(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 "State Department information program information centers. Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, 83d Congress, 1st session, pursuant to S. Res. 40, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Government Operations to employ temporary additional personnel and increasing the amount of expenditures .."

r^ 



t 



~^Ut^S\o 



Bi 




Given By 



tyjm tijffjf^tt ^ 



3J 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM- 
INFORMATION CENTERS 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

PEEMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

83d CONGRESS 
1st SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 40 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO EMPLOY TEMPORARY 

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL AND INCREASING THE LIMIT 

OF EXPENDITURES 



MARCH 24, 25, AND 26, 1953 



PART 1 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
33616 WASHINGTON : 1953 



9V«- 






( 



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL B. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine CLYDE R. HOEY, North Carolina 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesola 

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk 



Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel 
Francis D. Flanagan, General Counsel and Staff Director 

U 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Index i 

Testimony of — 

Allen, James S., New York, N. Y 2 

Browder, Earl Russell, Yonkers, N. Y 17 

Budenz, Prof. Louis Francis, Fordham University, New York, N. Y_ 41 

Goldfrank, Helen, Thornwood, N. Y 90 

Hammett, Samuel Dashiell, New York, N. Y 83 

Hughes, Langston, New York, N. Y 73 

Mandel, William Marx, New York, N. Y 25 

Rosinger, Lawrence K., Detroit, Mich 61 

Seaver, Edwin, Rockport, Mass 71 

SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS 

Intro- 
duced Appears 

1. Book, World Cooperation and Postwar Prosperity, by James on page on page 

S.Allen 3 (*) 

2. Book, World Monopoly and Peace, by James S. Allen 3 (*) 



♦May be found in the files of the subcommittee. 

Ill 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM- 
INFORMATION CENTERS 



TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

or the Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed to 
January 30, 1953, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 357 of the Senate Office Build- 
ing, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding. 

Present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin ; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Everett 
E. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles E. Potter, Repub- 
lican, Michigan ; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas. 

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel ; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel ; David Schine, chief 
consultant. 

The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. 

Mr. Cohn, did you have something you wanted to put in the record 
before we start ? 

Mr. Cohn. I did, Mr. Chairman. 

At your request, we contacted the Department of State in connec- 
tion with our investigation of the information centers, a part of the 
information program of the Department of State, and asked them 
what their objective was in establishing these some 150 information 
centers throughout the world. They sent us a very brief letter de- 
fining that objective. I would like to read that for the record, if I 
may : 

Department of State. 

My Dear Senator McCarthy : In response to Mr. Schine's request of today to 
state in a simple sentence the purpose of the overseas library program, perhaps 
the following will suit the committee's needs : 

The overseas library program exists to reflect American objectives, values, 
the nature of American institutions and life, and to utilize the book and related 
materials to advance the ideas of America in the struggles against communism. 
Sincerely yours, 

Richard Humphrey, 
Acting Director, Information Center Service, 

Department of State. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohn, have you determined how many libraries 
we have throughout the world ? 

Mr. Cohn. I think there are approximately 150, slightly more than 
that, Mr. Chairman, under the sponsorship of the State Department, 
in every continent in the world. 

The Chairman. Just for the sake of the world, will you give us a 
quick rundown of how you got the names of all the authors and the 
verification of them ? 

l 



2 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. Yes. At the Library of Congress there is maintained 
what is known as a master file, and that master file indicates the loca- 
tion in these 150 State Department information centers of books, by 
titles and by author. So if we want to see where books by a certain 
author are located anywhere throughout the world in the State Depart- 
ment information centers, we merely check with those master files 
under the name of the book and under the name of the author, and we 
will get the information. That has been done by the Library of Con- 
gress at our request. There is merely a mechanical function in keeping 
these cards, but they have supplied us with the information. 

At your request, Mr. Chairman, we sought to determine whether or 
not any books by Communist Party members or known Communists 
were being used in the State Department information centers. We 
have been told by the State Department, of course, that they don't 
think any of these books can be used or should be used. 

The Chairman. May I say that my check indicates that as far as we 
can determine, no books by Communist authors have been purchased 
since the new administration has taken over. 

Mr. Cohn. We have that assurance in writing, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. This morning, you have some of the authors of some 
of the books that have been purchased by the information program ? 

Mr. Cohn. You have some of the authors whose works we have 
found are being used in State Department information centers. 

The Chairman. Which witness do you want to call first ? 

Mr. Cohn. I think if we could have Mr. James S. Allen, whose books 
are being used in the State Department information program ; he is 
here, and I think he should come on first. 

The Chairman. Mr. Allen, will you step forward ? 

You have been previously sworn, Mr. Allen. You are reminded that 
your oath is still in effect. And for the sake of the record, will you 
identify your counsel, your lawyer ? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES S. ALLEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH FORER 

Mr. Allen. My counsel is Mr. Joseph Forer, of Washington, D. C 

The Chairman. Mr. Joseph ? 

Mr. Allen. Forer, F-o-r-e-r. 

The Chairman. I believe you have been previously informed that 
if at any time you care to discuss any matter with your counsel, you 
may do that. If, for any reason, you want to have a private conver- 
sation with him or conference at any time during the hearing, you 
can retire to a private room for such a conference. Your lawyer can 
advise with you at any time. Counsel is informed that he can take 
no part in the proceeding except to advise his client whenever he 
cares to do so. 

If counsel thinks a question is improper, he may advise his client 
whether or not he should answer. 

Mr. Cohn, let me ask : The book purchased by the information pro- 
gram, written by this witness, is entitled "World Monopoly and 
Peace." Is that right? 

Mr. Cohn. That is one of them, Mr. Chairman. There is another 
one entitled "World Cooperation and Postwar Prosperity." Both 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 6 

of these books are being used today by the State Department in its 
information program. 

The Chairman. Mr. Allen, I am going to hand you this book and 
ask you to identify this as your work, or otherwise, as the case 
may be. 

Mr. Allen. Yes, that is my work. 

The Chairman. Will you mark that as exhibit No. 1 ? 

(The books referred to were marked "Exhibits 1 and 2," and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

The Chairman. I hand you this other book. 

Mr. Allen. Yes, this is my work. 

The Chairman. That is your book also ? 

Mr. Allen. This book, entitled "World Cooperation and Postwar 
Prosperity," published in 1945. 

The Chairman. Will you hand me those books, please? 

Mr. Allen, at the time you wrote the first book handed you, World 
Monopoly and Peace, the book purchased by our information pro- 
gram and being used in our libraries, were you a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the basis of 
my privilege. 

The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder, if you will? 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of my 
privilege under the fifth amendment not to be a witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. In other words, you refuse to answer on the ground 
that your answer might incriminate you ? 

Mr. Allen. It might be put that way, but 1 believe that my phras- 
ing of it is perhaps a more exact definition of the privilege under 
the constitutional amendment. 

The Chairman. Well, the only privilege we recognize here, Mr. 
Allen, is the privilege to refuse to answer if you honestly feel that a 
truthful answer might incriminate you. You cannot refuse to answer 
on the ground that perjury in an answer might incriminate you. Do 
you follow me? And this committee must determine each time 
whether or not you are entitled to privilege. If you inform us that 
you honestly believe that if you tell us the truth as to whether you 
were a member of the Communist Party at the time you wrote this 
book, that might tend to incriminate you, you are entitled to refuse 
to answer. You understand that ? 

Mr. Allen. I do. 

The Chairman. And your answer is that you are refusing to answer 
on the ground that your answer might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Allen. In substance, yes. 

The Chairman. Now, as of this moment, Mr. Allen, are you a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Allen. My answer is the same, on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. We will make you give us those grounds, Mr. Allen, 
each time, I am afraid. 

Mr. Allen. On the basis of my privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. The only privilege we recognize, Mr. Allen, is that 
you feel that your answer might tend to incriminate you. When you 



4 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

refuse to answer, you must so state. Otherwise you will be forced 
to answer. Do you understand that? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I will ask the question again. Are you a member 
of the Communist Party as of this day? 

(Mr. Allen confers with Mr. Forer.) 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of my 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that if you answer that question truth- 
fully it might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Allen. It might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Then you are entitled to refuse to answer. 

May I ask: Were you rather surprised to learn that your books 
were being used in our libraries to fight communism ? 

Mr. Allen. Well, I might say this: that I hold no brief for the 
Voice of America or the services they perform through the United 
States Information Office abroad, and I believe that if there were more 
books of this type there, perhaps they would be entitled to the name 
Voice of America more so than at the present time. 

The Chairman. In other words, you think they don't purchase 
enough books by Communist authors ? 

Mr. Allen. I don't think they purchase the kind of books or dis- 
tribute the kind of books which will really give a picture of the way 
the American people feel, to our friends abroad. 

The Chairman. Were you the foreign editor of the Communist 
Daily Worker ? 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question on the basis^ of my 
privilege under the fifth amendment, since it might tend to incrim- 
inate me. 

The Chairman. Senator Dirksen has pointed out that that involved 
a statement of fact. I doubt very much that you have the privilege 
to refuse to answer that question. However, the privilege always has 
been interpreted very broadly by the courts. It is common knowl- 
edge that this man was foreign editor of the Daily Worker, so I 
assume it is not too important whether he answers it or not. 

Mr. Allen, do you know a single member of the staff of the Daily 
Worker who is not a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

The Chairman. On the grounds that your answer might incrim- 
inate you? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. While you were foreign editor of the Daily Worker, 
did you get instructions from Moscow as to what the party line 
should be? 

Mr. Allen. I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination, that it might tend to incriminate me. I also 
would like to point out that I have previously refused to answer the 
question as to whether I was foreign editor of the Daily Worker, and 
that was implied in your question. 

The Chairman. You were before us yesterday and you refused to 
answer many of these questions, but the public is entitled to know 
what kind of books we are buying, what kind of authors we are using 
to fight communism. This is their money that is being spent. I 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 5 

gather from your answer that you have some resentment at being 
called in public to answer questions. 

One of the functions of this committee, of course, is to provide 
answers to these questions to the public. 

Mr. Allen. May I comment on what you just said, sir ? 

The Chairman. You may at any time comment on any question. 

Mr. Allen. It would seem to me that if this committee were inter- 
ested in this particular book or in any other book, they would exam- 
ine the book and not the author. It is the book that has been placed 
in the library, and its contents should be examined, to determine on 
the basis of that whether it is the kind of a book that does reflect the 
truth of affairs, the way things are. 

The Chairman. Do you claim this is an anti-Communist book? 

Mr. Allen. I claim nothing with respect to the book, either one 
way or the other. I say that this is a book which discusses the trend 
of affairs at the close of World War II, and attempts to assess the 
forces at work for peace and those at work for war. It is a book 
directed toward the establishment of a just and lasting peace follow- 
ing the last World War. 

The Chairman. I may say we have examined the book as you have 
suggested, and I have some passages from it which I shall read now, 
in view of your very good advice that we should examine your book : 

On page 228 : 

The Soviet Union plays the role of clearing the path, of facilitating world 
progress, of proving by its own example the superiority of the socialist system. 

Do you think that is good anti-Communist propaganda? That is 
Communist propaganda, is it not? That is from your book. 

Mr. Allen. That is from my book. I recognize that from my book. 
Of course, it comes with much else in it. 

The Chairman. That is the type of material, you understand, that 
the. information program has been putting out to fight communism. 

Let me 

Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr. Allen, just in simple language, that 
is a good plug for the Soviet Union, is it not ? 

It would not bother you to answer that question, would it, on the 
basis of the language just read ? You are plugging the Soviet system. 

Mr. Allen. I wouldn't put it in your term, Senator. I will put in 
my own. 

Senator Dirksen. Let us Just read the language again : 

The Soviet Union plays the role of clearing the path of facilitating world 
progress, of proving by its own example the superiority of the Socialist system. 

How would you describe that as anything else but a plug for the 
Socialist system, all of it? You do not have to belabor it. I just 
want to know. 

Mr. Allen. I wish to make the point clear, if you don't mind, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. All right. 

Mr. Allen. The point made there is that socialism as a form of 
society is superior to capitalism. That is my belief, and that is the 
belief that I have been writing about in my books. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to any belief, of course, in this 
country. That is one of the advantages that we have in this country 
over the system which you espouse. 



6 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

You say that the Socialist system is superior to ours. Do you feel 
that communism, as practiced in Russia today, is superior to our form 
of government? 

Mr. Allen. I would like to point out, sir 

The Chairman. I will insist that you answer it after you "point 
out." 

Mr. Allen. I understand that. 

This is what I would like to point out that the system of society 
that has developed in the Soviet Union is socialism. 

The Chairman. A little louder, if you will, sir. 

Mr. Allen. The system of society known as socialism is superior 
to the system of capitalism, because of the fact that it has done away 
with exploitation of man by man, and makes possible a world peace, 
and higher living standards. 

Senator Potter. Is exploitation done away with in the Soviet Union 
today ? 

Mr. Allen. Exploitation in the class sense of the term, certainly. 

Senator Potter. I assume you would have many Jewish people in 
the Soviet Union who would disagree with you. 

Mr. Allen. You are just repeating a rumor that has been current 
around lately. I just don't believe that. 

Senator Potter. You do not believe that we have had Jewish purges 
in the Soviet Union and its satellites? 

Mr. Allen. I don't believe that there has been. I don't believe 
there is a drive against Jews in the Soviet Union nor any drive of 
an anti-Jewish nature whatever. 

Senator Potter. The Jewish people have been dying of heart at- 
tacks ? 

Mr. Allen. I do not know where you got the facts about Jewish 
people dying. 

The Chairman. I would assume that after Slansky got through 
hanging he was not very much alive. 

Mr. Allen. That is quite another matter, sir. It has nothing to do 
with a campaign against the Jews. 

The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer my question. 

The question was: Do you think that communism, as practiced 
in Russia today, is superior to the American system ? 

Mr. Allen. As a system of society, yes. 

The Chairman. And that is the theme of your book which has been 
purchased to fight communism? 

Mr. Allen. That is not the theme of the book. That is one of the 
subjects discussed in the book. The theme of the book is the establish- 
ment of world peace. That is the theme of the book. The establish- 
ment of world peace by negotiations between this country and the 
Soviet Union. 

The Chairman. Then let me ask you this: Do you deny that the 
purpose of this book is to extoll the Soviet Union, praise communism 
as a system? 

Mr. Allen. I do deny that. That is not the purpose of the book. 
The purpose of the book is to work for world peace. That was the 
aim of the book, and that is what I thought it did rather effectively. 

The Chairman. The purpose was not to fight communism or expose 
communism as an evil. 

Mr. Allen. Obviously not. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 7 

The Chairman. In other words, you do not consider communism an 
evil ? You think it is a superior system, superior to ours, and there- 
fore your book could not expose any evil about the Communist system ? 

Mr. Allen. It is a system of society that has been adopted by more 
than one-third of the population of the world. 

The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer these questions. 
Then you can make any comment you care to. But first you must 
answer the question. 

Will you read the question, Mr. Eeporter ? 

(Reporter reads question.) 

The Chairman. I would like to have an answer to that; and then, 
if you want to comment, you may do so. 

Mr. Allen. May I answer in my own terms ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; but I will insist on an answer. 

Mr. Allen. An answer; yes. 

My answer, as given before to a similar question, is that socialism 
as a system of society is superior to capitalism. Socialism^ is ttte system 
of society in the Soviet Union ; and, as developed there, it is superior 
to capitalism. That answer is one-half your question, I believe, sir. 
The other half 

The Chairman. Can you get a little nearer to those mikes? I can 
just about hear you. 

Mr. Allen. With respect to the other half of the question, I did 
not. undertake any anti-Communist campaign in that book. I don't 
believe in the anti-Communist campaign. I believe it is merely a coyer 
for fascism and a drive toward fascism and a destruction of civil 
liberties. That is what anticommunism is, and that is the role it has 
played throughout history. That is the role it played in Germany. 
That is the role it played in Italy, and the role it played in Japan. 
And I believe a similar effort is being made in this country. 

The Chairman. In other words, you think one of the purposes of 
world communism is to protect the civil liberties of the people who are 
under the Communist rule ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Allen. That is not the purpose of world communism, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that one of the purposes ? 

Mr. Allen. It is not one of the purposes. 

The Chairman. It is not. Do you think that Communist Russia 
is ahead of us in protecting civil liberties? 

Mr. Allen. I believe it is. I think, as far as the mass of the people 
is concerned, they have a much broader enjoyment of civil liberties 
than we enjoy here. 

The Chairman. Senator Potter, I think you had a question ? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Allen, you imply that a person that is opposed 
to communism must be a Fascist. 

Mr. Allen. That was not my statement, Senator. I don't say that 
everybody that is opposed to communism is a Fascist. I think there 
are a lot of people who are opposed to communism who are not 
Fascists, and who do so on the basis of some very honest opinions of 
their own with respect to democracy. But I do believe that there is a 
minority within this country today that is pro-Fascist. They would 
like to see something equivalent to a Fascist system established in this 
country. 



8 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Mr. Allen, if the Congress were to declare war 
against Soviet Russia, would you be willing to bear arms against 
Soviet Russia ? 

(Mr. Allen confers with Mr. Forer.) 

Mr. Allen. My answer to that would be that that would depend 
entirely on the circumstances, sir. If we were the victim of aggres- 
sion, I would defend this country completely and wholeheartedly, no 
matter from what quarter. 

Senator Potter. Including the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Allen. If the Soviet Union were the aggressor, yes. I doubt 
very much that they would be so. 

The Chairman. You could not conceive of the Soviet Union being 
the aggressor, could you ? 

Mr. Allen. I don't believe their policy is an aggressive one. I 
think it is a peace policy. 

The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that if we were 
to declare war against Russia you would determine in your own mind 
whether we were right or wrong, and your testimony is that you can- 
not conceive, as of today, Russia's being wrong. Is that substantially 
your testimony ? 

Mr. Allen. That was not the substance of my testimony. The sub- 
stance of my testimony was — we are discussing one of those "iffy" 
questions, one that is entirely hypothetical — that if such a situation 
should arise my position would be determined by the circumstances 
of the time. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that our war in Korea today is a just 
war? 

Mr. Allen. I think it is completely unjustified, as far as we are 
concerned. We have no business over there. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that the war insofar as the Communists 
in Korea are concerned 

Mr. Allen. I think 

The Chairman. Let me finish. 

Do you feel that the war in Korea, insofar as the Communists are 
concerned, is a just war? 

Mr. Allen. I believe they are defending the independence of their 
country. 

Senator Potter. You do not believe it was an act of aggression by 
the Communists ? 

Mr. Allen. Well, it is hard for me to see how the Koreans could 
be aggressors against themselves. 

Senator Potter. Well, the majority of the troops are Chinese Com- 
munists. 

Mr. Allen. I think that they are really threatened, that their se- 
curity is threatened; just as when Japan took over Korea. Now, 
we are following exactly in the footsteps of Japan. That is the way 
Japan began her conquest of Asia or her attempt to conquer Asia, 
by seizing Korea in the first place; and we are following the same 
path. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Then in view of your beliefs, as you have 
expressed them, I assume that you want us to lose the war in Korea, 
because it would be unjust for us to win. Is that correct? 

Mr. Allen. I want to see an end to that war. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 9 

Senator McClellan. Do you want us to lose it? 

Mr. Allen. I think that we will lose it if we continue fighting it, 
sir. 

Senator McClellan. You think we are bound to lose, and you want 
us to lose, because you think it is unjust. 

Mr. Allen. I want peace in Korea. 

Senator McClellan. Well, you want us to lose the war so that we 
may have Communist peace. Is that right ? 

Mr. Allen. I think that the matter is quite different, sir. 

Seantor McClellan. How can it be different? 

Mr. Allen. We are not at war with Korea. Technically, it is a war 
being waged by the United Nations against Korea, in which we are 
taking the whole burden of that war. 

Senator McClellan. Well, you want us to lose it, do you not? 

Mr. Allen. I want us to end that war in Korea. 

Senator McClellan. You want us to end it by losing it and having 
a Communist peace? 

Mr. Allen. I don't think it is a question of winning it or losing it, 
sir. I think it is a question of having peace in Korea. We can have 
it if we wish to. 

Senator McClellan. We tried that for a year and a half, did we 
not? 

Mr. Allen. There was only one question left, the question of prison- 
ers. 

Senator McClellan. The question of forcing prisoners to Russia 
who did not want to return. 

Mr. Allen. Don't forget the other side has some of our American 
boys, too. 

Senator Potter. Do you think our American boys want to stay 
over there? 

Mr. Allen. I think our American boys want to get home; and I 
would like to see them get home. 

The Chairman. I think we should make it very clear for the benefit 
of the press — I assume you all are aware of it — that the library 
program is not under the Voice of America. That is the information 
program, and the Voice is not responsible for the purchase of these 
books by Communists authors. That is a separate bureau, or call it 
what you may under the "International information program." 

Mr. Allen, if you wanted to fight world communism — that is, if 
3 7 ou wanted to — do you think that you would purchase the books of 
Communist authors and distribute them throughout the world? 

Mr. Allen. You are placing me in a sort of impossible position, 
aren't you, Senator ? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Allen, just to get at that in another way: 
Here is a program that maintains 150 libraries throughout the world 
where people can go and examine these books in the hope that they 
will get an objective idea of America, its culture, and its purposes. 
Now, we share the conviction that the Soviet is the spearhead of 
aggressive force called "communism" in contradistinction to the free 
world and the free ideal that we espouse. 

Now, there is such a library in Bombay, India. I have been in it. 
So, a student in Bombay goes into the library, and he picks up one of 



\Q STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

your books. And lie reads it very carefully, and he gets to page 221. 
And then he finds this passage. He sees : 

Socialism is devoid of all factors making for aggression. The Soviet Union 
is the only world power which is neither aggressive nor potentially aggressive. 

Do you think a student in India could read that without getting the 
clear implication that if the Soviet Union is the only world power 
that is neither aggressive nor potentially aggressive, the United 
States must be aggressive and potentially aggressive ? 

Mr. Allen. I don't think that that follows from that, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, what does follow? 

Mr. Allen. I think that we have followed policies in the past 
that were not aggressive, and I think that we can follow policies in 
the future that will not be aggressive, if we change our present foreign 
policy into one of peace. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, you pinpointed one country in the world 
that rates in the king row, as it were — as a world power that is neither 
aggressive nor potentially aggressive — and that is the Soviet Union. 
So, every other world power evidently does not fall into that frame. 
I do not see what else you can make out of it. Now, of course, comes 
the construction of it. You see, out of funds of the taxpayers, they 
are buying your books, and they are putting them around m these 
libraries in order to give people a more objective sense of what Amer- 
ica stands for. Do you think that is a justified expenditure of public 

funds? . 

Mr. Allen. I believe the entire expenditure is unjustified. 

Senator Dirksen. Including your book? 

Mr. Allen. The entire expenditure for the purposes of the cold 

war. 

The Chairman. Mr. Allen, do you know Reed Harris? 

Mr. Allen. I do not. 

The Chairman. To properly refresh your recollection, Reed Har- 
ris is presently the Deputy Administrator of the Information Pro- 
gram. He was the young man that was expelled from Columbia back 
in the early thirties because of some of his radical activities. He was 
the editor of the Spectator. 

To further refresh your recollection, on November 25, 1932, a Mr. 
Oakley Johnson, a Mr. Donald Henderson, a Mr. Sol Auerbach, and 
Mr. Reed Harris, spoke at a protest gathering against the discharge of 
Leo Gallagher, an alleged Communist at the University of California. 

Would that refresh your recollection ? 

Mr. Allen. It doesn't at all, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is Sol Auerbach? 

Mr. Allen. That is me. That is my name. My pen name is James 
S. Allen. 

The Chairman. So that when we find that Sol Auerbach, Don Hen- 
derson, Oakley Johnson, and Reed Harris spoke at this protest gather- 
ing, you say you don't recall that? 

Mr. Allen. I have no recollection of that meeting whatsoever. 

The Chairman. Do you recall having appeared at a gathering 
to protest the discharge of Gallagher from the University of Cali- 
fornia as an alleged Communist ? 

Mr. Allen. I don't remember any such name. 

The Chairman. Do you know Donald Henderson ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 11 

Mr. Allen. I will refuse to answer that on the basis of my privilege 
under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder, sir? 

Mr. At j, f.n. I will refuse to answer that question on the basis of 
my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly feel that if you were to tell us the 
truth as to whether you know Donald Henderson, that might incrimi- 
nate you ? 

Mr. Allen. I do. 

The Chairman. You do. Do you know Oakley Johnson, the other 
man who appeared on that program ? 

Mr. Allen. My answer would be the same there. 

The Chairman. And that is what ? 

Mr. Allen. On the grounds previously stated, of my privilege 
under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. In other words, your answer is that if you were to 
tell us honestly whether you know Oakley Johnson, you feel that 
might incriminate you ? 

Mr. Allen. That might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. And you say you do not recall knowing Reed Harris, 
the other man who appeared on the program % 

Mr. Allen. I don't remember him at all. 

The Chairman. May I say to the other Senators : I hope you will 
feel perfectly free to interrupt at any time you care to. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to interrogate Mr. Allen about a 
statement he made which it seems to me would be very difficult to 
prove, if I understood him correctly. 

I think you said that in your belief civil liberties function better 
in Russia under communism than they do here in the United States 
under our system of government. Is that right? 

Mr. Allen. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Would you give us a definition of what you con- 
sider civil liberties to be ? Could you better phrase that ? 

Mr. Allen. I would say that civil liberties in its broadest sense 
would include the right of everybody to work, the right to a decent 
livelihood, to decent housing, equal economic opportunities and ad- 
vancement, which is the basis of the exercise of the civil liberties, the 
civil aspect of it. And in its civil aspect, civil liberties means the 
right to the holding and expression of views, of the right of public 
assembly and mass meeting and the rights that we know as our Bill 
of Rights, which are being very much infringed upon in this country 
today. 

Senator Mundt. Let me pinpoint it, then. Would you consider 
the right of an individual to have freedom of movement to be one 
of the civil liberties ? 

Mr. Allen. As long as it doesn't interfere with the public welfare; 
yes. 

Senator Mundt. Is it your sworn testimony, then, that in your 
opinion there is a greater amount of freedom of movement available 
to a Russian citizen than there is to an American citizen? 

Mr. Allen. I would say there is a greater freedom of movement for 
the great mass of the Soviet citizens. 

Senator Mundt. We are talking about the great mass. 



12 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

When were you last in Russia? 

Mr. Allen. Well, I will refuse to answer that on the ground — — 

Senator Mundt. That would not incriminate you. Being in Russia 
would not incriminate you. 

Mr. Allen. Nevertheless, I will stick to that, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Have you ever been in Russia? 

Mr. Allen. I will answer in the same way. 

The Chairman. In other words, your answer is that you refuse to 
answer on the grounds that if you told the truth it might incriminate 
you? 

Senator Mundt. Are you sure you are not refusing to answer be- 
cause you have not been there, and you do not want to admit that you 
are relying on a lot of twaddle ? 

Mr. Allen. I don't rely on twaddle. I am something of a student, 
and I would like to keep that very clear. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you might be reading a lot of twaddle 
somebody else wrote because, obviously, you have now picked out 
a point, that of freedom of movement, on which nobody will believe 
you ; because nobody believes that the average Russian in Russia has as 
much freedom to move around as the average American in America. 

Mr. Allen. Well, may I explain that ? I believe one of the great 
postwar problems that the Soviet Union faced was to attempt to cut 
down the tremendous movement of populations across the Soviet 
Union and to stabilize their working conditions. 

Senator Mundt. You have gotten mixed up, I think. They were 
moving out of Russia. 

Mr. Allen. Well, talking of twaddle — let's try to stick to facts 
here. 

Senator Mundt. All right. I am trying to get you to stick to them. 

Mr. Allen. One of their leading problems was that of stabilizing 
employment and getting conversion back to peacetime construction, 
and so on, and rebuilding the terrific damages of the war. As you 
know, they were terrific in that country. And that would indicate 
that there was so much freedom of motion as far as the population 
was concerned that measures had to be taken to stabilize employment, 
to reemploy workers in an orderly fashion, and so on. That was one 
of their big postwar problems. Now, I know that the usual picture in 
this country about conditions in the Soviet Union is that it is nothing 
but one vast prison camp. Now, that is as far from the truth as one 
could possibly get. If one were to follow closely the authentic reports 
of what is taking place there, not from people that you would con- 
sider propagandists, as perhaps you consider me, but from people 

Senator Mundt. What is an authentic report? 

Mr. Allen. I would say a visitor who has been there and seen for 
himself. 

Senator Potter. Could you get us in there? 

Mr. Allen. Well, I am sorry. I can be of no service to you what- 
soever. You would have to stand on your own record there, Senator. 

The Chairman. May I ask the Senators: I have Earl Browder, 
former head of the Communist Party, whose works are also being used, 
and other witnesses, here, and I hope we can cut our questions down as 
much as possible. 

Senator Mundt. Let us pin him down a little more on this matter 
of movement. Now, let us talk about the freedom of movement that a 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 13 

citizen of Russia has to leave Russia and to get a visa to visit England or 
Denmark, or any country outside of what is known as the Iron Cur- 
tain. Is it your sworn testimony that it is your opinion, from some 
strange source — I do not know where you got it, but not by looking at 
the situation in Russia — is it your sworn testimony that you feel a 
citizen in Russia has greater civil liberties about getting a passport 
and going on a trip abroad than the American citizen ? 

Mr. Allen. As far as I know, there have been many American citi- 
zens that have tried to get visas and been refused visas by the United 
States State Department. And if you will get me a passport, Senator, 
I would appreciate that a great deal, too. 

Senator Mundt. You are barred under the Mundt-Nixon bill. 

Mr. Allen. Well, that is certainly an indication of my privilege of 
traveling, isn't it? 

Senator McClellan. If we will help you get a passport to Russia, 
will you go there and stay ? 

Mr. Allen. This is my country. I was born and' raised here, and 
I would like to see this country live well. 

Senator McClellan. You can say that when you denounce every- 
thing that is noble and grand about this country? Are you a Com- 
munist? 

Mr. Allen. May I comment on your previous statement before I 
answer ? 

The Chaikman. You may answer the question. 

Senator McClellan. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Allen. I answered that question previously. 

Senator McClellan. Well, I am asking you now. I am asking you 
now : Are you a Communist? 

Mr. Allen. I answered it by saying that I refuse to answer under 
my privilege given me by the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. You are entitled to invoke that privilege. But 
may I ask you this : Do you think, after the philosophy you have testi- 
fied to here, and the views you have expressed on the record, that any 
fair-minded man, anyone competent to judge, could come to any other 
conclusion other than that you are a Communist and that you are 
ashamed of it or afraid to tell the truth? 

Mr. Allen. That is a conclusion for you to come to, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Do you not think that is a conclusion every- 
body comes to after hearing you testify ? Can you point out any other 
conclusion that any rational mind could come to? 

Mr. Allen. I can. 

Senator McClellan. Point it out. 

]\Ir. Allen. I think that a rational mind sitting in on these proceed- 
ings can come to another conclusion. He can come to the conclusion 
that anticommunism is being used here as a means to burn books, to 
prohibit their distribution, through whatever means, and to curb civil 
liberties. 

Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of this Gov- 
ernment by force and violence? 

Mr. Allen. I do not. 

The Chairman. If communism could not be established in this coun- 
try by peaceful means, then would you take the position that it should 
be established in this country by force and violence ? 

33616—53 — pt. 1 2 



14 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Allen. Well, that is another one of those "iffy" and speculative 
questions, sir. And the only way I can answer that is by saying, "I 
don't know.'- I don't know under what circumstances such a situation 
might arise. I haven't given it much thought. It is not a practical 
question before us. And my own answer is that I don't know. 

The Chairman. It is very practical, sir, when we are using your 
books allegedly to fight communism. 

My question is : If you find that communism could not be established 
in this country by peaceful means, then would you agree with the Com- 
munist philosophy that it should be established by force and violence? 
I am going to have you answer that question. 

Mr. Allen. I will answer it, but if you permit me to do so on my 
own terms. I don't agree with your phrasing of the question. 

The Chairman. I am not going to try to phrase your answer. You 
can answer it in your own words. 

Mr. Allen. You have said, in the form of the question, that the 
Communist movement, or Communists, do advocate the violent over- 
throw of the Government. I believe that is not a fact, not a proven 
fact, and hasn't been proven in any of the courts, in any of the trials. 

The Chairman. I will reframe the question. If you discover that 
communism cannot be established in this country by peaceful means, 
do you feel that it should be then established by force and violence? 

Mr. Allen. I think I have answered that. I will repeat my answer. 
My answer to that would be I do not know what my position would be, 
because I don't know what the circumstances might be or what the 
general situation might be. 

The Chairman. In other words, as of this moment, your answer is 
that you do not know. You do not know whether you would favor a 
bloody revolution in this country to establish communism if it could 
not be established by peaceful means. As of this moment, you say you 
do not know. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Allen. In answer to this entirely hypothetical question, now, 
let me make this clear : that I do not advocate force and violence, and 
I think it is possible, and I certainly would like to see, a change to 
socialism when such a time comes and when the majority of the Amer- 
ican people want it, taking place peacefully, as peacefully as possible. 
And I think that would largely be determined by what the people on 
the other side would think about it, the people who might try to stop 
that kind of a development. 

The Chairman. Mr. Allen, were you assigned to the job of creating 
a Communist Party in the Philippines? 

Mr. Allen. I must refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
of my privilege under the fifth amendment, since it might tend to be 
incriminatory. 

Senator Mundt. Since you rely on that privilege so greatly, Mr. 
Allen, may I just point out that that is just another civil liberty we 
have here that Russia does not have ? 

Mr. Allen. Fortunately, we still do have that recourse, because 
if we didn't, it would be a very sad state in this country. 

The Chairman. I might say, Mr. Allen, that if you were in a 
Russian court today and you were asked whether you were an Amer- 
ican spy. and you said, "I refuse to answer relying on my constitu- 
tional privilege," your life insurance would be awfully high. 
[Laughter.] 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 15 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Allen, I don't think you gave us your present 
occupation. What are you doing now ? 
Mr. Allen. I am a writer. 
Mr. Cohn. And where are you employed? 
Mr. Allen. I will not answer that question, on my constitutional 

grounds. 

Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you are an official of International 
Publishers, the official publishing house of the Communist Party? 

Mr, Allen. I will not answer that question. 

Mr. Cohn. And is it not a fact that this same International Pub- 
lishers, the official publishing house of the Communist Party, is the 
house that published this book of yours that is being used in the 
State Department information program? 

Mr. Allen. I will not answer that question. 

Mr. Cohn. Is your book, World Monopoly and Peace, published 
by International Publishers? 

Mr. Allen. It is. 

Mr. Cohn. It is, is it not? 

Mr. Allen. Yes. The book is published by International Pub- 
lishers. 

Mi-. Cohn. You won't tell us whether International Publishers is 
the official publishing house of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Allen. I will refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Cohn. I think it has been so officially cited. 

The Chairman. I am going to subpena the records of International 
Publishers and determine, if possible, how many other books the 
information program has purchased from this Communist publish- 
ing house. I suggest that that be done at the earliest convenience. 

May I say to the other Senators that unless we have questions of a 
new nature, I would like to get on to the other witness. 

Senator Dirksen. There is one thing, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
want the answer to Senator McClellan's question to stand just as it is, 
because Mr. Allen has stated that this effort to ferret out communism, 
anti-Communist efforts, was a foundation for burning books and so 
forth. 

That is not involved at all, Mr. Allen, here, as a matter of fact. 
So let us get at it this way. 

In the first place, you do believe that socialism is inevitable in the 
United States? 

Mr. Allen. I believe it will come when most of the people want it. 
I think it is inevitable : yes. 

Senator Dirksen. You say on page 273 : 

The destructive power stored away in the atom bombs of the United States 
is no match for the forward move of nations to socialism, which is the future of 
America, as it is of the world. 

In other words, socialism is inevitable in the United States ?^ 

Mr. Allen. I stick very strongly by those sentiments you just read. 

Senator Dirksen. All right. That is what that is. You are a 
native-born citizen, and you believe socialism is inevitable? 

Mr. Allen. Correct. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, this is certainly not a book-burning adven- 
ture. What we are quarreling about is simply this : That here we last 
year appropriated for this whole information program $86 million 



16 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

of the taxpayers' money, to put a Voice of America on the air, to buy 
books and staff these libraries, and with public money they buy your 
books, which are circulated around where people in other countries can 
get at them and read your sentiments. And that certainly is not a 
good deal so far as the cause of the plaintiff is concerned. Now, that 
is all that is here. We are not interested in burning books at all. 
We are interested, however, in stopping the business of buying this 
kind of stuff to indoctrinate and orient people in all the world along 
your lines, when, as a matter of fact, that is not an expression of the 
objective of the free world at all. It is just that simple. 

Mr. Allen. Where do you stop, Senator? 

Senator Dirksen. Well, if you are going to fight a war, if you are 
going to carry on at high expense, the gospel of the free ideal, then 
you certainly do not go around and buy a lot of trash and nonsense 
to indoctrinate those same minds at public expense with the other 
viewpoint. Because a student somewhere in Iran, in Egypt, in Bom- 
bay, in Delhi, anywhere in the world, reading that, will say, "Oh, well, 
here is a native-born American author who says, 'Socialism is in- 
evitable in the United States.' We will stand by and wait. What is 
the use of lifting your voice? What is the use of doing anything for 
the free ideal ? This, according to Mr. Allen, which is a pseudonym 
for Mr. Auerbach, is useless. He thinks it is inevitable in the United 
States. It is a waste of money." 

The Chairman. More important than that, Senator, when these 
Communist books are placed in our libraries throughout the world, the 
people in those nations are entitled to think that that bears the stamp 
of approval of the American Government. And when a book such 
as this, which extols all the virtues of the Soviet Union as the only 
great force for peace, is brought to the world through these channels, 
that means to any ordinary person in Bombay, India, in Spain, in 
France, that this is the feeling of this Government. 

You may step down. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I had some other questions I was 
going to ask Mr. Allen but I am prepared to believe that we are 
trying to pump water out of a very poisonous well, and I am inclined 
to prefer to have the next witness appear. 

The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Allen, before you leave : One of the 
other witnesses yesterday took it upon himself to tell the committee 
that if we exposed him and he lost his job, he would attack the com- 
mittee. Now, you have a perfect right to attack this committee when- 
ever and wherever you please. You do not even need to be a Com- 
munist college professor to attack this committee. Any ordinary Com- 
munist can attack this committee. 

Mr. Allen. Or a non-Communist, I believe, too. Anyone can. 
And I believe many more will. 

The Chairman. You can do it outside the committee room, with no 
fear of reprisal from this committee. Your conduct within the com- 
mittee room is, of course, another matter. 

Mr. Allen. I want to make it clear that I didn't wait for your per- 
mission, Senator, in attacking this committee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Browder, will you stand up and be sworn ? 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 17 

Mr. Browder. I do. 

Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think counsel is O. John Rogge of 
New York. 

Mr. Browder, as the chairman has explained to the witnesses, you 
have a right at any time you wish to confer with your counsel before 
you answer any question, and get his view as to what your position 
should be. 

TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, 0. JOHN ROGGE 

Mr. Browder. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohn. We would like your full name, please. 

Mr. Browder. Earl Russell Browder. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Browder, are you the author of a book entitled 
"Communism in the United States, by Earl Browder," which is being 
used by the State Department information program, a copy of which 
I display to you, if you will look up here ? 

Mr. Browder. I would have to appeal to my rights under the fifth 
amendment, and refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you properly identify the 
witness ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes. I believe the record indicates, Mr. Chairman, that 
Mr. Browder, until 1945, was the general secretary of the Communist 
Party of the United States, and as such the top official of the Com- 
munist Party of the United States, and he held that position when 
this book was written. 

Mr. Browder, would you examine that book, and would you read the 
cover of that book to us ? 

Air. Browder. I would not give an answer to any substantive ques- 
tion before this committee. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, this is not a substantive question. This is merely 
performing the mechanical act of reading what it says on the cover 
of that book. 

Mr. Browder. Reading what it says on the cover of the book is not 
a substantive question? 

Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is. 

The Chairman. I do not think you can incriminate yourself by 
reading the cover of that book. 

Mr. Browder. In a committee headed by Senator McCarthy, it is 
very difficult to tell how one could incriminate oneself. 

The Chairman. Well, we will ask you to read the title on the book. 
This is one of the books, you see, Mr. Browder, that the taxpayers have 
been buying to fight communism throughout the world. 

Let me first check with counsel. 

You have established that this book was purchased by the informa- 
tion program and is being used by the information program? 

Mr. Cohn. That is established, Mr. Chairman, and it is presently 
in use by the information program. 

The Chairman. How many books by Mr. Browder and of the last 
witness have been so purchased, and how many libraries are they now 
in? Have vou established that ? 



18 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. No, we have not established that exactly. We have 
determined that 2 books of the last witness and 3 of Mr. Browder are 
in use. We don't know exactly how many copies and in what locations. 
We have some of the locations, but not all. I know, for example, that 
London is the location of some of Mr. Browder's books, and some posts 
in South America. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question now, Mr. Browder? 

Mr. Browder. The counsel asked me to read the title of this book. 
It is Communism in the United States, by Earl Browder. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, do you deny that you are the Earl Browder who 
wrote that book ? 

Mr. Browder. I do not answer that question, relying upon my 
rights under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. When that book was written, Mr. Browder, in the year 
that that book was written, were you the leader of the Communist 
Party of the United States? 

Mr. Browder. The same answer. 

The Chairman. You said "the same answer." You mean you refuse 
to answer on the grounds that your answer might incriminate you? 

Mr. Browder. I rely upon my rights under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I think he has the privilege. 

Mr. Cohn. When that book was Written, Mr. Browder, were you a 
believer in the change of the form of government of the United States 
from our present form to the socialistic and communistic form ? 

Mr. Browder. Same answer. 

Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer that ? 

Mr. Browder. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Were you a believer in the overthrow of our Government 
by force and violence ? 

Mr. Browder. Same answer. 

Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer that question ? 

The Chairman. You refuse to answer on what grounds ? 

Mr. Browder. On the grounds that the fifth amendment of the Con- 
stitution of the United States gives me the right to refuse to bear wit- 
ness against myself. And I have good reason to believe that anything 
I would say before this committee would be used to make trouble for 
me, because the chairman of this committee has publicly declared that 
he is out to get me; that he is going to bring charges or has brought 
charges of contempt and perjury against me; and after he made that 
statement, I had to defend myself in court on charges of contempt. 
And I now have pending a charge of perjury, which I have reason to 
believe arose from that statement of Senator McCarthy. 

The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Browder, that you are not correctly 
stating the facts. The chairman of this committee never stated he was 
out to get you or anyone. In fact, as you will recall, when you were 
up for trial before the local court, six Senators were supenaed to 
appear as defense witnesses. Five of the Senators refused to appear. 
I appeared as a defense witness for you, as you recall. 

Mr. Browder. I recall. 

The Chairman. Not because I admired you, but because I felt you 
were entitled to have the truth presented in court. The question at 
that time was whether you were in contempt of the Tydings com- 
mittee. I testified at that time that I thought you were not, that I 
thought you had cooperated with the Tydings committee fully, and 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 19 

that while you might be guilty of many other things, you are not 
guilty of contempt of that committee. 

Thereafter, the judge immediately dismissed the case against you. 

So I think we should keep the record clear that I have never been 
out to get you or anyone else, and if I had been I could have refused 
to appear and testify. If I had, you probably would have been in 
jail today. 

Mr. Browder. I would like to clear up this matter also, if the Chair 
will permit. 

The Chairman. You certainly may. 

Mr. Browder. The record will show that there would have been no 
citation of contempt against me except for the demand upon the open 
Senate floor by Senator McCarthy, in a long and passionate speech in 
which this demand was the center; that he caused that citation for 
perjury, or for contempt; that he voted for it; that it was useful to 
him ; and that there would have been no case except upon his demand. 
If later he found 

The Chairman. You say that I made that statement on the Senate 
floor? 

Mr. Browder. I said you made the demand upon the Senate floor 
that I be cited for contempt, and your demand was the cause for raj 
citation. I had 1 year of organizing the defense to defeat that case 
which you brought. 

The Chairman. Will counsel check the Congressional Record ? Mr. 
Browder maj^ be correct in this. I doubt it very much. 

Mr. Browder. I can give you the citation and save you time. 

The Chairman. Would you, please? 

Mr. Broavder. I will. 

Senator Mundt. If it is true, Mr. Chairman, I hope you boast about 
it and not apologize for it. 

The Chairman. I am just curious to know whether it is true or 
not. As I said to the court, I feel that a man who was head of the 
Communist Party, who has felt that we should overthrow and de- 
stroy this Nation by force and violence, was guilty of many crimes, 
but I thought he was not guilty of contempt of the Tydings com- 
mittee. I felt that he had cooperated completely and whole- 
heartedly with the Tydings committee. 

At that time he made the same type of attacks against me that he 
is making now. And he has a right to do that. I do not mind a<t 
all. In fact, if Communists did not attack me, I would be disap- 
pointed. I would feel I was not damaging their cause. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Browder, are you today a Communist? 

Mr. Browder. I would like to give the chairman the citation that 
he asked for. In the speech, which covers 5 pages of the Congres- 
sional Record, April 27, 1950, in the course of the 5 pages of speech 
and interruptions of other Senators, Senator McCarthy said — and 
this was after I had appeared in the morning session of the com- 
mittee, and I made no further appearance before that committee — 
the Senator said : 

I can see no excuse whatever for the committee's not immediately citing 
Browder for contempt and taking action against him ; no reason whatever. 

The Chairman. May I say that I have no admiration for you, Mr. 
Browder. Let us make that clear. 

Mr. Browder. Senator, that is quite mutual. 



20 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

We have you here to answer certain questions. You have a right 
to refuse to answer them if you feel your answer will incriminate 
you. Will you tell us whether you are a member of the Communist 
Party as of today? 

Mr. Browder. I have no intention of answering any substantive 
question before this committee. 

The Chairman. You can refuse only if you tell the committee that 
if you truthfully answer, the answer might incriminate you. Other- 
wise you will be forced to answer. 

Mr. Broavder. I can give the committee, in some length, my 
grounds, if the committee desires it. 

The Chairman. I am requesting your grounds. You are ordered 
to answer that question unless you feel that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you. The question is : Are you a member of the Commu- 
nist Party today? 

i Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of my rights 
under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Browder, do I understand you refuse to an- 
swer that question because if you did so it might incriminate you, 
and that is your constitutional grounds? 

Mr. Browder. I think that I have the legal right to cite the pro- 
tection of the fifth amendment without using any formulations 
which are not contained in the fifth amendment itself. 

Senator Mundt. You can cite the fifth amendment only if you 
apply what is in the fifth amendment to your own case. Is that what 
you are doing now ? 

Mr. Browder. I am applying it to my own situation, as one who has 
been threatened by the chairman of this committee that he would get 
him, in one way or another, by contempt or by perjury, and facing 
such a powerful Senator, and with no resources of my own to support 
me except my own mind, I have to take refuge in the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting. 

Mr. Browder. Even more powerful men than myself have been 
entrapped by the Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I think this is very interesting testimony, to which 
the Senator should pay close attention. Here is a man who is known 
to have been the head of the Communist Party in America. The 
question of whether he says he was or not, in testifying here, is un- 
important, because he openly paraded himself in that capacity for 
many years. I think it would be fruitful for other Americans to know 
that here, this man who used to be head of the Communist Party, now 
testifies under oath, and it is his testimony, that if he were now to 
admit membership in the Communist Party he would tend to in- 
criminate himself. I think that is pretty indicative of how this con- 
spiratorial apparatus works, especially against people like Mr. Brow- 
der, who has been in, and ousted, and in, and ousted from the Com- 
munist Party several times. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Browder, have you ever engaged in espionage 
against the United States? 

Mr. Browder. I have no answers to make to any substantive ques- 
tions before this committee. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 21 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to an answer 
to any question addressed to Mr. Browder, regardless of his point of 

view. 

The Chairman. You cannot refuse to answer a question before this 
committee because you do not like the chairman or some members of 
the committee. You have the right under the Constitution of this 
country, which you would not have in Russia, of course, to refuse to 
answer if you honestly feel that your answer would tend to incriminate 
you. But we will not accept any blanket refusal to answer questions. 

Mr. Browder. I honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that to answer 
any questions before this committee would endanger me, might entrap 
me into some devious schemes, which I can have no knowledge of what 
they are. I have had a bitter experience in the past. My life has been 
disorganized since 1950 because I appeared before a Senate committee 
and attempted to cooperate, answered 300 questions, and most of the 
questions which you want to ask you will find there in that record. 
And as a result, as a result of your demand on the floor of the Senate, 
I spent a year defeating a charge of contempt. 

The Chairman. Mr. Browder, your life may have been disorgan- 
ized, but if you had our way in this country, many lives would be 
badly disorganized. Because you had your way in China, a great 
number of people have died. Because of that, many lives are disorgan- 
ized there. The only hardship that you can complain of today is the 
questions being asked, and you do not have a right to refuse to answer 
questions because you do not like the committee. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I suggest you ask the questions 
without lecturing the witness each time as to what his rights are. He 
seems to know. Let him make his answers for the record in any form 
he wants to. 

The Chairman. Then he will not be allowed to make any blanket 
answer in that form. If he cares to invoke the constitutional right, 
he must say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer might 
tend to incriminate me." 

Senator McClellan. That is the very point I make, Mr. Chairman. 
Let him invoke the right, rather than having the committee invoke it 
for him. 

The Chairman. You are ordered now to answer the question, Mr. 
Browder. 

Mr. Cohn. Were you ever engaged in espionage against the United 
States? 

Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer, under my rights under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever committed sabotage, engaged in sabotage, 
against the United States? 

Mr. Browder. Fifth amendment privilege. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever participated in the international Com- 
munist conspiracv seeking to overthrow the Government of the United 
States? 

Mr. Browder. Fifth amendment privilege. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Browder, I would like to ask you at this point 
whether you are the author of another book being used in the State 
Department Information program today, which, by the way, Mr. 
Chairman, is being used not only in English but has been translated 



22 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

into Spanish and is being used, I believe, in some South American 
libraries in its translated form in Spanish. That is, Teheran, Our 
Path in War and Peace, by Earl Browder. 

Are you the author of that book ? 

Mr. Browder. I invoke my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. You refuse to tell us that. Is this not your picture on 
the cover of the book ? 

Mr. Browder. Same answer. 

The Chairman. You refuse to answer that that is your picture on 
the grounds that it might incriminate you. 

It might. 

Mr. Cohn, may I suggest that at the earliest possible moment, we 
try and if possible determine the number of libraries in which these 
books are located ? I understand there are about 6 or 8 different filing 
systems over there. 

Mr. Cohn. Eleven, Mr. Chairman. But it is being worked on in 
the Library of Congress, and Mr. McCracken is cooperating and at- 
tempting to get us the exact information. 

The Chairman. I understand that you are getting complete coop- 
eration from the State Department on this. 

Mr. Cohn. From the Library of Congress and from the State 
Department now. 

Mr. Chairman, I might ask Mr. Browder this question. 

Kef erring again to this book Communism in the United States, by 
Earl Browder, I note that that is published by International Pub- 
lishers, which is the same publishing house, Mr. Chairman, that pub- 
lished Mr. Allen's book, which is being used in the State Department 
information centers. 

I will ask you this, Mr. Browder. Is International Publishers the 
official publishing house of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Browder, in this book, Communism in the United 
States, you state, and I quote, on page 101 : 

Forward, to the revolutionary struggle of the working class of its immediate 
needs and its ultimate goal. Organize a mighty mass movement of the workers 
and farmers, Negro and white, men, women, and youth, to vote Communist on 
November 8 and to fight every day in the year against capitalism until it is 
destroyed and a Soviet government rules in the United States. 

Did you, at the time you wrote these words, believe that a Soviet 
government should rule in the United States of America ? 

Mr. Browder. My privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you today believe that a Soviet government should 
rule in the United States of America ? 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. You refuse to tell us whether or not you are the Earl 
Browder who wrote this book, Teheran, which is in front of you. Is 
that right? 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. In the year you wrote that book, which is in use by the 
State Department in its information centers throughout the world, 
were you the top official of the Communist Party in this country? 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Were you at the time you wrote this book engaged in 
espionage against the United States? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 23 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Conx. Were you at the time you wrote this book seeking to 
bring about the destruction of the United States Government by force 
and violence? 

Mr. Browder. I claim my privilege. 

Mr. Coiin. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this 
witness. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Mundt. I do not believe I got the name of your attorney. 
Is your attorney a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Kogge. Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege, I would 
like to answer that question. 

The Chairman. If you wish to testify, we will have to swear you. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth,"the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Rogge. I do. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Rogge. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions to ask of 
Mr. Browder, in view of his refusal to answer the questions. 

The Chairman. May I say, in connection with Mr. Rogge, that we 
have no information of any kind to indicate that he is or has been 
a member of the party. 

Senator Mundt. There was no such implication. I just wanted to 
ask him the question. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Browder, this is a matter that I would like 
to have your comment on. Is it your reaction that when the Duclos 
letter was issued and you were removed from your position as head 
of the Communist Party of the United States, and Mr. Foster took 
your place — do you feel that that policy aided the Communist Party 
movement, your removal and the changeover from the idea of the co- 
existence of communism and capitalism? That was the policy, I 
believe. The Duclos letter, at that time, removed that policy, and 
do you agree that that did a great deal to stimulate the Communist 
Party movement in the United States ? 

Mr. Browder. I exceedingly regret that I must keep the consistent 
attitude and refuse to answer that question, under my rights under 
the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Browder, I find here a quotation appar- 
ently from one of your books. I would like you to, if you will, identify 
it, as to whether you are the author of this statement in one of your 
books : 

There is no way out, except by the creation of a revolutionary democracy of 
the toilers, which is at the same time a stern dictatorship against the capitalists 
and their agents. There is no way out except by seizing from the capitalists 
the industries, the banks, and all of the economic institutions, and transforming 
them into the common property of all under the direction of the revolutionary 
government. 

Are you the author of that statement in a publication under your 
name as the author? 

Mr. Browder. I regret that I will not be able to answer any sub- 
stantive questions of that sort before this committee. I have to claim 
my privilege under the fifth amendment. 



24 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. You regret that you wrote it ? 

Mr. Browder. I regret that I am unable to answer your question 
at this time. 

Senator McClellan. You are ashamed of it now ? Or do you still 
believe in it? 

Mr. Browder. On all such questions I will have to claim my privi- 
lege. 

Senator McClellan. You have a right to claim the privilege, but 
I believe we have the right to ask the questions. You still insist that 
you do not want to admit that you are the author of such language ? 

Mr. Browder. I do not want to get myself in the clutches of Sen- 
ator McCarthy. 

Senator McClellan. This is not for Senator McCarthy. That is 
for the information of the entire Senate and of the world. If you 
want them to know, if you were sincere in it and believed in it, I do not 
understand why you would want to deny the authorship of it now. 

Mr. Browder. I hope that it will be possible someday to clarify all 
these questions, under conditions different from those that I face today. 

Senator Potter. I fear those conditions. 

Senator McClellan. I think that is the trouble. I think we fear 
the conditions under which you might bring about the establishment 
of a stern dictatorship. 

Mr. Browder. I don't think the Senator is really afraid of that in 
the United States. 

Senator McClellan. Well, frankly, I am not. Because I have 
confidence in the American people. 

Mr. Browder. I am sure of that. 

Senator McClellan. But I am sure the American people, who be- 
lieve in the institutions of this country, have some apprehensions about 
those who write such articles with a view of trying to incite revolu- 
tion in this country. 

Mr. Cohn. Senator McClellan, I think the record should indicate 
the passage which you read appears on page 18 of Communism in the 
United States, which is by Earl Browder, which is currently in use 
in the State Department information centers. 

The Chairman. Mr. Browder, you may get in bad with the party 
if you answer this question : Do you think that your books distributed 
in our libraries throughout the world would help in the fight against 
communism ? 

Mr. Browder. I am sorry, Senator, I must invoke my privilege un- 
der the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I may say that if the books written by a leader of 
the Communist Party and put out under our sponsorship effectively 
fight communism, you will have difficulty with the party. 

You may step down. 

Your next witness? 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mandell, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mandell, you are reminded that you are still 
under oath. 

Mr. Cohx. Mr. Mandell, would you give us your full name, please? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 25 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MARX MANDELL, ACCOMPANIED BY 

HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH FORER 

Mr. Mandell. My name is William Marx Mandell. And to save 
you the trouble of bringing out any possible pseudonym, as you did 
in the matter of Mr. Auerbach, I would like to make it clear that I am 
a Jew. 

Mr. Cohn. That you are what? 

Mr. Mandell. That I am a Jew. 

Mr. Cohn. So am I, and I don't see that that is an issue here. 

Mr. Mandell. Well, a Jew who works for McCarthy is thought of 
very ill by most of the Jewish people in this country. 

Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Mandell. My dear sir, I have never consulted with the Com- 
munist Party in any manner regarding the writing of the four books 
I have written. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mandell, are you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Mandell. I am going to answer your questions, sir, under my 
privilege under the Constitution, but I am going to answer them in 
my own way. This is a book burning. You lack only the tinder to 
set fire to the books as Hitler did 30 years ago, and I 

The Chairman. We will have no more of that, Mr. Mandell. You 
will answer the questions put to you. 

Officer, I want you to stand by. 

We will have no more of this. Mr. Cohn is our chief counsel. He 
is entitled to normal courtesy. You will answer his questions. 

Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Mandell. I refuse to answer that question under my privilege 
under the fifth amendment not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage against the United 
States? 

Mr. Mandell. I refuse to answer that question under my privilege 
under the fifth amendment not to be a witness against myself. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. Do you honestly feel that if you 
were to tell us truthfully whether you were engaged in sabotage against 
the United States, that might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Mandell. That might tend to incriminate me, but it is in no 
sense an admission of guilt, because the protection of the fifth amend- 
ment is designed to protect the innocent, as anyone who knows history 
knows. 

The Chairman. The purpose of the fifth amendment is to provide 
that no man, guilty or innocent, need appear as a witness against him- 
self. It has been used in this country largely to protect the individual 
against being required to testify against himself. We find now, Mr. 
Mandell, men like you are using it not to protect the individual but 
to protect a conspiracy. That is not the intention of the provision. 
However, you are entitled to invoke that if you tell the committee 
that you honestly feel that a truthful answer as to whether you have 
ever engaged in espionage might tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. Mandell. I have given the committee that answer, and I stand 
by it. 

The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage against the 
United States? 



26 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Mandell. I refuse to answer, under my privilege under the 
fifth amendment not to testify against myself. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mandell, you want to talk about some of your writ- 
ings which are in use by the State Department Information Service 
today. Let's do that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, first may I ask : You brought up the 
question of your name. Normally that would not be important. Have 
you ever gone under a different name ? 

Mr. Mandell. I refuse to answer, under my privilege under the fifth 
amendment not to testify against myself. And I want to point out 
that the right to use a pseudonym is a traditional privilege of writers. 
I have never written a book under any other name. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have a different name which you used 
in Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. Mandell. The chairman apparently assumes the witness to 
be stupid. I refuse to answer that question under my privilege under 
the fifth amendment not to testify against myself. 

The Chairman. Have you participated in Communist Party or- 
ganization meetings ? 

Mr. Mandell. Same answer. 

The Chairman. Did you ask the witness whether he was a Com- 
munist as of today? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, I did. He has declined to tell us whether he is a 
member of the Communist Party today. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, Mr. Cohn : You have established 
the fact that his books have been purchased by the information pro- 
gram and were used in some of our libraries? 

Mr. Cohn. They are currently in use in some of our libraries, Mr. 
Chairman. We now know of at least two writings of Mr. Mandell 
that are in use. One is Soviet Far East and Central Asia. There is 
another one I would like to ask Mr. Mandell about right now. 

Did you write something like Democratic Aspects of Soviet Gov- 
ernment Today, which was published in the American Sociological 
Review in June of 1934 ? 

Mr. Mandell. I did ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, excerpts from that, as set forth in a book 
called Understanding the Russians, are being used by the State De- 
partment information centers today. And I would like to read from 
page 29 of that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohn, may I interrupt now ? 

For the benefit of the other members of the committee, who were 
not present at the executive session, this is the witness who threatened 
the committee that he would attack the committee if he were to lose 
his job. I think the committee should know of that. Not that it is of 
any great significance. One more Communist attacking the Govern- 
ment means nothing more or less to the committee. 

Mr. Mandell. Would you care to have me comment on that? 

The Chairman. No, we do not care what attacks you make. 

What is your job, incidentally, as of today ? Where do you work ? 

Mr. Mandell. The members who were present yesterday at the 
executive session know that. 

The Chairman. Where do you work ? 

Mr. Mandell. You will get your answer. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 27 

The Chairman. You will answer the question. Where do you work ? 

Mr. Mandell. You will get exactly that answer, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I am going to have you removed unless you answer 
the question. After you answer the questions, you can make any 
speeches you care to. But you must answer where you work today. 

Mr. Mandell. In that case, I will answer it first. I am employed 
as a copywriter by L. W. Frohlich & Co., 76 East 52d Street, New 
York City. 

The Chairman. Now make any speech you care to. 

Mr. Mandell. Certainly. It was known to the members of the 
committee who were present yesterday, and everyone here now knows, 
that my present employment has nothing whatever to do with the 
purposes of this committee. I asked the committee yesterday, in the 
spirit of fairness, which I doubted it had, not to place my job in 
jeopardy for that reason. One of the committee members, either the 
chairman or one of the gentlemen, whom I do not recognize offhand, 
then indicated that I should be willing to pay the price for the ac- 
tivities in which I engage. That was an admission by the committee 
that it has arrogated itself the right to exact punishment, although it 
is not a court of law and deprives one of due process of law. That 
punishment has ranged from fines ranging from several thousand 
dollars in the case of people dismissed up to the fact that you, Sena- 
tor McCarthy, murdered Maj. Eaymond Kaplan by forcing him, by 
driving him to the point where he jumped under a truck, although 
everybody knows about that thing, that there was nothing that could 
possibly have merited even the most unimportant punishment for that 
man. That was my reason. 

The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Mandell, that when you refused to 
tell the committee whether you are engaged in espionage as of today 
and sabotage as of today, and you assure the committee that if you 
told the truth it might incriminate you, I think your employers should 
know that. 

Mr. Mandell. Fine. 

The Chairman. If any man is committing sabotage or espionage 
against his own country, that should be public information. 

Mr. Mandell. I made no admission of committing sabotage or espi- 
onage at any time, or today. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mandell, when you say, "If I told the truth I 
might go to jail," that is in effect what you are saying. You said if 
you told the truth it would incriminate you. If you do not feel that 
that would incriminate you, you have no privilege to refuse to answer. 

Mr. Mandell. You should know very well, Mr. Senator 

The Chairman. May I say for the benefit of the other members of 
the committee : On the Kaplan matter, we went to New York, counsel 
and myself, and we interrogated witnesses and put them under oath. 
We found that Mr. Kaplan would have been a friendly witness insofar 
as this committee was concerned. He had expressed the desire to 
appear and testify before this committee, to give the facts. He had 
no fear of this committee whatsoever. He was not the type of witness 
we have here. We went through his files and we found that appar- 
ently there was no wrongdoing on his part; that he had attempted 
to have the Baker West station located in the proper place, and unsuc- 
cessfully; and the coworkers of Mr. Kaplan very, very seriously 



28 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

questioned, as counsel will recall, that he committed suicide. They 
seem to think that was impossible under the circumstances, that they 
can see no reason for it. Their testimony under oath was that at 5 
o'clock in the afternoon the day he died he called his office and told 
them about this important work he had to do that evening and asked 
them to extend his travel orders, certainly not the act of a man who 
is about to commit suicide. 

But we will proceed. I thought the other members of the committee 
would want to know that. 

Mr. Mandell. Mr. Kaplan wrote a letter, which was quoted in the 
New York Times 

Mr. Cohn. What are you quoting? 

Mr. Mandell. I am quoting certain portions, and the rest I am 
entirely willing to have entered into the record. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mandell, when counsel asks you a question, 
you will answer it. 

Mr. Cohn. I think we have already entered the entire letter as an 
exhibit. And in this case, I think we should have the entire letter, 
or nothing. 

The Chairman. The letter has been received in evidence. 

Mr. Mandell. I am sorry. I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. 
Am I or am I not at this moment permitted to continue what I started 
to read ? 

The Chairman. We are not asking you to read Kaplan's confession. 
We have Kaplan's confession before us ; that is, the alleged confession. 
You will answer the question that counsel asked of you. 

Mr. Cohn. I want to read to you in its entirety a paragraph which 
is published in this book, Understanding the Russians. It is entitled, 
"The Role of the Communist Party." 

The Communist Party differs in many respects from western concepts of a 
political party. It has no monopoly of the right to nominate, nor of the member- 
ship of even the highest elective bodies, while its members form a minority in 
the lower legislative organs. It regards elections as a demonstration of public 
unity on issues, rather than on men, and does its utmost to secure unanimity 
on candidates through "primaries" which take the form of public mass meet- 
ings, even when this means withdrawing its own candidates in favor of in- 
dividuals who are not party members, or, as is more generally the case, ad- 
vancing no candidate of its own when a nonparty person is obviously what we 
would call the logical candidate. For these reasons, and because of the well- 
remembered fact of recent history that all other parties place themselves beyond 
the pale by armed rebellions which come under the heading of treason by any 
definition, it is regarded by the populace, in my experience, not as a monopolist 
political party preventing the emergence of others, but as the organization of the 
most public-spirited and, in fact as well as in theory, most self-sacrificing 
citizens. 

My question, Mr. Mandell, is: Do you think today that the Com- 
munist Party is the organization of the most public-spirited and self- 
sacrificing citizens in the United States of America ? 

Mr. Mandell. That statement was about the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that the Communist Party of the United 
States today is the organization of the most public-spirited and most 
self-sacrificing citizens ? 

Mr. Mandell. If the first amendment still obtained in American 
law, I would answer that question directly. Under the circumstances 
1 have to rely on my privilege under the fifth amendment, as I have 
stated that earlier. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 29 

Mr. Cohn. Do you think that the form of government in the Soviet 
Union is better than the form of government in this country today? 

Mr. Mandell. I think you gentlemen would be exceedingly 
interested 

The Chairman. You will answer the question. 

Mr. Mandell. I will answer it. Under Secretar}* of State Walter 
Bedell Smith— 

Mr. Cohn. No, you can answer that "yes" or "no." 

Mr. Mandell. I will answer it "yes" or "no" or otherwise eventually, 
and you will get an answer. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you have to wait until "eventually" ? 

The Chairman. It is just a simple question. You will answer it 
"yes" or "no." And again, we have been giving you people a great 
deal of latitude. You may continue to make any speech you want to 
after you have given your answer. You may first give your answer. 

Mr. Mandell. Fine. In that case, I will answer again under the 
fifth amendment, although I am very reluctant to do so and would 
much prefer to state my honest opinion. 

The Chairman. You are refusing to answer to whether you think 
the Communist form of government is superior to ours. 

Mr. Mandell. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And do you honestly feel if you told us the truth 
in answer to that question, that might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Mandell. That is my understanding of certain laws now on 
the books. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly feel that if you were to answer that 
question truthfully, that would tend to incriminate you? 

.Mr. Mandell. That is my understanding, under laws now on the 
books. 

The Chairman. Is it your understanding that it might tend to in- 
criminate you? 

Mr. Mandell. That it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege. 

Mr. Mandell. Thank you, sir. 

In explanation of the answer 

The Chairman. There will be no explanation of your answer. 

Mr. Mandell. Good enough. 

The Chairman. If you are refusing to answer, you will not explain 
it. Where you give an answer, you can explain your answer. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, the next question is this : Do you believe the cause 
of the United States and the United Nations in Korea today is a just 
cause? 

Mr. Mandell. As I told the McCarran committee last year, I think 
the job is to stop the war and get out. It will serve no purpose what- 
ever to rehash things over which passions have raged for 2 years. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mandell, you will first answer the question, and 
then you can explain your answer. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you think the cause of the United Nations and the 
United States in Korea is a just cause? 

Mr. Mandell. I do not, and here is my explanation. In the New 
York Herald Tribune on November 1, 1949, there was an interview with 
a minister of the Armed Forces of South Korea, Mr. Sin. He said: 

33616 — 53— pt. 1 3 



30 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

"If we had our own way, we would, I am sure, have started up 
already" — South Korea — "but we had to wait until they'" — American 
Government leaders — "are ready. They keep telling us, 'No, no, no, 
you are not ready.' Mr. Sin continues, 'We are strong enough to 
march up and take Pyongyang, the northern capital within a few 
days.' " The end of the story is : 

Mr. Sin came to Tokyo last week and saw Gen. Douglas MacArthur and other 
high American officials. 

Now, on June 15, 1950, just 14 or 15 days before the outbreak of the 
war, apparently we were ready. General Roberts, chief of the United 
States military mission in Korea, said as follows, in a presentation 
interview. I quote him : 

In Korea the American taxpayer has an army that is a fine watchdog over the 
investments placed in this country. 

That is what we are fighting for. My interjection there. 

The United States military advisory group was a living demonstration of how 
500 combat-hardened American men and officers can train 100,000 people who 
will do the shooting for you. 

The Asians appreciate that, I am sure. My interjection again. I 
continue. 

I have at least 12 or 14 Americans with each division. They work with the 
Korean officers. 

The Chairman. There will be no more of that. If you want to in- 
sert a newspaper article in the record, it will be received. 

Mr. Mandell. Fine. There it is. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Mandell, may I inquire: Obviously, your 
private views are your own, but I was a little curious about this. I 
would assume offhand that to do a book like The Soviet Far East and 
Central Asia, and to do it authentically, you would have to travel 
some over there. Did you travel in that area ? 

Mr. Mandell. I was in the Soviet Union. I was not in that area. 
Einstein was never inside the atom. He seems to be able to under- 
stand it. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, I did not ask for any levity. I was asking 
a fair question. Because if a man writes, and writes authentically, on 
some subject, he either depends on secondhand sources in the library, 
or he goes and interviews people on the ground. 

Mr. Mandell. Sir, I have lived all my life in this country, but for 
1 year in Russia. I was born here. I do not think that I am as com- 
petent to write a book on the United States — and I have traveled 
widely in this country — I do not think that I am as competent to write 
a book on the United States as I am to write a book on Russia, be- 
cause to write a book about a country requires more than living in it, 
traveling in it, even if one has pretty good eyes. One has to study 
a country. One has to use all its scholarly and other resources. And 
I have had the privilege of utilizing one of the finest collections in 
this country, the collection of the Herbert Hoover Institute at Stan- 
ford University, which engaged me as a fellow, on the basis of books 
I had previously written, including that book, which it deemed suf- 
ficient to merit my engagement as an expert on Russia. 

The Chairman. Did you go to the Lenin School when you were in 
Moscow ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 31 

Mr. Mandell. I was 14 years of age when I went there. I went 
to Moscow State University and studied biochemistry. 

The Chairman. The question is: Did you ever attend the Lenin 
School? 

Mr. Mandell. No, sir; I doirt even know where it is. 

The Chairman. What schools did you attend in Moscow? 

Mr. Mandell. I attended the Moscow State University and studied 
biochemistry. My records are on file in New York. 

The Chairman. For 1 year? 

Mr. Mandell. For somewhat less than 1 year. 

Senator Dirksen. I notice in connection with your name on the 
title sheet there is carried this legend : "Research Associate, American 
Russian Institute." Are you free in mind to indicate to the committee 
what the American Russian Institute is? 

Mr. Mandell. The American Russian Institute is not. It was dis- 
solved some years ago. 

Senator Dirksen. It does not exist now ? 

Mr. Mandell. It does not exist. 

Senator Dirksen. What was it when it did exist? 

Mr. Mandell. The American Russian Institute, to the best of my 
knowledge and belief, and I worked for them I think 3 years, was an 
organization devoted to gathering factual information on Russia, and 
an organization which went out of its way to avoid pressures from 
either side, including the left, to interpret factual data on Russia 
in a prejudicial manner. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, I notice also that it is labeled "IPR In- 
quiry Series,"' so I assume this book was one of a series by the Insti- 
tute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Mandell. It was. 

Senator Dirksen. Would that be correct? 

Mr. Mandell. That would be correct. 

Senator Dirksen. Then I notice that it was probably published by 
the International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, Publica- 
tions Office, 1 East Fifty-fourth Street, New York. Were they the 
publishers? 

Mr. Mandell. To the best of my knowledge, they were. 

Senator Dirksen. The printing evidently was done by the Haddon 
Craftsmen, Inc. 

Mr. Mandell. I assume that. I read it. I had nothing to do with it. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, if this has gotten off the track a little, I 
think we ought to get back, and I think we ought to make clear what 
the purpose of the inquiry is. If you refuse to answer it under the 
fifth amendment privilege, all right. You do have that privilege, and 
if you come within the rule, nobody quarrels about it. But what we are 
quarreling about, if we are quarreling, is this : Here are a variety of 
authors in a variety of books that have been purchased 

The Chairman. Will you hand the young lady the article from 
which you were reading? 

I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator Dirksen. Starting in 1947, Congress created an Interna- 
tional Information Service. It embraces motion pictures ; it embraces 
books and libraries; it embraces some $21 million of expenditure for 
the Voice of America. It has a very definite objective. The objec- 
tive is to combat communism. If it were not for ghat, Congress cer- 



32 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

tainly never would have approved such an outlay of funds. Now, we 
find that this organization has purchased books that have been au- 
thored by Mr. Browder, that have been authored by Mr. Allen, and 
books, or a book, unless there are more, authored by you. The ques- 
tion is: Is it a proper, is it an efficient, outlay of public funds, when 
books after you examine them give you a clear impression that they 
do everything except set up the free ideal as we understand it? 

Do you think that is a justifiable expenditure? 

Mr. Mandell. Sir, I dropped into my public library in New York 
several months ago to ask the librarian why one of my books, which 
I had given to that library, was not on the shelves, and the lady began 
by stating — other books were on the shelves — the lady began by stat- 
ing that the book had not been properly processed downtown at the 
main library. And then I happened to notice just where we were 
standing. There were a large group of books on Russia. And being 
well acquainted with the subject, it was quite obvious that these books, 
not on a shelf, but piled as though they were in process of being moved, 
were the type of books which I believe to be objective. And I might 
say they were books written b}' people, most of whom would gladly 
tell you that they were not and never were members of the Communist 
Party. And so I asked the lady, "Why are those books there?" She 
said, "Well, they were written at an earlier time, during the war," and 
that the library was in process of removing them, removing from the 
shelves those books, which represented the honest opinions of Amer- 
icans, including very prominent Americans, about Russia during the 
war. That, I contend — you will very possibly challenge this — that, 
I contend, represented a reflection of the book burnings, the witch 
hunts, of which I believe this hearing is a part. 

Now, in that connection, as far as your question relative to public 
funds is concerned : In the first place, I understand that the chief ob- 
jective of this hearing is to get the rest of the books off the shelves here 
at home. I will answer your question directly. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, let me interpose. I think your answer is 
completely at variance with the fact. And I would not know of any 
fact that would substantiate an answer like that, frankly. 

Mr. Mandell. Fine. Then the public will have to judge. 

Now I will answer your question directly. A previous witness whom 
I had the privilege of hearing this morning testified that he opposed 
the Voice of America program completely as part of the cold war. 
I would express that also as my opinion, but I would go further and 
state that the Voice of America, or whatever the exact title is — I am 
not up on those things as you gentlemen are — whichever group it was 
that purchased these books and used them — and, by the way, I am not 
aware of having earned one penny from the purchase of those books 
by this committee — the Voice of America in using those books 
quite obviously wanted to transmit to other countries the idea that in 
America it is still possible to express more than one point of view. 
And from the Voice of America and State Department viewpoint, that 
is rather slick propaganda. Frankly, I think it is untrue propaganda. 
It is untrue propaganda when I find my books taken off the shelves 
here at home and the same books offered abroad to indicate my books 
are available. But, at all events, I don't presume to judge whether it is 
a justified expenditure of public funds or not. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 33 

Senator Dirksen. Well, now, Mr. Mandell, there is only one thing 
wrong with your analogy, and that is this. No. 1, when you speak of 
books in the New York public library, they are purchased with funds 
that are made up bv the citizens of New York out of their own library 
fund. They are not Federal funds. The second thing wrong is this : 
If a library wants to stock those books, that is their business. But we 
are dealing here with the stocking of books in foreign countries where 
we have a problem, namely, the controversy and the conflict between 
the Communist ideology and the ideology of the free world. And 
I think we are in the very unhappy position of attorney for the plain- 
tiff seeing the cause made for the defendant in the case with things 
(hat are written by native-born American authors, paid for by public 
funds, and sent abroad where formative minds can get a wholly dif- 
ferent and unobjeetive concept of Ainreica. That, in my judgment, 
just does not make good logical sense. 

And so, my whole purpose here is to first establish the fact that 
these books have been purchased for the libraries abroad and secondly, 
that by their very content, they are the very antithesis of what we 
have been trying to establish as the doctrine of the free world. 

Now, one other thing. Let me have that, please. And certainly 
I do not want to be invidious, but here is a document that was gotten 
out by the House committee, and it shows the American Russian 
Institute of Southern California at Los Angeles cited as communistic, 
and the authority for that is Attorney General Tom Clark, letter to 
the Loyalty Review Board released April 27, 1949. 

Now, on the second page of the book is an indication that you 
were a research associate for the American Russian Institute. Now, 
sitting up here, what would you make of that situation % 

Mr. Mandell. A few facts, Senator, on that matter: The first is 
that the American Russian Institute of New York and the American 
Russian Institute of Southern California were not only distinct or- 
ganizations but very often disagreed with each other insofar as their 
activities bore on the same general subject. 

In the second place, the listing of organizations by Tom Clark or 
whatever other Attorney General was a purely arbitrary matter, not 
conducted with an opportunity for these organizations to defend 
themselves. And I simply deny the validity of the whole business. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, now, let us answer the first part of that. 

Mr. Mandell. Yes, surely. 

Senator Dirksen. The American Russian Institute of New York, 
cited in a letter by the Attorney General, dated April 27, 1949, as 
communistic; the American Russian Institute of Philadelphia, sim- 
ilarly cited in a letter by the Attorney General. And he is, after all, 
the appropriate official in government who is charged with making 
the survey and then making a determination of that question. 

Now, there are three chapters of the American Russian Institute 
so cited. Are there more ? 

Mr. Mandell. To the best of my knowledge, the organization now 
exists in San Francisco and Los Angeles alone, and these were, to 
the best of my knowledge, and still are, separate from each other, 
as they were separate from the New York organization. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, now, was there a parent American Russian 
Institute ? 

Mr. Mandell. There was not ; no, sir. 



34 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Dirksen. In other words, they were cubical, so to speak, 
in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and New York. 

Mr. Mandell. They were what ? 

Senator Dirksen. They were just, I suppose, components. 

Mr. Mandell. No, they were not. The reason I make this point, 
sir, since I happen to have been working for the New York American- 
Russian Institute — the American-Russian Institute made it its busi- 
ness never to express its opinion on matters of fact. It took no part 
in these things. Whereas these other organizations saw fit — and I 
think it was their right as American citizens if they so decided — to 
express their opinions on American-Russian relations. 

Senator Dirksen. Your book does not indicate which of these in- 
stitutes you served as a research associate ? 

Mr. Mandell. The only one which is called the American Russian 
Institute, period, is the one in New York, or was the one in New 
York, as long as it existed. 

Senator Dirksen. I find several here, but I find none standing alone 
disassociated from some locality, like New York. So if it is the one 
that was in New York, is that the one you belonged to ? 

Mr. Mandell. I answered that, and I will repeat it again: That 
it was the American-Russian Institute of New York, and separate and 
distinct from any of these other bodies. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, now, my dear sir, I must say that it is 
cited by the Attorney General, on April 27, 1949. 

Mr. Mandell. If it is, then I can merely add what I added before, 
that in my opinion the entire idea of any branch of government arro- 
gating to itself under law the right to describe organizations as organi- 
zations which American citizens may not belong to, essentially, is in 
violation of the provision of the Constitution which guarantees the 
right of freedom of assemblage. That is my opinion. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, to wind it up, this proceeding, of course, 
addresses itself to a very basic thesis, and that is this : We do believe 
it is wrong to spend millions of dollars of public funds for informa- 
tional service and have it include works by authors who address them- 
selves with vigor to the Commnuist ideal and put those in the hands 
of students and others in libraries all over the world, as a part of the 
American case. Do you think that makes sense, as a matter of fact ? 

Mr. Mandell. As far as it applies to me, sir, I should like to point 
out to you that the books of mine which you have clo not address 
themselves with vigor to the Communist idea. The books of mine 
which you have are books in which I state facts, as I believe them to 
be true, and in which I draw few, if any, conclusions. Certain of the 
other books before you may take on another character, but insofar as 
I am the author, those books are written from the viewpoint of a 
scholar who, at that time, was held in rather high esteem by non- 
Communist and nonlef t scholarly institutions. 

Senator Dirksen. Would you feel free to make a similar answer, 
for instance, with respect to Mr. Browder's book? You do not 
have to. 

Mr. Mandell. I would rather not. 

Senator Dirksen. And what about the books by Mr. Allen ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Dirksen, you asked him a question in regard to 
Browder's books. I think he should be required to answer, unless he 
thinks the answer would incriminate him. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 35 

Mr. Man dell. It wouldn't incriminate me; no, sir. 

Senator Dirksex. I won't press the question. I think the book 
will speak for itself. 

Mr. Maxdell. It will. 

Senator Dirksex. But I might ask you whether you would care to 
express a similar view as to the works of Mr. Allen. 

Mf. Maxdell. I am sorry to say I would rather not express an 
opinion. 

Senator Dirksen. Do you know Mr. Allen ? 

Mr. Maxdell. I met him yesterday afternoon outside the place, 
here. 

Senator Muxdt. Eeferring to this pamphlet which you sent up 
as part of your testimony, I notice you have detached the first page. 

Mr. Maxdell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. That is in the form of an anonymous pamphlet. 
Would you care to tell who published this ? 

Mr. Maxdell. The back page will tell you. The pamphlet is 
entitled "Man Bites Dog," which is a newspaperman's phrase, and 
it was somebody's idea of how to describe my testimony before the 
McCarran committee last year. It was published by a weekly maga- 
zine called the National Guardian. 

Senator Muxdt. The National Guardian? 

Mr. Maxdell. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. The National Guardian is a Communist maga- 
zine? 

Mr. Maxdell. I don't know that anybody has called it that in an 
official finding. 

Senator Muxdt. Is it your testimony that it is not? 

Mr. Maxdell. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the National 
Guardian is not a Communist publication. I can illustrate that, for 
example. As far as I know, the Communists would probably be 
strongly opposed to any favorable reference to the last previous 
witness, Mr. Browder. And I read in the National Guardian recently 
a letter of his appealing for, I think, financial aid to conduct his 
defense against one of the things that came up before. And many 
similar things. I remember also 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You say they are not Commu- 
nist because they carry Earl Browder's works. I do not follow your 
reasoning. You say one of the reasons you think it is not a Commu- 
nist magazine is because it carries the work of Earl Browder. 

Mr. Maxdell. I said it carried a letter from him asking for 
financial support in this kind of thing. 

The Chairman. That would be excellent proof that it was not 
Communist? 

Mr. Maxdell. To me it would be. 

Senator Dirksex. Mr. Mandell, I have only one other question. 

The Chairman, Ma}* I say, incidentally, that this will not be 
received until you supply the entire pamphlet. 

Mr. Maxdell. I was not officially asked for it. If I am, I will 
supply it. 

The Chairmax. We told you we would receive it. We will not 
receive it mutilated. 

Mr. Maxdell. Perfectly all right. I did not have a complete copy 
here. 



36 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. You will supply a copy ? 

Mr. Mandell. I will supply a copy. 

Mr. Cohn. Has the National Guardian been conducting quite a 
vigorous campaign in defense of the convicted atom spies? 

Mr. Mandell. Who are you referring to ? 

Mr. Cohn. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. 

Mr. Mandell. I wanted to make that clear. 

The convicted what ? 

Mr. Cohn. Atom spies. 

Mr. Mandell. Do you know your law, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. I prosecuted the case. 

Mr. Mandell. What were those people convicted of ? 

Mr. Cohn. They were convicted of conspiracy. 

Mr. Mandell. And conspiracy is not espionage. 

Mr. Cohn. They were convicted of conspiracy in an effort to deliver 
atom secrets to representatives of the Soviet Union. 

The question is: Is the National Guardian today conducting a 
vigorous campaign asking for the release of the Rosenbergs? 

Mr. Mandell. The National Guardian, to the best of my knowledge 
and belief, and I am not an editor or member of its staff 

Mr. Cohn. Do you read it ? 

Mr. Mandell. I read it. The National Guardian, to the best of my 
knowledge and belief, is conducting a vigorous campaign asking for 
executive clemency in that case, in that scientists have said that Green- 
glass, a stool pigeon, could not have remembered the material he said 
he remembered. 

Mr. Cohn. You say that is related to a request for clemency? 

Mr. Mandell. I may be mistaken about that. That is my recol- 
lection. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you think the Rosenbergs were guilty ? 

Mr. Mandell. Unlike a great many people who are taking an active 
part in that campaign, and who have read the transcript of the trial 
from beginning to end, and who have drawn a conclusion that they 
are not guilty, I, as a scholar, will not offer an opinion, because I have 
not read a transcript from beginning to end. However, I do think 
that the offering of a death sentence in peacetime is unjustified, and 
I do think, to return to an earlier matter, that it is rather typical of a 
situation existing in this country, that the first two people ever to get 
the death sentence in peacetime for this crime happened to be Jewish. 

Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this : You say, to show that the National 
Guardian is not Communist-dominated, that they published an appeal 
for Earl Browder. Was not the Daily Worker itself sympathetic to 
Earl Browder in articles published following his indictment for 
perjury? 

Mr. Mandell. I do not know. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you read the Daily Worker? 

Mr. Mandell. There, indeed, we have to return, although it is very 
unfortunate for a scholar to have to do this — I have, under today's 
circumstances, to return to the fifth amendment and say that I have 
to refuse to answer that question under the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution, which protects me against self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. This is the second time that the witness has brought 
up the word "Jewish." He tries apparently to hold himself out as a 
representative of the Jewish people. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 37 



Mr. Mandell. No, sir- 



The Chairman. Be quiet, now, until I finish. 

Mr. Mandell. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. I think he is not qualified to do that. I think the 
Jewish people is a great race of people. I do not think you represent 
them. I think you do them a great injustice when you come up here 
and try to inject into the scene the fact that you happen to be of that 
great race of people. Each race has its renegades. 

Mr. Mandell. It certainly does. 

The Chairman. Each race has its traitors. 

Mr. Mandell. It certainly does. 

The Chairman. And, as a whole, we have gotten as much if not 
more help from outstanding Jewish people in this fight against com- 
munism than any other race. Let us have that clear. 

Mr. Mandell. You have probably gotten as much opposition from 
Jews as any other race, so we are even on that account, if not more so. 

The Cjiatkman. You were not asked what your race was. You 
came up and volunteered it belligerently. I do not care what race you 
belong to. 

Mr. Mandell. I doubt that, sir. 

The Chairman. I think some of the Jewish people will be very 
much ashamed of the fact that you belong to their race. 

Mr. Mandell. A very small minority, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. You testified that 
you felt our cause in South Korea was unjust. Do you feel the cause 
of the Chinese Communists and the North Koreans is a just cause? 

Mr. Mandell. Exactly as just as it would be for us to invade 
Mexico or Canada if they had come into those countries as we came 
into South Korea. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that the cause of the Chinese Com- 
munists is a just cause? 

Mr. Mandell. I feel it is, but I think the war should be ended where 
we are now, with a complete exchange of all prisoners. Because that 
is what the American people want at the present time. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that the Russian Communist system 
is superior to our system ? 

Mr. Mandell. As I answered earlier, that is something I would be 
happy to give a candid answer to, if I still felt the protection of the 
first amendment to the Constitution. 

But since that no longer applies, I must reply that I will refuse to 
answer under the fifth amendment, which protects me against self- 
incrimination. 

The Chairman. In other words, I understand your answer to be 
that you refuse to tell us whether you consider the Russian Communist 
system superior to ours, on the grounds that if you told us the truth, 
your answer might tend to incriminate you. Is that your answer? 

Mr. Mandell. On the grounds that the Smith Act, which I believe 
to be unconstitutional, might be used against me on that basis. 

The Chairman. If that is your ground, you will be ordered to 
answer. 

Mr. Mandell. In that case, I will answer that it might tend to in- 
criminate me, under the act I have mentioned, which provides for con- 
spiracy to teach things, of all things in the United States. 



38 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. You have quoted from certain newspapers. Do 
you know any Communist Party members on any newspapers ? 

Mr. Mandell. To the best of my knowledge I do not. 

The Chairman. To the best of your knowledge you do not. How 
about this pamphlet that was put out with the flyleaf torn off, printed, 
you say, by the National Guardian. Do you know any Communists 
in that organization ? 

Mr. Mandell. I know a number of the members of the staff, and I 
haven't the vaguest idea as to whether any of them are Communists 
or not. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Have you recently attended 
any Communist Party meetings ? 

Mr. Mandell. I will return, of course, to the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the ground it might in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. Mandell. That is exactly it. 

The Chairman. At those meetings do you and other members of 
the party use your own name, or different names ? 

Mr. Mandell. Here we go again. Fifth amendment, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : Did you ever use a name other 
than your own in a Communist Party meeting ? 

Mr. Mandell. Fifth amendment, same basis. 

The Chairman. Do I understand you tell us that you feel if you 
told the truth and told us whether you used another name at a Com- 
munist Party meeting, that might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Mandell. Exactly. It might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further. 

The Chairman. I think that is all. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Mandell, I have one other question, and that 
is this : Suppose you were a member of this committee, and the juris- 
diction is to examine into the efficacy of the expenditure of funds and 
the efficacy of the operation. Would you regard this as a very im- 
proper exploration if you were up here ? 

Mr. Mandell. If I were a member of this committee, I would re- 
gard it most important to discover how Senator McCarthy saved 170,- 

000 bucks on a $15,000 salary. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, I hope you will be responsive to the ques- 
tion and not indulge in personalities. 

The Chairman. May I say to the witness : Yesterday you threatened 
this committee if we exposed you. If you put on a campaign against 
the committee, you will not put on the campaign within the committee 
room. You can do all the name-calling you want to after you leave. 
One more Communist calling names means nothing. 

Mr. Mandell. Poor Senator McCarthy. You can dish it out, but 
you can't take it. O. K. 

Senator Dirksen. Under the circumstances that I recited, would 
you regard this as an improper exploration by the committee, charged 
as it is, under the rule? 

Mr. Mandell. Will you read me the rule ? I really don't know. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, the committee has a very large jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. Senator Dirksen, may I suggest that I, for one, am 
not here to get the advice of a man who says, "I won't tell the truth. 

1 am afraid to tell the truth about whether I am an espionage agent or 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 39 

am engaged in sabotage," who says the Russian system is better than 
the American system. I don't care to sit here and listen to his advice 
as to how the committee should be run. You may continue if you 
care to. 

Senator Dirksen. I would like to get an answer to this, because 
there has been criticism ventilated in the press, as everybody knows. 

Would you regard this as an improper activity on the part of the 
committee, under the committee rule, the committee being charged 
with this responsibility? 

Mr. Mandell. To the degree that this committee must have the job 
of pressuring librarians to take books out of the files, I would say so. 

Senator Dirksen. How does that help us to deal with the respon- 
sibility with which we are charged? 

Mr. Mandell. That is your responsibility, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. So you take an out on that? 

Mr. Mandell. Yes. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all. 

The Chairman. Step down. 

We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 32 p. m., the hearing was recessed until Wednes- 
day, March 25, 1953, at 10: 30 a. m.) 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROliRAM- 
1NFORMATION CENTERS 



wednesday, march 25, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

of the Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed to 
January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a. m., in room 357 of the Senate Office 
Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, presiding. 

Present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Republican, Wisconsin ; Sen- 
ator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator Stuart Syming- 
ton, Democrat, Missouri. 

Present also: Roy Colin, chief counsel; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel : David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant 
counsel ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Who is your first witness, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. The first witness, Mr. Chairman, is Professor Budenz. 

The Chairman. Mr. Budenz, will you take the stand? Will you 
raise your right hand and be sworn? In this matter now in hearing, 
do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Budenz. I do. 

The Chairman. Before Mr. Budenz testifies, I have an announce- 
ment to make. 

The State Department informs me that within the past week they 
have ordered that all books by Communist authors be removed from 
the United States information centers. I think this is an excellent 
order. It is another example of the attempt by the new team to clean 
up a very sorry situation. 

I believe that we should proceed, however, with the matter of dis- 
closing the number of Communist authors that have been used, and 
who have been responsible for the wide use of Communist authors in 
information centers. We want to find out who is responsible, in Gov- 
ernment, and why. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name, please? 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS FRANCIS BUDENZ 

Mr. Budenz. Louis Francis Budenz. 

Mr. Cohn. Professor Budenz, you are here today following the 
service of a subpena on you compelling you to come and testify. Is 
that correct? 

41 



42 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Which subpena was served in New York last week ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Will you give us your present occupation, please? 

Mr. Budenz. I am a member of the faculty of Fordham University 
and Seton Hall University. 

Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been on the 
faculty of Fordham University ? 

Mr. Budenz. This is my seventh teaching season. 

Mr. Cohn. And you are assistant professor of economics. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Professor Budenz, were you ever a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. From what year until what year? 

Mr. Budenz. From 1935 until 1945. 

Mr. Cohn. At the time you left the Communist Party in 1945, did 
you hold any official positioin in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Cohn. What position was that ? 

Mr. Budenz. I was managing editor of the Daily Worker and 
president of the Freedom of the Press Co., Inc., which controlled the 
Daily Worker for the Communist Party. I was also an alternate mem- 
ber of the national committee at that time. That is just prior to my 
leaving. 

Mr. Cohn. During the 10 years you were in the Communist Party, 
did you hold any other high position in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. I was a member of many commissions, chair- 
man of the publications commission, a member of the national trade- 
union commission, a member of the State committees in Illinois and 
New York. There were a number of commissions that I was a member 
of, and I was also for a number of years a member of the national 
committeee. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt, Mr. Cohn ? 

I think we should have the record very clear that Mr. Budenz has 
been of almost untold value to the FBI and to the Government since 
he has broken with the Communist Party. If it had not been for Mr. 
Budenz' testimony, a sizable number of Communists who have either 
been deported or sent to jail would still be free. 

I think it is a great service you have rendered to this country, Mr. 
Budenz, since you broke with the party. 

Mr. Budenz. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Cohn. As a matter of fact, Mr. Budenz, you were the first and 
the principal witness for the United States Government at the trial 
of the 12 top Communist leaders in New York a few years ago, and 
once again you were the first and principal witness at the trial of 
the 13 second-string Communist leaders who were just convicted 
by a jury in New York a few weeks ago. Is that correct? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. And, as a matter of fact, the indictment 
was passed upon my analysis of the constitution of the Communist 
Party, made for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, though I did 
not know it was to be used for that purpose at that time. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 43 

Mr. Cohn. And you have given, with no compensation, thousands 
of hours of your time to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Is that 
right? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir; very gladly. I consider it the soundest 
agency of the Government. 

Mr. Cohn. I think we all do. 

Now, Professor Budenz, you told us that at the time you left the 
Communist Party in 1945, you were the managing editor of the Daily 
Worker. What is the Daily Worker? 

Mr. Budenz. The Daily Worker is the official daily organ of the 
Communist Party. It is actually the telegraph agency for giving 
directives to the party leaders and subleaders throughout the country. 

Mr. Cohn. And as managing editor, were you the top official of the 
Daily W T orker? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes ; I was, except that I had to be responsible to the 
Politburo ; that is the governing bureau of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Cohn. They would issue instructions controlling the party 
press. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. Definitely. Every day. 

Mr. Cohn. When you were editor of the Daily Worker, were you 
free to print whatever you wanted to print, or did you have to con- 
form to some kind of policy ? 

Mr. Budenz. You have to conform very rigidly, as a matter of fact, 
to a policy set down by the Politburo, which, of course, was always 
in conformity to the policies of Moscow. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, you were a member of the party for 10 years, and 
you held very high office in the Communist Party. Did the Commu- 
nist Party teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States 
Government by force and violence? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. That is the basis of the Communist Party, 
as Stalin says in The Foundations of Leninism, "The Communist 
Party is the instrument for the bringing about the dictatorship of 
the proletariat." And the dictatorship of the proletariat can only 
be brought about, said Lenin and Stalin, by the violent shattering 
and smashing of all non-Communist governments, including specif- 
ically the Government of the United States. As a matter of fact, so 
much is it the task of the Communist Party to bring about this violent 
smashing and the dictatorship of the proletariat that Stalin tells us 
that when the party has completed that task, then the party disappears 
into the classless society, the earthly paradise which the Communists 
promise following the dictatorship. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Professor Budenz, we asked you to come down 
here today because the committee is now investigating the informa- 
tion program of the United States State Department, and part of 
that information program included some over 150 information centers 
throughout the world which contain libraries, which libraries contain 
a selection of books, the purpose of which is to give people throughout 
the world a true picture of the American way of life, and "to advance," 
quoting from the official statement of the head operating agency of 
the State Department,' "the ideas of America in the struggles against 
communism." 

I will ask you this question, Professor Budenz : Have you, at the 
request of the committee, examined a partial list of some authors whose 
books we have been advised by the Library of Congress are currently 
being used by the State Department in its information program? 



44 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, I have gone over that list. 

Mr. Cohn. On that list, did you find any authors who were known 
to you as Communists ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Cohn. Approximately how many? 

Mr. Budenz. At least 75 ; and 4 that had very close connections with 
the Communist Party. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt, Mr. Cohn ? 

I think the record should be very clear that, as far as we know, none 
of these books have been purchased since Dr. Johnson has taken over 
in the information program. 

Mr. Cohn. We have been assured in writing, Mr. Chairman, that 
Dr. Johnson and the current group there have refused to authorize 
the use of any books by Communists in the State Department informa- 
tion program to tell the truth about the American way of life and to 
fight communism. 

You say on this preliminary list we gave you, which is far from 
complete, you found 75 persons you know to be Communists. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Professor Budenz, I might ask you this : During 
the period of time you were in the Communist Party and served on its 
commissions and held high office in it, did you acquire any knowledge 
concerning the use to which the Communist Party put those of its 
members who were authors of books ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes. The Communists consider books a very vital 
part of psychological warfare, as we now call it. They under- 
stand that if they can poison the wells of public opinion by any means, 
and they seek to infiltrate every channel of public-opinion-making, 
they can gain great headway, making people in the country they wish 
to undermine think as the Kremlin wants them to think. 

Now, books are a very important weapon in this campaign. They 
need not necessarily always be Communist in character, because the 
prestige of the author also counts. If an author, for example, is put 
in a high-school library in the United States, we will say, the Com- 
munists count on his name becoming an authority among the students. 
Therefore, when he says that he will not fight the Communist Chinese 
if ordered by the United States Government, that has its effect upon 
those pupils and students who have looked up to him as an authority. 

Mr. Cohn. Did the Communist Party, to your knowledge, attempt 
to exercise any control over those of its members who were authors of 
books? 

Mr. Budenz. Definitely. They exercised a very strict control over 
those authors. As a matter of fact, they keep someone constantly — 
that is, a functionary, as they call them — in touch with these people. 

Mr. Cohn. And what were the duties of that functionary? 

Mr. Budenz. That functionary is to see that this person, under 
directives of the party, follows out the Communist line in accordance 
with the particular area or field in which he is operating. He may be a 
fiction writer. There he will have to introduce, when he can, Marxism- 
Leninism, but there are certain aspects of writing where you can't do 
that, really. But in that case he will have to be a member of a Com- 
munist front, lend himself to Communist causes, or give large sums 
of mone3 r to the Communist Party. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 45 

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear any discussion within the Communist 
Party concerning the desirability of placing- books in places under the 
sponsorship of the United States Government? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes ; I did. I don't recall definite directives on that 
matter, but I know the whole question of placing books, by the Gov- 
ernment, in the schools, abroad, and at home, was discussed. And not 
only discussed but was considered an important item in Communist 
activity. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this: We had some testimony here 
yesterday concerning a firm known as International Publishers, and '2 
or 3 of the books in current use in the State Department information 
program were published by International Publishers. Do you know 
what the firm of International Publishers is? 

Mr. Budenz. Very decidedly. The firm of International Publishers 
is one of the two large publishing houses of the Communist Party in 
this country. It is directly linked up to Moscow through Alexander 
Trachtenberg, who publishes all the translations of the Marxist- 
Leninist classics. These Marxist-Leninist classics, incidentally, have 
to be approved by Moscow before Trachtenberg can publish them. I 
know that of my own knowledge. 

Mr. Cohn. You mean there was a direct liaison between the Com- 
munist Party of the United States and Moscow regarding the content 
of these books ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct, between Alexander Trachtenberg, 
head of the International Publishers, and the Marx-Engel-s-Lenin In- 
stitute in Moscow, which censors or, rather, approves of the books that 
can be published, and the translations as they are produced in each 
country. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? 

Has counsel subpenaed the books of International Publishers? 

Mr. Cohn. That is in process, Mr. Chairman. I think that will be 
done. 

Now. where was International Publishers located. Professor 
Budenz ? 

Mr. Budenz. It was located up in mid-Manhattan on Fourth Ave- 
nue, I believe. 1 have been up there very frequently. I just don't 
remember the number any more. 

Mr. Cohn. Yesterday we received in evidence some books by a man 
named James S. Allen, one of which I recall was published by the 
firm of International Publishers, which you have identified as an 
official party publishing house. 

Mr. Allen refused to state before this committee whether or not 
he was a member of the Communist Party. 

Do you know whether or not Mr. Allen was a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. 1 know Mr. Allen, or, rather I knew him. 
very well. He was not only a member of the Communist Party but 
a very important functionary. At one time he was the Communist 
International representative to the Philippines. And he has told 
me, in reviewing that work, how he organized anti-American demon- 
strations in the Philippines and other demonstrations designed to 
drive the United States out of the Pacific. He has done much more 
than that, though. He was foreign editor of the Daily Worker 

83616— 53— pt. 1 4 



46 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

while I was managing editor ; and, of course, I came in daily contact 
with him then. And then he became special foreign adviser to the 
Daily Worker, especially for its Sunday issue. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt ? 

Mr. Budenz, Mr. Allen, when testifying before the committee, 
stated under oath that he had no knowledge whatsoever that the 
Communist Party of the United States had any connection with the 
headquarters in Moscow. Do you know, from your personal knowl- 
edge, whether that was true or false ? 

Mr. Budenz. That was utterly false. The Communist Party is 
always controlled by a representative sent in here by Moscow, and 
it dare not move without following the directives which come from 
Moscow, first through the various organs that are sent in here, like 
the Cominform organ now, and the New Times, and then by this 
political shorthand, as I call it, the immediate day-by-day or week- 
by-week interpretation given by the Communist International repre- 
sentative, who was Gerhart Eisler while I was in the party, assisted 
by J. Peters. He was assisted by J. Peters. 

The Chairman. Would there be any doubt in your mind that a 
man as high in the party as Allen would know about that? 

Mr. Budenz. Mr. Allen was in touch with Mr. Eisler, has con- 
ferred with many underground agents of the Communist Party, in- 
cluding Lombardo Toledano of Mexico ; and, as a matter of fact, he 
is himself an important link with the Communist underground for 
abroad. 

The Chairman. I ask these questions in connection with the deci- 
sion which the committee will have to make in regard to whether or 
not the Allen testimony should be referred to the Justice Department, 

I understand your testimony to be that, in your mind, there can be 
no doubt but what Allen knew of the hookup with Moscow, the 
direction the party got from there? There can be no doubt about 
that? 

Mr. Budenz. The audacity of the Communists in this respect as 
revealed by Mr. Allen, is almost laughable, if it were not so tragic to 
America. As a matter of fact, he was the Communist International 
representative to the Philippines, and thereby knew directly, from 
his own activities, of the Moscow direction of all Communist Inter- 
national activities. 

Senator McClellan. Would you say that he got instructions and 
directions direct from Moscow himself? 

Mr. Budenz. Oh, decidedly, when he was Communist Interna- 
tional representative. I don't know that, you understand; but that 
is the way Communist International representatives operate. That 
is their purpose. 

Senator McClellan. Well, the position he occupied, from your ex- 
perience and knowledge of the Communist apparatus — you would 
say he is bound to have gotten his instructions from Moscow ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. There can be no doubt about it 
when one knows the practices of the international Communist 
apparatus. 

The Chairman. I am inclined to think that the Allen testimony 
should be referred to the Justice Department. 

We can check that from the standpoint of perjury. There is no 
doubt that perjury was committed. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 47 

The question is: Was the testimony of such a nature that there 
could be an indictment ? 

Mr. Cohn, before we go any further, Mr. William Z. Foster was sub- 
penaed to appear. His lawyer appeared. I wish you would have 
the record complete in regard to Foster. 

Mr. Cohn. We were advised from examination of the files of the 
Library *of Congress that the State Department information program 
had in its information centers a book by William Z. Foster, entitled, 
"Pages From a Worker's Life." Mr. Foster was subpenaed to ap- 
pear before the committee, and his counsel, Mrs. Mary Kaufman, ap- 
peared and stated that Mr. Foster was too ill to respond to the sub- 
pena, at which point the Chair directed that written interrogatories 
be submitted to Mr. Foster, and that he be required to answer those. 

The Chairman. Have you been able to determine yet the number 
of Foster's books that were used ? 

Mr. Cohn. That has not been determined. We have a copy of the 
book, and we know it is in use. We don't know the exact number. 

The Chairman. Will you have Mr. Budenz identify Mr. Foster ? 

Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named William Z. Foster ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir ; I knew him for many years and I knew him 
very well. 

Mr. Cohn. Was William Z. Foster a Communist ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes. He was a Communist for many years. And, 
as a matter of fact, he was national chairman of the Communist Party. 
And, as a matter of fact, likewise for a time, he was even general sec- 
retary prior to that. He has been a leading Communist for about 
30 years. 

Mr. Cohn. Is he national chairman of the Communist Party today? 

Mr. Budenz. He is national chairman today. That is, I do not 
know that of my own knowledge ; I know that by public repute. But 
he was national chairman when I was in the Communist Party and 
when I left it. 

Mr. Cohn. Would that make him in position the No. 1 Communist 
of the United States? 

Mr. Budenz. It makes him the No. 1 Communist today, because 
the general secretaryship is very obscure now, with a large part of the 
party underground, and Foster undoubtedly is the outstanding open 
leader of the party in this country at the moment. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, we had before us yesterday a man named Earl 
Browder, 2 of whose books, or 3 of whose books were in use. Of 
course, you knew Earl Browder, did you not? 

Mr. Budenz. I knew Browder very well for many years, even be- 
fore I was a Communist. 

Mr. Cohn. Was Mr. Browder Foster's predecessor as the No. 1 
open Communist in the United States? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes. sir. Mr. Browder was general secretary of the 
Communist Party for a considerable number of years, was always 
closely associated with the Soviet secret police, and to my own knowl- 
edge, in addition to that — and, of course, he made many trips abroad 
on behalf of the party, going to Moscow to receive directives, and the 
like. 

The Chairman. Mr. Budenz, can you think of any reason why those 
in the Information Service would purchase the books of well-known 



48 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Communists, men like Browder and Foster, and others, and place them 
throughout the world in our libraries, in order to, as they say, fight 
communism ? 

Mr. Budenz. No ; that is totally unknown to me, as to how this could 
come about, save that there was the advice of some concealed Com- 
munist at work in this respect. I can't conceive of it otherwise. 

The Chairman. In other words, you feel that that must have been 
the work of a Communist ; otherwise it would not have been done ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is right ; a concealed Communist must have at 
least given advice. I don't say that the administrative officer in charge 
was such, or anyone like that, but certainly someone along the line was 
a concealed Communist, to give advice of that character. None of 
these books would be there. I don't care what their number is. Be- 
cause they openly advocate, in many instances, the overthrow of the 
Government of the United States, or lend their aid to that- cause, to 
Marxism-Leninism, which is, in its very heart, the violent overthrow 
of the Government of the United States on behalf of the Soviet 
dictatorship. 

The Chairman. Mr. Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Professor, you mentioned, when you men- 
tioned Foster, that he was the leading known Communist. Did that 
mean that many of the prominent Communists are underground? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Not known as Communists ? 

Mr. Budenz. It is very clear today, from an analysis of the Com- 
munist activity, that the Politburo, or national board, which, in the 
constitution, no longer exists, is functioning underground, and be- 
cause of the manner in which the party is conducting itself. 

Senator Symington. Well, now, we have had several, if not quite a 
few, witnesses who have been willing to state that they were not Com- 
munists now, but refused to answer as to whether or not they had 
been Communists, say, before 1950. 

You would believe that those people were still members of the Com- 
munist Party but had turned their cards in and said they were not 
now, in order to maintain their position in the conspiracy? Or do 
you think that as a group they are sincere in having left the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Budenz. I would say the very fact that they refused to testify 
as to whether or not they were members of the Communist Party in 
1950 indicates that they made an arrangement with the Communist 
Party for technical resignation. Since 1949, no Communist has a 
vestige of membership permitted to him. That was the same practice 
used during the Hitler-Stalin pact period. Though no Communist 
had any vestige of membership connected with him whatsoever and 
could very easily, if he wished to perjure himself, swear he was not a 
Communist, technically he could even say that he wasn't. And these 
arrangements are made all the time. 

I know of foreign Communists coming here that technically resign 
in order that they won't be deported. I could give you a certain strik- 
ing example if it were necessary, but I think it is not. 

Senator Symington. One more question. If that is true, does not 
that constitute a serious danger to the security of the United States, 
in your opinion? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 49 

Mr. Budexz. It does. As a matter of fact, the concealed Commu- 
nists are one of the greatest dangers and problems to this democracy, 
because they endanger security by the fact that they may influence 
thousands of people under the appearance of not being Communists. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. May we pursue this line of questioning just 
a little further? 

These people who come in here and consistently take refuge under 
the fifth amendment in declining to answer questions propounded to 
them with relation to their connection with the Communist Party, and 
with general activities that are supported by the Communist Party: 
"Would you say that is a general pattern that is being followed by those 
who are Communists, though they may not now be card-carrying 
members; and that in taking that position they are carrying out 
instructions and directions from Communists in Russia or the Com- 
munist Moscow leadership ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. That is a pattern which I know from 
experience within the Communist Party was pursued not in that 
fashion but in other fashions during the Hitler-Stalin pact period to 
deny membership. And, as a matter of fact, it has been a common 
custom of a concealed Communist to deny membership for purposes 
of deceit. There are two types of Communists, those who, when they 
were in key positions joined the party, and they never did have any 
vestige of membership, as a rule. They can get up on the witness 
stand and even swear they never were Communists. 

Then there is the Communist who was a Communist when he was 
obscure, in a lesser category of activity, and when he rises to a key 
position, then he pleads this privilege. And this double tactic is being 
used at the present time. 

Senator McClellan. In view of your experience as a member of 
the Communist Party, referring now to those who take the position, 
on the witness stand, and frequently admit that in their judgment 
the Socialist system in Russia is superior to the system in the United 
States, would you say whether they are card-carrying members, or not, 
they are actually Communists at heart? 

Mr. Budenz. Senator, I think you have posed a very excellent 
question, because today the question before the American Nation is 
not to find out specifically who is a Communist, although, for legal 
purposes, of course, that is sometimes necessary ; but the great ques- 
tion is : Does the activity of this man or woman lend itself to aiding 
the enemy of the United States, which is Soviet Russia? And then, 
if that is the case, they are not entitled to be in positions of trust. 

Senator McClellan. That is the real test. 

Mr. Budenz. That is the real test. 

Senator McClellan. The question as to whether a man is a Com- 
munist or not is not necessarily one of whether he is a member of the 
party and recognized as such in the part, but it is the philosophy 
that he advocates? 

Mr. Budenz. It is the philosophy and the record. And the records 
of these people are generally well known. There are bulky dossiers 
on these people in almost every congressional office where there have 
been committees in existence. And many of these people have been 
known for vears. 



50 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. So that is not decisive factor, whether they 
are now members or have had membership in the Communist Party ? 
The real test is the philosophy that they advocate ? 

Mr. Budenz. The philosophy and the record which they establish. 
Because the two always go together. As Marx says, "Our theory is 
not a dogma but a guide to action." And their philosophy will always 
lead to action against the Government of the United States in one 
form or another. 

Senator McClellan. In other words, these books that have been the 
subject of inquiry now would be a pretty good record by which to 
judge? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. In other words, if they publish books that are 
completely, in their terms and provisions, derogatory to the American 
system and favorable to the system that prevails in Russia, that is a 
very reliable test of whether they are really Communists or Commu- 
nist sympathizers, and whether they are real loyal Americans ? 

Mr. Budenz. Most decidely, because that is a very important factor, 
as I have stated, in what we now call psychological warfare on the 
part of Soviet Russia. It has understood, shrewdly, for years, that it 
must penetrate in one way or another all policy-making bodies in order 
to mold the minds of the people, in this country or that, which they 
wish to undermine, according to the desires of the Kremlin. 

Senator McClellan. These media of books and documents that are 
made available in public libraries are sources of propaganda that the 
Communists in Russia regard highly as being effective ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. And we use taxpayers' money to supply these 
books to libraries supported and maintained by this Government, when 
they are actually aiding the enemy in so doing, are we not ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, Senator. As I understand it these are not 
books that are going to be quoted, such as Stalin's works, in order to 
hurl them against him. In that case, of course, it would be very 
valuable to use his own works, as I have tried to do today, but these 
are books by American Communists, concealed or otherwise, sup- 
posedly, as I understand, representing American opinion. Is that not 
correct? 

Senator McClellan. Well, the verv fact that we buy them with 
taxpayers' money and place them in a library maintained by the Gov- 
ernment lends credence to their value. 

Mr. Budenz. Yes. Well, I would say, then, that this is a method of 
breeding communism throughout the world. 

Senator McClellan. It is certainly not a weapon to fight com- 
munism, is it ? 

Mr. Budenz. It is not. It is breeding communism. It is encourag- 
ing communism. I think we cannot escape that conclusion. 

Senator Symington. Professor, you once were a Communist, and 
then you renounced that faith. Have you ever written any books since 
you did renounce it ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, I have. 

Senator Symington. Do you happen to know whether the renuncia- 
tion as you expressed it in those books — and I am only asking for 
information — has been used by our Government in the libraries? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 51 

Mr. Budenz. That I do not know. I do not know, one way or an- 
other. 

Senator Symington. It might be interesting. 

The Chairman. We will have counsel check that. 

Senator Symington. One other question, for my own information. 
Because of your experience in the field— and if it is out of order, please 
do not answer it — but I was just wondering what you thought the 
result to the Soviet system would be from the death of Stalin and the 
rise of Malenkov? 

Mr. Budenz. I think there will be no change whatsoever, because 
of the fact that communism is bigger than a man, even though they 
have made a god out of him, with feet of clay. That is to say, com- 
munism is a philosophy, it is a world outlook which is determined to 
prove that God does not exist. That is its fundamental thesis, as 
issued by Marx, Lenin, Engels, and Stalin: to prove that God does 
not exist by establishing an earthly paradise for the animal man, the 
classless society or communism. But before you can get this class- 
less society or communism, you must wade through oceans of blood, 
they declare, to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which can only be 
led by this select few, this ruling caste, the vanguard, the Commu- 
nist Party. Those who have been chosen out of the ages because of 
their knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, to be the ones who think and 
act for the masses; not taking the masses into their confidence, but 
thinking and acting for them. 

Now, with that sort of a philosophy, there is a fanaticism in com- 
munism which goes beyond one individual. And I am sure we are 
going to see Malenkov continue Stalin's policies, of course, using tac- 
tics, as Stalin would, in accordance with what the needs of the hour 
are. And what gives me that idea, if I may add this, is that in his 
report to the 19th party congress in October, which is now being dis- 
tributed by the thousands of copies, by the Communists in this country, 
Malenkov has entitled that report: "On the Threshold of Commu- 
nism," which means on the threshold of this earthly paradise. Though, 
when you look inside, he says : "It is going to be a gradual transition." 
But his slogan is: "Onward to communism." In other words, he is 
inspiring the Communists that out of this dictatorship, which every- 
one can see is a tremendous world of slavery, there will emerge this 
era of complete nonrestraint, the earthly paradise or classless society 
which they promise at the end of the road. That will not be affected 
by the death of Stalin. 

Senator Symington. Now, I have a few more questions I would like 
to ask. 

In a weekly magazine recently it was purported that Mr. Churchill 
had stated that he asked Stalin how many people he had to kill in his 
efforts against the kulaks, and his answer was: "Ten million people, 
and it took 4 years. It was awful." 

Would you care to comment as to whether or not you think that 
was correct, or what you know about it? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, it is a known fact that millions were killed and, 
of course, to the Communist, human beings are expendable, because 
they are aiming for this world Soviet dictatorship and claim that 
nothing good will be accomplished until you get the world Soviet dic- 
tatorship, and then they get this classless society. If anyone has that 
view, they will consider that human beings are expendable. 



52 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Symington. Well, would you think it would be fair to use 
the word "murdered," instead of "killed"? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, it was organized murder. There is no doubt 
about it. 

Senator Symington. Organized murder. 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

Senator Symington. One other question. My interest in this ques- 
tion of Soviet power has been primarily in the defense field. I know 
that as late as since VJ-day, Stalin said that communism and capital- 
ism could not live in the same world together. That always impressed 
me — as his books have always impressed me with their sincerity. I 
felt he was sincere in that, and that is why I thought it was important 
to have adequate national defense. Do you still think even though 
Stalin has died all the leaders of the Communists believe that capi- 
talism and communism cannot live on the same planet together? 

Mr. Budenz. That is their basic thesis. That is the basis of the 
Marxist-Leninist classics they distribute by the thousands and study 
by the midnight oil — State and Eevolution by Lenin, and Stalin's 
Foundations of Leninism, which are being published right at this 
moment by the International Publishers and the other publishing 
houses of the Communist Party and distributed by the thousands. 
That is the basic premise of those two works along with many others. 
That is what makes communism : its determination to establish by 
violence the Soviet dictatorship in every country of the world. 

Senator Symington. One more question, then. 

Do you not agree, if that is true, that it is important for us to have 
adequate national security even if it means that we must lessen our 
standard of living, reduce our standard of living? 

Mr. Budenz. I don't think that is necessary in this tremendously 
fruitful land. I think that America doesn't realize its productive 
capacities; and I think that is not necessary, just offhand. 

Senator Symington. Offhand you think that we can — I understand 
we already have, a lot of it — butter and guns, too ? 

Mr. Budenz. In the United States of America, yes, with the in- 
genuity of the American Nation. 

Senator Symington. Have you read the testimony of General Van 
Fleet. 

Mr. Budenz. No ; I have not. 

The Chairman. Mr. Budenz, there has been a tremendous hue and 
cry raised since the Jenner committee has commenced to expose 
Communist teachers and professors. They cry that they are impair- 
ing academic freedom. 

As a former top man of the Communist Party, would you say that 
there is any freedom of thought, any freedom of action, on the part 
of those Communist teachers? 

Mr. Budenz. The only way to defend academic freedom is to get 
rid of the Communists in all our educational systems. Because they 
will destroy academic freedom immediately by their activities, and, 
secondly, in the long run, if they get control of the education system. 
The Communist goes into the school system under directives. As a 
matter of fact, there are many printed documents to that effect issued 
by the Communist Party. He goes under printed directives. He 
must follow the Communist Party line. He is not supposed to expose 
himself, incidentally, Senator, and he doesn't have to teach com- 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 53 

munism openly in the classroom, if that will cause him to be expelled. 
But he does it covertly, indirectly, subtly. And in that way he finds 
out those pupils who are most suspectible and cultivates them person- 
ally, finds out those colleagues on the teaching staff who are most 
susceptible and cultivates them personally. 

By the way, there is a directive on that in the November 1950 Polit- 
ical Affairs, the official theoretical organ of the Communist Party, 
teaching how to infiltrate organizations without becoming exposed, 
and yet forwarding the Communist cause. They go in, though, with- 
out any freedom whatsoever. They surrender their freedom to Stalin. 
They have no purpose but to do what they can to destroy the Govern- 
ment of the United States. That is their 'basic Marxist-Leninist phil- 
osophy. 

The Chairman. Now, while you were a top member of the Com- 
munist Party and editor of the Daily Worker, did you also have the 
task of attempting to infiltrate the newspapers throughout the coun- 
try with Communists? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes; I did. I was chairman of the publications com- 
mittee for several years, and it had charge of Communist publications, 
but also of the publication field in general. 

The Chairman. I understand you have already given the FBI a list 
of writers and radio commentators known to you as members of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Budenz. A substantial list. That list has never been com- 
pleted, because of physical limitations. And in each case, I have in- 
tended to show how I knew it, which is quite a colossal undertaking. 
However, it is a substantial list. In the newspaper field, it is not so 
substantial, because oddly enough, while I supervised that, we got 
reports largely by numbers and by units and the individual was not 
so important as in some other cases, where I had to know how a person 
stood in order to treat him in the Daily Worker. 

The Chairman. In other words it was necessary for you to know 
which particular writers or radio commentators were Communists so 
that you would know Iioav to treat their work in the Communist Daily 
Worker ? 

Mr. Budenz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I understand you have also given the House Un- 
American Activities Committee a partial list of those Communists. 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir; I have. I gave them as much as I was able 
to get together. It corresponds largely to the list given to the FBI, 
with the exception of about 75 or 100 names which I had gone over 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation before, before that list was 
compiled. 

The Chairman. Would you care to explain to us why the Com- 
munist Party considered it so important to infiltrate the newspapers 
and radio, and what the function of the members in the radio and 
newspapers happened to be ? 

Mr. Budenz. The Communist Party endeavors to infiltrate every 
agency of public opinion, and they endeavor particularly to infiltrate 
bottlenecks of public opinion. They therefore considered any agency 
that would be able to affect the minds of others of importance. And 
their infiltration was on that basis. As a matter of fact, they con- 
sidered the newspaper field so important that for a while they had 
control of the American Newspaper Guild. Fortunately, that condi- 



54 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

lion has ceased, and they have been defeated there. But that, in the 
beginning, was the situation. And it was due to their interest in 
affecting agencies of public opinion. This does not mean that in each 
agency they were as effective as in others, but they did infiltrate in all 
of them. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. In response to Senator McClellan's questions to you, 
I might say we have been advised by the State Department that the 
purpose of these information centers which contained these books is 
"to advance the ideas of America in the struggles against communism 
and to reflect American objectives, values, and the nature of American 
institutions and life." 

Now, can you conceive of books by Earl Browder, written when he 
was the No. 1 Communist in the United States, or by William Z. 
Foster, now the No. 1 Communist in the United States, furthering the 
aim of giving a true picture of American objectives and fighting com- 
munism ? 

Mr. Budenz. Certainly not. Quite the contrary. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, you have told us that you have made a partial 
examination of the list of authors being used by the State Depart- 
ment in these information centers, and that you have found some 75 
authors whose works are in use, who were known to you as Com- 
munists. Can you conceive of the works of any of these people giving 
a true picture of the American way of life or helping to fight or 
expose communism ? 

Mr. Budenz. No; I cannot. As a matter of fact, most of those 
persons I dealt with personally over quite a period of time, and I 
know them as veteran Communists. 

Mr. Cohn. What was their obligation, as members of the Commu- 
nist Party and as authors? 

Mr. Budenz. Their obligation as members of the Communist Party 
and as authors was, within the limitations of their field of activity, to 
forward the Communist cause in whatever manner possible. That is 
to say, if they could not embody it always in their books, they would 
have to embody it in contributing heavily to the Communist Party, 
and joining Communist fronts, in lending the prestige of their name 
to the line that the Kremlin wanted advanced at any particular mo- 
ment. 

However, in most instances, they did incorporate pre-Communist 
thought into their writings. They were supposed to do that, if they 
possibly could do so, within the limitations of the area in which 
they were working. 

Mr. Cohn. I assume when Mr. Foster says, in this book, which was 
in use in one of the State Department information centers — 

But the revolution eventually catches up with and destroys the slanders of 
Its enemies. The accomplishments of the Soviet Government are so huge and 
unmistakable that all the world is being compelled to recognize that the new 
socialist system is a success. The Socialist sun is in the ascendant, and more 
and more the Soviet Union is becoming the beacon light of hope to the oppressed 
toilers of the earth — 

That can hardly be said to give a true picture of American life or 
aid us in the fight against communism. 

Mr. Budenz. No. As a matter of fact, anything Foster would write 
would be in the same tone and to the same effect. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 55 

Mr. Cohn. Now. what was the policy of the Communist Party inso- 
far as use of these books in things like information centers throughout 
the world was concerned, from your experience, under the sponsorship 
of the State Department ? 

Mr. Budenz. I know about the discussions in the party, and I know 
that there were discussions about use of the Government agencies for 
getting out Communist ideas. 

Perhaps I can illustrate this best by the use of the books within the 
United States, which I helped to direct, and that is the placing of 
books in the libraries of our high schools and colleges. That was a 
specific responsibility for the purpose of, first, getting out the ideas 
of the authors to the students, making them required reading when- 
ever possible, and then, secondly, using the prestige of the author so 
that when he engaged in any activity such as a pro-Communist cause, 
these people who had read his book would look up to him as an 
authority. We can see that in a somewhat similar manner this could 
be the use of this abroad. 

Mr. Coiin. And I can see that you can see no excuse whatsoever for 
those who were responsible for doing that, and we ought to make it 
quite clear that the new team in the State Department has ordered this 
practice stopped. You can see no excuse whatsoever for the use of 
books by some 75 or more Communist authors as part of a program to 
tell the truth about our way of life and to fight communism? 

Mr. Budenz. No, sir. I think it is encouraging to note that the 
pledge has been made that they will be removed. This, as I stated 
before, is entirely different from using the current line of the party 
and subjecting it to critical and devastating analysis; to using the 
statements of Malenkov and having them also subject to this analysis. 
But, as a matter of fact, I think experience will show that those who 
endeavor to get these books into these information centers were pre- 
cisely those who were not eager to devastate any statements by Soviet 
leaders or subleaders. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, just about my last question to you is this: I have 
asked you about several people. We have a witness here this morning 
named Lawrence K. Rosinger. Did you hear anything about Law- 
rence K. Rosinger when you were an official of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir; frequently. He is one of those on the list 
whom I did not know personalty, but from official communications 
which I was given in order to direct my work as managing editor of 
the Daily Worker, I was definitely informed, on a number of occasions, 
that Lawrence K. Rosinger was a member of the Communist Party 
under Communist discipline. 

Mr. Cohn. I see. I have no further questions, Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan (presiding). Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. Professor, I would like to ask one more 
question. 

Regardless of whether we have enough defense, would it not be a 
fair surmise that the greatest thing that could happen for the Soviet 
imperialism and the satellite countries would be for America to find 
itself with such an inadequate defense that they would be willing to 
risk attacking it, from a military standpoint? 

Mr. Budenz. Oh, I think we must have very adequate defense. 
That is essential. But I think also, if you will pardon me, it is very 
essential that we have internal security. Because we may have all 



56 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

the arms in the world, and if we do not have correct policy to follow 
them out, particularly since the Soviet dictatorship engages itself so 
in psychological warfare, then we will more or less squander our great 
armaments. The two things march hand in hand. 

Senator Symington. Well, there have been what have been termed 
"peace feelers" recently, and there have been those before. If we do 
not arm ourselves properly, is that not, in effect, playing into the 
hands of the Kremlin ? 

Mr. Budenz. Oh, yes. I think we must arm ourselves, decidedly. 
And then, along with armament, we must maintain our own internal 
security and protect our morale and have those firm policies which 
will make our armament also worthwhile. 

Senator Symington. Well, when you say "internal security," you 
are not implying that if we do arm ourselves adequately we cannot 
have internal security? 

Mr. Btjdenz. Oh, no. I am trying to cover the whole picture. 

Senator Symington. I agree with you. We should have internal 
security, of course. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Budenz, I want to ask you somewhat of a 
hypothetical question, in view of the fact that you were a member of 
the Communist Party for many years in a very high position, a re- 
sponsible position, in the party, and at that time you were very active 
in promoting the party's program in this country, and subsequently 
you renounced communism, and since then, so far as I know and have 
observed, you have been very active in opposing communism and re- 
pudiating it and have been cooperative with congressional commit- 
tees and others who are performing a service to this country and to the 
Government. And I have in mind a specific case that is before this 
commitee, and that is one who is now in a high Government position, 
who denies ever having been a member of the Communist Party, but 
who has written a book that is very derogatory to the American 
philosophy of government, and tended, in its implications at least, 
in strong implications, to support the Communist theory of govern- 
ment. I want to ask you this question : What has been your observa- 
tion, as well as your own experience, which we know, as to one who has 
been a Communist and a Communist sympathizer and subscriber to 
the Communist ideology and philosophy, once he becomes convinced 
he has been wrong, that he has made a mistake? What has been your 
observation of the attitude of those persons afterward? Are they 
cooperative? And are they willing not only to renounce it but to try 
to undo the errors of their past? 

Assuming one had written a book such as I have referred to, would 
he be inclined thereafter, when he truly repented or felt that he 
wanted to repudiate communism, to be just as active in trying to 
write a book or other articles to repudiate what he had previously 
said? 

I think you get from that what I am driving at, 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, I don't know the case you have in mind. But I 
would say this, in a general way, which would apply to that or any 
other case. No ex-Communist can be accepted as having left the 
Communist conspiracy unless he proves by his deeds that he has done 
so. And what does that mean? That he cooperates fully with the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; that he cooperates with congres- 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 57 

sional committees when subpenaed. Of course, sometimes you try to 
get out of the subpenas if you can, because it is rather burdensome to 
appear over and over again. But I mean to say one who responds, 
and responds to the best of his ability ; who also employs his activity 
in endeavoring to make amends for the thing he has done in the past. 

Now, of course, some of the people are limited. I think some of the 
people in Hollywood who have made their statements, made them to 
the best of their ability, because they were within a limited group. 
We have to take each person as he was. But he must make some act, 
do some deed, not only some but many. Because a man who has been 
a Communist has committed grave offenses against this American 
Republic. If he doesn't understand that, he hasn't got rid of his 
Communist hangover. And that compels a man, even in the face of 
smears and attacks, which the Communists can organize through 
non-Communists, to do all he can to make up for his offenses of the 
past. That is the test of the ex-Communist. 

Senator McCeellan. In other words, you would not accept repent- 
ance, professed repentance and reform, without actions that conform 
to opposition? 

Mr. Budenz. Most decidedly not. The only way to judge a man 
is by his deeds. And the Communist has performed such activities 
against this Republic on behalf of the Soviet dictatorship that he must 
throughout the rest of his life remind himself that he has to make 
amends. And, of course, as I say, it depends on what area you were 
active in. Some men can do it in a larger way than others, because 
they have more information or have had more responsibility. But 
that is the method. Because there have been 700,000 who have osten- 
sibly left the Communist movement in the last several decades, and 
many of them have not ceased to be Communists. They just couldn't 
stand the tasks which the party members had to carry out day by 
day. But they remain ideologically Communists and frequently 
cooperate with the party. 

Senator McCleelan. Thank you very much. 

Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Coiin. I have just one more thing. 

Professor Budenz, as a final question, I think it would be of great 
interest to the committee if you told us briefly why you left the Com- 
munist Party in 1945. 

Mr. Budenz. Well, I will have to be very brief on that. I left the 
Communist Party because of a series of events, and also a series of 
considerations on my part. 

One does not leave the Communist conspiracy just overnight. It 
is a matter of thinking the thing through. Because you have been 
imbedded with a philosophy, a world outlook. And I want to stress 
that very much. That is not generally appreciated: that the Com- 
munists mean to change the world on the basis that there is no God. 
And that gives them a world outlook. 

Now, first of all, the first shock I got was in 1943, when the Poles 
were permitted by Stalin in part to come out of the concentration 
camps in Russia. He let them do that in the hope that some of them 
would fight for Soviet Russia, after he had imprisoned them in his 
arrangement with Hitler. The Poles told about these concentration 
camps, the slave-labor camps. I wanted the Communists to answer. 



58 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

And we received directives from Moscow not to answer, to let the 
people forget it, that it would be forgotten in time. And every Com- 
munist understands — he has to have a sixth sense — such a directive. 
That meant that this slave-labor system was extending and becoming 
an integral part of the Communist economy. But still I could not 
give up my Communist views. As a matter of fact, not until I found 
myself a complete puppet of Stalin's, and recognized it, that every 
thought, action, and deed could only be considered moral as the 
Kremlin dictated it, did I arouse myself to the extent of liberating 
myself from such intellectual and spiritual slavery — and physical 
slavery, eventually physical slavery. 

So I returned to the morality of my youth, the Roman Catholic 
Church. It took some soul struggling to do it. I would like to say 
one thing here, because the ex-Communists have been so maligned on 
the grounds that they rushed forward to testify, which is untrue. I 
think everyone here knows that each ex-Communist who comes on the 
witness stand endeavors not to testify, because of many considerations. 
But they will do it if they feel the Government feels it is their 
responsibility. 

I would like to point out here that the Communist hangover was 
so great, even after I knew the evil of communism, even after I had 
left the Communist Party, that for 3 or 4 months I refused to see the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, because that old false conscience 
driven into me as a Communist prevailed, that there was something 
wrong about talking to an FBI agent. Finally, I got myself to do 
it, and then, of course, after that I have cooperated fully with the 
FBI. But I think the real reason for my break was this sense of 
becoming a slave intellectually and spiritually to every whim and 
wish and policy of the Kremlin, which woke me up to the position 
in which I was and to which the world would come if communism 
would be victorious. 

Senator McClellan. I think we have seen some demonstrations of 
just what you have been testifying to in the presence of this com- 
mittee, by those who just simply are enslaved, are not free. They do 
not feel free. Therefore they invoke the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution. 

Mr. Budenz. No Communist is free. He is a slave to the directives 
given him by the higher functionaries, and they receive their direc- 
tives from abroad. 

Senator McClellan. I think we have had just such people before 
this committee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Budenz, just one question. You have written 
some books since you broke with the Communist Party. Would you 
give us the names of some of those books? I would like to see if we 
have any of those in our library. 

Mr. Budenz. This Is My Story, Men Without Faces, and, the most 
recent one, The Cry Is Peace. That is an answer to the cry of Stalin,, 
and now, of course, of Malenkov, that they really want peace, which 
has so confused the Western World. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator McClellan. What they mean by "peace'" is subjugation of 
humanity. Is that not true? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes. Mr. Allen told it very well yesterday. If every- 
body will surrender, they will have peace. They have always said 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 59 

that. If you surrender to all the demands -of the Soviet, and if you 
allow the Soviets to take control, they will do it peacefully — and then 
manhandle you later, of course. 

Senator Symington. Just one more; really an observation. 

Productive capacity is a fine thing, but if you are sincere in the way 
you talk, I think these boys that are fighting for the United States 
would agree with me that you cannot shoot, nor can you fly, produc- 
tive capacity. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Budenz. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Budenz. 

I wonder if you would remain available. I would like to see vou 
later. 

What time is your plane? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, I shall remain. 

The Chairman. We would like to see you about 1 o'clock. 

Mr. Budenz. Very good. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chairman. Unless you have an earlier reservation. 

Mr. Budenz. No. That is all right. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Lawrence K. Rosinger, 
who has been identified by Professor Budenz as a Communist. 

And before Mr. Rosinger commences his testimony : The Library of 
Congress has advised the chief consultant, Mr. Schine, concerning the 
number of places in which Mr. Rosingers books are currently in use in 
the State Department information program. We can get that report. 

The Chairman. Mr. Schine. 

Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, we have found that 6 of Lawrence K. 
Rosingers books are in use, in approximately 39 information centers 
scattered all over the world, in the Far East, in Africa, in Asia, in cities 
like Singapore, Calcutta, Bombay, Shanghai, Manila, and Casablanca, 

Would you like me to read the six book titles? 

The Chairman. Yes. Go ahead. You may. 

Mr. Schine. China's Wartime Politics ; India and the United States ; 
Restless India; State of Asia; China's Crisis; and Forging a New 
China. 

The Chairman. In other words, you have checked with the State 
Department, then, and confirmed the fact that Rosingers books are 
actually on the shelves in 39 of our information centers? 

Mr. Schine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And six different books. 

Mr. Schine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Rosinger? 

Mr. Boudin. Mr. Chairman, I have requested of Mr. Cohn — I am 

not Mr. Rosinger; I am his attorney, Mr. Boudin — that there be no 

television or photographs taken of the witness or his counsel. May 

1 ask whether that is acceptable? We don't want to be on television. 

(Brief consultation among committee members.) 

The Chairman. May I say that originally I was of the opinion that 
television perhaps should not be used. However, it was pointed out to 
the committee that we should not discriminate against one method of 
getting information to the public, television, in favor of newspapers 
or radio or some other means of communication. I think that if the 
bright lights bother the witness, he is entitled to have those turned off. 



60 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

In other words, anything that would embarrass him or make it difficult 
for him to testify should be removed. I can see that he might object 
to those bright lights. 

What think you. Senator 1 

Senator Symington. I have no thoughts on it. I have never thought 
about it. 

Mr. Boudin. I believe the bar associations generally have taken the 
position that the use of television is not the proper way to conduct 
a congressional hearing. I am, however, placing it on the ground that 
the information which you want, I take it, you will have by examina- 
tion of the witness, and that the lights do bother the witness, and the 
fact that he is on television will be an obstruction to his testimony, 
and the fact that photographs are being taken. I am not asking for 
discrimination. I am merely stating on behalf of one client that we 
do object to anything except the normal testimony before a congres- 
sional committee. 

The Chairmax. You do not want his picture taken, either? 
Mr. Boudin. We don't want his photograph taken, either. 
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, if the witness does not want 
television, I would suggest that he be taken off television. 

The Chairman. I think that is a good idea. The television cam- 
eras- will be ordered not to focus on the witness under any circum- 
stances. If you do that, you will be found in contempt of the com- 
mittee. You understand that. 

Mr. Boudin. We have the same feeling about movies and photo- 
graphs. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I understand only the lights 
are being removed for the benefit of this witness. If there is to be 
a recording made of what the witness says, I do not agree as to any- 
thing covering that. 

Senator Symington. Neither do I. 

The Chairman. My thought was this, Mr. McClellan : that if the 
bright lights bother him, they should definitely be turned off. 

No. 2, if he says it embarrases him and makes it difficult for him 
to testify if he is being photographed by television cameras, the cam- 
eras can be left here. They can be trained on the Senators. I would 
be glad to bow to the wishes of the other members. I think if he does 
not want to be on television he should not be forced to be on television. 
Senator McClellan. If the lights are off, I do not see how he can 
be on television. I do not know much about it, of course. 

The Chairman. Can you work with the lights off ? Then will you 
turn off the lights ? You can still handle your cameras without lights, 
I understand. Or you can turn the lights on the Senators if you wish. 
We are not bashful. 

Mr. Boudin. Do I understand that my request that there be no 
photographs, no television, is overruled, or that I am sustained in my 
request ? 

The Chairman. I have no control over the photographers. They 
will be ordered not to photograph the witness while he is testifying. 
If they catch pictures of him before he testifies, and after, I have no 
control over that whatsoever. He will not be photographed while 
he is testifying. 

Mr. Boudin. And as to the television, Senator, what was the ruling 
on that? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 61 

The Chairman. The television will not be turned on the witness. 
This is not establishing a precedent. I am taking it upon myself to 
do this. I think some of the Senators will disagree with me. I think 
some of them will feel strongly that that is discriminating against 
television in favor of newspapers and radio, but for the time being, 
we will invoke that order. 

I think if he objects to being televised, until we have an executive 
session and decide this, you should not turn the cameras on him. You 
may photograph anything in the room except the witness. 

Incidentally, we won't have any of this photographing of hands. 

Cameraman. Mr. Chairman, if we just photograph you, may we 
have the lights on ? 

Mr. Boudin. As long as they are not on me. 

The Chairman. You may have the lights on anyone except the 
witness. 

Mr. Boudin. I want to assure the Senators that I had no objection 
to their being televised. 

The Chairman. You see, one of the values of this hearing is to 
bring all the facts to the public, and for that reason we have had a 
lot of television. 

Mr. Rosinger, will you stand up and be sworn ? 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you sol- 
emnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Rosinger. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. You are Lawrence K. Rosinger, R-o-s-i-n-g-e-r ; is that 
correct ? 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE K. ROSINGER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, LEONARD B. BOUDIN 

Mr. Rosinger. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of these books, the titles of which 
Mr. Schine has read ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Will you repeat the titles, please ? 

Mr. Cohn. Surely. China's Wartime Policies, India and the 
United States, Restless India, State of Asia, China's Crisis, and 
Forging a New China. 

Mr. Rosinger. That is correct, except that the title of the first book 
is China's Wartime Politics. 

Mr. Cohn. You are the author of those books. Is that right ? 

Mr. Rosinger. That is right. And one more point 

The Chairman. Mr. Rosinger, will you try and speak a little 
louder ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes. The point I made first was that the title of 
the first book was given a little bit incorrectly. About the State of 
Asia, I was the editor and author of three chapters, but didn't write 
the entire book. 

Mr. Cohn. Subject to those qualifications, you are the author of 
these books? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Rosinger, we have been advised by the State 
Department that these 6 books are in some 39 of the State Depart- 

83616— 53— pt. 1 5 



62 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

ment information centers today. My question to you is this : When 
you wrote any of these books, were you a member of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the 
constitutional privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitu- 
tion, that a witness need not testify against himself. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rosinger, were you ever an adviser to Secretary 
Acheson in connection with any matter ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I suppose you are referring to the State Department 
conference of October 1949 on far-eastern policy ? 

Mr. Cohn. Were you summoned by a telegram signed by Dean 
Acheson to a conference at the State Department in 1949 ? 

Mr. Rosinger. That is correct. 

Senator Symington. May I ask a question there? 

The Chairman. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. Is it not time that the State Department 
sends all its telegrams out signed by the Secretary of State ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I am glad you made that point, because there is no 
means of knowing whether it was really a personal invitation from 
the Secretary of State. It was signed with his name, though. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you, in fact, attend that conference? 

Mr. Rosinger. I did. 

Mr. Cohn. Were you then a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, on the same grounds 
as given before. 

The Chairman. On the grounds that if you answered truthfully 
your answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Rosinger. No, sir; I put it in my own words, that under the 
iifth amendment to the Constitution a witness may not be required to 
testify against himself. 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you a question at that point. At 
any time during the conference or before, were you asked a question 
whether you were then a member of the Communist Party by anyone 
who was in that conference ? 

(Mr. Rosinger confers with Mr. Boudin.) 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, for the same reason. 

Senator McClellan. You will not tell us whether, prior to the time 
or at the time you engaged in a conference, it was ascertained by those 
who invited you to attend whether you were then a Communist or not ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I stand on the answer I have given. 

Senator Symington. Would you say who was at the conference ? 

Mr. Boudin. Could I just make one comment, Senator? 

The Chairman. You may make no comment, sir. You may advise 
with your client. If he wants your advice, he may ask for it. If yon 
want to have a private conference with him, we will engage a room for 
that. 

Mr. Boudin. I don't need a private conference. 

The Chairman. You understand, Mr. Rosinger, you may freely 
advise with your counsel whenever you care to. 

(Mr. Rosinger confers with Mr. Boudin.) 

Mr. Rosinger. I would like to point out that a good deal of subject 
matter of that conference and the details about the conference have 
already been discussed and printed in the hearings of the McCarran 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 63 

subcommittee. I was questioned by them. If the questions are to be 
repeated, I will answer. But it is already available in the public 
record. 

The Chairman. The purpose of this conference was to advise Philip 
Jessup, the roving Ambassador, before he started to rove; is that 
correct  ? That was the purpose of the conference? 

Mr. Rosinger. Well, no ; I don't think I can state it in those terms. 
All I know is what the telegram sent to me said. 

The Chairman. The matter discussed at the conference was the 
question of establishing a United States foreign policy for Asia. Is 
that correct? 

That was the subject of the conference? 

Mr. Rosinger. The subject matter of the conference was to discuss 
problems of American foreign policy in the Far East. 

The Chairman. Were you a Communist at that time? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, on the grounds 
already given. 

The Chairman. Did you, as a member of the Communist Party, 
have a caucus with other Communist members before that conference ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
already given. 

The Chairman. Now, Kenneth Colgrove, an outstanding Ameri- 
can, a professor at Northwestern University, attended that meeting, 
and he testified before the McCarran committee that the two leaders 
in the conference, the men who established the policy, in effect, were 
Lawrence K. Rosinger and Owen Lattimore. Would you say that 
was a correct evaluation of what happened at the conference? 

Mr. Rosinger. In my judgment, that is an incorrect designation 
of the character of the conference. 

Mr. Colgrove may be of that opinion, but that certainly is not my 
opinion. 

The Chairman. Did you know Alger Hiss ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the con- 
stitutional privilege in the fifth amendment to the Constitution. 

The Chairman. I asked you previously whether you were refus- 
ing because you thought the answer might tend to incriminate you. 
You said that was not your reason, I understand. 

Mr. Rosinger. I did not say that. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly feel that if you answer that ques- 
tion your answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Rosinger. If I understand it, a witness is allowed to phrase 
his constitutional privilege under the fifth amendment in his own 
language. If you were a witness, Senator McCarthy, you would be 
able to phrase it your way. But this is my way of phrasing it. 

The Chairman. Whether you are entitled to the privileged in order 
to decide that, we must know whether a truthful answer would tend 
to incriminate you. You will answer that, or you will be ordered to 
answer the other question. 

(Mr. Rosinger confers with Mr. Boudin.) 

Mr. Rosinger. I am asserting the privilege against self-incrimina- 
tion under the fifth amendment. But my understanding is that I am 
not required to explain the details of that assertion. 

The Chairman. The question is this : You will be ordered to answer 
this question. Do you feel that if you truthfully answer the question, 



64 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

it might tend to incriminate you ? You understand, you are not en- 
titled to the privilege if you feel that perjury might incriminate you. 

(Mr. Boudin confers with Mr. Eosinger.) 

Mr. Rosinger. Will you repeat the question, please? 

The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer to the ques- 
tion just asked might tend to incriminate you? 

(Mr. Boudin confers with Mr. Rosinger.) 

Mr. Rosinger. In giving the answers that I did, I felt that replies 
to the questions might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you know Frederick Field ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, on the grounds 
already given. 

The Chairman. Did Field assist you in the writing of any of 
these works which were purchased by the information program? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

The Chairman. Were you a Communist at the time you wrote 
these six books which were purchased by the State Department? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

The Chairman. And your answer is, in each case where you 
decline, that you honestly feel that a truthful answer might tend 
to incriminate you. Is that correct, so that we might not repeat 
that each time? 

Mr. Rosinger. I am sorry. I didn't get the last phrase. 

The Chairman. I say : Do I understand that each time when 
you declined, it was on the ground that you feel that a truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Rosinger. In the current context of affairs. 

The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage against the 
United States? 

Mr. Rosinger. No. 

The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in any sabotage? 

Mr. Rosinger. No. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Rosinger, these six books of yours are scat- 
tered throughout Asia, Africa, and the Near East, by the State 
Department information program, and I would like to know this: 
Have you ever met with Mao Tse-tung, the leader of the Chinese 
Communists ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been in China ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you met with Mao Tse-tung, the 
leader of the Chinese Communists? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rosinger, once again, as the man who wrote these 
six books which are in use by the State Department information pro- 
gram, I will ask you this : Will you tell us whether or not the Chinese 
Communists are members of the Communist International? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you in any of these books follow the Communist 
Party line in any way? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, on the grounds already given. 

Senator Symington. May I ask a question? Do you think you 
are a good American ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 65 

Mr. Rosinger. I certainly do. 

Senator Symington. You are a good American ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Now, we have just had a witness who was a 
member of the Communist Party, and he did not decline to answer 
anything. If you are a good American, with the premise that it is 
an international conspiracy against the United States, why do you 
not answer these questions? What you have done in the past is not 
as important as the future and the present. Why are you afraid of 
answering that you are a Communist or have been a Communist ? Or 
whj 7 do you not state your position frankly, like Professor Budenz 
did ? That is what I cannot understand in these hearings. 

Mr. Rosinger. I am afraid, Senator, I will have to stand on the 
answers I have already given. 

Mr. Boudin. I think I will send the Senator an article I have 
written, which may explain some of this. 

The Chairman. Stand up, Counsel. You will be placed under oath 
if you insist on talking. 

Mr. Boudin. I object to being put under oath. 

The Chairman. All right. Then you will be removed from the 
room. 

Mr. Boudin. Well, I have to advise the witness as to his rights. 
Otherwise he must come out. 

Senator McClellan. I agree with the chairman that if he is to 
testify before this committee or make statements to the committee, 
he should be under oath. But he says he does not want to testify. 
Therefore I suggest that he be ordered to keep quiet, except that he 
may have the liberty of conferring with his client. 

The Chairman. I think that is a good suggestion. 

Mr. Counsel, you understand that you can talk to your client at 
any time. The next time you try to interrupt the proceedings, I 
will ask the committee to hold you in contempt. 

Senator McClellan. Unless he is willing to be sworn. If he wants 
to be sworn and testify, that is all right. 

May I ask the witness a question or two, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. You have said you are a good American. 
May I ask you if you believe in and subscribe to the Constitution 
of the United States of America? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of the 
Constitution of the United States of America ? 

Mr. Rosinger. No. 

Senator McClellan. Do you advocate the philosophy of com- 
munism in the books you have written, and which have been identified 
in this record ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I stand on the answer I have already given. 

The Chairman. What is the answer ? 

Mr. Rosinger. That I decline to answer under the fifth amendment 
to the Constitution. 

May I ask whether any of the Senators has ever read any of my 
books in full? 

Senator McClellan. I think they have been read. I have not read 
your books. From what they are represented to be, I would not want 



66 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

to waste my time on them. I certainly would not waste my time read- 
ing the works of any author who will come before this committee as 
you have and take refuge under the only provision of the Constitution 
of the United States that Communists today believe in. So I want to 
ask you these questions. And if you do not want to answer, if you 
want to take refuge, that is your privilege. But certainly I do not 
have time to waste on reading the literature of people who take the 
position that they cannot answer what their philosophy of govern- 
ment is without fear that it will incriminate them. 

I asked you, I believe, if you believe in the overthrow of this Gov- 
ernment by force and violence? 

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

Senator McClellan. Have you ever advocated it? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the con- 
stitutional privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. You refuse to answer that. Have you ever 
attended meetings, Communist meetings, where it was advocated? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege and the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. Are you now a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. Will you tell the committee when you with- 
drew membership, or when membership was withdrawn from you, in 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. Do you believe that the system of government 
and ideology of communism in Russia is superior to the American 
system of government and philosophy? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. Is it because you are ashamed to answer that 
you refuse to answer? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Senator McClellan. You are afraid that if you say you are 
ashamed, that will tend to incriminate you ? Is that why you refuse 
to answer? 

Mr. Rosinger. I stand on the ground I have already given. 

Senator Symington. I would like to ask one more question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. Do you know about the Korean war ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Do you know that the Soviets are supplying 
the Chinese Communists with military equipment? 

Mr. Rosinger. I don't personally know that. 

Senator Symington. You do not know that? 

Mr. Rosinger. Not personally. 

Senator Symington. But you do know that Americans are fighting 
against the Chinese Communists and being killed in Korea? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes, sir. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 67 

Senator Symington. Then why, if you are a member of the Com- 
munist Party and at the same time say you are a good American, do 
you refuse to answer the question as to whether or not you are a Com- 
munist now? How could you be a Communist now and at the same 
time a <*ood American, if we are fighting against communism? 

Mr. Rosinger. I am going to stand on the answer I have already 
given. 

Senator Symington. You do not want to answer that question? 

Mr. Rosinger. I stand on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Symington. You still think you are a good American ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Rosinger, did you attend a conference in India 
in the last 2 or 3 years ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Yes, sir. It was at the end of 1949. 

The Chairman. Will you try and speak up, sir ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I attended a conference in New Delhi at the end of 
1949. 

The Chairman. "Who traveled with you to India ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Well, outside of — I suppose you mean : did anybody I 
know personally travel with me ? No one. 

The Chairman. No one. And was there a Communist caucus pre- 
ceding this conference in India, attended by you ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Owen Lattimore with you at that con- 
ference ? 

Mr. Rosinger. He was at the conference. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Allen Barth? 

Mr. Rosinger. Will you repeat the name ? 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Allen Barth with you at the conference ? 

Mr. Rosinger. How do you spell the name ? 

The Chairman. B-a-r-t-h. 

Mr. Rosinger. I don't recall the presence of anybody of that name 
at the conference. 

The Chairman. Would it refresh your recollection if we were to 
inform you that he is one of the editors of a local paper? 

Mr. Rosinger. A local paper ? 

The Chairman. Does that refresh your recollection? 

Mr. Rosinger. A local paper where? 

The Chairman. In Washington. The Washington Post. Was Mr. 
Barth with you at that conference? 

Mr. Rosinger. Not to my recollection. 

The Chairman. For the benefit of the committee, the record shows 
that Mr. Barth was at the conference. 

Mr. Rosinger. Are you sure ? 

There was somebody from the Washington Post at the conference, 
but I don't recall that it was a Mr. Barth. 

The Chairman. Now, at this time when you were called to advise 
the Secretary of State on far eastern policies, did your advice follow 
the Communist line in Asia ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I decline to answer, relying on the constitutional 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Was your advice followed in any respects, as far 
as you know ? 



68 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Rosinger. I do not know. 

The Chairman. You do not know ? 

Mr. Rosinger. No. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, anything further ? 

Mr. Cohn. I might ask this one question: Do you receive royal- 
ties from your books, from the sale of your books ? 

Mr. Rosinger. By this time, on most of the books, I receive no 
royalties. On one of them, as I recall, I did, but by this time the royal- 
ties have ceased, because the book was written a number of years ago. 

Mr. Cohn. I mean when the books were in current circulation, you 
did receive royalties. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Rosinger. As far as I can recall, the only book on which I re- 
ceived royalties was China's Crisis. The other books were simply 
written on salary, and as far as I recall I didn't receive anything after 
their publication. 

Mr. Cohn. You did receive royalties on China Crisis ? 

Mr. Rosinger. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the con- 
stitutional privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Do j'ou contribute any moneys you received from the 
sale of China Crisis to the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the con- 
stitutional privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Because it goes without saying that the State Depart- 
ment has purchased enough, as it did, of your books to place them 
around in 39 different information centers, and I assume that as to 
those books, including as they did the one on which you said you re- 
ceived royalties, you would decline to answer if I were to ask you if 
any portion whatsoever of those royalties went to the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Rosinger. I would decline. 

The Chairman. Other than being a State Department adviser, what 
other work have you done for the Government ? 

Mr. Rosinger. First of all, I wouldn't accept the designation of 
State Department adviser without qualification. I attended a 2% 
day conference in October 1949, as 1 of 25 people, and that was the 
full extent of my advice, if you wish to call it that, to the State De- 
partment. 

The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you did not prepare writ- 
ten advice and submit it to the State Department ? 

Mr. Rosinger. Prior to the conference, a number of people were 
asked for memoranda, and I did write a memorandum. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were asked to write advice to 
the Department on far eastern policy. You attended a conference. 

Other than those two items, did you work for the Government ? 

Mr. Rosinger. No ; I have no recollection of any other connection. 

The Chairman. What are you presently doing? 

Mr. Rosinger. I am in private business. 

Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist Party today ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I respectfully decline to answer, relying on the con- 
stitutional privilege. 

The Chairman. Were you not associated with the U. N. ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 69 

Mr. Rosinger. No ; I have never held any U. N. position. 

The Chairman. Well, have you been associated with them as an 
adviser? 

Mr. Rosinger. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have been associated with the U. N. in no 
capacity ; is that right ? 

Mr. Rosinger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you presently hold a passport ? 

Mr. Rosinger. I have a passport, but it has probably expired. It 
was the one that I used in going to India in 1949. It is probably out 
of date by now. 

The Chairman. You may step down. 

We will adjourn until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

Any witnesses under subpena will return tomorrow morning at 
10: ::>(>. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 05 p. m., a recess was taken until 10: 30 a. m., 
Thursday, March 26, 1953.) 



33616— 5S— pt. 1 6 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 
INFORMATION CENTERS 



THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1953 

United States Senate, 

Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed to 
January 30, 1953, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 357 of the Senate Office Build-- 
ing. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, presiding. 

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
and Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas. 

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel G. Buckley, assist- 
ant counsel; David Schine, chief consultant; Ruth Young Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Will you call your first witness, Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Cohn. The first witness is Mr. Edwin Seaver. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, Mr. Seaver? 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Seaver. I do. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seaver, would you give us your full name? 

The Chairman. I may say you are the first witness we have had for 
a long time who appears without a lawyer, Mr. Seaver. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN SEAVER 

Mr. Seaver. I don't see that I need one, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name? 

Mr. Seaver. Edwin Seaver. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seaver. are you Edwin Seaver, the author? 

Mr. Seaver. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. And are you the author of a book known as The 
Company ? 

Mr. Seaver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. This book. Mr. Chairman, is in use in the State Depart- 
ment information program at the present time. 

The Chairman. May I ask counsel : In all cases where an author is 
called, you first check with the State Department and verify the fact 
that the book is in use. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. No author is called to the stand 
unless the master files indicate that his book is in use in the State 
Department information centers at this time. 

71 



72 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. I wonder if, at your very earliest convenience — 
I know we are keeping counsel at work day and night — you could 
take steps to find out the steps that have been taken to implement 
the recent State Department order on books by Communist authors. 
A very fine order went out from the new administrator, and we are 
anxious to find out what steps have been taken to enforce that order. 

Mr. Cohn. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. We are also checking 
into the question of responsibility for placing these books in the pro- 
gram originally. That is being followed out, too. 

Now, Mr. Seaver, you say you are the author of this book entitled, 
"The Company" ? 

Mr. Seaver. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. That was written a good many years ago. Is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Seaver. It was written in 1929. 

Mr. Cohn. You are also the author of a book known as The Ham- 
mer and the Anvil ? 

Mr. Seavek. Between the Hammer and the Anvil. 

Mr. Cohn. And you are the editor of a collection that was pub- 
lished in the 1940's? 

Mr. Seaver. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Is that correct? 

Mr. Seaver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Seaver, was there ever a time when you were 
a sympathizer with communism? 

Mr. Seaver. Yes; in the early or middle thirties. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, during that period of time when you were a 
sympathizer with communism, did you write this book, The Com- 
pany, and did you write the book Between the Hammer and the Anvil ? 

Mr. Seaver. I wrote Between the Hammer and the Anvil. It is a 
little difficult for me to answer that correctly with regard to the first 
book, because I had no contacts at that time as a sympathizer or any- 
thing else. I was a very young fellow and was writing on my own. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, I would ask you this, too: Did you ever have any 
connection with any Communist-front organizations during the period 
of time when 3^011 were a Communist sympathizer ? 

Mr. Seaver. Yes, with the League of American Writers. 

Mr. Cohn. And did your connection with Communist-front organi- 
zations end completely by 1948 ? 

Mr. Seaver. As I recall it : yes. The only thing I recall — well, now, 
I attended whatever it was, the Waldorf-Astoria meeting against war 
and fascism. I don't know whether that was 1948 or earlier, or what 
that was. But that is the only thing I recall after that time. 

Mr. Cohn. That was the last time in which you participated in any 
activity which was Communist dominated or controlled? 

Mr. Seaver. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Since that time, you have not; is that right? 

Mr. Seaver. Correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Seaver, we would like to ask this question very 
frankly: If you were making up a collection of books, as the State 
Department has, for inclusion in information centers throughout the 
world, to place them in there for the purpose of giving a true pic- 
ture of the American way of life, and to aid us in the fight against 
communism, would you select these books which you wrote prior to the 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 73 

time when you completely broke with any of these thoughts you have 
told us about ? 

Mr. Seaver. No ; I don't think I would. 

Mr. Cohn. You are honest enough, even though you are the author 
of the books, to tell us you would not select them and you would not 
place them there. 

Mr. Seaver. I have no different attitude toward my own books than 
I have toward any other books. 

Mr. Cohn. I have no further questions of Mr. Seaver, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. In other words, your testimony on the stand is 
that when you wrote the book you were a sympathizer with the 
Communist cause; that you believed in it; that you no longer do. 
And your testimony further is that if you were attempting to fight 
communism, you would not use the type of book which you wrote 
while you were in sympathy with the Communist cause? 

Mr. Seaver. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan, to bring you up to date, this 
witness, briefly, testified that he had been a sympathizer with the Com- 
munist cause, believed in it at one time. While he was a Communist 
sympathizer, he wrote books, one or two, which the State Department, 
I should say the old State Department, purchased and placed in our 
libraries, allegedly for the purpose of fighting communism. He has 
further testified that if he were attempting to fight communism, he 
would not use the type of book which he himself wrote. 

The book, I understand, was written back in 1929, but was purchased 
by the State Department last year. 

Mr. Seaver. It is amazing to me that anybody purchased it last 
year. 

The Chairman. The date you wrote it had nothing to do with the 
date when they purchased it. 

Thank you very much. 

The next witness ? 

Mr. Cohn. The next witness will be Langston Hughes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Langston Hughes. 

Mr. Hughes, will you raise your right hand ? In this matter now 
in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hughes. I do. 

The Chairman. I understand you are accompanied by a lawyer, 
also, Mr. Hughes ? 

TESTIMONY OP LANGSTON HUGHES, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, FRANK D. REEVES 

Mr. Hughes. By counsel, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you identify your counsel ? 

Mr. Reeves. Frank D. Reeves, member of the Bar of the District 
of Columbia. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the Chair first 
of all that the State Department information centers are now using 
approximately 16 of the collected works of Langston Hughes in ap- 
proximately 51 information centers throughout the world. 



74 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. In other words, 16 different books in 51 different 
information centers ? 

Mr. Cohn. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do they have all 16 in each information center ? 

Mr. Cohn. No; they don't. 

The Chairman. They have varying numbers. 

Mr. Cohn. They have varying numbers in varying information 
centers. The number of copies in use is approximately 200, a total of 
200, for all 16. 

Now, you reside in New York, Mr. Hughes ? 

Mr. Hughes. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Cohn. And you are Langston Hughes, the well known poet. 
It that right? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been writ- 
ing poetry and prose, Mr. Hughes ? 

Mr. Hughes. Since the eighth grade. I would have been at that 
time perhaps 14. 

Mr. Cohn. And ever since that time, you have been writing poetry 
and prose. It that right? 

Mr. Hughes. That is right, almost 40 years. 

Mr. Cohn. And you are still writing poetry and prose. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. And a good many of your works have been published 
not only in English but in other languages throughout the world. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. And you have achieved considerable renown as a result 
of your works. It that a fair statement ? 

Mr. Hughes. That is a fair statement ; yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Hughes, would you tell this committee frankly 
as to whether or not there was ever a period of time in your life when 
you believed in the Soviet form of government? 

Mr. Hughes. There was such a period. 

Mr. Cohn. And when did that period end ? 

Mr. Hughes. There was no abrupt ending, but I would say, that 
roughly the beginnings of my sympathies with Soviet ideology were 
coincident with the Scottsboro case, the American depression, and 
that they ran through for some 10 or 12 years or more, certainly up 
to the Nazi -Soviet Pact, and perhaps, in relation to some aspects 
of the Soviet ideology, further, because we were allies, as you know, 
with the Soviet Union during the war. So some aspects of my writing 
would reflect that relationship, that war relationship. 

Mr. Cohn. And, as a matter of fact, when would you say you com- 
pletely broke with the Soviet ideology? 

Mr. Hughes. I would say a complete reorientation of my thinking 
and emotional feelings occurred roughly 4 or 5 years ago. 

Mr. Cohn. About 4 or 5 years ago ? 

Mr. Hughes. Roughly. 

Mr. Cohn. I notice that in 1949 you made a statement in defense 
of the Communist leaders who were on trial, which was published 
in the Daily Worker. Would you say that your complete break came 
thereafter? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 75 

Mr. Hughes. I would say that whatever quotation you are refer- 
ring to, sir, might have been made in a spirit of wishing to preserve 
our civil liberties for everyone, and in a kind of remembrance of the 
happenings in Germany and what it had led to for minority peoples 
there, and a fear on my part that possibly, if we disregarded civil 
liberties, it might lead to that in relation to the Negro people. 

Mr. Cohx. Now, you have changed your views in regard to that? 
You have not changed your views regarding civil rights, but you have 
changed your views as to under what system they can best be achieved? 

Mr. Hughes. Well, I have certainly changed my views in regard 
to the fact that one may not get a fair trial in America. I believe 
that one can and one does. 

Mr. Cohx. You now believe that one can and one does get a fair 
trial in this country? 

Mr. Hughes. Speaking by and large. Of course, we have our judi- 
cial defects, as does every system or country. 

Mr. Cohx. Would you say what you would call your complete 
change in ideology came about 1050? 

Mr. Hughes. I would say certainly by 1050; yes. 

Mr. Cohx. All right. Now, could you tell us briefly, Mr. Hughes, 
just what it was that made you change your thinking from a belief 
over a period of years to the effect that the Soviet form of government 
was best for this country, to the present day, when you no longer be- 
lieve that, and when you are a believer in the American form of 
government? 

Mr. Hughes. Well, there would be two aspects, and I would say, 
sir, that I have always been a believer in the American form of govern- 
ment in any case, but interested in certain aspects of other forms of 
government, and I would like to give two interpretations of my feel- 
ing about my reorientation and change. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was, 
of course, very disillusioning and shook up a great many people, and 
then further evidences of, shall we say, spreading imperialist aggres- 
sion. My own observations in 1931-32, as a writer, which remained 
with me all the time, of the lack of freedom of expression in the Soviet 
Union for writers, which I never agreed with before I went there or 
afterward — those things gradually began to sink in deeper and deeper. 
And then, in our own country, there has been, within the last 10 
years, certainly within the war period, a very great increase in the 
rate of acceleration of improvement in race relations. There has been 
a very distinct step forward in race relations, a greater understanding 
of the need for greater democracy for the Negro people, and then the 
recent Supreme Court decisions, which bolstered up the right to vote, 
the right to travel, and so on, have given me great heart and great 
confidence in the potentialities of what we can do here. 

Mr. Cohx. Have you received any disillusionment recently, con- 
cerning the treatment of minorities by the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Hughes. Well, the evidence in the press — I have not been there, 
of course, myself — indicating persecution and terror against the Jew- 
ish people, has been very appalling to me. 

Mr. Cohx. Mr. Hughes, will you agree that during the time you 
were a believer in the Soviet form of government, and aspects of it, 
you wrote some poetry which, in rather plain terms, reflected your 
feelings during that period of time? 

Mr. Hughes. I certainly did, sir. 



76 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. You wrote one poem, I recall, beginning, "Put another 
*S' in the USA to make it Soviet," and so on and so forth. 

Mr. Hughes. I did. 

Mr. Cohn. And various poems referring to revolution. 

Mr. Hughes. Goor Morning, Revolution. 

Mr. Cohn. Good Morning Revolution. 

Senator McClellan. May I inquire of counsel if you are quoting 
from books or works of the author that are now in the library ? 

Mr. Cohn. No; this one poem I quoted, "Put another 'S' in the 
USA to make it Soviet," is as far as we know not in any poems in 
the collection in the information centers. 

Senator McClellan. I think the record should show that. I would 
not want to be under any misapprehension. 

The Chairman. The reason for this type of questioning is to show 
the type of thinking on the part of this individual at the time he 
wrote these books. 

Senator McClellan. I just wanted to keep the record straight. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, as recently as 1950, Mr. Hughes, we have a book 
entitled "Simple Speaks His Mind." Do you recall that book? 

Mr. Hughes. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Cohn. And that is not in poetry, but that is a series of short 
stories. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hughes. Humorous sketches, mainly, and stories. 

Mr. Cohn. This book is today, Mr. Chairman, being used by the 
State Department in its information centers. 

Now, I am quoting now from the last paragraph of one of these 
incidents in this book, entitled, "Something to Lean On." Do you 
recall that one? 

Mr. Hughes. Not as to facts, but I do recall the title of the chapter. 

Mr. Cohn. You do recall the title. I would like you to follow along 
this. It concludes as f olows : 

"You figure the Constitution has fallen down on you?" "I do," said Simple, 
"Just like it fell down on that poor Negro lynched last month. Did anybody out 
of that mob go to jail? Not a living soul! But just kidnap some little small 
white baby and take it across the street, and you will do 20 years. The FBI will 
spread its dragnet and drag in 40 suspeetions before morning. And if you are 
colored, don't get caught selling a half pint of bootleg licker, or writing a few 
numbers. They will put you in every jail there is. But southerners can beat 
you, burn you, lynch you, and hang you to a tree — and every one of them will 
go scot free. Gimme another beer, Tony! I can lean on this bar, but I ain't 
got another thing in the USA on which to lean." 

Is that an accurate quotation ? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct. 

The Chairman. May I ask counsel : Do you know in what libraries 
that is contained? 

Mr. Cohn. I think we can check that, Mr. Chairman. It is located 
in Tel-Aviv, Israel, Singapore, Hongkong, K-u-a-1-a L-u-m-p-o-r, at 
the present time. 

Now, in that same connection, is there another incident entitled 
"When a Man Sees Red" ? 

Mr. Hughes. There is. 

Mr. Cohn. And that is a takeoff on an imaginary hearing of an 
Un-American Activities Committee; is that right ? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 77 

Mr. Cohn. Which, without going into it in full detail, thoroughly 
ridicules the activities of the committee and its attempt to expose 
communism and the motives of those trying to do that. Is that fair? 

Mr. Hughes. No, sir; I believe that is not a fair statement of the 
contents of that chapter. 

Mr. Cohn. I want to avoid reading the whole thing, but why do you 
not tell us ? 

Mr. Hughes. If you don't mind, may I glance at it a moment? 

Mr. Cohn. Certainly. 

The Chairman. I might suggest, Mr. Counsel, that it would be ex- 
tremely difficult, with our limited staff, to finally fix responsibility and 
find the people who picked these particular works and had them pur- 
chased. I wonder if we could not ask Mr. McLeod if he would not 
utilize his office to try and find the specific individuals who are respon- 
sible for picking all these Communist books and paying for them ? 

Mr. Cohn. We can certainly do that, Mr. Chairman. We can prob- 
ably work out a system whereby we could work along with them. 

The Chairman. Otherwise it would be difficult for you to ever run 
this down to the men. 

Mr. Cohn. I might say this, Mr. Chairman. Some suggestion has 
been made that they came from some old collections. A good many 
of these books were purchased as recently as 1950, '51, and '52; so 
that argument does not hold water. We will call Mr. McLeod's office. 

The Chairman. I think we should also have in the record the dates 
of purchase, if we can possibly get them. In other words, I would 
like to know which of those books were received from OWI and put 
in the libraries, if any of them, and which have been purchased 
recently. 

Incidentally, while the witness is examining the work, I understand 
you have a list of the Lattimore books that have been used. 

Dave, do you have those? 

Mr. Schine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you verified them, first, with the State De- 
partment '. 

Mr. Schine. Yes, this is their list. The State Department prepared 
the list. 

The Chairman. Would you read those into the record? 

Mr. Schine. Yes, I will. 

These books are by Owen Lattimore, and they are scattered through- 
out the Information centers. There are approximately 13 books, 161 
copies altogether in 60 Information centers. 

America and Asia ; China, As a Short History ; China, Yesterday 
and Today ; Inner Asian Frontiers of China ; The Making of Modern 
China ; Mongol Journeys ; Ordeal by Slander 

The Chairman. I may say that I recognize that name, "Ordeal by 
Slander." 

Mr. Schine. Pivot of Asia; Situation in Asia; Solution in Asia. 

That is the list we have here, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just from personal curiosity, do you know what 
libraries the book, Ordeal by Slander, has been placed in ? In what 
parts of the world ? 

Mr. Schine. We will check that. 

Mr. Hughes. I have finished, sir. 



78 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. Have you read that ? 

Mr. Hughes. I have looked through it. I remember- it now. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you want to comment on that, Mr. Hughes ? 

Mr. Hughes. On When a Man Sees Red, the chapter in Simple 
Speaks His Mind ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes. 

Mr. Hughes. It is, or was, a newspaper column, and I cannot tell 
you exactly when it was written, but I can tell you approximately. It 
was written following the incident as reported in the papers, which 
1 think occurred in the Un-American Committee, where one of the 
counsel, or one of the members of the committee, if I remember cor- 
rectly, called a Negro witness a very ugly name. And that went 
throughout the Negro press and shocked the Negro people very deeply. 
And many people in Harlem — and this book, incidentally, is about a 
character who lives in Harlem — many people felt that that indicated 
that certainly some of the members of that Un-American Committee 
were unfair to Negroes, and that they shouldn't be able to call a man 
the name that this man was called, and which Negroes call "playing the 
dozens," or talking about one's mother. 

So this character of mine is a kind of Negro Mr. Dpoley, who, for 
a period of the past 10 years at least, has been commenting in the pub- 
lic prints in a weekly column on the passing happenings. It is a 
fictional character who comments and editorializes on passing happen- 
ings in terms largely of what the average uneducated or not too well 
educated Negro in a big city might think about them. And the fiction 
is my own. 

Mr. Cohn. What is your own ? 

Mr. Hughes. The creation of the fictional character is my own, but 
there is also in these columns another character, who generally pre- 
sents opposing views. There is an "I," and there is a simple character. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this, Mr. Hughes : Keeping in mind 
that the information program is supposed to be for the purpose of 
fighting communism, would you think that placing this book of yours 
on the shelves of our libraries throughout the world, the book in which 
you attack the Un-American Activities Committee as being unfair — I 
am asking what you think as of today ; I am not speaking of how you 
felt then — as of today, do you think that would be an effective way 
of fighting communism ? Or would that tend to put us in a bad light 
as compared to the Communist nation? 

Mr. Hughes. If I may give you an answer in two parts, I think 
the book probably would be in some ways very confusing to foreign 
people, and the nuances that are expressed very often in slang, or 
sometimes even in dialect, would be almost impossible for them to get, 
and therefore they might be very confused. And the other thing, I 
think, sir, is this : That if we wanted to look at it from the angle of 
freedom of the press in our country, and our traditional right to criti- 
cize the branches of our Government, and if we wanted to look at 
that chapter from that standpoint, then it would show, in my opinion, 
to foreign peoples, that we had freedom of the press intact, that we 
had kept the right to satirically comment upon a committee of our 
Government, which certainly some Negro people have felt has not been 
very fair to them. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this. You appear to be very frank 
in your answers, and while I may disagree with some of your conclu- 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 79 

sions, do I understand that your testimony is that the 16 different 
books of yours which were purchased by the information program did 
largely follow the Communist line? 

Mr. Hughes. Some of those books very largely followed at times 
some aspects of the Communist line, reflecting my sympathy with 
them. But not all of them, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, let us take those that you think followed the 
Communist line. Do you feel that those books should be on our shelves 
throughout the world, with the apparent stamp of approval of the 
United States Government? 

Mr. Hughes. I was certainly amazed to hear that they were. I was 
surprised ; and I would certainly say "No." 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. I understand your 
testimony to be that you never actually joined the Communist Party; 
that while you were in Russia, you were solicited to join it; that you 
have for a long period of time been a sympathizer with the Commu- 
nist cause, and that as of today you definitely are neither a member 
of the party nor a sympathizer with the cause. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hughes. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, I have the places where Ordeal by 
Slander, by Owen Lattimore, was used in the overseas information 
centers. Calcutta and Bombay. 

The Chairman. Just out of curiosity, they did not put the Mc- 
Carthy book on the shelves ? 

Mr. Cohn. On that, Mr. Chairman, we found that before we made 
any inquiry the State Department themselves had made an inquiry at 
the master file to see whether they had placed any of your books in the 
libraries, and there was an entirely negative report on each book. 

Mr. Chairman, in deference to Mr. Hughes, there are a number of 
writings of his written during this period of time which are being 
included in the collections of the information centers throughout the 
world which I frankly think should not be read to the public. Some 
of them use words and terms that would not be too good. I wonder 
if we could have them entered into the record. We went into them 
with Mr. Hughes in executive session. 

The Chairman. I think you are right, Counsel. I do not think 
those passages should be read over the air. But I do think that 
the passages should be put in the record, so that the record will be 
complete as to the type of literature that the information program 
has been putting out. 

I would like to emphasize — and T think we should from time to 
time — that when we speak of the information program we are speak- 
ing of the old administration, and I think Dr. Johnson, the new Ad- 
ministrator, is making very intelligent and sincere attempts to clean 
it up and make it an American information program. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Hughes, the substance of your testimony, then, 
as I understand it, is that you were quite surprised and disturbed to 
learn that there are in use now in our information program to fight 
communism and give a true picture of the American way of life, works 
of yours written at a period of time when you were a Communist 
sympathizer? 

Mr. Hughes. I am surprised, sir, and I do not know how they be- 
came available, at this moment, because they have been long out of 
print, most of those works, and they are very hard to get anyway. 



80 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. And it is your frank testimony to the committee that you 
certainly would not think those early works of yours should be in- 
cluded in a program to fight communism today ? 

Mr. Hughes. No, I would not. I have made no attempt to get them 
back into circulation. Some of them have been out of print for at least 
12 or 15 years. 

Mr. Cohn. Very frankly, you are not particularly proud of them at 
this stage? 

Mr. Hughes. They do not represent my current thinking, nor my 
thinking for the last, say, 6 or 8 years, at any rate. 

Mr. Cohn. And those are not the selections from your writings 
that you would want included in our information program ? 

Mr. Hughes. No ; I would not. I have more recent books which I 
would much prefer, if any books of mine are kept on the shelves. 

Mr. Cohn. Written after you came to the realization you described 
to use today, that the answer to the problems which disturb you is to 
be found in this country and under our form of government? 

Mr. Hughes. That is right; published afterward, certainly. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. I am very much interested in this particular 
line of questioning and testimony. Do I understand that since you 
came to the conclusion that you were wrong about communism, and 
subsequent to the time you wrote these books that are now found in 
these libraries, you have written other works, other books, that repudi- 
ate the philosophy that you expressed in these writings that we now 
find in the libraries ? 

Mr. Hughes. I would say that they certainly contradict the philoso- 
phy, and they certainly express my prodemocratic beliefs and my faith 
in democracy. 

Senator McClellan. What interests me is that I want to commend 
anyone who will be as frank about their errors of the past as you are 
being before this committee and before the public. It is always quite 
refreshing and comforting to know that any Communist or Communist 
sympathizer has discovered the error of his ways and beliefs, and 
changes. But I have always thought that with repentance or reforma- 
tion comes deeds and action. And I was interested to know whether, 
since you came to the conclusion that the ideology of communism was 
wrong, you have, since you are a writer, undertaken to write books or 
other material that would repudiate your former writings and 
philosophy. 

Mr. Hughes. Could I point out two or three examples which I think 
do that, if I may ? 

Senator McClellan. Yes. You are being very sincere, and I was 
hoping that you would have some real evidence of your change, that 
you have done and are doing what you can to make amends for what- 
ever damage you may have done by previous writing. 

Mr. Hughes. There is a poem of mine called Freedom's Plow, sir, 
which was written, or rather published, about 10 years ago, but which 
I have, as nearly as I can, constantly kept in circulation, and which is 
very much a statement of my belief in American democracy and its 
potentialities for the Negro people. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 81 

There is a story, if we want something much more recent, in my 
book of short stories, Laughing To Keep From Crying, my last 
book of adult prose, which came out, I think, a year or more ago, 
in 1952, which contains a story called One Friday Morning, in which 
I reaffirm, through a dramatic situation, the potentialities of our 
democracy for a Negro girl who has had a very humiliating Jim 
Crow experience. And it is pointed out to her that the Irish people 
went through a period when they were humiliated and segregated 
and stoned; and the Jewish people have had their difficulties, and 
that some of those difficulties no longer exist for other former minority 
groups, and the belief in our potentialities is reaffirmed for this Negro 
student in this story. 

Just very briefly, as to one or two more things of that nature, poems 
like Mystery, in Montage of a Dream Deferred, my last book of 
poems, and then my very last book, the very last paragraph of my last 
book, which is about eight lines, if I may read read it to you. This 
book came out 2 months or 3 months ago, and the last paragraph of it 
goes like this: 

Our country has many problems still to solve, but America is young, big, 
strong, and beautiful, and we are trying very bard to be, as the flag says, one 
Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Here people are free to 
vote and work out their problems. In some countries people are governed by 
rulers, and ordinary folks can't do a think about it. But here all of us are a 
part of democracy. By taking an interest in our Government, and by treating 
our neighbors as we would like to be treated, each one of us can help make our 
country the most wonderful country in the world. 

That book is called The First Book of Negroes. 

Senator McClellan. I certainly commend you for that authorship 
of those remarks. I think they indicate that you have had a change 
in your beliefs and convictions about this country, and I wish that 
these books that are in the libraries, your earlier publications, might 
be replaced with some of your later works. 

Mr. Hughes. I would be very happy if that were to happen. 

Senator McCleixan. And I am sure that the books were not in the 
libraries with your consent. You had no knowledge of that. 

The Chairman. May I ask counsel: Did the information program 
buy any of Mr. Hughes' books after his reversal, when he quit sup- 
porting the Soviet system, and started to support ours? 

Mr. C'onx. As he has mentioned these books, I have gone through 
the list and do not find them, but I wouldn't want to state that con- 
clusively until I have checked with the State Department on that, 
Senator. 

The Cji.uuman. I have been asked to put in the record a poem 
written by Mr. Hughes while he was, as he says, following the Com- 
munist Party line and believing in it, for the purpose of showing the 
type of material that was written by those who did believe in the 
Communist cause. I do not believe it is necessary to read it. We 
will merely insert it in the record. As far as I know, this was not 
in any of the books purchased by the information program. This is 
merely included in the record on request, to show the type of thinking 
of Mr. Hughes at that time, the type of writings which were being pur- 
chased. The title, incidentally," is "Goodbye^ Christ." 



82 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

(The material referred to is as follows:) 

Goodbye, Christ 

Langston Hughes 

Listen, Christ 

You did all right in your day, I reckon — 

But that day's gone now. 

They ghosted you up a swell story too, 

Called it Bible— 

But it's dead now. 

The popes and the preachers 've 

Made too much money from it. 

They've sold you to too many 

Kings, generals, robbers, and killers — 

Even to the Czar and the Cossacks, 

Even to Rockefeller's church, 

Even to the SATURDAY EVENING POST. 

You ain't no good no more. 

They've pawned you 

Till you've done wore out. 

Goodbye, 

Christ Jesus Lord God Jehova, 

Beat it on away from here now. 

Make way for a new guy with no religion 

at all— 
A real guy named 
Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin 

Worker ME— 

I said "ME" ! 

Go ahead on now, 

You're getting in the way of things, Lord, 

And please take Saint Ghandi with you 

when you go, 
And Saint Pope Pius, 
And Saint Aiinie McPherson, 
And big black Saint Becton 
Of the Consecrated Dime. 

Move ! 

Don't be so slow about movin' ! 

The world is mine from now on — 

Nobody's gonna sell ME 

To a king, or a general, 

Or a millionaire. 

Mr. Cohn. You no longer hold any of the views expressed in that 
poem? 

Mr. Hughes. No; I do not. It is a very young, awkward poem, 
written in the late 1920's or earfy 1930's. It does not express my views 
or my artistic techniques today. 

The Chairman. It was written at a time when you were devoted 
to the Communist cause, and you would not subscribe to it at this time 
at all? 

Mr. Hughes. No, sir ; I certainly would not. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohn. No further questions of Mr. Hughes. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. Hughes. I am excused now, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 83 

May I ask you just one question first? We have had so much 
screaming by certain elements of the press that witnesses have been 
misused. Now, 3-011 have been in contact with my staff for some time. 
They have interrogated you. Do you feel that you were in any way 
mistreated by the staff or by the committee? 

Mr. Hughes. I must say that I was agreeably surprised at the cour- 
tesy and friendliness with which I was received. 

The Chairman. In other words, from reading some of the press, 
you thought you would find the Senators and the staff might have 
horns, and 3^011 discovered that we did not have any horns at all. 

Mr. Hughes. Well, Senator Dirksen — is that his name? 

The Chairman. Senator Dirksen, yes. He is the other Senator. He 
i* not here today. 

Mr. Hughes. He was, I thought, most gracious and in a sense help- 
ful in defining for me the area of this investigation; and the 3 7 oung 
men who had to interrogate me, of course, had to interrogate me. 

Am I excused now? 

The Chairman. Thank 3^011 very much. 

You are excused. 

Mr. Cohn. The next witness is Mr. Dashiell Hammett. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hammett, will you raise your right hand? In 
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Hammett. I do. 

Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name, please, sir? 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL DASHIELL HAMMETT 

Mr. Hammett. Samuel Dashiell Hammett. 

Mr. Cohn. Samuel Dashiell Hammett. Is that right? 

Mr. Hammett. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation ? 

Mr. Hammett. Writer. 

Mr. Cohn. You are a writer. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hammett. That is right, 

Mr. Cohn. And 3-011 are the author of a number of rather well- 
known detective stories. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hammett. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. In addition to that, 3^011 have written, I think, in your 
earlier period, on some social issues. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hammett. Well, I have written short stories that may have— 
you know, it is impossible to write anything without taking some sort 
of stand on social issues. 

Mr. Cohn. You say it is impossible to write anything without tak- 
ing some sort of stand on a social issue. Now, are you the author of a 
short story known as Nightshade ? 

Mr. Hammett. I am. 

Mr. Cohn. I might state, Mr. Chairman, that some 300 of Mr. 
Hammett's books are in use in the Information Service today, located 
in, I believe, some 73 information centers; I am sorry, 300 copies, 18 
books. J r 

You haven't written 300 books; is that right? 

Mr. Hammett. That is a lot of books. 



84 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. There are 18 books in use, including some collections of 
short stories and other things, and there are some 300 copies of those 
located in some 73 information centers. 

Now Mr. Hammett, when did you write your first published book? 

Mr. Hammett. The first book was Ked Harvest. It was published 
in 1929. I think I wrote it in 1927, either 1927 or 1928. 

Mr. Cohn. At the time you wrote that book, were you a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me, relying on my rights under the fifth 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Cohn. When did you write your last published book? 

Mr. Hammett. Well, I can't really answer that. Because some col- 
lections of short stories have been published. I imagine it was some 
time in the thirties, or perhaps the forties. 

Mr. Cohn. In the thirties or forties. At the time you wrote your 
last published book were you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohn. If I were to ask you, with reference to these books, 
whether you were a member of the Communist Party at the time you 
wrote the books, what would your answer be ? 

Mr. Hammett. Same answer. I would decline to answer on the 
grounds that an answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hamniettt, are you a member of the Communist 
Party today ? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hammett, let me ask you this. Forgetting 
about yourself for the time being, is it a safe assumption that any 
member of the Communist Party, under Communist discipline, would 
propagandize the Communist cause, normally, regardless of whether 
he was writing fiction books or books on politics? 

Mr. Hammett. I can't answer that, because I honestly don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you have told us that you will not tell 
us wdiether you are a member of the Communist Party today or not, on 
the ground that if you told us the answer might incriminate you. That 
is normally taken by this committee and the country as a whole. to 
mean that you are a member of the party, because if you were not you 
would simply say, "No," and it would not incriminate you. You see, 
the only reason that you have the right to refuse to answer is if you 
feel a truthful answer would incriminate you. An answer that you 
were not a Communist, if you were not a Communist, could not in- 
criminate you. Therefore, you should know considerable about the 
Communist movement, I assume. 

Mr. Hammett. Was that a question, sir? 

The Chairman. That is just a comment upon your statement. 

Mr. Counsel, do you have anything further? 

Mr. Cohn. Oh, yes. 

Now, Mr. Hammett, from these various books you have written, 
have you received royalty payments? 

Mr. Hammett. I have. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 85 

Mr. Cohn. And I would assume that if the State Department pur- 
chased 300 books, or whatever it was. you would receive some royal- 
ties? 

Mr. Hammett. I should imagine so. 

Mr. Cohn. Could you tell us, without violating some secret of the 
trade, just what your royalties are, by percentage? 

Mr. Hammett. Well, it is not a case of violating a secret of the trade. 
I would have to look up contracts. And they vary, as a matter of fact, 
On the books published by Alfred Knopf, $2 or $2.50 books, or what- 
ever they were. I think it starts at 15 percent. On the short-story 
collections, most of which were reprints, the rovalties are lower than 
that. 

The Chairman. Did any of the money which you received from 
the State Department find its way into the coffers of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me put the question another way. Did you 
contribute any royalties received as a result of the purchase of these 
books by the State Department to the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You have the right to decline. 

Mr. Cohn. Mow, is it a fair statement to make that you have re- 
ceived substantial sums of money from the royalties on all of the books 
you have written ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes: that is a fair statement, 

Mr. Cohn. And you decline to tell us whether any of those moneys 
went to the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hammett. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Hammett. is it a fact that you have frequently 
allowed the use of your name as sponsor and member of governing 
bodies of Communist-front organizations? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the ground that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohx. Mr. Hammett, is it a fact that you recently served a term 
in prison for contempt of court? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. And from what did that arise? 

Mr. Hammett. From declining to answer whether or not I was a 
trustee of the bail bond fund of the Civil Rights Congress. 

The Chairman. May I ask the photographers not to use any flash 
pictures while the witness is testifying? 

Mr. Cohn. Now. you said it was for refusal to answer. The fact 
is: You were a trustee of the bail fund of the Civil Rights Congress. 
Is that right ? 

Mr. Hammett. That was the question that I went to jail for not 
answering; yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, let me ask you: Were you a trustee of the bail 
bond fund of the Civil Rights Congress? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 



33616 — 53— pt. 1 



86 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Cohn. And is it a fact that the Government's allegation was 
that you were one of the sureties on the bond of four fugitive Commu- 
nist leaders, that when they disappeared and ran away you were 
called in to see if you could aid the court in discovering where they 
were, and that a number of questions were put to you concerning their 
whereabouts, your activities as a surety, as a trustee of the group that 
had put up the money for the bail bond, and that you refused to 
answer ? 

Mr. Hammett. I don't remember. I don't know whether I was 
asked anything about their whereabouts. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, I will now ask you : Do you know the whereabouts 
of any of the fugitive Communist leaders? 

Mr. Hammett. No; Gus Hall, I read, is in jail. 

Mr. Cohn. You know Gus Hall has been captured. How about the 
other three? 

Mr. Hammett. I don't know. 

Mr. Cohn. You say you don't know? 

Mr. Hammett. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You say you do not know where they are at this 
moment. Did you know where they were at any time while the Gov- 
ernment was searching for them ? 

Mr. Hammett. No. 

The Chairman. You did not. Do I understand that you arranged 
the bail bond for the fugitives? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of the money that went toward 
the bail, which made it possible for these Communist leaders to go 
free on bail, and later to abscond? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have vou ever engaged in espionage against the 
United States? 

Mr. Hammett. No. 

The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in sabotage ? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you believe that the Communist system is better 
than the system in use in this country? 

Mr. Hammett. I can't answer that question, because I really don't 
know what it means : is the Communist system better than the system 
used in this country? 

The Chairman. Do you believe that communism as practiced in 
Russia today is superior to our form of government? 

Mr. Hammett. Well, regardless of what I thought of communism 
in Russia today, it is doubtful if, you know, any one sort of thing — 
one is better for one country, and one is better for the other country. 
I don't think Russian communism is better for the United States, any 
more than I would think that some kind of imperialism were better for 
the United States. 

The Chairman. You seem to distinguish between Russian commu- 
nism and American communism. While I cannot see any distinction, 
I will assume there is for the purpose of the questioning. Would 
you think that American communism would be a good system to adopt 
in this country? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 87 

Mr. Hammett. I will have to decline to answer that, on the grounds 
that an answer might tend to incriminate me. Because, I mean, that 
can't be answered "yes" or "no." 

The Chairman. You could not answer that "yes" or "no," whether 
you think communism is superior to our form of government? 

Mr. Hammett. You see, I don't understand. Theoretical commu- 
nism is no form of government. You know, there is no government. 
And I actually don't know, and I couldn't, without — even in the end, 
I doubt if I could give a definite answer. 

The Chairman. Would you favor the adoption of communism in 
this country? 

Mr. Hammett. You mean now? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hammett. No. 

The Chairman. You would not? 

Mr. Hammett. For one thing, it would seem to me impractical, if 
most people didn't want it. 

The Chairman. Did you favor the Communist system when you 
were writing these books? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan, did you have a question ? 

Senator McClellan. You are declining to answer many questions, 
taking refuge in the privileges of the fifth amendment of the Consti- 
tution, because you are afraid you might incriminate yourself if you 
answer the questions. Are you sincere and honest in making that 
statement under oath? 

Mr. Hammett. Very sincere, sir. I really am quite afraid that 
answers will incriminate me, or will tend to incriminate me. 

Senator McClellan. Since you say you are afraid : Do you not 
feel that your refusal to answer is a voluntary act of self -incrimina- 
tion before the bar of public opinion ? Are you not voluntarily, now, 
by taking refuge in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, com- 
mitting an act of voluntary self-incrimination before the bar of public 
opinion, and do you not know that? 

Mr. Hammett. I do not think that is so, sir, and if it is so. unfor- 
tunately, or fortunately for me in those circumstances, the bar of 
public opinion did not send me to jail for G months. 

Senator McClellan. Violation of a law sent you to jail ; being 
caught: is that what you mean? Public opinion, as against being 
caught ? Is that what you are trying to tell us ? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I did not want to misunderstand you. I 
thought maybe public opinion or at least judicial opinion had some- 
thing to do with your going to jail. That was not a voluntary act, 
was it? 

Mr. Hammett. Going to jail I 

Senator McClellan. Yes. 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Well, public opinion must have had some- 
thing to do with it, or judicial opinion at least. 

I do not want to misjudge anyone. I do not think the public wants 
to. We want to give you every opportunity to be fair to the com- 
mittee, to be fair to yourself, to be true to your country, if you care 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

anything for this country. And I would like to ask you this question : 
Would this committee and the public in general be in error if they 
judged from your answers, or rather your lack of answers, to im- 
portant questions, and from your demeanor on the witness stand here, 
that you are now a Communist, that you have been a Communist, and 
that you still follow and subscribe to the Communist philosophy ?.' 
Would we be in error if we judged you that way from your actions? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer that question, because the an- 
swer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator McClellan. Then we are free to judge according to our ob- 
servations and conclusions based on your refusal to answer and your 
demeanor on the stand. 

Mr. Hammett. Is that a question, sir? 

Senator McClellan. Well, if you want to answer it, it is a question.. 
Do you want to take refuge under the Constitution again ( 

Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. All right. That is all. 

The Chairman. For your information, in case you do not know it, 
Mr. Budenz, the former editor of the Communist Daily Worker, gave 
you as one of those used by the Communist Party to further the Com- 
munist cause, and gave your name as a Communist under Communist 
Party discipline, recognized by him as such. If you care to comment 
on that, you may. 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. I have no comment to make. 

The Chairman. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Cohn. I would like to ask : Is Mr. Budenz being truthful when 
he told us that you were a Communist ? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer, on the grounds that an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohn. When he told us that you were under Communist 
discipline? 

Mr. Hammett. I decline to answ T er, on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. May I ask one further question : Mr. Hammett, if 
you were spending, as we are, over a hundred million dollars a year 
on an information program allegedly for the purpose of fighting 
communism, and if you were in charge of that program to fight 
communism, would you purchase the works of some 75 Communist 
authors and distribute their works throughout the world, placing our 
official stamp of approval upon those works ? 

Or would you rather not answer that question ? 

Mr. Hammett. Well, I think — of course, I don't know — if I were 
fighting communism, I don't think I would do it by giving people 
any books at all. 

The Chairman. From an author, that sounds unusual. 

Thank you very much. You are excused. 

Mr. Cohn. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Helen Goldfrank, 
also known as Helen Kay. 

The Chairman. May I ask : Is she one of the authors used by the 
old State Department ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, under the name of Helen Kay, Helen Goldfrank 
is the author of children's books, 30 copies of which are in use in the 
State Department information program. 

We don't have the full details on that, Mr. Chairman. We have the 
number of copies. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 89 

Mr. Ford. May I address the committee on the question of tele- 
vision, as it may apply to the witness whom I represent? 

The Chairman. It will not be necessary. If she objects to being 
televised, I have taken the responsibility to decide that she will not 
be televised. However, that is not setting a precedent. I have not 
had the opportunity to have a meeting of the full committee to de- 
termine what our practice in the future will be. Until we have that 
meeting of the committee, none of the witnesses will be required to be 
televised while they are testifying. The lights will not be turned upon 
them. The television men have been instructed in a case such as this 
that they must, under no circumstance, televise the witness. If they 
do, the committee will endeavor to take contempt action against them. 

I know it is unnecessary to make that statement. We have had 
complete cooperation from you gentlemen. But I want to make it 
clear that the witness will not, under any circumstance, be televised 
while on the witness stand. 

Mr. Ford. May that apply to the other cameras, Senator ? 

The Chairman. If that is her desire, she will not be photographed, 
from the time she comes up to the stand until she leaves. I have no 
authority over the photographers before and after she testifies. 

May I say this to the cameramen : If this witness does not want to be 
photographed, she will not be photographed at any time while she 
is under the control of the committee, that is, while she is being sworn, 
while she is testifying. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I think one further observa- 
tion should be made to clarify that. 

The Chairman. I am saying this, you understand, subject to 
approval. 

Senator McClellan. I understand. But you say, "while she is 
under the control of the committee." I think the committee is in con- 
trol at all times. I do not think the photographers should have author- 
ity to make pictures in this room, under the ruling you are making. 
We do have control of this room. 

Mr. Ford. We believe you also have control of the corridors, so that 
if anybody commits any offense out there, they are in contempt of this 
committee, so long as the witnesses are under subpena. 

Senator McClellan. I would not want to go that far, but I think 
in this room we have jurisdiction, and the committee should take its 
responsibility and exercise it one way or the other. 

The Chairman. I do not think we could try to control the camera- 
men in the corridors, because the corridors are public. I realize that 
when she is subpenaed she must come through the corridors to appear 
here, and there is some merit to your suggestion that they should be 
ordered not to photograph in the corridors, but I am afraid the com- 
mittee would be going beyond its jurisdiction. 

Will the television people understand that the witness will not be 
televised or photographed while she is in the committee room? 

Cameraman. We can photograph you, Mr. Chairman, while she is 
testifying? 

The Chairman. You can photograph anybody else, I believe. 

What is the wish of counsel in that respect? 

Mr. Ford. Counsel has no objection. 

The Chairman. And there will be no photographing of hands, you 
understand. 



90 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

I believe you were put under oath previously, in executive session.. 
You are reminded that your oath is still in effect. 
Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your name, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF HELEN GOLDFRANK, ACCOMPANIED BY HER 
COUNSEL, CHARLES E. FORD 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you talk a little louder, please ma'am, so that 
we can hear you ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank. 

Mr. Cohn. Have you written children's books which are now 

First, can we get the name and address of counsel for the record? 

Mr, Ford. Charles E. Ford, 416 Fifth Street NW., Washington, 
D.C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ford, I assume you are fully aware of the 
committee rules. That is, that you may consult with your client at any 
time you care to. If, at any time, a situation arises in which you want 
a private consultation, we will arrange a room for that. We do not 
allow counsel to take part in the proceedings, other than to freely con- 
sult with his client. And may I say that yesterday we had the ex- 
perience of counsel having a very confidential consultation with his 
client with his mouth so close to the microphone that quite a few mil- 
lion people heard that confidential advice. 

Mr. Ford. I shall obey that. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Goldfrank, where do you reside? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Thornwood, N. Y. 

Mr. Cohn. Will you talk a little louder, please? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Thornwood, N. Y. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Goldfrank, under the name of Helen Kay, 
K-a-y, are you the author of various children's books being used in 
the State Department information program ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I decline to answer that question, most respect- 
fully, on the basis of personal privilege under the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution, as the answer to that question may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I assume you are referring to that part of the 
question which asked you whether you have written under the 
pseudonym of Helen Kay. Is that correct? You do not claim it 
would tend to incriminate you if the State Department used your 
books ? I am referring to the old State Department ; not the new one. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Any explanation would relieve me of my right of 
personal privilege, and I respectfully and proudly stand on that right 
of personal privilege, Senator. 

The Chairman. If you feel that an answer would tend to incriminate 
you, you have the right to refuse. 

Mr. Cohn. You say you "proudly" stand on that right? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, proudly standing on that right, may I ask you this 
question: Have you ever engaged in espionage against the United 
States. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. No ; I have never engaged in espionage against the 
United States. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 91 

Mr. Cohx. "Were you asked that question in executive session before 
this committee the day before yesterday? 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. I can't remember. 

Mr. Cohx. Were you a representative of the Communist Inter- 
national at any time? 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. I stand on my right of personal privilege and 
refuse to answer that question on my right under the fifth amendment 
to the Constitution, because the answer to that question may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this question. Counsel asked you 
whether you were ever engaged in espionage against this country. Did 
you ever engage in sabotage against this country ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. No; I never engaged in sabotage against this 
country. 

The Chairman. Did you ever work with anyone who you knew 
engaged in either espionage or sabotage against this country? 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. May I consult with my counsel for 1 second ? 

The Chairman. Certainly. You may consult with your attorney at 
any time. 

(Mrs. Goldfrank confers with Mr. Ford.) 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. No, sir ; to the best of mv knowledge, I have not 
worked with anyone who was engaged in sabotage or believed in it. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohx. Now, is it not a fact, Mrs. Goldfrank, that you carried 
sums of money in behalf of the Communist International from Moscow 
to the German Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Proudly, once again, I call upon the fifth amend- 
ment, on the basis of personal privilege, to refuse to testify on the 
grounds that the answer to that question may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever attend the Lenin School in Moscow ? 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. May I consult ? 

The Chairmax. You may consult, certainly. 

(Mrs. Goldfrank consults with Mr. Ford.) 

Airs. Goldfraxk. I will continue to stand on my rights, on the 
grounds that the answer to that question may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairmax. In other words, your position is that a truthful 
answer to the question of whether or not you attended the Lenin School, 
sometimes referred to as the Lenin School for Espionage and Sabotage, 
might tend to incriminate you ? Is that your position ( 

Sirs. Goldfraxk. Once again, I stand on my right and use my 
personal privilege to refuse to answer the question. In defining the 
reasons, I would abrogate that personal privilege, and I refuse to 
answer. 

The Chairmax. Will you tell us the schools you did attend in Mos- 
cow, or Russia ? Or is the answer the same ? 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. My answer will continue to be the same. 

The Chairmax. Now, do you believe in the overthrow by force and 
violence of the Government of the United States ? 

I may say you may consult freely, at any time you want. 

Mrs. Goldfraxk. I do not believe in the forceful overthrow of the 
United States Government by force and violence. 

The Chairmax. Do you believe that communism, as it is found in 
Russia today, is superior to our system in this country? 



92 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Do you have some difficulty answering that ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. No, sir. But, after all, I am the one that will 
take the consequences of my answers, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, all we want is a truthful answer, or, if you 
think that the answer will incriminate you, you can refuse to answer. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Excuse me, Senator, I didn't mean to interrupt 
you. 

I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the Constitution. 
1 continue to stand on the Constitution, on my rights of personal 
privilege under the fifth amendment and every other amendment in 
our lovely Constitution. 

The Chairman. Do I understand you refuse to answer that last 
question? The question is, Whether you consider that communism as 
found in Russia today is superior to our system. You refuse to answer 
that on the ground that your answer might tend to incriminate you I 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe I made my answer. 

The Chairman. You are refusing to answer that ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my attorney ? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

(Mrs. Goldfrank confers with Mr. Ford.) 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe in a democratic America. And further 
than that, I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Speak a little louder, if you please. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I say I believe in a democratic America. Further 
than that, on any other phase of the question, I refuse to answer, on 
the basis of possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. The fact that you say you believe in a democratic 
America does not mean much, because the Communists claim that their 
form of democracy is better than our Republic. 

The question again is, and I am not going to order you to answer, and 
you have a right to refuse to answer if you think the answer may in- 
criminate you — it is a very simple question, and I think in view of the 
fact that you are writing books that go into our information library, to 
be purchased by taxpayers' money, it is a very important question to 
the general public. The question is, Do you feel that communism, as 
found in Russia today, is superior to our system in this country? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe the political system of democracy is the 
highest form of a government guaranteeing civil rights and civil 
liberties for the American people. 

The Chairman. I will order you to answer the question asked, 
unless you take the position that the answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate you. It is a very simple question. You being one of the writers 
being used by the old State Department, we are entitled to inquire 
whether you felt that that system should be imposed upon this coun- 
try. Your books allegedly were being used to fight communism. That 
is what the general public felt when they paid over a $100 million a 
year into this information program. And they are entitled to know 
how you feel, unless you say that a truthful answer might incriminate 
you. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, it isn't a truthful answer that may tend to 
incriminate; it is the answer, that may tend to incriminate. 

The Chairman. Well, you are not entitled to the privilege if you 
think you would incriminate yourself by committing perjury. That 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 93 

privilege you do not have. The only privilege you have is to refuse 
if you feel that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I think you misconstrue the emphasis. I am 
seeking to stand on the amendment, not on the basis of whether my 
answer is "Yes" or "No,'" but on the basis of my right, that it may 
tend to incriminate me, within your view, you see. You may look 
at something a little different^ than I. 

The Chairman. You are refusing to answer that question ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have that privilege. 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one or two ques- 
tions. I did not quite understand you, regarding whether a truth- 
ful answer might tend to incriminate you, or, if you told us some- 
thing, gave us an answer, that was not true, that it might tend to 
incriminate you. 

Now, which position do you take? That if you give a truthful 
answer to these questions it would tend to incriminate you ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, I am sworn to tell the truth. 

Senator McClellan. You are. And that is what I am trying to 
determine. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Well, I am telling the truth. 

Senator McClellan. Therefore, do you say that if you give a truth- 
ful answer to these questions, you honestly believe it would tend to 
incriminate you ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I stand on the 

Senator McClellan. I did not ask you what you stand on. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I am answering the question in that way, sir. 

Senator McClellan. All right. Answer it in that way. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I am giving a truthful answer to the questions 
that I have answered. On the questions that I have not answered, 
I truthfully stand on my right of personal privilege, under the fifth 
amendment to the Constitution, and refuse to answer, on the basis 
that it may tend to incriminate me. I didn't say it would incrimi- 
nate me. It may tend to. 

Senator McClellan. Do you say that a truthful answer may tend to 
incriminate you? I think that is the test. I do not think you have 
a right to come in here and take refuge under the Constitution to 
commit perjury. But do you say that if you give a truthful answer 
you feel the answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I am giving a truthful answer, and I once again 
stand on the right of personal privilege. All my answers, sir, are 
truthful. 

Senator McClellan. Well, in answering, in saying that you feel it 
might tend to incriminate you, you are telling us the truth. You sin- 
cerely believe that. That is all I am asking. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I am telling the truth. I sincerely believe 
that, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Now, I think if you are, I want to determine 
as to whether you were sincere. That is all. You have no right to 
come in here and deceive the committee. You have a perfect right 
to stand on the fifth amendment if you wish to do it, if you are sincere 
in that statement. And since you say you are sincere 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Most respectfully, sir. 



94 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. And you believe that if you answered these 
questions truthfully they would tend to incriminate you, I may say 
that I wholly agree with you. I think you know that. And I think 
all rational minds will agree with you. 

The Chairman. Have you ever acted as a spy for a foreign country ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question, on the basis of 
personal privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. 

The Chairman. Did you ever contribute money to the Communist 
Party? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of 
personal privilege ; that that answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was your husband a member of the national com- 
mittee of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on two grounds; 
the first being my right of personal privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment ; the second being the basic foundation of our society, the protec- 
tion of the home and family, the father of my children, and considering 
any information regarding my husband a question of privileged cor- 
respondence. 

The Chairman. You have the right to refuse on both those grounds. 

Incidentally, is your client a lawyer, Mr. Ford? 

Mr. Ford. No, sir. 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I am a mother of three children. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you one more question. You, of course, 
have received money as a result of these books that have been purchased 
by our information program. Was any of that money contributed to 
the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult? 

The Chairman. You may consult at any time. 

(Mrs. Goldfrank confers with Mr. Ford.) 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I beg personal privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Any further questions? 

Mr. Coiin. Mrs. Goldfrank, did you appear before a Federal grand 
jury in New York within the last year? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Mr. Cohn, I beg the right of personal privilege, 
and refuse to answer that question, on my rights under the fifth amend- 
ment, on the basis that any answer I may give may tend to incrim- 
inate me. 

Mr. Coiin. If you tell us whether you appeared before a Federal 
grand jury, you think that that answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir, Mr. Cohn. 

The Chairman. I do not believe the witness has any privilege in 
regard to that matter. Of course, it is a matter of public record ; so, 
I assume it is a moot question. Normally I would order the witness to 
answer the question, but it is a fact she appeared? 

Mr. Cohn. It is a fact, Mr. Chairman. The docket entries in the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 
will so indicate. 

Have you ever been known by any other name other than that of 
Helen Goldfrank? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, Mr. Cohn, I seek the right of per- 
sonal privilege. I refuse to answer that question, on the basis that any 
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 95 

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by the name of Helen Ko- 
lodny, K-o-l-o-d-n-y ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, I refuse to answer that question, on 
the basis of special personal privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution. 

Mr. Cohn. Were you ever in Moscow? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer, on the basis of personal privi- 
lege, because the answer I may give may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. One other question. I assume you will refuse to 
answer this; but, just to have the record clear: Is it a fact that, as a 
representative of the Communist International, you carried a sizable 
sum of money from Moscow to the German Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer, Senator McCarthy, on the 
basis that any answer I may give may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have anything further, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. I have no further questions. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the wit- 
ness that she has definitely convinced me that, if she gave truthful 
answers to the questions asked, she would incriminate herself. 

The Chairman. You may step down. 

The photographers are warned there will be no pictures. 

Mr. Ford. Senator, are we finally excused ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

You do not want this witness interrogated further ? 

Mr. Cohn. No ; I have nothing further of this witness. 

We have tried to be in touch with some witnesses, and I think we 
can have a session at tomorrow morning if that is agreeable to the 
Chair. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan, I would like to get your 
thought on this. We have some 75 Communist authors whose works 
were published by the old State Department. I doubt whether any- 
thing would be gained by bringing all of them in. I think we can 
bring a representative group in, so that we can get a general picture of 
the type of individuals whose works are being used. I do think that 
the next important thing in this is to try and pin down the responsi- 
bility and find out who personalty selected these books. 

We will recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning, with a possible execu- 
tive session this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 59 a. m., Thursday, March 26, 1953, a recess 
was taken until Friday, March 27, 1953, at 10: 30 a. m.) 



INDEX 

Page 

Acheson. Dean — 62 

Allen, James S 22, 32, 34, 35, 45, 46, 58 

Testimony of 2-17 

Auerbach, Sol 10, 16 

Barth, Allen 67 

Boudin, Leonard B 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 

Browder, Earl 16, 32, 34, 35, 30, 47, 48, 54 

Testimony of 17-24 

Budenz, Louis Francis 65, 88 

Testimony of 41-59 

 Churchill, Mr 51 

( !olgrove, Kenneth — 63 

Dooley, Mr 78 

Duclos 23 

Eisler. Gerhart 46 

Engels 51 

Field, Frederick 64 

Ford, Charles E 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 

Forer, .Joseph 2, 4, 25 

Foster. William Z 23,47,48,54 

•Gallagher, Leo 10 

Goldfrank, Helen 88 

Testimony of 90-95 

 Greenglass 36 

Haddon Craftsmen, Inc 31 

Hall, Gus 86 

Hammett, Samuel Dashiell testimony of 83-88 

Harris, Reed 10, 11 

Henderson, Donald 10, 11 

Hiss, Alger 63 

Hitler 48 

Hughes, Langston, testimony of 73-S3 

Humphrey, Richard 1 

Jessup, Philip 63 

Johnson, Oakley 10, 11, 44, 79 

Kaplan, Maj. Raymond 27,28 

Kaufman, Mrs. Mary 47 

Kay. Helen 88, 90 

Knopf, Alfred — 85 

Kolodny, Helen 95 

Lattimore, Owen 63, 67. 77. ~u 

Lenin 43, 51. 52 

L. \Y. Frohlich & Co 27 

Malenkov . 51. 55 

Mandell, William Marx — 24 

Testimony of 25-39 

Marx no 

Ma rx-Engels-Lenin Institute 45 

McCarran Committee . 62-63 

McCracken, Mr — 22 

McLeod, Mr 77 

Peters. J <; 

Reeves, Frank D 73 

Roberts. General 30 

Rogge. O. John 17,23 



n INDEX 

Page 

Rosenberg, Ethel 36 

Rosenberg, Julius 36 

Rosinger, Lawrence K 55, 59 

Testimony of 61-69 

Seaver, Edwin, testimony of — 71-73 

Slansky 6 

Smith, Walter Bedell 29 

Stalin 43, 48, 51 r 52, 58 

Toledano, Lombardo — 46 

Trachtenberg, Alexander 45 

Tse-tung, Mao 64 

Un-American Activities Committee 78 

Van Fleet, Gen 52. 

X