groiind for complaint adduced by the Di- 
rector General to justify the application to the complainant of an exception to 
the general rule of renewal of appointments, that is to say his opposal to the 
investigations of his own Government, is entirely unjustified ; 

Considering that it is in vain that it is alleged that the terms of renewal set 
forth in the Director General's circular of 6 July 19.j4. after enumeration of the 
standards required, provide that the services of the person concerned nmst be 
needed ; that this expression cannot mean that the person concerned must be 
irreplaceable, in that no successor can be found ; that it means only that the 
requirements of the service to which the person concerned is assigned must be 
permanent and that the said person must give full satisfaction thei'ein and other- 
wise in all manner in the performance of his duties ; that on this last point 
the appreciations contained in the annual reports of the complainant are entirely 
laudatory ; 

Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be re- 
scinded ; but that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order 
the renewal of a fixed-term appointment, which requires a positive act of the 
Director General over whom the Tribunal has no hierarchial authority ; 

That in the absence of such a power and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the Tri- 
bunal is none the less competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
suffered by the complainant by reason of the discriminatory treatment of which 
he was the object ; 

F. Considering that it results from the documents produced by the parties 
during the hearing that the enquiry made by order of the Director General 
himself within the defendant Oi'ganisation, the legitimate and regular charac- 
ter of which has been shown above, did not bring any evidence to show that 
the complainant failed in his duties, as defined in Article 1.4 of the Regulations, 
during the period that he was an ofhcial of the defendant Organisation ; 

That this Special Board considered that it could And no evidence either in the 
reports of the Loyalty Board or as a result of its own inquiries that the com- 
plainant, during his employment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organisa- 
tion, had engaged in or was engaging in activities that could be shown to 
constitute misconduct under the terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules ; 

Considering that it is irrelevant to seek whether or not the complainant was 
engaged in militant political activities before being appointed to the interna- 
tional service and at a tme when he was not bound by the obligations involved 
in joining this service, unless it has been proved that he had been guilty of 
dishonourable or criminal acts (actes deshonorauts ou criminels) ; 

That any accusation of this nature could only be admitted if drawn iip both in 
due form and with all the precision required to ensure respect for the right 
of the accused person to defend himself ; 

That it is not so in this case ; 

Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the complain- 
ant towards the Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious 
doubts as to his integrity, judgment and loyalty towards the defendant Organ- 
isation ; 

That it does not therefore appear that the complainant placed his own inter- 
ests above the true interest of the Organisation, which interest consists above all 
in safeguarding erga omnes its independence and impartiality ; 

On PRE.JunicE : 

Considering that an ofRcial who combines all the necessary qualities has a 
legitimate expectancy of being offered a new appointment in the position which 
he occupied, and that this expectancy was fulfilled for all the persons con- 
cerned, with the exception of a certain number, of whom the complainant; 

That not only is such an almost absolute quod plerumque fit but also that in 
thus acting the Administration of the defendant Organisation has as its objec- 
tive to create a permanent body of officials experienced in their duties, who are 
destined to follow a career in the Organisation concerned; 

That the decision not to renew the appointment is one which should not only 
he rescinded in the present case, but also constitutes a wrongful exercise of pow- 
ers and an abuse of rights which consequently involves the obligation to make 
7272:^—57— pt. .^S 5 



2170 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 

good the prejudice resulting tlieref rom ; that this prejudice was aggravated by 
the publicity given to the withdrawal of confidence as being due to lack of in- 
tegrity, this ground having been given in a press communique issued by the de- 
fendant Organisation, without it being possible seriously to maintain the view 
that there could have existed the slightest doubt as to the identity of the per- 
sons to which the said communique referred ; 

Considering that it is to no purpose that they have been reproached with hav- 
ing communicated the measures of which they were the object to the Staff 
Association recognised by the defendant Organisation, as the upshot of a pro- 
cedure to which the said Association was a party with the knowledge and con- 
sent of the Director-General himself ; 

That redress will be ensured ex aequo et bono by the granting to the com- 
plainant of the sum set forth below ; 

Considering that, on the one hand, there should be granted to the complain- 
ant the amount of the salary which he would have received had he not been 
subject to the measure of exception of which he complains, that is to say one 
year's basic salary ; 

That, on the other hand, there should be granted to him a second year's basic 
salary in order to compensate for the moral prejudice and in particular the 
difficulties which he will encounter in seeking new means of subsistence; 

That, in this calculation, there should be added to the salary the statutory 
amount of children's allowance ; 

On the grounds as afokesaid 

The tribunal, 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions, 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form ; 

Declares that it is competent ; 

Orders the decision taken to be rescined and declares in law that it con- 
stitutes an abuse of rights causing prejudice to the complainant; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
renew the complainant's appointment, ordeis the said defendant to pay to the 
complainant the sum of $15,500, plus children's allowances for two years, the 
whole together with interest at 4 per centum from 1 January 1955; 

Orders the defendant Organization to pay to the complainant the sum of 
$300 by way of participation in the costs of his defense : 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by 
H. Henquet in his own name; 

That in this instance the fact that the intervener holds an indeterminate 
appointment and not a fixed-term appointment does not prevent the present dis- 
pute from bearing on principles applicable to the legal position of the whole 
staff; 

Considering that the intervention is founded, insofar as recognized by the 
resent judgment, orders the defendant Organisation to benr the expenses for 
which justification is provided by the intervener up to a maximum of $40. 

In witness of which judgment, pi'onounced in public sitting on 26 April 1955 
by His Excellency H. Albert Deveze. President, Professor Georges Scelle, Vice 
President, and Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judu'e, the aforementioned have 
hereunto subscribed their signatures, as well as myself, Wolf, Registrar of the 
Tribunal. 

Albert Deveze. 
Geok(;fs Scki t.e. 
A. van Rajckevoksel. 
Francis Wolf. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2171 

Exhibit No. 378-B 

[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tiubunai, 
Judgment No. 22 

FIFTH OEDINAKT SESSION (PAET U) GENEVA, OCTOBEE 19'.5 

Sitting Of 29 October 1955 

In the Mattek of Miss Ruth Froma Against United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

The Administrative Tribunal of tlie International Labour Organisation. 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization on 14 September 1955 by Miss 
Ruth Froma, a former official of that Organization, asking that the Tribunal 
be pleased to rescind the decision taken on 20 June 1955 terminating the com- 
plainant's appointment and, in default of reinstatement, to enjoin the defendant 
Organization to pay to the complainant by way of damages a sum equivalent to 
three years salary together with an indemnity of $10,000 ; 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by the 
defendant Organization on 6 October 1955 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name, in his 
status as an official of the defendant Organization, holder of an indeterminate 
appointment, on 3 October 1955 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the StafE 
Association ; 

Having heard, on oath, in public sitting on 20 October 1955 Edward Joseph 
Phelan, witness cited by the complainant, whose deposition, certified true, is in 
the dossier ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) The complainant took up her duties with the defendant Organization on 2 
September 1949 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken the complainant 
was the holder of an indeterminate appointment, subject to a five-year review 
on 1 October 1957 ; 

(3) In February 1953 the complainant received a questionnaire to be com- 
pleted and returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10422 of the President 
of the United States dated 9 January 1953 prescribing procedures for making 
available to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information 
concerning United States citizens employed or being considered for employment 
on the Secretariat of the United Nations" whose provisions apply to the defendant 
Organization by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the complainant 
completed this questionnaire; 

(4) In March 1954 the complainant received an interrogatory from the Inter- 
national Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission set up by Executive Order No. 10459 of 2 June 1953 amend- 
ing Executive Order No. 10422 of 9 January 1953, interrogatory to which the 
complainant did not however reply ; 

(5) In July 1954, the complainant received an invitation to appear as from 
15 July 1954 before the Loyalty Board, meeting at the United States Embassy 
in Paris ; 

(6) By letter dated 12 July 1954 the complainant informed the Director 
General of the reasons of conscience on which she based her refusal to appear ; 

(7) Subsequently the Director Genei*al received communication of the reporc 
of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination) dated 26 August 1954 in which it 
was stated that : 

"* * * the Board concludes that on all the evidence there is a reasonable doubt 
as to the loyalty of Ruth Froma to the Government of the United States" ; 

(S) The complainant was herself informed of the conclusions of the Loyalty 
Board by letter of the Chairman of the Loyalty Board dated 10 Sefitember 19.54, 
and was also informed of the fact that the report of the Loyalty Board had been 
transmitted to the Director General of the defendant Organization ; 



2172 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(9) On 28 September 1954 the Director General set up a Special Advisory 
Board consisting of members of the staff whose task was to "examine the cases 
of certain staff itionibers on the basis of certain information which has been 
brought to the knowledge of the Director General and in the light of the stand- 
ards of employment and conduct prescribed by the Constitution and Staff Reg- 
ulations" ; the complainant appeared and explained her position before this 
Special Advisory Board ; 

(10) The complainant was informed by a note dated 10 December 1954 that 
she was suspended from her functions with pay until further notice in applica- 
tion of Rule 109.11 of the Staff Rules ; 

(11) By a note dated IG December 1954 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision ; 

(12) The Director General declined to reconsider his decision and the com- 
plainant submitted an appeal to the UNESCO Appeals Board on 10 February 
1955, asking that the decision to suspend her be rescinded : 

(13) On 27 June 1955 the Appeals Board unanimously expressed the opinion 
that the decision of the Director General dated 10 December 1954 by which the 
complainant had been suspended from her functions with pay should be 
rescinded ; 

(14) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision the Special Advisory 
Board, referred to in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations and appointed by 
the Director General in accordance with Rule 109.10 of the Staff Rules, heard 
the complainant in March 1955 ; 

(15) By letter dated 20 June 1955 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that her appointment was terminated on the same date. This letter 
stated inter alia: 

"The Special Advisory Board which I appointed in accordance with Staff Reg- 
ulation 9.1.1 has submitted its report to me on the matter c<mcerning you. 

"I have studied this report very carefully. 

"I regret to inform you that I have come to the conclusion that your conduct 
indicated that you do not meet the highest standards required by Article VI 
of the Constitutiou and by Chapter I of the Staff Regulations. 

"I have come to this conclusion because of the attitude you have adopted to 
the investigation undertaken by the United States Government under E.vecutive 
Order 10422, as amended by Executive Order 10459, which found its principal 
expression in your refusal to respond to the invitation to appear, in July 1954, 
before the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United 
States Civil Service Commission, and because, at no time up to this date, have 
you taken any steps or shown any desire to repair, or at least to mitigate, the 
harm done to the Organization by your refusal to appear before the Board. 

"You could not have failed to realize that the attitude you have adopted 
gravely prejudiced the interests of the Organization. 

"I have indicated, and in particular, at the Eighth Session of the General 
Conference, the seriousness of the consequences of such an attitude. 

"In adopting and maintaining such an attitude, you have shown that you are 
not willing to regulate your conduct with the interests of the Organization 
only in view. 

"I am therefore obliged to terminate your appointment with effect from the 
cud of the day, 20 June 1955, under the provisions of Staff Regulation 9.1.1. 

"In accordance with the terms of your indeterminate appointment you will 
receive an indemnity equivalent to [tivel months pensionalile remuneration. 

"You will be paid salary and allowances in lieu of three months' notice. 

"You will also receive any other payments to which you are entitled upon 
separation." ; 

(16) By letter dated 24 June 1955 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision to terminate her appointment ; 

(17) By letter dated 27 June 1955 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that he adhered to his decision ; 

(IS) In agreement with the Director General of the defendant Organization, 
the complainant renounced her right of appeal to the Appeals Board and decided 
to resort directly to the Administrative Tribunal as permitted in Article 6 of 
the Statute of the Appeals Board, the decision taken being considered as final 
and the complainant being considered as having exhausted all other means 
of resisting it ; 

On thk substance : 

A. Considering that the decision of 20 June 1955 terminating the appointment 
of the complainant was taken in application of Regulation 9.1.1 of the StafE 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2173 

Regulations, as adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in Montevideo on 
8 December 1954, this Regulation being in the following terms: 

"The Director General may also, giving his reasons therefor, terminate the 
appointment of a staff member : 

"(ff) If the conduct of the staff member indicates that the staff member 
does not meet the highest standards required by Article VI of the Constitu- 
tion and by Chapter I of the Staff RegTilations ; 

" ( 6) If facts anterior to the appointment of the staff member and relevant 
to his suitability or which reflect on his present integrity come to light, 
which, if they had been known at the time of his appointment should, under 
the standards established in the Constitution, have precluded his appoint- 
ment. 
"No termination under the provisions of this RegTilation shall take effect until 
the matter has been considered and reported on by a special advisory board 
appointed for that purpose by the Director General" ; 

Considering that where the Director General acts within the provisions of 
Regulation 9.1.1 he has only the statutory powers conferred on him by the 
General Conference ; that in a particular case the Tribunal's appreciation and 
review of the exercise of this power consists in examining whether in fact the 
circumstances of the case are such as to justify the application thereof ; that if 
this were not to be the case the application of this power would be at the Director 
General's sole pleasure ; 

Considering that Regulation 9.1.1 expressly provides that reasons must be 
given for taking the measures set forth therein and that the matter be first 
reported on by a Special Advisory Board appointed for that purpose by the 
Director General ; 

B. Considering that in this case the decision is expressly motivated by the 
attitude taken by the complainant with respect to the measures of investigation 
provided by the Government of the United States in application of Executive 
Orders No. 10422 and 10459, this attitude consisting principally in the refusal 
of the complainant to accede to the invitation to appear before the Loyalty Board 
in July 1954, and by the fact that after that date the complainant took no steps 
nor showed any wish to repair or mitigate the harm which was deemed to have 
been suffered by the Organization as a result of her refusal to appear, when she 
could not ignore the gravity of such harm ; 

Considering that the submissions of the defendant oblige the Tribunal, in 
order to carry out its functions under the provisions of Article II of its Statute, 
to seek in what manner and to what extent the interests of the Organization 
may have been prejudiced ; 

Considering that the difficulties having arisen within the defendant Organiza- 
tion are that one Member State, in default of obtaining the removal of those of 
its citizens being officials finding themselves in a situation similar to that of the 
complainant, appeared to be considering withdrawing its participation and sup- 
port from the Organization ; that in particular an express statement in this sense 
was made before the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the House of Repre- 
sentatives of this State by one of the members of the delegation of the said State 
at the Montevideo Conference ; 

That it is significant that the Director General, on 10 December 1954, that is 
to say on the date following that on which the Staff Regulations conferred upon 
him the new power, invoked such power against the three parties concerned, in 
order to suspend them from their duties and to take those procedural measures 
against them arising out of which the decisions to terminate them, now before 
the Tribunal, were taken ; 

That besides there is no indication that there was any other reason for con- 
sidering that the interests of the Organization were imperilled ; 

That the safeguarding erga omnes of the independence and impartiality of the 
Organization is also vital and must not be lost sight of ; 

C. Considering that the complainant could, in conscience, be persuaded that 
she was within her rights, that besides it has never been alleged that the com- 
plainant had been the object of legal proceedings in her own country by reason 
of the attitude complained against, since a purely administrative pi'ocedure was 
involved ; that exception could not be taken against her, for having failed in her 
employment to determine precisely the gravity and imminence of the danger 
which may have imperiled certain interests of the Organization; 

Considering that no exception can be taken against her on such grounds nor 
could she be reproached with having abstained from taking steps for which no 
particulars were given and in addition never requested of her, in order to repair 
or mitigate the difficulties to which the Organization was subject; 

72723— 5.7— pt. 38 6 



2174 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Considering that the Director General adduces however from the complainant's 
attitude and from the maintenance of this attitude that the complainant showed 
that she did not wish to regulate her conduct with the interests of the Organiza- 
tion only in view; 

That in consequence on 20 June 1955 the Director General terminated the 
complainant's appointment with immedate effect (at the same time according to 
her those idemnities to which she was entitled under Regulation 9.3 of the 
Staff Regulations and Rule 104.7 e) of the Staff Rules), after having consulted 
the Special Advisory Board set up in Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations 
and after carefully studying, as he states, the report of this Board ; 

D. Considering that it must be observed that the decision taken is based solely 
on paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations which gives to the 
Director General the power to terminate an official's appointment "if the con- 
duct of the staff" member indicates that the staff member does not meet the highest 
standards required by Article VI of the Constitution and by Chapter I of the 
Staff Regulations" ; 

That, on the basis of this wording, the clear distineition between the notions 
respectively of integrity and loyalty is henceforward not in issue; that the 
grounds adduced are based on the duty of officials "to conduct themselves at 
all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants", "to 
bear in mind the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their inter- 
national status," and at no time to lose sight of the interests of the international 
organization for which they serve ; 

Considering that paragraph (b) of Regulation 9.1.1 deals only with facts 
anterior to appointment or facts which, if they had been known at the time 
of the appointment should have precluded the appointment, such facts not having 
been demonstrated and not being in issue in this case, 

E. Considering besides that there is no other motive in the case which can be 
invoked in justification of termination ; 

That the Special Advisory Board which had been voluntarily set up by the 
Director General within the defendant Organization, as early as September 1954, 
expressly stated that it could find no evidence either in the reports of the Loyalty 
Board or as a result of its own enquiries that the complainant, during her em- 
ployment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organization, had engaged in or was 
engaging in activities that could be shown to constitute misconduct under the 
terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules ; 

That it results from the complainant's performance reports that she has 
never been the subject of any reproach ; that on the contrary the appreciations 
contained therein were entirely laudatory as regards her work and performance 
and that she was promoted ; 

That the Director General was therefore entirely correct in not invoking 
against her any misconduct, breach of professional duty or unsatisfactory service ; 
that on the contrary the representative of the defendant Organization has 
pointed out on several occasions that termination for disciplinary reasons was 
not in issue and that the sole issue was the termination of an appointment, with 
payment of indemnities, under the new Regulations on which the Director 
General relies ; 

F. Considering that the defendant Organization objects to the production of 
the report of the Special Advisory Board which was set up in 1955 on the basis 
of the amended Regulations adopted by the General Conference ; 

That this objection is motivated by a text inserted by the Director General 
himself in the rules which he drew up in order to give effect to the new pro- 
visions of the Staff Regulations by virtue of the powers conferred on him under 
the said Regulations; that this text stipulates (Staff Rule 109.10) that the 
proceedings and records of the Board shall be secret and confidential ; 

That if this provision made by the Director General in application of the regu- 
lations adopted by the General Conference were to be considered as lawful, it 
would have as its effect to remove from the Special Advisory Board its principal 
object; that in reporting to the Administrative Commission of the General 
Conference (document 8C/ ADM/14, paragraph 11), the author of the text 
declared himself on the subject of this Advisory Board as follows: "This is 
one way in which it is considered that staff" members may be protected from the 
possibility of arbitrary decisions" ; that where the opinion given is confidential to 
the Director General alone, such additional guarantee promised against arbitrary 
decisions is unavailing ; 

That where the competent jurisdiction for reviewing the decision of the 
Director General is not able, any more than the complainant, to have cognizance 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2175 

of the opinion of the Special Advisory Board, and where, besides, the Director- 
General is entirely free not to take account of such opinion and is thereby not 
subject to any outside review, it would have sufficed to permit the Director 
General to be counseled accordingly thereon by such adviser as he thought fit ; 
that this cannot be imagined to have been the impression which led to the vote 
in the General Conference, the Conference being manifestly desirous to effectively 
protect staff members whose appointments would be terminated under Staff Reg- 
ulation 9.1.1, from arbitrary decisions ; 

Considering that the deposition made under oath by Mr. Phelan, Chairman of 
the said Board, cited as a witness, shows that the members of the Board did not, 
in accepting to serve, impose a condition of secrecy ; that they questioned the 
Director General on his intentions in this regard, which was proper, but did 
not have as a legal result to deprive the Director General from disposing of the 
report as he thought fit ; 

That the objection to the production of the report of the Board which was 
available to the Director General removes an element from the appreciation 
of the Tribunal competent to pronounce on the regularity of the decision taken ; 
that the regulations having been observed in the letter the Tribunal may not 
order thereon, but that in any event it was unable in its consultations to take 
into account this unknown element ; 

G. Considering that the complainant submits that the provisions of the new 
Regulations adopted in December 19.54 are not applicable in her case since the 
facts set up against her took place prior to such adoption ; 

That this submission is unfounded, the Director General having been accorded 
the power to review the conduct of a staff member, the appointment of whom is 
to be terminated, solely with regard to the high standards required of an inter- 
national official, and that he is free in this respect to take into account those 
elements on which he considers his decision may be based ; 

That without doubt, the granting of such a power opens the door to a great 
extent to arbitrary decisions ; that it fully justifies the preoccupations of those 
desirous of providing at the same time sure and effective guarantees ; that the 
Administrative Tribunal must watch over the jurisdictional review which it 
exercises ; but that the texts exclude the submission based on their retroactive 
application ; 

H. Considering that where the Director General has the power to terminate 
an indeterminate appointment, this is clearly subject to the implied condition 
that this authority must be exercised only for the good of the service and in the 
interest of the Organization ; 

Considering that it is in the light of this principle that the facts in this case 
should be examined ; 

Considering that Regulation 1.4 of the Staif Regulations of the defendant 
Oi'ganization is as follows : 

"Members of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner 
befitting their status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in 
any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with 
the Organization. They shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of 
public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status, or on the in- 
tegrity, independence and impartiality which are required by that status. While 
they are not expected to give up their national sentiments, or their political and 
religious convictions, they shall at all times bear in mind the reserve and tact 
incumbent upon them by reason of their international status" ; 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of conscience 
recognized to international officials in respect to both their philosophical con- 
victions and their political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the duty 
to abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them with 
propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever ; 

That this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organization to which they owe their loyalty and devotion ; 

I. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of the defendant 
Organization on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff to reply to 
questionnaires issued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
quences which the refusal to reply might have for him ; 

Considering, however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board it is established that the complainant approached the Director 



2176 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

General only at a late date, so that the latter would not have been able to give 
her advice in sufficient time ; 

J. Considering that, in order to review all factors, it is necessary to enquire 
whether the acts or omissions of the complainant could be considered as justify- 
ing the application of paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the StafE Regulations, 
on the grounds that in themselves they caused doubt to exist as to whether 
she fulfilled the highest standards required of an international official; 

Considering that the complainant does not challenge the legitimate character 
of the enquiry made within the staff by the Special Advisory Board set up by the 
Director General on 28 September 1954, following the submission to the Director 
General of the report made against her by the Loyalty Board in default of her 
appearance ; 

That this measure is in accordance with the undertaking made with the State 
member concerned under arrangements approved by the Executive Board and 
General Conference of the defendant Organization ; that this was solely an under- 
taking that any information which the Government of the State concerned might 
desire to submit to the Director General would "be studied with care" and that 
he would "certainly give every consideration to it, in the light of the Constitution 
of UNESCO and all other relevant provisions and policies which may have been 
or may be laid down by the appropriate organs of UNESCO" ; 

That the Special Advisory Board set up on 28 September 1954 expressed the 
opinion, as referred to above, that it could find no evidence that the complainant 
had engaged or was engaging in activities during her employment, that could be 
shown to be misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules ; the Board 
concluding, however, that the attitude adopted by the complainant as well as the 
reasons given for her attitude gave rise to serious doubts about the degree of con- 
fidence that could be placed in her integrity, judgment, and loyalty to the Organi- 
zation ; that the Board found justification for this opinion in stating that in a 
situation which, in its opinion, was clearly harmful to the Organization, the com- 
plainant maintained that adherence to her own personal views was more impor- 
tant than the interests of the Organization ; 

That this opinion restates in different terms the reasons invoked for the deci- 
sion taken ; 

K. Considering, however, that when requested to give an opinion on the de- 
cision itself, the Appeals Board, presided over by an eminent magistrate enjoying 
the confidence of al parties and composed jointly of members appointed by the 
Director General and members appointed by the Staff Association, came unani- 
mously to a diametrically opposed conclusion ; that after a full hearing and a 
thorough study of all the facts in the case, it unanimously concluded that the 
complainants had not failed in the high standards required of members of the 
Secretariat, had not committed acts incompatible with the integrity required of 
them and had not disregarded the true interest of the Organization; that, as a 
consequence, the decisions to terminate them had no basis in law and that the 
said complainants had shown cause for requesting reinstatement; that the Tri- 
bunal fully agrees with this particularly authoritative opinion ; 

That the Court must besides take into consideration the due care required of it 
in appreciating the validity of the decision taken, by reason of the striking and 
indefensible disproportion between the alleged attitude of the complainant and 
the measure taken against her, putting an end to the career on which she based 
her future, when no complaint regarding her work had been alleged ; that from 
this standpoint it is of no moment that the termination was not a disciplinary ac- 
tion in the formal sense of the Regulations and that certain indemnities were 
accorded, when the fundamental result is to deprive the party concerned of her 
employment by exposing her to all the risks and distress of an uncertain future ; 

L. Considering that it is thus established that the ground for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the official to participate in 
measures of verbal or written enquiry to which his national Government con- 
siders it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international organization cannot associate 
himself with the execution of the policy of the Government authorities of any 
State member without disregarding the obligations imposed on all international 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has been conferred on him solely for the purpose of directing that Organi- 
zation towards the achievement of its own, exclusively international objectives ; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, paragraph 5, 
of the Constitution of the defendant Organization in the foUovv ing terms : 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be exclu- 
sively international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall not 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2177 

seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority exter- 
nal to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might preju- 
dice their position as international officials. Each State Member of the Organi- 
zation undertaljes to respect the international character of the responsibilities of 
the Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them in the dis- 
charge of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the doubts raised as to the loyalty 
of the complainant to her own Government brought by a Government which en- 
joys in all respects the highest prestige, must be without any influence iipon the 
consideration of the facts in the case and the determination of the principles 
whose respect the Tribunal must ensure ; 

That it will suffice to realize that if any one of the seventy-four States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organization brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to an 
enquiry in similar or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Director 
General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to such 
enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory consequences, 
the saine withdrawal of confidence and the same application of Regulation 9.1.1 
of the Staff Regulations, on the basis of any opposal by the person concerned 
to the action of his national Government ; 

That if this were to be the case there would result for all international offi- 
cials, in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and insecurity 
prejudicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provoke disturbances 
in the international administration such as cannot be imagined to have been in 
the intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant Organi- 
zation ; 

M. Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the com- 
plainant towards the Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious 
doubts as to the high standards required of an international official; 

That neither does it appear that the complainant placed her own interests 
above the true interest of the Organization, as defined above ; 

Considering therefore that the only ground for complaint adduced by the 
Director General to justify the application to the complainant of Regulation 9.1.1 
of the Staff Regulations, that it to say her opposal to the investigations of her 
own Government, is entirely unfounded ; 

N. Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be 
rescinded, the said decision not resting on any provision of the Staff Regula- 
tions ; that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order reinstate- 
ment, which requires a positive act of the Director General, over whom the 
Tribunal has no hierarchical authority ; 

That in the absence of such a power and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the 
Tribunal is nonetheless competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
suffered by the complainant by reason of the measure of which she was the 
object ; 

On prejudice: 

Considering that should the complainant not be reinstated with full rights, she 
should be compensated for the material and moral prejudice which she has 
suffered by reason of the decision taken ; 

That such prejudice may be assessed ex aequo et 'bono at two years' base 
salary, without any setoff of the indemnities which she has been accorded; 

Considering that the annual base salary of the complainant amounted to 
$5,400 ; 

That there are no grounds for allocating a supplementary indemnity by reason 
of the suspension with salary dated 10 December 1954, a measure which the 
Director General was entitled to take within the limits of his authority and 
which cannot be considered in the circumstances as having increased the 
prejudice suffered ; 

On the grounds as aforesaid 

The Tribunal, 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions, 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form, 

Declares that it is competent, 

Orders the decision taken to be rescinded and declares in law that a legal 
basis therefor cannot be found in the Stalf Regulations ; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
reinstate the complainant, orders the said defendant to pay to the complainant 



2178 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

au amount equal to two years' base salary, namely $10,800, together with interest 
at 4 per centum from 20 June 1955, without any setoff of the indemnities accorded 
to her at the time of termination of her appointment ; 

Orders the defendant Organization to pay to the complainant the sum of $300 
by way of participation in the costs of her defence : 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet ; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by 
M. Henquet in his own name, an official of the defendant Organisation, holder 
of an indeterminate appointment ; 

Considering that the intervention is founded, in so far as recognized by this 
judgment; 

Orders the defendant Organisation to bear the expenses for which justifica- 
tion is provided by the intervener up to a maximum of $40. 

In witness of which judgment, pronounced at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, 
in public sitting on 29 October 1955, by His Excellency M. Albert Deveze, Presi- 
dent, Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judge, Acting Vice President, and M. lasson 
Stavropoulos, Deputy Judge called upon to sit owing to the inability of a 
titular judge to attend, the aforementioned have hereunto subscribed their 
signatures as well as myself, Wolf, Registrar of the Tribunal. 

(Signatures) Albert Deveze. 

A. VAN Rijckevorsel. 
Iasson Stavkopoulos. 
Francis Wolf. 



Exhibit No. 378-C 

[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tribunal 

Judgment No. 15 

ordinary session of AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1954 

Sitting of 6 September 1954 

In the Matter of Mr. David Leff Against United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organisation 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation on 24 March 1954 by Mr. 
David Leff, an official of that organisation, asking that "the Tribunal be pleased 
to judge that the order given by the Director General of UNESCO to Mr. 
David Leff on 3 and 11 December 1953 and on 22 March 1954 cannot be validly 
given under the regulations and rules in force, that it enjoins an international 
official to perform an act foreign to the service and to his obligations, and that 
in consequence it must be rescinded ;" 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by the 
defendant Organisation on 23 April 1954 ; 

Considering the additional memorandum deposited by the complainant on 
10 May 1954 ; 

Considering the memorandum of rejoinder of the defendant Organisation dated 
2 June 1954 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name on 10 
August 1954 by Mr. Harry Dawes, Chairman of the Staff Association of 
UNESCO ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form : 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) On 17 August 1951, the passports of the complainant, his wife and his two 
children, all citizens of the United States of America, were withdrawn from him 
by the Consulate of the United States in Paris ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2179 

(2) Ou 15 May 1953, a summons to appear (subpoena) before the Federal 
Grand Jury in New York was notified to the complainant, ordering him to appear 
on 21 May 1953 "to testify and give evidence" concerning a possible violation of 
Section 371, title 18. U. S. Code : "Conspiracy to cormnit offence or to defraud the 
United States" : 

(8) The complainant summoned as a witness not having replied to that sum- 
mons on the date fixed, the Acting Director General of the defendant Organisa- 
tion was informed that the competent authorities had refused to consider as 
legitimate the grounds invoked by the complainant for not appearing; in conse- 
quence, the Acting Director General, by a letter dated 22 May 1953 informed the 
complainant of his decision to proceed to an investigation into the circumstances 
of the summons addressetl to the complainant and the validity of the grounds 
invoked by him for refraining from complying therewith ; by the same letter, the 
Acting Director General, relying on Article 92, paragraph (e) of the Staff Rules, 
suspended the complainant, with pay. on the gi'ounds that his refusal to reply to 
the summons constituted prima facie evidence of conduct incompatible with his 
obligations as a staff member of UNESCO as they are laid down in Staff Regula- 
tion 1.4 ; 

(4) By a letter of 27 May 1953 the complainant introduced an appeal before 
the Appeals Board of UNESCO seeking the rescission of the suspension decision 
and the abandonment of the investigation ordered by the Acting Director 
General ; 

(5) On 27 July 1958 the Appeals Board gave the opinion : 

(a) that the suspension pronounced against the complainant be rescinded; 
(b) that the complainant be reinstated: (c) that for the rest, the complainant 
was not justified in asking that an end be put to the investigation ; 

(6) By a letter dated 29 July 1953 the Dii-ector General consequently instructed 
the complainant to report for duty on 30 July ; 

(7) On 30 July 1953 the Director General verbally proposed to the complainant, 
in the event of his going to New York and being unable to return to Paris, to 
transfer him, "with his post", to New York, this transfer to include the payment 
of the travel expenses of his family and the transport of his possessions ; 

(8) By a letter dated 8 August 1953 the complainant informed the Director 
General that before replying to the proposal thus made, he wished to exercise his 
right as a citizen of the United States to ask to be questioned in Paris and 
requested time for this purpose ; 

(9) By a letter dated 24 September 1953, the Director General was informed by 
the Embassy of the United States in Paris that "With reference to Mr. David N. 
Leff's request that his testimony * * * be taken in Paris * * * the Grand Jury 
considers that the subpoena served Mr. Leff requiring that he appear in New 
York * * * }g gtiii in effect" and that "The Grand Jury does not intend, there- 
fore, to respond to Mr. Leff's inquiry"; this letter was communicated to the 
complainant on 25 September 1953 ; 

(10) By a letter dated 22 October 1953 the complainant informed the Director- 
General of the negative result of his negotiations and asked UNESCO to under- 
take official negotiations to secure that his testimony be accepted in Paris ; 

(11) By a letter dated 18 November 1953 the Director-General informed the 
complainant of his refusal to undertake officially negotiations of this nature, 
considering that it was for the competent judicial authority to decide on the 
procedure to be followed ; 

(12) By a letter dated 3 December 1953 the Director-General informed the 
complainant that, having received no reply to his offer of transfer, he instructed 
him to proceed to New York to respond to the subpeona of the Grand Jury. This 
letter stated inter alia: 

"For reasons I gave you in my letter of 18 November 1953, 1 cannot accept your 
suggestion that I should make a request to the Grand Jury to apply the provisions 
which exist for taking testimony abroad. Such an intei'vention has not been 
made in the past. I must repeat what I have said before, that you have not 
satisfied me that any of your rights would be jeopardized by your response to the 
subpoena, or by your acceptance of the offer I have made to transfer you, and 
your post, to the New York office. 

"You indicated in your letter that you are still not in a position to accept my 
offer which you will remember, I first made on 30 July 1953. In the circum- 
stances, I feel obliged to instruct you to proceed to New York for the purpose of 
responding to the Grand Jury's subpoena" ; 



2180 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(13) This instruction was repeated in a letter dated 11 December 1953 by whicli 
the Director General instructed the complainant to make the necessary arrange- 
ments for this purpose before 17 December 1953 ; this letter read as follows : 

11 December 1953. 

Dear Mr. Leff : In reply to your letter of 7 December 1953, I am obliged to 
remind you that I and the Acting Director General before me have always con- 
sidered that your refusal to respond to the subpoena addressed to you by the 
judicial authorities of your country is a serious matter which can gravely 
damage the prestige and reputation of the Organisation. 

On 3 December 1953, I instructed you to go to New York to respond to the 
.subpoena in order that prejudice may not be caused to this Organisation which 
you have undertaken to serve with its interests alone in view. However, I have 
only done this after giving you guarantees, which I consider satisfactory, as to 
your fears regarding the continuation of your employment by UNESCO and 
separation from your family. These guarantees are contained in the promise 
made in my letter of 3 December that I will, at your request, transfer you to 
work in the New York Office and arrange for the transportation of your family 
to the United States if you are not in a position to return to your work in Paris. 

It follows that my letter is in no sense an instruction that you and your post 
shall be transferred to New York. I am completely safeguarding the possibility 
for you to return to your work in Paris. 

In the circumstances, I can only repeat the instructions given in my letter 
of 3 December, and I request that before 17 December you make the necessary 
arrangements with the Plead of the Bureau of Personnel and Management to 
leave for New York in the near future. 

I consider that it would serve no useful purpose to take up certain misstate- 
ments contained in your letter of 7 December regarding matters on which you 
have already received full explanation. 
Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Luther H. Evans, 

Director General. 

(14) By a letter dated 14 December 1953 the complainant informed the Direc- 
tor General of his intention to lay the matter before the Appeals Board ; 

(15) By a letter dated 17 December 1953 the Director General informed the 
complainant that in view of the exceptional circumstances of the affair, he had 
decided to rescind that part of his letter of 11 December 1953 which required 
the complainant to make arrangements by 17 December 1953 for his departure; 
he added that he would inform the complainant at a later time of the date by 
which he required him to make these arrangements ; this letter read as follows : 

17 December 1953. 

Dear Mr. Leff : I have your letter of 14 December 1953, in which you express 
the hope that I will consent to await the result of your appeal against my order 
before taking further action. 

I have discussed this suggestion with my advisers and also with the Executive 
Committee of the Staff Association. I have decided, in view of the exceptional 
circumstances of the affair, to rescind that part of my letter of 11 December 
1953 which required you to make arrangements by 17 December for your depar- 
ture to New York at an early date. I will, at a later time, inform you of the 
date by which I require you to make these arrangements. 
Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Luther H. Evans, 

Director General. 

(16) By a complaint dated 28 December 1953 the complainant requested the 
Appeals Board to express the opinion that the order given to him to go to New 
York for the purpose of giving testimony before the Grand Jury "could not be 
validly given under the regulations and rules in force, that it enjoins an inter- 
national official to perform an act foreign to the service and that in consequence 
it must be withdrawn" ; 

(17) On 8 March 1954 the Appeals Board expressed the opinion "that the 
decision dated 3 and 11 December 1953 should be rescinded in so far as it orders 
Mr. Leff to go to New York to comply with the summons to appear before the 
Grand Jury" ; it added that the same might not have applied if it had been a 
question of a writ of summons and not a subpoena ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2181 

(18) By a letter dated 16 March 1954 the Director General indicated to the 
complainant that, by a letter dated 13 March 1954, he had been informed by the 
Permanent Delegate of the United States to UNESCO that the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York had issued, on 11 March 
1954, an order enjoining the complainant to show cause, on 25 March 1954, why 
he should not be adjudged for criminal contempt of court for having refused to 
appear before the Grand Jury pursuant to a subpoena ; 

(19) On 16 March 1954 the complainant received by registered letter a copy 
of the order to show cause and asked the head of the Bureau of Personnel and 
Management of UNESCO whether such an order could be properly served on 
the international territory of UNESCO; 

(20) By a letter dated 16 March 1954 the head of the Bureau of Personnel and 
Management stated, on behalf of the Director General, that the premises of 
UNESCO being inviolable, no service of legal process might take place thereon 
except with the consent of, and under conditions approved by, the Director 
General, which consent had been neitlier requested nor given ; 

(21) By a letter dated 22 March 1954 the Director General informed the 
complainant that he had been officially informed of the issue of the order to 
show cause by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New 
York and instructed the complainant to satisfy the requirements of the judicial 
authorities of the United States ; this letter read as follows : 

Pakis, 22 March 1954. 

Dear Mr. Leff : I have given all due consideration to the opinion dated 9 March 
1954, rendered by the Appeals Board and concerning my instruction for you to 
proceed to New York in answer to the subpoena issued to you by the United 
States Grand Judy and served on you on 15 May 1953. 

I have also been officially informed that the United States District Court for 
the Southern District of New York has issued an order for you to show cause, 
on 25 March of this year, why you should not be cited for contempt for failure 
to respond to the above mentioned subpoena. 

In the light of these developments, I hereby instruct you to satisfy the require- 
ments of the judicial authorities of the United States, and I request you to let 
me know what steps you are taking to this effect. 

I want you to know that I shall attach the greatest importance to the judge- 
ment which will be rendered by the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of New York. 
Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Ltjther H. Evans, 

Director General. 

(22) By a letter dated 27 March 1954 the Director General was informed by 
the Permanent Delegate of the United States to UNESCO that the said Court 
had found the complainant ui contempt of court and had issued a bench warrant 
against him ; 

(23) On 6 April 1954 a notice of cross-motion filed with the United States Dis- 
trict Court for the Southern District of New York made known that the com- 
plainant moved that the subpoena, bench warrant and order to shovp cause be 
quashed upon the ground that a Grand Jury subpoena could not be served outside 
the United States, that the respondent was never served with process and that 
the Court was without jurisdiction over his person ; 

(24) By a letter dated 15 April 1954 to the Chairman of the Appeals Board, 
the Director General informed him that the judicial authorities of the United 
States had issued the order to show cause to which the Appeals Board had 
formally referred in its opinion of 8 March 1954 and in the absence of which the 
Appeals Board had considered that it was not for the Director General to order 
the complainant to go to New York ; the Director General added that in the 
presence of this new fact, "he reserved the right to take, in the light of the 
judgement to be adopted by the United States District Court any decision con- 
cerning the complainant which he might deem necessary" ; 

Considering that the first question which arises is to know whether the order 
given by the Director General to the complainant on 22 March 1954 — by which 
the Director General instructed him to satisfy the requirements of the judicial 
authorities of the United States as formulated at that date in consequence of 
the issue of the order to show cause — forms an indivisible whole with that of 
3 December 1953 (repeated on 11 December 1953) concerning the summons 
before the Grand Jury of which the first is but the consequence ; 



2182 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Considering that the order of 3 December 1953 (repeated on 11 December 1953) 
was partly rescinded on 17 December only in so far as it fixed the maximum time 
limit for its execution, the order itself being unquestionably maintained in 
principle ; 

Considering that it is impossible to admit that there is unity between the two 
orders; that the order of December 1953 was based on the demand for the 
personal appearance of the complainant before the Grand Jury to give testimony 
whilst that of 22 March 1954 was based on the duty of the complainant to defend 
himself before the court seized of an indictment against him ; that whereas the 
purpose of the order of December 1953 was to oblige the complainant to go to New 
York, the order of 22 March 1954 required him to satisfy the requirements of the 
judicial authorities of the United States as formulated at that date, which 
included the possibility, for the complainant, to arrange for himself to be 
represented ; 

That the two orders have thus a different basis (subpoena before the Grand 
Jury on the one hand and, on the other hand, writ of summons before the court) 
and a difiierent purpose (personal appearance in the first case and freedom to be 
represented in the second case, at the time of formulation of the order) ; 

Considering that at the time when the first order was given the complainant 
had not yet become involved as an accused person, as was the case when the order 
of 22 March 1954 was given ; 

Considering that it was thus that the Appeals Board, on 8 March 1954, con- 
sidered that the Director General was not, on the basis of the facts existing 
at that date, justified in giving this order ; 

Considering therefore that the two orders must be considered as distinct and 
subjected to separate examination through separate procedures ; 

On the Order of 3 and 11 December 1953 : 

Considering that the defendant Organisation pleads that the order has been 
replaced and completely rescinded by the subsequent order of 22 March 1954 ; 

Considering nevertheless that in fact the order of December 1953 has never 
been explicitly withdrawn as regards the part subsisting after the notification 
dated 17 December of the same year and that, besides, this order has in no way 
become non-executable as long as it is not established that the procedure before 
the Grand Jury which gave rise to the issue of the subpoena has finally been 
dropped ; 

That the statements subsequently made by the defendant Organisation as to 
the total rescission of the order are devoid of relevance, as the situation must be 
determined at the time when the Appeals Board issued its opinion, whereas the 
Organisation participated in the meetings of the Appeals Board to defend there 
the measures impugned and against the claim of the complainant ; 

Considering that it is thus the duty of the Tribunal to examine the validity of 
this order ; 

Considering that this order obviously does not concern the actual service of 
the international Organisation ; that the latter must enjoy the full sovereignty 
of its authority and must not be to any extent subject to external infiuence 
emanating from any one of its States Members ; that in this respect most strict 
a.nd clear provisions guarantee its complete independence and that of its oflBcials ; 

Considering mter alia that Article VI, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of 
UNESCO specifies the following : 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be exclusively 
international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall not seek 
or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority external to 
the Organisation. They shall refrain from any action which might prejudice 
their position as international oflicials. Bach State member of the Organisation 
undertakes to respect the international character of the responsibilities of the 
Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them in the discharge 
of their duties" ; 

Considering that it is specified in UNESCO Staff Regulation 1.2 that the 
members of the staff are responsible to the Director General "in the exercise 
of their functions" ; 

Considering, besides, that Staff Regulation 1.4 provides that members of 
the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner consonant with 
the good repute and high purposes of the Organisation and their status as inter- 
national civil servants ; that they shall not engage in any activity that is 
incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties ; that they shall avoid 
any action, and in particular any kind of public pronouncement which would 
adversely reflect upon their position as international officials ; that while they 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2183 

are not expected to give up their religious or political convictions or national 
sentiments, they shall at all times exercise the reserve and tact incumbent 
upon them by reason of their international responsibilities ; that Staff Regu- 
lation 1.9 provides that on accepting appointment each staff member shall sub- 
scribe to a declaration whereby he undertakes to exercise the functions entrusted 
to him with the interests of the Organisation only in view ; 

Considering that it does not follow from the above mentioned texts that the 
conduct of an official with regard to the Government of his country, although 
outside the actual service of the international Organisation, is entirely outside 
the control of the disciplinary authority of the Organisation ; 

That on the contrary this is the case when that conduct is judged to be 
seriously likely to affect the dignity of the official and the prestige of the or- 
ganisation to which he belongs — a point of fact of which the appreciation will 
vary according to the circumstances of each case ; 

That the validity of the order in dispute therefore depends entirely on whether, 
if on 3 and 11 December 1953, this fact was established to the point that the 
intervention of the authority of the Director General was justified ; 

Considering that the Appeals Board formally expressed the view that at that 
date disciplinary action was not justified, the circumstances required for such 
action not being met since there was only a question, in the case of the com- 
plainant, of abstention from appearing in New York as a witness in the investi- 
gation of the Grand Jury ; 

Considering that the opinion thus expressed by the Appeals Board should be 
subscribed to and that in consequence the order of 3 and 11 December 1953 
should be rescinded ; 

On the okder of 22 march 1954 : 

Considering that as regards the said order the Tribunal can only note that 
it has not thus far been the subject of an appeal before the Appeals Board; 

That Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint 
shall not be receivable unless the decision impunged is a final decision and 
the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open 
to him under the applicable staff" regulations ; 

Considering in fact that the time limit provided for in Article 10 of the 
Provisional Rules of the Appeals Board for filing an appeal against the order 
in question has now expired ; but that if no appeal was made, this is obviously 
because, in the view of the complainant, no distinction was to be made between 
the order of 3 and 11 December 1953 and the order of 22 March 1954 ; 

That it is therefore in the strict interests of impartial justice that the 
time limit for appeal be reopened as from the date of the present judgment 
so that the complainant may exercise his right freely and completely before 
the Appeals Board to challenge the validity of the order under dispute, par- 
ticularly in setting forth all the considerations relating to the circumstances 
under which the penal procedure taken against him was opened and followed, 
taking into account the nature of the indictment to which he has to reply. 

On the grounp as aforesaid : 

The Tribunal, 

Rejecting all wider or contrary conclusions. 

Declares in law that the orders made in December 1953 and in March 1954 
are distinct and must be the subject of separate appeals procedures ; 

Declares the complaint receivable and founded in so far as it relates to the 
order of 3 December 19.53 repeated on 11 December following ; 

Orders the rescission of the said order ; 

For the remainder, declares the complaint at present irreceivable in so far 
as it relates to the order of 22 March 1954 ; 

Declares that the time limit of fifteen days statutorily granted to the com- 
plainant to file an appeal against this order with the Appeals Board is re- 
opened as from the date of the present judgment ; 

As regards the statement of Mr. Harry Downs, in so far as it is made in his 
own name, declares it receivable in form, founded in so far as it relates to the 
order of 3 and 11 December 19-53, and irreceivable for the rest ; 

Considering that the statement cannot give rise to the granting of damages and 
that the fact that it is received cannot entail any consequence other than the 
granting of expenses incurred in connection with the statement ; 

Orders the defendant Organisation to pay the complainant the sum of three 
hundred dollars by way of participation in expenses : 

Further orders the defendant Organisation to bear such expenses as may 
be justified by the declarant Dawes, up to a maximum of one hundred dollars; 



2184 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

In witness of which judgment, pi'onounced in public sitting on 6 September 
1954 by His Excellency M. Albert Deveze, President, Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, 
Acting Vice President, and M. lasson Stavropoulos, Deputy Judge, called upon 
to sit owing to the inability of a titular judge to attend, the aforementioned 
have hereunto subscribed their signatures as well as myself. Wolf, Registrar 
of the Tribunal. 

Albert Devize. 

A. van Rijckevorsel. 

Iasson Stavropoulos, 

Francis Wolf. 



(Exhibit No 378-D 
[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tribunal 

Judgement No. 23 

FIFTH ordinary SESSION (PART II), GENEVA, OCTOBER 1955 

Sitting of 29 October 1955 

In THE Matter of ]Mrs. Kathryn Pankey Against United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organisaiton 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 13 September 1955 by Mrs. 
Kathryn Pankey, a former official of that Organisation, asking that the Tribunal 
be pleased to rescind the decision taken on 20 June 1955 terminating the com- 
plainant's appointment and, in default of reinstatement, to enjoin the defendant 
Organization to pay to the complainant by way of damages a sum equivalent to 
three years' salary, together with an indemnity of .$10,000 ; 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by the 
defendant Organization on G October 1955 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name, in his status 
as an official of the defendant Organization, holder of an indeterminate appoint- 
ment, on 3 October 19.55 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the Staff Association ; 

Having heard, on oath, in public sitting on 20 October 1955 Edward Joseph 
Phelan, witness cited by the complainant, whose deposition, certified true, is in 
the dossier ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) The complainant took up her duties with the defendant Organization on 
17 March 19.52 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken the complainant 
was the holder of an indeterminate appointment, subject to a five-year review on 
5 May 1958 ; 

(3) In February 19.53 the complainant received a questionnaire to be completed 
and returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10422 of the President of the 
United States dated 9 January 1953 prescribing procedures for making available 
to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information concerning 
United States citizens employed or being considered for employment on the Sec- 
retariat of the United Nations" whose provisions apply to the defendant Organi- 
zation by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the complainant did not 
complete this questionnaire ; 

(4) In March 19.54, the complainant received an interrogatory from the Inter- 
national Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission set up by Executive Order No. 104,59 of 2 June 1953 amending 
Executive Order No. 10422 of 9 January 1953 interrogatory to which the com- 
plainant also did not reply ; 

(5) In June 1954, the complainant received an invitation to appear on 9 July 
1954 before the Loyalty Board, meeting at the United States Embassy in Paris"; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2185 

(6) By letter dated 16 July 1954 the complainant informed the Director Gen- 
eral of the reasons of conscience on which she based her refusal to appear ; 

(7) Subsequently the Director General received communication of the report 
of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination) dated 27 Augst 1954 in which 
it was stated that : 

"* * * the Board concludes that on all the evidence, there is a reasonable 
doubt as to the loyalty of the employee, Kathryu Pankey, to the Government of 
the United States." 

(8) The complainant was herself informed of the conclusions of the Loyalty 
Board by letter of the Chairman of the Loyalty Board dated 15 September 1954, 
and was also informed of the fact that the report of the Loyalty Board had been 
transmitted to the Director General of the defendant Organization ; 

(9) On 28 September 1954 the Director General set up a Special Advisory 
Board consisting of members of the staff whose task was to "examine the cases 
of certain stafC members on the basis of certain information which has been 
brought to the knowledge of the Director General and in the light of the stand- 
ards of employment and conduct prescribed by the Constitution and Staff 
Regulations" ; the complainant appeared and explained her position before this 
Special Advisory Board ; 

(10) The complainant was informed by a note dated 10 December 1954 that 
she was suspended from her functions with pay until further notice in applica- 
tion of Rule 109.11 of the Staff Rules ; 

(11) By a note dated 16 December 1954 the complainant requested the 
Director General to reconsider his decision ; 

(12) The Director General declined to reconsider his decision and the com- 
plainant submitted an appeal to the UNESCO Appeals Board on 10 February 
1955, asking that the decision to suspend her be rescinded ; 

(13) On 25 July 1955 the Appeals Board, by a majority, expressed the opinion 
that the decision of the Director General dated 10 December 1954 by which 
the complainant had been suspended from her functions with pay should be 
rescinded ; 

(14) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision the Special Advisory 
Board, referred to in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations and appointed by 
the Director General in accordance with Rule 109.10 of the Staff Rules, heard 
the complainant in March 1955 ; 

(15) By letter dated 20 June 1955 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that her appointment was terminated on the same date. This letter 
stated inter alia: 

"The Special Advisory Board which I appointed in accordance with Staff 
Regulation 9.1.1 has submitted its report to me on the matter concerning you. 

"I have studied this report very carefully. 

"I regret to inform you that I have come to the conclusion that your conduct 
indicated that you do not meet the highest standards required by Article VI of 
the Constitution and by Chapter I of the Staff Regulations. 

"I have come to this conclusion because of the attitude you have adopted to 
the investigation undertaken by the United States Government under Executive 
Order 10422, as amended by Executive Order 10459, which found its principal 
expression in your refusal to respond to the invitation to appear, in July 1954, 
before the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United 
States Civil Service Commission, and because, at no time up to this date, have 
you taken any steps or shown any desire to repair, or at least to mitigate, the 
harm done to the Organization by your refusal to appear before the Board. 

"You could not have failed to realize that the attitude you have adopted 
gravely prejudiced the interests of the Organization. 

"I have indicated, and in particular, at the Eighth Session of the General 
Conference, the seriousness of the consequences of such an attitude. 

"In adopting and maintaining such an attitude, you have shown that you are 
not willing to regulate your conduct with the interests of the Organization only 
in view. 

"I am therefore obliged to terminate your appointment with effect from the 
end of the day, 20 June 1955, under the provisions of Staff Regulation 9.1.1. 

"In accordance with the terms of your indeterminate appointment you will 
receive an indemnity equivalent to [two] months pensionable remuneration. 

"You will be paid salary and allowances in lieu of three months' notice. 

"You will also receive any other payments to which you are entitled upon 
separation" ; 



2186 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(16) By letter dated 24 June 1955 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision to terminate her appointment; 

(17) By letter dated 27 June 1955 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that he adhered to his decision ; 

(18) On 1 July 1955 the complainant submitted an appeal to the UNESCO 
Appeals Board asking that the Director General's decision dated 20 June 1955 
be rescinded ; 

(19) On 29 July 1955 the Appeals Board, by a majority, expressed the opinion 
that the decision of 20 June 1955 by which the complainant's appointment 
was terminated should be rescinded ; 

(20) By letter dated 31 August 1955 the Director General informed the Chair- 
man of the Appeals Board that he could not act in accordance with this opinion. 

On the substance : 

A. Considering that the decision of 20 June 1955 terminating the appointment 
of the complainant was taken in application of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff 
Regulations, as adopted by the UESCO General Conference in Montevideo on 
8 December 1954, this Regulation being in the following terms: 

"The Director General may also, giving his reasons therefor, terminate the 
appointment of a staff member : 

"(a) If the conduct of the staff member indicates that the staff member 
does ont meet the highest standards required by Article VI of the Consti- 
tution and by Chapter I of the Staff Regulations ; 

"(&) If facts anterior to the appointment of the staff member and relevant 

to his suitability or which reflect on his present integrity come to light, 

which, if they had been known at the time of his appointment should, under 

the standards established in the Constitution, have precluded his appointment. 

"No termination under the provisions of this Regulation shall take effect until 

the matter has been considered and reported on by a special advisory board 

appointed for that purpose by the Director General" ; 

Considering that where the Director General acts within the provisions of 
Regulation 9.1.1 he has only the statutory powers conferred on him by the Gen- 
eral Conference : that in a particular case the Tribunal's appreciation and review 
of the exercise of this power consists in examining whether in fact the circum- 
stances of the case are such as to justify the application thereof; that if this 
were not to be the case the application of this power would be at the Director 
General's sole pleasure; 

Considering that Regulation 9.1.1 expressly provides that reasons must be 
given for taking the measures set forth therein and that the matter be first 
reported on by a Special Advisory Board appointed for that purpose by the 
Director General ; 

B. Considering that in this case the decision is expressly motivated by the 
attitude taken by the complainant with respect to the measures of investigation 
provided by the Government of the United States in application of Executive 
Orders Nos. 10422 and 10459, this attitude consisting principally in the refusal 
of the complainant to accede to the invitation to appear before the Loyalty Board 
in July 1954, and by the fact that after that date the complainant took no steps 
nor showed any wish to repair or mitigate the harm which was deemed to have 
been suffered by the Organization as a result of her refusal to appear, when she 
could not ignore the gravity of such harm ; 

Considering that the submissions of the defendant oblige the Tribunal, in 
order to carry out its functions under the provisions of Article II of its Statute, 
to seek in what manner and to what extent the interests of the Organization may 
have been prejudiced ; 

Considering that the difficulties having arisen within the defendant Organiza- 
tion are that one Member State, in defaiilt of obtaining the removal of those of 
its citizens being officials finding themselves in a situation similar to that of 
the complainant, appeared to be considering withdrawing its participation and 
support from the Organzation; that in particular an express statement in this 
sense was made before the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives of this State by one of the members of the delegation of the 
said State at the Montevideo Conference ; 

That it is significant that the Director General on 10 December 1954, that is 
to say on the date following that on which the Staff Regulations conferred upon 
him the new power, invoked such power against the three parties concerned, in 
order to suspend them from their duties and to take those procedural measures 
against them arising out of which the decisions to terminate them, now before 
the Tribunal, were taken ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2187 

That besides there is no indicatiou that there was any other reason for con- 
sidering that the interests of the Organization were imperilled : 

That the safeguarding erga omncs of the independence and impartiality of 
the Organization is also vital and must not be lost sight of ; 

C. Considering that the complainant could, in conscience, be persuaded that 
she was within her rights, that besides it has never been alleged that the com- 
plainant had been the object of legal proceedings in her own country by reason 
of the attitude complained against, since a purely administrative procedure was 
involved : that exception could not be taken against her, for having failed in her 
employment to determine precisely the gravity and imminence of the danger 
which may have imperilled certain interests of the Organization ; 

Considering tliat no exception can be talien against her on such grounds nor 
could she be reproached with having abstained from taking steps for which no 
particulars were given and in addition never requested of hex-, in order to repair 
or mitigate the difficulties to which the Organization was subject ; 

Considering that the Director General adduces, however, from the complain- 
ant's attitude and from the maintenance of this attitude that the complainant 
showed that she did not wish to regulate her conduct with the interests of the 
Organization only in view ; 

That in consequence on 20 June 1955 the Director General terminated the 
complainant's appointment with immediate effect (at the same time according to 
her those indemnities to which she was entitled under Regulation 9.3 of the Staff 
Regulations and Rule 104.7 (e) of the Staff Rules), after having consulted the 
Special Advisory Board set up in Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations and 
after carefully studying, as he states, the report of this Board ; 

D. Considering that it must be observed that the decision taken is based 
solely on paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations which gives 
to the Director General the power to terminate an official's appointment "if the 
conduct of the staff member indicates that the staff member does not meet the 
highest standards required by Article VI of the Constitution and by Chapter I 
of the Staff Regulations" ; 

That, on the basis of this wording, the clear distinction between the notions, 
respectively, of integrity and loyalty is henceforward not in issue; that the 
grounds adduced are based on the duty of officials "to conduct themselves at all 
times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants," "to bear 
in mind the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their interna- 
tional status" and at no time to lose sight of the interests of the international 
organization for which they serve ; 

Considering that paragraph (b) of Regulation 9.1.1 deals only with facts 
anterior to appointment or facts which, if they had been known at the time of 
the appointment should have precluded the appointment, such facts not having 
been demonstrated and not being in issue in this case ; 

E. Considering besides that there is no other motive in the case which can be 
Invoked in justification of termination ; 

That the Special Advisory Board which had been voluntarily set up by the 
Director General within the defendant Organization, as early as September 1954, 
expressly stated that it could find no evidence either in the reports of the Loyalty 
Board or as a result of its own enquiries that the complainant, during her employ- 
ment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organization, had engaged in or was 
engaging in activities that could be shown to constitute misconduct under the 
terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules ; 

That it results from the complainant's performance reports that she has never 
been the subject of any reproach; that on the contrary the appreciations con- 
tained therein were entirely laudatory as regards her work and performance and 
that she was promoted ; 

That the Director General was therefore entirely correct in not invoking 
against her any misconduct, breach of professional duty, or unsatisfactory 
service ; that on the contrary the representative of the defendant Organization 
has pointed out on several occasions that termination for disciplinary reasons 
was not in issue and that the sole issue was the termination of an appointment, 
with payment of indemnities, under the new Regulations on which the Director 
General relies ; 

F. Considering that the defendant Organization objects to the production of 
the report of the Special Advisory Board which was set xip in 1955 on the basis 
of the amended Regulations adopted by the General Conference ; 

That this objection is motivated by a text inserted by the Director General 
himself in the rules which he drew up in order to give effect to the new provisions 



2188 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

of the Staff Regulations by virtue of the powers conferred on him under the 
said Regulations; that this text stipulates (Staff Rule 109.10) that the proceed- 
ings and records of the Board shall be secret and confidential ; 

That if this provision made by the Director General in application of the 
regulations adopted by the General Conference were to be considered as lawful, 
it would have as its effect to remove from the Special Advisory Board its principal 
object ; that in reporting to the Administrative Commission of the General Con- 
ference (document 8C/ADM/14, paragraph 11), the author of the text declared 
himself on the subject of this Advisory Board as follows : "This is one way in 
which it is considered that staff members may be protected from the possibility of 
arbitrary decisions" ; that where the opinion given is confidential to the Director 
General alone, such additional guarantee promised against arbitrary decisions 
is unavailing ; 

That where the competent jurisdiction for reviewing the decision of the 
Director General is not able, any more than the complainant, to have cognizance 
of the opinion of the Special Advisory Board, and where, besides, the Director 
General is entirely free not to take account of such opinion and is thereby not 
subject to any outside I'eview, it would have sufllced to permit the Director 
General to be counseled accordingly thereon by such adviser as he thought fit ; 
that this cannot be imagined to have been the impression which led to the vote 
in the General Conference, the Conference being manifestly desirous to effectively 
protect staff members whose appointments would be terminated under Staff 
Regulation 9.1.1, from arbitrary decisions ; 

Considering that the deposition made under oath by Mr. Phelan, Chairman 
of the said Board, cited as a witness, sliows that the members of the Board 
did not, in accepting to serve, impose a condition of secrecy ; that they questioned 
the Director General on his intentions in this regard, which was proper, but 
did not have as a legal result to deprive the Director General from disposing 
of the report as he thought fit ; 

That the objection to the production of the report of the Board which was 
available to the Director General removes an element from the appreciation of 
the Tribunal competent to pronounce on the regularity of the decision taken ; 
that the regulations having been observed in the letter the Tribunal may not 
order thereon, but that in any event it Vv'as unable in its consultations to take 
into account this unknown element ; 

G. Considering that the complainant submits that the provisions of the new 
Regulations adopted in December 19.54 are not applicable in her case since the 
facts set up against her took place prior to such adoption ; 

That this submission is unfounded, the Director General having been accorded 
the power to review the conduct of a staff member, the appointment of whom 
is to be terminated, solely with regard to the higli standards required of an 
international official, and that he is free in this respect to take into account 
t!iose elements on which he considers his decision may be based ; 

That without doubt, the granting of such a power opens the door to a gi'eat 
extent to arbitrary decisions ; that it fully justifies the preoccupations of those 
desirous of providing at the same time sure and effective guaranties; that the 
Administrative Trilmnal must watch over the jurisdictional review which it 
exercises ; but that the texts exclude the submission based on their retroactive 
application ; 

H. Considering that where the Director General has the power to terminate 
nn indeterminate appointment, this is clearly subject to the implied condition 
that this authority must be exercised only for the good of the service and in the 
interest of the Organization ; 

Considering that it is in the light of this principle that the facts in this case 
should be examined ; 

Considering that Regulation 1.4 of the Staff Regulations of the defendant 
Organization is as follows : 

"Meml)ers of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner 
befitting their status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in 
any activity tliat is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with 
the Organization. They shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of 
public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status, or on the 
integrity, indrpendence and impartiality which are required by that status. 
Wliile they are not expected to give up their national sentiments, or their politi- 
cal and religious convictions, they shall at all times bear in mind the reserve and 
tact incumbent upon tliem by reason of their international status" ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2189 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of conscience 
recognized to international officials in respect of both their philosophical convic- 
tions and their political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the duty to 
abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them with 
propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever ; 

That this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organization to which they owe their loyalty and devotion ; 

I. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of the defend- 
ant Organization on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff" to reply 
to questionnaires issued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director- 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
quences which the refusal to reply might have for him ; 

Considering, however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board it is established that the complainant approached the Director 
General only at a late date, so that the latter would not have been able to give 
her advice in sufficient time ; 

J. Considering that, in order to review all factors, it is necessary to enquire 
whether the acts or omissions of the complainant could be considered as justify- 
ing the application of paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations, 
on the grounds that in themselves they caused doubt to exist as to whether she 
fulfilled the higliest standards required of an international official ; 

Considering that the complainant does not challenge the legitimate character 
of the enquiry made within the staff by the Special Advisory Board set up by the 
Director General on 28 September 1954, following the submission to the Director- 
General of the report made against her by the Loyalty Board in default of her 
appearance; 

That this measure is in accordance with the undertaking made with the State 
member concerned under arrangements approved by the Executive Board and 
General Conference of the defendant Organization : that this was solely an under- 
taliing that any information which the Government of the State concerned might 
desire to submit to the Director General would "be studied with care" and that 
he would "certainly give every consideration to it, in the light of the Constitution 
of UNESCO and all other relevant provisions and policies which may have been 
or may be laid down by the appropriate organs of UNESCO" ; 

That the Special Advisory Board set up on 28 September 1954 expressed the 
opinion, as referred to above, that it could find no evidence that the complainant 
had engaged or was engaging in activities during her employment, that could be 
shown to be misconduct under the Staff Regulations aud Staff Rules; the Board 
concluding however that the attitude adopted by the complainant as well as the 
reasons given for her attitude gave rise to serious doubts about the degree of confi- 
dence that could be placed in her integrity, judgment and loyalty to the Organiza- 
tion ; that the Board found justification for this opinion in stating that in a situa- 
tion which, in its opinion, was clearly harmful to the Organization, the com- 
plainant maintained that adherence to her own personal views was more import- 
ant than the interests of the Organization ; 

That this opinion restates in different terms the reasons Invoked for the deci- 
sion taken ; 

K. Considering however that when requested to give an opinion on the decision 
itself, the Appeals Board, presided over by an eminent magistrate enjoying the 
confidence of all parties and composed jointly of members appointed by the 
Director General and members appointed by the Staff Association, came unani- 
mously to a diametrically opposed conclusion ; that after a full hearing and a 
thorough study of all the facts in the case, it unanimously concluded that the 
complainants had not failed in the high standards required of members of the 
Secretariat, had not committed acts incompatible with the integrity required of 
them and had not disregarded the true interest of the Organization ; that, as a 
consequence, the decisions to terminate them had no basis in law and that the 
said complainants had shown cause for requesting reinstatement ; that the Tri- 
bunal fully agrees with this particularly authoritative opinion ; 

That the Court must besides take into consideration the due care required of it 
in appreciating the validity of the decision taken, by reason of the striking and in- 
defensible disproportion between the alleged attitude of the complainant and the 
measure taken against her, putting an end to the career on which she based her 
future, when no complaint regarding her work had been alleged ; that from this 
standpoint it is of no moment that the termination was not a disciplinary action 
in the formal sense of the Regulations and that certain indemnities were accorded, 

72723— 57— pt. 38 7 



2190 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

when the fuudamental result is to deprive the party concerned of her employment 
hy exposing her to all the risljs and distress of an uncertain future ; 

L. Considering that it is thus established that the gi-ouud for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the oflacial to participate in 
measures of verbal or written enquiry to which his national Government considers 
it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international organization cannot associate 
himself with the execution of the policy of the Government authorities of any 
State member without disregarding the obligations imposed on all international 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has Iteen conferred on him solely for the purpose of directing that Organi- 
zation towards the achievement of its own, exclusively international objectives; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, paragraph 5, 
of the Constitution of the defendant Organization in the following terms : 

"The responsibilities of the Director Gteueral and of the staff shall be exclu- 
sively international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall not 
seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority external 
to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might prejudice 
their position as international officials. Each State Member of the Organization 
undertakes to respect the international character of the responsibilities of the 
Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them in the discharge 
of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the doubts raised as to the loyalty 
of the complainant to her own Government brought by a Government which enjoys 
in all respects the highest prestige, must be without any influence upon the con- 
sideration of the facts in the case and the determination of the principles whose 
respect the Tribunal must ensure ; 

Tliac it will suffice to realize that if any one of the sevent.v-four States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organization brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to an 
enquiry in similar, or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Director 
General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to such 
enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory consequences, 
the same withdrawal of cofidence and the same application of Regulation 9.1.1. 
of the Staff Regulations, on the basis of any opposal by the person concerned 
to the action of his national Government ; 

That if this were to be the case there would result for all international 
officials, in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and inse- 
curity prejudicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provoke 
disturbances in the international administration such as cannot be imagined to 
have been in the intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant 
Organization ; 

M. Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the complain- 
ant towards the Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious doubts 
as to the high standards required of an international official ; 

That neither does it appear that the complainant placed her own interests above 
the true interest of the Organization, as defined above ; 

Considering therefore that the only ground for complaint adduced by the 
Director General to justify the application to the complainant of Regulation 
0. 1. 1. of the Staff Regulations, that is to say her opposal to the investiga- 
tions of her own Government, is entirely unfounded ; 

N. Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be 
rescinded, the said decision not resting on any provision of the Staff Regula- 
tions ; that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order reinstate- 
ment, which requires a positive act of the Director-General, over whom the Tri- 
bunal has no hierarchical authority ; 

That in the absence of such a power and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the Tri- 
bunal is none the less competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
i^uffered by the complainant by reason of the measure of which she was the 
object ; 

On prejudice : 

Considering that should the complainant not be reinstated with full rights, she 
should be compensated for the material and moral prejudice which she has 
suffered by reason of the decision taken ; 

That such prejudice may be assessed ex aeqvo et bono at two years' base salary, 
without any setoff of the indemnities which she has been accorded; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2191 

Considering that the annual base salary of the complainant amounted to 
819,000 French francs ; 

That there are no grounds for allocating a supplementary idemnity by reason 
of the suspension with salary dated 10 December 1954, a measure which the 
Director General was entitled to take within the limits of his authority and 
which cannot be considered in the circumstances as having increased the prejudice 
suffered ; 

On the gbounds as aforesaid 

The tribunal, 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions, 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form ; 

Declares that it is competent ; 

Orders the decision taken to be rescinded and declares in law that a legal basis 
therefor cannot be found in the Staff Regulations ; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
reinstate the complainant, orders the said defendant to pay to the complainant 
an amount equal to 2 years' base salary, namely 1,638,000 French francs to- 
gether with interest at 4 per centum from 20 June 1955, without any setoff 
of the indemnities accorded to her at the time of termination of her appointment ; 

Orders the defendant Organization to pay to the complainant the sum of $300 
by way of participation in the costs of her defense ; 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet ; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by 
M. Henquet in his own name, an official of the defendant Organization, holder 
of an indeterminate appointment ; 

Considering that the intervention is founded, in so far as recognized by this 
judgment ; 

Orders the defendant Organization to bear the expenses for which justification 
is provided by the intervenor up to a maximum of $40. 

In witness of which judgment, pronounced at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, 
in public sitting on 29 October 1955, by His Excellency M. Albert Dev6ze, Presi- 
dent, Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judge, Acting Vice President, and M. lasson 
Stavropoulos, Deputy Judge, called upon to sit owing to the inability of a titular 
judge to attend, the aforementioned have hereunto subscribed their signatures 
as well as myself. Wolf, Registrar of the Ti-ibunal. 

(Signatures) Albert Deveze. 

A. van Rijckevorsel. 

IaSSON STA\T50P0m-0S. 

Francis Wolf. 



Exhibit No. 378 — E 
[UnoflScial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tribunal 
J'udgment No. 24 

fifth ordinary session (PART II), GENEVA, OCTOBER 19r.5 

Sitting of 29 October 1955 

In THE Matter of Miss H^lene Van Geldee Against United Nations Educa- 
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, 
Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization on 13 September 1955 by Miss 
H^l^ne Van Gelder, a former official of that Organization, asking that the 
Tribunal be pleased to rescind the decision taken on 20 June 1955 terminating 
the complainant's appointment and, in default of reinstatement to enjoin the 
defendant Organization to pay to the complainant by way of damages a sum 
equivalent to three years salary together with an indemnity of $10,000 ; 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complainant submitted by 
the defendant Organization on 6 October 1955 ; 



2192 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name, in his status 
as an ofhcial of the defendant Oriianization, holder of an indeterminate appoint- 
ment, on 3 October 1955 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the Staff Association ; 

Having heard, on oath, in public sitting on 20 October 1955 Edward Joseph 
Phelan, witness cited by the complainant, whose deposition, certified true, is in 
the dossier ; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following: 

(1) The complainant took up her duties with the defendant Organization on 
29 July 1948 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken the complainant 
was the holder of an indeterminate appointment, subject to a five-year review on 
1 October 1959 ; 

(3) In February 1953 the complainant received a questionnaire to be com- 
pleted and returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10422 of the President 
of the United States dated 9 January 1953 prescribing procedures for making 
available to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information 
concerning United States citizens employed or being considered for employment 
on the Secretariat of the United Nations" whose provisions apply to the defendant 
Organization by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the comi>lainant 
completed this questionnaire and returned it ; 

(4) In February 1954, the complainant received an interrogatory from the 
International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission set up by Executive Order No. 104.59 of 2 June 1953 amending 
Executive Order No. 10422 of 9 January 1953 interrogatory to which the com- 
plainant replied ; 

(5) In July 1954, the complainant received an invitation to appear as from 
15 July 1954 before the Loyalty Board, meeting at the United States Embassy in 
Paris ; 

(6) By letter dated 21 July 1954 the complainant informed the Director Gen- 
eral of the reasons of conscience on which she based her refusal to appear ; 

(7) Subsequently the Director General received communications of the report 
of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination) dated 15 September 1954 in which 
it was stated that : 

"* * * the Board finds that, on all the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt 
of the loyalty of Helen Julie Van Gelder to the Government of the United States." 

(8) The complainant was herself informed of the conclusions of the Loyalty 
Board by letter of the Chairman of the Loyalty Board dated 27 September 1954, 
and was also infoi-med of the fact that the report of the Loyalty Board had been 
transmitted to the Director General of the defendant Organization; 

(9) On 28 September 1954 the Director General set up a Special Advisory 
Board consisting of members of the staff whose task was to "examine the cases of 
certain staff members on the basis of certain information which has been brought 
to the knowledge of the Director General and in the light of the standards of 
employment and conduct prescribed by the Constitution and StafE Regulations" ; 
the complainant appeared and explained her position before this Special Advisory 
Board ; 

(10) The complainant was informed by a note dated 10 December 1954 that 
she was suspended from her functions with pay until further notice in application 
of Rule 109.11 of the Staff Rules ; 

(11) By a note dated 17 December 1954 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision ; 

(12) The Director General declined to reconsider his decision and the com- 
plainant submitted an appeal to the UNESCO Appeals Board on 10 February 
1955, asking that the decision to suspend her be rescinded; 

(13) On 25 July 1955 the Appeals Board, by a majority, expressed the opinion 
that the decision of the Director General dated 10 December 1954 by which the 
complainant had been suspended from her functions with pay should be rescinded ; 

(14) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision the Special Advisory 
Board, referred to in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations and appointed by 
the Director General in accordance with Rule 109.10 of the Staff Rules, heard the 
complainant in March 1955 ; 

(15) By letter dated 20 June 1955 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that her appointment was terminated on the same date. This letter 
stated inter alia: 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2193 

"The Special Advisory Board which I appointed in accordance with Staff Regu- 
lation 9.1.1 has submitted its report to me on the matter concerning you. 

"I have studied this report very carefully. 

"I regret to inform you that I have come to the conclusion that your conduct 
indicated that you do not meet the highest standards required by Article VI of 
the Constitution and by Chapter I of the Staff Regulations. 

"I have come to this conclusion because of the attitude you have adopted to 
the investigation undertaken by the United States Government under Executive 
Order 10422, as amended by Executive Order 104.59, which found its principal 
expression in your refusal to respond to the invitation to appear, in July 1954, 
before the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board of the United 
States Civil Service Commission, and because, at no time up to this date, have 
you taken any steps or shown any desire to repair, or at least to mitigate, the 
harm done to the Organization by your refusal to appear before the Board. 

"You could not have failed to realize that the attitude you have adopted 
gravely prejudiced the interests of the Organization. 

"I have indicated, and in particular, at the Eighth Session of the General 
Conference, the seriousness of the consequences of such an attitu'le. 

"In adopting and maintaining such an attitude, you have shown that you are 
not willing to regulate your conduct with the interests of the Organization only 
in view. 

"I am therefore obliged to terminate your appointment with effect from the 
end of the day, 20 June 1955, under the provisions of Staff Regulation 9.1.1. 

"In accordance with the terms of your indeterminate appointment you will 
receive an indemnity equivalent to [six] months pensionable remuneration. 

"You will be paid salary and allowances in Ueu of three months' notice. 

"You will also receive any other payments to which you are entitled upon 
separation" ; 

(16) By letter dated 24 June 1955 the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision to terminate her appointment ; 

(17) By letter dated 27 June 19.55 the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that he adhered to his decision ; 

(IS) On 1 July 1955 the complainant submitted an appeal to the UNESCO 
Appeals Board asking that the Director General's decision dated 20 June 1955 
be rescinded ; 

(19) On 29 July 1955 the Appeals Board by a majority expressed the opinion 
that the decision of 20 June 1955 by which the complainant's appointment was 
terminated should be rescinded; 

(20) By letter dated 31 August 1955 the Director General informed the Chair- 
man of the Appeals Board that he could not act in accordance with this opinion. 

On the substance : 

A. Considering that the decision of 20 June 1955 terminating the appointment 
of the complainant was taken in application of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff 
Regulations, as adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in Montevideo on 
8 December 1954, this Regulation being in the following terms : 

"The Director General may also, giving his reasons therefor, terminate the 
appointment of a staff member : 

'•(a) If the conduct of the staff member indicates that the staff member 
does not meet the highest standards required by Article VI of the Constitu- 
tion and by Chapter I of the Staff Regulations ; 

" ( & ) If facts anterior to the appointment of the staff member and relevant 
to his suitability or which reflect on his present integrity come to light, 
which, if they had been known at the time of his appointment should, under 
the standards established in the Constitution, have precluded his appoint- 
ment. 
"No termination under the provisions of this Regulation shall take effect 
until the matter has been considered and reported on by a special advisory board 
appointed for that purpose by the Director General" ; 

Considering that where the Director General acts within the provisions of 
Regulation 9.1.1 he has only the statutory powers conferred on him by the 
General Conference ; that in a particular case the Tribunal's appreciation and 
review of the exercise of this power consists in examining whether in fact the 
circumstances of the case are such as to justify the application thereof; that 
if this were not to be the case the application of this power would be at the 
Director General's sole pleasure ; 

Considering that Regulation 9.1.1 expressly provides that reasons must be 
given for taking the measures set forth therein and that tlie matter be first 



2194 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

reported on by a Special Advisory Board appointed for that purpose by the 
Director General ; 

B. Considering that in this case the decision is expressly motivated by the 
attitude taken by the complainant with respect to the measures of investigation 
provided by the Government of the United States in application of Executive 
Orders No. 10422 and 10459, this attitude consisting principally in the refusal 
of the complainant to accede to the invitation to appear befoi-e the Loyalty Board 
in July 1954, and by the fact that after that date the complainant took no steps 
nor showed any wish to repair or mitigate the harm which was deemed to have 
been suffered by the Organization as a result of her refusal to appear, when she 
could not ignore the gravity of such harm ; 

Considering that the submissions of the defendant oblige the Tribunal, in order 
to carry out its functions under the provisions of Article II of its Statute, to seek 
in what manner and to what extent the interests of the Organization may have 
been prejudiced ; 

Considering that the difficulties having arisen within the defendant Organiza- 
tion are that one Member State, in default of obtaining the removal of those of 
its citizens being officials finding themselves in a situation similar to that of the 
complaint, appeared to be considering withdi'awing its participation and support 
from the Organization ; that in particular in express statement in this sense was 
made before the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
of this State by one of the members of the delegation of the said State at the 
Montevideo Conference ; 

That it is significant that the Director General, on 10 December 1954, that is 
to say on the date following that on which the Staff Regulations conferred upon 
him the new poAver, invoked such power against the three parties concerned, 
in order to suspend them from their duties and to take those procedural measures 
against them a rising out of which the decisions to terminate them, now before 
the Tribunal, were taken ; 

That besides there is no indication that there was any other reason for con- 
sidering that the interests of the Organization were imperiled ; 

That the safeguarding erga onines of the independence and impartiality of the 
Organization is also vital and must not be lost sight of ; 

C. Considering that the complainant could, in conscience, be persuaded that 
she was within her rights, that besides it has never been alleged that the com- 
plainant had been the object of legal proceedings in her own country by reason 
of the attitude complained against, since a purely administrative procedure was 
involved ; that exception could not be taken against her, for having failed in her 
employment to determine precisely the gravity and imminence of the danger 
which may have imperiled certain interests of the Organization ; 

Considering that no exception can be taken against her on such grounds nor 
could she be reproached with having abstained from taking steps for which no 
particulars were given and in addition never requested of her, in order to repair 
or mitigate the difficulties to Avhich the Organization was subject ; 

Considering that the Director General adduces however from the complainant's 
attitude and from the maintenance of this attitude that the complainant showed 
that she did not wish to regulate her conduct with the interests of the Organiza- 
tion only in view ; 

That in consequence on 20 June 1955 the Director General terminated the 
complainant's appointment with immediate effect (at the same time according 
to her those indemnities to which she was entitled under Regulation 9.3 of the 
Staff Regulations and Rule 104.7(e) of the Staff Rules), after having consulted 
the Special Advisory Board set up in Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regvilations 
and after carefully studying, as he states, the report of this Board ; 

D. Considering that it must be observed that the decision taken is based solely 
on paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations which gives to the 
Director General the power to terminate an official's appointment "if the conduct 
of the staff member indicates that the staff' member does not meet the highest 
standards required by Article VI of the Constitution and by Chapter I of the 
Staff Regulations" ; 

That, on the basis of the wording, the clear distinction between the notions 
respectively of integrity and loyalty is henceforward not in issue : that the grounds 
adduced are based on the duty of officials "to conduct themselves at all times in 
a manner befitting their status as international civil servants", "to bear in mind 
the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their international 
status.", and at no time to lose sight of the interests of the international or- 
ganization for which they serve ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2195 

Considering that paragraph (5) of Reguhition 9.1.1 deals only with facts 
anterior to appointment or facts which, if they had been known at the time of the 
appointment should have precluded the appointment, such facts not having been 
demonstrated and not being in issue in this case, 

E. Considering besides that there is no other motive in the case which can be 
invoked in justification of termination ; 

That the Special Advisory Board which had been voluntarily set up by the 
Director General within the defendant Organization, as early as September 1954, 
expressly stated that it could find no evidence either in the reports of the Loyalty 
Board or as a result of its own enquiries that the complainant, during her 
employment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organization, had engaged in or 
was engaging in activities that could be shown to constitute misconduct under the 
terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules ; 

That it results from the complainant's performance reports that she has never 
been the subject of any reproach ; that on the contrary the appreciations con- 
tained therein were entirely laudatory as regards her work and performance 
and that she was promoted ; 

That the Director General was therefore entirely correct in not invoking 
against her any misconduct, breach of professional duty or unsatisfactory serv- 
ice; that on the contrary the representative of the defendant Organization has 
pointed out on several occasions that termination for disciplinary reasons was 
not in issue and that the sole issue was the determination of an appointment, 
with payment of indemnities, under the new Regulations on which the Director 
General relies ; 

F. Considering that the defendant Organization objects to the production of 
the report of the Special Advisory Board which was set up in 1955 on the basis 
of the amended Regulations adopted by the General Conference ; 

That this objection is motivated by a text inserted by the Director General 
himself in the rules which he drew up in order to give effect to the new pro- 
visions of the Staff Regulations by virtue of the powers conferred on him under 
the said Regulations; that this text stipulates (Staff Rule 109.10) that the pro- 
ceedings and reports of the Board shall be secret and confidential ; 

That if this provision made by the Director General in application of the 
regulations adopted by the General Conference were to be considered as law- 
ful, it would have as its effect to remove from the Special Advisory Board its 
principal object; that in reporting to the Administrative Commission of the 
General Conference (document 8C/ADM/14, paragraph 11), the author of the 
text declared himself on the subject of this Advisory Board as follows: "This 
is one way in which it is considered that staff members may be protected from 
the possibility of arbitrary decisions" ; that where the opinion given is con- 
fidential to the Director General alone, such additional guarantee promised 
against arbitrary decisions is imavailing ; 

That where the competent jurisdiction for reviewing the decision of the Di- 
rector General is not able, any more than the complainant, to have cognizance 
of the opinion of the Special Advisory Board, and where, besides, the Director 
General is entirely free not to take account of such opinion and is thereby not 
subject to any outside review, it would have sufficed to permit the Director Gen- 
eral to be counseled accordingly thereon by such advisers as he thought fit; 
that this cannot be imagined to have been the impression which led to the vote 
in the General Conference, the Conference being manifestly desirous to ef- 
fectively protect staff members whose appointments would be terminated under 
Staff Regulation 9.1.1, from arbitrary decisions ; 

Considering that the deposition made under oath by Mr. Phelan, Chairman of 
the said Board, cited as a witness, shows that the members of the Board did not, 
in accepting to serve, impose a condition of secrecy; that they questioned the 
Director General on his intentions in this regard, which was proper, but did 
not have as a legal result to deprive the Director General from disiwsing of 
the report as he thought fit ; 

That the objection to the production of the report of the Board which was 
available to the Director General removes an element from the appreciation 
of the Tribunal competent to pronounce on the regularity of the decision taken ; 
that the regulations having been observed in the letter the Tribunal may not 
order thereon, but that in any event it was unable in its consultations to take 
into account this unknown element ; 

G. Considering that the complainant submits that the provisions of the new 
Regulations adopted in December 1954 are not applicable in her case since the 
tacts set up against her took place prior to such adoption ; 



2196 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

That this submission is unfounded, the Director General having been accorded 
the power to review the conduct of a staff member, the appointment of whom 
is to be terminated, solely with regard to the high standards required of an 
international official, and that he is free in this respect to take into account those 
elements on which he considers his decision may be based ; 

That without doubt, the granting of such a power opens the door to a gi-eat 
extent to arbitrary decisions ; that it fully justifies the preoccupations of those 
desirous of providing at the same time sure and effective guarantees ; that the 
Administrative Tribunal must watch over the jurisdictional review which it 
exercises ; but that the texts exclude the submission based on their retroactive 
applications ; 

H. Considering that where the Director General has the power to terminate 
an indeterminate appointment, this is clearly subject to the implied condition 
that this authority must be exercised only for the good of the service and in the 
interest of the Organization ; 

Considering that it is in the light of tliis principle that the facts in this case 
sliould be examined ; 

Considering that Regulation 1.4 of the Staff Regulations of the defendant 
Organization is as follows : 

"Members of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner 
befitting their status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in 
any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with 
the Organization. They shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of 
public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status, or on the 
integi-ity, independence, and impartiality which are required by that status. 
"Wbile they are not expected to give iip their national sentiments, or their politi- 
cal and religious convictions, they shall at all times bear in mind the reserve 
and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their international status" ; 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of conscience 
I'ecognized to international officials in respect of both their philosophical convic- 
tions and tlieir political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the duty to 
abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them with 
propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever ; 

That this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organization to which they owe their loyalty and devotion ; 

I. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of the defendant 
Organization on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff to reply to 
questionnaires issued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
quences which the refusal to reply might have for him ; 

Considering, however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board it is established that the complainant approached the Director 
General only at a late date, so that the latter would not have been able to give 
her advice in sufficient time ; 

J. Considering that, in order to review all factors, it is necessary to enquire 
whether the acts or omissions of the complainant could be considered as justify- 
ing the application of paragraph (a) of Regulation 9.1.1 of the Staff Regulations, 
on the grounds that in themselves they caused doubt to exist as to whether she 
fulfilled the highest standards required of an international official ; 

Considering that the complainant does not challenge the legitimate character 
of the enquiry made within the staff by the Special Advisory Board set up by the 
Director General on 28 September 1954, following the submission to the Director 
General of the report made against her by the Loyalty Board in default of her 
appearance ; 

That this measure is in accordance with the undertaking made with the State 
member concerned under arrangements approved by the Executive Board and 
General Conference of the defendant Organization ; that this was solely an 
undertaking that any information which the Government of the State concerned 
might desire to submit to the Director General would "be studied with care" 
and that he would "certainly give every consideration to it, in the light of the 
Constitution of UNESCO and all other relevant provisions and policies which 
may have been or may be laid down by the appropriate organs of UNESCO" ; 

That the Special Advisory Board set up on 2S September 1954 expressed the 
opinion, as referred to above, that it could find no evidence that the complainant 
had engaged or was engaging in activities during her employment, that could 
be shown to be misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules; the 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2197 

Board concluding however that the attitude adopted by the complainant as well 
as the reasons given for her attitude gave rise to serious doubts about the degree 
of confidence that could be placed in her integrity, judgment, and loyalty to the 
Organization; that the Board found justification for this opinion in stating that 
in a situation which, in its opinion, was clearly harmful to the Organization, the 
complainant maintained that adherence to her own personal views was more im- 
portant than the interests of the Organization ; 

That this opinion restates in different terms the reasons invoked for the deci- 
sion taken ; 

K. Considering however that when requested to give an opinion on the decision 
itself, the Appeals Board, presided over by an eminent magistrate enjoying the 
confidence of all parties and composed jointly of members appointed by the 
Director General and members appointed by the Staff Association, came unani- 
mously to a diametrically opposed conclusion ; that after a full hearing and a 
thorough study of all the facts in the case, it unanimously concluded that the 
complainants had not failed in the high standards required of members of the 
Secretariat, had not committed acts incompatible with the integrity required of 
them and had not disregarded the true interest of the Organization ; that, as a 
consequence, the decisions to terminate them had no basis in law and that the 
said complainants had shown cause for requesting reinstatement; that the 
Tribunal fully agrees with this particularly authoritative opinion; 

That the Court must besides take into consideration the due care required of 
it in appreciating the validity of the decision taken, by reason of the striking 
and indefensible disproportion between the alleged attitude of the complainant 
and the measure taken against her, putting an end to the career on which she 
based her future, when no complaint regarding her work had been alleged ; that 
from this standpoint it is of no moment that the termination was not a discipli- 
nary action in the formal sense of the Regulations and that certain indemnities 
were accorded, when the fundamental result is to deprive the party concerned 
of her employment by exposing her to all the risks and distress of an uncertain 
future ; 

L. Considering that it is thus established that the ground for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the official to participate in 
measures of verbal or written enquiry to which his national Government con- 
siders it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international organization cannot associate 
himself with the execution of the policy of the Government authorities of any 
State member without disregarding the obligations imiwsed on all international 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has been conferred on him solely for the purpose of directing that Organ- 
ization towards the achievement of its own exclusively international objectives ; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, paragraph 
5, of the Constitution of the defendant Organization in the following terms : 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be exclusively 
international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall not seek 
or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority external to 
the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might prejudice 
their position as international officials. Each State Member of the Organization 
undertakes to respect the international character of the responsibilities of the 
Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them in the dis- 
charge of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the doubts raised as to the loyalty 
of the complainant to her own Government brought by a Government which 
enjoys in all respects the highest prestige must be without any influence upon 
the consideration of the facts in the case and the determination of the principles 
whose respect the Tribunal must ensure ; 

That it will siiffice to realize that if any one of the seventy-four States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organization brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to an 
enquir.v in similar or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Director 
General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to such 
enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory consequences, 
the same withdrawal of confidence and the same application of Regulation 9.1.1 
of the Staff Regulations, on the basis of any opposal by the person concerned to 
the action of his national Government ; 

That if this were to be the case there would result for all international officials, 
in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and insecurity prej- 



2198 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

udicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provoke disturbances in 
the international aduiinistration such as cannot be imagined to have been in the 
intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant Organization ; 

M. Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the com- 
plainant towards tlie Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious 
doubts as to the high standards required of an international official ; 

That neither does it appear that the complainant iilaced her own interests 
above the triie interest of the Organization, as defined above ; 

Considering therefore that the only ground for complaint adduced by the 
Director General to justify the application to the complainant of Regulation 9.1.1 
of the Staff Regulations, that is to say her opposal to the investigations of her 
own Government, is entirely unfounded ; 

N. Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be re- 
scinded, the said decision not resting on any provision of the Staff Regulations ; 
that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order reinstatement, 
which requires a positive act of the Director General, over whom the Tribunal has 
no hierarchical authority ; 

That in the absence of such a i)ower and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the 
Tribunal is none the less competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
suffered by the complainant by reason of the measure of which she was the 
object ; 

On prejudice: 

Considering that should the complainant not be reinstated with full rights, she 
should be compensated for the material and moral prejudice which she has suf- 
fered by reason of the decision taken ; 

That such prejudice may be assessed eoe aequo et bono (at two years' base 
salary, without any set off of the indemnities which she has been accorded; 

Considering that the annual base salary of the complainant amounted to 1,130,- 
000 French francs ; 

That there are no grounds for allocating a supplementary indemnity by reason 
of the suspension with salary dated 10 December 1954, a measure which the 
Director General was entitled to take within the limits of his authority and which 
cannot be considered in the circumstances as having increased the prejudice 
suffered ; 

On the grounds as aforesaid 

The tribunal. 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions, 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form ; 

Declares that it is competent ; 

Orders the decision taken to be rescinded and declares in law that a legal basis 
therefor cannot be found in the Staff Regulations ; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
reinstate the complainant, orders the said defendant to pay to the complainant an 
amount equal to two years' base salary, namely 2,200,000 French francs together 
with interest at 4 per centum from 20 June 1955, without any set off of the 
indemnities accorded to her at the time of termination of her appointment; 

Orders the defendant Organization to pay to the complainant the sum of $300 
by way of participation in the costs of her defence ; 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet ; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by M. 
Henquet in his own name, an official of the defendant Organization, holder of an 
indeterminate appointment ; 

Considering that the intervention is found, in so far as recognized by this 
judgment ; 

Orders the defendant Organization to bear the expenses for which justification 
is provided by the intervener up to a maximum of $40. 

In witness of which judgment, pronounced at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, 
in public sitting on 29 October 1955, by His Excellency M. Albert Devize, Presi- 
dent, Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judge, x\cting Vice President, and M. lasson 
Stavropoulos, Deputy Judse, called upon to sit owing to the inability of a titular 
judge to attend, the aforementioned have hereunto subscribed their signatures as 
well as myself, Wolf, Registrar of the Tribunal. 

(Signatures) Albert DEvfezE. 

A. VAN Rijckevorsel. 
Iasson Stavropoulos. 
Francis Wolf. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2199 

Exhibit No. 378-F 

[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tribunal 

Judgment No. 19 

ORDINARY session OF APRIL 105 5 

Sitting of 26 April 1955 

In the Matter of Mks. Annette Wilcox Against Unitf.d Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organisation 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, 

Having had referred to it a complaint submitted against the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultiiral Organisation on 5 February 1955 b.v Mrs. 
Annette Wilcox, an official of that Organisation, asking that the Tribunal be 
pleased to rescind the decision taken by the Director General on 13 August 1954 
and to enjoin the Director General to renew the contract of the complainant and 
to pay lier the sum of one franc in respect of damages and legal costs ; 

Considering the memorandum of reply to the said complaint submitted by the 
defendant Organisation on 19 March 1955 ; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name on 20 April 
1955 by M. Pierre Henquet, Chairman of the Staff Association of UNESCO; 

Considering the pleadings exchanged by the representatives of the parties 
during the hearing and in particular the statement by the complainant that her 
alternative claim for damages would amount to the sum of $70,300 ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are the following : 

(1) The complainant took up her duties with the defendant Organisation on 
1 June 1950 ; 

(2) At the time when the decision complained of was taken, the complainant 
was the holder of a fixed-term contract of one year's duration expiring on 
31 December 1954 ; 

(3) In February 1953, the complainant received from the representative of 
the United States to the defendant Organisation a questionnaire to be completed 
and returned in application of "Executive Order No. 10,422 of the President of 
the United States dated 9 January 1953 prescribing procedures for making 
available to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information 
concerning United States citizens employed or being considered for employment 
on the Secretariat of the United Nations", whose provisions apply to the defendant 
Organisation by virtue of Part III of the Order in question ; the complainant 
completed this questionnaire and returned it on 13 February 1953 ; 

(4) In February 3954, the complainant received an interrogatory from the 
International Organisations Employees Loyalty Board of the United States Civil 
Service Commission, set up by Executive Order No. 10,459, of 2 June 1953, amend- 
ing Executive Order No. 10,422 of 9 January 1953, interrogatory to wliich the 
complainant did not reply ; 

(5) In June 1954, the complainant received an invitation, dated IS June, to 
appear on 15 July before the Loyalty Board meeting at the United States 
Embassy in Paris ; 

(6) By letter dated 16 July 1954, the complainant informed the Director 
General of the reasons of conscience on which she based her refusal to appear ; 

(7) By letter dated 13 August 1954, the Director General informed the com- 
plainant that he would not offer her a new contract on the expiry of the contract 
at that time in force. This letter stated, inter alia: 

"* * * jji the light of what I believe to be your duty to the Organisation, I 
have considered very carefully your reasons for not appearing before the Inter- 
national Employees Loyalty Board where you would have had an opportunity 
of dispelling suspicions and disproving allegations which may exist regarding you. 

"It is with a deep sense of my responsibilities that I have come to the conclu- 
sion that I cannot accept your conduct as being consistent with the high standards 
of integrity which are required of those employed by the Organization. 

"I have, therefore, to my regret, to inform you that I shall not offer you a 
further appointment when your present appointment expires * * *" ; 



2200 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(8) By a letter dated 21 August 1954, the complainant requested the Director 
General to reconsider his decision ; 

(9) The Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and Management informed the 
complainant in a letter dated 30 August 1954 of the Director General's refusal 
to do so ; 

(10) By a letter of 14 September 1954, the Director General received com- 
munication of the report of the Loyalty Board (advisory determination) in 
which it was stated that : "it has been determined on all the evidence, that there 
is a reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of Irene Annette Wilcox to the Government 
of the United States" and that "this determination, together with the reasons 
therefor, in as much detail as security considerations permit, are submitted 
for your use in exercising your rights and duties with respect to the integrity 
of the personnel employed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
Cultural Organization" ; 

(11) The complainant was herself informed of the conclusions of the Loyalty 
Board by letter of the Chairman of the Loyalty Board dated 15 September 1954 
and was also informed of the fact that the report of the Loyalty Board had been 
transmitted to the Director General of the defendant Organisation ; 

(12) On 23 September 1954, the complainant submitted an appeal to the 
UNESCO Appeals Board asking that the above-mentioned decision should be 
rescinded ; 

(13) On 2 November 1954, the Appeals Board, by a majority opinion, ex- 
pressed the opinion that the decision should be rescinded ; 

(14) By a letter dated 25 November 1954, the Director General informed the 
Chairman of the Appeals Board that he could not act in accordance with this 
opinion ; 

(15) Before the Appeals Board had taken its decision, the Director General, 
on 28 September 1954, set up a Special Advisory Board consisting of members 
of the staff, whose task w^as to "examine the cases of certain staff members on 
the basis of certain information which has been brought to the knowledge of the 
Director General, and in the light of the standards of employment and conduct 
prescribed by the Constitution and Staff Regulations" ; 

(16) The complainant appeared and explained her position before this Special 
Advisory Board. However, in a letter dated 5 October 1954 to the Chairman 
of the Appeals Board of the defendant Organisation, the complainant expressed 
full reservations to the legality of the procedure of the Board and the measures 
which might result from it. 

On competence : 

Considering that the character of a fixed-term appointment is in no way 
that of a probationary appointment, that is to say of a trial appointment ; 

That while it is the case that UNESCO Staff Rule 104.6 issued in application 
of the Staff Regulations stipulates that : "A fixed-term appointment shall expire, 
without notice or indemnity, upon completion of the fixed term * * *", this text 
only deals with the duration of the appointment and in no way bars the Tribunal 
from being seized of a complaint requesting the examination of the validity of 
the positive or negative decision taken regarding the renewal of the said 
appointment ; 

That it is established in the case that the Director General, by a general 
measure of which the whole staff was informed on 6 July 1954, "decided that 
all professional staff members whose contracts expire between now and 30 June 
1955 (inclusive) and who have achieved the required standards of efliciency, 
competence, and integrity, and whose services are needed, will be offered one-year 
renewals of their appointments" ; 

That the complainant, having been made the object of an exception to this 
general measure, holds that the Director General could not legitimately thus make 
an exception of her on the sole ground which he invoked against her as justifica- 
tion for the view that she did not possess the quality of integrity recognised 
in those of her colleagues whose contracts had been renewed, and in the absence 
of any contestation of her qualities of competence and efficiency ; 

That the complainant requests that this decision be rescinded and, alterna- 
tively, that an indemnity be granted ; 

Considering that the question is thus a dispute concerning the interpreta- 
tion and application of the Staff Regulations and Rules of the defendant 
Organisation : 

That by virtue of Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal is 
competent to hear the said dispute ; 

On the substance : 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2201 

A. Considering that the defendant Organisation holds that the renewal or 
the nonrenewal of a fixed-term appointment depends entirely on the personal 
and sovereign discretion of the Director General who is not even required to give 
his reason therefor ; 

Considering that if this were to be so, any unmotivated decision would not 
be subject to the general legal review which is vested in the Tribunal, and 
would be liable to become arbitrary ; 

Considering that, in fact, it may be conceived that this might exceptionally be 
the case when, for example, it is a matter of assessing the technical suitability 
of the person concerned for carrying out his duties ; 

Considering, however, that in this matter the question does not affect the 
issue inasmuch as th*Director General has not only given the reason for the 
decision taken by him but has also made it public in a communique issued to the 
press ; 

That this reason is based solely on the refusal of the complainant to cooperate 
in the measures of investigation provided in respect of certain of its nationals 
by the Govermuent of the State of which she is a citizen, and in particular 
on her refusal to appear before a commission invested by that Government with 
the power to investigate her loyalty to that State; 

That the Directcor General declares that he concludes from this that he can 
no longer retain his confidence in the complainant and offer her a new appoint- 
ment, her attitude being incnmpatil)le with the high standards of integrity re- 
quired of those who are employed by the Organisation and being, furthermore, 
capable of harming the interests of the Organisation ; 

Considering in relation hereto that it is necessary expressly to reject all 
uncertainty and confusion as to the meaning of the expression "loyalty towards 
a State" which is entirely different from the idea of "integrity" as embodied in 
the Staff Regulations and Rules ; and that this is evident and requires no further 
proof ; 

B. Consideringg that if the Director General is granted authority not to re- 
new a fixed-term appointment and so to do without notice or indemnity, this 
is clearly subject to the implied condition that this authority must be exercised 
only for the good of tlie service and in the interest of the Organisation ; 

Considering that it is in the light of this principle that the facts in this 
case should be examined ; 

Considering that Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations of the defendant 
Organisation, as it stood at the moment when the decision complained of was 
taken, was as follows : 

"Members of the Secretariat shall conduct themselves at all times in a man- 
ner consonant with the good repute and high purposes of the Organization and 
their status as international civil servants. They shall not engage in any 
activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties. They 
shall avoid any action, and in particular any kind of public pronouncement, 
which would adversely reflect upon their status. While they are not expected 
to give up religious or political convictions or national sentiments, they shall 
at all times exercise the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of 
their international responsibilities." 

Considering that, in thus clearly establishing the entire freedom of con- 
science recognized to international officials in respect of both their philosophical 
convictions and their political opinions, the Regulations impose on them the 
duty to abstain from all acts capable of being interpreted as associating them 
with propaganda or militant proselytism in any sense whatever; 

That this abstention is rigorously imposed on them by the overriding interest 
of the international organisation to which they owe their loyalty and devotion : 

C. Considering that, when consulted by the Staff Association of the defendant 
Organisation on the obligation incumbent on members of the staff to reply to 
questionnaires issued by authorities of their respective countries, the Director 
General declared that the answer must depend only on the conscience of the 
individual, except that he should not lie and should have regard to the conse- 
quences which the refusal to reply might have for him ; 

Considering, however, that in respect of the invitation to appear before the 
Loyalty Board, it is established that the complainant simply informed the 
Director General after the date on which she had been called on to appear, of 
her decision not to appear ; 

Considering that it is desirable to determine whether the attitude adopted by 
the complainant in this respect may be considered as justifying the loss of confi- 
dence alleged by the Director General ; 



2202 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

D. Considering tliat it is uudoubtecUy true that if the Director General has 
been informed that a member of his staff has acted in a manner prohibited by 
Article 1.4 of the Staff Regulations, the Director General has a duty to check 
the accuracy of such information either himself or through persons appointed 
by him from within his Organisation, in order tbat he may talie decisions or even 
sanctions, if necessary, in the full knowledge of the facts ; 

That in this light the enquiry procedure within the Secretariat to which the 
Director General resorted in the present case in full exercise of his authority 
can in no sense be subject to criticism; tliat it is in accordance with the under- 
taking made with the State Member concerned under arrangements approved by 
the Executive Board and General Conference of the defendant Organisation ; 
that this was solely an undertaking that any information which the Government 
of the State concerned might desire to submit to the Director General would 
"be studied with care" and that he would "certainly give every consideration to 
it, in the light of the Constitution of UNESCO and all other relevant provisions 
and policies which may have been or may be laid down by the appropriate organs 
of UNESCO" ; 

That the objection raised in this regard by the complainant is totally un- 
founded ; 

B. Considering that it is quite different when the ground for complaint of the 
Director General is based solely on the refusal of the official to participate in 
measures of verbal or written enquiry to which his national Government con- 
siders it necessary to subject him ; 

That the Director General of an international organisation cannot associate 
himself with the execution of tlie policy of the government authorities of any 
State Member without disregarding the obligations imposed on all international 
officials without distinction and, in consequence, without misusing the authority 
which has been conferred on him solely for the purpose of directing that organi- 
sation towards the achievement of its own, exclusively international, objectives; 

That this duty of the Director General is governed by Article VI, paragraph 5, 
of the Constitution of the defendant Organisation, in the following terms: 

"The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff shall be exclu- 
sively international in character. In the discharge of their duties they shall 
not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority 
external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might 
prejudice their position as international officials. Each State Member of the 
Organization undertakes to respect the international character of the responsi- 
bilities of the Director General and the staff, and not to seek to influence them 
in the discharge of their duties." 

Considering that the fact that in this case the matter involved is an accusation 
of disloyalty brought by a Government which enjoys in all respects the highest 
prestige, must be without any influence upon the consideration of the facts in 
the case and the determination of the principles whose respect the Tribunal must 
ensure ; 

That it will suffice to realise that if any of the seventy-two States and 
Governments involved in the defendant Organisation brought against an official, 
one of its citizens, an accusation of disloyalty and claimed to subject him to 
an enquiry in similar or analogous conditions, the attitude adopted by the Direc- 
tor General would constitute a precedent obliging him to lend his assistance to 
such enquiry and, moreover, to invoke the same disciplinary or statutory con- 
sequences, the same withdrawal of confldence, on the basis of any opiwsal by the 
person concerned to the action of his national Government ; 

That if this were to be the case there would result for all international offi- 
cials, in matters touching on conscience, a state of uncertainty and insecurity 
prejudicial to the performance of their duties and liable to provulve disturbances 
in the International administration such as cannot be imagined to have been 
in the intention of those who drew up the Constitution of the defendant 
Organisation ; 

Considering therefore tliat tlie only ground for complaint adduced by the 
Director General to justify the application to the complainant of an exception 
to the general rule of renewal of appointments, that is to say her opposal to 
the investigations of her own Government, is entirely unjustified ; 

Considering that it is in vain that it is alleged that the terms of renewal 
set forth in the Director General's circular of C, July 1954, after enumeration 
of the standards required, provide that tlie services of the person concerned 
must be needed ; that this expression cannot mean that tbe i>erson concerned 
must be irreplaceable, in that no successor can be found; that it means only 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2203 

that the requirements of the service to which the person concerned is assigned 
must be permanent and that the said person must give full satisfaction therein 
and otherwise in all manner in the performance of his or her duties ; that on this 
last point the appreciations contained in the annual reports of the complainant 
are entirely laudatory ; 

Considering that it results therefrom that the decision taken must be rescinded ; 
but that nevertheless the Tribunal does not have the power to order the renewal 
of a fixed-term appointment, which requires a positive act of the Director General 
over whom the Tribunal has no hierarchical authority ; 

That in the absence of such a i>ower and unless the Director General should 
consider himself in a position to reconsider his decision in this manner, the 
Tribunal is none the less competent to order equitable reparation of the damage 
suffered by the complainant by reason uf the discriminatory treatment of which 
she was the object ; 

F. Considering that it results from the documents produced by the parties 
during the hearing that the enquiry made by order of the Director General 
himself within the defendant Organisation, the legitimate and regular character 
of which has been shown above, did not bring any evidence to show that the 
complainant failed in her duties, as defined in Article 1.4 of the Regulations, 
during the period that she was an oflicial of the defendant Organisation ; 

That this Special Board considered that it could find no evidence either in the 
reports of the Loyalty Board or as a result of its own enquiries that the com- 
plainant, during her employment in the Secretariat of the defendant Organisa- 
tion, had engaged in or was engaging in activities that could be shown to 
constitute misconduct under the terms of the Staff Regulations and Rules ; 

Considering that it is irrelevant to seek whether or not the complainant was 
engaged in militant political activities before being appointed to the inter- 
national service and at a time when she was not bound by the obligations 
involved in joining this service, unless it has been proved that she had been 
guilty of dishonourable or criminal acts (actes d^shonorants ou criminels) ; 

That any accusation of this nature could only be admitted if drawn up both 
in due form and with all the precision required to ensure respect for the right 
of the accused person to defend herself ; 

That it is not so in this case ; 

Considering that it has been shown above that the attitude of the complainant 
towards the Loyalty Board in no way justifies the existence of serious doubts 
as to her integrity, judgment, and loyalty towards the defendant Organisation ; 

That it does not therefore appear that tlie complainant placed her own inter- 
ests above the true interest of the Organisation, which interest consists above 
all in safeguarding erga omnes its independence and impartiality ; 

On prejudice : 

Considering that an oflicial who combines all the necessary qualities has a 
legitimate expectancy of being offered a new appointment in the position which 
he or she occupied, and that this expectancy was fulfilled for all the persons 
concerned, with the exception of a certain numbei-, of whom the complainant ; 

That not only is such an almost absolute quod plerumque fit but also that in 
thus acting the Administration of the defendant Oiganisation has as its objective 
to create a permanent body of officials experienced in their duties, who are 
destined to follow a career in the Organisation concerned ; 

That the decision not to renew the appointment is one which should not only 
be rescinded in the present case, but also constitutes a wrongful exercise of 
powers and an abuse of rights which consequently involves the obligation to 
make good the prejudice resulting therefrom : that this prejudice was aggra- 
vated by the publicity given to the withdrawal of confidence as being due to lack 
of integrity, this ground having been given in a press communique issued by 
the defendant Organisation, without it being possible seriously to maintain the 
view that there could liave existed the slightest doubt as to the identity of the 
persons to which the said communique referred : 

Considering that it is to no puporse that they have been reproached with 
having communicated the measures of which they were the object to the Staff 
Association recognised by the Defendant Organisation, as the upshot of a 
procedure to which the said Association was a party with the knowledge and 
consent of the Director General himself; 

Considering that redress will be ensured ex aequo ct bono by the granting to 
the complainant of the sum set forth below ; 

Considering that, on the one hand, there should be granted to the complainant 
the amount of the salary which she would have received had she not been sub 



2204 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

ject to the measure of exception of which she complains, that is to say one year's 
basic salary ; 

That, on the other hand, there should be granted to her a second year's basic 
salary in order to compensate for the moral prejudice and in particular the diflB- 
culties which she will encounter in seeking new means of subsistence ; 

On the grounds as aforesaid 

The tribunal, 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions. 

Declares the complaint to be receivable as to form ; 

Declares that it is competent ; 

Orders the decision taken to be rescinded and declares in law that it con- 
stitutes an abuse of rights causing prejudice to the complainant ; 

In consequence, should the defendant not reconsider the decision taken and 
renew the complainant's appointment, orders the said defendant to pay to the 
complainant the sum of $15,500, together with interest at 4 per centum from 
1 January 1955 ; 

Orders the defendant Organisation to pay to the complainant the sum of 
$300 by way of participation in the costs of her defence ; 

Pronouncing on the application to intervene made by M. Henquet ; 

Considering that such intervention is receivable in so far as it is made by 
M. Henquet in his own name; 

That in this instance the fact that the intervener holds an indetermine appoint- 
ment and not a fixed-term appointment does not prevent the present dispute 
from bearing on principles applicable to the legal position of the whole staff ; 

Considering that the intervention is founded, in so far as recognised by the 
present judgment, orders the defendant Organisation to bear the expenses for 
which justification is provided by the intei'vener up to a maximum of $40. 

In witness of which judgment, pronounced in public sitting on 26 April 1955 
by His Excellency M. Albert Devfeze, President, Professor Georges Scelle, Vice 
President, and Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, Judge, the aforementioned have 
hereunto subscribed their signatures, as well as myself, Wolf, Registrar of the 
Tribunal. 

Albert Deveze. 
Georges Scelle. 
A. van Rijckevorsel. 
Francis Wolf. 

Mr. Waldman. I might say anent that, we have been wanting to 
find out some of the things — in other words, we were interested in 
what happened before the other Board, and it was difficult to get, 
especially where the agency was in Europe. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. As a matter of fact, your Board has been subjected 
to criticism, international, at least, and certainly by this organization 
of UNESCO, for sending the advisory opinions in the cases of these 
seven, and you have been a little bit at a loss to defend yourself against 
anything, and you felt you needed a defense, because you haven't been 
able to discuss the cases ; is that right ? 

Mr. Waldman, In the loyalty field you are ever at a disadvantage, 
frequently there can be criticism all around and you don't dare to 
defend yourself or engage in public debate. We have avoided taking 
some criticism, and maybe some of it is lawful, I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. So as far as you know, this hearing today is the 
first time that the adverse information about the discharges of 
UNESCO people who got the large indemnities has ever been made 
public ; isn't it ? 

Mr, Waldman. That is true. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the summaries of 
that information which I read are not the result of a committee investi- 
gation, that is the adverse information which was available to the 
Board at the time they ordered hearings in these cases. This infor- 
mation was given to the committee in executive session by Mr. Gerety 
when he testified before the committee some time ago. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2205 

Senator Johnston. That statement is correct ; isn't it ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, here is a summary of action taken 
by the Board with respect to these named individuals. I am inclined 
to think that it may be excess in view of the larger statement which 
has been offered for the record — you are going to leave that with us, 
aren't you, that big chart ? 

Mr. Waldman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for an alternative 
order in this case, if it does not duplicate the information already in 
the record, I would like to have it in there, and if it does duplicate it, 
w^e will simply have another one. 

Senator Johnston. We will receive it, with the understanding that 
after we check all of the record, it will go in if we need it, and if we 
do not need it we will leave it out. 

(The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 379" and is as 
follows:) 



72723— 57— pt. 38 8 



220G SCOPE OF SOVIL^T ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



05 
!>. 

CO 

d 



n 



03 

g 



§ 

.g 

a 
s 



"3 -co 

ag-s 



■a o 
o g 



o! 
O 



fl o 



(1> 



« 



> a^s 

O L, O) 

<p 3 o 
*^ o 



a 

as 



a-' 

C3 . 

SO 

•-9 

■a > 
o 2 

"^ PI b 

o H 55 






a 

6 
p 




■if .5" 
» o 3 
I- » 5 

aa« 

OT3 S 
*i « S 

!« Oti^- 
tH ixi P OS 



i£ 



2 a'-' 
o » o 



O O. 



ts K o d a 

2 te fl a ": 



M 





a 




C3 


o 




tl 


1^ = 


(It 


-t~> 


a1 


o 


a 


■sQ 

a 


o 


n 
o 
O 


is 

§ 


Q 


tn 




U 




u 









n 



o to 

lO lO 

OS O 






0105 



QQ 



1-5 



Ol OS 



3 o 



02 05 



co" c<3 m" ccodt- 1>- 



■«S^ •<?* TJH IO tl 

»o »o iO m f2 

0:0>0>05 ^ 






aa 
aim 



aaaS. 

aj o 4> "7 

COCQcQ<? 



lO o 

05 Oi 



3 OJ 



lO lO 

OSC5 



r^ .-H f^H 



3 

<1 



3 3 



■^ "^ -^ lO 
lO lO to UD 

Ol Oi Oi 05 






o 



lO to 



3 a 






05 0S 



as 



■^ TJH Tt< lO 

to ^ to »o 

Oi Oi Oi 0> 



3 3 Sv 



St,IM 



f^ 






coco 

lOiO 

02 05 









P^ 









Oi03 






a 



Ol CO 

h1> 



s 



3 
« 

B 
o 



^-a 

3 E 
03 « 



A^1 
-3 ! 



3 
Q 



X-l 



o sg 



n 
o 

u 
o 

o 






° !>> 



^S 




51 




S X 




X o 








o a. 




•fla 




■4-d & 




2 »- 




^ c3 




.■*-• OJ 




.a-cS- 








53-^ C 




PhS-3 




2 5^ 




>>£§ 








? b 




.330 

0(< 




PS^^ 




OEL 

on; ]V 
1956. 






"^fa 




xa © 




■«aa 








S^« 








3 C3 2 








a as 




.2 2 a 








a-sts 






1-2-3 








dete 
to ii 
Boa 


a 






CP g; »« "D . 








X X ~ io 

2 2a'S2 


.y 


„.c . 


c; 


> E> S tnCO 

C3 C3 S 03" 


5 


f^f^lla^? 


'- "» as 


■■* 


031-1 








.23 o 

t3 O O 3 o 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE "UNITED STATES 2207 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I have here two documents which I 
do not offer for the printed record, but I believe they should be made a 
part of the permanent records of the committee. The first is the deci- 
sion of the tribunal of the International Labor Organization, and the 
second is the briefs, the pleadings, in that case. 

We had some difficulty in getting these, and the State Department 
procured them for us, for which we are grateful. I believe they should 
be ordered for the permanent record of the committee. 

Senator Johnston. They will be made a part of the permanent 
record of the committee. 

(The documents refered to were made a part of the permanent record 
of the subcommittee, marked "Exhibit No. 380," and will be found in 
the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, Mr. Chairman, going back to the matter of 
the letters which we have received from these individuals, I want to 
call the attention of the committee to the fact that they have several 
things in common. 

First, they decline — they also all state — let me read this paragraph 
from the letter of Mrs. Helene Van Gelder : 

As you state in your letter that the purpose of the hearings is to consider 
proposed legislation applicable to persons employed by UNESCO and other inter- 
national organizations, and as I, myself, have not been so employed since July of 
1955, 1 have communicated the contents of your letter to UNESCO. 

Nearly every one of the letters, as the committee will see upon exami- 
nation, carries a paragraph substantially identical to that, the wording 
is even similar. And I suggest to the committee that this is an indica- 
tion of some communication between these people, of a coordination 
of their own activities, and it may help to shed light on the question 
which I asked previously as to whether the organization which Mr. 
Gerety had expressed fears about being inimical to the interests of the 
United States is still active in the United Nations. 

We come now to the case, Mr. Chairman, of Mr, Gordon Mclntire. 
Mr. Gordon Mclntire is the individual who gave what might be termed 
a qualified acceptance. Mr. Mclntire's letter states that he is willing 
to attend the hearing before the committee, provided he is furnished 
transportation and per diem in lieu of subsistence and provided the 
subcommittee will undertake practical loyalty clearance responsibility 
in his case. 

_ The chairman addressed a letter to Mr. Mclntire telling him that in 
view of his letter, arrangements had been made to provide him with a 
round-trip ticket by air, that the United States Embassy in Rome 
would get in touch with him and furnish him that ticket. And I am 
inforrned by the State Department that the Embassy did reach Mr. 
Mclntire and did tell him the ticket was there for him if he would pick 
it up. He did not do so. 

The chairman's letter also advised Mr. Mclntire that per diem in 
lieu of subsistence would be furnished by the committee on voucher 
after the number of days involved had been determined. Then the 
chairman's letter states : 

Any and all charges of a security nature which have been made against you, 
so far as the committee knows or can learn them, will be placed in the open record 
at this hearing and you will be permitted to say wliat you wisli concerning them. 
The committee cannot undertake what you refer to as "clearance responsibility," 



2208 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

because, as a legislative body, the committee has no "clearance" function. As an 
arm of the Senate, the committee cannot make any recommendations to the 
FAO ; however, it must be assumed that FAO will take cognizance of the com- 
mittee's hearing. 

That is a case which differed from the others. I ask that this 
correspondence between the subconnnittee and Mr. Mclntire be ad- 
mitted at this point. 

(The letters were marked "Exhibits Nos. 381 and 381-A and B," 

and read as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 381 

December 6, 1956. 
Mr. Gordon McIntire, 

Via San Saha 22, Rome, Italy. 
Dear Mr. McIntire : In view of your letter of November 24, arrangements 
have been made to provide you with a round-trip ticket by air to attend the 
hearings of the Internal Security Subcommittee on December 17, 1956. The 
United States Embassy in Rome will get in touch with you and give you this 
ticket. Per diem in lieu of subsistence will be furnished by tlie committee on 
voucher after the number of days involved has been determined. 

Any and all charges of a security nature which have been made against you 
so far as the committee knows or can learn them will be placed in the open 
record at this hearing and you will be permitted to say what you wish con- 
cerning them. The committee cannot undertake what you refer to as "clearance 
responsibility," because as a legislative body the committee has no "clearance" 
function. As an arm of the Senate, the committee cannot make any recommenda- 
tions to the FAO ; however, it must be assumed the FAO will take cognizance of 
the committee's hearing. 

I am glad you are going to be present at the hearing on December 17. 
Sincerely, 

James O. Eastland. 



Exhibit No. 3S1-A 

Via San Saba 22, Rome, November 2ff, 1956. 
Hon. James O. Eastland, 

Chairmnv, Senate Internal Sceiiritjj Subconnnittee, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Eastland : I am willing to attend a hearing before the Senate 
Internal Security Subcommittee in Washington, D. C, on or about December 13, 
1956, provided I am furnished transportation to Washington and return, and 
per diem in lieu of subsistence, and provided the subcommittee will undertake 
practical loyalty clearance responsibility in my case. 

Permit me to explain my situation briefly : I have always, as a matter of 
principle, cooperated fully with the various loyalty and security programs. In 
every instance where the charges have been made known to me, I have defended 
my record honorably and successfully. 

When I was employed by the l^>ureau of the Budget in the Executive Office of 
the President and question arose as to my loyalty, I was promptly informed of 
the charges against me, afforded opportunity of hearing before a board designated 
by the Bureau, and obtained full clearance by authority of the Director. 

In another instance, the Department of Stnte took ofiicinl action to cancel 
my passport without charges or hearing and I remained without recourse for 
many months. At length, after very costly litigation, the Deiiartment disclosed 
the charges, I was permitted to reply, and as a result an unrestricted passport 
was restored to me. 

In the present case, when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) received a report concerning me. it took immediate action 
to terminate my employment and announced to the press that I had been 
"dismissed" because I was "not suitable" for employment and, specifically, that 
I had "not been cleared for employment with FAO" under the international 
loyalty program. Up to the present moment, the FAO has withheld the charges 
from me and from the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, 
cnusing damage to my reputation and n fontinued l)ar to employment in my field. 

Ilie opjiortunity for hearing which you offer can be of vital importance to me 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2209 

if the subcommittee is (1) able to obtain the evidence, specifically the secret 
document from the Department of State to the FAO which led to my dismissal, 
and (2) willing, after such hearing, to arrive at conclusions and transmit a 
recommendation which the FAO would receive and consider. Anything less 
would only leave me in the present state of suspicion and disgrace, unable to 
pursue my career, or obtain visas for travel. 

Please notify me as to definite dates and travel arrangements and as to 
whether the subcommittee would be prepared to make an advisory determination 
concerning my loyalty. 
Sincerely, 

Gordon McIntire. 

Copy to : Senator-elect John Carroll. Congressman Byrun N. Rogers, Dr. B. R. 
Sen, Director General, FAO. 

Exhibit No. 381-B 

Roma, December J8, 1956. 
Senator Eastlakd, Washington, D. C: 

I must accept your statement that committee as legislative body cannot 
undertake clearance responsibility but urge its good offices help bring about 
full disclosure of secret letter concerning me under Executive Order 10422 from 
State Department to FAO and appropriate opportunity to reply in accordance 
with assurances given by United States Representative Lodge and U. N. Secre- 
tary General at plenary meetings 413 and 416 of General Assembly of "protect- 
ing the individual employee from unjust accusations and arbitrary action." 
I have official clearance from United States Bureau of Budget and State Depart- 
ment on all other existing charges related to subversive activity and United 

States security. 

McIntire. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, the chronologcicul summary in Mr. Mclntire's 
case is here. On August 24, 1954— Mr. Chairman, pardon me. Per- 
haps I should ask the vritness first : Did the Board consider the case 
of Mr. Gordon McIntire ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir. And the reason it did not was, from the 
information we had, he was not an employee. 

Mr. SouinviNE. I think we have evidence which will substantiate 
that, Mr. Chairman. 

Then, he was not employed at the time the case came to you ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is so. 

But he has been searching for a forum to tell his case, and we felt 
the same as you did : we could not give him a security clearance, and 
the case was not legally before us. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Gordon Mclntire's case, which was being heard 
before the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations in August 
of 1954, involved an allegation by him that the food agency of the 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations had given 
false reasons for not renewing his employment. 

He alleged that this agency gave lack of competence as the reason 
when the real reason was illegal intervention by the United States 
Government in the internal affairs of an international agency. 

On August 27, 1954, he asked $30,000 compensation for loss of his 
job. He had been permitted to use the title "Chief of the Policy and 
Procedure Section"; he had received that title just 8 days before he 
was told by the organization that he was out. 

In September of 1954 a three-man international tribunal ordered 
the United Nations Food and Agricidture Organization to reinstate 
McIntire, or to pay $11,000 damages for wrongful dismissal. 

The tribunal's finding declared the existence of a secret document 
concerning McIntire, the content of which was unknown to him and 



2210 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

against which he was Ihus imabk', to defend Iiimself, clearly violates 
a UNESCO application of the FAO statute, and thus causes harm 
to the interest not only of the entire staff but to those of justice itself. 

Do you have any information, Mr. Waldman, as to whether Mr. 
Mclntire was dismissed on the basis of a secret document, as he 
indicates ? 

Mr. Waldman. No, sir ; we do not. 

We were simply told that he was no longer an employee, and not 
an applicant, and since the program envisaged either of those statutes, 
and he not coming within it, we could not hear it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, the committee has obtained a photo- 
stat of the notice of dismissal — I beg your pardon ; this is a photostat 
of the official carbon copy of the notice of dismissal of Mr. Mclntire. 

It will be noted it was dated April 8, 1953. The FoocI and Agri- 
culture Organization of the United Nations, Eome, Italy, "Confi- 
dential," states: 

Dear Mr. Mclntire : It is with regret that I have to inform you that I have 
decided after full consideration that it vi^ill not be possible for me to confirm 
your present appointment at the end of your probationary period. As you know, 
both Mr. Posner and I have had doubts about your suitability for the post 
which you occupy and, although there has been some improvement in your work 
in the last 2 or 3 months, I am now convinced that your abilities do not lie in 
the field of procedures work. 

The second paragraph cites the manual and contains the appro- 
priate wording concerning the employment. 

The third paragraph contains the conventional regrets that this 
was necessary. 

I ask that this go into the record at this time. 

Senator Johnston. It may go into the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 382," and reads 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 382 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL 

Food and AGEicrrLTUEE Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy, April 8, 1953. 
Confidential. 

Mr. G. McIntiee, 

Room 313-A, FAO. 

Dear Mr. McIntibe: It is with regret that I have to inform you that I have 
decided after full consideration that it will not be possible for me to confirm 
your present appointment at the end of your probationary period. As you know, 
both Mr. Posner and I have had doubts about your suitability for the post which 
you occupy and, although there has been some improvement in your work in 
the last 2 or 3 months, I am now convinced that your abilities do not lie in the 
field of procedures work. 

2. Under section 310.52 of the Administrative Manual, a staff member may 
be separated at any time during or at the end of his probationary period if, 
after a fair trial, he does not perform satisfactorily the duties of the post to 
which he is assigned. I consider that you have been given a fair trial but have 
not performed your duties satisfactorily. You may, therefore, take this letter 
as your notice of separation, to be effective May 31, 1953, in accordance with 
the terms of the Administrative Manual. You are entitled, of course, to pay- 
ment for any accrued annual leave, to the appropriate payment under the United 
Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund Regulations and to the payment of travel 
expenses to your home for yourself and your dependents. Under the regulations, 
you are not entitled to the payment of the cost of the removal of your household 
goods to your home, but I am recommending to the Director General that, in your 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2211 

case, the regulation in this respect should be waived and your costs reimbursed. 
I have no doubt that the Director General will approve my recommendation. 

3. May I say how sorry I am that it has become necessary to take this 
action and how much I hope that you will succeed in finding new activities in 
keeping with your obvious talents. 
Yours sincerely, 

/s/ Frank Weisl, 
Director of Administration. 

(The decision of the Administrative Tribunal (ILO) in the case 
of Gordon Mclntire was marked "Exhibit No. 383," and reads as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 383 

[Unofficial translation] 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION 

Administrative Tribunal 

Judgment No. 13 

ordinary session of AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1954 

Sitting of 3 September 1954 

In the Matter of Mr. Gordon McIntire Against Food and Agriculture 
organisation of the united nations 

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, 

Having had referred to it a complaint made against the Food and Agriculture 
Organisation of the United Nations on 8 April 1954 by Mr. Gordon Mclntire, 
formerly an official of that Organization, seeking the rescission of a decision of 
the Director General of that Organisation not to confirm his appointment at the 
end of the probationary period ; 

Considering the additional memorandum submitted by the complainant on 1 
August 1954; 

Considering the memorandum of reply of the defendant Organisation dated 
19 May 1954; 

Having had referred to it a statement submitted in his own name on 24 August 
by Mr. X Leutenegger, Chairman of the Staff: Association ; 

Having heard, on oath, in public sitting, on 26 August 1954, Mr. Irving L. 
Posner, witness cited by the complainant, whose deposition, certified true, is in 
the dossier ; 

Considering that the complaint is receivable in form ; 

Considering that the facts of the case are as follows : 

(1) The complainant, a citizen of the United States of America, entei'ed the 
service of the defendant Organisation on 5 June 1952; his post came under the 
Budget and Administrative Planning Branch, directed by Mr. Posner ; his con- 
tract was of five years' duration ; towards the end of the year 1952, most of the 
temporary contracts having been changed to permanent contracts, the complain- 
ant was informed that his appointment had been changed to a permanent appoint- 
ment with effect from 1 July 1952, the probationary period having commenced 
on 5 June 1952, as provided for in the initial contract ; 

(2) The probationary period was thus, in any event, to expire on 4 June 1953 
(subject to a possible six months' extension) ; 

(3) The services of the complainant gave rise in the beginning to serious 
doubts on the part of his chiefs as to his fitness for the duties entrusted to him, 
although his goodwill, good intentions and devotion were not called into ques- 
tion ; his immediate chief, Mr. Posner, made verbal remarks to him concerning 
these doubts on several occasions, endeavoured to help and guide him during 
this trial period and communicated to him in writing, on 14 January 1953, when 
a report was made on his first six months of service, the substance of these 
remarks and this advice ; 

(4) The complainant endeavoured to improve his work and Mr. Posner con- 
sidered, towards the end of March, that his efforts had been fruitful and deserved 
encouragement ; on 30 March 1953, at the request of the complainant that he be 
given the title of Chief of the Policy and Procediues Section which had been set 



2212 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

up within the Budget and Administrative Planning Branch — a request made by 
the complainant because he considered this title would give him prestige — Mr. 
Posner felt able to reply in the affirmative and so informed Mr. Weisl, his own 
responsible chief, Director of Administration, who raised no objection ; this title 
was, moreover, used inside the Organisation as from 30 March 1953 and was 
known to the heads of the administrative units ; 

(5) On 8 April, that is to say a few days later, Mr. Weisl informed the com- 
plainant, in a letter couched in the following terms, that his appointment would 
not be confirmed : 

8 Apeil 1953. 
Confidential. 

Dear Me. McIntire: It is with regret that I have to inform you that I have 
decided, after full consideration, that it will not be possible for me to confirm 
your present appointment at the end of your probationary period. As you know, 
both Mr. Posner and I have had doubts about your suitability for the post which 
you occupy, and although there has been some improvement in your work in the 
last two or three months, I am now convinced that your abilities do not lie in 
the field of procedures work. 

2. Under Section 310.52 of the Administrative Manual, a staff member may be 
separated at any time during or at the end of his probationary period if, after a 
fair trial, he does not perform satisfactorily the duties of the post to which he is 
assigned. I consider that you have been given a fair trial, but have not performed 
your duties satisfactorily. You may, therefore, take this letter as your notice 
of separation, to be effective 31 May 1953, in accordance with the terms of the 
Administrative Manual. You are entitled, of course, to payment for any accrued 
annual leave, to the appropriate payment under the United Nations Joint StafiC 
Pension Fund regulations, and to the payment of travel expenses to your home 
for yourself and your dependents. Under the regulations, you are not entitled 
to the payment of the cost of the removal of your household goods to your home, 
but I am recommending to the Director General that, in your case, the regulation 
in this respect should be waived and your costs reimbursed. I have no doubt 
that the Director General will approve my recommendation. 

3. May I say how sorry I am that it has become necessary to take this action 
and how much I hope that you will succeed in finding new activities in keeping 
with your obvious talents. 

Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Frank Weisl, 
Director of Administration. 

(6) The complainant appealed, in accordance with the normal procedure, to 
the Appeals Committee established under the terms of the Staff Regulations ; his 
grievances were as follows: (a) established procedures were not followed in 
giving him his termination notice; (6) the charge of unsatisfactory services 
was based on misunderstanding, prejudice, or some other extraneous factor ; 

(7) When he was heard by the Appeals Committee, the complainant dropped 
the first of these grievances (a) and modified the second (h), suppressing the 
words "misunderstanding" and "prejudice" and maintaining only that the deci- 
sion of the Director General was based on some extraneous factor : 

(8) In its report, the Appeals Committee stated: (a) that it had failed to find 
sufficient evidence thnt there was a justifiable grievance under the terms of the 
Administrative Manual, section 320J2: (b) that, in any event, article IX of the 
Staff Regulations (paragraph 301.0912) left no doubt that the Director General 
was at full liberty to take any factors into consideration when deciding to termi- 
nate the appointment of a staff member serving a probationary period and that 
his sole judgment should prevail as to v.hether such action was in the interests 
of the Organisation : 

(9) In an undated letter addresspd to the complainant immediately after the 
deliberations of the Appeals Committee, that is to say, towards the end of May 
1953, the Director General accepted the conclusions of the Appeals Committee 
and confirmed that the appointment was terminated with effect from 4 June 1953. 

In law: 

Considering that the Director of Administration, in his letter of S April 1953, 
had based the decision to terminate the appointment of Mr. McIntire on section 
310.52 of the Administrative Manual, which provides inter alia that a staff 
member on probation may be separated at any time during or at the end of his 
probationary period for unsatisfactory service, provided he receives a statement 
giving the specific reasons for this action ; 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2213 

Considering that the Appeals Committee, to which the complainant appealed, 
believed there might be another possible justification for the measure taken 
against the complainant in the event of the interests of the Organisation being 
invoked in accordance with article IX, paragraph 301.0912 of the Staff 
Regulations ; 

Considering that the recourse to article IX suggested by the said Committee 
is devoid of all relevance ; that it is only in the event of the Director General 
having expressly invoked tlie said article as a basis for the decision to terminate 
the appointment of an ofHcial on probation that this senior official would have 
acted in the full exercise of his prerogative, without the Tribunal having the 
power to judge the reasons involving the interests of the defendant Organisation ; 

That, while he accepted the conclusions of the Appeals Committee, he limited 
himself to confirming the decision of 8 April ; 

That, in addition, at that stage of the procedure, a change of grounds would 
have vitiated the procedure ; that the Administrative Tribunal of the United 
Nations, in its judgment No. 4, stated "That, while it is not for the Tribunal 
to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary General with respect to 
the adequacy of the grounds for termination stated, it is for the Tribunal to 
ascertain that an affirmative finding of cause which constitutes reasonable 
grounds for termination has been made, and that due process has been accorded 
in arriving at such an affirmative finding." ; 

Considering that the only explanation which has ever been given expressly 
to the complainant was based on the unsatisfactory nature of his services ; 

Considering that the discretionary power of the Director General in this 
matter cannot be exercised for reasons not clearly specified ; that he cannot 
invoke one reason for exercising his powers when in reality his action is based 
on another reason, since this would constitute misuse of power likely to lead to 
rescission of the decision ; 

Whekeon, pronouncing judgment on the substance : 

Considering that it cannot be conceived, unless a new circumstance arose 
in the meantime, that Mr. Weisl agreed, on 30 March 1953, that the complainant 
be authorised to use the title of chief of section whereas he himself, on 8 April 
of the same year, was to decide immediately to dismiss the complainant, the mat- 
ter appeai-ing so urgent to him that he could not wait for the normal end of the 
probationary period (which was to expire less than two months later) or for the 
verification of the progress noted since Mr. Posner's report of 14 January 1953, or 
even hear the explanations of the complainant beforehand ; 

Considering that the existence of this new circumstance is shown, that it is 
established that between 30 March and 8 April Mr. Dodd, then Director General, 
received a letter from Mr. Hickerson, Assistant Secretary of State of the United 
States of America, concerning the person of the complainant ; that the defendant 
Organisation has recognised that this was so since its representative declared in 
public sitting that the facts related in that letter were the official confirmation 
of information given verbally to the Director General, Mr. Dodd, during his 
visit to Washington one month previously, without any steps having been taken 
against the complainant at that time, but also without the complainant having 
been informed : 

Considering that the complainant asks that this letter be produced during 
the discussion, being of the opinion that the Tribunal would thus be in a better 
position to assess the influence of this document on the change of attitude of 
Mr. Weisl and on the decision communicated to the complainant on 8 April ; 

Considering that, in the following terms, the defendant Organisation has 
refused to accede to this request : 

27 August 1954. 

Sib : I have taken note of the letter dated 26 August 1954 which you were 
kind enough to communicate to me and in which Maitre J. Mercier, Counsel 
for Mr. Mclntire, asks that the Tribunal order the production of the letter 
received by the Director General of the F. A. O. from the Government of the 
United States and which has been mentioned in the course of the discussions. 

I have the honour to confirm the statement which I made during the sitting 
held this afternoon in camera; namely, that the Director General would have been 
happy to have been able to communicate this letter to the Ti'ibunal, but that he 
does not consider that he should do so as this "confidential" letter comes from 
the Government of a sovereign State and must, for that reason, be treated in the 
same way as a diplomatic communication. Its production, without the authorisa- 



2214 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

tion of the Governmeut concerned, would constitute a violation of diplomatic 
usage in such matters. 

I have the honour to be, etc., 

(Signed) Sir John Serrao, 
Attorney at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome. 

(Signed) G. Saint-Pol, 
Chief of the Legal Affairs Section of the F. A. 0. 

Considering that the Tribunal, while it has not the power to express an opinion 
as to the merits of the reason given by the defendant Organisation, deems it 
inadmissilile that the considerations alleged by that Organisation can in any 
way prejudice the legitimate interests of the complainant ; that the existence of 
a secret document concerning the complainant, the content of which is unknown 
to liim and against which he is consequently powerless to defend himself, obvi- 
ously vitiates the just application of the Regulations to the complainant and 
affects not only the interests of the staff as a whole but also the interests of 
jusice itself (vide, judgment No. 15 of the Administrative Tribunal of the United 
Nations: "The Applicant cannot be penalised because certain information is 
considered by the Respondent as confidential and the Applicant has no oppor- 
tunity either of knowing what the reason is or of challenging it.") 

That, in consequence, it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider as established 
the fact that the decision of 8 April is not really based on the grounds of unsatis- 
factory service but on personal considerations extraneous to such grounds ; that it 
therefore constitutes an act of misuse of power and must be rescinded ; 

Considering that, in the event of the defendant refusing consequently to au- 
thorise the complainant to resume his duties, it is necessary to make a financial 
award against the defendant with a view to compesnating the complainant for 
the damage which the decision has caused him in depriving him of the possibility 
of being accepted for permanent employment at the end of the trial period ; that, 
in addition, the complainant has been subjected for a long time to conditions of 
material and moral insecurity causing him serious suffering, a state of affairs 
which it should be recognised the present Directorate of the F. A. O, has tried 
to make easier by all means within its power ; 

On the geotjnds as afoeesaid : 

Rejecting any wider or contrary conclusions. 

The Tribunal orders the rescission of the impugned decision of 8 April 1953 
and the undated decision of the Director General regarding the whole procedure 
followed in consequence; 

And, 

Failing the reinstatement of the complainant in its service by the defendant 
Organisation, 

Orders that Organisation to pay the complainant, by way of compensation in 
reparation, an amount equivalent to fifteen months' salary, together with inter- 
est at 4 per cent, as from 5 June 1953, an amount of three thousand dollars to 
be added to the whole by reason of the material and moral damage incurred by 
the complainant between 8 April 1953 and the date of the present judgment, 
independently of repatriation expenses. 

Orders the defendant Organisation to pay the complainant the sum of 300 
dollars by way of participation in tlie cost of his defence. 

With regard to the statement of Mr. liCutenegger, declares that statement re- 
ceivable insofar as it is made in his own name and orders the defendant to bear 
any expenses which arise from that statement and for which justification is 
provided. 

In witness of which judgment, pronounced in public sitting on 3 September 
1954, by His Excellency M. Albert Devize, President, Jonkheer van Rijckevorsel, 
Acting Vice President, and M. lasson Stavropoulos, Deputy Judge, called upon to 
sit owing to the inability of a titular Judge to attend, the aforementioned have 
hereunto subscribed their signatures, as well as myself. Wolf, Registrar of the 
Tribunal. 

Albert Devize. 
A. VAN Rijckevorsel. 
Iasson Stavropoulos. 
Francis Wolf. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Waldman, I would like to ask about one or two 
individuals whose names are of interest to the committee. 

Has the Board made a report with regard to Gardner Murphy ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2215 

Mr. Waldman. Frankly, it does not strike a bell with me. 

Mr. SoDRWiNE. You do not recall the name ? 

Mr. Waldman. Never, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I might say, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gardner Murphy 
was at one time an employee of UNESCO. I do not know whether 
he is presently. The records indicate that Mr. Murphy was affiliated 
with 10 organizations which have been cited as subvereive by the 
Attorney General which are : American Council for Protection of For- 
eign Born, Citizens Committee for Harry Bridges, Council for Pan 
American Democracy, Greater New York Emergency Conference on 
Inalienable Rights, National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, 
and Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace. 

Did the Board make a report with respect to Jerome A. Oberwager ? 

Mr. Waldman. Somehow I have a vague idea that that was the case, 
but we will be glad to let you know. I can't recall it. 

Mr. Sour WINE. I have 3 names here, I have mentioned 1, and that 
is the second, and anything you can give the committee we would like 
to have. 

Senator Johnston. If you have any information that you can get 
from your files, we would be pleased to have it. 

Mr. Waldman. Very well, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oberwager testified before the 
subcommittee in February 1953, he invoked the fifth amendment when 
asked about membership and his activities in the Communist Party. 

We know that he was employed as a teacher of film scripts bv 
UNESCO from 1951 to 1953. He left that particular employment, 
and I don't know whether he has resumed employment with that 
or any other international agency, but I was interested in knowing 
whether the Board had any part in this case. 

Did the Board make a report with respect to Haakon Chevalier ? 

Mr. Waldman. I don't think we ever had such case, I just know 
from reading the literature on the subject. 

Mr. Sourwine. Haakon Chevalier, of course, is a very famous case, 
he was employed by UNESCO as a translator, and I do not know 
whether he is still so employed. He is the man that previously has 
been identified as the contact man between George Charles Eltenton 
and Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, then director of the atom bomb 
project in 1942. 

Eltenton was approached by Peter Ivanov, then vice consul, Soviet 
consulate, San Francisco, who asked him to get technical information 
for Soviets. Eltenton contacted Chevalier, who in turn approached 
Oppenheimer and solicited the betrayal of classified atomic energy 
secrets to the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Waldman. If I saw that name I think I would knoAv it. 

Mr. Sourwine. As far as you know it has never been submitted ? 

Mr. Waldman. It never has ; no. 

Senator Johnston. You just get the cases that are submitted to 
you? 

Mr. Waldman. In other words, no American can be employed by an 
international organization without us knowing about it and making 
an investigation and making a decision. 



2216 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(The folloAving letter Avas later received by the subcommittee :) 

United States Civil Seevice Commission, 
International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board, 

Washington 25, D. C, December 19, 1956. 
Mr. J. G. Sourwine, 

Counsel to the Buhconntiittee To Investif/ate the Adniinisti-ation of the In- 
ternal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, Committee on the 
Judiciary, United States Senate, Washinyton 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Sourwine: At the hearing on December 17, 195G, it was requested 
that information be furnished as to whether or not the cases of Gardner Murphy, 
Jerome A. Oberwager, and Haakon Chevalier had ever been processed by the 
International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board. 

Please be advised that the records of this board reveal that the aforementioned 
cases have never been adjudicated by this board. 

I shall he glad to assist if further information is desired. 
Sincerely, 

Frederick D. Irwin, Executive Secretary. 

(Mr. Toussaiut, of the State Department, later provided the fol- 
lowing information:) 

Gardner Murphy is not at present and, it would appear, has not been employed 
by any of the international organizations since about 1950, when he was released 
from UNESCO. 

Jerome A. Uberwager was emiiloyed by the !'. N. from October 7, 1946, until 
September 7, 19.51, in the Public Information Department. There is no record of 
his being employed by an international organization since 1951. 

Haakon Chevalier was employed by the U. N. as an interpreter from Septem- 
ber IS. 1046, until October 14, 1946. There is no record that he was subsequently 
employed by any international organization. 

Mr. SouiiwiNE. Mr. Chairman, there is one point which perhaps 
may not be clear in the record. These individuals Avhose names and 
records we liave gone into were all the holders of substantial adminis- 
trative positions; is that correct? 

Mr. Waldman. They were; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Their salaries ramred from, I believe, $5,400 a year 
up ? 

Mr. Waldman. That is right. 

jSIr. Sourwine. We are not talking here about the cases of any little 
stenographer. 

Mr. Chairman, I have one more question of this witness. The wit- 
ness has been extremely helpful, but, before we leave, however, I don't 
knoAv whether you want to dismiss this witness first before we put 
this in the record. 

Senator Johnston. We certainly want to thank you for coming 
before us and giving us this information and answering the questions 
you were asked. 

Mr. Waldman. Thank you. 

Mr. Sourwine. This document, Mr. Chairman, refers not to this 
subject matter at all, but to the recent hearing in Hawaii. It is a 
letter to the committee from the firm of Bouslog & Symonds. I would 
like to ask that it be made a part of the record. 

Senator Johnston. Tliat shall be made a part of the record, and 
be included in that case that w^e had. 

(The letter referred to was placed in the record of the subcommittee 
ill Honolulu.) 

Mr. Sourwine. I have nothing fui'ther to submit this morning, 
Mr. Chairman. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2217 

Senator Johnston. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Jenner. Nothmg further, Mr. Cliairman. 

Senator Johxstox. If not, the committee will adjourn, subject to 
tlie call of the Chair. 

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 
to the call of the Chair.) 



APPENDIXES 



Appendix I 



(The following exchange of correspondence was ordered printed 
as an appendix to the hearing on December IT, 1956:) 

January 18, 1957. 
Capt. Eugene R. Guild, United States Army (Retired), 
Headquarters, Fighting Eomefolks of Fighting Men, 
Glenivood Springs, Colo. 

Dear Captain Guild : Thank you for your letter of January 6, 1957, with 
enclosures, which came to my desk earlier this week. You make some interesting 
points, and I plan to take up with my colleagues on the Internal Security Sub- 
committee the question of putting your letter in the records of our hearing. 
All good wishes for the New Year upon which we have embarked. 
Sincerely yours, 

James O. Eastland, 
Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee. 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks or" Fighting Men, 

Olenwood Springs, Colo., January 6, 1957. 
Senator James O. Eastland, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, Committee of the Judiciary, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Eastland : We noted in the press that your committee was, in 
the process of hearings on UNESCO, calling as a witness Francis O. Wilcox, 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. 

We have had some experience with Mr. Wilcox in the attached matter of a 
claim made by a group of mothers of dead or enslaved soldiers still held by the 
Reds from the Korean war. 

On December 2, 1954, President Eisenhower, speaking on the subject of our 
Red-held soldiers, said : "How the United Nations can possibly disabuse itself 
of a feeling of responsibility in this matter, and retain its self-respect, I wouldn't 
know * * *." 

In Mr. Wilcox's letter to us dated January 11, 1956, and marked in red as 
Document No. 11 in the attached papers, he completely disavowed the President's 
words and defended the United Nations in its abandonment of the American 
POW's whose number General Van Fleet, generally supported by General Mark 
Clark, puts at 400. 

Mr. Wilcox's role seems to be one of excusing and defending the United Nations 
acts to the detriment of the United States and, in this case, to the detriment of 
the bereaved and desperately anxious mothers of American heroes. 

His outrageous letter. Document No. 11, is furnished your subcommittee with 
the hope that it may throw light on the situation concerning disloyalty of 
Americans employed by international organizations. 
Yours very sincerely, 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired. 

Enclosure No. 1 

[Lo8 Angeles Times, February 9, 1956, p. 4] 

Betrayal of GI's Charged 

In a letter signed by Assistant Secretary F. O. Wilcox, the State Department 
has refused to transmit to the United Nations the plea of 56 parents for redress 

2218 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2219 

of wrongs done their sons who were missing or killed while fighting under the 
United Nations flag in Korea and who were betrayed and abandoned to the 
enemy. 

The State Department gives two remarkable reasons : 

First, ignoring the fact that American soldiers were deprived of support and 
protection, being captured or dying with their hands tied, it says that the 
Communists were solely to blame for what happened. 

The second reason will surprise all Americans who were told that the war was 
a U. N. war, fought with U. N. forces under the U. N. flag, and that the United 
States, in directing it, was acting as an agency of the United Nations. It is that 
the United Nations (although the letter admits it "sided with us," "gave its 
backing," "expressed its support") was merely a sympathetic bystander, not 
responsible for anything. 

The letter mentioned "the United Nations command in Korea," but it evidently 
was a slip of the pen because it says in effect that no such thing existed and 
that the U. N. flag over the headquarters was only "to symbolize the fact that the 
United States exercised unified command." 

The 56 parents who received the letter regard this as doubletalk and an amazing 
example of buck passing. The buck is being passed from the United Nations 
to the United States and thence to the Communists. Nobody on our side is to 
blame, but our sons lie dead, betrayed by someone. Others remain in Red prisons 
for years of torture, abandoned by someone. The State Department seems more 
intent on defending the United Nations than the United States. 

The parents, and I am one, are perfectly aware that this buck-passing letter 
cannot absolve the United Nations for the crimes against the American soldier, 
committed in its name and under its flag. 

Nevertheless, the State Department, by officially exculpating the United Nations 
for complicity in the mistreatment of American soldiers, now clears the way for 
our suit against the Government for collaborating in the betrayal and abandon- 
ment of our soldier sons. The State Department cannot now come to court and 
plead that it was all the United Nations' fault. 

Eugene R. Guild, 
United States Army, Retired, Fighting Homefolks of 

Fighting Men, Glenwood Springs, Colo. 



Enclosure No. 2 
[News Release No. 276] 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Olemvood Springs, Colo., June 23, 1955. 
Mr. Dag Hammahskjold, 

Secretary General, United Nations, 

Anniversary Celebration Headquarters, San Francisco, Calif. 

My Dear Mr. Hammarskjold : I furnish you herewith a claim by 70 kin of 
American soldiers who fought in Korea under the U. N. flag. The value of the 
life or liberty of an American patriot hero lost by reason of bad faith and 
disloyalty to him by the U. N. is placed at a million dollars, and would be cheap 
at 10 times that price. 

Individual signed claims, synopses of testimony expected from witnesses, and 
any other information or documents you may desire will be forwarded upon 
your application. Will you please designate the tribunal which will hear these 
claims, the procedure yon will require, and the approximate date of the hear- 
ing which we request shall not be before August 1. 

We are sure that the U. N., which was glad to generously Indemnify those 
un-Americans who lost their jobs because of their sympathy with the Red 
enemy of America, will be equally glad to indemnify the kin of those Americans 
who lost their lives or their liberty fighting for a U. N. which did not and 
still does not, back them up. 

These claims are submitted after attempts by the kin to see you failed. You 
will recall that on April 19, 1954, you would not see 70 weary mothers waiting 
hours to see you ; that as pictured in the Nation's press your security police 
treated a group of them so brusquely as to reduce them to tears; and that 
you had the New York police remove the mothers from First Avenue because 
a portion of that New York street is no longer American soil and can be walked 
upon only by your permission. 



2220 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

On April 20 the mothers agMiu failed to arrange a meeting with you through 
Henry Cabot Lodge, who also would not see them — cleverly setting the hour 
at which he was willing to meet them at a time after their scheduled departure 
for Washington in an attempt, also in vain, to see Mr. Eisenhower. Mr. Lodge 
then alleged that the mothers had expressed themselves as pleased and well 
satisfied with his treatment of them. 

The last recourse then is to prosecute these claims in the U. N. court of 
justice. A good many additional coclaimants are expected to appear, and we 
reserve the right to add more claimants up to the hour of the hearing. Please 
note that these claims have no mercenary element ; counsel will serve without 
fee and the claimants all pledge their indemnity for use in ridding the United 
States of the subversive influence of the U. N. before more American boys die 
by more U. N. treachery. 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired, 

(For the Claimants). 

Enclosure No. 3 

[News Release No. 275] 

Headquarteks, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Olenwood Springs, Colo., June 23, 1955. 

Claim Against the United Nations for Loss of Life or Liberty 

The below signatory kin claim an indemnity of $1 million each for the death 
or loss of liberty of their soldier kin in the Korean war. Having started the 
war and accepted the loyalty of these American soldiers, the U. N. committed 
the following breaches of faith and loyalty constituting betrayal and abandon- 
ment of the American soldiers fighting under its flag. 

Charge I : Most of the U. N. did not back these men with their soldiers. 

Charge II : The U. N. kept a Red member on its military committee, where 
he could aid the Red enemy. 

Charge III: By this and other means the U. N. assured the Chinese Reds 
that if they attacked, the U. N. would not do its utmost to defeat them. 

Charge IV: The U. N. then tied our soldiers' hands, denying them strategic and 
tactical support of routine blockade, bombing, and hot pursuit, removing their 
leader on the verge of victory, and ordering cease-fires each time victory was 
imminent. 

Charge V: The U. N. failed to expell the member who had started the war 
and who supplied the enemy with munitions. 

Charge VI : The U. N. did not prevent its members from trading with and 
supplying the enemy with the means to kill our men. 

Charne VII : The U. N. made no effort to enforce the truce violated by the hold- 
ing by the enemy of several hundred American soldiers, and for over a year and 
a half has abandoned to the enemy several hundred Americans who fought under 
the U. N. flag. The recent deal to free the 15 airmen is but an incident in the 
blackmail deal to sell the 100,000 free people of Quemoy and Matsu into Red 
slavery. 

Witnesses: Gens. Douglas MacArthur, James A. Van Fleet, Mark Clark, 
George E. Stratemeyer, Edward M. Almond, Adm. C. Turner Joy, and other 
Americans. 

Coplaintififs (all having pledged any indemnity to a fund for ridding America 
of the subversive influence of the U. N. before more American boys die by its 
treachery) : Alice E. Anderson, Dealia L. Bailey, Hazel Benham, Katheryn Cole- 
man, Mrs. James F. Crtuchfield, Esther Gramberg, Lola M. Schauer, Jo Stiter, 
Myrtle Yarbrough, California ; Eugene R. and Isabel C. Guild, Colorado ; Bessie 
McDonough, Mrs. George Perdrizet, Connecticut; Mr. and Mrs. Halsted P. Lay- 
ton, Delaware; Forest and Mae McElroy, Mrs. R. H. Shaddick, Mrs. J. L. Wright, 
Florida ; Mrs. E. N. Morris, R. J. Wise, Georgia ; Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Arendt, 
Lyttia Elam, Roy Hufl'stutler, Mrs. Nicholas Kadaiiovich. Edwin Schuktz, Mr. 
and Mrs. Michael Yercich, Illinois; Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Yonts, Kentucky; Mrs. 
Thorn H. Dakin, Mrs. Ralph M. Hummel, Massachusetts ; Mr. and Mrs. Stanley 
Depki, Michigan ; Mrs. Frank Brown, Lillian W. Jensen, Mr. and Mrs. A. Lund- 
berg, Archie and Ruth Nelson, Minnesota ; Marjorie Llewellyn, Montana ; Leota 
Shadden, Nebraska ; J. B. Agnelli, Marie DiGiorgio, Sarah Flaherty, William J. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2221 

Gluntz, Cesira Mattucci, Mrs. J. E. Schwab, Rita Van Wees, Mr. and Mrs. John 
Zingarella, New York ; Mrs. E. S. Guthrie, Sr., North Carolina ; Mr. and Mrs. 
Dennis M. Kelly, Oklahoma ; M. ,T. Durochin, Oregon ; Cora L. Roberts, H. W. 
Schrecengost, Pennsylvania ; J. A. Gleaves, Ethel C. Logan, Helen H. Logan, 
Tennessee ; Ellen B. Hernan, Mrs. Ignacio Davis, A. G. Lostetter, Mrs. Charles E. 
McDonough, Coleta L. Sanchez, Nienan A. Vela, Texas ; J. A. Desautels, Sophia 
D. Rehm, Vermont ; Nancy Williams, Mrs. Arch T. Young, Virginia ; Margaret 
M. Barrick, West Virginia ; Mrs. G. E. Dagnon, Mrs. G. A. Kampa, K. A. Mikulik, 
Wisconsin; Mrs. S. A. de Diaz, Mrs. C. I. de Valentin, P. C. Lanzo, Jacinta 
Martinez, G. P. Soto, A. M. Vazquez, Puerto Rico. 

Eugene R. Guild, 
• Captain, United States Army, Retired 

(For the Coplaintiffs). 

Enclosure No. 4 

[News Release No. 285W] 

Claim fob Indemnity From the United Nations for Loss of Life or Liberty 
of American Soldiers Betrayed and Abandoned by United Nations 

Having been deprived needlessly and unjustly of my beloved son by the loss 
of his life or liberty in the Korean war, I hereby lodge this claim against the 
United Nations Organization for §;i million as damages for that loss. 

I shall bring witnesses and submit documentary evidence to prove that the 
United Nations Organization, having taken over control of the Korean war, 
and having accepted the obligations imposed by its acceptance of the loyalty of 
the American soldiers fighting under the United Nations flag, did fail in these 
obligations by committing the following breaches of faith and loyalty constituting 
the betrayal and abandonment of my son. 

Charge I : Most of the U. N. members did not back him with their soldiers 
as they were obligated to do under their contract. 

Charge II : The U. N. kept a Red member on its military committee, where he 
could aid the Red enemy. 

Charge III : By this and other means the U. N. assured the Chinese Reds 
that if they attacked the U. N. would not do its utmost to defeat them. 

Charge IV : The U. N. then tied the hands of my son, denying him strategic 
and tactical support of routine blockade, bombing, and hot pursuit, removing 
his leader on the verge of victory and ordering cease-fires each time victory 
was at hand. 

Charge V : The U. N. failed to expell the member who had started the war and 
who supplied the enemy with munitions. 

Charge VI : The U. N. did not prevent its members from trading with and 
supplying the enemy with the means to kill my son. 

Charge VII : The U. N. made no effort to enforce the truce violated by the 
enemy's holding several thousand troops fighting under the U. N. flag, including 
several hundred American soldiers. For over 2 years it has abandoned to the 
enemy several hundred Americans who fought under the U. N. flag. The deal 
which freed the 15 airmen is but an incident in the blackmail deal between the 
Reds and the U. N. 

I desire to call as witnesses Gens. Douglas MacArthur, James A. VanFleet, 
Mark Clark, George E. Stratemeyer, Edward M. Almond, Adm. C. Turner Joy, 
and other Americans. 



Enclosure No. 5 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Glenwood Springs, Colo., September 27, 1955. 
Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, 

United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 

New York, N. Y. 
Dear Mr. Lodge: We submit herewith an appeal to the U. N. Organization 
for redress of wrongs. It is submitted by the next of kin of soldiers of 24 States 
who fought under the U. N. flag. 

We request that, with the consent of your superiors in Washington, you place 
this appeal before the U. N. for consideration by the proper tribunal. 

72723 — 57— pt. 38 9 



2222 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

It would appear to all Americans very strange if the U. N., an organization 
ostensibly devoted to justice, again refuses a hearing to the mothers of Ameri- 
can heroes seeking redress for wrongs done their sons — who lost their lives or 
liberty fighting for the United Nations. 

You will recall that the U. N. in 1954 refused to hear the appeal of 70 mothers, 
traveling to New York from as far as California. A preliminary notice of the 
present appeal was given the Secretary General on June 23, 1955, with a request 
for information on the procedure desired by the U. N. in such cases. The mothers 
have not to date been accorded the courtesy of a reply. 

In all fairness, the U. N., which was glad to indemnify those Communist 
Americans who lost their jobs in U. N. work, should be equally glad to indemnify 
those non-Communist Americans who lost their sons in U. N. work. Also, as a 
matter of justice, the U. N. should not be deterred from hearing this appeal, 
even though the frankly avowed purpose of the claimants is to use the indemnity 
to purge the United States of the subversive influence of the U. N., thereby 
protecting future soldiers from similar betrayal and abandonment. 
Yours very truly, 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired, 

Chairman, Claims Committee 
(And Acting Also on Behalf of My Son, Killed in Korea). 



Enclosure No. 6 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Olenwood Springs, Colo., September 27, 1955. 

GI Kin Appeal to U. N. for Redress of Wrongs Done Their Soldier Sons 

AND Husbands 

A committee of parents, representing next of kin of soldiers from 24 States, 
dead or still in the hands of the Chinese Reds, today visited the offices of Sec- 
retary General Dag Hammarskjold and U. N. Ambassadar Henry Cabot Lodge 
to present an appeal for redress for wrongs done them by the United Nations 
organization. 

They entered 7 specifications charging betrayal and abandonment of their 
soldier kin, and listed General MacArthnr, 5 top commanders and others as 
witnesses. They ask $1 million indemnity for each soldier thus wronged, and 
have all signed a pledge which, in bitter irony, obligates them to devote the 
indemnity to a new kind of tax-free foundation dedicated to purging America 
of the subversive influence of the U. N., to the end that American soldiers will 
never again be betrayed and abandoned "by any such alien subversive agency." 

This is the second appeal by the kinfolk. In April 1954, 70 mothers and wives, 
coming to New York from as far away as California, were denied a hearing 
by Secretary General Hamarskjold and Ambassador Lodge. Similarly, 83 of 
the mothers and wives of American heroes waited for 2 days, in vain, in front 
of the White House for an audience with President Eisenhower. 

It was not until a full 7 months of torture later, when the Chinese Reds them- 
selves brought the matter into the open by sentencing to prison 11 of the several 
hundred soldiers they held, that Mr. Eisenhower finally aslved the U. N. to act. 
This unconscionable stalling, coupled with the Government's suppression of the 
news of the existence in captivity of the 15 airmen for several months in 1954, 
is evidence of bad faith by the U. N. and the United States Government. 

Last spring, in desperation, 2 mothers offered to take their captive sons' places 
as hostages, and 2 other mothers traveled to Hong Kong in a vain attempt to 
appeal to their sons' Red captors. And then, on this last Memorial Day, 15 
mothers protested by returning their heroic sons' medals to Mr. Eisenhower, 
stating their sons needed his loyalty, not his medals. The press services, al- 
though fully informed by the mothers of this fact, made note that only two 
mothers had made the medal protest. 

Today it is evident that both the U. N. and the United States Government hope 
that with the return of the 15 airmen, the rest of the Red-held American soldiers 
will be forgotten and will not continue to be an embarrassment. But here are 
the Pentagon figures on them : In June 1955 (and today the figures are approxi- 
mately the same) there were 4,691 soldiers still missing, including 453 of the 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE XJNITED STATES 2223 

original 944 tlie Pentagon had evidence were in Red hands. Subtracting the 
1,550 unidentified bodies now held in Japan leaves 3,141 soldiers still missing. 

The Government, despite the basis for a reasonable presumption that many 
of them are still alive, the basis being that the Reds invariably secretly hold 
captives of all nations for long periods, has declared them all "presumed dead" 
in an evident attempt to write them off and be rid of their embarrassing existence. 

To the mothers this meant that our Government does not intend to take resolute 
action to free their sons and is abandoning them, not abandonment for just 2 
years of torture, as suffered by the 15 airmen, but forever. 

War should not be necessary to free them if a resolute President would con- 
vince the Reds that its Red-held soldiers, who offered their lives for America, 
are regarded not as just a few hundred individuals, but as embodying the soul 
and the honor of America. And that as such their freedom, or the avenging of 
their lives, if taken in reprisal, is worth, to all Americans, whatever risk of war 
resolute action might bring them. 

Enclosxjke No. 7 

[News Release No. 286-W] 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks op Fighting Men, 

Olenwood Springs, Colo., October 5, 1955. 
Hon. John Foster Dulles, 
The Secretary of State, 

State Department, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Dulles : Herewith is an appeal for redress of wrongs which is ad- 
dressed to the United Nations and is signed by the next of kin of soldiers of 24 
States who fought under the U. N. flag. 

We ask that the State Department request the United Nations to hear this 
plea for justice. We suggest that it be conveyed to the United Nations that it 
cannot afford to again turn a deaf ear to these kin of American heroes whose 
own voices have been stilled by death or Red imprisonment. 

The United Nations was quick to indeumify the Communist UN-Americans 
who lost their jobs in U. N. work, it should be even quicker in indemnifying the 
non-Communist Americans who lost their sons in U. N. work. 

The least it can do, in all justice, is to hear their plea. Please note that all 
have pledged themselves to use the indemnity not for personal purposes, but 
for a foundation dedicated to purging America of subversive influences. 
Sincerely, 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired. 



Enclosure No. 8 
[News Release No. 296] 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Olenwood Springs, Colo., December 19, 1955. 
Hon. John Foster Dulles, 
The Secretai-y of State, 

State Department, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Dulles : On October 5, as committee chairman representing 56 
parents whose sons lost their lives or their liberty in the Korean war, I sub- 
mitted to you 56 claims for indemnity against the United Nations Organization. 

These claims constitute an appeal for redress of wrongs done their sons. 

In over 2 months, we have had neither an acknowledgment nor a report of 
progress on them. May we at this time please have a report from you on the 
action you have taken? 

In order that we might leave no stone unturned, we submitted on September 27 
identical claims to Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary General of the United 
Nations, personally, and to Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, United States Representa- 
tive to the United Nations, personally. Mr. Lodge informed us on September 28 
that he had forwarded the claims to Washington, but we have had no word from 
Mr. Hammarskjold. 



2224 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

If American citizens wlio believe themselves to have been wronged by the 
United Nations should not address their appeals for redress through the Amer- 
ican Secretary of State, will you please inform us of the procedure you deem 
correct. 

I submit that these bereaved parents do not deserve to have their pleas 
ignored, whether or not you agree with them, or whether or not their pleas 
are embarrassing. 

Yours sincerely, 

Eugene R. Guiud, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired, 

Chairman, Claims Committee. 

Enclosure No. 9 
[News Release No. 297] 

Headquakters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Olenioood Springs, Colo., Decemher 19, 1955. 
Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 

United States Representative to the United Natiovs, 

New York, N. Y. 
My Dear Mr. Lodge: We appreciate your acknowledgment of receipt of the 
claims against the United Nations, and the information that you had forwarded 
them to Washington. 

We have heard nothing further for more than 2 months, however, and would 
be grateful to you for a report of action taken upon these claims. 

Surely the fact that these claims are embarrassing to the United Nations, as 
well as to the United States Government, should not operate to deny these 
parents to hearing. 

We are prepared to appear at any designated time before any designated 
tribunal, with counsel, to show cause as to why the United States should lay 
these claims officially before the United Nations. AVe will have testimony from 
distinguished witnesses to support this. 

It would indeed be incredible if the United Nations, an organization estab- 
lislied to see justice done, should refuse at least to grant a hearing to the pleas 
for redress by these bereaved American parents. 
Yours sincerely, 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired, 

Claims Committee Chairman. 



Enclosure No. 10 

[News Release No. 295] 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting IMen, 

Glentvood Springs, Colo., December 19, 1955. 
Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, 

Secrcary General, United Nations, 

Netv York, N. Y. 
My Dear Mr. Hammarskjold : You may recall that on September 27 our 
committee visited you personally, to deliver to you the appeals for redress by 56 
parents of American sons who lost their lives or their liberty fighting under the 
United Nations flag in the Korean war. 

These bereaved parents are American citizens who believe themselves to have 
been wronged by the United Nations. They do not deserve to be ignored, whether 
or not you agree with them, or whether or not their pleas may be embarrassing 
to the United Nations Organization. 

Surely the United Nations, an organization established to see justice done, 
cannot deny these American mothers and fathers a hearing on their pleas for 
redress of wrongs done them. 
May we have a report of the action you have taken on these claims? 
Yours sincerely, 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, retired. 

Chairman, Claims Committee. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2225 

Enclosure No. 11 

Department of State, 
Washinffton 25, D. C, January 11, 1956. 
Captain Eugene R. Guild, 

Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Glemcood Springs, Colo. 

Dear Captain Guild : Reference is made to your letters of October 5, 1955, 
and December 19, 1955, and to communications on the same matter between you 
and Ambassador Lodge, who, as you know, is our permanent representative to 
the United Nations. Ambassador Lodge has .iust forwarded to the Department of 
State your letter to him of December 19, 1955. which he received on December 
28, and a copy of his answer of January 9, 1956. 

As Ambassador Lodge has made very clear, the United States is doing all It 
can to bring about the release of all Americans who are still held in the Far 
East by the Communists. This is true not only of civilians known to be in 
Communist hands, but also of any military personnel who remain unaccounted 
for, and as to whom any chance remains that they might be discovered to be 
alive and in Communist hands. As Ambassador Lodge has also told you, the 
United States has asked and received the full support and assitance of the United 
Nation, through its General Assembly and Secretary-General, in demanding and 
pressing for the return of any members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
and other participating nations who served in the Korean conflict and might 
now be held by the Coumiunists. 

You request that the United States press claims against the United Nations 
on behalf of the families of American soldiers killed or missing in the Korean 
conflict. The United States Government cannot press such claims against the 
United Nations because the United Nations is not responsible for our losses. 
The Communists are. The LTnited Nations and the overwhelming majority of the 
members of the United Nations who supported us in various ways in the Korean 
conflict have sided with the United States in the defense of Korea and in stop- 
ping Communist aggression in Korea. We sought and we gained their support 
and with it we stopped that aggression. 

Immediately after the North Korean aggression against the Republic of Korea, 
the United States sought action by the United Nations Security Council to de- 
fend the Republic of Korea against this assault. In a series of resolutions sought 
and supported by the United States the Security Council gave its backing to our 
effort to organize the defense of the Republic of Korea against Communist 
aggression. In particular, it recommended that member states make forces 
available to a unified command under the United States and requested the 
United States to designate the commander of these forces. Subsequently, the 
United Nations General Assembly also expressed its support for this defense. 

The United States voluntarily sent its forces to resist the Communists. Fif- 
teen other United Nations members contributed forces, too. Although the total 
contribution of forces from other members was not as large as we desired, it did 
amount to about two divisions, which otherwise would have had to come from 
the United States. 

In resolutions passed by overwhelming majorities, the responsible agencies of 
the United Nations mobilized world opinion behind the United States and the 
other 15 countries resisting communism in Korea. Also, the General Assembly 
and its Additional Measures Committee won the voluntary cooperation of im- 
portant member nations in enforcing against the aggressors an emmbargo on 
strategic goods. 

From the outset, command of the forces resisting the aggressors in Korea was 
exercised by the Government of the United States. The decisions of that com- 
mand were made by our Government, and the United Nations command in Korea 
received its orders exclusively from our Government through the United States 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Neither the United States Government nor the military command in Korea 
ever received any orders from the United Nations concerning conduct of the 
Korean war effort. Specifically, the Military Staif Committee of the United 
Nations (Avhose principal functions under the United Nations Charter have be- 
come virtually a dead letter) had no part whatsoever in the Korean war. 

The United States soldiers and other United States military personnel in 
Korea have at all times remained under the command of the United States, and 
of the President as Commander in Chief. At no time have our military person- 
nel been in any sense employees of the United Nations. They fought always under 
the United States flag. Where the United States commanders in Korea flew the 



2226 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

United Nations flag in addition to our own, they did so to symbolize the fact 
that the United States exercised the unified command. 

In these circumstances the United States cannot bring a claim against the 
United Nations for the wrongful death, injury, or captivity of United States 
military personnel at the hands of the North Korean and Chinese Communist 
aggressors. There can be no doubt that it is the Communist side that must bear 
full responsibility for the untold loss of life and human suffering that marked the 
Korean conflict. 

The sincere sympathy of your Government, and I am sure of every American, 
goes out to you and all the families of those who have fought and suffered in 
Korea. You may be sure that our losses will not be forgotten nor shall we 
lose sight of our objective of preserving free nations from the threat of armed 
aggression. 

Since your letters and the documents you have submitted evidence the im- 
mediate interest of over 50 families in these matters, we are sending a copy of 
this letter directly to each of the families concerned. 
Sincerely yours. 

For the Secretary of State : 

(Signed) Francis O. Wilcox, 

Assistant Secretary. 

Enclosure No. 12 

[News Release No. 303] 

.January 20, 1956. 

In a letter, January 11, 1956, signed by Assistant Secretary F. O. Wilcox, the 
State Department has refused to transmit to the United Nations the plea to the 
United Nations of 56 parents for redress of wrongs done their sons who were 
missing or killed while fighting under the U. N. flag in Korea and who were 
betrayed and abandoned to the enemy. 

The State Department gives two remarkable reasons : As the first, ignoring the 
fact that American soldiers were deprived of support and protection, being cap- 
tured or dying with their hands tied, it says that the Communists were solely to 
blame for what happened. The second reason will surprise all Americans, who 
were told that the war was a U. N. war, fought with U. N. forces, under the U. N. 
flag; and that the United States, in directing it, was acting as an agency of the 
U. N. It is that the U. N., although the letter admits it "sided with us," "gave its 
backing," "expressed its support," was merely a sympathetic bystander, not re- 
sponsible for anything. 

The letter mentioned "The United Nations Command in Korea," but it evi- 
dently was a slip of the pen because it says in effect that no such thing existed, 
and says the U. N. flag over the headquarters was only "to symbolize the fact that 
the United States exercised unified command." 

The 56 parents who received the letter regard this as doubletalk and an amaz- 
ing example of buckpassing, the buck being passed from the U. N. to the United 
States and thence to the Communists. Nobody on our side to blame, but our sons 
lie dead, betrayed by someone ; and others lie in Red prisons for years of torture, 
abandoned by someone. The State Department seems more intent on defending 
the U. N'. than the TTnited States, but that is normal. 

The parents, and I am one, are perfectly aware that this buckpassing letter 
cannot absolve the U. N. for the crimes against the American soldier committed 
in its name and under its flag. Nevertheless the State Department, by officially 
exculpating the U. N. for complicity in the mistreatment of American soldiers, 
now clears the way for our suit against the Government for collaborating in the 
betrayal and abandonment of our soldier sons. State cannot now come to court 
and plead that it was all the U. N.'s fault. 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired, 

Director. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2227 

Enclosube No. 13 

[News Release No. 304] 

Headquarters, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Glenwood Springs, Colo., January 31, 1956. 
Hon. John Fosteb Dulles, 

Secretary of State of the United States. 

My Dear Mr. Dulles : Your assistant's letter, conveying your refusal to trans- 
mit to the U. N. the plea to the U. N. of 56 parents for redress of wrongs done 
their dead or missing sons, places you in the anomalous position of rushing to 
the defense of the somewhat less than Aaliant U. N., while leaving defenseless 
the gallant mothers of American soldiers. 

The letter portrays you as so childlike as to believe that when the ship of 
state is run upon a roclc, the rocij is to blame — not the blundering, lubberly 
captain who runs it upon the rock. That the hand-tying of the American soldier 
in Korea, depriving him of the support and protection due him under the Amer- 
ican flag, and his abandonment by his government and the U. N. to years of 
Red torture, was all the Communists' fault. It makes you out either that naive 
or a buckpasser. 

The letter has you letting the U. N. have its cake and eat it, too. The U. N. 
is responsible for stopping aggression, it says, but is not responsible for the evil 
things done by it to our soldiers. But your assistants should get together on 
their stories ; they have made you rather absurdly contradict yourself. Today 
you inform the kinfolk that the U. N. is not responsible; yesterday you inform 
the kinfolk that the U. N. is responsible, and quote the President to prove it. 

I refer to "Excerpt from the transcript of the President's news conference of 
December 2, 1954," on the subject of our Red-held POW's, which on December 
20, 1954, you distributed to the kinfolk. 

"Moreover, those men were there in conformity with obligations incurred 
under the United Nations, and were there, in fact, in accordance with the specific 
request and resolution of the United Nations. How the United Nations can 
possibly disabuse itself of a feeling of responsibility in this matter, and retain 
its self-respect, I wouldn't know ; * * *." 

The letter has you declaring that the U. N. is pressing for the liberation of our 
men, but we see that the only pressing in evidence is the pressing by the U. N. 
to reward the captors, the murderers, and the torturers of our men with member- 
ship in the U. N. 

The letter, besides being puerile, is completely misleading. Among other mis- 
information is the assertion that the other 59 U. N. members furnished about 
two divisions of troops. Even schoolboys know that, according to the division 
slice, the number of troops furnished was equivalent in number to only half a 
division and, as scattered troops, were equivalent in effectiveness to less than 
that. 

We reject your excuses, and reaflarm our request that you transmit to the 
U. N. our plea for redress of wrongs. The letter expresses sympathy, but the 
need from you is not for sympathetic words but for sympathetic deeds. 
For the Claimants: 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired. 

Note to editor. — Any reparations have been pledged for use in removal of 
the subversives in the United States and its Government responsible for the 
abandonment and betrayal of the American soldier. 



Enclosure No, 14 

[News Release No. 305] 

Headquaetebs, Fighting Homefolks of Fighting Men, 

Glemvood Springs, Colo., February 1, 1956. 

The State Department Letteb 
To Coclaimant Kin : x 

I enclose our reply and renewed request to Mr. Dulles, but the letter was so 
unbelievably childish and so replete with misinformation that I am adding this 
review of it. 



Il 



2228 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

It was either a deliberate attempt to deceive and mislead you, or evidence of 
shocking ignorance and ineptitude in high places. If it was sincere ; if it repre- 
sents top-level brainwork in the State Department, such as is applied to our 
foreign relations, I can only say, "God help the United States." 

Paragraph 2: "* * * The United States is doing all it can * * *" How? 
By making insincere "demands" upon the Reds for an accounting, and in the 
same breath proving they are insincere by withdrawing our troops capable of 
enforcing any sincere demand? By playing down and suppressing news of our 
missing men, and misleading, harrassiug, intimidating, and smearing the kinfolk 
who protest and persist in seeking the news they are entitled to know? By 
jumping at the chance to write off the missing men and get them out of sight 
and away from the attention of the American people, by presuming them dead, 
despite the Communists' habit of holding POW's of all nations for years and 
lying about it? 

By attempting to convince the American people that it is honorable to send 
boys out to fight and die for them, and then to shirk their duty to share the 
risk with them by abandoning their soldiers for fear that, by giving them the 
support and protection they are entitled to, tlie people at home might be bombed? 
By degrading the American soldier to the position where he can be and is being 
betrayed and abandoned with impunity? 

If the administration had evidence that all the missing were dead, it would 
be obligated to so declare — thereby putting an end to the agonized uncertainty 
of the kin. It is significant that they have not so declared. They say that they 
have no "evidence" that they are alive, which is far different from saying that 
they know they are dead. They learned that lesson after the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense told you in Washington in April 1954, that he did not know "that a 
single individual is known to be alive" ; and after a casualty officer in the Penta- 
gon flatly stated that he was "absolutely convinced" that they were "all most cer- 
tainly dead." Shortly afterward the Reds announced they were holding the 15 
airmen, and also two civilian employees, Downey and Fecteau, whom the Defense 
Department had long held to be dead. 

A recent "bit and piece" of information, as General Van Fleet, who believes 
bis son alive and in the hands of the Reds, would term it, comes from John H. 
Noble, released after almost 10 years in a Red slave camp, in 19.55. He reports 
stories of Korean vets in Siberian camps and word of the eight fliers shot down 
over the Baltic in April 1950, and all reported dead by the Russians. (See 
Reader's Digest of February 1956, p. 157.) 

(Pars. 3, 4, and 5 covered in my reply to Dulles.) 

Paragraph 6: There was only a pretense of an embargo; hundreds of cargoes, 
including rubber from Ceylon, reached the enemy in ships of U. N. members. 

(Par. 7 covered.) 

Paragraph 8 : Quibbling. The Communist Chairman of the U. N. Military 
Staff Committee, while of course not directing the Korean war, nevertheless was 
in the prime position for receiving and transmitting information to our enemy. 

(Pars. 9, 10, and 11 covered in reply.) 

Paragraph 2 again : The Government, while trying to give the impression that 
all are dead, is smart enough to leave a loophole, "However, it is possible that at 
some time in the future the Communists will admit holding in China additional 
United States personnel." Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary V^illiam H. 
Godel, in letter July 21, 1955, to Senator Knowland (Congressional Record, 
July 26, 1955). 

Also see State Department note to Kremlin released July 16, 1956. 

Eugene R. Guild, 
Captain, United States Army, Retired. 



INDEX 



Note. — The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance 
to the mere fact of the appearance of the names of an individual or an organiza- 
tion in this index. 

A 

Page 

Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations 2209 

Appendix I 2218-2228 

Letter to Captain Guild, United States Army, from Senator Eastland 

dated January 18, 1957 2218 

Letter to Eastland from Guild dated January 6, 1957, with 14 en- 
closures re Wilcox's defense of U. N 2218 

Enclosure 1. Los Angeles Times article dated February 9, 1956, 

Betrayal of GI's Charged 2218 

Enclosure 2. Letter to Hammarskjold from Guild dated June 23, 

1955 2219-2220 

Enclosure 3. News release dated June 23, 1955, Claim Against the 

United States for Loss of Life or Liberty 2220-2221 

Enclosure 4. News release, Claim for Indemnity from the United 
Nations for Loss of Life or Liberty of American Soldiers Be- 
trayed and Abandoned by United Nations 2221 

Enclosure 5. Letter to Lodge from Guild dated September 27, 

1955 2221-2222 

Enclosure 6. September 27, 1955, GI Kin Appeal to U. N. for Re- 
dress of Wrongs Done Their Soldier Sons and Husbands 2222-2223 

Enclosure 7. News release dated October 5, 1955 ; letter to Dulles 

from Guild 2223 

Enclosure 8. Letter to Dulles from Guild dated December 19, 

1955 2223-2224 

Enclosure 9. Letter to Lodge from Guild dated December 19, 1955_ 2224 
Enclosure 10. Letter to Hammarskjold from Guild dated Decem- 
ber 19, 1955 2224 

Enclosure 11. Letter to Guild from Wilcox dated January 11, 1956- 2225 

Enclosure 12. News release dated January 20, 1956 2226 

Enclosure 13. Letter to Dulles from Guild dated January 31, 1956_ 2227 

Enclosure 14. Letter dated February 1, 1956 2227 

"Army 2110 

Attorney General 2132 

B 

Behrstock, Arthur 2127 

Behrstock, Julian Robert 2113 

Adverse information on 2126 

Case history of 2128 

Reply to Eastland re testifying 2131,2132 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Bernstein, Mrs. Kathryn : 

Reply to Eastland 2129 

Adverse information on 2132 

Case history of 2132,2133 

Decision of International Labor Organization 2159-2165 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Biggers, Richard, member of Board 2110 

C 

Carpenter, Catherine, member of Board 2110 

Chevalier, Haakon 2215, 2216 

I 



n INDEX 

Page 

Civil Service Commission 2110,2111,2120,2125,2139 

Investigations Division 2110 

Communist(s) 2113, 2124, 2127 

Communist Party 2127, 2215 

D 

Dawes, Harry, president of UNESCO Stafe Association 2123 

Deveze, Albert, member of International Labor Board 2165, 

2170, 2184, 2191, 2198, 2204, 2214 
DuBerg, Peter : 

Reply to Eastland 2131 

Adverse information on 2133 

Case history of 2134 

Decision of International Labor Organization 2165-2170 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

E 

Eastland, James O 2129 

Eltenton, George Charles 2215 

Europe 2127, 2204 

Evans, Luther H., Director General of International Labor Organiza- 
tion 2180, 2181 

Exhibit No. 363 — Status of investigations by Loyalty Board, Executive 

Order 10422, as amended, November 30, 1956 — Applicants 2116 

Exhibit No. 363-A — Status of investigations by Loyalty Board, Executive 

Order 10422, as amended, November 30, 1956, summary 2117 

Exhibit No. 363-B — Status of investigations by Loyalty Board, Executive 

Order No. 10422, as amended, November 30, 1956 — Employees 2118 

Exhibit No. 364 — Letter from Civil Service Commission to Sourwine dated 

February 5, 1957, from Frederick Irwin, re number of cases from each 

international organization and number of cases of doubtful loyalty 2119 

Exhibit No. 365 — Resume of legal advice from staff association lawyers 

concerning visit of Board to Europe, 1954 2123, 2124 

Exhibit No. 366— Case history of Julian Robert Behrstock 2128 

Exhibit No. 367 — Letter reply to Eastland dated December 8, 1956, from 

Mrs. Kathryn Bernstein, re testifying 2129 

Exhibit No. 367-A — Letter reply to Eastland dated December 5, 1956, from 

Annette Wilcox, re testifying 2129 

Exhibit No. 367-B — Letter reply to Eastland dated November 30, 1956, from 

Helene Van Gelder, re testifying 2130 

Exhibit No. 367-C— Letter reply to Eastland dated December 8, 1956, from 

David N. Leff, re testifying 2130 

Exhibit No. 367-D — Letter reply to Eastland dated November 26, 1956, from 

Ruth Froma, re testifying 2131 

Exhibit No. 367-E — Letter reply to Eastland dated December 8, 1956, from 

Peter DuBerg, re testifying 2131 

Exhibit No. 367-F — Letter reply to Eastland dated December 12, 1956, from 

Julian Behrstock, re testifying 2131, 2132 

Exhibit No. 368— Case history of Kathryn Bernstein 2132, 2133 

Exhibit No. 369— Case history of Norwood Peter DuBerg 2134 

Exhibit No. 370 — Case history of Ruth Froma 2135 

Exhibit No. 371— Statement of chronology of David Neal Leff 2136, 2138 

Exhibit No. 372 — Letter dated March 19, 1954, to Benjamin Mandel from 

John W. Macy, Jr., of Civil Service Commission enclosing record of em- 
ployment of David N. Leff 2139-2146 

Exhibit No. 373 — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated March 

12. 1954, Throiitens Arrest for Contempt, etc 2146. 2147 

Exhibit No. 373-A — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

March 12, 1954, Contempt Action Filed on U. N. Aid 2147, 2148 

Exhibit No. 373-B — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

March 18, 1954, U. N. Aid Spurns Writ 2148 

Exhibit No. 373-C — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

April 23, 1954 2148 

Exhibit No. 373-D — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

March 30, 1954, Leff Decision Delayed 2149 



INDEX ni 

Page 

Exhibit No, 373-E — Clipping from New York Herald Tribtiue, re Leff case, 

dated March 13, 1954, UNESCO Board Backs Leff 2149 

Exhibit No. 373-F — Clipping from New York Times, re LefE case, dated 

March 26, 1954, Bench Warrant Out for Left, U. N. Aid 2149 

Exhibit No. 373-G — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

March 30, 1954, Leff Decision Delayed 2150 

Exhibit No. 373-H — Clipping from Evening Star, re LefC case, dated March 

11, 1954, U. N. Employee in Paris Faces Court Order in Subversive Probe_ 2150 
Exhibit No. 373-1 — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

April 20, 1954 2151 

Exhibit No. 373-J — Clipping from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

June 2, 1954, Red Jury Action Is Valid Abroad 2151 

Exhibit No. 373-K — Clippings from New York Times, re Leff case, dated 

July 18, 1954, Bars Loyalty Hearing 2152 

Exhibit No. 373-L — Clipping from New York Times, re Lelf case, dated 

August 26, 1954, Appeal U. N. Ouster 2152 

Exhibit No. 373-M— Summary of case history of David Neal Leff___ 2152, 2153 

Exhibit No. 374 — Summary of case history of Kathryn Pankey 2153 

Exhibit No. 375 — Case history of Helene Van Gelder 2154, 2155 

Exhibit No. 376 — Case history of Irene Annette Wilcox 2156 

Exhibit No. 377— New York Times article, dated October 30, 1955, 

re Leff case, U. N. Court Bids UNESCO Reinstate Four United States 

"Risks" 2157, 2158 

Exhibit No. 378 — Order of International Labor Organization Administra- 
tive Tribunal ordering payment to Kathryn Bernstein, dated October 

29, 1955 2159-2165 

Exhibit No. 378-A — Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to Peter DuBerg, 

dated April 26, 1955 2165-2170 

Exhibit No. 378-B— Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to Ruth Froma, 

dated October 29, 1955 2171-2178 

Exhibit No. 378-C— Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to David Neal Leff, 

dated September 6, 1954 2178-2184 

Exhibit No. 378-D— Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to Kathryn 

Pankey, dated October 29, 1955 2184-2191 

Exhibit No. 378-E — Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to Helene Van 

Gelder, dated October 29, 1955 2191-2198 

Exhibit No. 378-F — Order of ILO Tribunal for payment to Annette Wilcox, 

dated April 26, 1955 2199-2204 

Exhibit No. 379 — Summary of action taken by Board with respect to Leff, 

Van Gelder, Froma, Pankey, Bernstein, DuBerg, Wilcox, Behrstock, 

and Mclntire 2206 

Exhibit No. 380 — Decision of Tribunal of ILO and pleadings in case (in 

files of subcommittee) 2207 

Exhibit No. 381 — Letter to Mclntire from Eastland, dated December 6, 

1956, re transportation from Rome to Senate hearings 2208 

Exhibit No. 381-A — Letter to Eastland from Mclntire, dated November 24, 

1956, re testifying 2208, 2209 

Exhibit No. 381-B — Letter to Eastland from Mclntire, dated December 18, 

1956, re clearance 2209 

Exhibit No. 382— Letter to Mclntire from Frank Weisl of FAO, dated 

April 8, 1953, re termination of appointment 2210, 2211 

Exhibit No. 383 — Decision in case of Mclntire of Administrative Tribunal 

(ILO), dated September 3, 1954 2211-2214 

F 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2110, 2111, 2113, 2125 

Fifth amendment 2162, 2215 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the U. N. (FAO) 2209, 2210 

Froma, Ruth : 

Reply to Eastland 2131 

Adverse information on 2134 

Case history of 2135 

Decision of ILO Tribunal 2171-2178 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 



IV INDEX 

G Page 

Geneva 2114, 2139, 2156 

Gerety, Pierce 2121, 2124, 2204, 2207 

Gilman, Mrs., member of Board 2110 

Gore, Col. H. Grady, member of Board 2110 

I 

ILO Tribunal 2114 

International Court of Justice 2114 

International Labor Organization 2158, 2207 

International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board 2110-2112, 2114, 

2115, 2122, 212.3, 2125, 2127, 2134, 2135, 2153-2156, 2204, 2209 

Seven members of 2110 

Organized in July 1953 2110 

International Workers Ordei* 2132 

Irwin, Frederick D 2216 

Ivanov, Peter 2215 

J 

Johnston, Senator Olin D 2109 

Justice Department 2110 

K 

Kauffmann, George, attorney in Kentucky ; member of Board 2110 



Lefe, David N 2139-2153 

Reply to Eastland 2130 

Adverse information on 2136 

Statement of chronology of 2136-2138 

Record of employment 2139-2146 

Clippings re 2146-2152 

Summary of case history 2152, 2153 

Decision of ILO 2178-2184 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Letter to J. G. Sourwine from Frederick D. Irvpin of United States Civil 
Service Commission, dated December 19, 1956, re cases of Murphy, 
Oberwager, and Chevalier 2216 

M 

Macy, John W., Executive Director of Civil Service Commission 2139 

Mandel, Benjamin 2109 

Melntire, Gordon 2207, 2210, 2129 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Letter from Eastland, re transportation from Rome for Senate hearing- 2208 

Military intelligence 2110 

Murphy, Gardner 2214, 2215, 2216 

N 

Navy 2110 

Newman, Federal judge 2139 

New York 2112, 2114 

New York Times 2146, 2156 

O 

Oberwager, Jerome A 2215, 2216 

Oppenheimer, Dr. J. Robert 2215 

P 

Pankey, Kathryn : 

Summary of case history 2153, 2154 

Decision of ILO Tribunal 2184-2191 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Paris 2121, 2127 



INDEX V 

R Page 

Rome 2121 

Rusher, William 2109 

S 

Saguara, Mexico 2121 

Saint-Pol, A., Chief of Legal Affairs Section of FAO 2214 

Serrao, Sir John, attorney at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome 2214 

Singer, Simon Harold 2121 

Sourwine, J. G 2109 

State Department 2110, 2115, 2121, 2122, 2207, 2216 

Stavropoulos, lasson, member of ILO Board 2165, 

2170, 2184, 2191, 2198, 2204, 2214 

T 
Toussaint, Mr 2216 

U 

UNESCO 2113, 2119, 2120, 2121, 2122, 

2124, 2127, 2132, 2134, 2135, 2139, 2154, 2156, 2204, 2210, 2215. 

Seven 2126 

Staff Association 2122, 2123 

United Nations 2111, 2119, 2156, 2207 

United States 2110, 2115, 2125, 2135, 2139, 2158, 2207, 2209 

United States Embassy in Rome 2207 

V 

Van Gelder, Helene 2207 

Reply to Eastland 2130 

Adverse information on 2154 

Summary of case history 2154, 2155 

Decision of International Labor Organization 2191-2198 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Van Rijckevorsel, A., member of International Labor Board 2165, 

2170. 2184, 2191, 2198, 2204, 2214 
AV 

Waldman, Henry S. (testimony of) 2109-2228 

Chairman, International Organization Employees Loyalty Board, 

Elizabeth, N. J _' 2109 

Duties of position 2110 

Washington 2112 

Wilcox, Annette : 

Reply to Eastland 2129 

Adverse information on 2155, 2150 

Case history of 2156 

Decision of ILO, re payment 2199-2204 

Summary of action taken by Board 2206 

Wilcox, Mr 2110, 2113 

Winton, C. Ed, school superintendent of Kearny, N. J., member of Board__ 2110 

Wolf, Francis, juember of International Labor Board 2165, 

2170, 2184, 2191, 2198, 2204, 2214 

o 



y 




SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THH 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUWCIAEY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE 
UNITED STATES 



NOVEMBER 16, 30, DECEMBER 1, 1956 



PART 39 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
72723 WASHINGTON : 1957 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUL 1 8 1957 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

ESTBS KEFAUVER, Tennessee ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri. WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arlcansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois 

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming HERMAN WELKER. Idaho 

MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 



Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security 
Act AND Other Internal Security Laws 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri HERMAN WELKER, Idaho 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 

Robert Morris. Chief Counsel 

J. G. SouRWiNE, Associate Counsel 

William A. Rusher, Associate Counsel 

Benjamin Mandhl, Director of Research 

a 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — Page 

Arena, Ernest 2270 

Cooke, Adm. Chas. M. (letter) 2236 

Kealalio, Joseph 2268 

King, Samuel Wilder 2243 

McElrath, Robert 2260 

Miyagi, Newton Kunio 2272 

O'Daniel, Lt. Gen. John W 2229 

Silva, Frank 23 11 

Stainback, Ingram M 2283 

Yagi, Thomas Sukichi 2301 

Index I 

ni 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1956 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 
or the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 35 a. m., in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston pre- 
siding . 

Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; Jay Sourwine, associate 
counsel; William A. Rusher, administrative counsel; and Benjamin 
Mandel, director of research. 

Senator Johnston. The subcommittee will come to order. 

We will begin the hearings on another battlefront this morning. 
This is a Honolulu witness. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. The witness this morning. Senator — 
well, I will ask him to identify himself. 

Senator Johnston. Will you raise your right hand ? Do you swear 
the evidence you will give before this subcommittee will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

General O'Daniel. I do. 

Senator Johnston. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OP LT. GEN. JOHN W. O'DANIEL, UNITED STATES 

AEMY (RETIRED) 

Mr. Morris. General, will you give us your full name ? 

General O'Daniel. John W. O'Daniel, lieutenant general, United 
States Army, retired. 

Mr. Morris. For how long have you been retired, General ? 

General O'Daniel. I retired on the 29th of February 1956. 

Mr. Morris. You have been a military man all your life, sir? 

General O'Daniel. Forty years. 

Mr. Morris. Where were you born. General ? 

General O'Daniel. Newark, Del. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend the United States Military Academy ? 

General O'Daniel. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. How did you first come into the military service? 

General O'Daniel. I attended the first officers' training camp at 
Fort Myer, Va., and received a provisional second lieutenancy. 

Senator Johnston. You say the first officers' training; that was in 
the First World War? 

General O'Daniel. That is right ; yes, sir. 

2229 



2230 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. General, I wonder if you would sketch for us some 
aspects of your career that would tend to qualify you before this com- 
mittee as someone who can speak as an authority whom we may consult 
in connection with the forthcoming inquiry which the Senate Internal 
Security Subcommittee is conducting or plans to conduct on Com- 
munist infiltration of the Hawaiian Islands. You have served as a 
commanding officer there, have you not ? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Morris. "Wlien did you serve as commanding officer of the 
Hawaiian Islands, United States Army? 

General O'Danlel. From September 1952 to April 15, 1954. 

Senator JoHisrsTOisr. Wliat was your rank at that time ? 

General O'Daniel. I was a lieutenant general, commanding United 
States Army, Pacific, under CINPAC. 

Mr. Morris. And the designation of that, the military, is 
USAE-PAC ; is that right ? 

General O'Daniel. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. And you say you served there for virtually 2 years 
during 1952 to 1954? 

General O'Daniel. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now, after your tour of duty was completed there, 
General, what was your next military assignment in 1954? 

General O'Daniel. April 15, 1954, I became the chief of United 
States military advisory group in Saigon for Vietnam and Indochina. 

Mr. Morris. You were chief of the military advisory group in 
Saigon for Vietnam? 

General O'Daniel. And Indochina at that time; Laos and Cam- 
bodia, as well. 

Mr. Morris. How long did you serve in that command. General? 

General O'Daniel. Until November 18, 1955, when I returned to 
the United States for age retirement. 

Mr. Morris. And you retired early in 1956 ? 

General O'Daniel. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you have had other commands in the Far East ; 
have you not, General ? 

General O'Daniel. I commanded the 1st Corps in Korea in July : 
from July 1951 to July 1952. 

Mr. Morris. And, during World War II, what were your military 
assignments then? 

General O'Daniel. I commanded the 3d Infantry Division in 
Europe. 

Mr. Morris. The 3d Infantry Division did have quite a military 
record ; did it not. General ? 

General O'Daniel. It did have. It had 27 Medals of Honor in that 
1 division. 

Mr. Morris. General, in addition to the commands that are strictly 
military, you have served, for instance, as military attache in the 
Soviet Union? 

General O'Daniel. I was there from September 1948 to September 
of 1950. 

Mr. Morris. And you were able to observe firsthand the workings 
of that political state, the Soviet Union ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2231 

General O'Daniel. I was, and I came to some very definite con- 
clusions about it which I think are pretty well agreed upon by everj^- 
one by now. 

Mr. Morris. Now, General, did yon find while you were the com- 
manding officer, commanding general, in the Hawaiian Islands, that 
there was a Communist threat in existence there? 

General O'Daniel. I definitely found that to be so. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the extent to which you found that 
there was a Communist threat? 

General O'Daniel. Well, of course, upon — well, even before arriv- 
ing there, I had heard of the strike that was conducted by the ILWU 
in, I believe it was, 1948 or 1949, which lasted better than — I am not 
sure of the time, the number of days. It was a long strike which dis- 
rupted the sugar industry there, and also the supplies from the main- 
land, wherein the Hawaiian people themselves, the loyal citizens, even 
went so far, some of the women acted as chambermaids in some of the 
hotels in the town in order to keep the place operating. 

Mr. Morris. Wherein does the Communist infiltration, to the extent 
that it does exist, whatever that may be, how does that pose a military 
threat to the security of the islands ? 

General O'Daniel. Well, to me, my personal feeling is that the 
Hawaiian Islands are very important to our — militarily to us, in that 
it offers a staging area for any operations that might be necessary 
in the far Pacific. It offers a natural headquarters for all the com- 
mands of the far Pacific. It acts as a depot for supplies to the far 
Pacific. 

Mr. Morris. General, for instance, the House Un-American Activi- 
ties Committee had an inquiry in 1950 which showed that there was 
considerable Communist infiltration of the islands. You say you 
were there during 1952 and 1954. 

General O'Daniel. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. You frequently visit the Hawaiian Islands in addi- 
tion, do you not? 

General O'Daniel. Yes. I have gone through 2 or 3 times since I 
commanded in Hawaii. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been able to observe. General, whether or not 
the danger is abating, or whether it is getting more serious, or whether 
it is remaining as strong as it was at that time, any way of telling us? 

General O'Daneel. To me, the danger is just as great or gi-eater 
than it was then. 

Mr. Morris. Now 

General O'Daniel. I qualify that for this reason : I believe that, up 
until last year, there were some $50,000 a year appropriated for a 
committee in Hawaii on the government level to control, to attempt 
to control, subversion; and I believe that since that time that has been 
cut to $20,000, which makes it practically inoperative. 

What has brought that about, I don't know. However, it is com  
mon knowledge that the Communists or the ILWU supports their 
activity in that area with about $250,000 a year. I don't know the 
facts on that. I can't quote any authority other than hearsay on that, 
but that is common knowledge in Hawaii. It is the one that IMUA 
has used. 



2232 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. What is IMUA, General ? 

General O'Daniel. IMUA is— the word, I believe, means to 

help 

Mr. Morris. IMUA, is it not, sir ? 

General O'Daniel (continuing). In Hawaiian, and it is the re- 
sult—it resulted as the outcome of this strike in the forties, between 
1945 and 1950, whenever that happened, I have forgotten the date, 
wherein a group of loyal citizens banded together with the idea of 
doing something about it on a nongovernment level, toward bringing 
to the people of Hawaii the seriousness of the Communist threat. 

Such people as Governor, ex-Gov. Lawrence M. Judd was a mem- 
ber of it, I believe he is now president of it. Mr. Walter Dilling- 
ham or Mrs. Walter Dillingham was a member of it, and many promi- 
nent citizens in Hawaii are members of it. I myself joined it, as did 
manv of my military personnel, in 19— in the spring of 1954. Our 
own"USAR-PAC personnel contributed $1,000 to IMUA. 

Their only source of income is from contributions, and they set up a 
budget, I think of $50,000, for the year before last. Last year, I don't 
recall what it was. 

I spoke before IMUA on my return from the Far East in September 
of this year. 

Mr. Morris. Well, General, did you observe Communists in action 
while you were commanding general there? That is, Did you have 
occasion to know that they were there, that they were in operation, and 
generally 

General O'Daniel. I Imew they were there as a result of the Hall 
trials and the trial of the seven there conducted in a Federal court, 
Judge McLaughlin's court. And we were, I was, aware of it through 
intelligence reports from my own headquarters that I had an oppor- 
tunity to view. 

It was my — I felt it my duty to inform the people of, principal 
people of, Hawaii as to the seriousness of the situation, and held 
briefings for them in order to bring them up to date as to what infor- 
mation we had. 

Senator Johnston. General, your past experience in Russia, and 
knowing their pattern and hoAv they proceed and go about spreading 
communism, made it so that you did not have to be told when a man 
was a Communist, but you could see it with your own eyes from past 
experience; is that correct? 

General O'Daniel, That is correct, sir, yes; very definitely. 

Mr. Morris. General, where were the Communists lodged ; what did 
they do, the Communists ? 

General O'Daniel. They control the sugar workers, most all of 
them belong to the ILWU, International Longshoremen's, Warehouse- 
men's Union, and they control the port operators, the stevedores; and 
they can, through calling a strike and shutting down of work there, 
disrupt the economy of the whole islands. 

Senator Johnston. What about out on the farms, too; are they 
organized, the plantations? 

General O'Daniel. The plantations ; yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. The workers are organized there, and what 
about — do they have any Communists in that organization, or is that 
the same organization? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2233 

General O'Daniel, I can't give you details of that, sir; I am 
sorry. 

Mr. Morris. General, knowing what you did — you had access to 
security reports out there, did you not, sir ? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Knowing what you did about the Communists, the 
presence of Communists on the islands, what steps did you, as the 
commanding general, take to anticipate any action on their part ? 

General O'Daniel. The Army commander's job in the Pacific, in 
Hawaii, he is charged with the defense of the Hawaiian Islands under 
commander in chief, Pacfic, who at the beginning of my tour was 
Admiral Stump, who is still there. The Army commander was 
charged with the defense, the overall command of CINPAC. 

We began conducting practice alerts at my headquarters every o 
months. We occupied our alert command posts with the entire per- 
sonnel for 24 hours at a time, and the purpose of it was to bring in all, 
not only the military but, with the consent of the Civilian Defense 
Agency and the Civil — what is it; Civil Aeronautics Patrol, isn't it, 
another air organization — to tie in the communications and to conduct 
exercises based upon what might happen. 

One exercise we had was that we visualized a Communist infiltra- 
tion and uprising within the islands simultaneously with an attack 
from the outside. That was one, one of the exercises that we held. 

We checked with the civil defense agencies as to their readiness. 
They have a very fine blood bank in Hawaii, by the way, and ran it 
as near like an actual operation as possible. We did that many times. 

To take care of any eventuality, whether it be for a local distuib- 
ance, whether it be for a tidal wave, whether it be war, or whatnot, 
our action — it was a pattern that could be followed regardless of the 
type operation that you were confronted with. 

Mr. NoRRis. Now, what could be the consequences, militarily speak- 
ing of Communist infiltration, or Communist infiltration that would 
amount to something more than that, namely, control of, as you say, 
the ILWU and the dockworkers and plantation workers, what would 
be the consequences in the event of some kind of an emergency that 
we could anticipate. General ? 

General O'Daniel, Well, I think the military commander would 
envision that, in all probability, all these dockworkers and whatnot 
would have to be supplied from his own military forces in that case, 
and no doubt would have made plans for such utilization, I would 
think. 

That was in my mind as to action that should be taken. 

Senator Johnston. General, I believe you said every 3 months you 
set aside 24 hours to do nothing but plan and make preparations. 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir, that is correct ; the staff, the alert staff. 

Senator Johnston. I imagine you did that because you sensed the 
dire need for that at that time. 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. That was very expensive, in a way, to the 
Government, to give up 24 hours' time to be doing that kind of work, 
wasn't it ? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir, but a very worthy investment, we felt. 



2234 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Johnston. Do you think, you still think, then, at the pres- 
ent time, that the situation is such that it would be beneficial to us 
to keep a very close watch on the situation there ? 

General O'Daniel. I do indeed, yes, sir; emphatically. 

Senator Johnston. We cannot overdo the thing, as you see it? 

General O'Daniel. No, sir ; it cannot be overdone. Commmiists are 
out waging Avar, applying all the nine principles of war according to 
our concept of the principles that are applied in a shooting war, and 
the very ones we teach in our own military schools to be applied 
in a shooting war. 

Mr. MoRKis. General, did you find that the Communists in the 
Hawaiian Islands did apply these nine principles of warfare that you 
just mentioned now? 

General O'Daniel. Well, not — no; I can't say that they applied 
all of them while I was there. They certainly applied some of them. 

One of them was the subversive activity warfare, and the propa- 
ganda warfare, which they have applied very vigorously under one 
Mr. McElrath, who has been their spokesman, and he has done his 
best to tear down the Government. 

Mr. Morris. Who is Mr. McElrath ? 

General O'Daniel. He is their mouthpiece; the radio annomicer 
for the ILWU in Hawaii. 

We in IMUA developed a 15-minute counterprogram ; a lot of our 
money went into that. 

Mr. Morris. That is Kobert McElrath ; is it? 

General O'Daniei,. Yes, sir; Robert McElrath; that is right. 

Mr. Morris, General, you gave me one of the consequences that 
might be expected, military consequences, that might be expected, 
from any Communist infiltration in the event of emergency. I think 
in executive session you elaborated on that considerably more, Gen- 
eral ; some of the consequences we might expect. 

General O'Daniel. From what ? 

Mr. Morris. From the Communists, in the event of an emergency 
that might develop in the Far East or any part of the world. 

General O'Daniel. Give we a lead there. 

Mr. Morris. You stated. General, that you were prepared for simul- 
taneous attack; you were prepared for possible disruption of com- 
munications. 

General O'Daniel. That is right ; disrupting communications, dis- 
rupting of our supplies that would be necessary to support a force 
in that area. And, also, it would necessitate somebody having to care 
for the people that lived in the islands, should that be disrupted. 

Mr. Morris. These are all beyond a shutdown, or a general strike. 

General O'Daniel. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. These are in addition to it. And all of these things 
which you told us about in executive session, General, and you have 
just repeated here now, these were things that j^ou anticipated 

General O'Daniel. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. From your military vantage point when you were 
the commanding general, and you had to anticipate them. 

General O'Daniel. That is correct ; yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. General, it is true that the leaders know that 
they must probably advocate the good of the workers sometimes, in 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2235 

order to put across things that they want to put across fol- the Com- 
munist Party ; is that not true ? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Senator Johnston. So they maneuver the public into that position. 

General O'Daniel. That is correct, sir. 

To me, Hawaii is important, the things that have happened there 
are important, not only to Hawaii but as a warning to all of us in 
America, and I would say in other parts of the world, too, in that, at 
the inception of the introduction of the ILWU into that country, 
there were no labor unions there in Hawaii, and it was a fertile field 
for any group to move into. And the ILWU, which is Communist 
infested, took advantage of that and, typical of Communist action, 
did move in. 

Senator Johnston. It does not take a large percentage, sometimes, 
to really handle the situation, either ; does it ? 

General O'Daniel. No, sir. In the course of carrying out my con- 
cept of the Communist Partj[, being as a military organization and 
operating as such, and applying military principles, a few men run 
a military organization, the commander and the staff, and the soldiers 
are the followers of those commanders and staff. 

Likewise, the workers are the followers of the Communist leaders, 
and there is not much they can do about it when they once gain control. 

TVlien you are in southeast Asia, you never hear communism men- 
tioned by the Communists. You hear "land reform" mentioned by 
the Communists, and it is not until the peasant agrees to the land 
reform, that takes over the land, that then he finds out that he belongs 
to the Communists, and he is then hooked, and he is hooked for good. 

So that is typical of their operation. They gain their membership 
under the guise of one thing; and, upon acquiring the membership, 
then they apply their Communist action against those people and 
use them as their army. 

That is typical of Asia and it is typical of the Communist action 
everywhere, sir, as I am sure that is not news to anyone. 

Mr. Morris. General, I think you were setting forth before which 
of the nine principles of military warfare you found the Communists 
were putting into practice against you while you were the command- 
ing general of the Hawaiian Islands. 

General O'Daniel. The nine principles that I have in mind, I read 
from this report on Soviet total war, Mr. Walter's committee, which 
I was asked to contribute to. 

Mr. Morris. You are now reading. General, from the statement 
that you contributed to that particular study ? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. And the nine principles of war that 
I refer to are the principles of: The objective, simplicity, unity of 
commands, the offensive, maneuver, mass, economy of force, surprise, 
and security. 

They are the nine principles of war that we teach our military, in 
our own military schools, and I claim they are being applied by the 
Communists in all their activities, and you have more examples of 
those than you do have military examples. 

Mr. Morris. And this, you say, is true in the Hawaiian Islands? 
 General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. The objective — let's start to repeat 
what the Communists"' objective is. We say in our definition of "ob- 



2236 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

jective" that a commander is justified in using any and all means 
available to him to capture his objective, whether it means by decep- 
tion, by maneuver, by a lie, by brealring a treaty, or what not, it still 
contributes to the objective, and it is justifiable in waging war. 

Mr. Morris. General, what is the military importance, the strategic 
importance, of the Hawaiian Islands? 

General O'Daniel. Well, it is, next to the United States, the main 
base for the whole Pacific. 

Mr. Morris. Next to the United States. 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. It is a staging area. It is a training 
area. It is the command area for the Pacific; for the Army, Navy, 
and Air in the Pacific. 

Mr. Morris. General, based on all your experiences, that is, mili- 
tary experiences, strictly military, the experiences you had as mili- 
tary attache in Russia, together with the fact that you know the islands 
and you have been there a great deal of the time, and you visit them 
all the time, do you think that a useful purpose would be served, other 
than our own legislative purpose, if hearings were held about Com- 
munist infiltration in those islands ? 

General O'Daniel. I do : and I am delighted to know that such a 
thing is going to happen. I was hoping it would happen for the last 
4 years. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I have no more questions. 

Senator Johnston. That is much more needed now than it was, say, 
a few years ago when the local government in Hawaii had more money 
to make the proper investigation, too, is that not true? 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. For some reason, they have cut down on the 
amount of appropriation for this kind of work, and it leaves less pro- 
tection against infilatration of Communists. 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. Their activities. 

General O'Daniel. Yes, sir, it does. 

Senator Johnston. So you think we should go forward with an 
investigation out there? 

General O'Daniel. That is my personal opinion, sir. I think it is 
a very timely thing. 

Senator Johnston. Any other question? 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any questions? 

I have none. 

Senator Johnston. General, we cei-tainly thank you for coming 
before us today. 

General O'Daniel. I appreciate the opportunity of having been 
here. 

("Wliereupon, at 11 a. m., (he subcommittee recessed, subject to call.) 
(The following subcommittee news release was ordered into the 
record at this point:) 

[Release to afternoon papers of Monday, November 19, 1956, from the Senate Internal 

Security Subcommittee] 

Washington, November 19. — Two questions regarding the importance of Hono- 
lulu as an element of the national security of the United States were posed to 
Adm. Charles M. Cooke, USN, retired, by the SiBoate Internal Security Subcom- 
mittee early last month. 

These questions were : 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2237 

(1) What is the strategic military importance of Honolulu and the Ha- 
waiian Islands? 

(2) Could a disruption of this port and these islands by Communist in- 
ternal forces affect our national security? 

Chairman James O. Eastland (Democrat of Mississippi) today made public the 
replies of Admiral Cooke, who was chief strategical oflScer of the Navy during 
most of World War II. 

In a letter dated October 23, 1956, Admiral Cooke said : 

"The strategic importance of the Hawaiian Islands can be pointed up Ijy a 
brief reference to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the oi)euing of the war with 
Japan in 1941. This attack did not include a strong landing force, but it might 
have done so in a manner similar to the attack against Midway Island under- 
taken by the Japanese 6 months later. 

"Thus the possibility existed of Japanese occupation of the Hawaiian Islands. 
If this had occurred the Japanese would have been in a position to disrupt our 
Pacific coastal shipping and to conduct attacks along the Pacific coast. Any 
efforts by the United States to move toward regaining control of the western 
Pacific, to maintain and use a supply route to Australia and New Zealand would 
necessarily have been delayed for several years. 

"For many years we have recognized that the establishment in the Western 
Pacific and in Eastern Asia of a strong power hostile to the United States would 
endanger American security in a critical way. In this day and age of the de- 
velopment of nuclear power of the great range of nuclear powered shipping and 
aircraft, the maintenance of control of the Pacific Ocean by the forces of freedom 
led by the United States is vital to the future of the world. 

"During the last 11 years Soviet communism has pursued an active objective 
toward the conquering and establishing control of all East Asia. If communism 
is to carry out this purpose it must succeed in controlling sea communications 
along the east coast of Asia south to Southeast Asia, Indonesia and the entrances 
to the India Ocean. If the free world is to prevent communism from carrying 
out these objectives it must be in a strategic position to bring to bear naval 
power including, of course airpower against Communist aggressive use of the 
sea communications in this area. Further, the United States must be capable 
of projecting economic and military suppoi't to the land power forces of freedom 
in the western Pacific. 

"I believe that your committee, other committees of the Congress, and agencies 
of the United States Government have established irrefutably that Communist 
organizations in our midst are organized and controlled and are devoted to the 
interest of the world Communist conspiracy. 

"It goes without saying that if Communist power continues to advance in 
Southeast Asia and in the Pacific, if it succeeds in bringing Formosa into Com- 
munist control and Japan into the Communist orbit, then Communist domina- 
tion of the Hawaiian Islands could spell irretrievable disaster to the United 
States." 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



FRIDAY, NOVEIkTBER 30, 1956 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration 
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judicary, 

Honolulu^ T. H. 

The subcommittee met, piirsiumt to adjournment, at 9 : 30 a, m., 
in the Senate Chamber, lolani Palace, Senator James O. Eastland 
( chairman ) presiding. 

Present : Senators Eastland, Watkins, Johnston, Welker and Sena- 
tor Butler. 

Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Mandel, 
research director. 

Senator Eastland. Let's have order, please. 

First, the chairman would like to state this to the photographers : 

We desire to cooperate with you in every way, but you cannot get 
between a witness and the committee. You may take pictures while 
a witness is testifying. If it interferes with his testimony, then we 
will have to ask you to desist until his testimony is concluded. Of 
course, you are at perfect liberty to take pictures before a witness 
begins his testimony. 

The United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee has 
been drawn to these Hawaiian Islands by evidence accumulated, dur- 
ing the last 5 years, that Communists have been active here. 

We have a mandate from the United States Senate that compels 
us to learn and to report to that body all relevant facts bearing on the 
internal security of the United States of America. 

Tliis is so in oider that whatever legislative action the Congress of 
the United States should take, ma}'' proceed from a thorough and 
comprehensive understanding of present-day reality. 

Perhaps new legislation, bearing on subversion, should be enacted. 
It may be that existing laws have become antiquated and outmoded 
by the changing scene. 

During the past year we have been engaged in hearings on the 
scope of Soviet activity in the United States. On February 8, 1956, 
as chairman of the subcommittee, I announced for the subcommittee 
the following, and I quote : 

The Internal Security Subcommittee is beginning a series of liearings on the 
scope of Soviet activity in the United States. 

We shall try to determine to what extent Soviet power operates through the 
Communist Party here and to what extent other organizations have been devised 
to effectuate its purposes. 

2239 



2240 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

We shall study the structural revisions that the Commuuists have made in 
their network in order to avoid detection, and endeavor to trace the movement 
of individual agents through those changing structures. 

Since that time we have observed that the Commimist Party, which 
has frequently been adjudicated to be an instrument of Soviet power, 
has been organizing- and reorganizing its internal structure, so as 
to escape detection, to obscure its hitherto proclaimed designs and 
generallv to heighten its own effectiveness. 

More and more we have found that formal party membership with 
such trappings as party cards have become outmoded and that more 
flexible binding ties have been devised. 

The distinguislied Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, reported this when he testified before a com- 
mittee of Congress on December 8, 1953, and I quote from Mr. 
Hoover : 

No longer are Communist Party membership cards issued ; maintenance of 
membership records are forbidden; contacts of rank and file members are 
limited from 3 to 5— the basic club unit. Most of the local headquarters have 
been discontinued and party records have been destroyed. 

That is Mr. Hoover's statement. 

By way of example, on February 21 we commenced a series of hear- 
ings on the nature of the relationship of those Americans who have 
worked for the Tass News Agency. 

We observed that that Soviet news agency had drawn its personnel 
from the ranks of the Communist Party but that as soon as the em- 
ployer-employee relationship was established, all formal ties to the 
Communist Party were immediately severed. 

Consequently, when we asked an employee if he were a Communist 
Party member the day before he took up employment he could not 
enter a sworn denial in the record but instead invoked his privilege 
against incrimination under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. 

However, when we asked him if he were a Communist member the 
day after his employment, he felt he could and did enter a denial in 
the record. This was so because there was an actual regulation passed 
that employees Avere to sever their formal ties. 

Meanwliile, however, we found that these people continued to meet 
their old Communist associates and have attencled Communist meet- 
ings, but without the encumbrance of formal party membership. 

In other hearings we found evidence of this trend toward the 
streamlining of structures to meet the changing political currents 
of the world. 

We are here today mindful of the generous hospitality of Gov. 
Samuel Wilder King, who has done everything humanly possible to 
make us feel welcome. We have come to know not only the beauty 
that abounds on these islands, but the charming hospitality of the 
very fine ]3eople here, and we are grateful for all of it. 

We have asked several score of witnesses to testify during these 
coming hearings. We have selected these witnesses because we feel 
that they are competent to testify about conditions on these islands. 
We hope that all of them will be responsive and contribute to the 
understanding of current reality and to the welfare of heir country in 
its struggle against communism. 

Senator Johnston, would you have anything to say? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2241 

Senator Johnston. First, I want to commend the chairman for 
the statement that he has made. I endorse it in toto. 

We are here seeldng information. We are seeking information in 
order that we may know how to meet the situations of the world today. 

This committee has been making investigations of the same nature 
that we are making here, in the various States of the United States. 
We have gone into several of our larger cities to make investigations. 
So this is nothing new for us to go to the people of the United States 
to make investigations. 

In order to make investigations we must have people to come before 
us and testify, and testify as to what the conditions are in what- 
ever particular community we happen to go to hold the hearings. So 
today we are in your beautiful islands and as has been so timely and 
well said by our chairman, the hospitality of your people is beyond 
anticijDation. And I want to tell you that I expected hospitality to the 
very highest degree when I thought of coming here. 

Now, then, today and all through these hearings, I don't want the 
people of these islands to think that we have picked you out, thinking 
that probably you are infiltrated with communism, any more than 
we have picked out other cities of our Nation, but we are here to find 
out what the situation is, and to make a report back to our full com- 
mittee of the conditions that we might find here. 

I hope that the people that we call before us as witnesses will co- 
operate with this committee and give us the desired information, in 
order that we all may be true, loyal, and good Americans wherever 
we may reside. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have listened with close attention to the statements made by my 
colleagues on this committee. 

I happen to be the ranking Republican member of the committee 
present today. I want to say to you now that this committee has not 
proceeded at any time on a partisan basis. We are all Americans, and 
irrespective of our party membership, we are all opposed to commu- 
nism. We are all supporting loyally this country in its fight to main- 
tain freedom throughout the world. 

So today I want to mention that, so that you will know there is no 
division on the committee with respect to the objectives of this com- 
mittee. I have been a member of it since its organization a number 
of years ago. We have attempted to conduct fairly and thoroughly 
the investigations that the Senate of the United States has entrusted 
to us. And as has already been said, we conduct the same type of 
investigation here that we conduct anywhere else in the United States. 

It has been my privilege to serve with other chairmen. Senator Mc- 
Carran and Senator Jenner of Indiana, and I want to say to you that 
all of the chairmen, including the present one, have been fair in the 
conduct of these hearings. 

Sometimes people wonder if these hearings are necessary. That is 
not for this committee to determine. It has been determined by the 
Congress of the United States and specifically also by the Senate. 

As our chairman has announced, we have a specific duty to perform. 

72723— 57— pt. 39 2 



2242 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

We have not sought headlines; we have attempted to develop the facts 
and preserve just as far as we possibly can the rights of individual 
citizens who appear before the committee. 

This is not a trial. No one is placed on trial or no organization is 
])laced on trial. We are here to develop facts for the purpose, first 
of all, of enabling the Congress of the United States to either amend or 
repeal legislation it now has or to adopt new legislation with respect 
to the problems that come to this committee for investigation. I 
think that should be emphasized at all times, that this is not a trial. 
The witnesses who appear here are supposed to help us with the facts, 
to testif}^ cooperatively and aid the committee in the job that has been 
assigned to it. And I am hoping you will. 

Now may I, in concluding my remarks this morning, join with my 
colleagues in great appreciation of the beauty of the island and the 
wonderful hospitality we have found out here. 

I was here in 1951 and spent nearly a month here. I had a daughter 
and a son-in-law living here at the time. I didn't come out on an 
official mission but I met many of your people. And many of the 
people of Utah have engaged in business here. I think we probably 
have as large a representation in the islands as any other State in the 
Union. 

I am happy to be here. Mrs. Watkins is happy to join me in what 
I have said with respect to your hospitality and the beauty of this area. 

Senator Easti^and. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, may I join with my colleagues in 
saying that the warmth of the reception i-eceived by this committee 
will always be remembered by the Welker family. Nothing could 
have Ijeen more wholesome, more genuine. You are all 100-percent 
Star-Spangled Banner Americans in the view of the Senator from 
Idaho. 

The beauty of these islands need not be praised again. But com- 
ing here to this bit of heaven for the first time, I wonder if you appre- 
ciate what you have here in this marvelous country, these islands, 
that have evei*ything in the world, it seems. 

May I say this. That not one single person upon (his committee, 
including the chairman, asked for the job that we now have. You, 
the American people, through the Congress of the United States, estab- 
lished the Internal Security iVct; you were the people who formed 
this committee, and its members were chosen, not from our own desire 
or wishes but because of the fact we had a job to do in the Senate of 
the United States. And we will do that in an objective, fair, honest 
way. 

And may I say thanks to you, and all of you, for your cooperation 
again. Mrs. Welker and our teen-age daughter, Nancy, and I join in 
saying we are happy very much to be here. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. Thank you, IMr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the story of the Three Little Bears. 
By the time it gets down to me, all the porridge is gone. [Laughter.] 
But I want to say that I come here with a spirit of great friendliness. 

We have been accepted by the people of these lovely islands with 
open arms. I personally have nothing to gain by being here. I have 
nothing against anybody in these islands. I am here to determine 
facts, and I know that you all will cooperate in that effort. 



6C0PE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2243 

I am delighted to be here ; my wife is with me and we have had a 
marvelous time in your islands, and we are looking forward to a 
marvelous time. You are a very friendly and lovely people, and we 
are here in that same spirit of friendship and well being for all good 
American citizens. 

Senator Eastland. Governor King will be the first witness. 

Governor Samuel Wilder King. Thank you. Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I would to read. 

Senator Eastland. Will you stand and hold your hand up, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before 
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate of the United 
States will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Governor King. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL WILDER KING 

Mr. Morris. Governor King, please be seated. 

Senators, Governor King made available to the subcommittee yester- 
day, in compliance with the 24-hour rule that we have, his statement 
and he would like to read that at the beginning of the testimony. 

Senator Eastland. Proceed, Governor. 

Governor King. Do you desire me to identify myself, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

Senator Eastland. You are already identified in the record. 

Governor King. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

As Governor of Hawaii, I welcome the investigation into the Com- 
munist problem here in this Territory which this Senate Subcommittee 
on Internal Security is now holding. 

We know there are Communists in these islands. 

We know who some of them are, but we do not know how many 
others there may be. 

During April 10 to 19, 1950, a subcommittee of the United States 
House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee con- 
ducted an investigation here into the same problem. 

Some 39 witnesses called before this committee invoked the protec- 
tion of the fifth amendment of the Constitution to justify their refusal 
to answer questions put to them by that committee. 

Locally these persons are referred to as the "reluctant 39." 

They continue to be at large, active in various pursuits, and most 
of them have made no effort to deny that they have been or are Com- 
munists. 

More recently, from November 5, 1952, to June 19, 1953, on charges 
preferred by the United States Government, based on information de- 
veloped by the FBI, seven members of this community were tried and 
convicted under the Smith Act for conspiring to teach and advocate 
the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. 

The trial was held in the United States District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Hawaii before a Federal judge and a local jury. All 7 were 
found guilty ; 6 of this group were sentenced to imprisonment for 5 
years and fined $5,000 each; the seventh, a woman, was sentenced to 
3 years imprisonment and fined $2,000. 

For a period of well over 3 years, since July 1953, all 7 of these per- 
sons have continued at liberty on bail, with very little interference 



2244 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

with their normal pursuits in this community, pending action on their 
appeals in the United States Ninth Circuit Court. 

Through the Territorial Commission on Subversive Activities, other 
evidence of Communist affiliation is available to me. However, the 
Territory of Hawaii, notwithstanding our knowledge of the Com- 
munist threat in these islands, has no authority to charge and punish 
Communists under any territorial law. 

The Communist problem is a national problem. Our part of it here 
in Hawaii is only a small segment of the picture that has been revealed 
to the American people repeatedly in trials in New York, Pittsburgh, 
Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, and elsewhere. However, we do real- 
ize that, because of the great importance of these islands as a strategic 
base in the national defense, it is most important that no disloyal ele- 
ment be tolerated. 

Because this is a national problem and can best be handled through 
national agencies, by the Congress itself through the United States 
Department of Justice and the United States courts, I am glad that 
this coimnittee has come here to determine what might be done to 
help us stamp out what Commmiist influence exist here. 

Perhaps the evidence you develop here may justify the United States 
Government to invoke the provisions of the Communist Control Act 
of 1954, Public Law 637, 83d Congress. 

This would free industry from the necessity of recognizing such 
organization as legitimate labor unions, with which they are now re- 
quired by law to negotiate labor contracts. 

There is a great deal of local resentment against the activities of 
local Communists. This is shown in expressions of j)ublic opinion and 
in organizational counteractivity, but the difficulty is that our people 
find there is nothing very effective that can be done on the local level. 
Unfortunately, the Communist problem is intertwined with legitimate 
labor activities. 

The International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, the 
ILWU, headed by Harry Bridges, extended its activities to Hawaii 
shortly before World War II. Jack Wayne Hall was appointed the 
regional director by Harry Bridges in 1944 and, when World War II 
ended, this union saw the opportunity to expand in the Territory. 

Since then, every effort to expose and combat the anti- American 
activities of Jack Hall and his immediate circle of identified Commu- 
nists has been distorted by Communist propaganda as an attempt to 
disrupt a labor union. Anyone who speaks up against communism 
and its adherents here immediately becomes a target for denunciation 
in a typical smear technique and "is held up to the union members as 
being antiunion and antilabor. 

In 1950 the CIO expelled the ILTVU and several other unions on 
the mainland on the grounds that they were Communist dominated. 
Today the same leaders are still running the ILWLT. 

Also we know that the leaders of the UPW, the United Public 
Workers, originally organized here as a branch of the United Public 
Workers of America, have been identified as having been members of 
the Communist Party. 

As Governor, I liave tried as much as possible to disassociate the 
Communist leaders from the rank and file of both the IL^VU and the 
UPW. I have repeatedly affinned my confidence in the basic loyalty 
and patriotism of the rank and file of these two unions. However, the 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2245 

members of these two organizations continue to give tlieir leaders 
active support despite their Communist records. The leaders have 
been successful in convincing the rank and file that every charge against 
them is an attack on labor. 

The National Labor Rehitions Act may require industry to deal with 
these unions but no such compulsion rests on govermnent. I have 
consistently as Governor refused to recognize or meet with any person 
known to have been a Communist, who has not shown an honest dissas- 
sociation from the Communist movement. But until some authority 
greater than any at the command of the Territorial government here in 
Hawaii can charge, convict, sentence, and imprison these Communist 
leaders, such efforts as we may make to clean house cannot be fully 
effective. 

I therefore hope that, if the facts justify it, the committee will see fit 
to recommend that the two unions which we know to have Communist 
leaders in positions of authority be listed as Communist-infiltrated 
under the Communist Control Act of 1954. 

That would be a great help to us who have been fighting communism 
and trying to find some means within our power to eliminate the danger 
in our midst, in order that our unions can take their place in the com- 
munity as legitimate labor organizations mider leaders of unques- 
tioned loyalty to the United States. 

We feel that the Territory has demonsti-ated its desire to combat 
communism in these islands. 

During the waterfront strike in 1949, the legislature was called into 
special session by former Gov. Ingram M. Stainback and passed a bill 
that authorized the Territory to take over the waterfront and load and 
imload ships through governmental agencies. 

The creation of a Territorial Conmiission on Subversive Activities 
is another indication of our awareness of the problem and our desire to 
solve it. 

We require a very stringent loyalty procedure applying to all gov- 
ernmental employees. Territorial and county. We have weeded out all 
known Communists in government employment. 

Infiltrated by a handful of dedicated Communists, legitimate labor 
unions are dominated, even to the extent of the demonstration in oppo- 
sition to these hearings, because the membership of these unions are 
simply not convinced that their leaders are Communists. 

The freedom permitted these leaders, even after conviction in 
Federal court, is a further demonstration to the membership that the 
charges and the convictions of these Coimnmiists were merely a union- 
busting, antilabor frameup. 

Once the truth of the charge against these Communists is realized by 
the workei-s, they will be rejected and replaced by men of imquestioned 
loyalty. The people of Hawaii are loyal and patriotic Americans. 
We have a very high percentage of veterans in our population. We 
maintain an active and highly efficient National Guard, recruited to 
full strength for which f mids have been appropriated. 

We have close and friendly relations with the military forces sta- 
tioned here m large numbers. I cannot for a moment believe that any 
Communist-led "uprising" against the authority of the United States 
is possible. 

However, strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, and other phases of 
economic tactics common to controversies in industry conld well be 



2246 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

used by these Communist leaders to impair America's military activi- 
ties. These possibilities point up against the national character of our 
Communist problem. 

The presence of this subcommittee is a logical development of the 
realization all over the United States that the Federal Goverimient 
must take the lead in bringing relief from Communist activities to 
separate communities in our Nation. 

We have every desire and hope that your hearings will substan- 
tially advance this common cause. 

And, Mr. Chairman, anything I can do to place myself and the 
Territorial government and its agencies at your command will be done 
very gladly and very willingly. 

Senator Eastland. Thank you, Governor King. The chairman 
desires to congratulate you on the very intelligent and very able and 
patriotic statement. 

Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnston. I notice you state here that some 39 witnesses 
called before a committee here used the fifth amendment. How many 
witnesses testified ; approximately, if you don't know the exact num- 
ber? 

Governor King. I do not know, Senator. 

Senator Johnston. I just wanted to get at how many. 

Governor King. I don't know. Could I ask Mr. Stephenson, who 
is the chairman of the Territorial Commission on Subversive Activi- 
ties, whether he remembers how many were called, how many were 
subpenaed. 

There were 39 who refused to testify. 

Senator Johnston. If you can furnish that for the record, that is 
the only thing I want, just to see what percentage it was that used the 
fifth amendment. 

Governor King. There were several who did testify willingly. 

Senator Johnston. I believe you stated here they found seven 
guilty and sentenced them. Were there others accused at that time ? 

Governor King. No, sir. The charge was made against 7 indi- 
viduals, one of whom was Jack Hall; the other 6 were the publicly 
announced secretary of the Communist Party of Hawaii, the editor 
of the Honolulu Kecord, and the wife of another person. All in all, 
six other people, none of whom were labor leaders but all of whom 
were active in the Communist movement in Hawaii. No other people 
were charged, only seven, and they were unanimously found guilty by 
a jury of local people, including representation from each of our racial 
groups. It was a cross section of our community. 

Senator Johnston. Do you know whether or not they found any 
others involved at that time ? 

Governor King. Not at that time or at that trial. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the Governor has referred to a Mr. 
Stephenson here. 

I wonder if Mr. Stephenson would identify himself for the record. 

Mr. William B. Stephenson. I am William B. Stephenson, chair- 
man of the Territorial Commission on Subversive Activities. 

Mr. Morris. What is that commission, Mr. Stephenson ? 

Mr. Stephenson. That is a commission created by act of our legis- 
lature of 1949, consisting of 7 members appointed by the Governor, 
confinned by our senate ; at least 3 of the members of that commission 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2247 

must be lawyers, the chairman must be a lawyer ; all 4 of our counties 
are represented, and no more than 4 members of the commission may 
be from a single political party. 

Governor Iving. Mr. Chairman, this is the agency that I referred 
to as one of the indications of the Territory's desire to combat com- 
munism, that the legislature in 1949 created a commission on subver- 
sive activities that had certain powers, but not punitive powers — 
powers of investigation and of subpena and taking testimony under 
oath. And I referred to the Territorial Commission on Subversive 
Activities ; Mr, Stephenson is the chairman of that commission at this 
time. 

Senator Eastland. Governor King, would Mr. Stephenson be avail- 
able to testify during the hearing ? 

Governor King. No reason why not. He certainly is available. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. How long did this investigation by the commis- 
sion last ? 

Governor Kjng. Do you mean our Territorial commission or 
the 

Senator Watkins. The Territorial commission. 

Governor King. The Territorial commission is a continuing or- 
ganization. It keeps in touch with subversive activities all the time ; 
screens all applicants for employment under the Territorial or county 
governments, and checks the loyalty procedure required for employ- 
ment. So that it is no specific investigation ; it is a continuous opera- 
tion. 

Senator Watkins. Did this commission hold public hearings such 
as we are holding now ? 

Governor Iving. I am sorry, I didn't hear, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. I say, did this commission h«ld public hearings 
such as we are now holding ? 

Governor Iving. No. They hold executive hearings and then make 
a written report to the legislature at each session, giving all their find- 
ings and their reasons for them. 

Senator Watkins. You mentioned some of the jurisdiction and 
powers of this commission. Could you give us just a brief outline of 
what it w^as set up to accomplish ? 

Governor King. It is only a body to verify whether a person can bt 
legitimately charged or accused of being a Communist ; it has no puni- 
tive powers; it doesn't bring charges against him under any law or 
justifies any trial, but it is empow-ered in reporting the verification of 
Communist affiliation, is justified in discharge from employment or in 
refusal to be employed. It is sort of a safeguard to government em- 
ployment agency. That's one thing. And also to exercise general in- 
vestigative powers over communism in the Territory. 

Senator Watkins. Does it file reports with the Governor and with 
the legislature ? 

Governor King. To the Governor and to the legislature. 

Senator Watkins. Those reports are available to us ? 

Governor King. They are available and become public documents 
after they have been submitted to the legislature. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Governor King, thank you very much for your 
testimony. I hope that by your testimony and by your appearance 



2248 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

here the people of these islands will realize that this is not a place 
which we picked out to come to investigate the infiltration of com- 
munism which might lead to the overthrow of our country by force 
and violence. 

You, your Excellency, are mindful of the fact, and I think you so 
stated in your formal statement, that this committee has held hear- 
ings all over the United States, in principal cities, San Francisco, Los 
Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, all over the United 
States, and you, Governor, realize that we are not picking out your 
great islands to hold these hearings. Is that a fact? 

Governor King. That is quite correct, Senator. I welcomed the 
announcement that the committee was coming here; I thought it 
was a desirable thing, to determine the extent of communism ; through 
ordinary reading of mainland news I realize that this is an investi- 
gation that goes on all over the country. And I feel very keenly that 
we need the help of the National Government to determine the extent 
and the danger of communism. And I am very close to the military 
services, I am a former Navy man myself; I realize that we camiot 
tolerate any degree of disloyalty or lack of patriotism or obedience 
to the first — what you call it — the first needs of the United States 
Government in any instance. 

I am quite shocked, I am ashamed, that there should be any dem- 
onstration against this committee based on a charge that it was union 
busting or labor baiting or anything of that sort, because they rea- 
lized from the first that you were coming here merely to find out 
how many Communists there were in this community. And that 
is an obligation that rests on your shoulders to determine. 

Senator Welker. Don't feel badly about that. This committee 
has been picketed in every city that we have ever appeared in. 

So I want to thank you. Your Excellency, on your testimony. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I was very interested in your references to the Com- 
munist-Control Act of 1954. I held the hearings on that legislation 
and managed it on the floor of the Senate. 

That act provides that action under it be taken by the Attorney 
General of the United States. 

Have you as Governor, or has the Territorial legislature or has 
the Communist commission of the islands ever requested the Attorney 
General to take action under that act ? 

Governor King. No, we have not, Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. Have you made your hearings and conclusions 
known to the Attorney General ? 

Governor King. No, we have not, because the trial that occurred in 
1953 was before a Federal court and the appeal is now pending in 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also a Federal court, so that 
the United States Department of Justice was fully aware of the 
whole details of that trial and of the evidence that "was adduced at 
their instance. And, of course, the report of the subcommittee of 
the House of Representatives is also available to the Department 
of Justice. 

I have verbally and orally urged the Department of Justice to 
complete the trial of these seven people who were tried and con- 
victed—to complete the appeal. Why it has been delayed for over 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2249 

3 5'ears, I don't know. Tliere has been no formal request on the part 
of the Territory or any agency of the Territory asking the Depart- 
ment of Justice to certifj^ the two unions I have in mind as Commu- 
nist infiltrated. The information is already available in great detail. 

Senator Butler. Thank you, Governor, and I want to commend you 
on your very, very wonderful statement. 

Governor King. Thank you. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Butler, I would like to state for your mfor- 
mation that Mr. Warren Littman, a representative of the Internal 
Security Division of the Department of Justice, has been sent here 
by the Attorney General to observe these hearings, and he will be 
available here at all times to give the Senators particular advice. 

Senator Eastlaxd. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkixs. Governor, you referred to the fact that some 
people thought that these activities were for the purpose of breaking 
the union, that it was antiunion. 

You know as a matter of fact, do you not, that the union leaders, 
American Federation of Labor, CIO, and others, have been very 
cooperative with this committee and with the Congress in helping 
us to discover Communists, wherever they might be, in their unions 
or elsewhere, and they have proceeded in the direction of expelling 
and getting rid of Communists within their ranks and even some 
organizations which were affiliated with them have been repudiated. 
That is true. The largest union in the United States, and the most 
powerful union. That is true, is it not ? 

Governor King. Of course, it is true. Senator. And also it is par- 
ticularly true that the CIO in 1949 expelled, at least they had a 
convention then and charged a committee to investigate whether or 
not the ILWU should not be expelled, and in 1950 the ILAVU was 
expelled from the CIO. 

We have in Hawaii ten or twelve thousand AFD-CIO unionists, 
belonging to perfectly fine, loyal, American unions, led by aggressive 
and even belligerent labor leaders but nevertheless patriotic Ameri- 
cans. 

I have appealed as well as one can to the membership of the ILWU 
to purge themselves of their own guilty leadership, because the evi- 
dence has been before the public for some years as to the Communist 
character of the leaders of the ILWU, but I haven't been successful 
in doing it. Perhaps this committee's investigation and findings may 
help in that very desirable purpose. 

Senator Watkins. At this point, I would like to observe that as 
a member of this committee I have conducted, as chaiiTnan, a number 
of hearings at which labor leaders appeared and testified about certain 
groups that had been affiliated with them, that were then affiliated 
with them, that they were trying to get rid of because they were 
convinced that they were dominated by Communists. Now that has 
been a rather common experience in this committee. As I have 
stated, I have been with it since its organization. Time and time 
again we have had the help of these labor leaders, who have come 
in and furnished us information leading to the detection and exposure 
of some of these Communists and who have also taken action through 
their own executive committees and through their own conventions 
in getting rid of Communists. 



2250 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTrV'ITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

So that it is not a fair statement at all that the activities of this 
committee or even union leaders is directed in the direcion of break- 
ing down unions or a fight against union labor. 

Senator Johnston. Governor King, since we have spoken of a 
union, is the ILWU at the present time affiliated with the CIO or the 
AFofL? 

Governor King. No, sir. I read in the formal statement and I will 
repeat at the convention the CIO held in New Jersey, I think in 1949, 
the IL^VTJ and several other unions were charged with being Com- 
munist-dominated and the convention empowered some committee to 
hold further hearings and to expel the ILWU if the facts justified. 
There was a very strong indictment against the ILWU written at the 
time of that expulsion, which occurred 6 years ago. And, of course, 
the ILTVU never was a member of the A. F. of L., to my knowledge. 

Senator Johnston. Since you have made the statement that you 
welcome this committee to make an investigation of this kind, to find 
out the facts, I would like to know just what your government has 
appropriated in order to make investigations somewhat similiar to 
this? 

Governor King. Over a period of years. Senator, it has been a con- 
siderable sum. I, frankly, haven't got the figures, but each legislature 
since 1949 has appropriated money for the use of the Committee on 
Subversive Activities — the Commission on Subversive Activities. 

Senator Butler. Governor, has there been a fight on those appro- 
priations, within the legislature? 

Governor King. No, sir, not a fight exactly. But in the last legis- 
lature there was a cut in the amount that was requested. If that is 
what you are referring to. 

Particularly, as I remember, we asked for $43,000 and were given 
$20,000. May I correct those figures for the record when I confer 
with the chairman of the commission ? But the commission's funds 
were severely cut in the appropriation bill. I had to approve it as 
it was or there wouldn't have been any appropriation. So that the 
commission has had to function on a very limited basis; they are 
almost closed up now. 

Senator Johnston. Say it is $20,000 or even $25,000, you couldn't 
employ very many investigators and people that were competent to 
make investigations on that amount, could you ? 

Governor King. I didn't quite get it all. 

Senator Johnston. I say, say it was $25,000, that small aniomit 
wouldn't give you a sufficient amount to employ very many competent 
investigators in that field of activity ? 

Governor King. Of course that is correct. 

Even what we asked for was a very modest sum. 

Senator Eastland. Do I understand that you think that appropria- 
tion was inadequate ? 

Governor King. Inadequate ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Governor King. Yes, indeed. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator AVatkins. Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter that I 
would like to clear up. 

I am a member of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of 
the Senate and have served for a number of years as a member of the 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EN THE UNITED STATES 2251 

Subcommittee on Territories, and for that reason I have had a very 
definite interest in other activities of the people here and in their 
aims and ambitions, and I want to make it perfectly clear that this 
hearing was not held for the purpose of trying to block statehood for 
Hawaii. I supported statehood and, until shown good reason to the 
contrary, I intend to keep on supporting it. But I am a member of 
this committee and I think we are all unanimous on this view, in fact 
I know we are, that this committee has stated, through the chairman, 
the objectives of this inquiry, and they do not in any yxay have any- 
thing to do with statehood, the fight for statehood. 

I wanted to make that perfectly clear. If I had felt it was just 
directed against that, I probably would have been protesting very 
loud and vigorously here today. 

Governor King. Thank you very much, Senator. We in Hawaii 
have recognized you as a firm friend and strong supporter of state- 
hood. I do not want any of my testimony to be taken as in opposition 
or in concern over statehood at all. 

I feel that the people of Hawaii are f imdamentally loyal Americans 
and overwhelmingly so, and that any Communist leadership that is 
once disclosed as being anti-American would be very promptly sup- 
pressed, whether by physical force or not, as may be needed. There 
have been 1 or 2 occasions when the leadership of the ILWU has led 
them into what might be considered aiitipublic welfare activities and 
those efforts have failed. 

I cannot go along with General O'Daniel, whom I respect very 
highly, with whom I had very pleasant relations when he was the 
commanding general here, that there would be an uprising in the Ter- 
ritory led by Communists. There might be, as I have said in this 
written report, some economic tactics taken that would impair mili- 
tary activities but they would not be disclosed or understood by the 
workers as un-American. 

We have over 200,000 people in the labor force in the Territory and 
the ILWU and the UPW together would have a membership of pos- 
sibly twenty-seven or twenty-eight thousand. So there are a lot of 
worlring people in this Territory who are not members of the ILWU 
or the UPW, and there are a lot of w^orkers in this Territory who are 
members of the A. F, of L. organization, besides many others who are 
not organized. 

Senator Watkixs. I think you stated you are not fearful of a Com- 
munist uprising. 

Governor King. Not at all. 

Senator Johnston. Governor, since that statement by you has been 
made, I held the hearing when the general testified. I would like for 
that really to be cleared up. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I think the point is that General O'Daniel 
was the commander of the whole area here, and he was telling us 
about the military contingency that his military command had to 
take into consideration in the event of a Soviet invasion or Soviet 
threat or Soviet war with the United States, and he just mentioned 
among the military possibilities which every commander has to take 
into consideration that particular possibility. He did not in way pre- 
dict that there would be one, and it was certainly in the framework 
of a military contingency. 



2252 SCOPE OP SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Governor King. I have checked with the adjutant general of the 
Territory, Major General Makinney, who is a West Point graduate, 
retired from the United States Army, now the adjutant general of 
the Territory and has been for some years, and he was in command of 
the National Guard during those alerts, and he said they were for 
practice and for exercise, not in anticipation 

Senator Watkins. They were for what? 

Governor King. For practice and for exercises, not for any real 
contingency. 

Senator Watkins. Uprising. 

Governor King. There is a very strong statement — going back to 
the expulsion of the ILWU from the CIO— the executive board com- 
mitte reported these findings. May I read them; they are brief? 

The testimony, both oral and documentary, at the hearings demonstrates in- 
controvertibly and the committee finds that the policies and activities of the 
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, under the leadership 
of its international officers and executive board, have long been and are today 
directed toward the achievement of the program and the policies of the Com- 
munist Party, rather than the objectives set forth in the constitution of the 
CIO. The ILWU has consistently and without a single deviation followed the 
sharp turns and swerves of the Communist Party line and has sacrificed the eco- 
nomic and social interests of its membership to that line. 

The defense presented by Harry Bridges and the several officers was an 
evasion of the real issues involved in the trial. They objected on hypertechnical 
grounds to the introduction of all relevant evidence, introduced extraneous and 
irrelevant evidence, and made unsupported and slanderous attacks upon the 
witnesses, and generally evidenced a hysterically evasive attitude towards the 
charges and towards the trial committee. 

That is the finding of the CIO executive board. 

Senator Johnston. That answers the question. 

Governor King. Yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Mr. Morris. 

Mr. MoREis. Governor King, you mention in your statement that 
the Territory of Hawaii has no authority to charge or punish Com- 
munists under any Territorial law. If, as a matter of fact, you should 
discover through your Territorial commission or through other agen- 
cites of your government, that there are Communist^ actions on the 
islands, have you any power whatever to do anything about that 
situation. Governor ? 

Governor King. I am not able to answer that question exactly. My 
understanding is that we can disclose to the public the Communists 
or Communist activities and that's all. 

Quite recently a decision of the Supreme Court seemed to have indi- 
cated that the National Government has taken over practically com- 
plete purisdiction and control over Communist activities. There is 
even some question whether our loyalty procedure has not been 
impaired by that decision of the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Welker, do you have a question? 

I have no more questions, Senator. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. I would like to make this statement in support of 
the statement by the Senator from Utah, Senator Watkins. 

This subcommittee is a very effective instrumentality of the Gov- 
ernment because it has consistently refused to be used for any purpose 
other than to ferret out the facts bearing upon the internal security 
of this country. And I can assure the members of the legislature, of 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2253 

the commission, and Your Excellency, and the people of the Territory 
of Hawaii, that there is no trace of any evidence that we are here for 
any other purpose. Certainly, we are not here to defeat statehood. 
And I have said, this committee will not permit itself to be used for 
any oblique attack on anything. We attack communism directly and 
our subcommittee can never be used for any other purpose than that. 

Senator Watkins. Governor, I want to go into another field for a 
moment. 

You realize that there are other methods of fighting communism, 
other than passing laws against it and enforcing the laws. Now it is 
said that the fight of conamunism is to control the hearts and minds 
of the people and that an educational program in the long run is the 
most effective fight that can possibly be made against communism. 

Now, what are your people doing here in that field, to combat 
communism ? 

Governor King. Do you mean through governmental agencies 
or 

Senator Watkins. Through their judges, through their educational 
institutions, through the press, and by radio, television, and whatever 
means of mass communication you have? 

Governor King. There are a great many uncoordinated activities. 
There is one strong citizen organization, called the Hawaii Residents 
Association, with the short name called IMUA, which in Hawaiian 
means forward. 

Senator Watkins. Will you get a little closer to the microphone? 
Probably we can hear a little better. It is difficult for me to catch 
just what you are saying. 

Governor King. I say there are a great many uncoordinated efforts 
made to combat communism and in the line of education. There is a 
Hawaii Residents Association, with the short name IMUA, which in 
Hawaiian means forward. They publish a newspaper, they have 
radio programs; they have a very active anti-Communist program. 
At one time there was a program sponsored by the Elks, in opposition 
to communism. 

We have a very strong American Legion, Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, Disabled American Veterans, all very strongly anti-Communist. 

The A. F. of L. group are always opposing communism and carry- 
ing on an educational program within their own organization. 

So there are many individual or special efforts being made to 
educate the people. 

Now, communism wasn't known to exist here until about 1946. 
Prior to that, the people that came in here and built up the ILWU 
organization and later came in and built up the TJPW were not even 
identified as Communists, until after they had strongly entrenched 
themselves in legitimate labor activities and then staging strikes 
and gained the workers very special benefits. So they became very 
strongly entrenched in those unions. 

Now they have been identified as Communists, it is very difficult 
to dissuade the workers from continuing to follow their lead. 

I don't know what else we can do except to pmiish those leaders if 
they are Commmiists. If they have committed a crime against the 
security of the United States, then let them be charged and convicted 
and if found guilty, be imprisoned. Now, seven people have been 
convicted of the offense mider the Smith Act, have been tried and 
convicted, but they haven't been imprisoned yet. They are still on bail. 



2254 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

They feel perfectly free to function both as labor leaders, if they 
are labor leaders, or in their other activities in the community. 

That's the weakness of our efforts to contain communism or to 
eliminate it. 

In the educational held we have, of course, a very splendid school 
system because, on o;eneral education, we have a university, and I aiii 
sure in those places the principles of American democracy, the pattern 
of American life, are held forth and explained as well as can be done 
in any institutional organization. 

Senator VVatkins. May I ask at this point: Have you had any 
evidence whatsoever of Communist infiltration in your schools? 

Governor King. I would say no. There have been some professors 
in the University of Hawaii whose extreme lef twing liberalism might 
have been suspect. But I would say that we have no occasion of any 
identified communism in the schools except a little while ago, before 
my term of office, there were two teachers expelled for their Communist 
affiliation, and they were expelled on a school-board hearing, on which 
there was a great deal of publicity and in which there was a very hot 
contest. They had a lawyer come down from San Francisco to defend 
them. But the school board used its prerogative in the selection of 
teachers to expel these people from school board and that was all 
that was done at that time. Later one of them was also charged under 
the Smith Act and is one of the persons convicted under that charge 
and he is still at large. 

Senator Watkins. How many institutions of higher learning do 
you have in the Islands ? 

Governor King. The University of Hawaii is the only institution 
of higher learning sponsored by the Territorial Government. There 
are 1 or 2 smaller colleges. One that the Mormon Church is now 
sponsoring at Laie and one called Jackson College. I know of no 
others than those. 

Senator Watkins. Has there ever been any doubt about the loyalty 
of those schools, the people who com]irise the faculty and the boards 
of education and the sponsors ? 

Governor King. I would say no, none. Aside from the two teachers, 
I think it was, who were expelled for their Communist leanings, there 
is nobody in the public scliool system, in the University of Hawaii, 
or in the higher private schools wlio fiave ever been suspected or 
accused of being Communists. 

Senator Watkins. Since these liearings will go to the entire peo- 
ple of the United States and to the Congress, I may ask some ques- 
tions to which you people know the answers very well indeed here, 
but we want the answers to be made a matter of record for the bene- 
fit of all the people of the country. 

Now, how about your press ? 

Governor King. There is one newspaper, the Honolulu Kecord, 
that is greatly indebted to the ILWU, by its own statement. That's 
all I know about it. It carries the party line. Whether it could be 
rightly charged with being a Communist-dominated paper is pretty 
hard to tell. The editor was 1 of the 7 who were charged and con- 
victed under the Smith Act. 

Senator Watkins. Is he now the editor? 

Governor King. He is still the editor. 

Senator Watkins. Since his conviction. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2255 

Senator Eastland. Is that a daily paper? 

Governor King. Daily paper ; yes. 

Senator Watkins. Do you know anything about the size of its 
circulation ? 

Governor King. I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. It is a weekly 
paper. 

Senator Watkins. Do you know anything about its circulation? 

Governor King. No ; I don't read it but it is 

Senator Wati^ins. I can understand full well why you might not 
want to read it, but as Governor you might be under some obligation 
to read it and see what is going on. 

Governor King. I am one of its pet targets. I have had my atten- 
tion called to some of its articles on occasion but I don't as a rule read 
it. It follows the Communist Party line; whether it is Communist- 
dominated — it has its Communist editor — or whether it should be 
charged as a subversive publication, I don't know. That is one of 
the things I had hoped this committee might determine. 

Senator Watkins. You have only mentioned one. About how 
many do you have in the islands ? 

Governor King. Oh, my ! We have in Honolulu alone 2 large 
dailies and 2 fairly large dailies, 4 daily newspapers. The Honolulu 
Advertiser, the morning daily, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the 
afternoon daily; and we have the Hawaii Times, that used to be a 
Japanese language paper, still has a Japanese language section; 
and then the Hawaii Herald, I think it is. Isn't it the Herald? 
Called the Hochi-sha, a former Japanese language paper that is now 
bilingual; and then a great many weeklies on the other islands. 
There is a daily in Hilo and a semiweekly in Maui, a weekly on 
Kauai. We have any number of newspapers. 

Senator Watkins. Is there any doubt about any of these, other 
than the one you have mentioned, as to their loyalty and the support 
they are giving Americanism and this country ? 

Governor King. Except for the Honolulu Record, I know of no 
paper that follows the Communist line. The ILWU gets out a little 
sheet of its own, for its own membership, that would wouldn't call a 
newpaper, and of course that is right down the Communist line, it 
follows the leadership of the ILWU in its articles. But it is an 
organizational paper rather than a newspaper for current informa- 
tion. 

Senator Watkins. I congratulate you on the fine record your press 
is making here. Now, with respect to other media of communication. 
AVliat about radios and television ? 

Governor King. There again, there is one radio broadcast nightly 
by a man who has been identified as having been a Communist, and 
that follows the party line right down the line. It is a broadcast by 
Mr. McElrath. 

Senator Watkins. What is his name? 

Governor King. Mr. McElrath. 

Senator Eastland. I understand the reporter desires a recess. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Cowart, a 2 minute break? The shorthand re- 
porter. Senator, asks a 

Senator Watkins. I have been a judge, and I know they need a 
break. 

Senator Eastland. We will take a 2-minute recess. 



2256 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

Senator Eastland. The committee -will come to order. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, may I have the last two questions 
read, for the benefit of myself and probably the witness ? 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the last two questions, Mr. Reporter? 

(The questions and answers were read by the reporter.) 

Governor Kixg. May I continue my answer ? 

Senator Watkins. You may continue. Governor. 

Governor King. That is the only radio-TV means of communication 
of views or dissemination that I kiiow of, that follows the Communist 
line. Sometimes they are very libelous, slanderous broadcasts. I 
think he accused me last night of all kinds of skullduggery. I don't 
listen to that either. I find the best protection in the office I hold is : 
don't pay any attention to the Honolulu Record or the McElrath talks. 
But all the others are absolutely straightforward agencies of the radio. 

Senator Watkins. There is no doubt whatever about their loyalty 
and the support they are giving the Government ? 

Governor King. None whatsoever. 

Senator Watkins. All anti- Communist? 

Governor King. Yes. I would like to add, with reference to what 
we are trying to do in the line of education. The school department, 
the department of public instruction of the Territory 

Senator Watkins. I didn't hear that last. 

Governor King. The department of public instruction of the Terri- 
tory has distributed throughout the schools the pamphlet sent to us 
from Washington that explains the background of communism and 
the Communist menace. And we also have an active program of in- 
struction in the university on the various political philosophies, in- 
cluding communism. 

Senator Watkins). Now, how about the churches? 

I know that's a delicate subject, but I think it is only fair because 
they do have a profound influence upon the people, and they rightly 
should have. 

Governor King. I can think of no church in the whole Territory of 
Hawaii that supports any part of the Communist line. They are all 
straightforward religious organizations ; may be a little on the liberal 
philosophy in some cases, but in every case all loyal American insti- 
tutions. 

Senator Watkins. That's the answer I expected, and I'm sure that 
is true all over America. 

Governor King. We have a very small problem really. We have a 
problem of some very able, shrewd labor leaders who have entrenched 
themselves in the labor movement and who have been identified as 
having been Communists at one time or another, whose intemperate 
language and whose ordinary beliavior is not very admirable or com- 
mendable, but thej' have won the confidence of their followers, and it 
is very difficult to convince their followers that these people are a men- 
ace to the United States. 

Senator Watkins. You would say, then, that the overwhelming 
majority of the people of this Territory are completely loyal to the 
United States? 

Governor King. I don't think there is any question about it. We 
always exceed our quota of volunteers; our draftees go into the Army 
with smiles, their parents come down and bid them go away, just like 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2257 

uny other American community. Somebody goes and gives them a 
pep talk. We read in the newspapers how they have excelled in the 
military camps. I think we have something like 60,000 veterans, in a 
population here of hardly 200,000 adults, of both men and women. 
Those veterans are mostly men, although many of them are women 
also. So we have a very high percentage of veterans, as I mentioned. 
We have a very military-minded unit — I mean community ; we live 
close to the Army and Navy and the Marine Corps and the air force. 
And a large part of our gainfully employed people are employed by 
the United States Government. 

Senator Watkins. You have loyalty tests there, I imagine. 

Governor King. Pardon? 

Senator Watkins. I say, you have loyalty tests 

Governor King. Xo question about it. 

Senator Watblins. With respect to those employees ? 

Governor King. No question about it. They are thoroughly loyal ; 
they are screened before they are employed. And they go from here 
to the mainland and come from the mainland here, and the various 
branches of the military services and the other branches of the Federal 
Government employ very close to 25,000 people in these islands. Now, 
that is 25,000 adults, mostly men but not entirely, a good many women. 

The Territory employs 19,000 people. The Territory and the four 
counties. So there again you have a very solid body of citizens who 
are working for the United States Government or for the Territorv 
of Hawaii. 

Then we have a strong A. F. of L. group and we have the unorgan- 
ized white collar and professional people. 

The two unions that are dominated by Communist leadership are 
the ILWU and the UPW. The ILWU 

Senator Watkins. What was that last one ? 

Governor King. The ILIYU and the UPW. 

Senator Watkins. Now, that last one is a public service or I mean 
a governmental group? 

Governor King. It came out here as such but they also recruit out- 
side of the Government employees. It was originally a branch of the 
United Public Workers of America. The organizer was sent here 
from that organization in Washington, headed by a Mr. Flaxer, in 
Washington. The man who came out here was a Mr. Epstein. And 
then later they decided they didn't want to remain affiliated with the 
United Public Workers of America; they changed their name, re- 
organized, and called themselves United Public Workers, and they 
work very closely with the ILA^HLT. Mr. Epstein is still their business 
agent or director or- — he is not an officer — the actual employees elect 
their own officers. But Mr. Epstein, Mr. Murin, Mr. Koffman are the 
three men who direct the energies or the policies of the UPW. Just 
as Mr. Bridges, Mr. Hall, and a select group around Mr. Hall direct 
the activities of the ILWU. 

Senator Watkins. Now, I have one other group or groups — ^the 
racial group. 

Governor King. What? 

Senator Watkins. Racial, racial groups. 

Governor King. I would say there are absolutely no racial groups 
that follow any Communist line. 

72723— 57— pt. 39 3 



2258 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Watkins. None of them follows the Communist line ? 

Governor King. None, none. All of our different racial groups 
are very patriotic, very proud of being Americans. We are having 
ceremonies in the Federal court and in the circuit courts every 2 
weeks or so, where the older Japanese, who are now eligible for 
naturalization under the AValter-McCarran Act, applying for naturali- 
zation, in their old age. They have been denied that privilege hereto- 
fore. A good many Filipinos come up at the same time. They have 
been ineligible for naturalization for some years. 

So that the remaining alien groups in these islands are going down 
steadily, as fast as these elderly people qualify themselves for natu- 
ralization. They are very proud of the fact that they can become 
Americans because their sons have served in the military service 
honorably and have come home with an honorable discharge. The 
parents want to be of the same citizenship as their children. 

So I would say we have only this little bit of a group, and I don't 
know how many of them. I think at one time there was an estimate 
made there wasn't 139 Communists in the whole Territory of Hawaii. 

Senator Watkins. 139 ? 

Governor King. 139; I think that was an estimate made in 1950. 
And how many of them are still Communists, I don't know. 

Some of the second flight Communists I don't believe have any idea 
what the Marx philosophy is. 

Senator Watkins. You made a description; I didn't get that. 

Governor King. I say some of the second flight Communists. 

Senator Watkins. Second flight ? 

Governor King. Yes; I don't believe they have any idea what the 
Marx philosophy is. They think their ideology is Communist but 
their actual — they are actual Communists whose indoctrination was 
received in a school up in San Francisco, a labor school that teaches 
labor tactics and communism, and when they come back here they be- 
come business agents and leaders of various unions. And they begin 
to have a vested interest in their job, rather than any Communist 
philosophy. The key men are men like Bridges, Hall, and 5 or 6 
others. 

Senator Watkins. May I ask you this question ? 

The men who have been publicly identified as Communists, are they 
native people of the Territory or are they an imported variety? 

Governor King. The Communist philosophy is an importation. 

Senator Watkins. The philosophy, but how about the men ? 

Governor King. The leadership is imported. 

Senator Watkins. The leadership. 

Governor King. Bridges comes from Australia, as you loiow, and 
lives in California, where be recently signed the Republican rolls. 
And Hall comes here from Wisconsin. 

Senator Eastland. Let's have order. 

Senator Watkins. What is that ? 

Governor King. Hall comes here from Wisconsin. 

Senator Watkins. Wisconsin? 

Governor King. Yes; and one of his main satellites comes from 
California. I don't know where McElrath comes from. But they 
are all from the mainland; they have been here 8 years, 10 years, 12 
years. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2259 

Senator Watkins. You ought to have a rather strict immigration 
law probably out here. 

I think that covers the scope of the questions on that, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you. 

Senator Eastland. The Chair notices that Delegate Farrington, 
who made a very outstanding record in the American Congress is 
present; that Chief Justice Rice is present; that Associate Justice 
Marumoto is present; and that United States attorney, Mr. Louis 
Blissard, is present. 

We are mighty glad to have you in the audience. Please stand up. 

(Mrs. Farrington, Chief Justice Rice, Justice Marumoto, and Mr. 
Blissard stood.) 

Senator Eastland. Thank you. 

Senator Welker, Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to direct 
to the Governor. 

Governor, on the interrogations propounded to you by Senator 
Watkins of Utah, you made an answer that in your schools in con- 
nection with instruction on political philosophies, you were using 
certain documents about communism. And I will ask you if it isn't 
a fact that in the public schools of your Territory you are using The 
Handbook for Americans, the Communist Party of the United States 
of America, What It Is and How It Works, which was prepared by 
this subcommittee of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, 
after years of study ; and we are very proud of the fact that this Terri- 
tory uses that in the schools. 

Governor King. That was the book I had reference to. Senator, and 
it is being used here in Hawaii. 

Senator Eastland. Any further questions, gentlemen ? 

We will now recess until 3 : 30 this afternoon. 

('\'\niereupon, at 10:53 a. m., the subconmiittee recessed.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to the recess, at 3 : 30 p. m., in the 
Senate Chamber, lolani Palace, Senator Arthur V. Watkins presiding. 

Present: Senator Eastland (chairman). Senators Watkins, Johns- 
ton, Welker, Butler. 

Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Mandel, 
research director. 

Mr. Morris. The first witness scheduled this afternoon, Mr. Chair- 
man, is Robert McElrath. 

Will Mr. McElrath come forward, please ? Take the witness chair, 
the one nearest to you. 

Senator Watkins. Raise your right hand and be sworn. 

You solemnly swear that the testimony given in the matter now 
pending before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. McElrath. I do. 

Senator Watkins. You may examine the witness. 



2260 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT McELRATH 

Mr. Morris. Mr. McElrath, do you appear here with attorneys this 
afternoon ? 

Mr. McElrath. Mr. Chairman, may I get these television lights out 
of my face ? I would rather not be televised. 

Senator Watkins. Where is the television ? 

Mr. McElrath. I think this is it, I am not certain, but I would 
rather not be televised. 

Senator Watkins. If you don't want to be televised, that is jour 
right to object. And the Chair will rule that you may not be required 
to be televised. So please turn off the camera, at least on him. You 
may turn it on the committee or the audience. 

Senator Welker. The funniest looking television camera I ever 
saw. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. McElrath, you appear here with attorneys today ^ 

Mr. McElrath. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Morris. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record? 

Mr. Andersen. My name is George R. Andersen. 

Mr. Symonds. My name is Myer C. Symonds. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I would like to have it in the record at this 
time, the circumstances surrounding a request that has been honored 
by 2 people who were scheduled to be the first 2 witnesses here today — 
Mr. Symonds and Mrs. Bouslog. They originally had been subpenaed 
to be the first witnesses to be called this afternoon. However, at 
their request, because they contended that they could more effectively 
represent their clients, we have deferred their appearance. 

I would like the record to show, Mr. Symonds and Mrs. Bouslog, 
that that is being done at your request. 

Senator Watkins. Are the witnesses here ? Will you kindly stand 
so you may be identified ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Symonds and Mrs. Bouslog, will you kindly 
stand ? 

Mr. Symonds. That is correct. 

Mrs. Bouslog. That is correct. 

Senator Watkins. I didn't get your answers. 

Mr. Symonds. That is correct. 

Mrs. Bouslog. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, preliminary to the hearing here this atter- 
noon, I would like to read into the record some of the testimony of 
witnesses who have testified on the subject that we are going to con- 
sider this afternoon. 

Senator Watkins. You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. On June 19, of this year, Victor Riesel, the labor colum- 
nist, testified as follows : 

He was asked the question : 

Based on your experience which you have jnst set forth, Mr. Riesel, I wonder 
if you would tell us how Communists operate on various waterfronts, New York. 
San Francisco. Honolulu, and throughout the United States? 

Mr. Riesel answered : 

I was especially interested in Hawaii, where with some 3,300 waterfront 
workers, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is able 
to shut off all entrance and egress to and from the islands, except, of course, by 
air. I was very much interested in the fact that this union, which is especially 
a waterfront union, was also deep in the agricultural economy of the islands. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2261 

I asked : 

When you say this union, you mean the International ILWU? 

And Mr. Riesel said "Yes." 
Question : 

Now, by controlling the 1,300 waterfront workers, they are able to block the 
ports ? 

Riesel answered: 

Not only are able but were able and did this sometime ago to the point where 
it would have taken the Army or the Navy to really move stuff in and out. I was 
told that in some instances there was so little feed for cattle that the cattle died 
off and had to be slaughtered ; that food supplies ran low ; the whole economy of 
the Islands was shaken. To me this was vital because the Hawaiian Islands, 
in addition to being a strategic outpost, as witnessed in the tragedy of Pearl 
Harbor, are the second most important military, Navy, Air, Marine defense out- 
posts, second only to the Pentagon. From the Hawaiian Islands are the com- 
mands, reaching to the Asian shores, down to New Zealand, and there you have 
your Far Eastern Central Command under Admiral Stump. 

And then I asked : 

And you say that port, which is as important as you say it is, now under 
the control of Harry Bridges? 

Mr. Riesel. It is absolutely so. There is no doubt about it. And from 
reports, he has developed considerable political influence and has, of course, 
a union reaching into the agricultural parts, the sugar and pineapple fields. 

Question : 

What do you mean by that, Mr. Riesel? 

Mr. Riesel. He and his union control all the workers of the great plantations, 
which he has also shut down from time to time and thoroughly hurt the economy. 
At any given moment, should he decide to call a strike, the structure of the union 
is such that he has the power, through his lieutenant Jack Hall, to not only shut 
down the ports but to close down the entire economy by calling an agricultural 
strike on the big plantations of the Islands. Bridges has not been satisfied with 
just controlling the ]X)rts and the agricultural economy of the Islands but has 
begim to take in government workers into his union of waterfront and longshore- 
men. It is now quite probable that he will have the same influence in govern- 
ment offices that he has amongst the waterfront and plantation rank and file. 

And then I asked : 

Now, does the Bridges lifeline to Honolulu go from San Francisco? 

And he said, "Yes." 

Now, in furtherance of that. Senator Watkins, we subpenaed Mr. 
Jeff Kibre. Mr. Kibre is the Washington representative of the ILWIL 
He was called to testify on June 21, of this year, and did appear before 
Senator Eastland and Senator Jenner. 

I asked Mr. Kibre the question : 

Now, Mr. Kibre, are you now a member of the Communist Party? 
Mr. Kibre said : 

I will decline to answer that question on the basis of my privilege under the 
fifth amendment, not to be a witness against myself. 

I then asked him if he had used the alias Barry Wood, in connection 
with Communist Party activities, and again he refused to answer, 
claiming his privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Finally, Senators, we then called Irving Velson. 

Senator Watkins. AVlio? 

IVIr. Morris. Irving Velson. V-e-1-s-o-n, who is the ILWU top rep- 
resentative on the east coast. And we asked him if he presently was 



2262 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

a member of the Communist Party, and he refused to say, claiming 
privilege. We asked him if he had used various aliases ; he claimed 
privilege again ; and we asked him if he had worked as an assistant 
to J. Petei-s, who, according to our sworn testimony, was liaison be- 
tween the underground section of the Communist Party and the Soviet 
secret police and he invoked the privilege on that. And we asked him 
if the testimony about Mr. Stevens, or J. Peters, alias J. Peters, with 
Velson acting as assistant, was true, and he again claimed privilege 
under the fifth amendment. 

So that, Senators, constitutes some of the preliminary evidence that 
led to our coming here to these islands. 

Senator Watkins. It will also clarify the record. 

Have the attorneys representing the witness been counseled as to 
how far they can participate in the hearing ? 

Mr. Morris. Not yet ; no. Senator, 

Senator Watkins. Under the practice of the committee in holding 
this type of hearing, investigation hearing, counsel are permitted to 
sit with the Avitness, but they are not permitted to talk to him unless 
he asks for advice on legal matters. They cannot suggest answers 
or coach him in any way except on the matter of law, after he has 
requested audibly the advice from his counsel. 

This is not a trial, and the precautions which are given in a trial 
for an attorney, of course, to object, and all that sort of thing, do not 
lie in a procedure of this kind. 

I merely call that to counsel's attention. Most of the attorneys in 
the East luive had experience before committees and accept it readily, 
and I wanted to advise you so that you would know how the commit- 
tee conducts these hearings. 

Will you proceed, Mr. Morris ? 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your full name and address to the 
reporter ? 

Mr. McElrath. ]\Iy name is Robert McElrath, spelled 
M-c-E-1-r-a-t-h. 

Mr. Morris. Wliere do you reside, Mr. McElrath ? 

Mr. McElrath. I live at 2407 St. Louis Drive, in Honolulu. 

Mr. Morris. Now what is your business or profession? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. You mean you will not tell this committee what your 
public business or occupation is ? 

Mr. McElrath. I have answered the question. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you rule on that claim? 

Senator Watkins. That is a very close question. I think you 
should answer that question. I don't see how conducting your busi- 
ness in public, and how it could possibly incriminate you to tell the 
committee what your business is. Therefore, you are directed and 
ordered to answer the question. The Chair rules that you do not have 
that protection for this particular question under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. McElrath. Federal Judge McLaughlin once told me that a 
man who represents himself in a legal proceeding has a fool for a 
client. So I am down here with attorneys, and I have discussed this 
matter with counsel, and I decline to answer because of the advice 
of counsel. 

Senator Watkins. You decline 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2263 

Mr. McElrath. I am not an attorney. 

Senator Watkins. On the eround that you have stated? 

Mr. McElrath. Yes. The fifth amendment. 

Senator Watkins. You have a right to claim the protection. I 
have ordered you to answer, and we will let the record stand as it is, 
with your refusal. You will have to take whatever consequences may 
possibly groAv out of your refusal. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, in view of that answer, we have available Mr. 
Benjamin Mandel, who is our research director, and he has a docu- 
ment here from the Labor Department which purports to give the 
title that Mr. McElrath had in very recent days. So, inasmuch as 
this is the best evidence we can produce at this particular time, al- 
though I think, Senator, it is pretty well known that he is the public- 
relations director of the union and broadcasts as such almost every 
night on the radio here. But still, Senator, may Mr. Mandel stand 
and be sworn at this time ? 

Senator Watkins. You do solemnly swear the testimony you will 
give in the matter now before this committee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. INIandel. I do. 

Senator Watkins. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN MANDEL 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter, 
Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. ]\iANDEL. Benjamin Mandel, 3420 iTth Street NW., Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

Mr. Morris. You are the research director of the Internal Security 
Subcommittee; are you not, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. I am. 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any official Government document that 
would indicate, in recent days, the official title of the witness on the 
stand here today ? 

Mr. Mandel. I have before me the directory of labor organizations 
in the Territory of Hawaii, revised September 1956, published by the 
department of labor and industrial relations, bureau of research and 
statistics, Honolulu, and on page 23 of this document, under the head- 
ing of "International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union," 
is listed as Territorial representative and public-relations director, 
Robert McElrath. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT McELRATH— Resumed 

Mr. Morris. Now, is that listing correct, Mr. McElrath ? 

Mr. ^McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the gi'ounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. McElrath, are you a Communist? 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you are claiming your privilege? 

Mr. McElrath. I am. 

Mr. Morris. Under the fifth amendment? 

Mr. McElrath. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Morris. Now have you attended a Communist Party training 
school on the mainland ? 



2264 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you consistently advocated here in Honolulu 
and in the Hawaiian Islands that the Communist Party should stay 
underground ? 

(The witness consults with liis counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. I don't understand the question. 

Mr. Morris. Have you at Communist Party meetings taken the 
position that the Communist Party of Hawaii should remain an un- 
derground organization and not come out into the open ? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist parties been held at your home? 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist meetings, that should read. 

Have Communist meetings been held at your home ? 

Mr. McElrath. Will you repeat the question? I have already 
answered. 

Mr. Morris. I will repeat the question. Have Communist meetings 
been held at your home ? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer on the grounds heretofore 
given. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you broadcast here to the people of Hono- 
lulu that the Communist threat to the islands is virtually nonexistent ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer as herteofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Were you, while you so broadcast to the people of the 
islands, at the time of these broadcasts, a secret member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. "These broadcasts"; are you talking about any 
particular broadcast or any particular period of time ? 

Mr. Morris. The broadcasts I asked you about in the previous ques- 
tion which you did not answer. 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Morris. When did you last see Charles Fujimoto, who has been 
described and whom the committee has learned has been the chairman 
of the Communist Party of Hawaii ; when did you last see Charles 
Fujimoto? 

Mr, McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you claim a privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment? 

Mr. McElrath. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended national conventions of the Com- 
munist Party on the mainland ? 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. As a matter of fact, you did attend a national con- 
vention of the Communist Party in New York, did you not, Mr. Mc- 
Elrath? _ 5 J 5 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 
Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 
Mr. Morris. Now, do you do general propaganda, union propa- 
ganda for the ILWU ? 
Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 
Mr. Morris. Do you make political contacts for the ILWU ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2265 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Are you the editor of the IL'WU Eeporter ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel. ) 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 

Senator Watkixs. Are you acquainted with that paper ? 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer, sir, as heretofore given. 

Senator Watkixs. Not even acquainted with it. 

Mr. Morris. Now, can you recall that on March 1, 1955, you quoted 
from the report of the Territorial Conunission on Subversion here in 
Honolulu ? 

Mr. McElrath. I can't hear you, sir. 

Mr. Morris, Can you recall that, on March 1, 1955, you quoted from 
the report of the Territorial Commission on Subversion here in the 
islands ; can you recall that ? 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Did you at that time quote from that report prior to 
the time that that report was actually issued ? 

Mr. McElrath, The same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you claim your privilege under the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mr. McElrath. Yes, sir. And I hope it is understood that every 
time I give that answ^er it means the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. I understand. I just want the record to be unmis- 
takable. 

Mr. McElrath, did you in fact surreptitiously receive an advance 
copy of that particular report ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. I should like to understand your understanding 
of "surreptitiously" there. 

Mr. Morris. Well, did you 

Mr. McElrath. I believe I understand what you mean but I would 
like to know for certain. 

Mr. Morris. Well, did you receive in advance a copy of the report ? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. A^'^lo gave you that advance copy of the report? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer on the grounds heretofore 
given. 

Mr. Morris. Now, in your broadcast of February 7, 1953, did you, 
on your radio program, state the following, and I am now quoting : 

Into our possession has come hundreds of dossiers collected by official Govern- 
ment investigating agencies. 

Did you make that statement on your February 7, 1953, broadcast? 

Mr. McElrath. My memoiy isn't a filing cabinet, but I am going to 
decline to answer the question on the grounds heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Did you in fact read from the files of these reports, 
which you described as dossiers collected from official Government 
investigating agencies ? 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer as heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. "\^liere did you get these reports, Mr. McElrath ? 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer. 

Mr. Morris. How did you come into possession of official Govern- 
ment documents ? 



2266 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer. 

Mr. MoRKis. In fact, in connection with these particular reports, 
you read a security report referring to yourself and your wife, did 
you not, Mr. McElrath? I give you a date. February 9, 1953. 

Mr. McElrath. What do you mean by "security report"? 

Mr. Morris. Well, I am using your own description here. 

Into our possession has come hundreds of dossiers collected by oflScial Gov- 
ernment investigating agencies. 

And then you read a file referring to yourself and your wife and 
others. That second part of it was on February 9, 1953. 

JVIi'. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Do you broadcast 5 nights a week for 15 minutes, from 
6 : 45 to 7 p. m., on station KHON ? 

Senator Watkixs. Is that in Honolulu ? 

Mr. Morris. That's in Honolulu, Senator. 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been in the past a member of the Manoa Club 
branch of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. jSIgElrath, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. Have you held Communist Party book No. 74521 ? 

Mr. McElrath. The same reply. 

Senator Watkins. Wliat do you mean by "Communist Party book,'' 
Counsel ? 

Mr. Morris. Senator, our evidence indicates that in the past the 
Communist Party did issue Communist Party membership books, and 
we have been told that the witness here today was the holder of Com- 
munist Party book No. 74521 in the past. And I asked him whether 
our information is correct. I think he has refused to answer that. 

Senator Johnston. Mr. McElrath, I noticed yon wrote down the 
number just now, when he gave you the number of the book. Why 
did you do that ? Was that the reason — ^you are going to look to see 
if that was the right number of the book ? Of your book ? 

Mr. McElrath. I would probably forget it, sir. 

Senator Johnston. You did that in order to look at your book, isn't 
that true, to see if it is that number ? 

]Mr. McElrath (laughing). No, sir; that is not the reason I wrote 
it down. 

Senator Johnston. What was the reason? 

Mr. McElrath. I wrote it down because I thought I would for- 
get it. 

IVIr. Morris. Mr. McElrath, do you recall the 4-day shutdown that 
occurred in the ILWU at the time that Jack Hall was being tried here 
in the year 1953? I am asking you if you recall it, as a matter of 
public record. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Mr. Morris. I ask what your role was in that particular walkout. 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2267 

Mr. Morris. Senators, I have an abundance of questions here that 
I would like to ask this witness, but I think in view of the responses 
he has given to date that any further inquiry would be unavailing, 
so far as this particular witness is concerned. 

Senator Watkins. Any questions by members of the committee? 
The witness may step aside. 

Senator Welker. Just a moment, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Witness, do you work at all ? 

Mr. McElrath. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 
heretofore given. 

Senator Welker. Are you a man of family ? 

Mr. McEij?ath. Yes ; I am. 

Senator Welker. How do you support that family ? 

Mr. McElrath. Same answer heretofore given. 

Senator Welker. You want to take the fifth amendment on whether 
or not you work for a living. Is that right ? 

Mr. McElrath. I have, sir. 

Senator Welker. You have taken the fifth amendment? 

Mr. McElrath. The fifth amendment ; yes. 

Senator Watkins. Any other questions ? 

Senator Johnston. Do you believe in the American way of life ? 

Mr. McElrath. Definitely. 

Senator Johnston. Definitely. Don't you think, then, that it 
would benefit the American way of life if you would answer these 
questions that have been asked you here today ? 

Mr. McElrath. As I said earlier, sir, a man who represents himself 
in court without an attorney has a fool for a client. I am taking the 
advice of my lawyers. 

Senator Watkins. Let me ask you this question. Do you really 
honestly believe to answer these questions would incriminate you ? 

Mr. McElrath. Very definitely. 

Senator Watkins. That is your belief, that they might incriminate 
you? 

Mr. McElrath. My lawyers so advise. 

Senator Watkins. Now, is that your belief? Your lawyer 
wouldn't have a belief on that question. It has to be your own belief. 
You are man claiming the protection, not the lawyers. 

Mr. :McElrath. All right. I think a person would be a fool to 
come into court with a lawyer and not take his advice. 

Senator Watkins. What I am trying to find out is : Do you honestly 
believe and sincerely believe that if you answer truthfully these ques- 
tions that have been asked, j^ou might incriminate yourself? 

Mr. McElrath. Yes, sir. Otherwise, I wouldn't answer them that 
way. 

Senator Watkins. All right. I just wanted to know whether it is 
your belief or your lawyer's opinion that it might incriminate you. 

Mr. McElrath. I am not going to argue the law with lawyers. 

Senator Watkins. All right. 

Mr. McElrath. I'm not one. 

Senator Watkins. The record will show what your answer was. 

Senator Welker. If you're not a lawyer, what are you then? 

Mr. McElrath. The same answer as heretofore given to you. 
Senator. 



2268 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Watkins. Nothinj^ further. The witness may step aside. 

Mr. Morris. The next witness, Senator, is Joseph Kealalio. 

Senator Watkins. The witness will please come forward. Raise 
your right hand. Raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you give in the matter now pending 
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kealalio. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KEALALIO 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the court 
reporter ? 

Mr. Kealalio. I would like the same privilege as the witness before 
me, please, regarding the lights. 

Senator Watkins. The television people will please not train the 
instrument on the witness; he objects. He has a right to object. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Joseph Kealalio. K-e-a-1-a-l-i-o. 

Mr. Morris. That is spelled "K-e-a-1-a-l-i-o" ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes. 

Mr. Morris, And where do you reside? 

Mr. Kealalio. 3922 Nioi Place. 

Senator Watkins. Will you speak a little louder, please? It is 
difficult for me to hear your answers. 

Mr. Kealalio. 3922 Nioi Place. N-i-o-i. 

Mr. Morris. I think you told us in executive session that you also 
are known as Joseph Blurr, and you use that name because of the 
difficult pronunciation of your own name, is that right ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now, will you tell us your business or profession? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kealalio. I am relying on the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. Morris. What do you mean by that ? Do you refuse to answer 
that question? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. And is your refusal to answer that question based on 
your claim of privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. What was the answer ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in view of the witness' response, I ask 
that Mr. Mandel be again asked to identify the occupation or the par- 
ticular position that this witness holds. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Mandel may proceed. 

Mr. Mandel. I read again from the document referred to as a Direc- 
tory of Labor Organizations in the Territory of Hawaii, on page 23, 
under International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, we 
find among the international representatives listed Joseph Kealalio. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Kealalio, have you — are you or have you in the 
past acted as a stand-in for J. R. Robinson, national vice president of 
thelLWU? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir ; I decline to answer. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2269 

Mr. Morris. Was that assignment given to you in the event that 
Mr. Robinson would have to give up his position for one reason or 
another ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know whether or not the three top officers of the 
JLWU nationally, namely, Bridges, Robinson, and Schmidt, each had 
a stand-in selected for them in the event of all contingencies ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. What is the answer ? 

Mr. Kealalio. I decline — I rely on the fifth amendment of the Con- 
stitution, sir. 

Mr. Morris. And you claim the privilege ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. That you would rather not be a witness against your- 
self? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Morris. Because it would possibly incriminate you? 

Mr. Kealalio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, do you recall the walkout that took place in 1953 ? 

By the way, Senators, that was during the Korean war. 

Do you remember a walkout on the part of the ILWU which lasted 
4 days here in Honolulu ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. What was your role in that particular walkout ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you presently a Communist ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kealalio. I didn't get that. 

Mr. Morris. Are you presently a Communist ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the committee has learned of a meeting 
that took place at 5204 Ani Street in Honolulu. A-n-i, that is. In 
Honolulu, here last Saturday. I M'ould like to ask the witness if he 
was present at the home of Henry Epstein, 5204 Ani Street, last 
Saturday. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. You will not tell us whether or not you were present at 
the home of Henry Epstein, 5204 Ani Street, last Saturday evening ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Charles Fujimoto, who has been — who we laiow has 
been chairman of the Commmiist Party of the islands, was present at 
that meeting ; was he not ? 

Mr. ICealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Was not his wife, Mrs. Charles Fujimoto, also present 
at that meeting last Saturday night? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Was Henry B. Epstein present at that meeting last 
Saturday night ? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, 

Mr. Morris. Have you been the master of ceremonies at the testi- 
monial dinner for the attorneys defending the Hawaiian "seven" held 
in June 1953? 



2270 SCOPE or soviet activity in the united states 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. MoRMS. Now, did you return from San Francisco on March 4, 
1954, from a business trip, as liead of the Hawaiian branch of the 
ILWU stewards department, in company with Harry Bridges and 
Louis Goldblatt? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you accompany Richard Gladstein and talk with 
a juror after the verdict in the Smith Act trial ? 

Mr, Kealalio. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist Party meetings been held in your 
home? 

Mr. Kealalio. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, in view of the witness' response, I think it 
would be unavailing for me to ask about this additional evidence we 
have here in our files, and I therefore have no further questions of this 
particular witness. 

Senator Watkins. For the purpose of the record, I think the mattei* 
of the attorneys should be cleared up. I don't recall that the record 
was made clear that the same gentlemen who appeared as counsel for 
the preceding witness also appeared for the present witness. 

Mr. Andersen. The record may so show. 

Senator Watkins. You may step aside. 

Mr. Morris. The next witness is Ernest Arena. 

Senator Watkins. Raise your right hand, Mr. Arena, and be sworn. 
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in the matter 
now pending before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. AnENA. I do. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the same 
request on the TV camera, please. 

Senator Watkins. The order will stand. The witness is not to be 
televised during the hearing. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST ARENA 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter ? 

Mr. Arena. Ernest Arena — A-r-e-n-a — 3911 Keanu Street. 

Mr. Morris. What is your business or profession? 

Mr. Arena. I will require advice of my counsel. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Arena. I rely on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, you refuse to answer the question, 
claiming your privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitu- 
tion, which says that you shall not be required to testify against your- 
self or to give testimony that might possible incriminate you? 

Mr. Arena. That's correct. 

Mr. Morris. And in view of the response, Mr. Chairman, may we 
again call on Mr. Benjamin Mandel? 

Senator Watkins. You may do so. 

iNIr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, is the listing for Mr. Ernest Arena in the 
reference book you liave previously referred to? 

Mr. Mandel, Again referrin<>- to the Directory of Labor Organiza- 
tions of the Territory of Hawaii, on page 24, under the Internationa] 
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Oahu Division, is listed 
Ernest Arena as business agent. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2271 

Mr. Morris. As business agent of the Oahu division of the local. Is 
that right, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. It is just listed under the Oahu division. 

Mr. Morris. As the business agent ? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. ILWU, local 142. 

Mr. Morris. All right. Mr. Arena, is that listing accurate? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. That is, refusal to answer under claim of privilege ? 

Mr. Arena. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall a walkout engaged in by the ILWU m 
1953, at the time of the Jack Hall trial, Mr. Arena? 

Mr. Arena. The same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Which is that you refuse to answer ? 

Mr. Arena. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. What was your role in that particular walkout? 

Mr. Arena. I would like to correct that. I refuse to answer on 
the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

]\Ir. Morris. On the grounds of what? 

Mr, Arena. Using the 5th amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been a member of the Kaimuki group of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer, 

Mr Morris. In 1950 were you the president of local 150 of the 

ILW? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Wlien did you last see Charles Fujimoto? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Charles Fujimoto? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist Party meetings at the 
home of Jack Hall ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know a Communist Party organizer named 
Archie Brown ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer, 

Mr, Morris. Did you know that Archie Brown was trade union 
director of the Communist Party, district 13, which is California? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend Communist Party meetings at the home 
of Jeanetta jSTakama ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you deliver Communist Party literature for the 
Kakuku sugar group ? 

Mr. Arena. The what ? 

Mr. Morris. K-a-k-u-k-u. Kakuku sugar group. 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have other information and evidence 
here. I would like to ask the witness, however, if he is presently a 
Communist ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

]Mr, Morris. Are you a member of the Communist Party ? 

jNIr. Arena. Same answer. 



2272 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. Are you now a member of or an adherent to the inter- 
national Commmiist movement, either as a former member of the 
Communist Party or otherwise ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now under discipline of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Arena. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. I liave no more questions, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. Any questions from members of the committee ? 

Senator Johnston. No questions. 

Senator Watkins. You may step aside. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mr, Miyagi. Mr. Newton Miyagi, 

Mr. MiTAGi. Coming. 

Senator Watkins. Kaise your right hand and be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in the matter now 
pending before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

JMr. Miyagi. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF NEWTON KUNIO MIYAGI 

Mr. Morris. Give your name and address to the official reporter. 

Mr. Miyagi. I would like to request no TV while I am on. 

Senator Watkins. Same order with respect to television will be in 
effect as in the preceding testimony. 

Mr. Morris. Give your name and address to the official reporter. 

Mr. Miyagi. My name is Newton Kunio Miyagi and I reside at 
04^50 Kamakahi Street, Waipahu, Oahu. 

Mr. Morris. What is your business or profession ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. I decline to answer that based on the fifth amendment 
of the United States Constitution. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in view of the witness' response, may 
Mr. Mandel be recalled ? 

Senator Watkins. He may. 

Mr. Mandel. Reading again from the Directory of Labor Organi- 
zations in the Territory of Hawaii, on page 23 we find under ILWU, 
Local 142, Newton Miyagi, secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you the secretary-treasurer of local 142, 
Mr. Miyagi? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear the answer. 

Senator Watkins. At this moment the Chair instructs the witnesses 
as I have directed them to stand aside to understand that they are not 
released from the subpena. 1 merely direct that they are excused 
from testifying at the moment. There has been no order issued that 
they are discharged from the subpena. I hope that the witnesses will 
be available in case we want them further. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now a Communist, Mr. Miyagi ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now a member of or an adherent to the inter- 
national Communist movement, either as a former member of the 
Communist Party or otherwise? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2273 

jNIr. Morris. Are yon now under discipline of the Commnnist Party ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Commnnist meetings at the home 
of Jack Hall? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now the treasurer of the ILAVTJ Memorial 
Association ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write a letter that appeared in the daily 
Peoples World of August 9, 1944, bearing the headline "From Hawaii, 
A Token Gift to the People's World Drive" ? 

This article reads : 

San Francisco, August S. — A significant note of greetings and encouragement 
for the success of the 1954 Daily People's World fund drive was received this 
weekend from the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 
Local 142, in Hawaii. Written on the official local 142 stationery, the letter to 
the executive editor, Al Richman, said : 

"Dear Brother Richman : Enclosed is a check in the amount of $25, which 
comprises our token contribution to your 1954 fund raising drive. We again 
are in support of your fighting paper as in the past, and we hope that you will 
be able to get over in your fund raising drive." 

It was signed "Fraternally yours, Newton Miyagi, secretary- 
treasurer." 

Now, did you write that letter ? 

Mr. Miyagi. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a Communist when you wrote that letter? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that the People's Daily World had been 
charged as a Communist newspaper ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Before answering that question, could I say that when 
I say "The same answer," that is on the fifth amendment, so there 
won't be any misunderstanding ? Is that understood ? 

Mr. Morris. You may say that, Mr. Miyagi. 

Senator Watkins. I understand you claim the substantial right of 
refusing to testify because you might incriminate yourself, and you do 
that under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. 

Mr. JVIiyagi. That is correct. 

Senator Watkins. And that has been what you meant by each of 
these answers when you said "The same answer" ? 

Mr. IVIiYAGi. That is correct. 

Senator Watkixs. The record will so show. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that the People's Daily World is today 
a Communist paper, Mr. Miyagi ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, do we have an official listing of the Peo- 
ple's Daily World as a Communist publication? 

Mr. Mandel. The California Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties in its report of 1948 states : 

The Daily People's World, the west coast mouthpiece of the Communist Party, 
published by the Pacific Publishing Foundation, Inc., in San Francisco. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Miyagi, in July 1953, were you a member of a 
group called the Committee for Justice ? 

72723—57 — pt. 39 i 



2274 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you as a member of the Committee for Justice dis- 
tribute a Soviet film distributed by Artkino, entitled "Peace Will 
Win"? 

Mr. jVIiyagi. Same answer. 

Mr, Morris. Did you cause to be distributed the Second World 
Peace Conference at Warsaw, a film, and some educational material 
about the second world peace conference at Warsaw during that same 
approximate period, July 1953? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you make an effort to have publications of Artkino 
and other publications of the Committee for Justice put into the 
schools of Honolulu ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. The same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you try to make these available to the plantations ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Presumably, Senator Watkins, to be available for 
workers at the plantations. 

Is that a fact, Mr. Miyagi ? 

jNIr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did vou give a testimonial speech for Jack Hall on 
March 23, 1952? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

j\Ir. Morris. Have you attended Communist Party meetings at the 
home of Jack Kimoto in anticipation of a sugar strike ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend an executive board meeting at Ewa 
Beach, a Communist executive board meeting, at Ewa Beach, at any 
time ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have received a report on Union 
Insurance Service, Ltd. This Union Insurance Service, Ltd., accord- 
ing to our information, is a Hawaiian corporation wholly owned by 
the ILWI"^ and the United Public Workers; that it was chartered on 
September 20, 1955, to act as an insurance agent and adjuster for all 
types of insurance and endorsed by the ILWU convention in Hilo 
during the same month; capitalized at $5,000, the corporation acts as 
a subagent, with headquarters in the ILWU Building; its general 
agent is Hawaii Insurance Consultants, Ltd. ; its secretary-treasurer 
Paul G. Pinsky. 

Do you know a man named Paul G. Pinsky? 

Ml'. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you refuse to say whether you Imow Paul 
Pinsky ? Now, are you the secretary-treasurer of the Union Insurance 
Service, Ltd? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Can you tell us anything about the operation of the 
Union Insurance Service, Ltd? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Charles Fujimoto? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. When did you last see Charles Fujimoto? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2275 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend a meeting at the home of Mr. Epstein 
last Saturday night? 

(The witness consults his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Senator Watkixs. Is Mr. Epstein a longshoreman? 

Mr. MiTAGi. Same answer. 

Mr, Morris. Now, would you tell us what insurance company has 
exclusive control over all types of your union indemnity requirements ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Would you give us the names and the operators of the 
Union Insurance Service ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Does any of the money that goes to that service go back 
to individual officei*s in that particular service? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Does the union require that its members deal with the 
Hawaiian Insurance Consultants? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. ISIoRRis. What other insurance concern is permitted to do busi- 
ness with your union and its members ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you paid a salary as secretary-treasurer of the 
Union Insurance Service, Ltd. ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in view of the witness' responses, I 
have no more questions of this particular witness. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnstox. Are you an American ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Definitely, yes. I am an American citizen. 

Senator Johnston. Are you a Communist? 

Mr. MiYAGi. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Senator Johnston. Why can you answer one question and not 
answer the other? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. The fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States gives me that privilege for prevention of self-incrimination. 

Senator Johnston. Then you believe that you would incriminate 
3'ourself if you said that you were not a Communist ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Senator Johnston. That's the reason you have to give when you 
cloak yourself with the fifth amendment. You believe that it would 
incriminate you. Is that tiiie ? You believe it would incriminate you 
if you answered that question, isn't that true ? 
(The witness consults with his comisel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. As I stated previously, the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution protects me t-o say anything against my own self. 

Senator Johnston. Do you know that it protects you only when 
a responsive answer might incriminate you. You know that, don't 
you? 

Mr. jSIiyagi (after consulting with his counsel). Through the ad- 
vice of my counsel, that is the understanding of the United States 
Supreme Court. 



2276 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Johnston. Pass the Avitness. 

Senator Watkins. May the record show that the counsel who have 
appeared for the previous witnesses also appear for this witness? 

Mr. Andersen. It may so show. 

Senator Watkins. Both of them. 

Mr. Andersen. For all four wlio have testified. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Witness, prior to occupying the witness chair 
this afternoon did you discuss your testimony with any pereon or 
jiersons ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. MiYA(a. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Senator Welker. Are you a married man ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. I am legally married and I have three children in my 
family ; a pair of twins. 

Senator Welker. Your answer is "Yes," that you are a married 
man ? 

Mr. MiTAGi. Yes. 

Senator Welker. I assume that's right. 

Mr. MiYAGi. That's correct. 

Senator Welker. Why did you hesitate so long to answer that 
question ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Well, the reason is tliere is so many questions tossed 
at me that it might liave left a blank word when such a pointblank 
question is posed at this time. 

Senator Welker. That's a pointblank question, to ask you whether 
you are married? Now, it is your testimony you are invoking the 
privilege of the fifth amendment as to whether or not you discussed 
your testimony with any person or persons prior to occupying that 
witness stand where you are now seated ? 

Mr. MiTAGi. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. Definitely. That's all. 

Senator Watkins. You really believe that it would incriminate you 
to tell this committee that you did discuss what you might testify to 
with others. Remember, I think you would have the right to discuss 
your proposed testimony with others, with your counsel. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. I didn't understand the question. Could you repeat 
the question again, please? 

Senator Watkins. I asked you if you claim that it might incrimi- 
nate you to discuss what you might testify to with others. That was 
the purport of the Senator's questions to you. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. IVIiYAGi. Well, I believe so because otherwise I wouldn't claim 
self-incrimination of the protection of the fifth amendment. 

Senator Watkins. Your attorneys didn't advise you that it would 
incriminate you to talk over this testimony with anyone else, did thev ? 
Did they? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Under the law I am sure that whatever discussion 1 
had with my attorneys is confidential. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2277 

Senator Watkins. It may be confidential but it wouldn't be in- 
criminating, because you have a right to talk to your counsel. Well, 
let the matter pass. 

Mr. Morris. Just a minute. The reporter has reached the end of 
his recording. He would like 2 minutes, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. We will pause with the examination ; we will not 
recess. We will pause with the examination to permit the reporter 
to take care of the necessity there. He has to fill his pen. 

(A 2-minute pause was taken.) 

Senator Watkins. Any further questions? 

Senator Welker. Yes. Mr. Witness, I want you to tell the com- 
mittee, under oath, frankly and honestly, whether you believe telling 
the truth to this committee would tend to incriminate you or cause 
you to bear witness against yourself. 

Mr. MiYAGi. Of course I do ; otherwise I wouldn't ask for the privi- 
lege. 

Senator Welker. What? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Of course; definitely so. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear the answer. 

Mr. Morris. "Of course and definitely so." 

Senator Watkins. Anything further ? The witness may step aside. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, there is one more order of business — however, 
not with this witness, Senator — that I think should he in the record at 
this time, although I will submit it, Senator, for judgment on your 
part and the other members of the committee who are present. 

On the morning of Wednesday, November 28, 1 received a call from 
Counsel Symonds, who asked that he have a session with me. I made 
an appointment at 11 a. m., Senator, to meet Mr, Symonds, Mr. Ander- 
sen, and Mr. Symond's partner, Mrs. Bouslog. The meeting took 
place in room 16 in this particular building. 

Now, after the counsel left I made notes on our meeting at that time. 
Senator, I would like to relate to you that particular discussion, and 
I think it is important in view of a certain advertisement that appeared 
in the Honolulu Advertiser this morning. 

Mr. Symonds 

Senator Watkins. You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Symonds, Mrs. Bouslog, and Mr. Andersen stated 
that they had read that the Internal Security Subcommittee was in- 
terested in the present situation in Honolulu with respect to commu- 
nism, and they said that they felt they could control their clients to 
the extent that they would answer certain questions. They asked if 
we would be willing to limit ourselves, we, the Senate, the Senators 
on the committee and counsel, would limit ourselves to two particular 
questions. One question is: "Are you now a Communist," and the 
other : "Have you been a member of the Communist Party within a 
certain period of time?" And they said "Let us take the period of 3 
years." And they said if that could be worked out with the IL"WU 
client, they felt they could work out the same arrangement with others 
that they would represent later on. 

Now, at that time I said it naturally would be inadequate because 
in order to really determine whether or not a man is genuinely a Com- 
munist or not, we would have to look into the circumstances surround- 



2278 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 

ing liis detachment from the Communist Party ; we would have to find 
out whetlier or not lie is being put in some kind of reserve in the Party ; 
Ave would have to know whether he is being put into some kind of a 
status called for by some reorganization of the Communist Party; 
and that it would seem to be very inadequate. 

I then asked, "Suppose the Senators want to ask a third question?" 

Counsel said, "No, the offer was only for two questions." 

And I said, "Suppose we ask the question what these witnesses 
have been doing during the last 3 years." 

And they said, "For instance." 

And I said, "Suppose we ask them have they been attending meet- 
ings with persons they knew to be Communists." 

And again they repeated the fact that the offer carried only for 
two witnesses. 

Senator Watkins. Two questions. 

Mr. Morris. Two questions. 

Senator Watkins. You said "two witnesses." 

Mr. Morris. Two questions. I am sorry. 

I said, "As you know, there have been reorganizations of the Com- 
munist Party." 

One of the counsel just incidentally picked up the phrase, "as you 
know," and I said "Well, I am now speaking, asking as you know 
from your general observation, nothing personal is intended." 

I recalled the fact that we had just completed an investigation of 
Tass News Agency, and I pointed out that in the Tass News Agency 
investigation we found that as individual witnesses who had been 
members of the Communist Party took up employment with Tass, 
they formally severed their Communist Party membership, even 
though at the same time they continued to attend Communist meetings 
and kept up their old Communist association, and as soon as they 
finished their employment with Tass they again resumed their mem- 
bership in the Communist Party. I said the committee had learned 
tliat and yet you can see the committee never could have learned that 
relationship if they had limited themselves to two questions. 

Again I wxnt into the situation. I said, "Now this is a suppositious 
case," and I stressed the word "suppositious." I said, "Suppose the 
IL"\yU is Communist-controlled. All of the ILWU people would be 
subject to the discipline that would enure to that particular relation- 
ship. If then the ILWU could, for tactical purposes, then say that 
its members would no longer be required to be members of the Com- 
munist Party but they felt that they could be controlled because of 
the discipline within the union, I said, "If that were the situation," 
and I stressed the suppositious, we never could get the real relationship 
that existed at the present time." 

At the conclusion of that, Senator, I expressed the opinion, I said, 
"It is not for me to make the decision, but obviously this is a very 
inadequate offer and could not get at the facts." And I immediately 
reported to Senator Eastland. 

At the same time, counsel said they would like to have an answer 
by tAvo because they were going to meet with the committee at that 
time. 

I said I would not see the chairman until 6 o'clock. I saw the 
chairman at 6 o'clock and I related what happened to him at the time. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2279 

He expressed the same reaction to the offer that I did, that obviously 
the offer was inadequate ; he said tliat it was so inadequate that there 
was something else behind the offer, that it couldn't conceivably be 
an offer because no Senate committee could circumscribe itself. 

We expressed the — Senator Eastland or myself, or both of us, 
expressed the estimate of the situation that counsel were up to some- 
thing to use against the committee and it was not a genuine offer, so 
inadequate was it on its face. Senator Eastland, however, said that 
we would do nothing about it, inasmucli as it was an offer between 
counsel, and that's where we left it until we read in the paper this 
morning, in the Honolulu Advertiser, a rather large — almost a full- 
page ad. 

Now, I would like to offer the ad for the record. Senator Watkins, 
because it reads 

Senator Watkins. You may read it in the record. 

Mr. Morris (reading) : 

Here is the proof — 

is the title to this ad — 

that the Eastland committee is defiutely interested in things other than alleged 
Communist activity in the Hawaiian Islands. 

2. That the Eastland committee, despite the protestations of Senator Eastland 
to the contrary, intends to use the local hearings for the purpose of defeating 
statehood and attempting to undermine the ILWU. 

Why is this true?— 

is the next caption. 

Last Wednesday morning the ILWU, through its attorneys, went to the 
attorney for the Eastland committee and made this offer: "Every official or 
employee of the ILWU currently under subpena will reply with yes or no 
answers to the following questions. (1) Are you a member of the Communist 
Party? (2) Have you been a member of the Communist Party at any time 
during the last several years?" 

The union attorneys notified that committee counsel, that if the committee 
would agree not to go on a tishing expedition into the private affairs of the 
ILWU, they would assure Senator Eastland that every union officer and every 
union employee under subpena would answer the above questions. 

This offer was rejected. Why? If the Eastland committee is down here to 
get the facts relating to Communist activity in the ILWU, then why did the 
committee refuse to take advantage of this union's offer? We can come to 
only one inescapable conclusion — 

reads the ad — 

we are convinced that Senator Eastland's hearing is being held for the purpose 
of defeating the statehood bill before it is introduced by Delegate-elect John H. 
Burns and for the purpose of damning the ILWU. 

P. S. — This good-faith offer is open until the first ILWU witness is sworn 
in by the committee. 

And that is put in in the name of the International Longshoremen's 
& Warehousemen's Union, Local 142. 

Senator Watkins. The present Chair would like to say that I think 
the chairman of the committee and counsel properly rejected any such 
offer. 

The power of this committee is given by the Constitution of the 
United States — the power to investigate and to conduct the aff'airs of 
the countiy by the Senate of the United States, and no member of the 
Senate, no staff' member or anyone else, has a right to enter into an 
agreement that would limit the powers or take away the powers of 



2280 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

this committee. And I think that probably is as well understood by 
the attorneys who made the oft'er as to the members, to the chairman 
or to the counsel for this committee, Mr. Morris. 

There are many practical things that would have to be completely 
eliminated from the investigation if questions are limited to the two 
named. It is highly important to find out what has been going on, 
what has been happening. And, of course, that matter couldn't be 
gone into under any such an agreement. No matter what they had 
been doing, you could only ask the two questions and that would be 
the end of it. 

It is contrary to public policy for the committee to be asked to give 
up its powers and to limit its right and its duty to investigate. Re- 
member, we have a duty in these premises, as well as a right. Our 
duty is to investigate and get the facts. 

If these witnesses refuse on the ground of the protection of the fifth 
amendment, that is their right under the Constitution, but that doesn't 
mean that we can't go on and investigate further ourselves into these 
matters. iVnd it doesn't mean that these people can't be called as 
witnesses in this proceeding. We may find some that would be willing 
to cooperate with the committee and answer the questions. 

I have that comment to make. I think it is sound law that under 
the Constitution this committee had no right whatever, would have 
no right whatever to accept a proposition of that kind. 

I call on the other members of the committee, if they would like to 
make comments on this procedure. 

Senator Johnston. I agree with what the acting chairman has said, 
that no one of this committee has a right to change the law in regard 
to our field of investigation. Another thing, if we should accept an 
offer such as this, I predict that in the future it would kill the useful- 
ness of this committee, because every other person coming in would 
make the same offer, and we would not be able then to find out about 
many other people that are involved beyond, maybe, the one that is 
testifying at that particular time. 

So it is very important that we have broad fields in which we may 
ask questions to try to find out what is going on in this Nation of ours 
in order to protect it against communism throughout, not only your 
sweet little islands, but all of the 48 States that we now have in this 
Union of ours. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an observa- 
tion. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Any such attempt on the part of counsel, that I 
met for the first time this morning in executive hearing, amounts 
mighty close to being a conspiracy on their part to embarrass this com- 
mittee and to save time upon their part. I think this : That you, be- 
ing the able attorneys that you must be, certainly know that the right 
of cross-examination would be barred to every man on this commit- 
tee, and for us to limit the interrogation of the witness to 1 or 2 years 
is simply absolute folly and foolishness. Anyone who has made a 
study of communism loiows that they can change the rules in the mid- 
dle of the game, that they have done it, and that they have gone 
underground. To propound a question to a witness and ask him 
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party?" and he replies "No," when all during that time he knows that 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2281 

he is a secret undergToiind member of the Communist Party, that 
would destroy, as Senator Johnston and the chairman have stated, 
the effectiveness of this committee. 

I think it is outlandish and ridiculous, and I am embarrassed that 
this ad was put in the newspaper. 

Senator Watkins. Any other comments ? Did you have anything 
further to offer? 

Mr. Morris. No, Senator. I have nothing more. Tomorrow morn- 
ing, the first witness will be former Governor Stainback, who is now 
a justice on the Territorial Supreme Court, and then we have two 
other witnesses who have been subpenaed. 

And, Senator, before the public hearing begins at 9 : 30, we have 
arranged with counsel that they will have these two witnesses avail- 
able for a short executive session. Now, I estimate, if we met in 
executive session at 9 : 15, that we would be able to be ready to com- 
mence the open hearing at 9 : 30. 

Now, if the chairman, the acting chairman or the chairman would 
ask one of the senators to be present 15 minutes in advance, we will 
be able to take care of the matter at that time. 

Senator Watkins. The open hearing of this committee will be re- 
cessed until tomorrow morning at 9 : 30 a. m. 

The committee is in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 50 p. m., the subcommittee recessed.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1956 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF THE InI'EKNAL SECURITY AcT AND OtHER INTERNAL 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Honolulu^ T. H. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9: 30 a. m., in 
the Senate Chamber, lohxni Palace, Senator Olin D. Johnson presid- 
ing. 

Present: Senator Eastland, chairman; Senators Watkins, John- 
ston, Welker, and Butler. 

Also present : Robert Morris, chief counsel. 

Senator Johnston. The committee will come to order. 

I believe our first witness for today is Judge Ingram Stainback. 
Will you please come around ? Will you raise your right hand to be 
sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this sub- 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth? 

Judge Stainback. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF INGEAM M. STAINBACK 

Senator Johnston. Judge Stainback, just a little preliminary. 
Wliere were you born? 

Judge Stainback. Tennessee. 

Senator Johnston. Wliat part of Tennessee? 

Judge Stainback. Not far from Memphis; Somerville, Fayette 
County. 

Senator Johnston. What comity? 

Judge Stainback. Fayette County. 

Senator Johnston. That's the same county my father was bom in, 
so I just wanted 

Judge Stainback. Our fathers were distant cousins, then. 

Senator Johnston. Witness is with you. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jolmston. We had a near 
tragedy on the staff this morning. Benjamin Mandel, our research 
director, went out for a swim in the ocean, and apparently the surf 
was quite rough, and being a man of 65 years of age, he did go out too 
far and he couldn't get back in. We don't know all the details, but 
he was brought to the Emergency Hospital and after examination it 
was ascertained that he will be all right, they will be able to pull him 
out of it. 

2283 



2284 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Now, I think it is going to handicap us considerably this morning, 
Senator, because we do not liave the key to all our files. Ben has the 
key and we don't know where the key is now. So we are this morning. 
Senator, operating without our files and all the records and everything 
that we had planned to use this morning. Even the contemporaneous 
notes I had made in my session with Judge Stainback here this morn- 
ing are unavailable. 

Senator Johnston. I know all the members of this subcommittee 
and also the staff regret to hear of this accident. We certainly hope 
that Mr. Mandel will be all right soon. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation ? 

I think we should say thanks to that great rescue group that saved 
Ben Mandel, because the information I have is that it was most heroic, 
courageous, and out of this world, and we should say thanks to those 
people who saved his life. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Johnston. Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. I was awakened this morning about 10 minutes 
until 7 by the frantic calls for help from the beach, and I got up and 
looked around and saw nothing and went back to bed again. Ap- 
parently that was Ben, asking aid. I certainly hope he recovers 
rapidly. 

Senator Johnston. The witness is with you, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Judge Stainback, how long have you resided in 
Hawaii ? 

Judge Stainback. 44 years. I came here in 1912 to stay 1 year and 
am still here. 

Mr. Morris. "Wliat positions have you held here. Governor? 

Judge Stainback. In 1914 I became attorney general of the Ter- 
ritory. 

Mr. Morris. You say in 1914? 

Judge Stainbank. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Became attorney general. 

Judge Stainback. And then I entered the Army in the First World 
War, and after I came out of tlie Army in 1919 I went into private 
practice until 1934. I became United States attorney, was appointed 
and reappointed, but before my second term was out I was made a 
Federal judge in 1940. I served as United States district judge from 
1940 to 1942. In July of 1942 I was appointed Governor of the Ter- 
ritory of Hawaii and served until 1951, April 30 or May 1, I believe, 
and then I was appointed to the United States — I mean to the Supreme 
Court of the Territory of Hawaii as justice, and I am still serving 
on that court at present. 

Mr. Morris. Judge, you were the Governor of the Territory from 
what period of time ? 

Judge Stainback. 1942 to 1951. I became Governor about G months 
after the outbreak of World War II. I was called to Washington. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Judge Stainback, when did you first become 
aware of the fact that there were Communists on these islands ? 

Judge Stainback. That was in about March 1947. Strange as it 
may seem, I had never heard of Communists here. I had discovered 
one of the leading spies of Japan but I had never heard of a Commu- 
nist in the Territory. I don't know that anybody had heard anything 
particularly about it. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2285 

Mr. :Morris. This was in March 1947 ? 

Judge Stainback. March 1947. General Hull, who was then com- 
manding officer of the Hawaiian Department, called me up and 
wanted to call and see me, he wanted a full morning. So he came 
in with his intelligence officer and he said he wanted to warn me 
against the plan of the Conmiunist cell in San Francisco to have placed 
on the board of regents of the University of Hawaii a local Commu- 
nist, and he mentioned his name. 

I told the general that he need not worry about that particular 
fellow; I had turned him down. Not that I knew he was a Com- 
munist, or anything about the Communists. I had men that I thought 
were better qualified for the various positions on the board of regents 
of the University of Hawaii. They are among the numerous ap- 
pointees of the Governor. 

If you will notice here, Hawaii is a very centralized government, 
relic of the old monarchy, and the Governor appoints nearly every- 
body, to every commission and board throughout the Territory. 

Mr. MoRBis. Now, Judge Stainback, General Hull, who was the 
commanding officer in the Pacific Command 

Judge Stainback. Pacific Command, yes. 

Mr. JMoRRis. He came to you 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. To warn you that 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. A man who was a possible appointee to the board of 
regents was a Communist? 

Judge Stainback. Yes. And then he took up the question of the 
Communist infiltration into the Territory. General Hull was a little 
reluctant to talk about the information he had because he said he 
could only use it for the protection of the Territory. But after some 
discussion he agreed that I was charged with protecting this Territory. 
In fact, the organic act specifically puts the Governor in charge to call 
out the National Guard or the Army and Navy, or declare martial 
law. He has sweeping powers over protecting the Territory. 

So he then went very fully into information regarding the Com- 
munist activities in this Territory, which had been going on for some 
10 years. 

Mr. Morris. That is, for some 10 years prior to 1947? 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. And the information he gave me was 
rather astonishing and shocking, to say the least. 

At first there were 4 schoolteachers, 1 of them probably the most 
active, at least in letter writing, in the Territory and in propaganda 
proceedings. And he thought that something should be done as the 
Communist infiltration here in the Territory, particularly as they were 
getting into key positions or trying to, was a menace to national de- 
fense. 

So he gave me a list of a hundred or more, somewhat more than a 
hundred, well-known Communists, card-holding Communists. They 
knew they held cards. 

Mr. Morris. Now let me see. Judge. He gave you a list 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Of more than a hundred names and these people, ac- 
cording to his information, were card-carrying Communists? 



2286 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Judge Stainback. Yes. And then about — well, I've forgotten how 
many more, possibly 50 more that they were satisfied were Com- 
munists, but they had never been able to discover their cards or their 
card numbers, or however they discover them. 

Mr. Morris. Now may I break in at this point, Judge? You did 
give the committee that list, did you not? 

Judge Stainback. I gave you a list of the known Communists; I 
don't believe I gave you the one of the suspects. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have in our files the list referred to 
by Judge Stainback. I suggest we, however, not put that list in the 
record, in our public record, certainly at this time. As you know, 
consistent with our policy, we try to keep names out of our record — 
names mentioned in a derogatory, security information, sense — out of 
our record until the people themselves have an opportunity to come 
in and comment on it. 

And so I say, Senator, may we keep the list that the judge gave me 
the other clay for our executive file but not put the information in 
the general file? May it go into the record with that limitation, 
Senator ? 

Senator Johnston. The list may be kept as is the customary pro- 
cedure of this committee, for our information. 

Judge Stainback. I also have a list of what they call fellow trav- 
elers. That was not so numerous. But those who were sympathetic 
to Communist procedure and propaganda— and he gave me some 
other documents. One of them included the plan of Communist 
infiltration into Hawaii. It was 7 paragraphs, long paragraphs, 
and I expect to use 1 paragraph of it to show you what they — the most 
active part of tlieir procedure. 

Senator Johnston. This was given to you in 1947? 

Judge Stainback. 1947. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. And was all security information, is that right? 

Judge Stainback. For my security information. In fact. General 
Hull was a little bit reluctant—that was very hush-hush information, 
and I should keep it so. And I believe he said if I ever told anybody 
he gave it to me, he would say I was a liar, or something to that effect. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, what General Hull was trying to do. 
Judge, was that he, recognizing the danger that existed, wanted to 
alert you, a Territorial official 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Morris. And yet he couldn't make a formal communication 
to you because of the restrictions placed on the information? 

Judge Stainback. He was more — he was much perturbed and we 
discussed what I should do to help the situation. Well, I said I could 
do sometliing about those schoolteachers in pretty short order, which 
I did. 

Senator Johnston. Judge, lie thought, though, that you could keep 
it confidential and you could handle the matter much better than 
publishing it to the world at that time? 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. 

Senator Welker. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Johnston. You may. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Can everyone hear in this hearing room? I 
can't. "V^Hiat's the matter with the loudspeaker system? Let's get 
it on the ball. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2287 

Judge Stainback. Can you hear this ? 

Mr. Morris. It may be, Judge, we can hear you, but the people in 
the room cannot. 

Senator, why don't we take a 5-minute recess then ? 

Senator ,Tohnston. The committee will take a 5-minute recess to 
check the loudspeaker system, to see what is wrong with it. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Senator Johnston. You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris, Senator, before we resume, I would like to mention for 
the record that Senator Butler and Senator Watkins have gone out 
to the Emergency Hospital to see Mr. Mandel, accounting for their 
departure from the committee room a few minutes ago. Senator. 

Senator Johnston. You may proceed. 

Judge Stainback. On these two schoolteachers, on which we had 
such voluminous evidence, I wrote to the school board, asking that 
this be investigated, and, if they were found guilty of preaching com- 
munism throughout the schools and throughout the Territory, they 
should be immediately removed. And I appointed a very competent 
lawyer as a member of the board of education to aid in conducting this 
investigation. 

Well, they had a long trial — Mr. and Mrs. Reinecke. They were 
defended by Mr. Gladstein, who has been pretty famous throughout 
the country as defending Communists. They were found guilty and 
removed as teachers. 

I started investigating the two other teachers, which we did not have 
so much on. They immediately resigned and left for the coast. So 
we solved that problem. 

I also kept this list so that no others could be appointed to any 
position throughout the Territory. I found that 1 or 2 had been placed 
on, either as election judges or inspectors, whose names we usually 
took from the party chairmen and the secretary attended to that, 
just sent me a list. Frequently I didn't know one in a hundred. I 
had 600 or 800 to appoint each election. But I scanned even those 
lists thereafter. 

One of the shocking things about the information General Hull 
gave me was this seven paragraph statement: "Wliat we must do." 
So I told the general that I would start a one-man crusade against 
the Communists in the Territory. 

The general invited me out to speak on Army Day. That was in 
April, I think. 

Mr. Morris. April 1947 ? 

Judge Stainback. 1947. That was on the reactivation of one of 
the Hawaiian regiments, the 442d, I believe, or one of the regiments 
that served with distinction in the war. I spoke to them and pointed 
out that we were not free from the dangers of a cold war, an under- 
ground war, and warned them to be on the alert. In fact, I went on a 
speaking campaign from then through the next 2 years. I spoke on 
the Fourth of July, Labor Day, before a labor body, before the cham- 
ber of commerce. Navy Day I spoke, and Admiral Hall, who was 
here then 

Mr. Morris. That's Admiral Hall ? 

Judge Stainback. Admiral Hall made a very vigorous attack on the 
failure of the citizens of Hawaii to support my campaign against 
the Communists, so vigorous that the admiral afterward told me that 



2288 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

some of the politicians or some of the Communists had ■written to 
Washington, complaining that he was taking part in local politics. 
Well, I don't think the popgun attacks bothered Admiral Hall much, 
as he had faced the guns in the landing at Normandy. 

Mr. Morris. Is Admiral Plall Rear Adm. John L. Hall, Jr. ? 

Judge Stainback. Jimmy Hall, they called him, those who knew 
him well enough. 

Mr. Morris. Eear Adm. John L. Hall, Jr. ? 

Judge Stainback. What's that ? 

Mr. Morris. That's Rear Adm. John L. Hall, Jr. You say you 
knew him familiarly as "Jimmy" ? 

Judge Stainback. I always thought — I thought — it must have been 
James. Tliey called him "Jimmy." He was in charge of the fleet 
operation at the landing in Normandy and was in command out here 
for several years. He recently retired. I saw him in San Francisco a 
few years ago. 

But he was called to explain his talk. And incidentally, at that 
time, I kind of apologized for repeating my attacks on Communists, 
so I cited the old Roman senator, Cato. In every speech between 
the Punic Wars he would always close with "Carthago clelenda est." 
Whatever he was speaking about, he might talk about the — of course, 
I would translate that for the Harvard men present as "Carthage must 
be destroyed." 

Mr. Morris. Will you spell that for the record ? Judge, may I just 
spell that? C-a-r-t-h-a-g-o. 

Judge Stainback. Delenda est. It has been some time since I 
worked with any Latin. 

Mr. Morris. "Carthage must be destroyed." 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. In fact, the term, 6 or 8 months later, 
was used by our then President, I think, in some speech. I don't know 
if he got it from me. President Truman. 

The paragraph that bothered me so much in these, what the — the 
thing was headed "Wliat Must We Do?" John E. Reinecke's name 
was on it — Honokaa, T. H. 

Mr. Morris. The Mr. Reinecke mentioned here was Jolin Reinecke, 
one of the defendants in the Smith Act trial out here. His case 
is now on appeal ? 

Judge Stainback. No. Oh, no. He was also dismissed, one of the 
teachers dismissed after the trial and hearing. 

Paragraph 6 read as follows : 

Goals acceptable to liberal as well as radical elements in Hawaii should be 
set up and striven for (on the side) as a means of arousing popular support. 
For example, antimilitarism. First attack ROTC in the high schools, then in 
the university. Attack kowtowing to military in the local press and public 
affairs. Weaken the National Guard unit as much as possible and propagandize 
its members to make them sympathetic to unions. Attack militarization of Boy 
Scouts. 

Nothing was overlooked. 

Education : Wide extension of educational opportunities. Removal of aU 
fees and rentals. Aid of poor students — 

and in parentheses (see Rex Davis' international pamphlet No. 39). 
I didn't have the privilege of ever seeing that. 

No discrimination racially in i)lacement of teachers. It is highly important 
to win the teachers and university and high-school students. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2289 

Civil rights: Aim at legislation abolishing repressive legislation (present 
laws against picketing and onrbing foreign press) and legalizing strikes and 
picketing. 

Keligion : As an immediate objective — 

noWj this is a quote within that — 

"take the Christian religion out of the public scliools." Show how other religions 
are discriminated against in a subtle manner by use of Christian prayers Easter, 
Thanksgiviijg, and Christmas exercises, use of schools by Catholic priests, et 
cetera. Go on to attack ^lission Board for its nse of ministers and workers to 
lioomalimali plantation employees. 

I iiii<j:ht tvanshite that "lioomalimali" as "kid 'em along, soften 
"em up." Tliat's a Hawaiian word. 

Attack Koman Catholics for interference in public affairs (as an attack upon 
sterilization bill). Attack Buddists for keep up Japanese sho-isra. Attack ex- 
ploitation of Mormons by LDS Church. 

Senator Welkek. What Avas that last? 
Judge Stainback (reading) : 

Attack exploitation of Mormons by the LDS Church. 

Latter-day Saints Church. I don't know exactly what they mean 
by that. 

Attfick exploitation of Mormons by the church. 

Evidently they feel the church exploits them in their tithes, I 
assume. They charge them 10 percent. I don't know what else it 
means. 

Attack social legislation ; work for change in instance of taxatiun and outline 
a complete program of social legislation to be agitated for. 
Press. Arouse public danger of "sugar-coated press." 

That is only one paragraph of 6 or 7 paragraphs. I didn't read 
the others, although they still have their goals set forth in great 
detail. 

I think that was filed in the trial of Reinecke, in the teachers" hear- 
ing, if I mistake not. Anyhow, if the committe wishes the whole 
letter, in pamphlet form, I will see if I can secure it. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Judge, was Jack Hall's name on that list? 

Judge Stainback. On the list of Comnnmists? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Judge Stainback. Oh, yes; he led the pack. Quite important. I 
believe I have part of that list here. See how they are listed here. 

Mr. Morris. Judge, had you encountered Jack Hall up to this time? 

Judge Stainback. Have I encountered  

Air. Morris. Have you encountered Jack Hall up to this time? 

Judge Stainback. Yes. I was very much embarrassed. I put him 
on the police commission and fired him from the police commission, 
l)oth. 

Mr. Morris. You mean you had appointed him as a police com- 
missioner? 

Judge Stainback. Appointed him as a police commissioner and then 
I tired him. 

Mr. Morris. Was that prior to 1947? 

Judge Stainback. Not because I knew anything about his Com- 
numist connection, but because of his vicious attack in the strike of 
1946. I fired him right after that because of his attack upon then 

72723—57 — pt. 39 -5 



2290 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Circuit Judge. Rice, who is now chief justice of tlie supreme court 
of the Territory, 

Mr. AIoRRis. That's Judge Pliilip Rice? 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about that episode, Judge? 

Judge Statxhack. I l)eg youi' paidon '. 

Mr. Morris. Would you tell us about that? 

Judge Stainback. Well, he got out a pamphlet over his owu name, 
in which he spoke of "the lawless judge." I had a copy of it heire 
somewhere. 

]Mr. jVIorris. I know you gave me a copy of it the other da}', Judge, 
and it is one of the things locked up in the files to which Mr. Mandel 
has the key. 

Judge Stainback. I think I possibly have another copy here, if 
1 can Hnd anything, after the wind got through. 

Senator Johnston. Help the judge arrange his papers over there. 
The wind blew them all away and sort of disarranged them. 

Judge Stainback. There is a photostat copy here. Here it is. 
Xothing like having a little assistance. 

It is headed — this is a photostatic copy of the little pamphlet tliey 
circulated. 

Mr. Morris. Yes. Read some of the significant poi-tions of it, 
will you? 

Judge Stainback. It is headed: 

A Lawless .Ti'dge Will Not Break the Sugar Stkikk 

A STATEMENT TO THE PUBLIC 

No company manager, esi)ecially Philip L. Rice, is going to crusli tiie struuglc 
of nearly 100,000 men, women, and children for a better life and control of 
their own destiny merely by issuing an injunction. 

It seemed that Judge Rice had issued some sort of injunction; T 
don't know what it involved particularly. 

Then he goes on with a vicious attack 

Mr. Morris. How did you know^ it was Jack Hall wlio compo-cd 
that? 

Judge Stainback. Oli, he signed it: it is signed "Jack W. Hall, 
regional director, International Longshoremen's and Wtirehousi'inen's 
Union." 

Mr. Morris. At the same time, he was a police connnissioncr f 

Judge Stainback. He was a ])olice commissioner. I called him in : 
I said, ''Jack, what is this attack on the judge by a police conuius- 
sioner?" I said, "Your duty is to enforce law and order, not to 
create disrespect for our judges." I said, "A democratic nation (^an't 
exist uidess there is respect for judges." 

Well, he mumbled something about his duty to his union. 

I said, '"Well, maybe Judge Rice was wrong," 1 said, "judges fre- 
quentl}^ are.'" Maybe myself — once or twice in my life, when I was 
on the bench. 

Senator Johnston. Very few. 

Judge Stainback. I said, "You have the right of a])peal. \o\\ 
can go to the Su])reme Court of the TTnited States if there is any 
Federal question <»f your rights involved." I said, "You can't act 



SCOPE OF SOVIKT ACTIVITY ]N THE UNITED STATES 22VU 

out a piiniplili't like tliat. a( lacking- liis integrity, trymg- to belittle 
him." 

Well, as 1 said, he still iiiunibled his duty to his union, so I called 
my stenographer in and dictated his resignation; I said, "Sign." 
He signed it. Several ilays later he sent in a more elaborate resigna- 
tion, which I didn't read because I think he attacked me and everv- 
body else. 

So I hired and tired Mr. Jack Hall before I found out that he be- 
longed to the Communist Party and was one of llie leaders in the 
organization, accoi-ding to the report T got. 

Well, General Hull and 1 talked about my one-man crusade; as I 
said, I made siDeeches on every occasion, andtinally reached the stage 
where I had to apologize for using this "Cai'the'ga delenda est" on 
every occasion. 

Hall is listed in the list he gave me "John AVaync Ibill. alias Jack, 
residence, 2955 Oahu Avenue, Honolulu; occupation, regional direc- 
tor, n^WU-CIO, pier 11, delegate, Fourth District, Democrat— dele- 
gate, Sixth Precinct, Fourth District, Democrat." 

I believe that last notation was made l)y me in 1050. I nni not >\\iv. 
He was a delegate to the convention. 

So I continued speaking throughout the Territory, and laler «.n. 
on the coast, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, aiul 1 was invited 
as far east as Minnesota, but I did not go. 

At the meeting of the next legislature I recommended the estab- 
lishment of a subversive committee. 

Mr. Morris. You made the recommendation, sir, that led to rlie 
establishment of the Territorial Commission on Subversion? 

Judge Stainback. Yes, sir. And we got that passed and 1 niiide 
the appointments to the first board and probably to several boards. 

In 1349, the day the legislature closed, the day 'after, they declared 
a maritime strike, a shippers strike. Of course', shipping is the life- 
line of the Territory; it can't exist without communications between 
here and the mainland. So naturally I Avas very much disturbed. I 
called in the officers of the ILWU. I think Mr. Goldblait was one of 
them ; there were several of them, and finally Mr. Bridges himself. 
I think, came down. I called in representatives of the employers, 
and I called them in separately and apart, and we could ^et nowhere. 
And then under the statute I appointed what we call a factfinding 
commission, five members. The chairman was former Chief Justice 
Coke, a former chief justice of our Territorial supreme court. 

Mr. Morris. AVill you spell that for the i-ecord. sii !' 

Judge Stainback. I beg your pardon ? 

i\Ir. Morris. Will .vou spell his name, for the record, sir ? 

Judge Stainback. Coke. C-o-k-e. The same as our distinguished 
jurist of England years ago. 

In a few days 1 heard, it was brought to me, I think Judge Coke 
himself brought it to me, the statement — Mr. Goldblatt used the ex- 
pression that was given to me, "He didn't give a damn wliat the 
factfinding board found, they were not going to accept it." 

So I ordered the factfinding board to report within a week and 1 
took out for Washington, to see what help I could get back there, 
because our very existence depended u.pon maintaining comnniiKa- 
tions with tlie mainland by way of ship{)ing. 



2292 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Well, they told me tliat that didn't come under a national emer- 
gency, so they couldn't use the President's powers, which he is now 
using in the present strike, by way of injunction, and that "It was my 

baby." 

Mr. MoHKis. So that you were told in Wasliuioton I hut you had to 

solve it on a local level i 

Judge Staixi'.ack. Solve it on a local level, a local matter. 

Senjitor Wei-kki!. Mr. Chairman, we might keep the record in order 
here. At the point Avhere Judge Stainback read from a photostat 
allegediv written by Jack AV. Hall, entitled "A lawless judge will not 
break tlie sugar strike," I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that the whole of 
that document be incorporated in the record at this i)oint, whereas 
Judge Stainback referred to a certain portion thereof. 

Senator Johxstox. This sliall be copied and printed m the record 
as part of the testimony. , ., • xt ,d.5j i 

(The document above referred 1 o was marked ''Exhibit No. 084 and 

reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 384 

A Lawless Judge Will Nor Break thi. Sugai: Shuke 

A siiitemeiit to the public: 

x.i coniranv-miiided jiuliie, especially Phillip L. Kice, is f^oing to crush the 
strujijric of nearly 100,000 men, women and children, for ;i liotter life iind control 
of thVir ow n destinies merely by issuing an injunction. 

.ludue Rice's issuing such an injunction after a privjite conference with the 
Lihu.-" Plantation Co. behind closed doors is not in keeping with the American 
sens.' of fair play. It was an outrageous thing to do. The proper procedure to 
have followed, and any fair-minded judge would have done so — would have 
lieen to call in both the company and the union. To have then lield a hearing on 
the facts before issuing sucb an arbitrary injunction. This is the procedure 
followed in fair courts. 

This flagrant disregard for the basic principles of fair phiy is underst;indal»!e, 
however, when vou know that members of Judge's Kite's family are stockholders 
of Lihuc Plantation. It is understandable when you know that Judge Rice 
lepifsi-nted Lihue Plantation and other Big Five companies for many years as 
corporation counsel. 

I personally sat opposite him in an earlier strike against Lihue Plantation 
where he represented that hrm at the bargaining table. 

Company Judge Rice's prejudice against the workers is great. His actioji iu 
this injunction matter reeks with it. In his anxiety to assist the strikebreaking 
program of the emjiloyers, he ordered a temporary restraining order against the 
union, ( rc^/ thouyh the Lihue I'lantntion. Co. did not (lal: for such an order in 
its prtitioi. That is the height of prejudice. 

It is customary in injuncticm proceedings where properly rights are nivolved 
to require the petitioner to post a substantial bond. The property rights of the 
workers --their job rights — are involved in this proceeding, but Judge Rice did 
not even think it necessary to require the company to post a bond as evidence 
of good faith. 

Hearing on the injunction is set for 10 days hence— 10 days in which tlie 
employers can develop their strikebreaking plans without the moral persuasion 
of iierfectly legal picketing. Usually injunctions are returnable in 3 to 5 days. 
Th.'il. apparently, is not enough time for the employers, so Judge Rice con- 
veniently allowed them 10 days. 

The judge's order is so vague, broad and all-inclusive that it is practically 
meaningless. It is aptly described as a mass of glittering generalities. Its lan- 
guage is so cloaked with uncertainties that no worker can reasonably be ex- 
pected to know what he may and what he may not do. 

The ILWU believes that the laws of the land should be lived up to by every- 
body, including judges. But there is a vast difference between the law and pri- 
vate! v issued, one-sided edict of a lawless judge. 

Jack W. Hai.l, 
RcfjioiKil Director, 
liileriKitiniKil Lou (ii^horeni en' ^ aiul W<irehoii.'<enirv\<! Pnioii. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2293 

Judge Stainback. I will say while I was in Washington I had a 
very tine opportunity of having dinner with four United States Sen- 
ators, including Senator Taft, the author of the Taft-Hartley Act, 
Senator Russell of Georgia, and Senator Hugh Butler, I believe, 
and Senator IMcClellan of Arkansas. So I took up with the Senators, 
particularly Senator Taft, what I could do, that I had been denied 
any help by the administration, and I said, "I thought I could take 
care of unloading the ships if we get them here." But they would re- 
fuse to load "hot cargo," as they would call it, on the coast. 

Senator Taft told me that that would violate the Taft-Hartley Act 
as a secondary boycott, and that the United States Government au- 
thorities would have to protect me on that end. 

I went to see the Interior Department and I said, "Well, if yon can't 
give me any help, at least don't give the bear. I think I can go back 
and take care of the local end of it." 

So I came back in July 1949 and immediately summoned a special 
session of the legislature, to which I recommended what they now call 
the dock seizure act, which our friends the Commies call the Stainback 
strikebreaker. That act was passed, giving me power to take over, 
in time of emergency, the docks, like a public utility. In fact, they 
made it a public utility. I don't think either the employers or the 
employees wished me to take them over, but I took them over. I re- 
ligiously refrained from using any military force in seizing the docks. 
And I put in charge of it a good two-fisted contractor, and we moved 
the cargo, in fact more expeditiously than the private individuals. 

I was somewhat uneasy when I took over the docks because I remem- 
bered the murders on the Oakland waterfront years ago. There was 
a waterfront strike. In fact, those murders made Warren Governor— 
the prosecution of those murderers made Warren Governor of Cali- 
fornia — our now Chief Justice. 

So I called in the police commission, the chief of police, and I told 
him, "We must be very alert to crush the first sign of violence." So 
things went along pretty well for a few days, and then the strikers 
made a diversionary attack on one side and attacked in force on the 
other side while unloading cargo. The police were very alert. We 
had a very fine chief of police, and he picked up between 75 and 80 of 
them immediately. They were either fined or jailed. Though the 
strike lasted some months later, we had no more violence or attempted 
violence. 

The factfinding committee made a report, upon my return, in which 
they advocated a raise in wages — I don't know what the amount was 
or how considerable it was — and the employees flatly rejected it. 
The employers, after some hemming and hawing, agTeed they would 
accept it. So the strike continued, but the cargo was moved after 
we took over the docks. They attempted, I believe, to refuse to load 
in San Francisco and I tried to ^et the United States authorities on 
the job. But fortunately no action was necessary there; the strike 
was settled and the men went back to work on the wages they had 
refused 4 months earlier. 

Due to my securing the passage of this act, I was enemy No. Ito 
the Communists of the Territory, and they never lost any opportunity 
to attack me or try to obtain my removal. 

I was invited to San Francisco sometime after this to make a talk 
and I had a real royal reception there. Your reception here re- 

72723— 57— pt 39 6 



2294 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

minded me somewhat of it. They met me with banners, parades, 
picketed the place I was supposed to speak, circulated various circu- 
lars. I was fortunate enough to obtain one, one of my prize souv- 
enirs. It is headed "Danger to all of us" or "all of U. S." I don't 
know which. "Us," I guess. 

The Hawaiian S. S. law can mean tbe end of free America. The Hawaiian 
legislature, at the insistence of Governor Ingram Stainback, has just enacted a 
liberty-crushing law, along with similar amendments to break this strike nf 
longshoreman there. The law and the amendments go further than any previous 
antilabor law ever enacted by the United States or any of its States, 

That, of course, is not true. A great many States have enacted 
laws which are folloAved, giving the power to seize public utilities 
w^hen on strike where such utilities are necessary for the preserva- 
tion of the health and welfare of the people. There is none on docks 
because there is no place the docks are as important as they are to 
Hawaii. So that was not quite true. 

They openly take the side of the employers and particularly direct the workers 
to go back to work, without any attempt to meet or even compromise or arbi- 
trate their demands. They even make it a crime for anyone to help the 
strikers with so much as a plate of beans. 

I apparently overlooked that part of it. 

Then "Ingram Stainback, author of the S. S." and then in paren- 
theses " (Stainback strikebreaking law) " — 

is here today, speaking before the Junior Chamber of Commerce at the Com- 
mercial Club in an attempt to explain and teach enactment and enforcement 
of those laws. 

If those laws are allowed to stand unchallenged, it means all cherished 
American freedom can be taken away, not just from workers and tlieir trade 
unions, but from everybody. What can be done to labor can be done to you. 

Stainback is appointed by President Truman. President Truman can remove 
him for taking this hysterical, anti-American step. 

As far as we are concerned, this kind of strikebreaking and denial of union 
rights will not be allowed to work. Join our demonstration today. Tell Pres- 
ident Truman to remove Stainback. 

This is signed "Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union and San 
Francisco CIO Council." 

Senator Johnston. "VVliat date was that? 

Judge Stanback. Wliat's that? 

Senator Johnston. Wliat was the date of that? Wliat was the 
date of that ? 

Judge Stainback. I can't tell you. It doesn't seem to be dated, 
but it was soon after the enactment of this law, sometime in 1949. I 
think approximately about September — August or September. 

I was trying to preserve the fight against the Communist and try- 
ing to get enforcement of our shipping here, to protect the Territory 
from starvation and worse. 

At that time the UjWV was a member of the CIO and the CIO 
was very influential in Washington. Soon after this the ILA\nj was 
kicked out of the CIO. I was a great admirer of Philip Murray. He 
was an outstanding labor leader. And I went to call on him in Wash- 
ington, and explained his strike-ridden subordinate union down here. 
He had come out openly against "the damn Communists," as he 
called them, within his union. And I didn't get a chance to talk to 
him very long because at that time there were negotiations on the steel 
wage, but he was greatly concerned. But he did not know of Hall 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2295 

or any of the other leaders here, so far as I know. But he asked me to 
I'eave him a list of the Communists who were prominent in the ILWU. 

Well, I don't know that that had anything to do with the removal of 
the ILWU from the CIO, but not so long after that they were kicked 
out of the CIO organization. 

Mr. Morris. That was while you were still governor? 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did that cause any change of attitude on the part 
of either the Government or the people in the Territory, that expulsion 
on the part of the CIO of the ILWU ? 

Judge Stainback. Not to any great extent. I tried to get some of 
the Democrats to work with me to clean out the Democratic Party. 

Mr. Morris. You yourself were a Democrat, were you not. Judge? 

Judge Staixback. Oh, yes, I have always been. I'm from Ten- 
nessee. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about that, Judge ? 

Judge Stainback. I saw these various officers of the precinct clubs 
here, delegates to our convention. In 1950, 1 should say about 40 or 50 
of these Communists were delegates to the Democratic Convention. 

Mr. Morris. That is out of how many, Judge? 

Judge Stainback. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. Morris. You say 40 to 50. Out of how many? 

Judge Stainback. Forty-eight. They had a meeting and there was 
quite a number there. Their leaders were very active. They refused 
to endorse President Truman or me and they were more or less sup- 
porters of Wallace, although they didn't endorse him, I think, actually 
endorse him. The delegates, after they went back to Philadelphia, 
saw the light, I think, how things were running and they switched over 
to Truman, but they all opposed him at that time. 

I did get some very fine assistance from Mr. Borthwick here, who 
was quite a friend of many of the laborers, and old-time labor leaders 
before the Communists took over. 

Mr. Morris. "Wlio was he, sir ? 

Judge Stainback. Borthwick. Bill Borthwick. 

Mr. Morris. Will you spell that for the record, please ? 

Judge Stainback. B-o-r-t-h-w-i-c-k. I am not much at spelling, 
but I think that's correct. 

And he was very active in trying to clean house with the Democrats 
and to further expose the Communists. 

I may say Mr. Harold Rice, of Maui, in 1950 took a very active 
part. I was in Washington when the Democratic convention met, 
and I talked on the telephone to the then acting governor, Mr. Warren, 
Mr. Rice, and there were 15 delegates to this Democratic convention 
who had been members of "The Reluctant 49" or "39," as we called 
them. Thirty-nine witnesses before the House Un-American Com- 
mittee, Mr. Walter, chairman. 

Mr. Morris. That was in 1950, Judge. 

Judge Stainback. This convention — I think they were down here 
in 1948. I am not sure. 

Mr. Morris. No. The hearings were in April 1950. 

Judge Stainback. Oh, was it 1950? Well, they were members of 
this "Reluctant 39," and the convention was after that, because I 
telephoned that we should not permit those people to sit as delegates 



2296 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

to a Democratic convention ; they were not Democrats, they were 
Communists. 

And the Communist buncli had a majority, had more than a ma- 
jority — I don't say they had a majority because a lot of them were not 
Communists, they wei'e ju=;t ^oiug alono; with tliem. 

So I sufTirested that they walk out of this convention and hold their 
own, which they did. JNIr. Rice led the walkout and we held a conven- 
tion, the Democrats, in 1950, adopting a platform and acting as a 
Democratic Party. But the bunch with the reluctant 15 or 39 held its 
convention and adopted its platform, and we had somewhat of a split. 

Senator Johnston. Judge, that shows that a small minority could 
maneuver and get control of the machinery at a convention; is that 
true ? 

Judge Stainback. Tliey did. But that is not nnnsual among Com- 
munists. I understand in every Communist country the actual Com- 
munist members are a very small minority. Somebody has said that, 
in Russia, I think 15 percent of the po])ulation is tlie largest ever 
given; some of them say it is as small as o percent of the Russian 
population are Communists, yet they are holding a — I started to say 
"an iron hand," but I will say an iron heel to hold the people of that 
country. So it is not strange that a minority in the Democratic Party, 
who were very active in precinct work and all that should get control 
of the party, particularly as they were the leaders of the ILWU, the 
big labor organization in the Territory, which controls many, many 
votes. 

Senator Johnston. Judge, what they really do is to get people, who 
don't even know that they are acting and working with the Commu- 
nists at all, to go along with them ; isn't that true ? 

Judge Stainback. There is no question about that. And just to 
show you what must we do — "Goals acceptable to liberals, as well as 
radical elements, in Hawaii, should be set up and striven for (on the 
side) ." You see, they use liberal goals. 

Many years ago I advocated setting up a board which could buy or 
condemn land to sell to people without land, without homes. Up to 
the last few years none of the plantation laborers could own their own 
homes — none of them. Now, I agitated around here, 2 or 3 sessions, 
never got very far, most everyone was against me, real-estate agents 
and all, finally Governor King, then Delegate, did come over to my 
side. And I noticed I got the Communists on my side. 

Well, you see, they adopt liberal procedure on the side. And that's 
where they get their people who go along with them, sympathetic with 
them. They favor, say, this ownership of homes. ""VVliy shouldn't I 
go along? That is what I favor." 

You see, they are very shrewd people. So you see they use liberal 
movements to attack the fringe of people who are not Communists, who 
are far removed from Communists, but go along because they stir up a 
lot of agitation. 

Senator Johnson. So in our fight against communism we have to 
watch our step so that the — and at least give the people some benefit 
along the line, in order to keep the Communists from picking that up 
and making use of that? 

Judge Stainback. Well, I believe that — I think I'm a liberal and I 
think that one of the greatest menaces to America is the use of liberal 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2297 

documents by the Communists "on tlie side," as they say, to get the 
support for their candidates and their tools, the people that they use. 
If they came right out "We want Communists to overthrow this Gov- 
ernment," they wouldn't get very far. That's the subtlety of their 
work, their underground work. Just as they have seized most of 
Eastern Europe without firing a shot, using their underground meth- 
ods to work. 

Mr. JMoRRis. Judge, did the Communists make any effort to have you 
removed as Governor of the Territory ? 

Judge StxMnback, I might say they made more than efforts. 

I just read that pamphlet they used in San Francisco in 1949. 
About a year before my term expired, Victor Riesel, whom most of you 
have read about 

Mr. Morris. He has been a witness before this committee. Judge. 

Judge Stainback. As being attacked by this man who threw acid 
into his eyes, in my mind was, and probably still is, a man with the 
greatest knowledge of Communist infiltration into labor in the United 
States. I don't know where he got all of his information, but he cer- 
tainly had a lot of it. 

Now, in February 1950 — my term expired in August 1950, my second 
appointment, my second appointment as Governor, Victor Riesel Avrote 
an article which appeared as his column, Inside Labor, in a number of 
syndicated papers, and the Daily Mirror on Wednesday, February 15, 
1950, dated Washington, February 14. He writes quite a column. 
About that time I think is when Murray was kicking the Communists 
out of his CIO. He says : 

The startling news here — 

that's Washington — 

is not that the Communists are being booted enthusiastically out of the CIO, but 
that Communists still inside CIO have sufficient power left over to take over 
much of the government of Hawaii. The startling news is not that the office 
workers, government employees, school cabinet, tobacco picliers, copper smelters, 
iron diggers, are being dumped by Philip Murray but that Murray's arrogant 
'Arry Bridges — 

he omits the "H" — 

has enough power to influence a number of men, any one of whom may be the 
next Hawaiian Governor. 

Unless this coluum can convince President Truman, when it comes across his 
desk, that he is about to get some queer advice from Hawaiian "Democrats" — 

the word "Democrats" in quotation marks — 

many of whom are card-holding Communist Party members, on who shall run 
that great food basket, that vast naval and military airbase after August 1, 

Here is the story, w,hich is about a small but well-informed group here, all of 
which can be corroborated by Army and Navy intelligence officers in Hawaii 
right now. 

For several years Gov. Ingram M. Stainback has been one of the country's 
most sophisticated and intelligent opponents of Communist activities who were 
trying to infiltrate Hawaii and the Democratic Party there by district 13 of the 
Couuuunist Party, headquarters in San Francisco, as far back as 1937. 

Mr. Stainback has watched and tried to counter every move of Harry Bridges' 
most successful lieutenant. Jack Hall, who moved into the islands in 1937, after 
being trained secretly in San Francisco. Hall married Yoshigo Ogawa, an Amer- 
ican citizen of Japanese ancestry, and settled there, eventually opening CIO 
longshoiemen's headquarters on pier 31 and actually becoming a member of the 
Honolulu Police Commission. 



2298 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

I'm guilty. 

Nice work, if you can get it, if you are a Communist, as House and Senate 
committees say Hall is. 

The result of Stainback's enmity against the Hall crowd has been an unusually 
effective smear campaign, so quietly and effectively has this leftist lobby worked 
that he has convinced certain sroups to put on Truman's desk the recommenda- 
tion that Governor Stainback not be reappointed next August. Instead, he is to 
be "kicked upstairs" to the chief justiceship of the Hawaiian Supreme Court, to 
replace a jurist who retires June 1. 

With Stainback blocked out and tied securely to a spot where judicial con- 
duct prohibits political activity, the Communist apparatus, which, according to 
recent Senate investigation, controls much of the Democr-itic Party machinery in 
the islands, will push several men as candidates to succeed the outgoing Gover- 
nor. Those names have already been placed before the influential circles here, 
which are in position to make recommendations to the President. 

The mayor of Honolulu is certainly no Communist, but he is a trusting and 
frequently fatigued fellow of 78 or 79, who often leaves much of his work in that 
pivotal Pacific city to a chap called W. K. Basset, a gentleman of odd literary 
proclivities. 

Basset is Mayor Wilson's executive assistant. But Basset is u:i native nor early 
comer to the land of leis, guitars, and Pearl Harbor. Before this writing man, 
for some peculiar reason, buried bis literary soul in the tail service of an island 
Territory, he helped the Communist-loving Ella Winters and others of the cult 
publish the pro-Communist Pacific Weekly in Mount Carmel, Calif. 

Suddenly Basset appears in Hawaii, after the pro-Communists had seized much 
of the Democratic Party there, and becomes top aid to Mayor Wilson. But, so 
as not to lose the literary touch, he writes for the Honolulu Record which, if 
read aloud to you, might give you the impression you were listening to sections 
of the mainland's Daily Worker. 

Then there are protests to Mayor Wilson, and he says to W. K. — cut it out. So, 
W. K. appeases the chief by ending his long literary contributions last .lune. 
Anyway, he's too busy helping to run Honolulu; his time is fully occupied. Now 
Mayor Wilson is one of those being pushed for Governor by "Arry" Bridges' bojs 
in the islands, and they're not too concerned about staying inside CIO. 

They may walk out next month anyway — their horizons are farfiung. 

That was 16 months before my term ended. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Judge Stainback, did your knowledge of the 
facts here, as Governor of the islands from 1942 to this particular 
time of this publication, which was 1951, did that square with the 
article that you have just read into our record? 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Your understanding of the situation and your ex- 
perience with the situation with respect to Commimists, did that square 
with what Mr. Riesel has described the situation to be, in the letter 
that you have just read into the record ? 

Judge Stainback. There is no question about that. They were 
very active. Of course, they were not the only ones, because there 
were others with personal ambition and others who disliked me in 
general. They were united pretty fully though and a very powerful 
bunch. 

Mr. Morris. Was that, in your opinion. Judge, an accurate repre- 
sentation of the situation here on the islands, that description by Mr. 
Riesel which you have just read into the record ? 

Judge Stainback. 1 think it is, 3'es. I might say also 

Mr. Morris. Judge, before we begin that, 1 am notitied by the short- 
hand reporter that we have got to take a stop here because the first 
hour is up. He takes a running record and his machine runs just 1 
hour and we have to stop to rewind it. 

A 2-minute recess, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Johnston. A 2-minute recess. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2299 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Senator Johnstox. The committee will resume the hearin^r, 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Now, Judge, what was the date of this last letter that 
you read into the record? What was the date of Mr. Eiesel's column? 

Judge Stainback. AVhat was the date of 

Mr. Morris. Of Riesel's column? 

Judge Stainback. February 15, 1 think. 

Mr. Morris. 1951 ? 

Judge Stainback. 1950. 

Mr. Morris. 1950. 

Judge Stainback. Yes. That was more than a year before I left 
office. 

Can you hear this now ? Is it better? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, I can hear it. Yes. 

Now, what happened after that, Judge? 

Judge Stainback. Well, Senator Butler of Nebraska — not of Mary- 
land — was out here. He also reported somewhat similarly, that Pla- 
waii was a base of Communist operations, and a long discussion of 
the Communists, and among other things he said, "The immediate 
objectives of the ILWU -Communist Party conspiracy in Hawaii are, 
among several others, removal of Gov. Ingram M. Stainback, to be 
replaced by a Governor named by the Communist high command 
in Hawaii." And then he has other statements on that. 

Senator Rutler. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation here? 
That was Hugh Butler of Nebraska. 

Judge Stainback. Yes. 

Senator Butler. This is my first visit to the islands. 

Judge Stainback. Yes. A very fine Butler. I am sure they all are. 
He was a very good friend of Hawaii and a very good friend of mine- 

Senator Welker. And a very good friend of the islands. 

Judge Stainback. The last tmie I saw him was in Washington, 
when I testified, and he came up and put his arm around me and said, 
"I hope we are still good friends." 

I said, "Yes, Senator; although you switched your position and 
I switched my position, we are still good friends." 

There were other communications in which this is recognized. Sen- 
ator Pat McCarran, a very good friend of mine, wrote to Oscar Chap- 
man. He said: 

A careful study made by me personally, while in the Hawaiian Islands some 2 
years ago — 

This is dated January 1951 — 

convinced me that the Territory was heavily impregnated with Communist cells 
and active Communist worl^ers. About the most complete Communist organi- 
zation that I have yet encountered, I have found to exist in the Hawaiian 
Islands. It is not at all sti-ange to tind that this group was actively working 
to embarrass and if jjossible defeat the reappointment of Governor Stainback. 
They are undoubtedly still at it. 

He goes on and calls attention also to Senator Butler's report on the 
activities of the Conununists and their determination to get their 
enemy No. 1 out of the Governor's position. 

Mr. Morris. One year later, you said. Judge, you were not reap- 
pointed; is that right? 

Judge Stainback. No, I was not; I was placed on the supreme 
court. 



2300 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. In other words you went upstairs ? 

Judge Stainback. Kicked upstairs. 

Mr. Morris. Judge, did you have any other firsthand experience 
with Communists on the islands, such as you have described here 
today ? 

Judge Stainback. I think that is all I remember at this time. Of 
course 

Mr. Morris. Judge, you are still a very observing member of the 
community, are you not, sir ? 

Judge Stainback. I think probably some of the others could answer 
that better than I, but I try to be. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if j^ou could tell us whether or not these people 
whom General Hull told you about, the people you encountered, 
whether or not they still exercise any influence on the community 
today ? 

Judge Stainback. I am confident that they do, through their con- 
trol of the labor, the large labor organization. It is very unfortunate 
that they control. At one time one of the members in Hilo attempted 
to break away from Communist control, but he was quickly squelched 
and properly punished, I think. So we are putting up with this 
Communist control. They are still active in politics, I understand, 
although I am no longer active in any respect, since I've been on the 
bench. I note by the Star-Bulletin, last election, it stated that Hawaii 
elected 26 out of 28 endorsed by the ILWU, I believe. I noticed 2 
years ago, in the county elections here, they are supposed to have 
endorsed 7 of the supervisors and 6 of them were elected. And one 
of them that they didn't endorse, who was elected, was a former Com- 
munist, a Japanese boy who disavowed them, and came clean, and he 
was elected in spite of the Communist opposition. I say ILWU, 
a Communist-controlled union, is more powerful, of course, on the 
outside islands, than they are in Honolulu, because a larger 
percentage of the voters are plantation workers. Here we have a large 
population that are not members of the ILWU. We have a fairly 
large AFL bunch here in the Territory, carpenters and people of that 
type workers, and we also have a much larger white-collar population, 
and their influence is not as great on this island as it is on the other 
islands. But I think they still have considerable influence. 

I note in the last election they sent around a questionnaire, one of 
them was to repeal this dock seizure, as they prefer to call it. "The 
Stainback Strikebreaking Act." I don't know what the reply of the 
various candidates was ; I didn't keep up with that. I just noticed that 
was one of the questions asked. "Will you repeal this act ?" They seem 
to be intent on getting that repealed. I believe an act was introduced at 
the last session of the legislature to repeal that, but it did not pass. To 
my mind, that's absolutely necessary to preserve the lifeline of the 
Territory. It is nothing unusual to have a public utility, which is 
necessary to the health and welfare of the people, put in a position 
where it may be seized and operated and strike prevented. Fifteen 
States, I think, have similar laws. I remember one of them is Vir- 
ginia and, I have forgotten, various other States, but I went into it 
very carefully at the time I sent my recommendation down to the 
legislature, and I believe pointed out there was such a law in various 
States, and that to us there was no public utility more important than 
to preserve transportation to the mainland. Our jugular vein, you 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2301 

might say. If they cut that, it would be fatal. And I don't doubt that 
the next legislature will be faced with an attempt to repeal the "Stain- 
back strike laws," as they call them. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you very much, Judge. That, I think, covers 
the area that we have covered in executive session, Mr. Chairman. 

As counsel for the committee, I had a session with Judge Stainback 
and was able to go over with him the area of the testimony. I think, 
sir, we have now covered that, and unless the Senators have some ques- 
tions to ask the witness 

Senator Johnston. Any questions ? 

Senator Welker. I would like to ask one question. 

Did you say that 26 of the 28 members elected to the Territorial 
legislature 

Judge Stainback. I don't know if it was the Territorial legislative 
body. Here is a Star-Bulletin reporter here. I presume he is respon- 
sible for it. Twenty-six out of twenty-eight endorsed. Whether they 
were at the county level or members of the legislature, I don't know. 
1 just saw the 

Senator Welker. Twenty-six of the twenty-eight were successful ? 

Judge Stainback. That they were endorsed by the ILAVTJ. 

Senator Welker. Were endorsed by the ILWU. 

Judge Stainback. Yes. That's the information I got from the 
newspaper. Mr. Rose nodded his head in affirmation. He is very 
familiar with politics and politicians. 

Senator Johnston. Any other questions ? 

We certainly thank you, Judge, for coming before us this morning 
and giving this testimony. 

Judge Stainback. Thank you. Senator. I hope it serves some good 
purpose. 

Senator Johnston. The next witness will be called. 

Mr. Morris. The next witness is Mr. Yagi. Mr. Yagi, come for- 
ward, please. 

Senator Johnston. Mr. Yagi. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you. Judge Stainback ; thank you very much. 

Judge Stainback. Thank you. 

Senator Johnston. Mr. Yagi, will you please raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this sub- 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Yagi. I do. 

Senator Johnston. Have a seat. 

TESTIMONY OP THOMAS SUKICHI YAGI 

Mr. Yagi. Mr. Chairman, on the outset, I wish to have the — not to 
be televised and also 

Senator Johnston. What? 

Mr. Yagi. Not to be televised and 

Senator Johnston. No television on. 

Mr. Yagi. And wish to have the lights out. 

Senator Welker. Do you want us to work in the dark? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I at this time, inasmuch as much 
of the evidence that we have analyzed to date bears on Communist 
activity within the ILWU, with your permission, sir, I would like to 



2302 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

read into the record at this time some of the j^eneral conclusions of the 
Report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legishiture 
of the Territory of Hawaii. 

This commission has been identified by witnesses who have appeared 
here. 

And this is the report submitted by the commission, William B. 
Stephenson, chairman, Ernest B. DeSilva of Hawaii, Wilford J. 
Holmes, of Oahu, George P. Kimball of Oahu, Thomas P. King of 
Kauai, Taro Tsuenaga of Oahu, and Raymond R. Lyons — Admi. 
Raymond R. Lyons, of Maui, vice chairman. 

And I would like to read 

Senator Johnston. What was the date of that report ? 

Mr. Morris. That was February 28, 1955. February 28, 1955. I 
read from page 65, under the heading ""Communist domination of 
the ILWU." 

In its 1953 report this commission devoted a lengthy section to the ILWU, 
detailing the evidence that this union was not only Communist-controlled but 
that it was "the most effective vehicle for the implementation of the program of 
the Communist Party in Hawaii." Nothini^ has occurred since the publication of 
that report to change this commission's conclusion. If anything, Communist 
activities since 1952 have become even more closely identified with the ILWU. 

Between 1945 and 1950 they have developed a number of Coiumunist-front 
organizations and Communists had attempted, sometimes successfully, to infil- 
trate others. Because of public exposure of their Communist taint, these organi- 
zations have become either passive or defunct. Communist activity in Hawaii 
now appears to be centered almost entirely around the ILWU, its satellite union, 
the UPW and the Honolulu Record, a weekly newspaper largely subsidized by 
the ILWU. 

The ILWU and the UPW are but 2 of the nearly 60 unions and employee 
organizations in Hawaii. The fact is significant when one realizes that, among 
the unions, only the ILWU and the UPW have been reported by this commission 
to be dominated by Communist leaders, and only the ILWU and UPW have 
charged the commission with union busting. Unfortunately, many good citizens 
of Hawaii still liave doubts that the ILWU is led by ("ominunists. It is there- 
fore pertinent to marshal some of the evidence on this issue. 

The ILWU was born a Communist-dominated union, has remained so ever 
since. 

Now, there are other sections here. Senator, and maybe I will wait 
until later in the course of this hearing to |3ut those into the record. 

Senator Johnston. Just for the information of the general public 
and also in order that it may be called to the attention of the Attorney 
General, has the Attorney General ever put this union on its subversive 
list? 

Mr. Morris. I am not prepared to answer that question. Senator. I 
will have the answer for you at the next session. 

Senator Johnston. Proceed. The witness may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Yagi, will you give your full name and 
address to the reporter ? 

Mr. Yagi. Thomas Sukichi Yagi ; Waihee, Maui. 

Mr. ]\Iorris. Now you reside on Maui, one of the neighboring- 
islands ; do you not ? 

Mr. Yagi. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Are you the divisional director of the International 
Longslioremen's and Warehousemen's Union on Maui ? 

( The witness consults with his attorneys. ) 

Mr. Yagi. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2303 

Senator Welker. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this 
observation. 

Senator Johnston. You may. 

Senator Welker. I had the witness in executive session a while ago. 
I hope I am on very friendly terms with counsel who represent him. I 
appreciate the fact that they have a job to do. But they have been 
admonished heretofore that the witness is to ask them for advice, not 
lean over there and receive it. 

You never uttered one audible or inaudible word when you got oyer 
there to get your answer. Now, may I admonish you once again, 
when you need help from counsel, you ask them, and don't, please, 
embarrass your counsel. That's what it does ; it doesn't do anything 
but embarrass them. And it is very simple procedure if you will just 
lean over and say, "May I consult with you ?" 

Do you understand that ? 

Senator Johnston. As chairman, I want to inform the witness that 
he has a right to let the lawyers inform him, after he has requested 
them. Of course, he is not on the stand just for the law^yer to answer 
the questions. You are on the stand to answer the questions. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not have Mr. INIandel here; 
in the first place, Mr. Mandel is not here, nor is the September 1956 
issue of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, from 
which he was reading yesterday, available. As I said. Senator, they 
are locked up in the files downstairs and only Mr. Mandel has the key. 
So the next best evidence I can get, I can get the IVIarch 1956 issue of 
the same book, but my general understanding of the situation is that 
the conditions described herein remain true today. 

Mr. Tliomas S. Yagi is a director of the Maui County division of 
the IL^YU. 

Senator Johnston. I want to inform counsel that if he has other 
additional information bearing on this subject that is now locked up, 
when it becomes available, if he wants to, he can put such parts in 
the record to clarify as he sees fit. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 

Now you are, therefore, the ranking IM^nj official on the island 
of Maui, are you not, Mr. Yagi? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris, "\\nien did you last meet Charles Fujimoto ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Johnston. When you say, "Same answer," you mean that 
you are refusing to answer, availing yourself of the fifth amendment, 
and you by doing so say that you might incriminate yourself, is that 
true? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. I am relying on the fifth amendment, and the fifth amend- 
ment says that I don't have to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Morris. Are you a Communist now, Mr. Yagi ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 



2304 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE Xn^TED STATES 

Mr. Morris. Have you attendecl Communist meetings within the 
last 6 months ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now how often have you met Charles Fujimoto in the 
last 6 months? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. How often have you met with Jack Hall within the 
last 6 months ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. How often have you met John Keinecke in the last 6 
months ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. How often have you met Mrs. Charles Fujimoto in 
the last 6 months ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have received information that the 
witness here today pledged $7,000 on behalf of Charles Fujimoto, in 
connection with his appeal before the United States Ninth Circuit 
Court, on August 5, 1953. 

Did you pledge $7,000 of your own property on behalf of Mr. 
Fujimoto? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Johnston. I think it would be well to put in there what 
the trial was about, just to let the public know what it was. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, Charles Fujimoto was one of the seven de- 
fendants in the large Smith Act prosecution, which was held here 
on the islands in 1953. 

What was your answer, Mr. Yagi ? To that last question. Did you 
pledge $7,000? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you refuse to answer under your claim of 
privilege ? 

Mr. Yagi. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now have you had Communist Party training in Cali- 
fornia ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Where were you born, Mr. Yagi ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Waihee, Maui. 

Mr. ISIoRRTS. You were born in Maui. How often have you gone 
to California.? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. You will not deny our information then, will you, Mr. 
Yagi, that you have attended classes of the California Labor School 
in California? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2305 

(Tlie witness consults with his counsel.) 

]\Ii-. Yagi. The same answer. 

Mr. Morris. In fact, you had, at one time, a 5-week training pro- 
gram there, did you not, sir? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman. 

You toolc the fifth amendment as to whether or not you attended a 
labor scliool in California. Have you ever attended any school? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. I have attended grade schools in Maui. 

Senator Welker. Very well. Now that you have opened up the 
subject matter that you have attended school, I assume that we are 
permitted under the law to interrogate you on what schools you at- 
tended. Now will you tell us fully and completely the schools you 
have attended ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you go to the first grade ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. I went through the 10th grade. 

Senator Welker. Y"ou went through the lOth grade. Now what 
other schools did you attend, if any ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Same answer, of the fifth amendment. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to order and direct this witness, 
under the rules of this committee, to answer the question whether or 
not he attended a labor school in the State of California, upon the 
ground and for the, reason that the witness has opened up the subject 
matter he has attended schools, and it is perfectly within the right 
of this committee to find out what schools he has attended. He can- 
not turn it off and start it again. He has opened the subject matter. 
Now I think you should order him and direct him to answer the ques- 
tion, and if not, it will be a subject matter for contempt to be discussed 
in the Senate of the United States. 

Senator Johnston. I order you to answer the question of the Sena- 
tor. '\^^lat schools, giving what schools you have attended, and what 
period of time you attended those schools. So you may answer those 
questions; you must. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. I went to the 10th grade on Maui, and beyond that, same 
answer. 

Senator Welker. Wliy don't you want to tell us any other schools 
you attended? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Yagi. The same answer. 

Senator AVelker. You are answering, then, if you told us any other 
schools you attended, a truthful answer would tend to make you bear 
witness against yourself or to possibly incriminate you, is that a fact? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

IVIr. Yagi. I rely on the fifth amendment of the United States and 
I don't have to 



2306 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Johnson. I want to warn the witness that through his 
faiku-e to answer the que-stion asked here, he may be subject in the 
future to appear and give answer to it, in a court. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I 

Senator Welker. Now just a minute. 

Mr. Morris. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator Welker. Tell me, Mr. Witness, what would be embarrassing 
about your telling us whatever schools you attended ? Is there some- 
thing wrong with attending a labor school or forestry school or any 
other sort of a school ? 

Now let's be fair, let's get down on a level and tell us. Wliy don't 
you tell us the truth about this matter ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. This is not a question of embarrassment. I am standing 
on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. I know, but will you tell me why you are standing 
on it? Do you think that if you attended a labor school — many, 
many thousands of people have attended labor schools, I assume. Is 
there something that might tend to incriminate you if you said that you 
did attend one ? 

Senator Johnston. What do you think, for the good of your Nation, 
for the good of your organization even, you have derived by not 
answering these questions ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Frankly, I do not understand what question is before me. 

Senator Welker. I asked you the very simple question : "Wliat possi- 
bly could happen to you if you told this committee truthfully that you 
attended a labor school in California? Won't you tell us that, Mr. 
Witness ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.)  

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." Have you ever been in Cali- 
fornia ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You are afraid that if you told this committee 
that you had been on the mainland, in the State of California, that that 
mi gilt tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness consults with his attorneys.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you ever go over there for — on an occasion 
other than something that might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Would you tell whether you have been there once, 
twice; will you tell me whether you have ever been out of the island? 

(The witness consults with his counsel. ) 

Senator Welker. Did you ever go sailing out in the ocean ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. On little boats, yes. 

Senator Welker. All right. While on little boats, did you ever go 
to California? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You never have answered me that. I asked you 
whether or not you have ever sailed. Since you have admitted now 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2307 

that you have been sailing, whether they have been little or big. We 
came over here on a little one. Now, I want to know whether or not 
that ship took you to California. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. The same answer. 

Senator Welker. How far out in the ocean did you sail ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. The same answer. 

Senator Welker. One mile, a thousand miles, a hundred miles; 
tell me that, won't you, please ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, with respect to a question that I'm con- 
fused on, asked you by counsel, as to whether or not you had ever 
seen Jack Hall. Is it a crime for you to see anybody ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you see Jack Hall here in the demonstration 
yesterday, in this palace ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I saw you here, didn't I, yesterday? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. I don't know. 

Senator Welker. I do. I know that I did. And I can't see that 
that might tend to incriminate me, by seeing you. Now, certainly, 
and I believe your able counsel will agree with me that if you hap- 
pened to see Jack Hall here yesterday, in the hall, that wouldn't tend 
to incriminate you. Now, won't you answer us that ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Why, it's absolutely utterly silly for you not 
to tell us that you have seen a particular individual. If you were in a 
conspiracy with him, or something like that, it would be different, 
but if you happen to pass him on the street or see him, I can't see for 
the life of me how that might tend to incriminate you, Mr. Witness. 

You still want to take the fifth 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." Who have you talked with 
about your testimony before coming here ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You didn't talk to your two able attorneys? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Oh, come about now. Certainly, that isn't a 
crime to talk to your fine attorneys. Did you have a meeting and 
discuss your testimony with anyone ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you received a document, 
mimeographed document, telling you exactly what to do and what 
to say when you appeared on the witness stand here, didn't you ? 

(The witness consults with liis counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you receive any document, telling you what 
you should do should you be subpenaed before this committee ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 



2308 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. If I were to show you a document, would it be 
the same answer, too? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I^t me ask you this. Were you informed by any 
person or persons, prior to your appearing here on the witness stand, 
do not answer questions propounded to you by the committee or 
counsel thereof ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you talked to anybody about this case other 
than — just tell me, did you talk to your wife ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you ask anybody about the subpena when you 
received it, what it meant ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, we're going to have "The same answer" with 
you for a long time, I am afraid. You are going to be answering that 
"Same answer" for some little time. 

"^Vliat would be your opinion as to whether or not the hundreds of 
people who talked to Jack Hall yesterday might have incriminated 
themselves ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You don't want to give me the benefit even of your 
opinion? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I don't want to set a record with you on the fifth 
amendment, so we will let it go back now to counsel. 

Senator Johnston. Witness is with the counsel, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Yagi, have you been a member of the executive 
board of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet as a member of the executive board of 
the Communist Party at the home of Jack Hall ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have again, from the report 
that I have referred to previously, of the Commission on Subversive 
Activities, dated February 28, 1955, on page 81, a statement : 

Another indication of Communist control of the ILWU is found in an analysis 
of the oflScers and directors of the ILWU Memorial Association. This associa- 
tion was incorporated in 1950 as a nonprofit organization "for fraternal, civic, 
political, and economic purposes." Its principal function seems to be to own 
the building and land used by the ILWU as its headquarters. 

Now, the following is a list of the officers and directors and it is dated 
December 31, 1951. It then proceeds to give the names of the presi- 
dent, the vice president, the secretary, the treasurer, and six directors. 
One of the directors is the witness here, one of the current directors, 
and then it goes on to give the current list of officers and directors of 
the ILWU Memorial Association, and they are again president, vice 
president, secretary, treasurer, sergeant at arms, and then it gives 5 
directors, and 1 of them is Thomas Yagi, and the report itself in men- 
tioning you says, "An identified Communist." It is on page 82 of the 
report. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2309 

Now, are you, Mr. Yagi (1) an identified Communist? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. The same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you a director of the ILWU Memorial Association ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. As a director of the ILWU Memorial Association, do 
you knoAv that the primary function of that organization appears to be 
to own the building and the land used by the ILWU and its head- 
quarters? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you mean that the Memorial Association has 
to do only with the opening of the building? 

Mr. Morris. That's the report, that the commission so found, Sena- 
tor. 

Senator Wleker. Could you tell me whether or not the association, 
the Memorial Association, was dedicated to the memory of Joe Stalin 
or Len in. or anybody like that ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. And what did you have to say when counsel inter- 
rogated you and stated that you were listed as an identified Commu- 
nist ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, with respect to this Memorial Association 
and its building and ground, would you tell the committee where, if 
you know, you received any money to build that building, buy land, and 
to do other memorial things that up to now you have refused to tell 
me about ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you receive any from the Communist Party 
International ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you sing songs there at the Memorial Associa- 
tion when you meet ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Are you familiar with the song "The Workers of 
the World Unite"? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker, Have you taken any subscriptions to any news- 
papers ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Don't you read some of our fine publications here 
in the city of Honolulu and on your own island ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever taken a subscription in the People's 
Daily World? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you know what the People's Daily World is ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You know, as a matter of fact, that the People's 
Daily World is the official Communist publication for the west coast, 
don't you ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

72723— 57— pt. 39 7 



2310 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. Comparable to the Daily AVorker on the east 
coast ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Well, how do you know all these things? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Will you tell the workers of your union, if you 
belong to a union, would you tell them that you would have to — 
If they asked you the questions, instead of the Senator from Idaho 
or this committee, would you take the fifth amendment before them ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. In other words, you wouldn't be fair to the work- 
ers who are out there working and paying dues to a union that you 
might belong to ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Johnston. Are you an American? 

Mr. Yagi. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Johnston. Are you an American? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Yes, I am. 

Senator Johnston. Do you believe in the American principles? 

Mr. Yagi. Yes, definitely. 

Senator Johnston. You are against Communists, then? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Witness, we have thousands and thousands of members of the 
armed services here on this beautiful island and on your island. Wliat 
would you think, since you have told Chairman Johnston that you 
are an American, if one of those men in the uniform of the United 
States Army or Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, would take the fifth 
amendment when he were asked whether or not he was a member of 
the Communist Party? AVliat would you think, Mr. Witness? 
Would you think he would be a very good member of our armed serv- 
ices; would you think he would be a very good American? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I wonder if you have any pamphlet distributed 
to the workers of this area and your area about your testimony here? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You won't run a three-quarter page ad on your 
testimony, will you ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you object to the ad that appeared in the 
paper the day before we started our hearing here ? 

Mr. Yagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Welker. That is all. 

Mr. IMoRRis. We have one more witness, Senator. 

Senator Johnston. The witness is excused at the present time ; we 
may need him later. 

Mr. Andersen. This witness lives on an outside island, which is 
quite a ways from here. 

Senator Welker. Not near California? 

Mr. Andersen. It is quite a little airplane trip from here. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2311 

Mr. Morris. Senator, as I said before, we are handicapped this 
morning by the fact that we do not have access to our files. In the 
event that it may be necessary, Senator, to recall him, I will call Mr. 
Andersen and give him ample notice so that he might bring this witness 
back from the other island. 

Senator Welker. May I ask a question ? How long would it take 
for him to go home, Mr. Andersen ? 

Mr. Andersen. I imagine it is about three-quarters of an hour 
flight. Isn't it? 

Senator Welker. I think in fairness he should be permitted to go to 
his island, under subpena, and I am sure counsel will bring him back 
at any time we want him. 

Mr. Andersen. And may this apply also to the next witness? 

Senator Johnston. He is temporarily excused, with that under- 
standing. 

Mr. Andersen. We will be very happy to cooperate. 

Senator Johnston. The attorneys will have him back here if we 
need him. 

Mr. Morris. That will also apply to the next witness, if we need 
him. 

Senator Johnston. And it will be the same with the next witness. 
As I understand, he lives out on another island. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, now that we've gotten onto the subject 
of those Communists who apparently are associated with the ILWU, 
I would like the record to show that there are some people whom we 
have decided not to subpena here this morning. For instance. Jack 
Hall. Now, Jack Hall and certain other individuals convicted in the 
Smith Act trial have not been subpenaed, because we want to avoid 
any possibility of prejudicing their rights in connection with their 
appeal. And for that reason some of these people have not been 
subpenaed. 

Now, the last witness we have scheduled for this morning is Mr. 
Frank Silva. 

Senator Johnston. Mr. Silva, raise your right hand and be sworn. 
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this sub- 
committee to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you, God ? 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK SILVA 

Mr. Silva. I do. Sir, may I ask you a question of privilege? I 
would like to have this light turned off because it hits me in the eye, 
and also the television camera turned off. 

Mr. Morris. There is no television camera here, Mr. Silva. 

Mr. Silva. How about the light; could we have it turned off? It is 
a strong glare. 

Senator Welker. Well, now, just a minute. If it is hurting you, 
what do you think it is doing to us up here ? 

Mr. Silva. I am just asking as a matter of privilege. 

Senator Welker. My heavens! We want to be as fair to you as 
we can, but you are asking an awful lot and you are giving very little. 

Senator Johnston. It is really turned on us more than it is turned 
on you, I think. We can turn it a little more around. Turn it just a 



2312 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

little bit around this way. We don't object to it, naturally, since the 
light is not hurting anybody. That is hne. It is a little oil of him 
and more on us, so that's perfectly all right. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chaij-man, may I read again, in connection with 
the 1955 Report of the Commission, again on the subject of tlie ILWU, 
and this time by way of stating a conclusion ? 

In summary, the evidence that the ILWU was Communist dominated include* 
the following points: (a) Communist or Comiiiuiiist-trained labor leaders hold 
key positions in the union and among its paid employees. There is detailed 
testimony by former Communists and formed ILWU leaders that the ILWU 
is Communist controlled. The ILWU supports Communist puldications, the 
ILWU supports Communist-front organizations, the ILWU supports Communist 
causes. There is machinery for the ILWU leadership to submit disputes between 
itself and the Communist Party and finally to Communist Party headquarters 
in New York, (g) The ILWU was expelled from the CIO as a Communist- 
dominated union in 1950 and neither its leadership nor its policies have changed 
substantially since then. The ILWU has never taken an official stand critical of 
the Soviet Union or condeuinatory of its policies, (i) The ILWU is the principal 
instrument for disseminating Communist propaganda in Hawaii, (j) This Com- 
mission knows of no policy or action of the ILWU which is contrary to the 
Communist Party line. 

Under the heading "Propaganda" also among "Conclusions": 

The ILWU publicity and education department, well supplied with funds, 
consists of the following activities: {n) The ILWU research dt'partment : (6) 
the ILWU Dispatcher; (c) the ILWU Wasliimrton Report; (d) the ILWU ed- 
ucational service, local 142, Hawaii; (e) the ILWU Reporter, local 142. Ilnwaii; 

if) the ILWU public relations department, local 142, Hawaii; subdivisions (1) 
Japanese language radio broadcasts, (2) English language radio broadcasts, 

(3) Philippine language radio broadcasts. 

According to ILWU reports, the sum of $199,604.50 was expended to maintain 
this propaganda apparatus during the year 1953. This sum was itemized as 
follows. 

And there follows an itemization. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that particular information is relevant and 
I think we will have someone, one of the witnesses on Monday whom we 
can ask some questions about that particular statement. 

Senator Johnston. Very well. 

Mr. Morris. Now, will you give your full name and address to the 
reporter, Mr. Silva? 

Mr. Silva. My name is Frank Silva — Frank G. Silva. 

Mr. Morris. And where do you reside, Mr. Silva ? 

Mr. Silva. I live on Kauai, T. H. 

Mr. Morris. And what is your address on Kauai ? 

Mr. Silva. Post Office Box 324, Puhi, Kauai. 

Mr. Morris. Now are you the ranking ILWU representative on that 
island ? 

( The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, you will not tell this committee whether 
or not you are the ranking IL\VU official on Kauai ? 

Mr. Silva. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Are you a Communist, Mr. Silva ? 

Mr. Silva. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist meetmgs on Kauai? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist meetings here on Oahu ? 



SCOPE OP SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2313 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. MoRHis. Now do you know the ranking UPW official on Kauai; 
namely, Jackie Rodrigues? 

(The witness consults Avith his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Pai-don? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

JNIr. Morris. "Same answer." Now are you acquainted with the dis- 
missal of David K. Wong; he was the manager and chief engineer 
of the county waterworks board until 1955 ; are you acquainted with 
that gentleman? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you and Mr. Rodrigues conspire to have that 
man removed from his position during the year 1955 ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the record a 
newspaper clipping which indicates that — it is under the heading 
"Kauai board is criticized for firing water chief." We have received 
information that the head of the United Public Workers on Kauai and 
the head of the ILWU on Kauai, which is the witness before here, 
work very closely together in all their activities there. ^ This clipping 
indicates — I will read the clipping. This is from Kauai. 

September 27, 19.55. — The board of supervisors was under heavy fire today 
for its abrupt dismissal, without a hearing, Friday, of David K. Wong, manager 
and chief engineer of the county waterworks board. Republican leaders called 
the charges oppression and asserted the public is entitled to the facts. They 
were joined by William Moragne, former chairman of the waterworks board. 
Wong was fired by a 4 to 2 vote of the board, with no formal charges being 
brought against him and with no ojjportunity to l>e heard. But it was clearly 
established that the move to fire Wong was directed and pushed by the United 
Public Workers, a government employees union through its Kauai chief, 
Jackie Rodrigues. 

Now, could you tell us about that episode? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Have you been working in close concert with the 
United Public Workers on Kauai? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Well, the United Public Workers and the ILWU both 
have the same office, do they not ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. They certainly do here in Honolulu, do they not? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I put the whole clipping into the 
record ? 

Senator Johnston. The whole clipping shall become a part of the 
record. 

Mr. Morris. And I also have a clipping here, Senator, which is 
dated a few days later, which indicates that the board of supervisors 
yesterday refused to reconsider its dismissal of David F. Wong as 
manager and chief engineer of the county waterworks department. 

May that go into the record, too, Senator? 

Senator Johnston. That shall go into the record also. 



2314 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(The clippings referred to above were marked 385 and 385-A and 
may be found in the subcommittee files.) 

Mr. Morris. Now, were you formerly the director of the United 
Farm Equipment Workers? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. You will not tell us whether or not you were formerly 
the director of the United Farm Equipment Workers of America? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Where were you born, Mr. Silva ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Kauai. 

Mr. Morris. When did you last see Charles Fujimoto ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, the committee has been told of a meeting that 
took place in the home of Mr. Epstein last Saturday night. The 
address and everything was mentioned yesterday in the record. Did 
you attend that particular meeting, Mr. Silva? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. You will not tell us whether or not you were one of the 
people that attended that meetino; ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answp.r. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in view of the witness' responses, 1 
would say at this time I have no more questions. And I hope, Senator, 
for all practical purposes we have completed the examination. If, 
however, on examining the records, which are not available here this 
morning, there is need of further interrogation, I will give counsel 
Andersen or Counsel Symonds adequate time for them to bring the 
witness back. 

Senator Johnston. I want the lawyers to understand that; that 
they will bring him back, like the other witness excused just now; 
you can get him back on short notice. 

Mr. Andersen. It is common practice which is always done, and 
you have our assurance. 

Senator Johnston. He is under subpena but only to come back after 
we have notified you. 

Mr. Andersen. Yes. Of course. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Witness, you took the fifth amendment when 
interrogated about whether or not you attended a meeting at the home 
of Mr. Epstein last Saturday night. 

Since you have been here on this island, have you attended any 
meetings anyplace ? 

Mr. Silva. I would like to get advice on that. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. AVhere have you been since you have been here? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Where have you stayed ? 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you want to tell us what hotel you live at, 
what home you live at ? 

Mr. Silva. Same ansAver. 

Senator Welker. You think it might tend to incriminate you if you 
gave us an honest, truthful statement as to what hotel you lived in ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2315 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You have been at some hotel or home, have you 
not? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You don't mean to leave the inference with the 
committee that you haven't been in a home ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, in all fairness. Now, let's get right down 
to a level. What in heaven's name can hurt you if you tell us that 
you have lived at a certain home, that you lived in a certain hotel? 
Would that tend to incriminate you, you think ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you have been told exactly 
what you are going to say to tliis subcommittee, haven't you ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You didn't need any advice on that, did you? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you received a mimeographed 
copy of your orders and your instructions as to what you were to do 
when you appeared before this subcommittee ? 

Mr. SiLVA. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Will you admit or will you deny the fact that you 
have so received those instructions? As to what you were going to 
say when you appeared before this committee. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I will ask you if it isn't a fact that you in that 
mimeographed sheet, that some long missed person well known to you 
sent to this committee, you were told to give your name and your local 
address only and to take the fifth amendment from thence on. Isn't 
that a fact? 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever been in the State of California? 

Mr. Silva. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever been outside of the Islands? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silva, Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, I want to say this as an observation, Mr. 
Chairman. I've probably been in the field of criminal law as much 
as your able counsel, and I probably respect the Bill of Rights as 
much as anyone in this hearing room, and I can't understand why you 
\yill treat this committee as you have by refusing to answer evenVne 
simplest questions whatsoever. 

Can't you give me some comment on that? I would like to know 
when I leave this beautiful island just why, just why you have at- 
tempted, as all the other witnesses have, to hide behind that privilege 
granted to you by the Constitution of the United States, and if you 
were a Communist, the Communists would be the first to destroy that 
Constitution? Do you have any observation you would like to make 
on that ? 

Mr. Silva. "\^niat's the question? 

Senator Welker. Aren't you listening? 

Will you read back the question to him ? 



2316 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr, SiLVA. The same answer. 

Senator Welker. I am through. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, you have asked me for — as to whether 
or not the ILWU has ever been on the Attorney General's list. The 
answer is "No." 

I have the spelling here of Mr. Borthwick's name. It is William 
Borthwick. 

And I think that is all, Senator. I have an executive session sched- 
uled for Monday morning at 9 o'clock, followed by the open hearing 
at 9 : 30 o'clock. I will require at least one Senator who will appear 
in the executive session. 

Senator Johnston. At what time ? 

Mr. Morris. At 9 and then the open hearing will be at 9 : 30. 

Senator Johnston. I will ask Senator Butler to be at the executive 
session at 9 o'clock. We will have our regular meeting at 9 : 30. 

The committee is adjourned until that time. 

(Whereupon, at 11:44 a. m., the committee was adjourned.) 



INDEX 



Note. — The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance to 
the mere fact of the appearance of the names of an individual or an organization 
in this index. 

A 

A. F. ofL. (See American Federation of Labor.) Pase 

American Federation of Labor (A. F. of L.) 2249-2251,2253,2257,2300 

American Legion 2253 

Anderson, George R 2260, 2277, 2314 

Arena, Ernest (testimony of) 2270-2272 

3911 Keanu Street 2270 

Fifth amendment (when asked if a Communist Party member) 2271 

Business agent, ILWU, Oahu division 2270, 2271 

Army, Navy, and Air in the Pacific 2236 

Artkino 2274 

Asia 2235, 2237 

Australia 2237 

B 
Basset, W. K 2298 

Blissard, Louis 2259 

Blurr, Joseph. (See Joseph Kealalio.) 

Borthwick, William 2295, 2316 

Bouslog. Mrs 2260, 2277 

Boy Scouts 2288 

Bridges, Harry 2244, 2252, 2257, 2258, 2261, 2297, 2298 

Brown, Archie 2271 

Burns, John H 2279 

Butler, Senator Hugh 2293, 2299 

Butler, Senator John Marshall 2239, 2259, 2283 

C 
California 2304-2306, 2310 

California Labor School 2304 

California Committee on Un-American Activities 2273 

Cambodia 2230 

Catholic (s) 2289 

Chapman, Oscar 2299 

Chicago 2244 

CINPAC 2230, 2233 

CIO. (See Congress of Industrial Organizations.) 

Civil Aeronautics Patrol 2233 

Civilian Defense Agency 2233 

Clipping, "Kauai board is criticized for firing water chief," dated Septem- 
ber 27, 19.") (exhibit 385) 2313 

Clipping dated September 1955 (exhibit 385-A) 2313 

Coke, Chief Justice 2291 

Committee for Justice 2273,2274 

Communist (s) 2231, 2232, 2236, 2237-2239, 2240, 

2243, 2245-2247, 2249, 2251, 2253-2258, 2261-2263, 2271-2273, 2275, 
2277, 2278. 22S4-2287, 2289, 2293-2298, 2300, 2308, 2309, 2311, 2312. 

Communi.st cell in San Francisco 2285 

Communist Control Act of 1954, Public Law 637, 83d Congress 2244, 

2245, 2247, 2248 

1 



n tNDEX 

Page 
"Communist Domination of the ILWU," heading of section of report of 
Commission on Subversive Activities to tlie Legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Hawaii 2302 

Communist Party 2235, 2239, 2240, 22oo, 2262-2264, 2266, 

2270-2274, 2277, 2278, 2280, 2281, 2291, 2297, 2304, 2309, 2310, 2312 

Communist Party International 2309 

Communist Party of Hawaii 2246, 2264, 2302 

Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO) 2244, 

2249, 2250, 2252, 2294, 2295, 2297, 2298, 2312 
Cooke, Adm. Charles M., USN (retired) 2236 

D 

Daily Mirror (publication) 2297 

Dailv People's World (publication) 2273,2309 

Daily Worker (publication) 2298,2310 

"Danger to All of Us," circular signed "Longshoremen's and Warehouse- 
men's Union and San Francisco CIO Council" 2294 

Davis, Rex, international pamphlet No. 39 2288 

Democratic Party 2295, 2298 

Department of Public Instruction of the Territory (Hawaii) 2256 

DeSilva, Ernest B 2302 

Dillinirham, Walter 2232 

Dillingham, Mrs. Walter 2232 

Directory of Labor Organizations in the Territory of Hawaii 2263, 

2268, 2270, 2272, 2303 

Disabled American Veterans 2253 

Dock Seizure Act of July 1949, also known as Stainback Strikebreaker 2293, 

2294, 2300, 2301 

E 

Eastern Europe 2297 

Eastland, Chairman .James O 2237,2239,2283 

Elks 2253 

Epstein, Henry B., 5204 Ani Street, Honolulu 2257,2269,2314 

Exhibit No. 384 — A Lawless Judge Will Not Break the Sugar Strike, 

pamphlet signed "Jack W. Hall" 2290 

Exhibit No. 385 (in subcommittee files), clipping dated September 27, 

1955 2314 

Exhibit No. 385-A (in subcommittee tiles), clipping dated September — , 

1955 2314 

Ewa Beach 2274 

F 

Far E:ist 2230, 2234 

Far Eastern Central Command 2261 

Farrington, Delegate 2259 

FBI. (See Federal Bureau of Investigation.) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 2240,2243 

Fifth amendment 2240, 2246, 2261, 

2263, 2265, 2267, 2269-2276, 2280, 2302-2310, 2312-2315 

Flaxer, Mr 2257 

Formosa 2237 

Fujimoto, Charles 2264, 2271, 2274, 2.303, 2304, 2314 

Fujimoto, Mrs. Charles 2269 

G 
Gladstein, Richard 2270, 2287 

H 
Hall, Jack (^ec John Wayne Hall.) 
Hall, John Wayne, alias Jack — , 2955 Oahu Avenue, Honolulu, regional 

director, ILWU-CIO, pier 11 2244, 22.57, 

2258, 2261, 2271, 2274, 2289-2291, 2294, 2297, 2304, 2307, 2308, 2311 
Hall, Rear Adm. John L., Jr 2287,2288 



INDEX in 

Page 

Hall trials 2232, 2266, 2271 

Handbook for Americans — Communist Party of the United States of 

America. What It Is and How It Works (publication) 2259 

Hawaii 2229-2316 

Hawaii Herald (also called Hochi-sha) (publication) 2255 

Hawaii Insurance Consultants, Ltd 2274, 2275 

Hawaii Residents Association (IMUA) 2231, 2232, 2252 

Hawaii Times, publication 2255 

Hawaiian Islands. (See Hawaii.) 

Hilo 225.-, 2274, 2.-^00 

Hochi-sha (Hawaii Herald) (pubiication) 2255 

Holmes, Wilford J 2302 

Honokaa, T. H 2288 

Honolulu 2236, 2237, 2230, 2260, 2261, 2264-2266, 2300 

Hcmolulu Advertiser (publication) 2255, 2277 

Honolulu Police Commission 2297 

Honolulu Record (publication) 2246, 2254-22.56, 2302 

Honolulu Star-Bulletin (publication) 2255 

Hoover. J. Edgar 2240 

House Un-American Activities Committee 2231, 2235, 2243. 2295 

Hull, General 2285, 2286, 2291, 2300 



ILWU. (See International Uoncrsboremen's, Warehousemen's Union.) 
IMUA. (See Hawaii Residents Association.) 

India Ocean 2237 

Indochina 2230 

Indonesia 2.237 

Inside Labor (Victor Riesel's column) 2297 

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the Senate 2250 

Interior Department 2293 

Internal Security Act 2224 

Internal Security Division of Department of Justice 2249 

International Longshoremeirs, Waiehousemen's Union (ILWU) 2231-22.33, 

2244, 2249-2254, 2260, 2261, 2263, 2264, 2266. 2268-2274, 2277-2279, 
2290-2292, 2294-2296. 2300-2303, 2308, 2309, 2311-2313. 2316. 

"Communist domination of the — " 2302 

ILWU-Communist Party conspiracy in Hawaii 2299 

ILWU Dispatcher (publication) 2312 

ILWU Memorial As.s(.ci.ition 2273, 2308, 2.309 

ILWU public relations department 2312 

ILWU publicitv and education department 2312 

ILWU Reporter (puMication) 2265, 2312 

ILWU research department 2312 

ILWU Washington Report 2312 

lolani Palace, Honolulu. T. H 2239, 2259, 2283 

J 

Jackson College, Hawaii 2254 

Japan 2237 

Jenner, Senator William E 2241 

Johnston. Senator Olin D 2229, 2239, 2259, 2283 

Judd, Gov. Lawrence M 2232 

Justice, Department of 2249 



Kaimuki group of the Communist Party 2271 

Kakuku sugar group 2271 

Kauai 22.5.5, 2302. 2.312. 2313 

Kealalio. Joseph, alias Joseph Blurr (testimony of) 2268-2270 

3922 Nioi Place 2268 

Fifth amendment (when asked if a Communist) 2269 

International representative. ILWU 2268 

KHON (radio station in Honolulu) 2266 



IV INDEX 

Page 
Kibre, Jeff 2261 

Kimball, George P 2302 

Kimoto. Jack 2274 

King. Gov. Samuel Wilder, Guveruor of Hawaii 2240. 2296 

(Testimony of) 2243-2259 

King. Thomas P 2.302 

Korea 2230 

Korean war 2269 

L 

Labor. Department of 2263 

Laie. T. H 22.>i 

Land reform 22.3.5 

Laos 2230 

Latter-day Saints Church 2289 

Lawless Judge Will Not Br?ak the Sugar Strike, A, pamphlet, signed 

"Jack W. Hall" (exhibit No. 3&4) 2290 

LDS Church (Latter-day Saints Church) 2289 

Lenin 2.309 

Lihue Plantation Co 2292 

Littman, Warren 2249 

Los Angeles 2244, 2248, 2291 

Lyons, Adm. Raymond R 2302 

M 

Makinney, Major General 2252 

Mandel. Benjamin 2229, 2239, 2259, 2283 

Marumoto, Associate Justice 2259 

Marx philosophy 2258 

Maui 2255, 2302, 2304, 2305 

Mayor of Honolulu 2298 

McCarran. Senator 2241. 2258, 2299 

McCIellan, Senator 2293 

McElrath. Robert 2234, 2255, 2256. 2258 

(Testimony of) 2260-2208 

2407 St. Louis Drive, Honolulu 2262 

Fifth amendment (when asked if a Communist) 2263 

Territorial representative and public relations director, ILWU 2263 

Communist Party book Xo. 74.")21 2266 

Radio announcer for ILWU in Hawaii, station KHON 2266 

McLaughlin. Judge 2232, 2262 

Medals of Honor 2230 

Midway Island 2237 

Minnesota 2291 

Mission Board 2289 

Miyagi, Newton Kunio (testiniony of) 2272-2282 

94-4.50 Kamakahi Street. Waipahu, Oahu 2272 

Fifth amendment (when asked if a Communist) 2272 

Secretary-treasurer, ILWU, Local 142 2272 

Moragne, William — 2313 

Mormon Church 2254 

Mormons — _ 2289 

Morris. Robert 2229, 22.39, 2259, 22S3 

Mount Carmel, Calif 2298 

Murin, Mr — 2257 

Murray, Philip 2294, 2297 

N 

Xakama, Jeanetta 2271 

National Guard 2245, 2252, 2285, 2288 

National Labor Relations Act 2245 

New Zealand 2237, 2201 

Ninth Circuit Court, United States 2244. 2248, 2.304 

New York — 2244, 2248, 2264 



IXDEX V 

O Page 

Oahu 2270, 2271, 2302, 2312 

Oakland — 22U3 

O'Daniel, Lt. Gen. John W., United States Army (retired) 2251 

(Testimony of) 2229-2237 

Retired February 29, 19uG 2229 

40 vears in military life 2229 

Born Newark. Del 2229 

Did not attend I'nited States Military Academy 2229 

Attended first officers' training camp at Fort Myer, Va 2229 

Commanded 3d Infantry Division in Europe during World War II 2230 

Military attache in Soviet Union. September 1948 to September 1950 22:30 

Commanded I Corps in Korea. July 1951 to July 1952 2230 

Lieuteneut general, commanding United States Army. Pacific, under 

CINPAC ; USAR-PAC, September 1952 to April 15. 1954 2230 

Chief of United States military advisory group in Saigon for Vietnam 
and Indochina, Laos, and (i;ambodia, April 15, 1954, to November 

18, 1955 2230 

Ogawa, Yoshigo (wife of Jack Hall) 2297 

P 

Pacific Publishing Foundation, Inc 2273 

Pacific Weekly (^publication) 2298 

"Peace Will Win," Soviet film distributed by Artkino 2274 

Pearl Harbor 2237, 2261 

People's Daily World. {See Daily People's World.) 

Peters, J 2262 

Philadelphia 2248 

Pittsburgh 2244, 224S 

Pinskv, Paul G ~ 2274 

Portland 2291 

B 

Reinecke, :Mr. John E 2287, 2288, 2304 

Reinecke, Mrs. John E 22S7 

'•Reluctant 39" 2243, 2295 

Report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of 

the Territory of Hawaii 2302, 2308, 2312 

Res Davis' international pamphlet No. 39 22SS 

Rice, Chief Justice 2259 

Rice, Harold 2295. 2296 

Rice, Jud^^e Philip L 2290. 2292 

Riesel. Victor 2260, 2297, 2298 

Robinson. J. R 2268, 2269 

Rodrigues, Jackie 2313 

Roffman, Mr 2257 

ROTC 2288 

Russell, Senator 2293 

Rusher, William A 2229 

Russia 2236 

S 

Saigon 2230 

San Francisco 2248, 2254. 2260, 2261. 2273, 2288, 2291, 2293, 2297 

Schmidt, Mr 2269 

Seattle 2244 

Second World Peace Conference at Warsaw (film) 22(4 

Silva, Frank G. (testimony of) 2311-2316 

Postoffice Box 324, Puhi. Kauai, T. H 2312 

Fifth amendment ( when asked if a Communist) 2312 

Ranking ILWU official on Kauai 2312 

Smith Act - 2243, 2253, 2270, 22SS, 2304, 2311 

Souerwine. Jay 2229 

Soviet, Soviet Union 2230, 2235, 2237, 2239, 2240, 2312 



VI INDEX 

Stainback, Gov. Ingram M 2245 

Testimony of 2283-2301 

Born in Somerville, Fayette County, Tenn 2283 

Resident of Hawaii since 1912 2284 

Attorney general of the Territory, 1914 2284 

Army in First World War 2284 

Private practice, 1919 to 1934 2284 

United States attorney, 1934 to 1940 2284 

United States district judge, 1940 to 1942 2284 

Governor of Territory of Hawaii, July 1942 to May 1951 2284 

Justice of Sui)reme Court of Territory of Hawaii, 1951 2284 

Stainback strikebreaker. (See Dock Seizure Act of July 1949.) 

Stalin, Joe 2309 

Star-Bulletin ( publication) 2300, 2301 

Stephenson, William B 2246, 2247, 2302 

Stevens, Mr 2262 

Stump, Admiral 2233, 2261 

Subversive Activities, Commission on 2250 

Supreme Court of the United States 2290 

Symonds, Myer C 2260, 2277, 2314 

T 

Tafty-Hartley Act 2293 

Taft, Senator 2293 

Tass News Agency 2240, 2278 

Tennessee 2281,2295 

Territorial Commission on Subversive Activities 2244-2247, 2265, 2291 

Territorial supreme court 2281 

Territories, Subcommittee on 2251 

Territory of Hawaii. ( See Hawaii. ) 

Third Infantry Division 2230 

Truman, President 2294, 2295 

Tsuenaga, Taro 2302 

U 

Union Insurance Service, Ltd 2274, 2275 

United Farm Equipment Workers 2314 

United Public Workers (UPW) 2244,2253,2302 

United Public Workers of America 2244, 2251, 2257, 2274, 2313 

University of Hawaii 2254, 2256, 2285 

USAR-PAC 2230,2232 

UPW. (See United Public Workers.) 

V 

Velson, Irving 2261 

Veterans of Foreign Wars 2253 

Vietnam 2230 

Virginia 2300 

W 
Wallace 2295 

Walter-McCarran Act 2258 

Walter's committee. (See House Un-American Activities Committee.) 

Warren, Governor 2293, 2295 

Warsaw 2274 

Watkins, Senator Arthur V 2239, 22.59, 2283 

Welker, Senator Herman 2239, 2259, 2283 

What Must We Do (pamphlet) 2288 

Wilson, Mayor 2298 

Winters, Ella 2298 

Wisconsin 2258 

Wong, David K 2313 

Workers of the World Unite, The (song) 2309 

World War I 2229 

World War II 2230, 2244 



INDEX vn 

T 

Page 

Yagi, Thomas Sukichi (testimony of) 2301-2311 

Waihee, Maui 2302 

Divisional director, ILWU, Maui 2302 

Fifth amendment (when aslied if a Communist) 2303 



o 



E^i.rv/^1 iV^l^f / (^ J> ^-^ 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



"HEARINGS^ 

\ f ^EFORE THB[^ 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THB 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE 
UNITED STATES 



DECEMBER 3, 4. 1956 



PART 40 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
72723 V7ASHINGTON : 1957 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUL 1 8 1957 



COMMITTEE OK THE JUDICIARY 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Soutli Carolina WILLIAM LANGER, Nortli Dakota 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arliansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utaii 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois 

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming HERMAN WELKER, Idaho 

MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 



Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security 
Act and Other Internal Security Laws ' 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina WILLIAM B. JENNER, Indiana 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arlcansas ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Missouri HERMAN WELKER, Idaho 

PRICE DANIEL, Texas JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 

Robert Morris, Chief Counsel 

J. G. SouRWiNE, Associate Counsel 

William A. Rusher, Associate Counsel 

Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research 

n 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — Page 

Epstein, Henry Benjamin 2373 

Fishman, Irving 2417 

Fujisaki, Saburo 2364 

Jamieson, Ronald B 2367 

Miyagi, Newton Kmiio 2340 

Miirin, Stephen Thomas 2392 

Ogawa, Tadashi 2362 

Oka, Wilfred M 2455 

Okubo, Yugo 2453 

Omori, Koichi 2460 

Phillips, Lyle G 2318 

Roflfman, Max 2388 

Rohrbough, Edward 2404 

Thompson, David Evans 2351 

Index I 

zn 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1956 

United States Senate, 
subcommitiee to investigate the administration 
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Honolulu, T. H. 

The subcommittee met, pui'siiant to adjournment, at 9 : 30 a. m., in 
the senate chamber, lolani Palace, Senator Herman Welker presiding. 

Present: Senator Eastland, chairman; Senators Watkins, John- 
ston, Welker, Butler. 

Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Mandel, 
research director. 

Senator Welker. The meeting will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, before we begin today I would like to make 
the announcement that our research director, Ben Mandel, is back, 
and he would like to express publicly the good service that he has 
received here in the last few days. 

Mr. Mandel. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Mandel, we are glad to have you back. I 
am sure the people of this island are glad you're back. Do you desire 
to make a statement? 

Mr. M\ndel. I desire to express my deepest gratitude to the man 
responsible for my rescue, W. P. Wing of San Francisco, and to 
Hazel Minaodani, and Kosei Nitta. I also wish to express my appre- 
ciation of the splendid work of the Queens Hospital and the staff of 
nurses and physicians there that did, I think, a splendid job. [Laugh- 
ter and prolonged applause.] 

Senator Welker. Mr. Mandel, the chairman, speaking on behalf of 
the entire committee and staff, is equally thrilled and happy that you 
are back here with us. We clesire to thank all the individuals who 
saved your life. W^ desire to thank Queens Hospital, physicians 
and nurses; it was just the finest work that possibly could be done, 
and we say "Thank you, all of you." 

Now, call your first witness. 

jVIr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, take the stand, please. 

Senator Welker. Raise your right hand and be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before the sub- 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Phillh^s. I do. 

2317 



2318 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

TESTIMONY OF LYLE G. PHILLIPS 

Senator Welkek. Your name, please? 

Dr. Phillips. My name is Lyle G. Phillips. 

Senator Welker. What is your occupation or profession? 

Dr. Phillips. I am a physician and surgeon. 

Senator Welker. Plow long have you been so engaged ? 

Dr. Phillips. 32 years. 

Senator Welker. 32 years. And your residence, please ? 

Dr. Phillips. 2723 Puuhonua Street, Honolulu. 

Senator Welker. Your witness, counsel. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, you are a native of Wisconsin, are you 
not? 

Dr. Phillips. That's correct. 

Mr, Morris. And how long have you resided in Hawaii ? 

Dr. Phillips. Thirty-two years. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you are the past president, are you not, of the 
Hawaii Territorial Medical Association? 

Dr. Phillips. I am. 

Mr. Morris. Have you had any other professional experiences such 
as that, Dr. Pliillips ? 

Dr. Phillips. I am a fellow of the American College of Surgeons. 

Mr.^ Morris. Have you been president of the Hawaii Residents 
Association ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. When were you president of the Hawaii Residents 
Association ? 

Dr. Phillips. In 1951. 

Mr. Morris. What is that association called ? 

Dr. Phillips. The Hawaii Residents Association, also known by 
the Hawaiian word "Imua," meaning "forward." 

Mr. Morris. You are now a director of that organization? 

Dr. Phillips. I am a member of the board of director of that 
organization. 

Mr. Morris. Now, before joining Imua, did you investigate the 
purpose of that organization, the purpose and the history of that 
organization ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir; I did. When I was asked to be president 
of the organization, in 1951, I made a very careful and thorough 
personal investigation of the organization, and I satisfied myself 
that it was not against labor, that it wasn't an agent of management, 
and that it was not politically partisan. I found and was convinced 
that it was completel}^ and sincerely dedicated to its three-point pro- 
gram. First, to combat communism and all subversive activities; 
second, to live and work together in racial harmony, and, third, to 
demonstrate and maintain the American way of life. I am still con- 
vinced that the organization is devoting its efi'orts to those objectives, 
and nothing else. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, serving as president and a member of the 
board of directors of this organization, you have not received any 
pay for that, have you ? 

Dr. Phillips. No, sir ; to the contrary. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2319 

Senator Welker. Senator Butler of Maryland. 

Senator Butler. What is the membership of that organization ? 

Dr. Phillips. There are somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 mem- 
bers and contributors, sir, I believe. 

Senator Butler. Thank you. And you say they are a representa- 
tive cross-section of the people of this island ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir ; they are. 

Senator Butler. Is it confined exclusively to this island ? 

Dr. Phillips. No, sir. We also have members on all of the other 
islands, contributors from all of the other islands. 

Senator Welker. The Chair would like to inquire as to whether or 
not our guests in the rear of the hearing room can hear the witness? 
If so, raise your hands. Thank you. 

Proceed, counsel. 

Senator Johnston. Just one question. 

Senator Welker. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnston. You say "contributors"; how do they con- 
tribute ? 

Dr. Phillips. Each year we have a fund raising campaign to carry 
on our work, and voluntary contributions are made on that basis. 

Senator Phillips. Each member doesn't pay a certain definite 
amount ? 

Dr. Phillips. For membership in the organization, it is $6 per year. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Dr. Phillips 

Senator Watkins. May I ask a question ? 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. If you do not pay salaries to the board members, 
how do you spend your money ; what do you use that money for ? 

Dr. Phillips. Our budget this last year was $54,000. That covered 
maintaining a staff with an executive secretary, a research director, a 
librarian, office help ; it also paid for our broadcasts that we have 5 
nights a week on one of the all-island stations. We also publish and 
circulate a considerable amount of material, printed material. 

Senator Watkins. That is all distributed and the broadcasts are 
made under the direction of the association ? 

Dr. Phillips. That is correct. 

Senator Watkins. After a careful and thorough check of what is to 
go out ? 

Dr. Phillips. That is correct. We have a board of directors which, 
I think, is a very ^ood cross-section of this community, which directs 
the affairs and policies of the association. 

Senator Watkins. For the purpose of the record, could you give us 
the names and occupations or professions of the board of directors? 

Dr. Phillips. I don't have that right at hand. Our president is 
Lawrence M. Judd, former Governor of Hawaii; and I would have 
to — perhaps Mr. Orr, our executive secretary 

Senator Watkins. If you could supply it for the record and have it 
inserted — I ask, Mr. Chairman, that that information be submitted 
later and inserted into the record at this point. 

Senator Watkins. It will be so ordered. 

(The list of officials as carried on the organization's letterhead as 
of November 30, 1956, was marked "Exhibit No. 386," and is as 
follows:) 



2320 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Exhibit No. 386 
Hawaii Residents' Association 

Execiitive oflBcers : Lawrence M. Judd, president ; Brig. Gen. K. J. Fielder 
(retired), first vice president ; Edward N. Yamasalii, second vice president; Mrs. 
Ronald Q. Smith, secretary ; Bishop Trust Co., Ltd., treasurer. 

Directors : Conrad K. Akamine ; Harold J. Ancill ; Paul H. Anderson ; Benja- 
min E. Ayson ; Mrs. B. Howell Bond ; Mrs. Alice Spalding Bowen ; Mrs. Claude 
Bufeett; Ralph B. Cloward, M. D. ; Philip M. Corboy, M. D. ; Edward M. De- 
Harne ; Mrs. Walter F. Dillingham ; Clarence E. Fronk, M. D. ; Yim Kai Look, 
O. D. ; Esmond I. Parker ; Lyle G. Phillips, M. D. ; Guy N. Rothwell ; T. G. Single- 
hurst. 

Wynthrop M. Orr, executive vice president; Robert C. Rhoads, research di- 
rector. 

Senator Watkins. Thank you, Dr. Phillips. 

Senator Welker. Proceed, counsel. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, your work as president and director of 
Imua, has that required your firsthand attention to events bearing 
on communism in the islands ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes; it has. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us specifically and with as much detail 
as possible the extent of efforts that you have made in order to acquaint 
yourself with the Communist situation in Hawaii ? 

Dr. Phillips. By way of explanation, I would like to make this pre- 
liminary remark. That after serving in 1951 as president of Imua, 
the Hawaii Residents Association, I developed an interest from con- 
cern over the future welfare of Hawaii, also concern over national 
security, which has prompted my continual close association with 
Imua ever since and active participation in its activities over the past 
6 years. I have undertaken to keep fully informed in regard to Com- 
munist activities in Hawaii during all of this time. 

I have done a tremendous amount of reading reports of the com- 
mission on subversive activity, reports of the House and Senate investi- 
gative committees ; I attended many of the sessions, listened to the evi- 
clence, in the trial of Hawaii's seven Communists ; I have read fairly 
regularly such Communist publications as the New York Daily 
Worker, the People's Daily World, the Honolulu Eecord ; I have kept 
pretty well posted on ILWU propaganda; listened to McElrath's j| 
broadcasts; read The ILWU Dispatcher Reporter; I have also read 
various writings of David Thompson, ILl^HJ education director, who 
has been identified by the commission as a Communist; and I have 
listened to various statements and broadcasts by Henry Epstein, the 
UPW — United Public Workers — director, also an identified Commu- 
nist. I have also followed the activities of these people who have 
been named as Communists by the commission, as reported in the daily 
press, and also I have followed the daily press in regard to the activities 
of political candidates and legislators, especially in regard to their 
relation to known Communists. 

Senator Butler. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Welker. Senator Butler. 
Senator Butler. Have you, through your experience in that field, 
found any infiltration into either political party of the islands? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler, To what extent ? 

Dr. Phillips. May I take that up a little later ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2321 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Dr. Phillips. I will have something to say on that, Senator. 

Senator Welker. So ordered. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you have. Dr. Phillips, attended to this particu- 
lar problem in the way that you have just described, over the last 6 
years ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. You have attended to tliis problem of Communist 
influence here in the islands over the last 6 years in the way that you 
have just described ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. You tried to observe this in your position as president 
and director of Imua ? 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Mr. Morris. For the periods that you held the respective positions ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you come to any conclusions. Doctor ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Morris. What is your conclusion ? 

Dr. Phillips. It is my considered conclusion, that I have arrived 
at slowly and definitely, that nowhere that I know of in the United 
States have identified Communists gone further in obtaining their 
primary objectives than in the Territory of Hawaii. 

Senator Butler. You say you will come to it later, but to what 
extent and in what directions has infiltration taken place? 

Dr. Phillips. First, may I mention these objectives, which are quite 
apparent, I think. They are the same objectives that the Communist 
Party used in gaining control in Guatemala, Czechoslovakia, and pres- 
ently in Singapore, and many other places. Those objectives are these, 
in my opinion : 

To infilti-ate and control a major segment of the community's labor 
forces. Now, by "a major seg;ment," down here I mean control of the 
sugar and pineapple industries and the waterfront. Those are so 
essential to us that control of them bj^ the labor unions and by the 
Communist leaders of those labor unions amount effectively to the 
control of our economy. 

Also, to a lesser degree, there has been control of governmental and 
hospital employees. 

The second point is this. To use this power derived from that con- 
trol of labor to control politics, thereby making possible their ultimate 
aim ; the third, to control our Government. 

Mr. Morris. Those are the objectives. Now-, all of the objectives 
haven't been attained, have they. Dr. Phillips ? 

Dr. Phillips. To a considerable degree, as I hope to point out to 
you, they have been attained. 

Mr. Morris. Proceed, Doctor. 

Dr. Phillips. I would like to make this statement. When I referred 
to known Communists or identified Communists, I would like it to 
be understood that I refer only to individuals who have been identi- 
fied by properly authorized government ag-encies, and identified on 
the basis of sworn testimony by those agencies, and so reported. 

Mr. Morris. So when you refer to a known Communist, present 
or past, you refer to someone who has been affirmatively identified 
by sworn testimony before an official agency ? 



2322 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Mr. Morris. Proceed, Doctor. 

Dr. Phillips. I would like to proceed first in taking up these 
points — the control of labor, the infiltration in politics, and the con- 
trol of government — first of all, by discussing the control over labor 
down here. 

The ILWU and the UPW control labor in sugar, pineapples, the 
waterfront, and to a considerable extent in government and the hos- 
pitals. And by virtue of control of the waterfront and the sugar and 
pineapple industries, they assert a power over the connnunity's well- 
being far in excess of their numbers. 

I would like to point out that, over all these 6 years, and before 
that, according to my reading, there has been the same leadership, 
the same individuals at the top of these unions. Hall, McElrath, 
Miyagi, Yagi, Arena, Thompson, Ah Quong McElrath, I think she 
calls herself, Kealoha, Kealilio, Ichimura, Kitimoto, Fujisaki, Ukio 
Abe, Elisaki, Okaclo, Osliiro, Osaki, Shumizo, and Frank Silva. All 
of these names appearing in the last report of the Commission on 
Subversive Activity. 

Now to proceed to a discussion of political power and influence 
of these Comnmnist leaders. I prepared a brief summary of the early 
days, that is, in 1947, which I would like to present. 

In 1947 there was a political action committee under Jack Hall's 
guidance. Fourteen of thirty representatives elected to Hawaii's 
legislature last year had endorsement by this committee. 

Mr. Morris. Fourteen out of thirty? Is that what you said. Dr. 
Phillips? 

Dr. Phillips. Fourteen out of thirty ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Fourteen out of thirty. 

Dr. Phillips. The following year the Communists practically took 
over the Democratic Party machinery on the island of Oahu, this 
island, by a clever maneuver. The Democratic county chairman, Lau 
Ah Chew, was persuaded to deactivate all Democratic precinct clubs 
as of midnight, March 31, 1948. 

The following day new precinct elections were held and the next 
day bewildered Democrats woke up to find that Communists and 
Communist sympathizers and individuals under Communists control 
had taken over. 

Senator Johnston. Doctor, how did he have authority to do that? 

Dr. Phillips. I don't know. All I know is that 

Senator Johnston. Was there a law or rule? 

Dr. Phillips. It was done. 

Senator Johnston. I think that ou<:^ht to be entered into the record, 
just how he did that or by what authority he did that. 

Dr. Phillips. I don't believe that the source of my information, 
which is the report of the commission on subversive activities, has 
anything to say about that. 

Senator Johnston. I think that is very important, to see just by 
what authority he did that. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I will try to get the answer to that question 
for you and have it presented to the subcommittee. 

Senator Johnston. I think it ought to be here. 

(The information requested was not available when this hearing 
was sent to the printer. ) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2323 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, why couldn't we call the man 
who made the order? Maybe he could supply the source of his 
authority. 

Dr. Phillips. That, I understand, was Mr. Lau Ah Chew, who 
at that time was the county chairman of the Democratic Party on 
this island. 

Mr. Morris. Proceed, Doctor. 

Dr. Phillips. To continue. Of 811 precinct club officers checked 
by the commission, 175 were either Communist members, Communist 
sympathizers, or subject to Communist discipline, according to the 
commission on subversive activities. Wilfred M. Oka and Mrs. Peggy 
T. Uesugi, both listed by the commission as Communists, becaine 
secretary and assistant secretary of the Oahu County Democratic 
Committee. 

Mr. Morris. You mean that a known Communist and an identified 
Communist became secretary of the county committee? 

Dr. Phillips. Secretary and assistant secretary of the Oahu County 
committee, yes, sir. 

At the 1948 Territorial Convention of the Democratic Party, 41 
Communist Party members served as delegates or alternates. 

Mr. Morris. That is out of how many. Dr. Phillips ; do you know ? 

Dr. Phillips. I think some four hundred odd. I am not sure about 
that. Approximately. 

This was the occasion described by Governor Stainback in his testi- 
mony before j'ou last week, when loyal Democrats walked out and 
held their own convention. 

According to the commission on subversive activity, it has in its 
possession sworn testimony that the mass infiltration of the Demo- 
cratic Party which I have just described was planned at a meeting 
of the executive committee of the Communist Party of Oahu held at 
the home of Jack Hall early in 1948. 

Persons who attended that meeting, the commission reported in 
1955, are still prominently identified with the ILWU. Six of them 
were convicted of Smith Act violation 3i/^ years ago but are still out 
on bail, pending appeal. 

And now may I proceed with further discussion of the political 
activity? In 1954 the ILWU leadership concentrated on candidates 
for office, and they elected enough of their endorsed candidates to 
exert, in my opinion, a profound effect on the 1955 legislative session. 

In the 1956 elections, just ended, there was also concentration on 
candidates. Candidates were called in for informal talks; many of 
them were subjected to interviews with candidates. I have been told 
that many of them were questioned by Robert McElrath, Newt Miyagi, 
and others. A great amount of free radio time was given by the 
ILIVU to candidates, and many of them availed themselves of that 
free time. It was offered to all candidates, I understand, many of 
whom refused to accept it, and at least one of them agreed to accept 
it providing there was permission to pay for the time, but that was 
not granted, it had to be free time or else. 

Senator Butler. Do you know of your personal knowledge whether 
or not the ILWU or the UPW contributed directly to any of the 
successful candidates in that election ? 

Dr. Phillips. Contributed funds? 



2324 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Dr. Phillips. No, I do not know. 

Senator Butler. Do you have any reporting system on political 
elections in the Islands? 

Dr. Phillips. No, sir. 

Senator Butler. The candidates don't have to file reports ? 

Dr. Phillips. Oh, yes, yes. I beg your pardon. They do. 

Senator Butler. Have you ever examined any of those reports ? 

Dr. Phillips. No, I haven't. Just as they — the lump sums that 
they spent were reported in the public press. 

I would like also to point out that, in this 1956 election campaign, 
the press reported that the ILWTJ legislative committee, a committee 
of nine, who, according to the press, would endorse political candi- 
dates acceptable to IL"\VTF leadership, included the following : Thomas 
Yagi, director of the Maui division of the ILWU, a known C omm u- 
nist ; Tadashi Ogawa, director of the Oahu division of the ILWU, a 
known Communist; and Newton Miyagi, secretary-treasurer of the 
ILWU, local 142. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you say that they were 3 of the 9 members of the 
legislative committee of the IL"WU? 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Mr. Morris. That engaged in the activities that you have described ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes. 

Mr. INIoRRis. Mr. Chairman, if I might break in, we have Mr. 
Miyagi standing by, available for testimony. His name has come up 
once already in Dr. Phillips' testimony, and we have called him here, 
to give Mr. Miyagi an opportunity to make any comments whatever 
he might have on the specific points of Dr. Phillips' testimony. 

Senator Johnston. Doctor, when you say "known Communists," 
could you expand on that a little bit and tell us just how you know^ 
they are known Communists ? 

Dr. Phillips. I explained that earlier. Senator. I would be glad 
to explain again. '\Ylien I mention "known Communists" or "identi- 
fied Communists," I am referring to individuals who have been iden- 
tified as Communists and so declared in the reports of the Territorial 
commission on subversive activities or other governmental investiga- 
tive bodies. 

Senator Johnston. So you are using that report to identify them? 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Senator Johnston. As known Communists. 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Senator Johnston. That explains it. 

Dr. Phillips. It is my own understanding that those statements 
and identifications by the commission on subversive activities are 
based on sworn testimony which the commission accepted as true. 

Senator Johnston. Not convicted but by sworn testimony at these 
hearings 

Dr. Phillips. Before the commission. 

Senator Johnston. Before the commission ? 

Dr. Phuxips. Yes, sir ; that's true. Does that answer your question ? 

Senator Butler. And, Doctor, were those public hearings ? 

Dr. Phillips. No; I do not believe they were. Perhaps some of 
them were. Members of the commission could answer that question 
for you. I am relying on the reports of the commission as published. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2325 

Senator Welker. Proceed, Doctor. 

Dr. Phillips. I liave discussed the control of labor ; I have discussed 
the activities, and this has been a very brief, not a comprehensive, 
discussion of political activities, just enough to give you an idea, and 
now I would like to proceed to a discussion of the apparent influence 
on our Grovernment, particularly on the last legislature. 

It was quite apparent to those who visited the legislature fre- 
quently 

Mr. Morris. Did you so visit ? 

Dr. Phillips. I did. That known Communists kept vigil on lolani 
Palace during the entire session and were observed to be on terms of 
intimacy, friendliness, with many legislators. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give us an example of that, Dr. Phillips ? 

Dr. Phillips. Oh, I frequently came over here during the legisla- 
tive session and observed Robert McElrath and Henry Epstein in 
their close relationships with members of the legislature, apparently 
on the freest of terms and quite intimate. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I think it would probably be advisable if we 
asked Dr. Phillips — I don't know; you make the decision — whether 
or not he should mention the names of any of the legislators. We 
try not to, unless we give these people an opportunity to say so. 

Senator Welker. No ; we will not do that. 

Mr. Morris. So if you tell us about examples. Doctor, will you 
mention only the names of the people you describe as "known Com- 
munists" on terms of great intimacy and friendliness with legislators, 
but do not mention the names of the legislators, because, according to 
our procedure, we would then haA'e to bring the legislators in to make 
comment on that testimony. We try as much as possible to give every- 
one whose name is mentioned an opportunity to answer. So you can 
see why the insertion of any names into the record would prolong 
these hearings. 

Dr. Phillips. I understand. I would like to quote from a press 
report that appeared during the session of the legislature, for its sig- 
nificance. Commenting on the tax bill which was pending before the 
legislature, this press report said this — and I quote : 

If the bill had not passed the house by midnight, Senate President William 
Heen had warned he would adjourn the upper house and end the session. The 
house had worked during the day with intention of doing so, even before the 
senate gave its ultimatum to Speaker Charles Kauhane. The speaker would not 
disclose his own plans. At 8 p. m. he went into a meetnig with Robert McElrath 
and several other ILWU recresentatives. 

Then I would like to submit also as being significant, the matter of 
a measure which was brought before the legislature for exemption 
of the ILWU memorial clubhouse from taxation. This measure passed 
the house, the senate, and went to the Governor, where it was vetoed. 
I have here a certified copy of two pages from the journal of the 
house of representatives of the last legislature, from which I would 
like to read. On page 1281 there is the following: 

A message from the Governor (Governor's message No. 25, returning bill No. 
58 without his approval) was read by the clerk, as follows: "In accordance 
with section 49 of the Organic Act, I return herewith, without my approval, 
house bill No. 58. The purpose of this bill is to exempt from the real property 
tax all property owned and used exclusively by the ILWU Memorial Associa- 
tion in the Territory of Hawaii. The exemption is granted retroactively to 



2326 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

January 1, 1955, and would include property that may be acquired in the future 
as well as property now owned by the association. 

"The ILWU Memorial Association was granted a charter as an eleemosynary 
corporation on May 23, 1950. It was founded by the International Longshore- 
men's & Warehousemen's Union ; its membership is limited to present and former 
members of the ILWU. 

"The 1955 report of the territorial commission on subversive activities states 
that 'Communist activity in Hawaii now appears to be centered almost entirely 
around the ILWU, its satellite union, the UPW, and the Honolulu Record, a 
weekly newspaper largely svibsidized by the ILWU.' 

"Upon the incorporation of the ILWU Memorial Association, 7 of the 10 oflScers 
and directors were persons who have been identified as having been members 
of the Communist Party ; 4 of the 7 were among the so-called Reluctant 39, 
and 1 of the 4 has been convicted imder the Smith Act. Since its incorporation, 
not less than half of the officers and directors of the association have been 
persons who have been identified as having been members of the Communist 
Party. 

"The Attorney General has submitted a report covering this bill, together 
with house bill No. 693 and house bill No. 882, all three measures proposing to 
exempt certain real property from taxation. He advises me that such exemp- 
tions are not within the legislative power conferred by the Hawaiian Organic 
Act. I attach a copy of his memorandum herewith. 

"In view of the foregoing, I cannot approve of this legislation." 

Mr. Morris. In other words, legislation which would give a tax 
exemption ? 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. And then the journal continues as 
follows : 

The communication, Governor's message No. 23, was received and placed 
on file. 

Notwithstanding the veto of the Governor to the contrary, Mr. Inouye moved 
for final passage of house bill No. 58, seconded by Mr. Carvalho and carried 
by the following vote of 22 ayes and 6 noes, with Representatives Hind and 
Yoshinaga being excused. 

And then follows the vote for and against. 

Mr. Morris. No need of reading those, Doctor. 

Wliat happened in the senate ? 

Dr. Phillips. The senate did uphold the veto of the Governor, and 
the tax exemption was not granted. 

Mr. Morris. The legislation did not override 

Dr. Phillips. The legislation failed by virtue of the action of the 
Senate. 

Mr. Morris. The point that you make there — excuse me, Senator. 

Senator Johnston. Do you have, for the record, the vote of the 
Senate, Doctor ? What it was, how many for, how many against ? 

Dr. Phillips. No; I do not have that. Senator. 

Mr. Morris. I will put that in the record at this point, Senator. 

(The vote record was not available when this hearing was sent to 
the printer. ) 

The point you make is. Dr. Phillips, that after the Governor had 
made very clear to the legislature that this organization was in fact a 
Communist-controlled association, and despite his warning to the 
legislature, the house of representatives nevertheless proceeded by a 
22 to 6 vote, to override the veto ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. I am discussing this in connection with my 
discussion of apparent influence on the last legislature. I am aware 
of the fact that if a doctor inadvertently leaves a sponge or scissors 
in a patient's abdomen and is subsequently up for negligence or mal- 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2327 

practice, that lawyers in the courts use a Latin phrase "Kes ipsa 
loquitur." Do I quote that correctly ? 

Mr. JMoRRis. That is correct. 

Dr. Phillips. Meaning "The facts speak for themselves." "The 
fact speaks for itself." 

Senator Welker. Not bad, Doctor. You are getting along pretty 
well. 

Dr. Phillips. The matter of the reduction of the budget of the com- 
mission on subversive activities, I think there has been mention in 
testimony before you, a budget of $47,000 was recommended. This 
was reduced to $20,000 by the legislature, which was inadequate to 
continue on the activities of the commission on subversive activities, 
and its staff, I understand, was discharged about a month ago for want 
of further funds. It was quite apparent to me one night when I was 
before the house of representatives, in connection with the leaking of 
the report of the connnission on subversive activities, that there was a 
move afoot against the commission on subversive activities at that 
time. In that meeting the speaker of the house stated that it was 
intended, and I believe that he introduced a resolution or a measure 
to that effect, to have future members of the commission, that is, the 
commission on subversive activities, appointed by the president of the 
senate and the speaker of the house. 

Mr. Morris. Rather than by the Governor? 

Dr. Phillips. Rather than by the Governor. Mr. Kauhane was the 
speaker of the house. 

Senator Johnston. Didn't give the Governor any appointments 
whatsoever ? 

Dr. Phillips. In connection with the commission on subversive ac- 
tivities, the statemient was made and, as I understand, the measure was 
introduced giving the power of appointment to the commission to the 
speaker of the house and the senate. That, however, failed of passage. 
The commission was adequately — inadequately taken care of, I should 
say, by the reduction of its budget, which effectively scuttled it. 

Senator Watkins. Has it operated at all since that time ? 

Dr. Phillips. I understand that it operated until about a month 
ago, at which time, I understand, the office staff' was dismissed, and 
Mr. Emanuel, I think, is on vacation. 

Senator Watkins. They ceased operating because they ran out of 
money ? 

Dr. Phillips. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Watkins. Did they cease their operations because they ran 
out of money ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. That is the reason that has been given, be- 
cause of inadequate funds. 

There has been attached some significance to an incident that oc- 
curred during the legislative session. An item appeared first, I think, 
in the People's Daily World, the Communist newspaper on the main- 
land, recording that a complimentary gavel had been sent to Harry 
Bridges, head of the ILWIJ, then in convention in Los Angeles, by 
Speaker Charles Kauhane, speaker of the House of Representatives of 
the Legislature of Hawaii. It is understood — this was reported in 
the press — that Mr. Kauhane gave this gavel to Newton Miyagi, an 
identified Communist, and that Mr. Miyagi transmitted this gavel 
with Mr. Kauhane's compliments to Harry Bridges. 



2328 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

That has been considered of some significance, I believe. 

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss Communist propa- 
ganda here in the islands. I think you have had some information 
before you on that subject before. It is estimated that at least a quar- 
ter of a million dollars was spent by the ILWU and other Communist 
agencies in propaganda largely affecting the people of this Territory. 
According to the commission on subversive activities, the ILWU re- 
ported that $199,604.50 was spent to maintain its propaganda appa- 
ratus in a single year. 

This has been reported in the 19.55 report of the commission. 

We have been advised that maintenance and publishing of the Hono- 
lulu Record, which has been identified as a Communist-front news- 
paper, costs at least $50,000, in addition to this $199,000 which the 
ILWU reports, so that I think that the figure $250,000, or a quarter 
of a million dollars for propaganda, largely devoted, according to the 
commission, to Communist purposes is perhaps on the low side. 

Senator Watkins. May I ask a question at this point ? 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. Is the Record published in the English language 
exclusively ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes ; it is. 

Mr. Morris. INIr. Chairman 

Dr. Phillips. Sometimes pidgin English, but it is the English 
language. 

Senator Watkins. It passes for English, anyway. I say it passes 
for English ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes. Correct. 

Senator Johnston. Does the report break it down in any details 
whatsoever? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes; it does. I think that was read into the testi- 
mony the other day, was it not? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, Dr. Phillips. 

Senator Johnston, did— I did bring in with a great deal of detail, 
and that's one of the reasons, Senator Johnston, we have Mr. Miyagi 
standing by. We are talking about Mr. Miyagi, who is the treasurer 
of local 142 — we are talking about his figures — and for the 3 episodes 
now — we haA^e 3 episodes in the record that you can ask Mr. Miyagi 
about as soon as Dr. Phillips is finished. 

Senator Welker. Yes. I think that can be done. Proceed. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Will you tell us about the character of this propaganda. 
Dr. Phillips? 

Dr. Pthllips. I would like to discuss the character of this propa- 
ganda. It is largely agitational in type and it is uniformly consistent 
witli and never diverges from the Communist line and purposes. Some 
if it it has a more or less of a legitimate union aspect, but through it 
all, over the years that I have followed it, it has been almost entirely 
ngitational or largely agitational, and I have never in a single instance 
heard any divergence from or criticism of the Communist line. It is 
quite apparent 

Senator Watkins. Just a moment, Doctor. No criticism of the 
Communist line. Has there ever been any criticism of the Communist 
Party? 

Dr. Ptttlltps. None that I know of, sir. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2329 

Senator Watkins. Or of the Communist nations, Russia and the 
satellites ? 

Dr. Phillips. If there has been, I haven't heard it or read it. 

Senator Watkins. And you have rather carefully gone over all of 
this propaganda, have you not? 

Dr. Phillips. Well, 1 do practice medicine too, but I have devoted 
a considerable amount of time to this work. 

Senator Watkins. I didn't expect — — 

Dr. Phillips. As far as I can. 

Senator Watkins. I didn't expect you to read it all, because it runs 
into an immense number of words and volume, but in making that 
statement, we would just like to know how extensively you have gone 
into this. We Avouldn't want to be unfair. If they have ever de- 
nounced the Communists or Russia and the satellite nations, which 
follow the Communist cause, we would like to know about it. 

Dr. Phillips. Nor do I wish to be unfair, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. Yes. 

Dr. Phillips. It is quite apparent that the purpose of this propa- 
ganda is, I would say, threefold. First of all, to stir up racial an- 
tagonism, particularly against the haoles, or the white people here 
in tliis community ; second, to create and promote stress between em- 
ployer and employee and between persons of different economic levels; 
and, third, to destroy respect for government. 

I think that if vou gentlemen listened to the broadcast and rebroad- 
cast of Harry Bridges speech before the demonstrators against this 
committee last week, you know what I am talking about when I say — 
refer to that as a good example of agitational propaganda. In that 
there was appeal to racial friction, there was the threat ancl the bribe 
and the extreme disrespect for properly constituted authority, which 
has, in my opinion, marked all of this propaganda to which I refer. 

Senator Watkins. Do you have copies of his broadcast? 

Dr. Philijps. I believe that we do ; I am not sure. 

Senator Watkins. If you do, submit them so that I can read them. 

Dr. Phillips, If we have them, yes. 

Senator Watkins, I would appreciate the opportunity to read 
them, 

Dr, Phillips. I am not sure whether we retape that or not. 

Senator Welker, I know you would. Senator, appreciate that, and 
we will try to get copies of the broadcast, 

Mr. ISIoRRis. Senator, we have a record of that. 

(A transcription of the Bridges broadcast as printed in the Hono- 
lulu Record was marked "Exhibit No, 387" and reads as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 887 
[Honolulu Record, December 6, 1956] 

BRinGES Blasts Eastland Senate Committee 

Hello folks, brothers aud sisters, members of the ILWU, and our friends. I 
wish to address you for a few minutes today as to the purpose of this meeting, 
and again to remind you as to the reasons for this union's existence. 

We are holding a protest meeting, and, as a imion, we are protesting the visit 
to these Islands by a Senator of the United States, a Senator who proclaims that 
he is here to investigate communism. We attempted to secure permission, in 
keeping with law, from the local authorities, so that this meeting could be held 

72723 — 57— pt. 40 2 



2330 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

elsewhere, and that everybody could understand our purpose — what was being 
said and why. But we were unable to secure that proper permission, or legal 
permision, and we eventually secured the services of this auditorium. We were 
denied permission, according to what the local authorities told us, because Mr. 
Eastland apparently didn't like it. And that's something new. 

Quite a struggle is being waged at the present time, and it will continue, in 
the United States of America over the rights of certain people, citizens all, to 
be equal before the law, before God, and before the community — a struggle over 
the rights of people not to be discriminated against — their right to go to school 
and not be segregated because of their color or race. That's an important strug- 
gle. [Applause.] Legislation has been passed, and the courts of our country 
are attempting to enforce that legislation. We just passed through a great 
national election. Hardly a single politician dared try to evade the issue — the 
right of people to be equal and to be treated as equals with the proper dignity 
and respect accorded them no matter where they were born, no matter what their 
color. 

Mr. Eastland and his cohorts do not concede that right to people of America 
who do not have white skins. Now there's no argument about that. The record 
is clear, and has been clear on that point since this Senator has been in the 
Congress of the United States. He has firmly indicated that he considers the 
Supreme Court of the United States, if not "Communist controlled," then "Com- 
munist influenced," because that Court ruled that people of all races have a right 
to attend the schools of our country without discrimination or segregation. Mr. 
Eastland is down here to block statehood for the Territory of Hawaii. He has 
said so, and he says it all the time. He wouldn't say it here, but he's down here 
to build a little record to say it in Washington to block what he thinks is legis- 
lation that will come about very shortly to give home rule to this Territory and 
its people and a greater degree of democracy and equality. The way to do that 
is to block statehood, or to argue against it on the grounds that the citizens of 
this Territory cannot be trusted, and especially the citizens who are members 
of the ILWU — to attack their loyalty, as well as their dignity and integrity. 

We doji't have to stand for that, and we don't intend to. We have a right 
to leave our jobs, and to come up and participate in meetings and to say what 
we think. We do not, and we cannot challenge the right of any congressional 
committee to investigate here or anywhere else, but we do expect to be treated 
with dignity and equality. * * * He (Eastland) considers people who are not 
white inferiors. He said as much, and he has attempted to make a career out 
of being a white supremacist. 

There are some employers here who are protesting that they have had nothing 
to do with the appearance of this committee. If they don't support the committee 
by their silence, if they don't agree with the committee's aims, they should say so. 
I don't expect them to come down here at a meeting and say so, but they should 
say so, instead of trying to tell us that we haven't got the right to leave our jobs 
and participate in a protest against the things that Mr. Eastland stands for, 
a protest against his opposition of statehood, a protest against his pretense of in- 
vestigating communism, and in leality trying to whittle down, or weaken, one of 
the strongest [applause] supporters of statehood. (At this point a person made 
up as a Ku Klux Klanner came onto the stage.) Looks like some of the members 
of that committee's gotten down here. 

We have a union in Hawaii, and we have a union on the mainland, too. I want 
to remind the membership of that. The union here does not stand alone, and no 
individual in the union is going to stand alone. We know how to fight, and fight 
we will. The employers, and some other people in this Territory, seem to want 
to have it both ways. We make recommendations to our rank and file and 
explain the reasons for them, and the rank and file vote on them, and because they 
exercise their democratic right in the union to maybe vote the recommendation 
up or down, somebody tries to say the union is split or in revolt. We can't have it 
both ways. We can't have an alleged dictatorship, and when Bridges says, "Go 
on strike," or, "Walk out," or do something, that's what happens, when, in reality, 
the situation is : Your officers make a recommendation ; they explain the reasons 
for the recommendation ; the recommendations are put on a vote ; everyone 
exercises his right to vote ; and somebody tries to make a split or revolt out of it. 
It's laughable and it's not worth us wasting our time on it. 

Now I want to tell you some of the workings of this committee. First of all, I 
speak as somewhat of an expert. I have been answering questions under oath for 
over 20 years. I have been through five trials * * * j know a little about this 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2331 

method of asking questions, trick questions, and other things. I know a little 
about the prosecutions for alleged perjury. 

All the questions this committee wants to ask have been answered by me over 
and over again, time after time, before congressional committees and courts under 
oath, with always the threat of contempt or perjury. And all of you know that. 
There's not a single question this committee can ask any officer of this union that 
the Congress of the United States hasn't had the answers to for over 20 years. 
The courts of the United States have had the answers * * * But there was some 
element of fairness and decency and legal protection before those committees, as 
there is before a court of law. You go liefore a court of law, and you're asked 
certain questions, the evidence on which the question is based. You have a righr 
to face and cross-examine your accuser. You have the right to make the friendly 
witness out a liar, and, in most cases, we have been through that and did that over 
a period of many, many years, but Mr. Eastland does not intend to allow anybody 
a right of that kind. 

A congressional committee of this type commanded by a Senator like Mr. East- 
land can prove anything the Senators want to prove, and they know it. They'll 
bring out the type of evidence, so-called, they want to bring out. They will sup- 
press the type of evidence that will contradict anything they are seeking to bring 
before the people. They will do it by the device of entrapment, by trick questions 
where the victim before the committee faces prosecution for perjury, or prosecu- 
tion for so-called contempt of the committee. 

That is why people resort to the use of the fifth amendment of the Constitution. 
They use their legal and constitutional right — a right, incidentally put in the Bill 
of Rights to protect the innocent as well as any who might be guilty — and they 
refuse to answer because they know the reason that the committee seeks the 
answers is not to acquire information, or to conduct an honest examination, but 
to victimize witnesses, and attempt to hurt his organization. The trick questions 
flow, and sometimes there is some confusion or lack of understanding in the minds 
of people. 

Mr. Eastland soon will be asking officers or members of our union : When was 
the last time you engaged in espionage against the United States? When was 
the last time you got orders from Moscow or some other place? When was the 
last time you committed sabotage? When was the last time you sat down with 
some people, and conspired to be a spy against your country? When was the 
last time you engaged with some alien elements to commit sabotage against the 
United States or its defense institutions? 

* * * And I suppose oflScers and members of his union will go before that 
committee, and they will be asked, "Now what did you have to do with planning 
or trying to plan an uprising because it says right here in sworn testimony (by 
a former United States general, now retired) before this committee that that 
was what was going on down here." Well, all of you know it is a lie, and all 
of you know it is nonsense. And, as a matter of fact, that was what was behind 
the official proposal made through our attorneys to have all the subpenaed wit- 
nesses go before the committee, and if they asked, "Are you a Communist?'' to 
answer that question "Yes" or "No" ; or — if asked "Have you been a Communist 
for the past several years?" to answer the question "Yes" or "No." 

Mr. Eastland said he is not concerned with the activities of the union. Well, 
the way it works, you go up and answer a couple of questions like that, and your 
answer is truthful. Then they start asking you, "If you're not a Commimist, 
is so and so one?" Don't try to say, "I don't know," because they will run in 
their professional stool pigeons and witnesses to prove that you are lying when 
you said, "I don't know." There are people in jail today because of saying 
before a committee in all truthfulness in answer to a question, "Do you know 
if so and so is or has been a Communist?" "I don't know." So there is only one 
Vv-ay. Knowing the committee, knowing the type of chairman it has, knowing 
that he does not concede our equality before the law, then the only thing to 
do — and the oflScers of this union have had enough experience in it — is to take 
refuge in those provisions of our United States Constitution that were put in 
the Constitution for that specific purpose. 

Mr. Eastland would like nothing better than to tear up the Constitution and 
the Bill of Rights of the United States because he does not believe it should apply 
to all the Nation's citizens and people — only the ones that he thinks it should 
apply to. Well, we do not agree. 

* * * Mr. Eastland and others who seem to agree with him ought to consider 
something I just told the employers a couple of days ago : "We have no job control 
in this Territory. Every member of the union and every officer who came off the 



2332 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

job was put on the job by the employers of this Territory." We didn't put them 
there. We organized them into the union, and when we organized them, we didn't 
look at the color of their sldn. We did not ask them what their politics were. 
They were workers. They had been hired by the employers. They were eligible 
for membership in the union — and that's where we want them, and we intend to 
represent them, and improve their wages, hours, and conditions. [Applause.] 

The real grievance Mr. Eastland has against us is that we have been effective 
politically. We have gone to work and tried to help and support candidates for 
public office dedicated to equality and to statehood for Hawaii. Mr. Eastland is 
afraid of that. 

Let us all be of good cheer, full of confidence in our union. Nothing is going to 
happen. We are calm people, and we know what we are doing. We are not moti- 
vated by andy suicidal crazy impulses. We are still doing business at the same 
old stand. 

One of the best messages to our answers that I have seen to Mr. Eastland as 
far as this union is concerned was yesterday when we were able to announce 
another 16 cents an hour increase for the Hawaiian longshoremen [applause], 
effective October 1. That makes a 22 cents an hour increase since June 18 ; 6 
cents from June 18 to September 30 ; another 16 cents from October 1 — Mr. East- 
land doesn't like it. He doesn't like it at all because Mr. Eastland doesn't concede 
the longshoremen in his State the right to get as much wages as longshoremen 
elsewhere because they have black skins. Just remember that. The best answer 
to Mr. Eastland right while he is down here : Wages go up again 16 cents an hour. 
That's a pretty good record for our union. Not many unions in the United States 
in the last few months have increased wages 22 cents an hour. We are going to 
stay that way, and we have to catch up in sugar. We have to catch up in pine, 
and no matter what damage Mr. Eastland tries to do ; no matter how much he 
tries to help the employers of this Territory ; wages in sugar are going up. 
[Applause.] In pineapples, too. [Applause.] And furthermore, everybody is 
going to get those wages. That 16 cents goes to everybody in longshore, not just 
to white people — all people. And as far as Mr. Eastland is concerned, he is not 
going to worry us at all. We just want him to know what we think of him and 
where we stand. 

And in this connection I can assure the members here in the Territory that mil- 
lions upon millions of people agree with you in all walks of life. 

Senator Welker. Very well. Proceed. 

Dr. Phillips. I would like to discuss the effect of these Communist 
activities and Communist-front propaganda on this community. 

In the last report of the commission on subversive activities, the 
commission refers to the public attitude as being one of apathy and 
indifference. And I concur in that opinion. 

I am convinced that this propaganda has had a definite and un- 
healthy impact, not only on the rank and file of 1 abor, but on people in 
all walks of life. It is consistently anticapitalist, antihaole, anti- 
government. And it definitely has widened the gap between the 
haole, the white, and the nonwhite in this community, a gap which 
people of all races here in Hawaii have sincerely striven to eliminate 
over many decades and in which they have succeeded to a greater extent 
than perhaps any other place in the world. 

There has been a considerable acceptance, an alarming acceptance, 
of these known Communists into the life of the community and its 
civic affairs ; it has been manifested in many ways. In connection with 
this, as one instance, I would like to refer to a pamphlet which was 
published recently by the industrial relations center of the University 
of Hawaii. It is entitled "Labor Management Relations in Hawaii." 
The table of contents indicates that it contains articles by Mr. Ralph 
O. Beck, who is a vice president of the Hawaiian Telephone Co., by 
Mr. Arthur Rutledge, who is head of one of the A. F. of L. unions 
here, by Mr. C. J. Henderson, who is one of the vice presidents of 
Castle & Cookej by Dr. Harold S. Roberts, who is the director of this 
industrial relations center, and an article by David E. Thompson, who 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2333 

is, I understand, the education director of the IL'WTT and a known 
Communist. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, does the book mention Mr. Thompson's 
position as the educational director of the ILWU ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, it does. 

Senator Johnston. He signs it, then, himself, in that capacity, is 
that true ? 

Dr. Phillips. May I just— Well, I answered that quickly, but in 
referring here, I do 'not find that Mr. Thompson is identified as the 
education director of the ILWU. 

Mr. Morris. In other words 

Senator Welker. Do you know him to be the educational director ? 

Dr. Phillips. That's my understanding, yes, sir. 

Senator Welker. You know him to be such ? 

Dr. Phillips. He is reported to be, he is named in the commission 
on subversive activities, his name has appeared as such in various 
connections. 

Senator Welker. And his general reputation here in the community 
is that he is the educational director ? 

Dr. Phillips. That's right. 

Mr. Morris. The point you are making. Dr. Phillips, is that this 
pamphlet, which is distributed quite widely apparently, contains an 
article by David Thompson, does not identify him either as a Com- 
munist or as the educational director of the ILWU ? 

Dr. Phillips. I would like to make two points in connection with 
this. First of all, it is a discussion of labor-management relations in 
Hawaii, and I have read it very carefully and I find no reference 
whatsoever to the Communist influence in labor matters here in the 
islands, an influence which I am convinced affects every facet of labor- 
management here in the Territory. The second point is that Mr. 
David E. Thompson is not identified in this University of Hawaii 
publication as a known Communist, in spite of the fact that the com- 
mission on subversive activities has repeatedly indicated that he is 
an identified Communist. 

I would like to say further that this was published some months 
after the department of public instruction set up a committee, an 
advisory committee on conomic education and requested management- 
labor to send representatives to serve on this advisory committee. 1 
am informed that the ILWU sent as its representative Mr. David 
Thompson, its education director, this known Communist that I am 
speaking of, and Mrs. Ah Quong McElrath, who is Mr. McElrath's 
wife, as their representatives. 

Senator Welker. Counsel, at this point in the proceedings, I think 
we perhaps should hear from Mr. Mandel, our research director, with 
respect to what we find about David E. Thompson, Director of Labor 
Organizations in the Territory of Hawaii, No. 29, Revised March 
1956, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Re- 
search Statistics, Territory of Hawaii. 

Mr. Mandel. According to the Directory of Labor Organizations, 
Territory of Hawaii, No. 29, Revised March 1956, on page 23 it shows 
under International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 
David E. Thompson is the Territorial education director. 

Senator Welker. Proceed with the witness. Dr. Phillips. 

Dr. Phillips. I was talking about this advisory committee on 
economic education, set up by the department of public instruction, to 



2334 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

which the IL^^^J sent as its representatives David Thompson and 

Mrs. McElrath. , , . 

There came a time when it was pointed out that this was a semi- 
official body and that its members woukl be required to make a per- 
sonal history statement and also take the loyalty oath, which is re- 
quired of Government employees here. Mr. Thompson and Mrs. 
:McElrath did not subscribe and left the committee. This appeared 
in the paper and I think was published knowledge long before this 

booklet was issued. . 

In connection with the hrst statement, that there is nothing what- 
soever in this document relating to the Communist activities in con- 
nection with labor here, 1 woukl like to say that I talked with Mr. 
Ralph O. Beck, who was the author of the first article appearing m 
there, and he told me that tlie original manuscript of his paper con- 
tained a number of paragraphs dealing with that subject. Those 
paragraphs, however, do not appear in this booklet.^ 

' See the following : January 11. 1957. 

Mr. Paul S. Bachman, 

President, University of Hawaii. 

Honolulu li, T. H. 
Dear Mr. Bachman : Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1956, enclosing a copy 

*'^l''am^h"ppT^?'iid^iRl you that both letters will be incorporated in a footnote to the 
printed transcript of Dr Phillips' testimony before the Internal Security Subcommittee. 
With my best personal wishes, 

Sincerely yours, ^^^^^ ^ Eastland, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee. 



University of Hawaii, 
Honolulu, T. H., December 5, 1956. 

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, 
Care of Office of the Governor, 

lolani Palace, Honolulu, T. H. 
Dear Sir : I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Dr. Lyle Phillips, who testified before 
vour committee. The letter, I believe, is self-explanatory. I am sure you will wish to 
delete this part of his testimony or include the enclosed letter in your records. 

Sincerely yours, p^^^ g_ Bachman, President. 



University of Hawaii, 
Honolulu, T. H., December 6, 1956 

Lyle G. Phillips, M. D., 

S50 South Hotel Street, Honolulu, T. H. 

Dear Lyle : Yon will recall that some time ago you told me that Dean Harold S. 
Roberts had edited out of a reprint of a speech by Mr. Ralph Beck before the American 
Management Association certain references to the Communist aflttliations of certain ot 
the leaders of the ILWU. I was very much disturbed by this, but hesitated to discuss it 
with Dean Roberts due to the fact tliat he was recovering from a heart attack. I under- 
stand that recently you made a somewhat similar statement to the Senate Subcommittee 
on Internal Security. I have now consulted both Dean Roberts and Mr. Beck and have 
determined that no such deletion was made by Dean Roberts. The article as reprinted 
by us is exactly the same as it originally appeared in the publication of the American 
Management Association. ,. x. ^ v. 

I know that you will be gratified as as I am to know that no alteration was made by 
Dean Roberts and will want to take the necessary steps to correct the injustice done him. 
I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to the chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Internal Security. 

Sincerely yours, p^^^ ^ Bachman, President. 

University of Hawaii, 
Honolulu, T. H., January H, 1957. 

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. O. 
Dear Sir : On .Tanuarv 9, 1957, President Paul S. Bachman, of the University of 
Hawaii, dictated the covering letter for the enclosed material. Before he had signed the 
letter he was stricken fatally with a heart seizure. Needless to say. the university has 
suffered a very serious blow as has the cause of education both in the Territory and In the 
United States mainland, where his influence, wise counsel, and integrity were beginning 
to be felt increasingly and respected. 

I am forwarding to you the material, together with his covering letter. 

Very sincerely, , ,. „ .. .. 

WiLLABD Wilson, Actmg President. 

(Footnote 1 continued on p. 2335.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2335 

Now, I am submitting this, not with any idea of reflecting on the 
university or the people up there. It is simply as an indication of 
the casual way in which known Communists are accepted, and one 
almost might say embraced, in this community. 

Senator Watkins. Dr. Phillips 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. Do you have an extra copy of that paper, that 
bulletin that you were talking about, that may be submitted to tlie 
committee as an exhibit? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Watkins, I might add that Mr. David E. 
Thompson has been subpenaed will be a witness here, almost the next 
witness here today, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. I understand that, but I would still like to have 
a copy of the document. 

Senator Welker. Very well. It will be so ordered, and made a 
part of the record. 

(The publication above described was marked "Exhibit No. 388," 
and was placed in the subcommittee's files.) 

Dr. Phillips. I might call to your attention, when you read this, 
that this hardly squares with — the material in this, in my opinion, 
is very excellent propaganda material — but it hardly squares with the 
Bridges' approach in his speech last week. 

University of Hawaii, 
HonolulUj T. H., January 9, 1957. 
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : On December 5 I sent you a copy of my letter to Dr. Lyle Phillips, who 
testified before your committee in Honolulu. I believe that Dr. Phillips has sent you a 
copy of his reply to me. I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by Ralph Beck in 
which he also states that he gained the impression that Dr. Phillips' testimony implied 
at least that a change in the article had been made by Dean Roberts. I was not present 
at the hearing when Dr. Phillips made the statement and, therefore, cannot be certain as 
to e.xactly what was said by Dr. Phillips. I am only interested in having the record 
conform with the facts and would appreciate it if you would examine the records to make 
certain that it does set forth the situation accurately. 
Sincerely yours, 

Paul S. Bachman, President. 

Hawaiian Telephone Co., 
Honolulu, T. H., December 5, 1956. 
Dean Harold S. Roberts, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. 

Dear Harry : The other day you asked me to clarify certain aspects of the talk I made 
at the American Management Association fall personnel conference held at the Astor 
Hotel, New York City, September 30, 1952. This speech was subsequently published by 
the American Management Association in a personnel series pamphlet No. 147, entitled 
"Spotlighting the Labor-Management Scene." The text as printed in this pamphlet did 
not accurately reflect my entire remarks made before that personnel conference. Certain 
portions of that talk were edited out by the American Management Association. In gen- 
eral, that portion which was edited related to remarks pertaining to certain of the ILWU 
operations in Hawaii, as well as references to Harry Bridges as president of that union. 
When requesting permission to edit portions of my talk, the American Management Asso- 
ciation editor of publications stated, "It is not the policy of the American Management 
Association to publish statements of a controversial nature." 

You will recall that in the spring of 1956 you asked my permission to republish this 
talk in your University of Hawaii publication. Labor Management Relations in Hawaii, 
(Part III. I cannot recall whether or not I told you at that time that the American Man- 
agement Association publication had been edited by their own staff and did not accurately 
reflect my entire talk. 

Dr. Lyle G. Phillips, former president of the Hawaii Resident's Association, Inc., when 
testifying before the United States Senate Internal Security Committee, indicated that 
the University of Hawaii edited the speech I made before the American Management 
Association. I believe that Dr. Phillips misunderstood my explanation when I described 
to him how the University of Hawaii reprinted the speech as published by the American 
Management Association. I believe he was mistakenly under the impression that the 
University of Hawaii edited this speech, rather than the American Management Associa- 
tion. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ralph O. Beck, Vice President. 



2336 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. Proceed, Dr. Phillips. 

Dr. Phillips. Continuing on this same subject, of the effect of all 
these Communist activities and propaganda on the community, I 
would like to mention very briefly a few more things. 

One is the politicians" acceptance of free ILWU radio time dur- 
ing the last campaign. Also, I would like to mention the attendance 
of prominent persons and at least one public official at testimonial 
dinners given for Jack Hall, wdio has been convicted of teaching and 
advocating — conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of our 
Government by force and violence. 

Senator Watkins. May I ask you a question at this point? 

Were these dinners given and the attendance of these people had 
after the conviction? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. They were held largely during the recent 
political campaign. Two of them have been held since that time, 1 
understand. 

Senator Watkins, It is difficult to understand why they would do 
that because the conviction still stands until it is set aside; he is still 
guilty until that is set aside by a competent court. 

Dr. Phillips. That was 3i^ years ago and I am afraid people be- 
gin to forget. 

Senator Watkins. They may forget, but at the same time the poli- 
ticians who are the people in public life who are attempting to guide 
public thinking and get public legislation, certainly ought to keep 
in mind, unless they are favorable to the idea advanced by these peo- 
ple, they ought not to give 

Dr. Phillips (interrupting). You certainly get the point that 1 
am trying to make, Senator. I quite agree with that. 

It has been my observation and is my opinion that, as the power 
and influence of the Communist apparatus has grown in this com- 
munity, there is an ever-increasing number of persons who are defi- 
nitely non-Communist and not Communist sympathizers who, how- 
ever,' liave been finding it expedient not to be openly and actively 
anti-Communist. 

Senator Watkins. Just what do you mean by that ? 

Dr. Phillips. I mean this. That as this Communist influence has 
grown and as people look at their labor relations and their business 
affairs and their political affairs and so forth, that it is quite apparent 
that many of them, although they are good American citizens — they 
are not Communists, they are not Communist sympathizers — do not 
speak out. Well, for instance, there are quite a few who regularly 
contribute to Imua if we don't mention their names. 

Senator Johnston. Doctor, what you mean to say is this : That a 
businessman, rather than to lose business, just keeps his mouth shut. 
Is that right ? 

Dr. Phillips. Yes, sir. It extends way beyond the businessman. 
It extends to the University of Hawaii in connection with this article 
that I just referred to. 

Senator Watkins, Could it possibly be true that, as was intimated 
to me by a leader in one field in this Territory here the other evening, 
that many of the businessmen, industrialists and others, were willing 
to wink at most anything if they could "make a fast buck," to use the 
language of this man with whom I was talking. I want to know if 
that is possible that that is happening here in this Territory. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2337 

Dr. Phillips. I don't know as I would put it quite that way. 

Senator Watkins. That's the way he put it. 

Dr. Phillips. I think it is true that there are some who are willing 
to look the other way if their labor relations are not disturbed. 

Senator Watkins. If they are acquainted with the situation that 
exists, and if they have any knowledge of the list of these loiown Com- 
munists, it seems to me that that is not being a loyal American, to take 
that kind of a stand. 

Senator Welker. I think the Senator from Utah has well described 
it. He is willing to make a fast buck. I don't care what you call it. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the reporter has run to 
the end of his machine here. 

Senator Welker. All right. It is in order that we suspend for 2 
minutes. Will the audience please remain seated? 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Senator Welker. May we have order. The proceedings will con- 
tinue. Counsel, your witness. 

Mr. IMoRRis. I think Senator Watkins hadn't finished. 

Senator Watkins. I think I made the only comment I want to make. 
I just doubt the loyalty of people who are willing to keep things hid, 
or go along with them, in order to make a fast buck, even though it 
might help the country rid itself of this type of people if they took a 
determined stand. And I have an opinion, a definite opinion that, if 
they all took a determined stand, this kind of menace could be ended. 

Dr. Phillips. I agree with that. I would also like to point out, 
however, that management here, as elsewhere, is required to deal with 
the properly elected representatives of labor unions, and consequently 
our sugar and pineapple industrialists clown here find themselves in 
the position of sitting down across the table from convicted Commu- 
nist Jack Hall, who was convicted in court here 3i/^ years ago of con- 
spiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of our Government by 
force and violence. It poses something of a dilemma for manage- 
ment. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to say that unless some good reason 
is shown, the courts are not carrying out their function they ought to 
in letting the matter hang fire that long. 

Dr. Phillips. I was about to comment on that. 

Senator Watkins. I have been a judge, and I am on the Judiciary 
Committee, along with my colleagues, and personally I don't believe 
that is a good policy to have matters continued so long without having 
a determination made. I don't think they're above criticism in a 
matter of that kind. 

Dr. Phillips. I am not a lawyer, Senator, and perhaps don't under- 
stand all of the reasons for these things, but I think that most people 
of this community share this opinion with me. They can't understand 
how it could be that every question in connection with the conviction 
of the Hawaii seven couldn't have been answered with justice and 
fairness to all in a matter of months, rather than 314 years and they 
are still out on bail. 

Senator Watkins. I have the same feeling that you just expressed. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, you mentioned that management was in 
something of a dilemma in that they had to bargain with the ILWIJ. 

Dr. Phillips. With the Communist leader of the IL"WU. 



2338 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. Doctor, there is no need or no requirement, however, on 
the part of management to attend the testimonial dinners for that 
same man ? 

Dr. Phillips. No, sir ; absolutely none. 

Mr. Morris. You weren't defending that ? 

Dr. Phillips. No, sir. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips, could you tell us about the effect of this 
long delay in connection with the appeals of the seven Hawaiian 
Communists ? 

Dr. Phillips. I think the worst effect, and I am confident that this 
is very, very definite, has been the increasing feeling in this com- 
munity — and taking into consideration the fact that many of our citi- 
zens down here are first and second generation American citizens — the 
feeling is that, after all, tliere can't be anything very serious about 
conspiring to teach and advocate tlie overthrow of our Government 
when 31/^ years go by between the conviction and sentence of these 
defendants and they're still out on bail, they're still carrying on in the 
same positions they were before. 

Personally, I think that Jack Hall is probably the most powerful 
person in this community, in spite of the fact that he is under convic- 
tion of teaching and advocating the overthrow of our Government. 

Senator Watkins. That is a judgment which has never been set 
aside ? 

Dr. Phillips. That's correct. I had correspondence not long ago 
with a Federal judge on the mainland, who told me that he couldn't 
understand why a case of this kind should be permitted to go 3i/^ years. 

Senator Johnston. Doctor, do you think it would clarify the situa- 
tion or help the situation if the Department of Justice would prosecute 
the IL"\'\^ for having in its organization men of this type at the head 
of it ? They have a right to prosecute them. 

Dr. Phillips. There is nothing wrong with the ILWU rank and 
file. Once that union supplanted its Communist leaders with clean 
leaders, I think that it could be a marvelous power of good for labor 
and for the community. 

Senator Johnston. Well, don't you think that the organization 
would clear itself of these men if the Department of Justice itself 
would prosecute the union for having these men at the head of it? 
They have a right to do it under the law on the statute book. 

Senator Welker. And then get a conviction and wait 3i/^ years 
on appeal ? 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any other concrete examples of the reac- 
tion to the delay. Dr. Phillips ? 

Senator Johnston. Just one thing. I want to put in at this place 
here the section of the act that gives the Attorney General a right to 
prosecute. I want this inserted into the record. He has that right 
and I believe it would clear up this situation. 

Senator Butler. And I would like for it to be stated at this point 
that when I was working on that act, to have it enacted and made a 
part of the law of the United States, I was labeled as a Red-baiter and 
the worst kind of a person that ever lived in America. 

Senator Johnston. That's right. 

Senator Buti.er. And I took a lot of abuse for putting it on the 
books. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2339 

Senator Johnston. That's the reason we passed it. 
Senator "Welker. Very well. Senator Johnston's exhibit will be 
inserted in the record at this point, the whole thereof. 
Mr. Arens, will you see that the reporter gets this? 
Mr. Morris. I Avill see that he gets it, Senator. 
Senator Weijcer. Let's have it done now. 
(The document referred to is as follows:) 

(4A) The term "Communist-infiltrated organization" means any organization 
in the United States (other than a Communist-action organization or a Com- 
munist-front organization) which (A) is substantially directed, dominated, or 
controlled by an individual or individuals who are, or who within 3 years have 
been actively engaged in, giving aid or support to a Communist-action organiza- 
tion, a Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement 
referred to in section 2 of this title, and (B) is serving, or within 3 years has 
served, as a means for (i) the giving of aid or support to any such organization, 
government, or movement, or (ii) the impairment of the military strength of the 
United States or its industrial capacity to furnish logistical or other material 
support required by its Armed Forces: Provided, however. That any labor organ- 
ization which is an affiliate in good standing of a national federation or other 
labor organization whose policies and activities have been directed to opposing 
Communist organizations, any Communist foreign government, or the world 
Communist movement, shall be presumed prima facie not to be a "Communist- 
infiltrated organization." (Internal security manual (revised) provisions of 
Federal statutes. Executive orders, and congressional resolutions relating to the 
internal security of the United States (through June 30, 1955, revision of S. 
Doc. No. 47, 83d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 85-86) . ) 

Senator Wei.ker. Now proceed. 

Dr. Phillips. Just a couple more examples which I submit in sub- 
stantiation of what I've had to say about the effect of all these Com- 
munist activities, the Smith Act trial, and the propaganda, on this 
community. 

This attitude that I have mentioned, on the part of the community 
that "After all that it is not very — it can't be very important if the 
Government doesn't do something about it," has been accentuated 
greatly since the publishing of accounts of the so-called testimonial 
dinners for convicted Communist Jack Hall, and particularly since 
these dinners have attracted as guests people of prominence, includ- 
ing Government officials and candidates for public office. 

Senator Watkixs. May I observe at this point that these people 
were not compelled by any law to attend those testimonial dinners. 

Dr. Phillips. They certainly were not. 

One other item. A few months ago I noticed in the public press 
that Thomas Yagi, an identified Communist, who has been before 
5"ou, appeared by invitation before the students, I think it was at the 
Baldwin High School on Maui, and addressed them on, if I recall 
correctly, the subject of labor-management relations. 

I think that too is of significance. This in spite of the fact that 
he had been named, by the commission on subversive activities, as 
an identified Communist, and his Communist activities are well 
known. 

And in closing, I would like to make this statement in regard to 
the loyalty of Hawaii's people. 

For 32 years I have practiced medicine in Hawaii and, as a phy- 
sician, I have come into most intimate contact with literally thousands 
of Hawaii's people, people of all the various races who live in these 
islands. I feel that I know Hawaii's people. For these people I have 



2340 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

the highest regard and the greatest respect. They are, with very 
few exceptions, absohitely loyal to the United States, lam convinced, 
and they have been proud to be welcome as American citizens. 

It is their and Hawaii's— and I will add the United States— mis- 
fortune that they are being continually subjected to pressures and 
influences which tend to confuse them and to make them uncertain 
about what we like to refer to as American ])rinciples and the Ameri- 
can way of life. Protected from such influences and pressures, they 
will, I am certain, continue always to be good American citizens in 
every sense of the word. 

That, gentlemen, concludes my testimony, unless there are further 
questions. 

Senator Welker. Thank you very much, Doctor. Thank you in- 
deed. The witness will step down. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you. Dr. Phillips, 

Senator Welker. I would like to ask the counsel to call Mr. Miyagi. 

Senator Butler. Doctor, I would like to sav this to you before 
you leave this room. 

I wish there were another 10,000 like you in these islands. [Pro- 
longed applause by the audience.] 

Senator Welker. The Chair would like to make the observation 
that we should have no demonstrations. After all, you have your 
own feelings, and please keep those to yourselves. Demonstrations 
are not in order in hearings such as this. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr, Morris. Mr. Miyagi, will you come forward? 

Senator, in going through the testimony of Dr. Phillips in advance, 
I observed that there would be references to Mr. Miyagi during his 
testimony. As you know, there have been three specific references 
to Mr. Miyagi, and I asked Mr. Miyagi to be here, to give him an 
opportunity to testify about them. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Miyagi, you have heretofore been sworn. 

TESTIMONY OF NEWTON KUNIO MIYAGI 

Mr. Miyagi. That's correct. 

Senator Welker. Will you be seated ? 

Mr. Miyagi, you heard the testimony of Dr, Phillips and his nam- 
ing you I think in three separate instances. Do you have any com- 
ment whatsoever to make on that ? 

Mr. Andersen. Mr. Morris. 

Senator Welker. You will approach the bench, please. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Andersen asked in executive ses- 
sion to take up a 

Senator Welker. I don't care what happened in executive session. 
I desire to talk to Mr. Andersen. 

Mr. Andersen. It was the understanding of all concerned that when 
a witness requested the privilege of not being televised that his wish 
would be respected. Now that wish has not been respected, nor has 
tlie order of the chairman of this committee been respected. The 
witness has been televised. 

Senator Welker. Wlio has televised him ? 

Mr. Andersen. Mr. Silva has been televised and several other wit- 
nesses have been televised. Many people have seen it. Mr. Silva 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2341 

got in toucli with me and advised me about it. Now, as I understand 
it, the committee has ruled and I am sure I am expected to obey the 
rules as well as everybody else. Now, if the committee doesn't have 
proper power to enforce its rules, then I think something else should 
be done. 

Senator Welker. Well, now, Mr. Andereen, there is no one on this 
committee desiring to televise your witnesses. In fact, the pei^sonal 
opinion of the actiiig chairman, I don't think they are entitled to be 
televised, our rules prohibit that, and I am certain that when Senator 
Johnston was chairman Saturday, he saw to it that no television be 
had. It was not brought to our attention, and I am sui"prised to hear 
that. 

Now, do you have any suggestion you would like to make about the 
televising of your witness ? 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, before he answers that, may I 
make this observation that may help clear it up ? 

The question was first raised while I was presiding the other day. 
And when the request was made, I directed that no television be taken 
from that moment on. But television has been permitted in this hear- 
ing, up to the time that a witness requested it. And I can readily 
understand that the minute the witness' name was called that tele- 
vision was on, until he made the request and until the order had been 
made. 

Mr. AnderseIst. Our witnesses were televised at the witness chair 
answering the questions of the committee. 

Senator Watkins. I don't know about that. 

Mr. Andersen. Not only before they were sworn, while they were 
being sworn, after they were being sworn, and testifying. Now that 
is why I am here. I resent it, my clients resent it, they feel that the 
committee is not enforcing the rule, they feel that the committee could 
and should enforce the rule, even to the extent of ordering the tele- 
vision camera sequestered during this hearing. 

Senator Welker. Just a mom.ent. I would be very happy to reiter- 
ate our order that television not be had on these witnesses. I take 
it that they are the witnesses that you represent. But in the spirit 
of fairness, I would also like you, Mr. Andersen, to have your wit- 
nesses answer the questions. 

Mr. Andersen. Well, that lias nothing to do with the matter of 
ordering 

Senator Wetjver. It lias nothing to do with the question, that's 
true, but we came a long ways to get some testimony, and I notice a 
big objection about televising. I have seen pictures of all your clients 
in every newspaper that I've road here on the islands, and I haven't 
been aware of the fact that your clients have been televised. And I 
can't see 

Mr. Andersen. I am sure you don't dispute my word. If you would 
call a few of the television cameramen and put them in the chair and 
ask them if they have broadcast television of my clients testifying, I 
assume they will tell the truth and admit it. 

As I understand the rules of the committee, people are supposed to 
abide by them. 

Senator Welke^r. Yes. 

Mr. Andersen. We have done our best to abide by all the rules of 
the committee. AVe will continue so to do. But we would like to 



2342 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

have the rules enforced, not only in relation to us but in relation to 
everybody else. And it is just a matter of plain fairness. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, may I as counsel a question? 

Senator AVelker. Senatoi- Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. Have you brought this to the attention of the 
committee prior to your statement here? 

Mr. Andersen. The first opportunity I had was this morning, when 
I directed the attention of Senator Butler and Mr. Morris to the 
situation. 

Senator Butler. Where is the television camera? It should be 
turned olT. 

Senator Watkins. When I was presiding I directed that they must 
not take pictures from that moment on. And I do not have, and I 
assume the other members of the committee do not have — just a mo- 
ment, please. T do not have an opportimity to see television. I 
haven't seen any television of these hearings. Obviously, we can't 
be in the cliambers conducting a hearing and at the same time Avatching 
the television reproduction somewhere else. If you hadn't called it 
to our attention, Ave wouldn't know — I didn't knoAv until this moment. 

Seiiator Welker. Nor have I heard some of your clients on the 
i-adio. Mr. Andersen. It works both ways. 

Mr. Andersen. The radio is on around 10 o'clock at night. The 
television is on around 10 o'clock at night. 

Senator Watkins. I haven't seen any of those at all. 

Mr. Andersen. Neither have I personally. 

Senator Bittler. Mr. Chairman, I readily agreed with Mr. Ander- 
sen this morning that we had a rule that the Avitness be not televised 
against his aa-iH. And I think that every effort will be made, and I 
am certain the acting chairman Avill so rule. 

Senator Johnston. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest this? That in 
the future, Avhen a Avitness comes to the stand, the attorney make the 
statement that this witness be not televised. And we will 

Senator Welker. I think AA^e had a fair understanding. 

Senator Johnston. See that he will not be. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Andersen and his clients 

Senator Johnston. But as far as televising it, it has always been 
the custom of this subcommittee to televise the committee itself or 
any AA^tness who did not object. So let each witness who comes to the 
stand object and then we will certainly uphold you and see that that 
witness is not televised. We AA'ill do our best. 

Senator Welker. Very well, Mr. Andersen, I think you know me 
Avell enough that I will try and abide by your Avishes, the wishes of 
your clients. So you Avill return to counsel chair and we will proceed. 

Mr. Andersen. One question. Do I have your assurance 

Senator Welker. Well, noAv, listen. I don't run the television 
camera, and I am going to do the best I can to run this committee 
AA'hile I am chairman. 

INIr. Andersen. You run the hearing. 

Senator Welker. I am going to do the best I can to run this com- 
mittee while I'm chairman. 

Mr. Andersen. Well, ]Mr. Chairman, if there is any more televising 
of the witnesses that I represent, they will not testify thereafter. 

Senator Welker. Well, they haven't testified yet, only as to their 
names. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2343 

Mr. Andersen. The}^ will not testify thereafter. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I ask 

Senator Welker. Now, is it understood that there are no television 
cameras on the witness now before the committee? 

Mr. Joe Rose. May I answer the question ? 

Senator Welker. You're not a sworn witness. 

Senator Johnston. He's a television man. 

Mr. Joe Rose. I just wanted to ask a question, if I may. 

Senator Welker. Proceed. 

Mr. Rose. The ruling is, Mr. Andersen has requested as of this 
moment that there will be no further televising of his witnesses or 
the witnesses that he represents. Is that the understanding? 

Mr. Andersen. That was always our request and was always the 
order of the Chair. 

Mr. Rose. That is not the question I am asking, Mr. Andersen. The 
question I am asking right now, Is that your request at this moment ? 

Mr. Andersen. Our request is no television at any time, in or out 
of this room, be taken while any witness is testifying. 

Senator Welker. Just a moment, Mr. Andersen. You know better 
than to tell us what to do outside of this room. 

Mr. Andersen. While testifying, that's all. 

Senator Welker. I noticed that a number of your witnesses were 
televised out in the hall the other day. 

Mr. Andersen. While the witness is in the chair. I am sure we 
understand each other. 

Senator Welker. Right. But don't make a statement that out of 
the room they not be televised. That is not part of our 

Mr. Andersen. They took the camera out of the room. 

Senator Welker. Now be seated and let's proceed. 

Senator Eastland, I understand you desire to make a statement. 

Senator Eastland. No. I said that the rvile is that the witness 
can request that he not be televised, and we will abide by that request. 
But the committee, of course, can be televised; the lawyers can be 
televised. But the cameras should not be turned on the witness if he 
so requests. 

Senator Butler. And that Avill apply with equal force, whether or 
not the camera is inside or outside of the building. 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Senator Welker. All right. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Andersen. I assume my recent statement regarding the wit- 
ness' reluctance to be televised can be deemed the statement of the 
witness. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear you, Mr. Andersen. 

Mr. Andersen. I assume my recent statement regarding the wit- 
ness' reluctance to be televised can be deemed the statement of the 
witness. 

Senator Welker. Yes, indeed. Now, may I have this understand- 
ing with the television people? That they will not turn their cameras 
- on the witness while they are testifying. 

Mr. Rose. Ours is channel 2. 

Senator Watkins. How many channels do we have represented 
here? 

Mr. Rose. We have two here. 



2344 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. I think most everyone understands, not only 
Counsel Andersen, but the entire committee are busy following the 
testimony ; they can't be watching the cameras all the time. If your 
clients have been injured in any way by television pictures, we are 
sorry, because it violates a rule of this committee, and you certainly 
were correct, all of your clients made their position clear when they 
took the witness stand. 

Now, let's proceed. 

Mr. Rose. We can televise anyone else? 

Senator Welker. You can televise anyone, Dr. Phillips or any 
witness appearing who doesn't object to it. I take it, INIr. Andersen, 
that all of your clients will object. May we have that stipulation? 

Mr. Andersen. They will, yes, so far as I know. 

Senator Welker. All of your clients will object. 

Senator Watkins. May I ask another question ? Does Mr. Andersen 
object to being televised? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Andersen. I personally have no objection, sir, but as my client 
doesn't wish it, I too do not wish it. 

Senator Welker. You are a very handsome gentleman. 

All right, let's go. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Miyagi, you have been previously sworn, have 
you not, sir ? 

Mr. Miyagi. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Miyagi, Dr. Phillips testified this morning 
that you were on the legislative committee of the ILIYU, you were 
1 of 9 members of the legislative committee, and that you did engage 
in political activity, and that you endeavored to exert an influence 
on the last election. Is that accurate testimony, Mr. Miyagi ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Let the record show that the witness is conferring 
now with his counsel. 

Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Miyagi. I will rely on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. You rely upon the fifth amendment on the basis 
that Counsel Andersen and I agreed on yesterday ? 

Mr. Andersen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Welker. In executive session. You mean by that if you 
gave a truthful answer to that question it might tend to incriminate 
you or force you to bear witness against yourself? 

Mr. Miyagi. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Miyagi, I am making the statement, I am not ask- 
ing it. You are the secretary-treasurer of local 142. Now, as such 
are you acquainted with the disbursement of funds ; union funds of 
local 142? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. I rely on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Phillips in the course of his testimony introduced 
into the figures — and we had previously introduced them. Senator — 
that the ILWU expends more than $199,000 on propaganda. Are 
those accurate figures, Mr. Miyagi ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATE? 2345 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Miyagi, how much money did the ILWU 
contribute to the defense of the seven Communists who were convicted 
under the Smith Act in 1953? 

(The witness consults withhis counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. I rely on the fifth amendment again. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. I^Iiyagi, did the union contribute to the defense of 
the defendants other tlian Jack Hall, which defendants were not con- 
nected in any way with the IL'WTJ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris, Specifically, did you contribute to the ILWU — did the 
ILl'Nnj contribute union funds, in other words money taken from the 
general membership of the union, to the defense of John Reinecke, 
who was not connected in any way with the ILWU? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did the union contribute funds to the defense of 
Charles Fujimoto, who has been described in these hearings as being 
the chairman of the Communist Party of these islands ; did it contrib- 
ute union funds collected from the rank and file of the union to the 
defense of Charles Fujimoto, who had no connection whatever with 
thelLW? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did the ILWU contribute to the defense of Mrs. 
Charles Fujimoto, who, to your knowledge, was not connected in any 
way to the IL'^VU? Did the ILWU contribute union funds to her 
defense ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would repeat the same with respect 
to the others but I think the answers would be obvious. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Miyagi, are you f amilar with the proceedings 
of the lltli biennial convention of the International Longshoremen's 
and Warehousemen's Union held at Long Beach, Calif., April 4 to 8, 
1955? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Let the record show the hesitation of the witness. 

Mr, JVIiYAGi. Could you repeat the question again, please ? 

Senator Welker, Are you familiar with the proceedings of the 11th 
biennial convention of the International Longshoremen's and Ware- 
housemen's Union held at Long Beach, Calif., April 4 to 8, 1955 ? 

Mr, Miyagi, Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." Do you know of anj^one else 
under the canopy of heaven who has the name Newton Miyagi ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Could you explain the question, Mr, Chairman ? 

Senator Welker. Do you know of anyone else under the canopy of 
heaven who has the same name as yours ? If so, tell us about it. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. As far as I am concerned, I don't know ; to my knowl- 
edge I don't know of any other person that has the 

Senator Welker. To your knowledge, you don't know of any other 
person ? 

72723— 57— pt. 40 3 



2346 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. MiYAGi. That's right. 

Senator Welker. Now, in the proceedings of the 11th biennial con- 
vention of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union, at page 77 thereof, Chairman Lawrence is reported, in the offi- 
cial document thereof, of that proceeding, as saying : 

Thank you, Reverend Richman, for yonr most inspiring address. I told you. 
He's quite a guy when he gets rolling. 

At this time I understand that local 142 of Hawaii wants to make a presen- 
tation. 

Newton Miyagi of local 142, come on up here. 

Brother Newton Miyagi. [Loud applause.] 

Delegate Miyagi, local 142. Brother Chairman, brothers and sisters, fraternal 
delegates, and guests. I have been asked by the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the 28th session of the legislature in the Territory of Hawaii to 
help them out in presenting a gavel to our great president, Harry Bridges. [Loud 
applause.] 

Now, Mr. Miyagi, did you do that ; did you make those remarks ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. I rely on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever been at Long Beach, Calif. ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever been to any convention of any type 
whatsoever ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. IVIiYAGi. Will you specify what convention you are talking 
about ? 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear you, Mr. Miyagi. 

Mr. Miyagi. Will you specify the convention you are talking 
about ? 

Senator Welker. Well, did you ever go to a Boy Scout convention 
or American Legion convention. Veterans of Foreign Wars conven- 
tion. Disabled American War Veterans convention; any of those; 
or any other convention that you can name to me ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You wouldn't tell this committee whether or not 
you ever attended an American Legion convention or any other con- 
vention? As a matter of fact, it is true that you did present the 
gavel to Harry Bridges at Long Beacli, Calif., at the time and place 
mentioned by my prior questioning. Is that true ? 
(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You mean that a truthful answer given by you 
to that question, that it would tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miyagi. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Miyagi. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. Wliat ? 

Mr. Miyagi. "Wliat you just said is correct. In other words, other- 
wise I wouldn't claim the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. I didn't get your answer. What was your an- 
swer again, Mr. Miyagi ? 

Mr. Miyagi. The statement you made, relying — my answer would 
be — might tend to incriminate myself is correct. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2347 

Senator "VYelker. Now, would you tell me what law you possibly 
could be violating by presenting a gavel to Harry Bridges or any- 
body else ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Let tlie record show the consultation with coun- 
sel and the delay in answering the qiiestion. 
(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. ISIiYAGi. I rely on my attorneys for the legal advice. 

Senator Welker. You rely on what? 

Mr. MiTAGi. My attorneys. 

Senator Welker. Well, you rely 

Senator Watkixs. You rely on the fifth amendment. Are you 
relying on the fifth amendment ? 

Senator Welker. That answer is stricken and you are ordered and 
directed to answer that question. You are not going to rely upon 
your attorneys. Tlie fifth amendment is a personal privilege granted 
to you only, Mr. ]Miyagi, and you will take that personal privilege 
granted to you by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, and not 
rely upon your attorneys, who are not sworn and are not testifying 
here. Now, you're ordered and directed to answer that question. 

(The witness consults witli his coimsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. I rely on the hfth amendment not to ansAver that 
question. 

Senator Johxstox. Do you know your good friend Harry Bridges? 

Mr. ^MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Seiuitor JonNSTOx. What's that? 

]Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Johxstox, ''Same answer." In dealing M'ith him did you 
ever think that you would have to not even say that you knew him? 

Mr. ?t[iYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Joiixstox. Do you tliink just knowing Harry Bridges 
would incriminate you? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Joiixsxox. How could that incriminate you? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Y\''atkixs. Apparently, Senator, he feels it would incrim- 
inate liim to know him. 

]Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever seen Harry Bridges? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. ]MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Sena^^or Welker. As a matter of fact, you saw him out here in the 
demonstration in tlie palace last week, did you not? 

?ir. Mtyagi. Would you repeat tliat question again? 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you saw ]\Ir. Harry Bridges 
at the demonstration held ]:)rior to coming down here to the palace, 
did you not ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever seen Jack Plall ? 

(Tlie witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You saw him riglit out here in the hallway when 
the demonstration was going on, the alleged demonstration ? 



2348 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE IINITED STATES 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Even though I am not sworn, I will make this 
observation— that I saw you not 2 feet from Jack Hall. Is that cor- 
i-ect or incorrect? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiTAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Senator Johnston, your question. 

Senator Johnston. So you think that it would incriminate you to 
say that you even know Harry Bridges ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Johns ion. What is your answer 'i 

(The witness consults with his counsel. ) 

Mr. MiYAGi. It might tend to incriminate me. That is the reason 
I am claiming the privilege. 

Senator Johnston. Do you make that statement because you think 
that he is a Communist and for you to deal with him you would 
be guilty of some crime ? 

Mr. IMiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Butler. Do you think it would tend to incriminate you to 
have the people know that you are identified with the ILWU? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. The same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now may I ask you, have you ever seen, oh, any 
member of our defense services here on this island, say Admiral 
Stump ; have you ever seen him ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker, Let the record show the consultation. 

Mr. MiYAGi. The only thing I recollect, seeing him in the new^spaper. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. MiYAGi. The only thing, the only recollection I have is, I saw 
his face in the newspapers. 

Senator Welker. You have seen his face in the newspapers ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Yes. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever seen Harry Bridges' face in the 
newspapers? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Noav, have you ever seen or do you Imow one 
Charles Kauhane ? 

Mr. Morris. Kauhane. 

Senator Welker. Kauhane. 

Mr. Morris. Kauhane. K-a-u-h-a-n-e. 

Senator Welker. All right ; I stand corrected. Kauhane. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Could you repeat that question again, please ? 

Senator Welker. Do you know or liave you ever seen one Charles 
Kauhane ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Yes ; I believe so. 

Senator Welker. "Wliere did you see him ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Let the record show the consultation and the 
delay in answering. 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, as a matter of fact, and I beg of you to be 
?air with me now; you have told me you have seen him, you've met 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2349 

him. Come on and level with me and the committee. As a matter 
of fact, he is the man who gave you the gavel that you presented to 
Harry Bridges at Long Beach, Calif., at the 11th biennial conven- 
tion held April 4 to April 9, 1955 ? Isn't that a fact ? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Well, then, how did you happen to meet Mr. 
Kanhane? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Come on. Why do you hesitate? 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Eastland. Have you had any dealings with Soviet military 
intelligence? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Would you repeat that again, please ? 

Senator Eastland. Have you had any dealings with Soviet military 
intelligence ? 

Mr. Miyagi. On that I would like to make a statement, if it is O. K. 
with the Chairman. 

Senator Welker. You answer the question. You haven't been mak- 
ing many statements. I want you to answer that question propounded 
to you by Chairman Eastland. I order and direct you to answer it. 

(The witness consults with his counsel,) 

Mr. Miyagi. I will rely on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. You want to tell the people of this fine island, the 
people of this Territory, that you rely upon the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution of tlie United States as to whether or not you have had 
any dealings wih the Soviet intelligence? Is that your answ^er? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Well, I assume military intelligence would be — 
it's an all — 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. You have hesitated a long time. Now come on 
and let's have an answer. 

Mr. Miyagi. I still would like to have the privilege of making a 
statement on it. 

Senator Welker. You will answer that question. Will you, 
please ? 

Mr. Miyagi. Fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. "Fifth amendment." 

Mr. JVIiYAGi. That's right. 

Senator Welker. Have you met any members of the Soviet Com- 
munist military intelligence on this isle or any other isle of the 
Hawaiian Islands? 

Mr, Miyagi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Can you give me an idea as to wdiat you would 
think, or what thousands of workers who pay dues to your union would 
think, if they knew that you refused to answer that question because of 
the fifth amendment and under the protection of the fifth amendment? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. IVIiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. I don't suppose you will prepare or have prepared 
any pamphlet and send it to every individual member of the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union showing the fact 
that you refused under the fifth amendment to tell this committee of 



2350 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

the United States Senate wliether or not you have contaced or had 
dealino-s with or had met with Commnniet intelligence agents; you are 
not going to have tliat done, are you'^ 

Mr. ]MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkixs. May I jjoint out that the witness probably 
would be correct in claiiiiing the privilege of the fifth amendment 
with reference to the questions of dealing with the Soviet military 
intelligence; to admit that he had had dealings with them would 
certainly be an incrimination. It certainly would be something 
that wo'uld be very, very damaging against him. In that position I 
think he is probably correct in taking advantage of the fifth amend- 
ment. However, he is also in the position of having people make 
whatever interpretation they wish to make with reference to his 
claiming the fifth amendment in a circumstance of that kind. 

Senator AVelker. Once again I want to ask you why you told me 
under oath that you had met Mr. Charles Kauhane and from that 
time on you have refused to tell me anything else whatsoever about 
the meeting. Can you tell where it occurred and what you dis- 
cussed, whether it was a casual little meeting or you had something to 
discuss about legislative matters. Could you do that for the com- 
mittee, please? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now certainly you don't want to leave the infer- 
ence, do you, that your meeting or discussing anything with Mr. 
Kauhane might tend to incriminate you, do you? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiYAGi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you direct the witness to be present 
ar the af tern on session? There is a matter that I can take up at that 
time. 

Senator Welker. Yes. You are ordered and directed to be present 
this afternoon, at this afternoon's session, and you will be further 
interrogated. And you will step aside. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, we have three more witnesses for this morn- 
ing. The first is David Evans Thompson. Mr. Thompson, wall you 
come forward, please ? 

Senator, in connection with this witness I would like to mention 
in advance of his appearance that he has received an honorable 
discharge from the United States Marine Corps, having been severely 
wounded in Iwo Jima, has been awarded the Purple Heart. I would 
like to point out to the committee those facts before he testifies. 

Senator Welker. Very well. 

Mr. Thompson. I object to being televised. 

Senator Welker. Your objection certainly will be honored, but I 
think they are televising the committee, Mr. Thompson, and not 
you. I don't know who they're tele\asing but I know they're not 
pointing at you. So you be seated. 

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly 
swear the testimony you give before the subcommittee Avill be the 
truth, the wdiole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Thompson. I do. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2351 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID EVANS THOMPSON 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, does it appear in the record al- 
ready that the witness is represented by counsel ? 

Senator Welker. Yes. We had that stipulation. 

Senator Watkins. Yes. 

Mr. Andersen. It may continue. 

Senator Welker. I want the record to show. 

Senator Watkins. So there will be no question about it later. 

Mr. Andersen. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I can quickly 
run through, and I think we have here — we have prepared most of 
our information in memorandum form. I would like to ask the wit- 
ness about this particular information and then offer the memorandum 
for the record. 

Mr. Thompson, you were born in Salem, Oreg., in 1919, were you 
not, sir? 

Mr. Tno3iPSON. I was. 

Mr. Morris. You were educated at four American colleges or 
universities? 

Mr. Thompson. I was. 

Mr. Morris. Including the University of Hawaii in 1939-41 ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. You received your bachelor's degree from that 
institution ? 

Mr. Thompson. I did. 

Mr. JMoRRis. You M^ere honorably discharged from the United States 
Marine Corps as a first lieutenant ? 

Mr. Thompson. I was. 

Mr. Morris. After having first been severely wounded in action on 
Iwo Jima ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. Now, may I interrupt? What other colleges or 
universities did you receive education at ? 

Mr. Thompson. The University of Nevada, Willamette University 
as an undergraduate; University of California and the University of 
Chicago as a graduate student. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you had five then, instead of 
four, didn't jou ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. What degree do you hold, ISIr. Thompson ? 

Mr. Thompson. Bachelor of arts. 

Mr. Morris. Now, in Honolulu ])rior to World War II, did you 
associate with persons now known to be members of the Communist 
Party at that time ? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of 
the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. i\.f ter you were 

Senator Welker. Just a moment. The first amendment is not a 
ground for objection here. That portion of your answer will be 
stricken. But we do recognize the fifth amendment, and that fifth 
amendment objection, as stated heretofore by your counsel, will be 
honored. 



2352 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. After your return from the Marine Corps, did you 
come to Honolulu in 1946 ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Thompson. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you become a formal member of the Communist 
Party? 

(T^he witness consults with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you claim your privilege under the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mr. Thompson. Under the first and fifth. 

Mr. Morris. May I have a ruling on the first, Senator? The wit- 
ness has claimed privilege under the first and fifth amendments. You 
have previously ruled that you will not honor the claim of privileges 
under the first but will under the fifth. Will you so rule again? 

Senator Welker. I will so rule again. And may we have a stipu- 
lation that the chairman so rules on the first amendment but will 
honor his fifth-amendment objection ? 

Mr. Andersen. The witness will 

Senator Welker. Now, for the sake of time — do you want to ^o 
over the thing, over and over again, Mr. Andersen? We will do it. 

Mr. Andersen. We will stipulate that you will apparently make 
the same order. 

Senator Welker. I am not "apparently"; I'm doing it. 

Mr. Andersen. We will so stipulate. 

Senator Welker. Very well, sir. 

Mr. Andersen. That you will make the same order. 

Senator Welker. Very well. 

Mr. Morris, Did you join the miscellaneous unit of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you later join the Manoa section of the Commu- 
nist Party ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend important meetings of the Communist 
Party in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend Commmiist Party meetings other than 
the meetings of your own cell ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answ^er. 

Mr. Morris. Was your home used for Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been employed for the past 10 years by the 
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been educational director since 1950 ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And, as such, have you been in charge of propagandiz- 
ing the ILWU rank and file ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. In that position, have you conducted the IL"WU's 
efforts to introduce pro-Communist literature directly into the public 
schools ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2353 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. iVIoRRis. And churches of Hawaii ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. As well as its attempts to achieve the same effect by 
distributing such literature to individual schoolteachers? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. By direct mail ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Kather than through official channels of the Terri- 
torial department of public instruction? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you had supervision of the ILWU Book Club 
in Hawaii? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you, therefore, headed the ILWU's educa- 
tional department? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Has the IL^\n[J Book Club, under you, featured the 
dissemination of pro-Communist books? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And other material ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Specifically, Harvey Matusow's False Witness? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Specifically, John Steuben's Strike Strategy? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, are these books part of the Soviet propaganda 
campaign being issued to advance the Communist conquest of the 
world ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are these materials made available to ILWU mem- 
bers at special libraries? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. INIoRRis. Maintained by the union ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And on most of the plantations on the islands? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Has a significant amount of the output of your depart- 
ment been recognized to be pro-Soviet propaganda ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have read from this paper and I 
have asked questions from this paper, which has been prepared by 
the staff, and I have given the witness now an opportunity to deny 
any of the statements which we believe are accurate. And I would 
like to offer that in the record at this time. Senator. 

Senator Welker. I would be glad to have that offered, but just one 
moment. You asked him a question about one Harvey Matusow that 
T have had a little experience with. 

Have you ever met Mr. Matusow? 

Mr. Thompson. No. 

Senator Welker. You have read this book The False Witness? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 



2354 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. Same answer. Do you know where Mr. Matusow 
is at this time ? 

Mr. Thompson. No. 

Senator AVelker. Well, he's in the "clink," isn't he? For perjury ? 

Mr. Thompson. You have my answer. 

Senator Welker. Sir? 

Mr. Thompson. You have my answer. 

Senator Welker. You don't know. Well, I think you had better 
check up. I think, however, he has been convicted and is servmg his 
time now. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Thompson, do you receive propaganda material 
which you use in the ILWU from the firm of Cameron & Kahn? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that on the grounds of the first 
and fifth amendments. 

Senator Welker. Same ruling. Do you know whether or not 
Cameron & Kahn published Harvey Matusow's book. The False 
Witness ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you receive material from International Publishers, 
Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever received instructions concerning the 
educational work of the union from the educational department of 
the Communist Party in New York City? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you receive propaganda material from New Cen- 
tury Publishers, a Communist Party publishing house? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you promoted within the ILWU the sale of the 
Autobiography of Louie Taruc, Philippine guerrilla leader? 
T-a-r-u-c. 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Watkins. Now just a moment. Did you ask the counsel 
a question ? 

Mr. Thompson. I did, sir. 

Senator Welker. You did not. 

Senator Watkins. I watched your lips, and you must be a ven- 
triloquist, because I didn't see your lips move at all. 

Under previous instructions of the committee, the witnesses can 
ask for legal advice, but counsel cannot volunteer it until the witness 
has actually asked for the advice. I am just cautioning you. It 
looked to me from this point, and I think a number of witnesses have 
violated that. Counsel should not speak to the witness until the wit- 
ness asks for the advice. 

Senator Welker. Perhaps Mr. Thompson was not in the hearing 
room when that order was made. Perhaps counsel omitted to inform 
him of the rule. And I see quite well, as does Senator Watkins and 
the rest of the committee, and we couldn't see any movement of your 
lips, or otherwise. 

I am going to say this. That if I see any more of this from any 
witness, I am going to ask that counsel retire from the hearing room. 
Because you are doing nothing but to embarrass your able counsel. 
So certainly all you could do is lean over and say, "May I have your 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2355 

advice?" It is very simple. But I don't want to embarrass your 
counsel. They are very kind and fine gentlemen ; they have treated 
me very fine. But as I stated before, it is merely euibarrassing to 
them. Now, you will abide by that now, won't you, Mr. Thompson ? 

Very well. Proceed. 

Mr.MoRRis. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of the Dis- 
patcher for January 6, 1956. The Dispatcher is a union newspaper. 
And they talk about the ILWU 

Senator Watkins. What union ? 

Mr. Morris. The ILWU, Senator. 

Senator Joiixston. Let me ask one question. 

Have you been fair with the union members at all times and told 
them that you were feeding them Communist literature ? 

Mr. Tho:mpson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this whole list 
into the record with the one comment that a good percentage of these 
particular books which are on the ILA\nj Book Club list have been 
by authors who have appeared before this committee and when asked 
about the committee's evidence of tlieir being Couimunists, have not 
been able to enter denial in the record but, instead, invoked their 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

I mention specifically Mr. Philip S. Foner, Mr. Carl Marzani, and 
Richard O. Boyer. They are three of the particular ones. Also 
there are publications here by the Labor Research Association, which 
this committee has demonstrated is a Communist association. I would 
like to put the whole into the record. You also notice Mr. Joseph 
Starobin also appears on this list. He, too, appeared before this 
committee and claimed his privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator, this kind of evidence appears in great abundance, would 
take a great deal of time for us to go into it all specifically. I ask 
that we have a session with Mr. Mandel, our research director, and 
that he put into the record what we think is a sample collection. 

You do not deny any of the things I ha^'e just said about this, do 
you, Mr. Thompson ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Just a minute. I am familiar with one copy 
here. I see the False Witness, b}^ Harvey MatusoAv. Fifty cents a 
copy — paper. 

Now, could you tell the chairman, tell me, about the book the Man 
A^lio Never Died ? 

Mr. Morris. Which is that one? 

Senator Welker. The ]Man Who Never Died. I wonder who that 
is about? 

Mr. Morris. I am not acquainted with it. Senator. 

Senator Welker. Do you know anything about that, Mr. Witness ? 

Mr. Tho3ipson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You wouldn't know about that book, even though 
you are a very well-educated man? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

( A discussion of the IIA'^TJ Book Club appears in appendix 41-A.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have here on the letterhead of the 
IIA'VTj, Local 142, Education Service, 451 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, 
T. H., March 30, 1955, over the signature of David E. Thompson, 
educational director, addressed to "Dear Teacher :" 



2356 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

The enclosed pamphlet In the Shadow of Liberty is mailed to you for your 
information. The union does not endorse the political views of many of the 
victims of the McCarran-Walter law, whose tragic stories are related in this 
pamphlet. The union does defend the principles of freedom of thought and 
expression, however, even for those with whom we disagree. We feel that 
liberty is indivisible, that a law which affects the liberty of some Americans 
is a menace to the liberty of all. We feel it is irajwrtant that people like your- 
self should know what the application of this law means in actual human 
terms. 

And there is enclosed a volume called In the Shadow of Liberty 
by Abner Green. Abner Green has been identified as a Communist, 
Senator, I think only last week or the week before, before the House 
Un-American iVctivities Committee, and he wasn't able to deny Com- 
munist Party membership. 

Senator Welkek. Mr. Green's name is not Abner Green. He testi- 
fied before this committee that his name was Abner something else; 
it is not Abner Green, his true name. 

Mr. Morris. This is put out, Senator, by the American Committee 
for the Protection of Foreign Born, and I would like to show this 
letter, which contains his signature, to Mr. Thompson, and ask him 
if he did send this letter to teachers in Hawaii ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel after being handed the docu- 
ment in question.) 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Thompson, I am sending you a blank piece 
of paper and asking you to write your signature on that blank piece 
of paper. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Thompson. I refuse on the same grounds. 

Senator Welker. You mean to give your signature, to write your 
signature on a plain piece of paper might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Thompson. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you know that if you wrote 
your signature we could compare it with the exhibit just sent to you 
by Counsel Morris, and it would be the same. Isn't that a fact? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that question on the ground 
previously given. 

Senator Welker. I hope the thousands of workers all over these 
islands will know just exactly Avhat sort of testimony we have been 
receiving here. Just what do you suppose, Mr. Thompson, would 
happen if a fellow Marine would refuse to answer the questions as 
you have refused to answer here, one who is on active duty. You 
know what he would get, don't you ? 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Thoinipson. I think that is 

Senator Welker. Do you or don't you ? 

Mr. Thompson. I think that is a statement instead of a question. 

Senator Welker. Sir? 

Mr. Thompson. I think that's a statement. 

Senator AVelker. Well, I don't care what you think. I think it is 
a question, and Avill you answer it? Do you know what a fellow 
Marine would get if he were on active duty, if he would be before a 
committee or one of his superior officers and refuse to answer ques- 
tions as you have here this morning ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2357 

Senator Welkek. Let the record show the long pause. 
(A 2-miniite recess was taken.) 

Senator Welker. Order in the hearing room, please. 

Mr. Thompson. I know what would happen to a marine in that 
sense. However, I have a constitutional protection and I am availing 
myself of it. 

Senator Welker. The marine has a constitutional protection, too, as 
you have. In fact, he is fighting all over the world to maintain the 
Constitution of the United States. He has the very same right that 
you, as an ex-Marine officer, to answer. And you know as an ex- 
Marine officer what he would get if he refused to answer the questions 
propounded to him, don't you? 

Mr. Thompson. You have my answer. 

Senator Welker. I have your answer. And I imagine the Marines 
all over the world will be very happy to hear that that answer, com- 
ing from you especially. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I would like to say at this time that we have 
subpenaed the records of the Territorial commission, and Mr. Mandel, 
our research director, has had access to these records, and the letter 
that I presented to the witness just now was taken from the records. 
And I would like for Mr. Mandel, who has been sworn, to so state for 
the record, Senator. 

Senator Welker. Proceed, Mr. Mandel. 

Mr. Mandel. I so state. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Thompson, to what extent do you send literature, 
such as this particular book by Abner Green, to schoolteachers in 
Hawaii ? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 
previously given. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been — did you for a period, that you were 
transferred, did you not pay dues to the Communist Party in Hawaii 
while you were awaiting a recommendation from the San Francisco 
branch of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended executive board meetings at Ewa 
Beach? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended a special convention of the Com- 
munist Party in July of 1948 to decide whether or not the Communist 
Party of Hawaii should remain in the open or go underground? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may w^e finish Avith this particular wit- 
ness in the way I asked, namely, that Mr. Mandel make selections 
from abundant material and put what we think appropriate in our 
record ? 

Senator Welker. Yes. So ordered. 

(The memorandum above referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 
389" and reads as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 389 

David Evans Thompson 

This witness was born in Salem, Oreg., in 1919. He was educated at four 
American colleges or universities, including the University of Hawaii, 1939-41. 
receiving his bachelor's degree from the latter institution. He was honorably 



2358 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

discharged from the United States Marine Corps as a first lieutenant after hav- 
ing been severely wounded in action at Iwo Jima. 

In Honolulu, prior to World War II. the witness associated with several per- 
sons now known to have been Communist Party members at the time. After 
his return to Honolulu in 1946, Thompson was identified with the Communist 
Party as a formal member, belonging to the miscellaneous and Manoa cells of 
the party. He attended important meetings of the Communist Party of Hawaii, 
other than gatherings of his own cell. His home was used for Communist Party 
meetings. 

Thompson's employment for the past 10 years has been with the International 
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. He has been its educational direc- 
tor since 1950 and, as such, in charge of propagandizing the ILWU rank and file. 
In that position, he has also conducted the ILWU's efforts to introduced pro- 
Communist literature directly into the public schoolrooms of Hawaii, as well as 
its attempts indirectly to achieve the same effect by distributing such literature 
to individual schoolteachers by direct mail rather than through official channels 
of the Territorial department of public instruction. 

Supervision of the ILWU Book Club in Hawaii rests with the ILWU's edu- 
cational department, headed by Thompson. The ILWU Book Club has featured 
the dissemination of many pro-Communist books and other materials, such as 
Harvey Matusow's False Witness and John Steuben's Strike Strategy. These 
materials are made available to ILWU members at special libraries maintained 
by the union on most of the plantations in the islands. 

While perhaps most of the work of the department headed by Thompson is of 
the legitimate type indulged in by trade unions not led by Communists, the fact 
remains that a significant amount of the output of the department is recogni- 
zably pro-Communist propaganda. 

Mr. Morris. I have no more questions of this particular witness, 
Senator. 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. I have no questions. 

Senator Welker. Senator Butler. 

Senator Butler. I have no questions. 

Senator Welker. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnston. If Ave should go to war, would you be with 
America or Avith Russia ? 

Mr. Thompson. I Avould be with the United States. My record 
speaks for itself. 

Senator Johnston. And would you be true to them all the time or 
would you continue to aid the Soviet under cover, like you are here at 
the present time, according- to the record ? 

Mr. Thompson. I am a loyal American, dedicated to this Govern- 
ment; I am not a spy, liave never been engaged in espionage or sabo- 
tage, and Avill not so engage in the future and I am not so engaged now. 

Senator Johnston. So you have no connections, then, Avith the 
Soviet Government in any Avay ? 

Mr. Thompson. You have my answer, sir. 

Senator Johnston. Your ansAver is Avhat, in regard to having any 
dealings Avith the Communists ? You have no dealings Avith them to 
help overthroAv our Government. Is that right ? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 
previously given. 

Senator Welker. So you are a loyal American that you just now 
stated, that you're not a saboteur or a spy, and refuse to answer Senator 
Johnston's question ? 

May I ask you this hypothetical question ? Assuming you did re- 
join the services in a Avar against the Communist consi)iracy, Soviet 
Russia, and you received a directive from a high official of the Soviet 
conspiracy. Would you obey that directive ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2359 

Mr. Thompson. I have sworn to defend my country in the past and 
I carried out my oath, and I would carry it out in the future. 

Senator Welker. Yes. All right. Now, don't you suppose you 
can help your country here in a very, very serious situation, one of 
the bastions of defense of all the world, we're sittino; here taking testi- 
mony, and you taking the fifth amendment numerous times; couldn't 
you tell us now just what kind of a loyal American you are? Do you 
think it is being a loyal American to send Harvey Matusow's book 
the False Witness to different educational institutions or teachers 
thereof, or to workers in the union, or to different individuals ? Do 
you think that's being a loyal American ? 

Mr. Thompson. Would you mind repeating your question ? 

Senator Welker. Read it to him. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

;Mr. Thompson. I take it your question is whether or not I have sent 
this book to individuals. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously given. 

Senator Welker. Now, being the great loyal American that you say 
you are, and at one time you were, but as of this time, being a great 
loyal American that you have told us you are, have you ever sent any 
books or pamphlets to any union, to any individual, to any person or 
persons in this Territory ? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 
previously given. 

Senator Welker. Why, if you're such a loyal American ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." The fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Thompson. The first and the fifth. 

Senator Welker. I say the fifth. We have had a ruling on the 
first. 

Have you sent any literature, such as interrogated, questioned — you 
were questioned about by counsel Morris, to any of your buddies of 
the Marine Corps who fought so valiantly at Iwo Jima ? 

j\Ir. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You haven't, have you ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You haven't sent any to the American Legion, 
have you ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Are you a member of the American Legion ? 

Mr. Thompson. No, I'm not. 

Senator Welker. Veterans of Foreign Wars ? 

Mr. Thompson. No, I'm not. 

Senator Welker. Disabled American War Veterans ? 

]\Ir. Thompson. I am. 

Senator Welker. You're a member of that ? 

Mr. Thompson. I am. 

Senator Welker. Have you sent them any literature ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." Have you ever addressed the 
Disabled American War Veterans ? 

Mr. Thompson. I have. 

Senator Welker. And what did you talk about ? 



2360 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Thompson. Veterans' affairs. 

Senator Welker. Veterans' affairs. Can you tell us about what 
you discussed? 

Mv. Thompson. Yes. We discussed veterans' benefits, activities of 
the organization, parties, things of that sort. 

Senator Welker. Well, that's very, very wholesome. I think that 
all the members of the committee have done the same. 

Now, will you tell me any other organizations you have addressed ? 

Mr. Th03ipson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. "Same answer." Are there some organizations 
that you would rather not mention that you have addressed ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Senator, may I ask the witness one question ? 

Senator Welker. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Are you presently a Communist, Mr. Thompson ? 

Mr. Thompson. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Assuming the Disabled War Veterans would ask 
3^ou the question "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party V' what would your answer be ? 

Mr. Thompson. I decline to answer your question on the grounds 
previously given. 

Senator Welker. On the fifth amendment. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Thompson. The first and the fifth. 

Senator Welker. You desire to argue with me about that ruling, but 
the ruling stands. 

Now, I have no further questions, Mr. Thompson. 

I hope some of the disabled American war veterans are in the hear- 
ing room and have heard your testimony and your statement that you 
were a loyal American, and I hope they will compare that with the 
testimony given by you under oath here today. 

I think every member of this committee has served in the armed 
services. We were not as unfortunate as you, but we are loyal Ameri- 
cans too. And I'll say this, that if you would desire to change places 
with me, you act as c]iairman of this committee and I will take the oath 
to my God, and I will answer truthfully and honestly and proudly the 
fact that I have never been a member of the Connnunist Party and 
that I am a loyal American. 

Would you desire to do that ? 

Mr. Thompson. No ; thank you. 

Senator Welker. Sir? 

Mr. Thompson. No; thank you. I don't desire the chair of this 
committee. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, before concluding with tliis witness, I would 
like to make this particular note at this particular time. That tlie 
^^■ol•k ot the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is such that we 
are very desirous of having from this particular witness the infor- 
mation bearing on the extent to which he has sent his IIA^HJ literature 
to various teachers on the islands. And I ask again, because it is 
necessary for our record and we would like to know, I would like 
to ask this witness again to reconsider and ask if he will tell us to 
what extent he has sent ILWU literature to teachers in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Thompson. My answer is the same. 

Mr. Morris. Even though you know we require it for our record. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2361 

I have no more questions. 

Senator Welker. Do you realize, Mr. Thompson, that nearly every 
member of this committee, I think all of the members of this com- 
mittee, have I'ead the False Witness, we've read many of the docu- 
ments you were questioned about, and we didn't feel that that would 
incriminate us. Now, can't you tell us whether or not you have sent 
these books around? 

As a matter of fact, I sent the False Witness to a friend of mine. 
I don't believe I incriminated myself. 

Mr. Thompson. My answer is the same. 

Senator Welker. Your answer is the same. 

Senator Johnston. Have you received or are you receiving- at the 
I)resent time any disability from the United States Government? 

Mr. Thompson. I receive retired pay. 

Senator Johnston. Eetirecl pay. 

Senator Welker. Do you receive anything for your wounds received 
in action, compensation for your wounds? 

Mr. Thompson. That's what the retired pay is based on. 

Senator Welker. I see. How much do you receive from the Gov- 
ernment? One hundred percent disability? 

Mr. Thompson. One hundred percent disability for the loss of a 

leg- 
Senator Welker. For the loss of a leg. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have two other witnesses that we 
would like to hear this morning. I know the hour is getting late, but 
we can dispose of them, I think, with 3 or 4 questions each. 

Senator Welker. I want to hurry these proceedings along because T 
don't know how under the sun we're going to finish in the time allotted 
to us. And as chairman I am willing to run a little overtime, if the 
committee is willing to abide with me, because we certainly are bogging 
down, and we have manj- witnesses to hear. 

So you're excused, Mr. Thompson. But you are not excused from 
the subpena. Do you understand that ? 

Mr. Thompson. I understand that. 

Senator Welker. And with the agreement made with your counsel, 
you may go anyplace you want to here, and they will bring you back 
if we need you again. You are excused, sir, 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Ogawa is the next witness. 

Senator Welker. Raise your right hand and be sworn. 

You solemnly swear the testimony you give before the subcommittee 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Ogawa. I do. 

Senator Welker. Do j^ou understand the obligation of an oath ? 

Mr, Ogawa, I do. 

Senator Welker. "W-liat is that obligation ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ogawa. To tell the truth and nothing but the truth. 

Senator Welker, Sir? 

Mr. Ogawa. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, I don't want to be 
televised, and I believe these lights bother me. 

Senator Welker. Now, that light is on us and not on you, and there 
is not any television camera appearing on you, and you well know it. 

72723— 57— pt. 40 4 



2362 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

And that's just a little act on the part of you to try to embarrass this 
committee. As far as the chairman is concerned, I don't know any- 
body who would look at a television camera appearing on certain 
witnesses. 

Now, we're the ones being televised, so please don't abuse us by 
saying that you're being unfairly treated when you know that you're 
not being televised. 

Xow proceed, counsel. 

TESTIMONY OF TADASHI OGAWA 

Mr. MoRKis. Will you give your name and address ? 

Senator Welker. Wait a minute. I want the answer. Do you 
know the obligation of an oath ? 

Mr. Ogawa. I do. 

Senator Welker. All right. You conferred with your counsel on 
it. Now, will you tell me what that obligation is ? 

Mr. Ogawa. To tell the truth and nothing but the truth. 

Senator Welker. Under what pains or penalty ? 

Mr. Ogawa. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Welker. Under what pains or penalty, if you refuse to tell 
the truth. 

Mr. Ogawa. Contempt of court. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Ogawa. Contempt of court. 

Senator Welker. No. I think you'd better confer with your coun- 
sel again. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Welker. Your answer? It's perjury, isn't it? Your an- 
swer is "perjury"; I'll help you out. 

Mr. Ogawa. That's right. 

Senator Welker. Fine. Thank you. 

Now, proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter, 
Mr. Ogawa? 

Mr. Ogawa. Tadashi Ogawa. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you are the director, are you not, of the Oahu 
division of the IL^VU? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ogawa. I decline to answer the question on the privilege 
granted to me by the first and fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I would 
like to mention that the September 1956 publication of the Depart- 
ment of Labor previously referred to so lists Tadashi Ogawa as di- 
rector of the Oahu division of the ILWU, with a mailing address at 
451 Atkinson Drive. 

Senator Wet^ker. All right. Ask him what his address is. 

Mr. Morris. That's the mailing address of the ILWU, Senator. 

Senator Welker. Ask him if he — Have you ever received any mail 
at that address ? 

Mr. Morris. 451 Atkinson Drive? Have you received mail at 451 
Atkinson Drive ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2368 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr, Morris. Mr. Ogawa, are you now a Communist? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist Party meetings been held at your 
home ? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, I have a long series of questions prepared 
based on evidence, extensive evidence, that this man has been a Com- 
munist in Honolulu, has been a Communist for quite a period of time, 
but I think in view of the witness' answers it would be miavailing for 
us to continue. 

Senator Welker. I am going to disagree with you, counsel. I don't 
care whether he takes the fifth amendment. I want him to be upon 
his witness stand and fully interrogated. This committee came a 
long ways to find out what's going on here in the Territory of Haw^aii. 
We re not trying to bust any unions, we're not trying to incriminate 
anyone unless he deserves it by his answers, and then that's someone 
else's duty, not ours. So I am asking you, and I think the commit- 
tee will abide by this order, that you interrogate this gentleman as 
long as you desire. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist Party meetings been held at Jim 
Freeman's home, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended meetings at Jim Freeman's home ? 
Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist Party meetings at the 
home of Jack Kimoto ? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist Party meetings in an- 
ticipation of the sugar strike ? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended executive board meetings of the 
Community Party at Ewa Beach? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended education recruiting meetings at 
the home of Ealph Vossbrink? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended large executive board meetings of 
the Communist Party at the home of Jack Hall in Manoa? 

Mr. Ogawa. Same answer. 

Mr. ^Iorris. I have no more questions of this witness, Senator. 

Senator Welker. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnstox. No questions. 

Senator Welker. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. No questions. 

Senator Welker. Senator Butler. Senator Eastland. 

Mr. Morris. Will you ask the witness to stand by, in the event 
we may need him again, Senator? 

Senator Welker. Yes. I am not satisfied with the interrogation of 
this witness. I think we should go further into it. So you are 



2364 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

ordered and directed to step aside, and you will be called back at a 
later date. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Fujisaki. 

Senator Welker. Raise your right hand and be sworn. 

You solemnly swear the testimony you give before the subcommittee 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Fujisaki. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SABURO PUJISAKI 

Senator Welker. Your name ? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Saburo Fujisaki. 

Senator Welker. And your residence, please. Sit down. 

Mr. Fujisaki. My residence is 6158 Wakini Place, Honolulu. 

Senator Welker. Wliere ? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Wakini Place. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter ? 

Senator Welker. He has given that. I just asked him. 

Mr. Morris. All right. Were you born on the island of Hawaii on 
May 10, 1920? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now the insurance solicitor for the island of 
Oahu for the ILWU and the UPW ? 

Mr. Fujisaki. I w^ant to consult my attorney. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Fujisaki. I decline to answer that question on the basis of 
the first and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution. 

Senator Welker. Same ruling as given by the Chair to the fore- 
going witnesses. 

Mr. Morris. Are you a Communist, Mr. Fujisaki ? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Before you go on, I would like to request that I 
wouldn't like to be televised. 

Senator Welker. Now, just a moment. You are not to address 
this committee until you're asked a question. 

Now, proceed. 

Mr. MoREis. Are you presently a Communist, Mr. Fujisaki? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been the director of the ILAYU defense 
fund? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been a courier for the Commmiist Party be- 
tween San Francisco and Hawaii ? 

Mr. Fujisaki. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have Communist Party meetings been held in your 
home ? 

Mr, Fujisaki. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I have no more questions of this wdtness. 

Senator Welker. What do you do to make a living ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Fujisaki. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You think it might tend to incriminate you if 
you told the connnittee that you mowed lawns or practiced law, or 
anything like that? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2365 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. As a matter of fact, you received a little mimeo- 
graphed sheet, did you not, tellino- you exactly what you were going 
to say and do when you appeared before this committee? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you know of that sheet's existence ? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Would you say it didn't exist ? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now will you tell me that you have one in your 
possession ? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. If such a sheet existed, do you know who pre- 
pared it ? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Did you talk to anybody prior to coming to this 
hearing room, with respect to your testimony 'i 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Certainly, you discussed this matter with your 
able comisel. 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. You deny to this committee whether or not you 
discussed your testimony with your counsel ? Is that correct ^ 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. On the grounds of the tirst and fifth 
amendments. 

Senator Welker. On the grounds of the 1st, 5th, and 60th amend- 
ment, I am asking you whether or not did you confer with your 
counsel, which is the right of any person under the Constitution, and 
certainly the duty of you to talk with them. Did you confer with 
counsel prior to coming to this hearing ? 

JVIr. FuJiSAKi. I should not like to be a part of this circus, so I de- 
cline to answer the question. 

Senator Welker. Sir? I don't desire to argue with you. But 
answer that question. Will you ? 

Mr. FujisAKi. I have already given my answer. 

Senator Welker. And did 3'ou sa}' something about a circus ? 

Mr. FujisAKi. The record shows. 

Senator Welker. Oli, the record shows that it is a circus? But I 
think there are thousands and thousands of people on this island will 
know who is putting on the circus. And it is certamly not this com- 
mittee. 

Now, since it is a circus in your opinion, will you tell me this? Are 
you now or have you ever been a member of the Commmiist Party ? 

IVIr. FujisAKi. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Senator Welker, Have you ever been olf the mainland or over on 
the mainland and out of the islands? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever carried secret Communist docu- 
ments and material from the mainland to the islands or from the 
islands to the mainland ? 

Mr. FujisAKi. Same answer. 



2366 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE lOSriTED STATES 

Senator Welker. Did you ever carry oral instructions or informa- 
tion from the islands to the mainland or from the mainland to the 
islands? 

Mr. FujisAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Do you know Harvey Matusow? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. No ; I don't. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever read his book The False Witness ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. FuJisAKi. No ; I did not. 

Senator Welker. Very well. Any further questions of the witness ? 

Mr. Morris. No, Senator ; I have no questions. 

Senator Johnson. Let's think about some other things for a minute. 
You like apples, don't you ? Do you like to eat apples ? 

Mr. FujisAKi. No ; I don't. 

Senator Johnson. Don't like to eat apples. Do you — ^you know 
what an apple is, don't you? 

Mr. FuJisAKi. Yes. 

Senator Johnson. What would you do if you had a barrel of apples 
and you knew that there were about 6 or 8 in the whole barrel rotten. 
What would you do with those rotten apples ? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Throw them away. 

Senator Johnston. Throw them away. Don't you think the best 
thing the ILWU could probably do would be to throw some of the 
rotten apples out of the union and clear it up and then go ahead? 

Mr. FujiSAKi. Same answer. 

Senator Johnston. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. May I be excused, Mr. Chairman, because Senator 
Eastland and I have a luncheon engagement which is quite important 
to the businses of the committee. 

Senator Welker. Do you have some more witnesses we can get 
through with quickly? 

Mr. Morris. No ; there are no more witnesses set for this morning, 
Senator. We have witnesses for this afternoon, for the 3 :30 session. 

Senator Welker. Very well. The witness is excused. You will 
stand by under the rule heretofore given, and the committee will start 
its hearings again at 3 :30 this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :05 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 3 :30 
p. m.) 

afternoon session 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 3:30 p. m., in the 
senate chamber, lolani Palace, Senator John Marshall Butler pre- 
siding. 

Present : Senator Eastland, chairman. Senators Watkins, Johnston, 
Welker, and Butler. 

Also present: Kobert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Manclel, re- 
search clirector. 

Senator Butler. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, the first witness this afternoon is Mr. Ronald 
Jamieson. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Jamieson. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Jamieson, will you come forward ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2367 

Senator Butler. Hold up your riglit hand. In tlie ]n-esence of 
Almighty God, do you solemnlj^ promise and declare that the evidence 
you give this subconunittee will be the trutli, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth? 

Mr. Jamieson. I do. 

Senator Butler. The witness is sworn. 

TESTIMONY OF EOLAND B. JAMIESON 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Jamieson, will you give your full name and ad- 
dress to the reporter, please ? 

Mr. Jamieson. My name is Ronald B. Jamieson, 1908 Ualakaa 
Street, Honolulu, T. H. 

Mr. Morris. Will you be seated, Mr. Jamieson, please ? 

Mr. Jamieson, you are an attorney here in Honolulu, are you not? 

Mr. Jamieson. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris, Were you born here on the island? 

Mr. Jamieson. I was born here, in Honolulu. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about your schooling ? 

Mr. Jamieson. I went to Punahou School, to Harvard College, 
Harvard Law School ; I graduated from all three. 

Mr. Morris. In what year did you obtain your law degree ? 

Mr. Jamieson. I obtained the law degree in 1939. 

Mr. Morris. You practice — you are admitted to the bar here in 
Oahu? 

Mr. Jamieson. I was admitted to the bar here in Honolulu in 1939. 

Mr. Morris. And you have been practicing here in Honolulu since 
that time ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes ; I have been a practicing attorney in Honolulu 
since that time, except for trips to the mainland. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you have been a circuit court judge here on the 
island ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. Morris. You have been also assistant attorney general? 

Mr. Jamieson. A deputy attorney general. 

Mr. Morris. A deputy attorney general. Will you tell us when you 
served in that capacity ? 

Mr. Jamieson. I was a deputy attorney general from 1944 to 1947. 

Mr. Morris. And when did you act as a circuit court judge? 

Mr. Jamieson. I was a circuit court judge from 1952 to 1953. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you were also conciliator in one of the pineapple 
strikes, were you not ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes. I was the conciliator appointed by Governor 
Stainback and then continued by Governor Long when he became 
governor, in the 1951 Lanai Island pineapple strike from March 1 
to July 20. 

Mr. Morris. Did you while acting in that capacity encounter Jack 
Hall and the other officials of the ILWU ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes, I did ; I had a gi-eat many meetings and con- 
versations with Jack Hall, and I had some conversations with other 
ILWU personnel. 

Mr. Morris. Particularly Louis Forest Goldblatt, is it not ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes. I had a conversation with Louis Goldblatt. 



2368 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. Now, before going on. 

Senators, we had prepared a siibpena when the announcement was 
made that some of the top officials of the ILWU nationally were going 
to be in the islands, we had prepared a subpena for Mr. Goldblatt and 
we were hoping that he would be here. However, inasmuch as he is not 
here, we haven't served that subpena. Now, we didn't want to call him 
as a witness except with respect to the testimony of Mr. Jamieson here 
today. 

Now, I wonder if you would, Mr. Jamieson, relate to us from the 
very beginning and as succinctly as possible, your experience with the 
gentleman we have been talking about. 

Mr. Jamieson. With Mr. Goldblatt? 

Mr. Morris. No. Hall, Goldblatt, and the other top officials of the 

ILWU. 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes ; I would be 

Mr. Morris. As succinctly as you can, but yet give us all the facts. 

Mr. Jamieson. I would be glad to do that. 

Mr. Morris. I notice, Mr. Jamieson, you have notes there. Are 
they contemporaneous notes that you took at the time of these en- 
counters ? 

Mr. Jamieson. I have some contemporaneous notes of a conversation 
I had with Louis Goldblatt on the morning of July 5, 1951. I made 
these notes very soon after, either the afternoon of the same day or 
else the next day. 

Mr. Morris. All right. And both of the episodes that you are 
going to relate to us took place within a relatively short period of 
time ? 

Mr. Jamieson. The other — there was another episode with Jack 
Hall, which took place on May 26, 1951. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about both of those episodes ? 

Mr. Jamieson. The Jack Hall episode. On May 26, 1951, the rep- 
resentatives of the ILWU and the Hawaiian Pineapple Co. signed a 
tentative agreement for settling of the Lanai Island pineapple strike. 
This agreement was subject to ratification by the union rank and file 
and also by the board of directors of the Hawiian Pineapple Co. 

In the morning on May 26, after that agreement had been signed, 
Jack Hall suggested going down to the Young Hotel bar and having 
a few drinks to celebrate the occasion. Somewhat reluctantly I went 
down. Mr. E. C. Einehart, of the Employers Council, came with us. 
I might say that Mr. Hall's suggestion was directed to all of us. And 
also Mr. C. C. Cadagan, the vice president of Hawaiian Pineapple 
Co. He was the main HaAvaiian Pineapple Co. man whom I had been 
dealing with. He came also. The four of us went down to the bar 
and had some drinks. Mr. Hall had quite a few drinks and became 
considerably under the influence of liquor. There had been a lot of 
conversation at the table. After Mr. Hall had had quite a number of 
drinks, he started talking very freely, as if to tell us things that would 
interest us, that we would not know otherwise. 

One of the things he said was that he knew that three-quarters of 
the 39 reluctant witnesses before the 1950 committee from the House of 
Representatives of the United States Congress were members of the 
Communist Party. Now the language he used did not indicate that 
they were necessarily members at the time when they were called 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2369 

before the committee, but he did indicate very clearly that he knew 
that three-quarters of the 39 witnesses had been members. 

Now, I have one qualification to make to my testimony in reference 
to that statement. It may be that the fraction that Mr. Hall used was 
two-thirds. I think by a bare probability that it was probably three- 
quarters, but it might conceivably be two-thirds. 

Mr. Morris. As he gave it to you in the context, that at least he 
knew it was that amount, he knew about that amount ; he knew nothing 
about the other portion ; is that it ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Well, he was telling us about the portion represented 
by that fraction, and he knew that they were or had been members 
of the Communist Party. I might add that sometime soon after May 
26, I gave a statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, when 
my mind was still fresh, of this statement by Hall and gave the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation the actual fraction which Hall used when he 
spoke. 

Hall also made another statement, which was of interest. He said 
that Tom Tagawa 

Mr. Morris . Will you spell that, please ? 

Mr. Jamieson. T-o-m T-a-g-a-w-a. Hall said that he himself knew 
that when Tom Tagawa testified before the 1950 committee of the 
House of Eepresentatives, that Tagawa had perjured himself when 
he said that he had not been a member of the Communist Party. 

I also reported that statement to the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion, when my mind — when it w^as fresh in my mind. 

The conversation with Louis Goldblatt was in the presence of Jack 
Hall, the regional director of the ILWU, Tarahasa Oshiro, an ILWU 
official, and Takeo Furawiki, an ILWU official. I had met Oshiro 
and Furawiki a number of times, but they were a good deal less 
important than Hall, and I didn't have much to do with them. I 
had never met Goldblatt before. 

Mr. Morris. This, too, was in the capacity — the statements were 
made to you in your capacity as conciliator between the company and 
the union ? 

Mr. Jamiesoint. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Butler. And at the same time ? 

Mr. Jajiieson. No. These statements of Louis Goldblatt and Hall, 
which I am going to tell of in a moment, were made on July 5, 1951. 
In other words, over a month later. This was at ILWU headquarters 
in the morning, and I was introduced to Goldblatt, whom I had not 
met before, and the five of us talked together. I don't know exactly 
what — for sure — what caused Goldblatt to make the statement he did, 
but I am fairly sure I had made some remark in this sense, that it would 
be desirable for the striking employees and also for their company 
to settle this strike on some kind of a reasonable basis and start work 
again and save the crop, and that everybody would be better off in the 
end. 

Apparently that was not to Mr. Goldblatt's taste, so Goldblatt said 
that the company had a right to throw away its crop if it wants to, that 
the company's mistake was not sliooting five employees, to keep the 
employees in line, the way they do in Malaya. 

And on my written statement I have "et cetera," indicating that 
there were several other remarks in that sense, made by Goldblatt. 



2370 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Then Goldblatt went on: "That the strike was based on hatred 
against the company." In other words, hatred of the strikers for the 
company and a desire on the part of the strikers to reduce Lanai to 
volcanic ash. 

Mr. Morris. To reduce 

Mr. Jamieson. To reduce Lanai to volcanic ash. In other words, 
that was what the union and the strikers wanted to do to Lanai. 

That the strike is a strike without an issue and is based on hatred for the 
company and a desire to destroy it. That Henry White ought to go out and 
pick the pineapples, and the union members would pay $10 apiece to watch him. 

Henry White was the president of the Hawaiian Pineapple Co. 

Goldblatt and Hall both said "that if the company offered the tenta- 
tive agreement," and that was the agreement that had been negotiated 
on May 26, 1951, and rejected a few days later by the union after 
a purported vote of the rank and file. Goldblatt and Hall said "that 
if the company offered the tentative agreement, plus union shop and 
the 12 cents," in other words, the 12 cents an hour pay increase — 

The strike would still not be settled ; that the union would invent other issues 
to keep the strike going. Goldblatt said that the strike was what the company 
was getting for abandoning industrywide bai'gaiuing ; that under industrywide 
bargaining the union told the units they had to go along with the overall agree- 
ment ; that with company or unit bargaining the union told each unit it could do 
what it liked. 

Then either Goldblatt or Hall or botli of them repeated that cliche, 
that the company is out to bust the union. I mean that is one of the 
theme songs of the ILWU, and I heard that a good manj^ times. So 
I called them on it and told them that they knew that that statement 
was absolutely untrue, that the company in fact was in no position to 
break the union, even if it wanted to, and Goldblatt and Hall admitted 
that that was a fact, that the company was not in a position to break 
the union. 

Goldblatt said that one-half of the strike committee, that was the 
strike committee having the immediate supervision of the Lanai strike, 
Goldblatt said that half of the strike committe had learned guerrilla 
warfare with the Huks. 

Hall said that the strike was going to continue until Cadagan got 
fired. That means fired by Hawaiian Pineapple Co. 

Goldblatt emphasized that the strike was going to go on to destroy 
the company on Lanai. 

Hall and Goldblatt talked about there being nothing left on Lanai 
after the strike. 

Mr. Morris, Now, what was that ? I don't quite understand. "VMiat 
was that reference to the strikers being trained? May I ask you 
about that again i 

Mr. Jamieson. Goldblatt — in the course of this conversation — it is 
not in my notes, but it is very vivid in my memory — in the course of 
this conversation, Goldblatt turned to me and made a remark which 
he must have made because he saw the puzzled expression on my face. 
Goldblatt said, "You know the man with the gray beard, don't you?" 

And I said, "You mean Karl Marx?" 

And he said, "Yes." 

And what he meant by the Huks was the Communist army in the 
Philippines, which was active during World War II and then after 
the war made war on the Philippine Government. And Goldblatt 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2371 

said that half of the strike committee had learned guerrilla warfare 
with the Hiiks. And he suggested that if necessary the strikers would 
be able to, you might say, take care of themselves on Lanai in that 
way. In other words, if there was violence, they had some knowledge 
as to how to carry it on. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, that is the testimony that we have taken 
from j\Ir. Jamieson here in executive session. 

Not only are you testifying under oath but you have before you, 
and this you swear, your contemporaneous notes made at the time. 
Is that right ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes. These notes were made either the day the con- 
versation took place or the next day. I am not really quite finished 
with my notes, if you would like to have the rest. 

Senator Johnston. Yes ; we would. 

Mr. Jamieson. Goldblatt emphasized that the strike was going to go 
on to destroy the company on Lanai. Hall and Goldblatt talked about 
there being nothing left on Lanai after the strike. They talked about 
the crop being already lost. Goldblatt and Hall said that there would 
be other Lanais. Goldblatt said that in 30 or 40 days the employers 
would not be able to speak to their employees. A^Hiat he meant was — 
what he made clear was that the hatred in another 30 or 40 days would 
be so great against the company that the company's supervisory em- 
ployees would not be able to talk to the strikers. 

I reported this conversation to Governor Long and also to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Senator Butler. Is there anvthing further? 

Mr. Jamieson. I might go back a little bit. When I got into this 
strike I was quite conscious that the Korean war was going on ; that 
the ILWU is, and was then, a Communist-dominated union ; that the 
union's policy is synchronized with the foreign policy of the Soviet 
Union and is guided by directives which come one way or another 
from the Communist Party. I knew also that the union had settled 
with Hawaiian Pineapple Co., as far as the Wahiawa unit of the 
com])any was concerned, on the same basis on which the company was 
willing to settle with the Lanai unit. I also knew that it was desirable 
from the point of view of the Communists to have a sort of pilot 
light strike going in case a general war broke out in the Orient. I 
felt like tliey might lilce to pull a general strike in the Hawaiian Islands 
to do tlie best they could to make it difficult for the United States to 
fight the war, or they might like to pull a big strike and have the 
strike end unsuccessfully in order to destroy the union in case the 
Communist leaders of the union were interned. I was quite sure that, 
rather tlian have the union to fall into non-Communist liands, the 
union leaders — tlie Communist union leaders— would prefer that the 
union be destroyed as much as possible. 

Mr. Morris. Now, ]\Ir. Jamieson, this all you tell us is something 
more than very militant trade-unionism ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Oh, yes. I think it is a lot more than militant trade 
unionism, ancl I say that, insofar as the ILWU has functioned as a 
trade union, its trade-union functions have been subsidiary to and 
incidental to its function as an instrumentality of the Communist 
Party. 

By saying that I wouldn't want to minimize the fact that the union 
has got substantial gains for the employees on a trade-union basis. 



2372 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IX THE UNITED STATES 

but 1 don't think that those ^^ains were obtained for the members. 
They were obtained as a tactical and as a strategic move for the 
Communist Party. 

I don't want to drag out my reasons too long, but as a result of this 
sort of tliinking, and after a good deal of thought, particularly because 
my role in this tiling was as a conciliator, but, any wa}', some time along 
the course of mj^ work, I think probably in the latter part of April 
or the early part of May, I decided to get in touch with the United 
States attorney's office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
recommended to them that they make an investigation with a view 
of having a Smith Act prosecution against the people who were behind 
this strike. I explained to them my reasons. Of course, I didn't have 
the evidence for a Smith Act prosecution myself, but I felt absolutely 
sure that the Communist Party was running this strike, and it was 
running the strike not for trade-union purposes but for the purposes 
of the })ower of the party against tlie United States. 

Mr. Morris. Now, that last thing you said, JNIr. Jamieson, is your 
personal opinion and conclusion, based on the evidence that you cited 
previously ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Yes; that's true. It is not, however, a rashly drawn 
conclusion. I mean I've thought it over. 

Mr. Morris. You have already given us the evidence which forms 
the basis of your conclusion ? 

Mr. Jamiesox. Yes. That's right. 

Senator Butler. Over what period of time did you deal with 
thelLWU? 

Mr. Jamieson. I started dealing with the IL^^HJ on March 1, as 
soon as I was appointed, and I think I had my last conversation with 
an IL"\'\n;T official on July 20, when I liad a telephone talk with Louis 
Goldblatt. 

Senator Butijcr. And at the end of that period you were convinced 
that it was a completely Communist-dominated union and any labor 
or employee activity was merely coincidental ? 

Mr. Jamieson. Oh, yes; that's true. I was absolutely sure that the 
union Avas carried on for the greater power of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Morris. Senators, that is all. 

Senator Buti.er. Senator Watkins, any questions? 

Senator Watkins. I have no questions. 

Senator Bi'ti^er. Senator Jolmston. 

Senator Johnston. No questions. 

Senator Butler. Senator Welker, 

Senator Welker. No questions. 

Senator Bittler. Thank you, Mr. Jamieson. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mr. Jamieson, for coming forward and 
testifying. 

(The M'itness was excused.) 

Mr. Morris. Heniy Benjamin Epstein. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Epstein, will you hold up your right hand? 
Do you in the presence of Almighty God solemnly promise and declare 
that such evidence as you give this subcommittee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 

Mr. Epstein. I do. 

Senator Butler. The witness is sworn. 



I 

I 



II 



ftCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2373 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY BENJAMIN EPSTEIN 

Mr. Symoxds. Mr. Chairman, may the record show that Mvs. Bous- 
]og and Mr. Symonds are representing this ^Yitness? 

Senator Butler. The record will so show. 

Mr. Epstein. ]\Iay I make the same reqnest with regard to tele- 
vision, please? 

Senator Butler. Yes. There will be no televising of this witness. 

Mr. Morris. Wliat is your name? 

Mr. Epstein. TTenry B. Epstein. 

Mr. Morris. Where do yon reside ? 

Mr. Epstein. 5204 Ani Street. 

Mr. Morris. Were you born in NeAv York City in 1923 ? 

Mr. Epstein. I was. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us what schools, elementary schools, you 
attended ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. T attended Pu])lic School 40 in New York, Stitch 
Junior High School, and the High School of Music and Art. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend college in New York? 

Mr. Epstein. No; I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend college at any time? 

Mr. Epstein. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Morris. W^ill you tell us what employment you had prior to 
coming to Hawaii ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I an", going to refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the first and iifth amendments. 

Senator Butler. Tlie committee does not recognize any right that 
you would ha^'e under the first amendment, but we will accept the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you come to Hawaii in 1947 ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I did, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now the full-time director of United Public 
Workers ? 

Mr, Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
same constitutional grounds. 

Mr. Morris. That is, claim of privilege u.nder the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Epstein. T am claiming under the first and fifth, sir. 

Senator Butler. The same remarks, we will not recognize any right 
3'ou may have under the first amendment. If you want to claim the 
privilege of the fifth amendment, on the basis that any testimony you 
may give in that regard w-ould tend to incriminate you or make you tes- 
tify against yourself, we will accept. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in view of the witness' refusal to tell 
the committee whether or not he is the director of the United Public 
Workers, I ask if we may call upon Mr. Mandel to give us the best 
evidence that we have on that fact. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. 

Mr. Mandel. The Directory of Labor Organizations of the Terri- 
tory of Hawaii, No. 30, revised September 1956, page 22, lists under 
United Public Workers, Territorial officers, Henry B. Epstein, direc- 
tor. 



2374 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Butler. Yes, Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. May I ask, by reason of the testimony from Mr. 
Mandel, that the witness be ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion propounded to him? 

Senator Butler. Well, the Chair will — as I understand the situa- 
tion, the witness was asked a question as to whether or not he is now 
the full-time director of the United Public Workers, and he claimed 
the immunity under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Welker. That's right. 

Senator Buti.er. It seems to the Chair that he has the right to do 
that if he so desires. 

Senator Welker. May I repeat my request, as a member of this 
committee, that he be ordered and directed to answer the question ? 

Senator Butler. I will so direct, if you like it. I direct you, Mr. 
Witness, to answer the question. 

Mr. Epstein. The answer will be the same, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Butler. And what is that? 

Mr. Epstein. That I decline to answer on the grounds of the first 
amendment and fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Prior to coming to Honolulu, were you a member of 
the Young Communist League? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been a member of the joint Federal workers 
branch of the Communist Party in Chicago? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Was your announced purpose, in coming to Hawaii, 
to organize public employees into Local 646 of the United Public 
Workers of America ? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds. 

jNIr. Morris. When you came to the Hawaii Islands, did you become 
a member of the Communist Party here ? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answei' tliat question on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Have you tried — specifically, in 1947, did yon make 
an effort to infiltrate the Hawaiian police force with Communists? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

Senator Butler. I notice you say, "I'm going to" ; now, do you ? 

Mr. Epsitjin. I do, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you make an effoi-t to organize the police depart- 
ment in 1949— in 1947? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Senator Butler. When did you come to Hawaii ? 

Mr. Epstein. 1947, sir. 

Mr. Morris. AVas an unannounced purpose of yours to recruit police 
officers of Hawaii into the union shortly after your arrival ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2375 

Mr. Epsteix. I will refuse to answer that question for the same 
reason. 

Mr. IMoRRis. To your knowledge, was the United Public Workers 
expelled from the CIO in 1950 ? 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epsteix. My answer to that, Mr. Chairman, will be the same. 
I refuse to answer on the constitutional grounds previously given. 

Mr. Morris. Erom 1947 to date, has your organization, that is, the 
United Public Workers, been directed by a paid full-time staff of 
identified Communists headed by yourself'^ 

Mr. Epsteix. Again, I will refuse to answer that question on the 
ground I stated. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been identified as a member of the Young 
Communist League ? 

Mr. Epstein. The same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. The Communist Party of Chicago ? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Communist Party of Hawaii ? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Mr. JSIORRis. In 1947, did you send Henry Toyama, who was at that 
time a Communist Party member, to the island of Hawaii to be an 
organizer for the UPWA ? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you at that time instruct him to report to David 
E. Thompson, a leading member of the Communist Party of Hawaii, 
informing Toyama that he was being transferred to a Communist 
Party cell at Olaa in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that on the same 
grounds. 

Senator Butler. Do you feel that a truthful answer to any of these 
questions would tend to incriminate you and bring criminal action 
upon you ? 

Mr. Epstein. I believe I understand my constitutional rights, Mr. 
Chairman. I am using them in good faith. 

Senator Welker. That isn't an answer to the question, Mr. Chair- 
man. I insist that he answer it. 

Senator Butler. Do you feel as though a truthful answer to the 
questions which have been propounded to you would tend to incrimi- 
nate you if a criminal prosecution was brought against you ? 

Mr. Epstein. I believe they might tend to do so, sir ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. In 194.5, did the Communist Party in Hawaii, for 
security reasons, order transferred into a new secret cell all Com- 
munist Party members who were government employees or closely 
connected with the government or politics? Did the Communist 
Party of Hawaii, of which you were a member at that time, for 
security reasons, order transferred into a new secret cell all party 
members who were government employees or closely connected with 
governmental policies ? 

]SIr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of 
the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Among these persons was — included among these 
persons was Robert M. Kempa ? 



2376 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same con- 
stitutional grounds. 

Mr. MoRKis. Do you know that Eobert M. Kempa, at that time, was 
employed by the board of water supply of the city and county of 
Honolulu ? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question, on the same grounds, 
based on the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Morris. Was included among these persons Wilfred M. Oka 
because he was then secretary of the Oahu County committee of the 
Democratic Party ? 

Mr. Epstein. Again I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Morris. And was yourself included because you were soliciting 
government workers to join the UPWA ? 

Mr. Epstein. Again I refuse to answer on the same constitutional 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been an exceptionally industrious and effec- 
tive lobbyist from — for the Communist viewpoint ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same ground. 

Senator Butler. On the ground that it would incriminate you if 
you gave a truthful answer to it ? 

Mr. Epstein. It might tend to incriminate me, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you appeared before legislative bodies in 
your capacity of director of the United Public Workers ? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same ground. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been a leading opponent of Communist in- 
vestigations in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same consti- 
tutional grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Have you concentrated your efforts on recruiting so 
as to increase the strength of your organization, which continues under 
Communist domination and which now has about 2,000 members? 

Mr. Epstein. Once again, I refuse to answer that question on the 
same constitutional grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Butler, the staff has prepared a memorandum 
based on the information and evidence that we have received in the 
file. Now I have just gone through this memorandum point by point 
and given Mv. Epstein an opportunity to deny that. 

Senator, there is one thing I didn't take up there, and that was the 
excerpt from the Territorial Commission on Subversive Activities, 
and the TeiTitorial commission at that time, on March 31, 1954, held 
that — 

the Uuiteil Public Workers in Hawaii is controlled by the Communist Party 
through the instruments of Henry Epstein and other paid employees of the 
union — Stephen Murin, Max Roffman, and Jeanette Nakama Rohrbough. 

Do you have knowledge that the United Public Workers in Hawaii 
is controlled by the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Epstein. Once again, I refuse to answer that question on the 
same constitutional grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that Stephen Murin is an instrument of 
the Communist Party in its control of the United Public Workers? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2377 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to decline to answer that question on the 
same ground. 

Mr. Morris. Same question for Max Roffman. 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Same question for Jeannette Nakama Rohrbough. 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Senator Butler. Counsel, you may make your offer. 

Mr. Morris. I would like to, Senator, offer into the record this 
memorandum. Now, what we have done, the staff has compiled, not 
all of it, but a good part of its evidence and information into this com- 
pilation. "We don't like to put this in the record unless we give the 
witness on the stand an opportunity to deny or affirm. We put it forth 
as information and evidence that we consider reliable and with the 
limitation surrounding it, particularly in view of the witness' refusal 
to testify I would like it to go into the record at this time. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. 

(The document referred to is as follows :) 

Heney Benjamin Epstein 

This witness was born at New York City in 1923, came to Hawaii in 1947, and 
now resides at 5204 Ani Street, Honolulu. He is the full-time director of the 
United Public Workers, as to which the Territorial Commission on Subversive 
Activities has found (report dated March 31, 1954) : 

"(1) The United Public Workers in Hawaii is controlled by the Communist 
Party through the instrument of Henry Epstein and other paid employees of the 
union — Stephen Murin, Max Roffman, and Jeanette Rohrbough. 

"(2) The Communist Party has exploited the UPW and its membership pri- 
marily for Communist purposes. 

"(3) In conflicts of interest between the Communist Party and the rank-and- 
file membership of the union, the Communist interest has prevailed, 
"(4) The elected ofiicials of the union and the rank and file either cannot or 
will not recognize that their union is Communist-dominated. So far as is known, 
they have taken no steps to rid the union of its Communist taint." 

Epstein's announced purpose in coming to Hawaii was to organize public em- 
ployees into local 646 of the United Public Workers of America. An unan- 
nounced purpose was to recruit police officers of Hawaii into that union. 

Because of its Communist leadership, the UPWA was expelled from the CIO 
in 1950. Subsequent to the national disintegration of the UPWA, its Hawaii 
local resolved itself into the present United Public Workers. From 1947 to 
date, the organization has been directed by a paid full-time staff of identified 
Communists (who are not public workers), headed by Epstein. 

This witness has been identified in the Young Communist League and the 
Communist Party, in Chicago, and in the Communist Party of Hawaii. 

When, in 1947, he sent Henry Toyama (also then a Communist Party member) 
to the Island of Hawaii to be an organizer for the UPWA, Epstein instructed 
him to report to David E. Thompson, a leading Communist Party member on 
Hawaii, informing Toyama that he was being transferred to the Communist 
Party cell at Olaa, Hawaii. 

In 1949, the Communist Party of Hawaii, for security reasons, ordered trans- 
ferred into a new secret cell all party members who were government employees 
or closely connected with government or politics. These persons included, by 
way of example, Robert M. Kempa, because he was employed by the Board of 
Water Supply of the City and County of Honolulu : Wilfred M. Oka, because he 
was then secretary of the Oahu County Committee of the Democratic Party ; 
and Henry B. Epstein, because he was soliciting government workers to join 
the UPWA. 

Epstein has been an exceptionally industrious and effective lobbyist for the 
Communist viewpoint, appearing before legislative bodies in his capacity as 

72723— 57— pt. 40 5 



2378 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

director of the United Public Workers. He has been a leading opponent of 
Communist investigations in Hawaii. He has continued to concentrate his 
efforts on recruiting so as to increase the strength of his organization, which 
continues under Communist domination and which now has about 2,000 members. 

Senator Butler. Any further questions? 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; I have two more questions, Senator. 

Have you been active in the Hawaii Civil Liberties Committee ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of the 
first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Did John Eeinecke attend a Communist Party meeting 
in your home on the Ala Wai ? Have you ever lived on the Alai Wai ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Morris. You will not tell us even whether you lived on the Ala 
Wai ? That's right ? I am asking you questions. 

Have you in the past lived on the Ala Wai ? 

Mr. Epstein. I was going to answer "No, sir." I have lived at 
Kapiolani Boulevard, which might be interpreted as being close to 
the Ala Wai. That is why I hesitated.- My offhand answer would be 
"No, I have never lived on the Ala Wai." 

Mr. Morris. And this other apartment, at Kapiolani Boulevard, 
did John Reinecke ever come to that apartment in the company of 
other persons who were organizing schoolteachers? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to renise to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Were you, Wilfred Oka, his wife Beatrice, your wife 
Sylvia, Robert Winkam and his wife Cessie, and a man named Takeo, 
members of a semiclosed group of the Communist Party, some time 
prior to March 4, 1953 ? 

Mr. Epstein. I decline to answer that question, on the same grounds, 
based on the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Morris. Did a group meet 

Senator Butler. We will not take any cognizance of the Bill of 
Rights. If you want to take advantage of the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, we will recognize that right. 

Now, will you ask the question again, counsel ? 

Mr. Morris. We have evidence that Wilfred Oka and his wife, 
Beatrice— his wife Beatrice; Henry Epstein and his wife Sylvia; 
Robert Winkham and his wife Cessie ; and a man named Takeo, were 
members of a semiclosed gToup of the Communist Party, and some- 
time prior to March 4, 1953 ; is our evidence accurate ? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Senator Butler. What is the ground "previously stated" ? 

Mr. Epstein. First amendment and fifth amendment. 

Senator Butler. We will say once again that we feel you haven't 
any right to claim any privilege under the first amendment. We will 
recognize the privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Now the committee is desirous of having, Mr. Epstein, 
information from you as to how much money the United Public Work- 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2379 

ers has contributed to the defense of Communists here on the Islands. 
I wonder if you will give us that information ? 
(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds previously stated. 

Senator Watkins. "V^^iat qualifications are required of prospective 
members before they can become members of this union that you 
represent ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr, Epstein. Senator, I am going to refuse to answer that question 
on the same grounds. 

Senator WKatkins. Do you know what qualifications are required ? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that whether he knows, 
he can answer that "Yes," or "No." He doesn't have to reveal any- 
thing. It couldn't possibly incriminate him to say "No." 

Senator Butler. Senator, I was reading something with counsel. 
Will you please read back the question ? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Senator Butlek. I order and direct that you answer that question. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. May I ask to have the question repeated, please? 

Senator Butler. Yes. Will you read it again, Mr. Keporter? 

(The question was again read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. Senator. 

Senator Butler. In other words, you refuse to tell this committee 
what qualifications a man must possess to become a member of your 
own union ? 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, that isn't what I asked him. I 
asked him if he knows. I didn't ask him to tell what they were. That 
was the second question. I want to know whether he knows. 

Mr. Epstein. The answer is the same, Senator. 

Senator Butler. I order and direct that you answer that question : 
As to whether or not you know what qualifications a person must have 
to become a member of your own union. 

Mr. Eptein. I still decline to answer. 

Senator Watkins. Isn't it true that before a person can become a 
member of that union he must be in public service of the Federal Gov- 
ernment or the Territory of Hawaii or some public entity, municipal 
corporation or otherwise? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same ground, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Butler. Well, I order and direct the witness to answer 
that question. 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse again, sir. 

Senator Watkins. How many members does the union referred to 
have in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Epstein. Again, I refuse to answer on the same constitutional 

grounds. 

Senator Butler. I order and direct that you answer that question. 
Mr. Epstein. Again, I decline, sir. 



2380 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Watkins. Are any of its members employed by the United 
States Government in any capacity? 

Mr, Epstein. I decline again to answer that question, on the same 
grounds as previously given. 

Senator Watkins. You know I am referring to the members of the 
union that we are talking about in this examination. You under- 
stand that, don't you? 

Mr. Epstein. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butl?:r. And I order and direct that you answer that 
question. 

Mr. Epstein. And I refuse again to answer the question, on the 
grounds of the first and fifth amendment. 

Senator Watkins. Are any of the members of that union employed 
by the Territory of Hawaii? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question, on the same con- 
stitutional grounds. 

Senator Watkins. Or by any municipality known as Honolulu? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer. 

Senator Watkins. Or any other municipality in the Territory? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer, Senator. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Watkins, in connection with those questions, 
I have here from the Public Record of June 1947, a publication : 

UPW launches Hawaii organizing drive following Flaxer's visit to the Terri- 
tory- Hawaii — initiating a drive to enroll more than 5,000 county and Terri- 
torial employees in Hawaii into the UPW, International President Abram 
Flaxer visited the Territory in the latter part of May and worked out an 
organizational program with local UPW leaders and members. At the present 
time there are over 600 UPW members in Hawaii, comprising in the main social 
workers, teachers, and county road workers. 

Now, was that an accurate statement, appearing in the public record 
of June 1947? 

Mr. Epstein. I refuse to answer that question, on the same con- 
stitutional grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Are you the Mr. Henry Epstein whose picture appears 
in this picture that accompanies this story? 

Senator Watkins. I ask that the witness come forward and take 
a look at it, before he answers. 

Senator Johnston. Sure. 

Senator Watkins. Or before he claims immunity. 

Senator Johnston. Let him see it, look at it and see if he can't 
I'ecognize himself. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Johnston. You said "Yes" ? 

Senator Butler. You are the person whose picture is 

Mr. Epstein.^ Same answer. Senator. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, there are other questions here, other informa- 
tion I have 

Senator Watkins. I want to know, do you know the Mr. Flaxer 
referred to in this story? Abram Flaxer? 

Senator Butler. Abram Flaxer. 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer, Mr. Chairman. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2381 

Senator Butler. You don't know him ? 

Mr. Epstein. I am going to — I am refusing to answer, on the 
constitutional ground ah'eady stated. 

Senator Wai'kins. You honestly believe that if you answered that 
question 

Mr. Epstein. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. That you kne^v him, that that might possibly 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Epstein. I believe I am using the 

Senator Watkins. Well, I ask you 

Mr. Epstein. Constitutional protection in good faith. 

Senator Watkins. I want to get the basis of it. You have got to 
give the basis of it, not just claim the fifth amendment, if we insist 
upon finding whether or not you honestly believe that to give a truth- 
ful answer to the question it might possibly tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. Epstein. It might tend to ; yes, sir. Senator. 

Senator Watkins. That's what I want to know. 

Mr. Morris. Are you sure, Mr. Epstein, you will not give us the 
information that we seek with respect to our inquiry into what money 
the United Public Workers has spent in order to aid the defense of 
Communists here on the islands? I ask you again if you will give 
us that information ? 

Mr. Epstein. Same answer, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, you know we took up at the executive 
session here today the question, as you know. Senator, the subcom- 
mittee is unanimously agreed that if Mr. Epstein didn't answer that 
question that he would be subject to a subpena duces tecum. 

Senator Butler. Is the United States marshal here? Will you 
please serve this subpena on the witness ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Epstein, will you come forward and take this sub- 
pena, please ? 

(The witness proceeded to the bench as requested.) 

Senator Butler. Let it be served by the marshal. The marshal 

Mr. Morris. It is not made out that way. Senator. 

Senator Butler. Oh, I see. 

Mr. Morris. That is why I gave it to him personally. 

Senator Eastland has directed that you receive that subpena. 
There's a marshal present. You will go to the headquarters of your 
union and forthwith bring back the books that are sought in that 
subpena. 

May he be so directed ? 

Senator Butler. I so direct, Mr. Epstein, that you go, in the com- 
pany of the United States marshal, to the headquarters of your union 
and bring the books and papers required by that subpena. 

Senator Welker. Or any other place. Not only the headquarters. 

Senator Butler. Wherever the books are, and bring those docu- 
ments to this hearing. 

Mr. Morris. Forthwith. 

Senator Butler. Forthwith. 

Mr. Epstein. May I consult my attorney, sir ? 

Senator Butler. Certainly. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 



2382 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. I want to interrogate you a little while before you 
take your trip. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, while there's a lull in the exami- 
nation of the witness, may I ask that the story from the Public Record 
of June 1947, Public Record published in Honolulu, T. H., entitled, 
the headline "UPW Launches Hawaii Organizing Drive Following 
Flaxer's Visit to the Territory" may be made a part of the record. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. 

(The clipping referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 390" and reads 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 390 

[Public Record, June 1947] 

UPW Launches Hawaii Organizing Drive Following Flaxer Visit to 

Territory 

Hawaii. — Initiating a drive to enroll more than 5,000 county and Territorial 
employees of Hawaii into the UPW, International President Abram Flaxer 
visited the Territory in the latter part of May and worked out an organiza- 
tional program with local UPW leaders and members. 

At the present time there are over 600 UPW members in Hawaii comprising 
in the main social workers, teachers, and county road workers. The renewed 
drive will concentrate on enrolling county road workers in the various counties 
hospital employees and teachers in the Territory. 

President Flaxer was accompanied by Henry Epstein, former business agent 
of local 13 in Chicago, who has now been assigned as international representa- 
tive in charge of the drive in Hawaii. Epstein recently concluded a 3%-year 
hitch in the Army, serving mainly in the South Pacific theater. 








In charge of drive : Wilfred Oka and Henry Epstein 



Working with Epstein will be Brother Wilfred M. Oka who has been serving 
as international representative for the union for some time. Brother Oka is 
a graduate of the University of Honolulu and holds a masters degree from 
Columbia University. 

When President Flaxer arrived in Hawaii local Washington stooge news- 
papermen announced that the union is now planning an organization drive in 
Pearl Harbor to match its recent "invasion of the Panama Canal Zone." As 
a matter of actual fact President Flaxer never went near Pearl Harbor and 
the union has no plans for organizing any Government employees in that area. 
The present drive will be confined exclusively to organizing Territorial and 
county employees outside of Pearl Harbor. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2383 




From left to right : Mr. and Mrs. Henry Epstein, international representative ; 
Abram Flaxer, international president; Mr. and Mrs. Bert Nakano, ILWU, 
local 136, secretary-treasurer; James Kealoha, former supervisor, county of 
Hawaii; John Haili, UPW, local 646, vice president; Joseph Pacheco, former 
supervisor, county of Hawaii ; Richard R. Yolioyama, UPW, local 646, secre- 
tary; Antone C. Duarte, UPW, local 646, president; Mr. and Mrs. Harry 
Kamohu, president and business agent, ILWU, local 136; August Asau, vice 
president, ILWU, local 136 

Mr. Morris. Will Mr. Newton Miyagi come forward ? 

Senator Butler. Mr. Miyagi, will you come forward ? 

The Internal Security Subcommittee, the members of the commit- 
tee here present, in executive session, have directed me, the acting 
chairman of this meeting, to serve on you as secretary-treasurer of 
local 142, IL'^VU, and the secretary of the ILAYU memorial fund, 
these two subpenas. 

Mr. Morris. You will notice, Mr. Mayagi, they are both forthwith 
subpenas. And I am asking if the marshall will accompany Mr. Mi- 
yagi in expediting his returning the records forthwith. 

Mr. Miyagi. May I consult my attorney ? 

Senator Butler. You certainly may. 

Senator Johnston. I think he should have a right to consult the 
attorneys, but I think the attorneys may not be mindful of the fact 
that we have had similar cases of this before, and where they refuse, 
the law takes charge of the matter. 

Senator Watkins. May I call attention of the Senator from South 
Carolina to the fact that Mr. Abram Flaxer was convicted of con- 
tempt of Congress for refusing to bring the records. And that was 
upheld by the Supreme Court. I handled the hearings in which that 
happened. 

Senator Johnston. That's the reason I called 

Mr. Epstein. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? 

Senator Welker. Use that microphone back there. 

Mr. Epstein. May I ask a question ? 

Senator Butler. Yes. 



2384 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Epstein. I would like to ask by what authority it is necessary 
for the United States marshal to come with us. 

Mr. Morris. You have been told enough about it; that's all the 
authority that's needed. 

Senator Butler. Just proceed forthwith to bring the books and 
records of your organization before this committee. 

Mr. Morris. And a United States marshal will assist you and expe- 
dite tlie return of the records. 

(The witness again consults with his counsel.)^ 

Mr. Epstein. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object 

Senator Butler. You are not going to do anything but get those 
books and records and bring them before this committee. That's the 
first thing you're going to do. 

You may stand aside as a witness and proceed. 

Senator Watkins. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think I know 
what he has in his mind". The United States marshal is not taking 
him into custody. 

Senator Butler. Not a bit ; not a bit. 

Senator Watkins. You are not ordering him to do that. 

Senator Butler. He is taking you, to help you in the carrying of 
your records and bringing them here, if you would like him to. 

(The witnesses conferred with their counsel.) 

Senator Butler. The committee has other business, and you can 
stand aside until you have filled the terms of that subpena. 

Mr. Epstein. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Welker. Just a moment. Mr. Chairman, I asked to inter- 
rogate this witness, but due to the fact that this is a subpena duces 
tecum I suggest that the witness stop talking and get on your little 
trip, accompanied by the marshal, and bring forthwith the docu- 
ments required by the subpena duces tecum. And then I would desire 
to interrogate you a bit after you return. 

Mr. Symonds. Senator, this man wishes to consult with his attorney. 

Senator Welker. What? 

Mr, Symonds. This man wishes to consult with his attorney. He 
can't do it in 5 minutes. This is a very serious matter. 

Senator Welker. You bet it is a very serious matter. And I never 
heard of people consulting about a subpena. That's an order, a sub- 
pena, and it will be followed. 

Mr. Symonds. He has a right to speak 

Senator Welker. You've been talking there for 15 minutes. 

Mr. Symonds. Not about this subpena. 

Senator Welker. Very well, then. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that 
the words and order of the subpena be carried out. 

Senator Butler. Hasn't the chairman directed that that be done ? 

Senator Welker. It has been directed, and now we're getting into 
a little snafu with counsel. 

Mr. Epstein. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Welker. When the books and records come here, then you 
can consult with your client. I think that's fair. 

Mr. Symonds, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Watkins. I desire to be heard in this matter. 

Senator Butler. Yes. Senator Watkins. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2385 

Senator Watkins. I do not agree with the Senator from Idaho. 
This witness and the other witness should have reasonable time to 
procure — to respond to that subpena, and they should have a reason- 
able opportunity to consult with counsel as to whether the subpenas 
have been properly issued or whether the inquiry, the thing requested, 
is within the right of the committee to require. I for one want to see 
them have that time. And I want to make it clear, again, that the 
offer or the suggestion that they go with the marshal is not intended 
to mean for a moment that they are under the supervision of the 
marshal — that they are under arrest or in his custody. But merely 
a matter of convenience. But I do think under the state of this 
record, in view of the refusals to answer, that the witnesses, both of 
them — the other gentleman is required to get documents and bring 
them back here — should respond forthwith, and that is, what is rea- 
sonable under the circumstances may be a lot less time than would 
ordinarily be granted, because we are now in session and the inquiry 
has been made of many matters which the witness refuses to answer, 
and it is the only recourse left open to the committee, and it is a 
proper subject for us to investigate, as the Supreme Court has already 
held, in a matter that I conducted myself for this committee. 

Senator Butler. It is the view of the chairman that haste should 
be made. If the witness and his counsel would leave, we could go 
on with the hearing. 

Mr. Symonds. We represent the next witness, Mr. Chairman, also, 
and I suggest that tomorrow morning, under the Powell decision of 
the United States, would be the least — the least time that we should 
have 

Senator Welker. Now, just a moment. Just a moment now. Mr. 
Chairman, I suggest if counsel— if you want to make a speech, you 
come up here and talk to the chairman. 

(Counsel and witnesses then approached the bench and a discussion 
was had off the record. ) 

Senator Butler. I think tomorrow morning is a reasonable request. 

The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p. m., the subcommittee recessed.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 



tuesday, december 4, 1956 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration 
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Honolulu^ T. H. 

The subcommittee met, pm'siiant to adjournment, at 9:40 a. m., 
in the senate chamber, lolani Palace, Senator James O. Eastland 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present : Senators Eastland, Watkins, Jolmston, Welker, and Butler. 

Also present: Eobert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Mandel, 
research director. 

Senator Eastland. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, the first witness that we planned to use this 
morning is a man who was subpenaed some time ago, and when he 
came in he, as you know, Senator, made full disclosure, rather than 
invoke the privilege under the fifth amendment, about his past mem- 
bership in the Communist Party. He asked us that he not appear 
in public record, and consistent with our policy, we have made an 
arrangement whereby we have the information and the evidence as 
the result of his own experience. He told us, as you know, Senator, as 
one of the things, that while he was a Communist here on the islands 
that he had experience with, as he put it, "a shade more than a 
hundred" Communist Party members. 

Now, consistent with our policy in the past, we have excused him 
from further testimony. We will not only protec-t his anonymity, 
inasmuch as he has been cooperating with the committee, but in addi- 
tion we have asked him if he would not cooperate with the Territorial 
commission here. 

We feel, Senator, that it is not our function to go into every single 
Communist case here on the islands. We are here only to get a 
broad picture, and it is the work of the Territorial commission to do 
anything more they may want to do. So, consistent with our func- 
tion and their function, and agreeable to the witness who shall remain 
anonymous, he will be cooperating with the commission. The fact 
Ave should put in our record is this statement : That during his period 
of membership in the Communist Party, which comes more or less — 
1 don't want to give the date of the separation because I might be 
identifying him before some people — that he did deal with "a shade 
more than a hundred people." And we plan to have a further session 
with him before we leave the island. 

If that is satisfactory to the Senators on the committee, I would 
like then to go on with the next witness, 

2387 



2388 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Eastland. What is your pleasure, gentlemen ? 

Senator Watkins. I approve the recommendation made by counsel. 

Senator Johnston. I think that's the proper way to handle the 
matter under the circumstances. 

Senator Welker. Agreed. 

Senator Eastland. So ordered. Who is your next witness? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Roffman. Max Roffman. 

Senator Eastland. You have been sworn, Mr. Roffman ? 

Senator Welker. No. 

Senator Eastland. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the 
parent Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF MAX ROFFMAN 

Mr. Roffman. I do. 

May I sit down ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. Roffman. And I make the same request as the others with 
regard to television. 

Senator Eastland. Gentlemen, that order is going to be enforced 
now. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Roffman, give your name and address to the 
reporter. 

Mr. Roffman. Max Roffman, 3049-A Kalihi Street. 

Mr. Morris. Now, were you born in New York City on April 11, 
1910? 

Mr. Roffman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Johnston. May I suggest that the witness pull the "mike" 
a little closer to him ? 

Mr. Morris. Now, will you tell us of your early education in New 
York City? 

Mr. Roffman. Grammar school and high school. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend college? 

Mr. Roffman. I *took a noncredit course in journalism at night. 

Mr. Morris. Where did you take that from ? 

Mr. Roffman. Brooklyn College. 

Mr. Morris. And tell us generally what work you did in New York. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roffman. Various miscellaneous jobs, office boy, shipj^ing 
clerk, various others ; these were tlie depression years and long periods 
of unemployment. 

Mr. Morris. When did you come to Honolulu ? 

Mr. Roffman. 1953. 

Mr. Morris. Now, what was your last employment before you came 
to Honolulu ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roffman. I refuse to answer that question, on the basis of 
the Bill of Rights which protects me, s]>ecifically on the first amend- 
ment and also the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I have a ruling? He claims his 
privilege under the first and imder the fifth amendments. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STAPES 2389 

Senator Eastland. Of course, lie has no right imder the first 
amendment. That's overruled. It is recognized under the fifth. 
And I wish you would ask him specifically what he did, and let's get 
his answer in the record. 

Mr. MoRKis. I asked the witness what his last job was before he 
came to Honolulu, Senator, and he has refused to answer. And you 
have ruled on it. 

Since you have arrived here, have you been an organizer of the 
United Public Workers ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. EoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Well, our evidence indicates that you are and have 
been an organizer of the United Public Workers; our further in- 
formation indicates that during the year 1955 you received from 
the UPW a salary- of $4,387.50. Are those accurate facts, Mr. Roff- 
man ? 

Mr. EoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. It is a fact, is it not, that you came to Hawaii from 
Detroit? 

]\Ir. RoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And is it a fact that you are employed — you were 
employed as an organizer for the UPW of the Detroit local? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Was not your transfer from Detroit to Honolulu the 
result of a suggestion by Mr. Epstein ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. You have been a close friend of Abram Flaxer, 
F-1-a-x-e-r, have you not, Mr. Roffman ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know a man named Ewart Gwennier? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you have worked closely with Jack Hall since 
you have come to Honolulu, have you not, j\Ir. Roffman ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. You have worked closely with Mr. Epstein — Henry 
B.Epstein? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you known and dealt with a man who has 
described liimself as the chairman of the Communist Party of Hono- 
lulu, namely, Charles Fujimoto? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Roffman, were you at a meeting at Mr. Epstein's 
home last Saturday night, a week ago Saturday ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Senator Eastland. Was that a Communist meeting ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Senator Eastland. In other words, you take the fifth amendment 
on whether or not that was a Communist meeting, is that correct ? 

Mr. RoFFjviAN. On the grounds given before. 

Senator Eastland. It is your testimony that if you would truth- 
fully answer that question, it would tend to incriminate you ? Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Roffman. I believe there is that danger. 



2390 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Eastland. Yes. Well, it must have been a Communist 
meeting then. 

Proceed, 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Roffman, are you now a Communist? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you attended Communist Party meetings in 
Hawaii since your arrival here in 1953 ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been associated with the Hawaii Civil Rights 
Congress ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Prior to coming to Honolulu, you were active in the 
Communist Party in Baltimore, were you not, Mr. Roffman? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer. 

Senator Eastland. What was that question? 

Mr. Morris. Will you read it, Mr. Cowart, please ? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I have — and may we take this up in executive 
session — a rather extensive memorandum which sets forth consider- 
able evidence on this man. Now, I don't know, Senator, for security 
purposes, whether I can put this into the public record at this time. 
I will show it to the Senators in executive session and they may make 
a decision at that time whether or not 

Senator Eastland. Could we step out right now and hold a little 
executive session? 

Mr. Morris, All right, Senator. 

Senator Eastland. Does that suit you? 

Well, go ahead. Proceed, then. O. K. Proceed. 

Mr. Morris. In 1942, were you one of the original members of "The 
Yanks Are Not Coming Committee?" 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer, on the grounds stated before, 

Mr, Morris. Now, could you tell this committee how the United Pub- 
lic Workers operates? 

Mr, Roffman, Same answer, as heretofore given. 

Mr, Morris, Will you tell us — Will you give us the names of all the 
organizers of the United Public Workers here in Hawaii? 

Mr, Roffman, Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony, Mr, Roffman, that you will not 
tell us the names of the organizers of the United Public Workers ? 

Mr. Roffman. Same answer as before and on the grounds stated. 

Mr, Morris. And if I say to you, Mr. Roffman, that we have the 
desire to know, because we have evidence that Communists have been 
operating in the United Public Workers, we would like to know the fl 
names of all of the organizers that you know. I ask you particularly 
to answer that question. 

Mr. Roffman. And I give the same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I would like the record to show that that in- 
formation is particularly sought by this committee, the witness is 
competent to give the testimony. 

And I ask again, Mr. Roffman, if you will give us that? 

IVIr. Roffman. And I give the same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And, Senator, as you know, these hearings are being 
conducted so that we might know the extent of Soviet activity here 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2391 

in the Hawaiian Islands, in connection with our overall inquiry into 
the scope of Communist activity and the scope of the Soviet activities 
in the United States, and the question is sought for that particular 
purpose. 

Senator, I have no more questions of this particular witness. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. I have no questions. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnson. No questions. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Witness, what do you do for a living? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I decline to answer that on the basis of the Bill 
of Rights and for the reasons stated heretofore. 

Senator Welker. You wouldn't care to tell us whether or not 
you did something, worked for a living, that wouldn't tend to in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I think there is a danger before this committee. 

Senator Welker. There would be a danger. If you were raking 
leaves out here at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, you think that might 
tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I don't know what relation that has to do with in- 
ternal security. However, I decline to answer on the grounds given 
before. 

Senator Welker. I didn't hear your first remark there. Some- 
thing about internal security. 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I said I didn't know what raking leaves had to 
do with internal security. 

Senator Welker. It might have a great deal to do with it if 
people like you were out raking them. Now, you had your educa- 
tion in Brooklyn College in New York. Is that correct? Your higher 
education ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Right. 

Senator Welker. I believe you stated "noncredit," or something 
of that sort ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Yes. 

Senator Welker. Did you attend any cell meetings of the Com- 
munist Party while you were in New York ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I decline to answer on the grounds stated before. 

Senator Welker. You're relatively a young man yet. What is 
your age ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Forty-six. 

Senator Welker. Forty-six. Have you ever attended any labor 
schools of the Communist Party on the mainland ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I refuse to answer on the grounds given before. 

Senator Welker. And would you be willing, Mr. Witness, to tell 
the people that you try to organize into the United Public Workers 
that you have told this committee of the United States Senate that you 
have refused to answer these very simple questions upon the ground 
that they might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I refuse to answer your question on the grounds 
stated before. 



2392 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Welker. Would you be fair enough to go on the air and tell 
your people, United Public Workers, the questions and answers pro- 
pounded to you and let them be the judge as to whether or not you 
had been a member of the Communist Party or are now a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hoffman. I understand I'm on the air now. 

Senator Welker. You understand you're on the air now? How 
do you mean that ? 

Mr. EoFFiMAN. I understand tliat these sessions are broadcast. 

Senator Eastland. Let's have order, please. 

Senator Welker. I think I have no further questions. 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute. Senator Butler ? 

You may stand aside. You are not excused; you are still under 
subpena. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, Senator Watkins had a question. 

Senator Watkins. I wanted to ask the witness a question. 

I understand you refuse to answer the question as to what your 
occupation is, or what you are doing ; what is your work. Is that true ? 

Mr. Hoffman. I did refuse on the grounds stated. 

Senator Watkins. You did that on the ground it might incriminate 
you if you gave an honest and truthful answer to that question ? 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I think answering the question before this committee 
might create that danger. 

Senator Watkins. Well, it would before any committee, wouldn't 
it? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoFFMAN. I so feel. 

Senator Watkins. And even before a court. That would be your 
position even in court, if you were asked that same question? 

( The witness consults with his counsel. ) 

Mr. RoFFMAN. That question was purely speculation on what I 
would do. 

Senator Watkins. Even if it is, I have a right to ask it and I have 
a right to get an answer, unless you want to claim the protection of 
the fifth amendment again. 

Mr. RoFFMAN. Well, I do claim the protection of the fifith amend- 
ment. 

Senator Watkins. All right. You have that right. That's all. 

Senator Eastland. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Murin. 

Senator Eastland. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN THOMAS MURIN 

Mr. Murin. I do. I would like to make the same request about 
television. 

I would like to ask if you gentlemen would introduce yourselves. 
I find it difficult to think of you as individuals if I don't know you 
by your names. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter, 
Mr. Murin? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2393 

Mr. MuRiN. My name is Stephen Thomas Murin. 

Mr. Morris. That's spelled M-u-r-i-n. 

Mr. Murin. Yes. M-ii-r-i-n. 

Mr. Morris. Where do you reside, Mr. Miirin ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I live at 2357-C Palolo Avenue, Honolulu. Pardon 
me. I also live part of the time at 1109 Kilauea Avenue in Hilo. 

Mr. Morris. Where were you born, Mr. Murin ? 

Mr. Murin. I was born in Mammoth in Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Morris. I am sorry ; I didn't hear you. 

Mr. ]\IuRiN. Mammoth, Pa. 

Mr. Morris. How long did you stay at Mammoth, Pa. ? 

Mr. Murin. About 18 months. 

Mr. Morris. And where did you receive your elementary school 
education ? 

Mr. Murin. In McKees Rocks, Pa., which was the next town that 
my family moved to. 

Mr. Morris. Where did you attend high school ? 

Mr. Murin. In ^McKees Rocks, Pa. 

Mr. Morris. And did you attend college? 

Mr. Murin. I shall refuse to answer that question on the grounds of 
the immunity granted me in the Bill of Rights, particularly the first 
and the fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, you feel that you can answer about 
your high school education but you cannot tell us about your col- 
lege education? 

Mr. Murin. I feel at this particular time and before this particular 
committee, I would prefer not to answer the question put to me. 

Senator Johnson. Do you mean to say that the college you at- 
tended, telling the college, might incriminate you ? In other words, 
3^ou don't mean to lead the people to believe here that probably that 
college is mixed up in communism, do you ? 

Mr. Murin. I believe I have stated my reason for refusing to an- 
swer the question. I still state the same reason for refusing. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to ask you the same question I asked 
the last witness. Do you honestly believe that if you tell us the truth 
about the colleges you may have attended, that would redound to 
incrimination ? For instance, the evidence we have against you might 
be used in a prosecution in a criminal case. 

Mr. Murin. As I stated, because of the particular 

Senator Watkins. Have I stated it substantially correct now? 

Mr. Murin. Committee. I do believe that there would be a tendency 
for self-incrimination. 

Senator Watkins. Just a tendency? 

Mr. Murin. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. I think you have to go further than that under 
the claim of immunity. 

Senator Eastland. Yes ; it is overruled on that basis. 

Mr. Murin. I believe that it would tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Watkins. Well, that's better, if you're going to claim the 
protection of the fifth amendment. 

I want to make it perfectly clear that you understand what you're 
doing. 

Mr. Murin. Yes, sir ; I do. 

72723— 57— pt. 40 6 



2394 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Watkins. That you have an honest belief that you would 
incriminate yourself if you told us about any college that you might 
have attended here in the United States. 

Mr. MuRiN. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator Watkins. '\^niat is that? 

Mr. MuRiN. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator Watkins. All right. Let's make it clear for these people, 
and for the record. 

Mr. Morris. Now, the fact of the matter is you attended Boston 
University, didn't you? 

(Tlie witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. I have stated that I refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Morris. And you were also a transfer student 

Senator Watkins. Just a moment, Mr. Morris. 

I want to find out now if you have an honest belief that if you 
admitted that you attended Boston University, that that might be 
incriminating. 



Mr. Murin. I thought 

Senator Watkins. I know something about Boston University and 
I don't want any reflections on Boston University. 

Mr. Murin. t thought that was implicit in my answer, sir. 

Senator Watkins. You still believe that if you admitted you at- 
tended Boston University that might furnish incriminating evidence 
against you ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Murin. That was my answer and that is my answer. 

Senator Watkins. All right. So we have the record clear. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I might point out at this time, even though 
I don't mean to advance sight this, but if this particular witness says 
he joined the Young Communist League while at Boston University, 
he might honestly believe by admitting the fact that he was at Boston 
University might conceivably be used in some kind of a trial. 

Senator Watkins. Well, that would be the wildest kind of specula- 
tion, and I wouldn't think that that would be any part of Boston Uni- 
versity's curriculum, to have a Young Communist league. I happen 
to know the colleges in this country for the most part are 100 percent 
loyal and they do not tolerate or have as a part of their official organi- 
zation anything like the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Murin, did you attend a closed meeting of 
the district meeting of the Communist Party held at 1800 Center 
Avenue in Pittsburgh on April 19, 1942 ? 

Mr. Murin. I must refuse to answer that question, on the same 
grounds stated previously. 

Mr. Morris. You have been a Young Communist in Pittsburgh, 
have you not? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. While you were at Boston University, were you chair- 
man of the American Veterans' Committee chapter ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Were you deposed as chairman of that committee 
when you refused to sign a resolution against the Communist Party 
as ordered by the national planning committee of the AVC ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. You are an organizer for the UPW here in Hawaii, 
are you not ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2395 

Mr. MuBiN. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Murin, I notice you were in the courtroom when 
Mr. Epstein testified yesterday, and again when Mr. Rolt'man testified. 
As you know and as you have heard and as our record shows, the 
subcommittee is desirous of obtainino; information about the identity 
of all people who are organizing for the United Public Workers. We 
ask this information because we have evidence that Communists are 
organizing within that particular organization. And I ask you with 
great particularity if you will not tell us the names of the people you 
know who are organizing the United Public Workers at this time? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN". For the same reasons, sir, that I stated earlier, because 
of the immunity granted me by the Bill of Rights, particularly the 
first amendment and the fifth amendment, and I do refuse to answer 
that question. 

Senator Watkins. Do you know whether or not there are organ- 
izers that are attempting to do just what counsel has stated? I am 
not asking you to say what they're doing. I want to know if you 
know. In your own mind, do you know ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. I must refuse to answer that question on the same 
ground. 

Senator Watkins. I think that is one question on which you can't 
claim immunity, because whatever you know, you know in your own 
mind, and I am not asking you to state the facts. I am merely asking 
you to answer whether or not in your own mind, you know whether 
that is going on or not. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the Senator from Utah 
is imminently correct. And I would suggest that the witness be 
ordered and directed to answer that question. 

Senator Eastland. Let the witness answer. The Chair will make 
the decision. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. I must stand on the same ground, that of immunity 
granted under the Bill of Rights. 

Senator Eastland. Now, that's overruled, and you're ordered and 
instructed to answer the question, please. 

Mr. Murin. I refuse to answer the question, on the grounds of the 
first and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

Senator Watkins. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under the circum- 
stances, that if he doesn't know this is going on, he couldn't possibly 
incriminate himself by answering and saying he didn't know any- 
thing about it. He could have answered that to the counsel. But he 
must know, have that knowledge in his mind, in order to furnish a 
basis for a claim of immunity that to give a truthful answer might 
incriminate him. 

Mr. MuRiN. I don't believe, sir, that that speculative statement on 
your part 

Senator Watkins. I didn't ask you a question. I merely made a 
comment. 

Mr. Murin. I said I didn't consider it as a question. It sounded 
like a statement on your part. 

Senator Watkins. It wasn't a question to you. I was merely 
pointing that out to the committee. 



2396 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. MuiiiN. Oh, I see. I am sorry. 

Senator Watkins. I didn't give you an opportunity to make a 
speech. If you want to 

Mr. MuRiN. No. 

Senator Watkins. We Avill get around to that a little later ? 

Mr. MuRiN. No, I 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we had someone come into the com- 
mittee here a few days ago and told us that from his own experience 
he knew that this man, this witness here today, was in the past a 
member of the Hawaii Youth for Democracy. That is a Communist 
organization roughly comparable to the Young Communist League. 

Is that information that this man gave us the other dav accurate, 
Mr. Murin? "^ ' 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murin. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the same 
ground. 

Mr. Morris. All right. Were you not a member, as this man has 
told us, of the American Youth for Democracy chapter at the 
University of Hawaii. 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. In fact, you were a teacher at the classes held by the 
American Youth for Democracy, were you not ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. And were not some of these classes held at the home 
of John Reinecke, who has been identified during this hearing? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in connection with this 
United Public Workers, we read into the record four conclusions of 
the Territorial commission about that subject. I would like to read 
them again at this time, Mr. Chairman, and just ask the general 
question. 

(1) The United Public Workers in Hawaii is controlled by the Communist 
Party through the instrument of Henry Epstein and other paid employees of 
the union, Stephen Murin, Max RofEman, and Jeanette Nakama Rohrbough. 

Is that an accurate conclusion, Mr. Murin ? 

Mr. Murin. I must refuse to answer that question, sir, on the basis 
of the immunity granted me under the Bill of Eights, and particu- 
larly the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Second conclusion : 

The Communist Party has exploited the United Public Workers and its mem- 
bership primarily for Communist purposes. 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 
Mr. Morris (reading) : 

(3) In conflict of interest between the Communist Party and rank-and-file 
membership of the union, the Communist Party interest has prevailed. 

Mr. Murin. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. "Fourth: The elected officials of the union and the 
rank-and-file cannot or will not recognize that their union is Com- 
niunist dominated. So far as is known, they have taken no steps to 
rid the union of its Communist taint." 

Is that an accurate conclusion ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2397 

Mr. MoREis. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions of this wit- 
riess, but I do say, as the record now indicates. Senator, the committee 
would like to have more evidence and information about the United 
Public Workers. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins, I have no further questions. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnston. Is it or is it not true that the Government even 
sent you to college ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuKiN. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds 
previously stated. 

Senator Johnston. You decline to answer that question, that sim- 
ple question, whether or not the Government of the United States 
sent you to college, and of course the Government has that record 
already. And you refuse to answer that, although your Government 
was that good to you ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. Because formerly I have declined to answ^er other ques- 
tions about my university background, and I therefore must refuse 
to answer this question. 

Senator Watkins. Do you have a university background ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I must refuse to answer that question. 

Senator Watkins. \^^iy, you mentioned it yourself. You answered 
about your university background. That's an admission you had one. 
Now, is it true that you did have a university background ? 

Mr. MuRiN. You asked me whether I had a university background. 

Senator Watkins. I ask you right now. 

Mr. Mtjrin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the witness 
can now claim immunity. He has said in effect that he has a uni- 
versity background. And we ought to have a clear-cut admission 
or statement whether he does or does not have any. 

Mr. MuRiN. I believe the record will show that I was saying I had 
a university background because of questions you had asked me 
previously. 

Senator Watkins. You admit that you did have a university back- 
ground ? 

Mr. Murin. I did not. 

Senator Watkins. You did not admit it ? 

Mr. Murin. I don't believe I did, sir. 

Senator Watkins. I don't know whether you did or you didn't. 
Now, what do you say ? 

Mr. Murin. I said I refuse to answer the question on the same 
grounds I have stated previously. Let's stop there. 

Senator Watkins. I understood you to say a moment ago, in effect 
you admitted that you did have a university background; is that 
right? 

Mr. Murin. I would answer that on the same grounds that I have 
stated before. 

Senator Watkins. The record will show what you said, I am sure, 
and I think you did admit you had one. And under the rules, or I 
mean under the cases decided by the Supreme Court, you have opened 



2398 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

up that subject at least, and it is something to find out, about your 
university background. 

Senator Eastland. He has. He is ordered and directed to answer 
the question. 

Mr. MuRiN. Are you going to ask me the question now ? 

Senator Eastland. You are ordered to answer the question. 

Mr. MuRiN. I must refuse to answer the question, on the same im- 
munity granted me in the Bill of Rights and particularly the first 
and fifth amendments. 

Senator Watkins. You understand in so refusing you might pos- 
sibly lay yourself open to a contempt prosecution? 

Mr. MuRiN. I do so understand. I regret it. I think these are 
tough times. 

Senator Watkins. I am calling it to your attention so that vou may 
be fully advised of what you are doing, that it might possibly result 
in a contempt citation and possibly a conviction. 

Mr. MuRiN. I realize that. 

Senator Watkins. So I want to make it clear so no one will be taken 
advantage of. 

Mr. Morris. I have no more questions, Senator. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Johnston. 

Senator Johnston. No further questions. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Witness, what do you for a living ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. You don't want to tell us whether or not you're a 
clerk down here in Kress' store or any other occupation that might 
be honorable and not connected in any way with the Communist move- 
ment ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. I notice in your direct interrogation by Counsel 
Morris you made the statement that you lived for a portion of the 
time on this island and a portion of the time on another island. Now, 
will you explain the reasons why? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Now, just a moment. You're the man who an- 
swered. Now, we're entitled, as a matter of law and as a matter of 
fact, to find out why you have two residences, why you live a portion 
of the time here and a portion of the time some place else. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murin, Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. You have been in Pittsburgh, Pa. ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Do you desire to tell me any of the cities on the 
mainland you have been through or in besides that? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Do you think if you told me that you passed 
through Denver, Colo., stopped for 2 minutes, that that might tend 
to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Murin. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Now, let's be realistic. You know Steve Nelson ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2399 

Mr. MuRiN. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Do you know who Steve Nelson is in the Commu- 
nist conspiracy ? 

Mr. MuRiN. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. That not being his true name but his alias. I sup- 
pose he goes by the name of Steve Nelson now. He has two names. 
Did you ever attend any testimonial dinners or celebrations given in 
honor of Steve Nelson ? 

Mr. MuRiN. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Do you know Steve Nelson to have been in the 
Abraham Lincoln Brigade ? 

Mr. MuRiN. Same answer. 

Senator Welker. Have you ever been in Communist-controlled 
countries ? 

Mr. MuRiN. Same answer, sir. 

Senator Welker. Did you ever attend the Lenin School in Moscow, 
Russia? 

Mr. MtiRiN. I think you ask ridiculous questions now, sir. 

Senator Welker. Sir ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I believe you are asking ridiculous questions. 

Senator Welker. Very well. Now, that it be ridiculous, you go 
ahead and answer it ; will you ? 

Mr. MuRiN. The answer is "No." 

Senator Welker. You never attended that school ? 

Mr. MuRiN. You know I never did. 

Senator Welker. I didn't know. I do not know anything of the 
sort, sir. Now, that you think that you have your immunity, you 
have told me you didn't attend the Lenin School. Now, will you 
tell me what schools you did attend ? 

Mr. Murin, Same answer as I have stated previously. 

Senator Welker. What's the difference in attending a Lenin School 
or the Sons and Daughters of I Will Arise School ? 

Mr. Murin. I didn't come to debate with you, sir. 

Senator Welker. Sir ? 

Mr. Murin. I didn't come here to debate with you. 

Senator Welker. I don't care. You're going to answer the ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Murin. I said I refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Senator Welker. You seemed to take great offense when I asked 
you whether or not you attended the Lenin School. 

Mr. Murin. Because you know that there is no truth to any ridicu- 
lous implications like that. You know I have been in the war; you 
know what I've done since the war time. Don't give me that kind 
of 

Senator Welker. Now, it is a ridiculous question and you say that 
you didn't 

Mr. Murin. Ridiculous question. It deserves a ridiculous answer. 

Senator Welker. Attend that, and that we know you didn't attend 
it. So now will you tell us whether or not you attended the University 
of Hawaii ? 

Mr. Murin. I refuse to answer that question, on the same ground. 

Senator Welker. Is that a ridiculous question, too ? 

Mr. Murin. Given to me by the Constitution. 



2400 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Weliler. Is that a ridiculous question, too ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Senator Welker. Did you attend Boston University? 

Mr. MuRiN. I answered that question previously. 

Senator Welker. All right. I will ask you my own questions, and 
you answer them, sir. Did you attend Boston University? 

Mr. MuRiN. I refuse to answer that question. 

Senator Welker. Is that a ridiculous question? 

Mr. MuRiN. On the ground of the first amendment and the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Welker. Is that a ridiculous question ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. Previously, sir 

Senator Welker. Answer the question. 

Mr. MuRiN. I had asked 3^ou gentlemen to introduce yourselves. 
I don't know who you are. 

Senator Welker. That doesn't make any difference. 

Mr. MuRiN. I would like to call your — I would like to call you by 
your names. 

Senator Welker. You can find out. You answer the question. 
And I ask the chairman to order and direct you to answer that ques- 
tion. 

Mr. MuRiN. I w^as going to say, previously you refused to introduce 
yourself. Now you refuse to talk to me as you would to a gentleman. 
I would like to have you talk to me just — differently. If you will talk 
to me differently, I'll talk to you differently. 

Senator Welker. I want to be just as sweet and nice to you as I 
can. 

Senator Eastland. Order. 

Senator Welker. I want no more debate from you or we are going 
to have to invoke some rules. 

Mr. MuRiN. That's precisely what I said. I didn't come here to 
debate with you, sir. 

Senator Welker. Oh, I wish you had. I wish you had. But, sir, 
we don't have that provision here. 

Mr. MuRiN. I will be glad to do it on any other platform, any other 
time. 

Senator Welker. Certainly. I will be glad to debate with you at 
any time, in public debate or otherwise. 

Mr. MuRiN. Fine. I will accept the challenge. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. Just a moment. Senator. 

Senator Welker. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. Will the Senator yield for a moment ? 

Senator Welker. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. The witness has asked, I think when he was first 
sworn, that the people be introduced to him. Now, he may have done 
that in good faith. 

Mr. MuRiN. It was completely in good faith. 

Senator Watkins. Now, I want to ask you this question. Do you 
know that this is a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the 
United States Senate? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2401 

Mr. MuRi]sr. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. Known as the Internal Security Subcommittee? 

Mr. MuRiN. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Watkins. Now, do you know that the men sitting here, 
asking the questions, are Senators of the United States and members 
of that committee ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I was told as much. The only man I know actually is 
Mr. Morris. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. INIorris is not a member of the committee, but 
he is a staff member. Now, just for the purpose of the record 

Mr. MuEiN. Itcertainly shows I asked in good faith. 

Senator Watkins. I am going to take the privilege now, if the 
chairman will grant it, and introduce the Senators, so you will know 
them. 

Mr. MuRiN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Butler, on the extreme right of me; 
Senator Butler, of Maryland. 

Mr. MuRiN. How do j^ou do. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Welker, of Idaho. Oh, yes. Senator 
Johnston. He is such an inconspicuous man that I missed him. 
Senator Jolinston of South Carolina. 

Mr. MuRiN. How do you do. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Eastland, the chairman. 

Mr. MuRiN. How do you do, sir. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Morris, our chief counsel. 

Mr. MuRiN. How do you do. 

Senator Watkins. And I am Senator Watkins, of Utah. 

Mr. MuRiN. Thank you very much. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Eastland. Now proceed. 

Mr. MuRiN. I think a courtesy like that is very much appreciated. 

Senator Welker. You haven't been reading the papers, I take it, 
since this committee came to the island ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. There were so many different classifications to pass on, 
I didn't know which of them to use. I have read the papers, but so 
much brilliant questioning was brought out here it is difficult for 
me to associate the particular members sitting before me. 

Senator Welker. You saw photographs of every member of the 
committee, and their names, and their face ? 

Mr. Mtirin. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Senator Welker. And yet you deem it 

Mr. MuRiN. I will warrant, sir, that you don't know my name. 

Senator Welker. Sir? 

Mr. MuRiN. I will warrant that you don't know my name. 

Senator Welker. No; I don't know your name, because you will 
probably take the fifth amendment on me if I would ask you. I don't 
care about your name. 

Mr. MuRiN. You know me. You have got everything on me. You 
have got everything there and yet you refuse 

Senator Welker. Now, I want to ask you this question. Getting 
down to brass tacks here with respect to your education. You have 
told us about your grade schools and so forth. There came to be a time 
where you seem to cut off your answers and refused to answer on the 



2402 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

fifth amendment, which we recognize, and I think you used the first 
amendment. Now, as kindly and as sweet as I can be to you, I'll ask 
you if it isn't a fact that you have attended the California Labor 
School? 

Now, just a moment. Mr. Counsel— Madam Counsel. You are 
familiar with the rules of this comimttee, and when— you are here as a 
guest of this committee, and when you lean over and suggest to your 
client, you're bringing embarrassment upon yourself. I've said that 
three times in these hearings. And I shall ask the chairman for a 
strict ruling if I see you doing it any more. 

Mr. MuRiN. I would like to take the responsibility for that, sir, 
Senator Welker, because I intended to and then drew back myself. 
Senator Welker. Well, you didn't ask her anything, did you? 
Mr. MuRiN. I did, sir. 

Senator Welker. No ; you didn't. Now, I'll ask you to answer that 
question. 

Mr. MuRiN. I refuse to answer that question, on the same ground as 
stated previously. 

Senator Welker. And you still don't want to tell us why you reside 
part of the time on this island and part of the time on another island? 
Mr. MuRiN. That is right, sir. 

Senator Welker. And you don't desire to tell us how you make a 
living ? 
Mr. MuRiN. That is right, sir. Same reason, same ground. 
Senator Welker. I think that's a pretty good inference, a pretty 
good presumption of what you do. Thank you, Mr. Witness. 
Mr. MuRiN. Thank you. Senator Welker— ex- Senator Welker. 
Senator Watkins. 1 just wanted to ask him the same question I 
have asked other witnesses. 

You refuse to answer how you make a living on the ground that if 
you gave a truthful answer it might incriminate you. Now, of course 
that brings up some implications, even though the courts may say it 
doesn't, and all that sort of thing, but it actually does briiig up some 
implications. I want to know if you honestly believe, sincerely be- 
lieve, that if you gave a truthful answer to the question of how you 
make a living, you might incriminate yourself. I want to know if 
that is the basis of your refusal to answer, your basis for claim under 
the fifth amendment. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. MuRiN. Yes, sir. I believe that that answer these days before 
the conditions we have now would tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Watkins. I will ask you one further question. Are you 
engaged in any activities that might subject you to a criminal prose- 
cution ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Watkins. Do you want to claim the protection of the fifth 
amendment on that one? 

Mr. MuRiN. I appreciate the spirit in which you ask the question, 
sir, Senator Watkins, but I believe the very purpose of the fifth amend- 
ment was to make it unnecessary to answer questions like that. 

Senator Watkins. Do you claim the protection of the fifth amend- 
ment with respect to that one ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE IHSTITED STATES 2403 

Mr. MuRiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. And you no^Y honestly believe if you gave a 
truthful answer to that question I have just asked you, with respect 
to whether or not you are conducting any activities or engaged in any 
activities might subject you to criminal prosecution, might incriminate 
3'ou if you gave a truthful answer to it ? 

Mr. MuRiN. I must answer "Yes." 

Senator Watkins. The answer is "Yes." 

Senator Eastlaxd. Mr. Murin, a number of witnesses have come 
before the Internal Security Subcommittee and have stated frankly 
their participation in the Communist movement. Some have even 
testified very frankly about espionage for the Soviet Union. When 
a witness does that, no hand has ever been raised against him because 
he has well served the United States. 

Now, you have absolutely nothing to fear by a full and frank dis- 
closure of your activities if you have been in the Communist movement. 

I remember Mr. Winston Burdette, a national news commentator, 
who was sent to Europe as an agent, as an espionage agent, during the 
Russo-Finnish War. He came down and made a full and frank dis- 
closure ; he was very helpful to his country, and he had the good will 
of all Americans. In fact, he was thanked and congratulated by the 
committee. And there was no attempt to prosecute him. 

We make you the same olfer, provided you have been involved in 
the Communist movement. And our information is that you have. 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murin. I didn't detect the question involved in the statement 
you made. Will you ask the precise question, please ? 

Senator Easti.axd. I asked you no question. I simply assured you 
that you were in no danger of prosecution by a full and frank 
disclosure. 

Mr. Murin. I would like to know if there are any further questions, 
sir. 

Senator Eastland. Now, in the light of what the chairman has 
stated, would you change the answer to a single question that has been 
asked you ? Do you desire to change an answer to a single question that 
has been asked you ? 

Mr. Murin. No, sir. 

Senator Eastland. You do not? 

Mr. Murin. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. The next witness, Senator, is Mr. Rohrbough. 

Senator Eastland. Mr. Murin, you remain mider the subpena. You 
understand that ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Murin. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Senator, we are desirous of learning something about 
the nature of the Honolulu Record. 

Senator Eastland. Do you solemnly swear— Hold your hand up, 
please. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. I do. 



2404 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD EOHRBOUGH 

Mr. Morris. Senator, this particular witness is called at this time 
because, according to our evidence, he is the principal stockholder of 
the Honolulu Record and he is also a writer for the Honolulu Record. 
That is the evidence that we have received. 

Mr. Rohrbough, would you give your name and address to the 
reporter ? 

Mr. ROHRBOUGH. Edward Rohrbough ; 112T-B Alohi Way. 

Mr. Morris. Will you spell your name for the shorthand reporter? 

Mr. Rohrbough. R-o-h-r-b-o-u-g-h. 

Mr. Morris. Were you born on June 6, 1911, in Glenville, W. Va.? 

Mr. Rohrbough. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Did you attend Glenville State College in West Vir- 
ginia ? 

Mr. Rohrbough, That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Did you later attend the University of Virginia ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. University of Mexico? 

Mr. Rohrbough. National University of Mexico. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. National University of Mexico. The University of 
Texas? 

Mr. Rohrbough. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. In fact, you were a teacher at the University of Texas, 
were you not, Mr. Rohrbough ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you worked for the Office of War Information 
during the war, did you not ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. When did you first take up employment with the OWI ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. I believe it was in 1943, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Would you tell us the circumstances surrounding your 
becoming employed with the OWI? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rohrbough. Well, sir, there is no special circumstance I know 
of except I went and applied and was employed. 

Mr. Morris. We would just like to know how that came about. 

Mr. Rohrbough. I will have to rake my memory for a moment. I 
heard there was an opening. I heard there were people being employed 
for overseas service, and the newspaper I had been working for, or 
rather the magazine I had been working for 

Mr. Morris. What was that magazine ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. Newsweek magazine— showed no inclination to 
send me overseas and so I went and applied with the OWI. 

Mr. Morris. Then what was your assignment in the OWI ? 
(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I notice it is the end of 1 hour, and it is cus- 
tomary to give the reporter a break. 

Senator Eastland. We will take a 2-minute recess. 
(A 2-minute recess was taken.) 

Senator Eastland. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Will you answer the question, Mr. Rohrbough? I 
asked you what your duties were generally in the OWI. 

Mr. Rohrbough. What did I do in the OWI ? 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2405 

Mr. Morris, Yes. "V\niat did you do ? 

Mr. RoHRBOuGH. Well, I was employed by the — I think they called 
it the Overseas Outpost Agency, or something like that, division of it. 

Mr. Morris. Where was that, in Washington or 

Mr. RoHRBouGH. That was in New York. 

Mr. Morris. In New York. Actually, in 1944 you went to China 
for the OWI ; did you not ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Yes, sir; 1944. 

Mr. Morris. x\nd you were attached to the United States Army and 
the Army of the Chinese Nationalist government ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. That is correct, 

Mr. Morris. After A'^-J Day you resigned from the OWI ; did you 
not? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. And then you became a correspondent for the United 
Press; did you not? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. I am going to decline to answer that question, on 
the grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

jVIi'. Morris. Now, in your assignment by the United Press, you were 
assigned to cover the Chinese Communist assault on the Chinese Na- 
tionalist government, and you yourself were assigned to the Chinese 
Fourth Army, were you not, to cover the Chinese Fourth Army ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

]\Ir, RoHRBOUGH, I am going to decline to answer that question, on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris, Mr, Rohrbough, when you first took up employment 
with the OWI, were you at that time a Communist ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel,) 

Mr, RoHBROUGH, I refuse to answer that question, on the gi-ounds 
of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Pardon. 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds 
of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, may I have a ruling on that ? 

Senator Eastland. Repeat the question. 

Mr. Morris. He invoked the privilege under the first and the fifth 
amendments, sir. 

Senator Eastland. I thought it was understood — it is understood 
that any refusal based on the first amendment is overruled. 

Mr. Morris. When you were attached to the United States Army 
and the Army of the Chinese Nationalist Government for the OWI, 
were you at that time a Communist ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. You are the principal stockholder, are you not, Mr. 
Rohrbough, for the Honolulu Record ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH, I decline to answer that question, on the grounds 
of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman. 

Have you been connected with the China Monthly Review? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 



2406 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr.RoHRBOUGTi. I decline to answer that question, on the grounds 
of the first and fifth amendments. 

Senator Eastlaxd. What is the China Monthly Review, Mr. 
Counsel ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you tell us what the China Monthly 
Review is? 

]\Ir. Mandel. The China jMonthly Review was the subject of a hear- 
ing before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee ; it was edited 
by John W. Powell, who has since been indicted for his activity be- 
cause the paper was used in propagandizing American prisoners of 
war in Communist China. 

Mr. Morris. Now, when you left the OWI in 1945, you remained 
in China to cover the civil war ; did you not ? 

Mr. RoHRBOuGH. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Articles under the byline of Edward Rohrbough ap- 
peared in the March 23, April 6, April 20, May 18, 1946, issues of the 
China Weekly Review. Did you write for the China Weekly Review 
while you were in China '? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr.RoHRBOUGH. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record a 
paragraph from a staff analysis and a staff resume of our evidence 
here. 

This reads : 

In the latter part of 1945 Rohrbongh left the OWI in Shanghai and remained 
in China to cover the civil war. The masthead of the China Weekly Review 
(forerunner of the China Monthly Review), dated April 20, 1946. contains the 
names of the since deceased J. B. Powell (father of John AV. Powell), as editor 
and publisher, and also lists John W. Powell and Edward Rohrbough. Articles 
under the byline of Edward Rohrbough appeared in the March 23, April 6, 
April 20, and May 18, 1946, issues of the China Weekly Review. 

Senator, I would like to put this whole thing in the record at this 
time. And the Senators may want to analyze it and possibly may 
want to ask 

Senator Eastlaxd. It may be admitted in the record. 

(See exhibit No. 394 on p.'2433.) 

Senator Eastland. Any more questions ? 

Senator Watkins. I have some questions. 

Senator Eastland. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to ask you, Mr. Rohrbough, about 
the Honolulu Record. I understood you refused to answer any ques- 
tions with respect to tliat Record, or at least the ownership of it or your 
holding stock in it. Is that true ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. Yes, sir ; I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
first and fifth amendments. 

Senator Watkins. Have you read or seen copies of the Honolulu 
Record ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rohrbough. Same answer. 

Senator Watkins. You honestly believe^ if you gave a truthful 
answer to that, that you might be furnishing evidence against you 
and a possible criminal prosecution ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. I believe I might be. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY EST THE UNITED STATES 2407 

Senator Watkins. You think it would be an offense to read or to 
have seen copies of the Honokilu Record ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. I believe it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Watkins. It might tend to incriminate you if you saw it? 
Well, that will be very good news for the members of the community 
here, if you're right on that. And possibly the Post Office Depart- 
ment ought to be advised as well, if that statement of yours is true. 
Now, are you acquainted with the requirements of the laws of the 
Territory with respect to corporations ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBouGH. No, sir ; not to any extent. 

Senator Watkins. Not to any extent. Do you know, for instance, 
that the stockholders are a matter of public record in a corporation, 
a newspaper corporation ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. No ; I don't know that, sir. 

Senator Watkins. You don't know that ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. No. 

Senator Watkins. You have had experience over many years, repre- 
senting newspapers, have you not ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Watkins. Can't you answer that question ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Just a moment, sir. 

Senator Watkins. All right. 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. I will decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

Senator Watkins. Have you been a reader of newspapers ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. You finally came up with an answer to that one. 
Have you ever seen published at certain intervals, in the newspapers 
of this country, magazines, a statement about the ownership and man- 
agement of the newspapers, as required by the postal laws of the 
United States ; have you ever seen those statements ? 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Yes, sir. But not stockholders. 

Senator Watkins. What's that ? 

Mr. RoHRBouGH. But not stockholders. 

Senator Watkins. Those owning a certain percentage of the stock- 
ownership is required, is it not, the names of them ? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Senator Watkins. I think your lawyers will advise you that that 
is one of the requirements. At least, I have been reading the news- 
papers for a good many years, and I was in the business for a while. 
We all had to give a statement as to the ownership of the newspaper, 
one of the things the people of the country are entitled to know. 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. I think that's correct, sir. 

Senator Welker. What was the answer, Mr. Witness ? 

Senator Watkins. He said, "That is correct." 

Have you ever seen the statement of the ownership published in 
the Honolulu Record, as required by the statute? 

Mr. RoHRBOTJGH. I ref use to answer that, on the ground of the first 
and fifth amendments. 

Senator Watkins. Have you ever seen your own name in that 
statement as one of the owners ? 



2408 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. RoHRBOuGir. I refuse to answer that, on the grounds of the 
first and fifth amendments. 

Senator Watkins. Well, you apparently haven't been reading the 
Honolulu Record. Is that right? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoHRBOUGH. Same answer. 

Senator Watkins. Do you think it would incriminate you to read 
the Honolulu Record? 

(The witness consults with his counsel.) 

Mr. RoiiRBOUGir. Well, I believe, under the first and fifth amend- 
ments, I think I am protected from answering that question. 

Senator Watkins. Now, do you honestly believe, Mr. Rohrbough, 
that if you admitted that you read the Record, that I have just re- 
ferred to, that there could be any possible basis for a charge, a crimi- 
nal charge of any kind ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. I believe I am 

Senator Watkins. An admission that you had read that paper 
would be something that could be used against you to show you had 
been guilty of a crime ? 

Mr. Rohrbough. I believe I might be tending to waive my consti- 
tutional rights in this matter. 

Senator Watkins. 1 see. I don't think it would incrimmate you. 
It might possibly, from what I have heard here, contaminate you, but 
not incriminate you. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I notice that Irving Fishman, who was 
scheduled to be a witness here, a customs official, has arrived. Now, 
before asking any more questions of this particular witness, I would 
like to have a conference with Mr. Fishman, because he is an expert 
in the field to which we are going. Not only that, Senator, but there 
is considerable other evidence and information about this particular 
witness I would like a little time to marshal my material. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to have the 
staff of this committee get the Honolulu Record and ask the man- 
agement to come over here and testify with respect to the ownership 
of that paper, see if they claim the protection of the fifth amendment 
too. 

Senator Eastland. That is so ordered. 

Mr. Morris. It will be done, Senator. 

Senator Eastland. They will be subpenaed. A subpena will issue. 

Mr. Witness, you may step aside temporarily. You will be called 
back at the afternoon session. 

Is there some other matter now, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. There is one thing I would like to have 
settled right now. Senator. 

Will Mr. Andersen, Mr. Symonds, and Mrs. Bouslog come forward, 
please ? I would like to talk about that subpena. 

Since yesterday. Senator, we have had several conferences with 
counsel, and rather than describe the relationship, I think if they will 
come forward, they have indicated that they. Counsel Andersen and 
Counsel Symonds, have indicated that the records will be made avail- 
able. There are a couple of technicalities and difficulties that they 
think will be straightened out. We told them we are trying to be 
reasonable about it. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2409 

(Discussion at the bench not audible to the reporter.) 
Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Eastland. Yes, sir. 

Senator Watkins. Is this intended to be a discussion with the mem- 
bers of the committee with respect to what ought to be done or what 

will be done ? 

Mr. Andersen. I was just asked to approach the bench. 

Senator Watkins. I would sugoest, Senator, if it is going to be that 
type of a conference, that it be done in executive committee. 

Senator Eastland. I think so, too. I understood there had been 
an agreement. 

Mr. Morris. Not quite, Senator. AVe are pretty close to an area 

of agreement. 

Mr. Andersen. We want to discuss it. 

Senator Eastland. That should certainly be done in executive 
session. 

Mr. Morris. May we have an executive session now. Senator ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. Now, just a moment, before we do. I think on 
other matters here the record should be cleared up somewhat. There 
was a reference here earlier, Mr. Chairman, to Abram Flaxer. And 
I think one of the witnesses was questioned about him. And I think 
the record should show something about Mr. Flaxer. And I suggest 
that Mr. Mandel has already been sworn before this committee and 
should give a statement of the evidence that has been received with 
respect to Mr. Flaxer. That also this statement, if it is admitted, be 
placed in the record immediately following the testimony of the wit- 
ness who was interrogated with respect to Mr. Flaxer. 

Senator Eastland. That is all right. We can take it now or we 
can take it this afternoon. 

Senator Watkins. I would like for it to go in the record so it won't 
miss out 

Senator Eastland. It is ordered into the record. 

Proceed, INIr. Mandel. 

INIr. Mandel. Abram Flaxer appeared before the Senate Internal 
Security Subcommittee on October 5, 1951, identified himself as na- 
tional president of the United Public Workers of America, and 
invoked the fifth amendment with regard to all questions concerning 
his Conxmunist activity. 

Senator Eastland. The committee will go into executive session. 

Mr. Morris. The next public session. Senator, will be at 3 : 30. 

Senator Eastland, 3 : 30. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, will you ask the witnesses Koichi Omori, 
Yugo Okubo, and Wilfred Oka to stand by for testimony this 
afternoon ? 

Senator Eastland. They are under subpena, aren't they? 

Mr. Morris. They are. 

Counsel, do you understand ? The other witnesses will be available 
this afternoon. 

Mrs. BousLOG. Yes ; we understand. 

Senator Eastland. Adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 10:55 a. m., the subcommittee recessed.) 



72723— 57— pt. 40- 



2410 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 3 : 30 p. m., 
in the senate chamber, lolani PaLace, Senator James O. Eastland 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Eastland, Watkins, Johnston, Welker, and 
Butler. 

Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; Benjamin Mandel, re- 
search director ; William H. Arens, investigator. 

Senator Eastland. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Counsel Andersen, will you come forward, and we 
will put into the record this understanding of compliance with the 
subpena. 

Senator Eastland. All right, gentlemen. Dictate what you have 
agi'eed into the record. 

Mr. Andersen. Pursuant to the discussion 

Senator Eastland. Talk a little louder, please, sir; I can barely 
hear you. 

Mr. Andersen. Pursuant to a discussion I had a little while ago, 
which was supplemental to an executive session with the committee, 
on behalf of the clients that I represent, that is, local 142, Newton 
Miyagi as secretary-treasurer of the ILWU Memorial Association 
and local 142, ILWU, we agree, of course, that the Senate committee 
has jurisdiction to issue a subpena, and pursuant to the subpena served 
we will supply the information for the period stated in each subpena 
relating to any and all moneys spent by local 142 for the defense of 
Jack Hall, including any and all moneys spent during the same period 
by local 142 in the last political campaign, and with the same stipula- 
tion in relation to the subpena served upon the memorial association- 
Senator Eastland. Wait a minute now. Wait a minute now. 
Wait just a minute. As I understood, there was no limitation on the 
information that the committee was to desire. 

Mr. Morris. That is understood. 

Senator Eastland. Is that understood? Is that understood? 

Mr. Andersen. I think that is just exactly what I said. 

Senator Eastland. Well, no. You specified two things, but in 
addition, the committee is to get what information is desired. What 
additional information is desired. 

Now, is that the agreement ? 

Mr. Andersen. Maybe I overlooked part of the conversation we 
had in the executive session, and that is to the effect that you people 
might want to look at this information, either there or here; that is, 
you may question the information that we present. I have already 
stated that you have the right to issue a subpena, and having the 
right to issue a subpena, it certainly gives you the right to question 
anything. We have no objection to that. 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute now, Mr. Andersen. Wait a 
minute now. You are drawing the line too close there. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I make an effort to state our 
agreement, and see if this will conform with your understanding? 

Mr. Andersen. Maybe in the light of the Senator's statement 
maybe counsel and I should adjourn and agree in writing upon it 
before we have an argument here as to what 

Senator Eastland. Let him state it. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2411 

Mr. Morris. Let me see if I state it correctly. 
Mr. Andersen. All ri^ht. You may state it. 

Mr. Morris. Counsel tor the ILWU and the ILWU Memorial As- 
sociation agree to make available the information sought by the com- 
mittee, described in the subpena. However, at the very outset, the 
committee has asked for only two items. One is the information 
regarding expenditures and disbursements on behalf of all seven de- 
fendants in the Smith Act by the union and by the association. 

The second thing immediately sought would be the information 
with respect to the disbursements and expenditures during the 1956 
campaign. 

That is all that tlie committee has 

Mr. AxDERSEX. I think I have said the same thing. 

Mr. Morris (continuing). Sought for. counsel. But in the event 
that something more may be desired, we don't have any contempla- 
tion of that now, you will also comply Avith that. 

Mr. Andersen. I believe so. 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute. You believe so. Xow, what 
is the agreement ? 

Mr. Morris. Do you agree with tliat, counsel ? 

Mr. Andersen. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. All right. Thafs agreed. Tliat is an agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 

Senator Johnson. I notice the counsel said, "Jack Hall and other 
defendants." 

Mr. jMorris. I included all seven. 

Senator Johnson. You want to do that. He didn't make 

Mr. Morris. Now the UPW. Xow, what about that? Who will 
speak for that ? 

]Mr. Andersen. Of course, we may disagree as to terminology, but 
I think we understand each other. 

It is the position of my clients that any money it spent was for 
Jack Hall, but you will see the records. The records Avill speak. 

Mr. Morris. That's right. You will contend that the records 

Mr. Andersen. We spent the money for the defense of Jack Hall, 
but you will see those records. 

Mr. Symonds. On behalf of the United Public Workers, regarding 
tlie sunnnons served on that organization, I enter into the same 
stipulation. 

(Senator Watkins now acting as chairman.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Cowart, for the benefit of Senator Watkins and 
Senator Butler, who just came in, will you read by summarization 
of the agreement between counsel and the committee, together with 
the acknowledgement on tlie ])art of counsel ? 

(The reporter then read the record as requested by counsel.) 

Senator Easti>and. As I understand it now, the subcommittee is to 
get what information it desires and vrhen it desires it, but that this 
time there is only contemplated information on tAvo items, which you 
specified, but we aie in no wise limited now. Is that your under- 
standing? 

Mr. Morris. I think it is clear. Senator. Is that clear, Mr. 
Andersen ? 



2412 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Andersen. Wait a minute. I don't want any misunderstand- 
ing. I don't want to be accused of backing down on an agreement, 
which I don't do. I told you upstairs, in executive session, that we 
did not concede the validity of this subpena. 

Mr. Morris, You have already. 

Mr. Andersen. I also told you that you could get another subpena 
out in a half honi-. That we didn't want to litigate^ 

Senator Eastland. That's correct. That is what you said. 

Mr. Andersen. I don't make misstatements. I remember what I 
said. And ^you served this subpena, and rather than go through the 
courts and test the subpena, we endeavored as gentlemen to modify 
it to a certain extent, to a certain extent, among ourselves. 

Now the subpena is still subject to all of our objections, sir. I don't 
want any misunderstanding about that. 

Now, we agreed to supply this information tluit counsel requested 
and agreed to forbear attack upon the subpena. Now, we still re- 
serve objections to the subpena. 

Senator Eastland. "Wait just a minute now. 

I understand, Mr. Andersen, you agree to supply the information 
on the two items which counsel requests. 

Mr. Andersen. Tliat's correct. Without waiving any legal rights 
we have. That's correct. 

Senator Eastland. But forebearing any objections to the subpena. 

Mr. Andersen. To the form of the subpena. That is correct. And 
content. 

Senator Easit^and. All right. 

Mr. Andersen. That is right. 

Senator^ Eastland. Now, as I understood, vou were to supply 
whatever information we desired, without any strings attached, but 
that at this moment we desire information on the two items, which 
counsel mentioned. 

Mr. Andersen. T^t's change that a little bit, if I may, so we will 
understand each other. Let's have our understandings correct. 

My understanding of our discussion upstairs, and I believe all or 
most of the Senators were there, was that at this time you wanted, 
withm the period set forth in the subpena, certain infonnation in 
relation to two items. T won't mention tlie items. We have men- 
tioned them a half dozen times. And for that period we will supdIv 
it to you. ^ ^ "^ 

Senator Eastland, That's correct. 

Mr, Andersen. That's correct. We will supply those two items to 
you. _ Now, if you ask for anything else, I want to be put in the same 
position I was upstairs, in the executive session. 

Senator Eastland. You made no agreement as to anything else? 

Mr. Andersen. Sir, the only agreement we had upstairs, in execu- 
tive session, I told you that I would— I told you that I was the attor- 
ney for the International Longshoremen's Association, its general 
counsel. 

Senator Eastland, Yes. 

Mr. Andersi^n. I told you as such counsel T could only recommend. 

Senator Eastland. That's right, you did. 

Mr. Andersen. I told you that T didn't know whether they would 
accept my advice or not; T told yon that sometimes my client accepts 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2413 

my advice and sometimes my client doesn't accept my advice. That's 
the client's privilege. 

Senator Eastland. That's correct. 

Mr. Andersen. I had a Si^-hour lunch with my clients. They 
agreed to follow m}- advice to the extent that we discussed upstairs. 
And the only thing 1 told them we had to produce, if they followed 
my recommendation, was in relation to those two items. 

Now I think that is our understanding. I don't think anything 
should be superimposed upon it. 

Senator Eas'ii^and. I am not trying to superimpose anything upon 
it. As I miderstood it, and I would like to hear from the other mem- 
bers of the committee, we were to get wliatever information we desired 
for the record, but that presently we desired information on the two 
items. That was my understanding. 

I am not accusing you of bad faitli, Mr. Andersen. 

Mr. Andersen. I undei-stand. But I observed that you attempted 
to superimpose something upon our general agreement, and that's 
why I came forAvard. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman. 

Just a minute, Mr. Andersen. 

Senator Watkins. Let the record show at this moment that the 
senior Senator from Utah is now acting as chairman under the direc- 
tion of Chairman Eastland. 

Senator Butler. I know there was some place in the conversation 
where reference was made to the fact that this was not to be a restric- 
tive agreement. And when I suggested something about the two 
items, there were several other Senators said that we shall not be re- 
stricted to 

Mr. Andersen. I agree ; I agree. That is your position. You took 
the position that you would not be restricted. And I agreed that 
you wouldn't be restricted, but I didn't waive my right to object to 
the subpena as written. 

Senator Butler is correct and I'm correct. 

Senator Eastland. Insofar as other items are concerned. 

Senator Butler. That is substantially correct. 

Senator Welker. Mr, Chairman, I think the stipulation should go 
as to when 

Senator Watkins. Just a moment. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Watkins. Senator Butler. Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. I think the stipulation should go further so as to 
say when he is going to produce the evidence of the two 

Mr. Andersen. We have already discussed that. 

Senator Welker. Well, it isn't in the stipulation. 

Mr. Andersen. Oh. 



Senator Welker. We want that in the record as to when you 

Mr. Andersen. Mr. Morris can state 

Mr. Morris. Within a reasonable time. 
Mr. Andersen. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Is that satisfactory to you, Senator Welker ? 
Senator Welker. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. Do you agree as to what is a reasonable time ? 
Mr. Andersen. We have agreed as close as we can agree. We have 
a gentlemanly agreement. 



2414 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Senator Watkins. All right. 

Mr. Andersen. May I request of the chairman that, for my own 
files, the chairman direct the reporter to transcribe this colloquy so 
that we will all have a copy of it, and particularly counsel for the 
respective witnesses. 

Senator Watkins. That is a reasonable request. It will be granted. 

Mr. Andersen, will you come forward again, please ? 

Mr. Morris. There is still a little bit of misunderstanding about 
this. You have said twice here that there is no restriction imposed 
on the Senate. And you agree to that, don't you ? 

Mr. Andersen. Yes ; I agree that the Senate has the right to issue a 
subpena. I conceded that upstairs, sir. 

Mr. Morris. And now suppose, in encountering this particular 
problem, we come upon records, we come u])on information that bears 
on the contention the committee advances that it bears on point No. 1, 
the expenditures for the seven Smith Act defendants. 

Mr. Andersen. Well, I don't see how you can reach that point. 

Mr. Morris. Just a minute now. Let me finish. Supposing only, 
do you contemplate that you would have the right to say, "WeTl, that 
item does not come within the scope of those two items. Therefore, 
we are going to challenge the validity of these proceedings" ? 

Mr. xIndersen. No ; I think I have waived that. 

Mr. Morris. You have waived that. 

Mr. Andersen. Yes; I am sure that 

Senator Welker. As to those two items. 

Mr. Andersen. I think I waived that upstairs in the executive ses- 
sion, and I am sure that Senator Watkins would say that. Wouldn't 
you, Senator ? 

Senator Watkins. That's substantially correct, I think. 

Mr. Andersen. Yes. When I make an agreement, I abide by it. 

Mr. Morris. Suppose, Mr. Andersen, we come upon something that 
is an expenditure to a man who was, may be — tliis is suppositious — 
indicted but whose case was dismissed before the trial, and it had to do 
with the same trial. "\Yliat would your position witli respect to that 
be? 

Mr. Andersen. I think that is so suppositious that it is beyond the 
realm of possibility, because I don't believe there could be such an 
imaginary set of facts. 

Senator Watkins. Suppose there is. 

Mr. Morris. I want to bring out the point though. In other words, 
you would concede — vou concede here now that we then could to into 
that fact ? 

Mr, Andersen. Right now I can see certainly no objection to it. 
I think your statement, as I stand here, is fair and reasonable. I 
don't know what you have in mind. 

Mr. Morris, Now the only thing here is 

Senator Eastland. We don't have anything in mind. We are just 
trying to see what the agreement was. That we have a meeting of the 
minds, that we understand each other. That's all. 

Mr. Andersen. Let's be specific. My recollection is not perfect 
about things. But my recollection, sir, is that in relation to that case 
you are talking about, nobody was dismissed from it. 



SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 2415 

Mr. MoRBis. I am saying that suppose something comes up in Avhich 
the issue isn't precisely those 7 but is someone closely related to those 
7; money is expended on behalf of that, and the committee asks for 
that particular information. AAHiat will your attitude be? Will you 
then say, Mr. Andersen, "Ah ! We agreed only to waive our objection 
to the subpena with respect to those two items. We will challenge the 
right of the committee to look into it, even though it is within the 
purview of " 

Mr. AxDERSEX. That I probably would. 

Mr. Morris. Object? 

Mr. Andersen. Yes. And I will tell you why. We had an execu- 
tive session and I made certain agreements, subject to the approval of 
my client. I have reflected that suggestion to my client. My client 
has agreed to follow my advice in relation to what I told him, and no 
more. And I reflected fairly our understanding to my client. 

Now, if you want to add anything to it that might be suppositious, 
then I will have to discuss it with him again, but I think I have fairly 
and fully made a complete disclosure, my client has authorized me so 
far, and that is as far as their lawyers can go. 

I think you are talking about something that won't arise. I can't 
imagine what jon have in mind. Now, if you have something in your 
mind that I cannot see at the moment- 

Senator Eastland. We have nothinir 



Mr. Morris. We have nothing in our minds. 

Mr. Andersen. I think we have covered it. 

Mr. Morris. Senator, the point there, as I analyze it, Senator, if 
sometliing should come up outside the scope of these two items, as the 
record now stands, according to what Mr. Andersen now says, we 
would still have our rights under the subpena, but it may be at that 
particular tim.e Mr. Andersen might cliallenge the authenticity of the 
subpena. 

Mr. Andersen. I think that is a fair statement. 

Mr. Morris. So what we have here. Senator, without pursuing the 
thing, we have a concession that they will comply with respect to 
those two items. With respect to anything else that might come up, 
we will have to just go ahead on the thing. 

Senator Eastland. That's all right. That is the way I understood 
the agreement. 

Mr. Morris. That is not the way it was originally. 

Senator Easti^\nd. Maybe it is my fault. I don't know. I am not 
challenging anybody. 

Mr. Andersen. Senator, haven't I stated it fairly ? 

Senator Easti.and. In order to have a meeting of the minds. That's 
all. 

Mr. Morris. This, Mr. Andersen, as I just stated it now, is diiferent 
from my understanding of the agreement upstairs. 

Mr. Andersen. Reasonable people can differ. I think that I've 
stated it fairly. Now, if I haven't stated it fairly, I stand — I can 
always be corrected — but I think I've stated the agreement fairly. 

Mr. Morris. My understanding 

Mr. Andersen. As a matter of fact, I think we're arguing about 
nothing. We are arguing about how many people can dance on the 
head of a pin. 



2416 SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Morris. No, we're not, Mr. Andersen. 

Go ahead, Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. I would suggest, to get away from the seeming 
misunderstanding on the part of certain of the Senators and counsel, 
that we issue a subpena duces tecum for the two items that we are 
agreed upon. I am sure counsel will abide by that. And then if there 
are any other matters the committee desires to have brought forth- 
with, to have another subpena issued. Quit this idea of trying to make 
agreements in violation of the subpena. 

Mr. Morris. Senator Welker, I might admit that the agreement 
as it now stands has the acknowledgment on the part of counsel of our 
authority with respect to the records and those two items. So we 
wouldn't have to go into that at all. 

Now, with respect to the other items, the point is, it may well be that 
the committee would allow the situation to stand as it is now. But our 
only point is that it is not our understanding of the agreement that 
was made upstairs. 

Senator Watkins. In other words, we will now have — even taking 
your position, there is an understanding of a modified agreement, 
according to your view, but there is still an agreement.^ 

1 See the following : 

The following statements were received by the subcommittee after its return to Wash- 
ington in response to questions regarding use of funds for certain purposes by the ILWU 
and United Public Workers and was ordered into the record at a subcommittee meeting 
December 17, 1956 : 

BUSLOG & Symonds, 
Honolulu:, Hatpaii, December 10, 1956. 
Re Hawaiian Judiciary Subcommittee hearings 
Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Senate Building, Washington, D. C. 
(Attention: Robert Morris.) 
Dear Sir : Pursuant to your telephone conversation with George R. Andersen wherein 
he stated he was prepared to meet with you regarding the records agreed upon, and in 
which conversation you stated it would not be necessary to produce the physical records 
and that the purpose of the subcommittee would be served by an accountant's report setting 
forth what the books of ILWU Local 142 and the ILWU Memorial Association show with 
respect to expenditures made by either entity since the date set forth in the subpenas re- 
garding the local Smith Act trial and the 105G Territorial election, enclosed is a report 
signed'by the accountant. While the subpena refers to funds of local 142 and the Me- 
morial Association, there is included in the report money expended by the ILWU defense 
fund and the political action fund. 

Also in accordance with our understanding, enclosed is an accountant's report, together 
with a statement from Henry B. Epstein, Territorial director of