(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 "Subversive influence in certain labor organizations. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the International Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, first and second sessions, on S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606, legislation designed to curb Communist penetration and domination of labor organizations"

-F 



t 



iKo 



q ."^ .^ ^. ti^'>'A^ 1 




Given By 

XJ. S. S":PT. or nOrv^Av 



■fFNTS 



3J 



v>^ 



\1 






''SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN 
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606 

LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO CURB COMMUNIST PENETRATION 
AND DOMINATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 



DECEMBER 21, 1953, JANUARY 14, 15, 22, FEBRUARY 18, 
19, 26, MARCH 3, 4, AND 25, 1954 



Printed for the Committee on the Judiciary 




SOBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN 
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 

ADMINISTEATION OF THE INTEENAL SECUEITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTEENAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

S. 23, S. 1254, and S. 1606 

LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO CURB COMMUNIST PENETRATION 
AND DOMINATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 



DECEMBER 21, 1953, JANUARY 14, 15, 22, FEBRUARY 18, 
19, 26, MARCH 3, 4, AND 25, 1954 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
43903 WASHINGTON : 1954 




Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUN16 1954 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota, Chairman 



ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

ARTHUR V. WATKINS. Utah 

ROBERT C. HENDRICKSOX, New Jersey 

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois 

HERMAN WELKER, Idaho 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland 



PAT McCARRAN, Nevada 
HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia 
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi 
ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee 
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina 
THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Missouri 
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 



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

WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana, Chairman 

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah PAT McCARRAN, Nevada 

ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi 
HERMAN W^ELKER, Idaho OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

Charles P. Grimes. Counsel 



Task Force Investigating Communist Domination of Certain Labor 

Organizations 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland, Chairman 
HERMAN WELKER, Idaho PAT McCARRAN, Nevada 

Richard Arbxs, Special Counsel 
II 



CONTENTS 



Statement or testimoiiv of — Page 

Kader, George Edward 145-150, 170-174 

Parron, William J 307-319 

Bouhvare, Lemuel R 287-319 

Communications 439-453 

Coimtrvman, Veru 327-409 

Denham. Robert N 85-107 

Drummond, Harold 197-212 

Fitzgerald. Albert J 212-229,238-275 

Frank, Nelson 109-133 

Goldwater, Hon. Barrj^_. 45-84 

Mahon, Don . __ 276-286 

McDowell. Arthur G 1-44 

Miller, William W 175-187 

Nixon, Russ . 229-256 

O'Brien, Daniel 1 410, 424^38 

Sears, Barnabas F 151-169 

Selly, Joseph P 320-376 

Stone, Adm. Fllery W ^ _ 188-196 

Witt, Nathan 410,418^25,429-439 

Index 455 

in 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

or the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

executive session — confidential 

The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 : 15 a. m., pursuant to 
call, in the office of Senator Butler, Senate Office Building, Senator 
Jolm M. Butler presiding. 

Present : Senator Butler. 

Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank W. Schroeder, 
professional staff member ; and Edward R. Duffy, investigator. 

Senator Butler. The subcommittee will be in order. 

Will you hold up your right hand? In the presence of Almighty 
God, do you solemnly promise and declare the evidence you will give 
to this task force of the Internal Security Committee of the United 
States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. McDowell. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. McDOWELL, UPHOLSTERERS INTERNA- 
TIONAL UNION or NORTH AMERICA, A. E. OF L., PHILADELPHIA, 
PA. 

Senator Butler. Will you state your full name, address, and 
occupation ? 

Mr. McDowell. I am Arthur G. McDowell, director of the depart- 
ment of civic education and governmental affairs of the Upholsterers 
International Union of North America, A. F. of L. My office address 
is 1500 North Broad Street, Philadelphia. 

Mr. Arens. You are testifying here under subpena that has been 
served upon you ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in your present 
occupation ? 

Mr. McDowell. I have been engaged in this and other staff posi- 
tions with the Upholsterers International Union since June of 1945. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly give us a thumbnail sketch of the Up- 
holsterers International Union, A. F. of L., what is it, what is its 



2 SUBVERSrV'E INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

membership, where is it located, and a word about the organization, 
if you please ? 

th'. McDowell. The Upholsterers International Union is a union 
founded at the beginning of its first continuous existence in Chicago 
in 1892. Yet it is at present composed of between fifty-fiTe and sixty 
thousand members in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. 
That membership is primarily engaged in the related trades of up- 
holstered furniture, wood furniture, burial caskets, mattress and 
bedding, and canvas products. 

Senator Butler. Could you break it down as to membership in the 
United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico? 

Mr. McDowell. The membership in the United States is somewhat 
in excess of 50,000; the membership in Canada and Puerto Rico is 
marginal. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McDowell, is the Upholsterers International cer- 
tified under the NLRB? 

Mr. IMcDowELL. Yes, it has been from the very beginning of the 
act. 

Mr. Arexs. Now will you kindly give us a personal sketch of your 
own life, Mr. McDowell, Avith particular reference to your professional 
activities in the trade-union movement ? 

INIr. McDowell. I have been engaged professionally in activities 
directly connected with the trade-union movement since 1929. 

Mr. Arens. May I interrupt you. If you would just give us a little 
brief personal history of where and when you were born and a little 
bit of your education, and a thumbnail sketch of your life, if you 
please. 

Mr. McDowell. I was born in Pittsburgh in 1909, of a family which 
has been in western Pennsylvania for quite a few generations. I 
graduated from high school in the town of Butler, Pa., and I was 
active at that time in civic and other affairs. I was the recipient of 
the DAR award in American history, for example. Throughout that 
high-school period I Avas very active in organizational aff'iirs. That 
included the YMCA, Acting scoutmaster of the county's No. 1 Scout 
troo]:). I Avas at that time president of the Epworth League or the 
Methodist's young people's society of the church in Butler, Pa. 

But in 1927, upon graduation from high school, I became person- 
ally interested in one of the historic radical causes of that year, namely, 
the controversial Sacco-Vanzetti case. I started employment as an 
office worker with the Gulf Refining Co.. in March 1027, and, as a re- 
sult of my very intense expression on the question of this controversial 
case, which became somewhat a cause celebre in labor circles across 
the world, I was dismissed by the Gulf Refining Co. in October of that 
year. I had no organizational connections of any kind at that time. 
That was purely an individual expression of views and resentment 
at injustice. 

HoAA'ever, in 1928, although not yet a voter, I became interested in 
the Social ist Party. Although I did not vote that year, I would proba- 
bly have voted for Norman Thomas had I been able to do so. 

Prior to this time, because of my interest in the field of labor and 
social justice, in the town in which I had graduated from school, 
Butler, the Methodist pastor had enrolled me in the Methodist Federa- 
tion for Social Service. This organization was actually only the first 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 6 

affiliation prior to my contact with the Socialist Party with any radi- 
cal organization. I did not identify it as a radical organization, be- 
cause I was enrolled in it by my pastor, who thought it would be a 
good thing. 

By 1928, I was identified with but not a member of the Socialist 
Party. In the fall of 1928 I organized and became the ]iresident of a 
student League for Industrial Democracy chapter at the University of 
Pittsburgh, the League for Industrial Democracy being a Socialist 
student organization, not affiliated with the party but in general allied 
with it. 

In the fall of 1928, I entered the University of Pittsburgh, having 
previouslv had a year at night school in the downtown university, 
1927-28. * 

On the camj)us I joined the Liberal Club, organized approximately 
2 years previously, following a meeting by Norman Thomas on the 
campus. But in this Liberal Club I had my first contacts with actual 
Connnunists. This occurred in the late fall or early spring of 1928 
or 1929. Although not yet a full sophomore, I was nominated for 
presidency of this club. It was understood that there was no opposi- 
tion, but at the last moment a chap who was identified in the club as a 
Conununist was not only nominated but was elected by what was ob- 
viously a premeeting caucus determination. This individual who 
defeated me was a person going by the name of William Albertson, 
A-1-b-e-r-t-s-o-n, living with his mother in Pittsburgh. His father 
was the superintendent of a Soviet textile factory in Leningrad, and 
this was common knowledge among his fellow students. Albertson 
was subsequently, in 1952, indicted under the Smith Act, so he is cur- 
rent. 

In the spring of 1929, I became interested through the American 
Civil Liberties Union in the Mooney-Billings case as a labor cause, 
and the Liberal Club, with my consent as a board member, arranged 
a meeting on the Universitj' of Pittsburgh campus on the Mooney- 
Billings case. The meeting was subsequently disallowed by the author- 
ities, and a clash resulted with the University of Pittsburgh author- 
ities, the consequence of which was that William Albertson, myself, 
and a graduate assistant who was not directly connected, by the name 
of Frederick Woltman, now employed by the New York World- Tele- 
gram, and so forth, were expelled. This case involved me in fairly 
close collaboration in the courts in the course of legal proceedings with 
William Albertson and others who either at the time or subsequently 
I have identified as Communists or Communist sympathizers. 

However, 2 weeks after the climax of events at the University of 
Pittsburgh, I was employed by the Teamsters International Union 
to prepare a study for them of a strike they were conducting in the 
dairy industry in the city of Pittsburgh, and in the course of conduct- 
ing some meetings to publicize this study, public meetings, I found my 
erstwhile associate, Mr. Albertson, trying to break up said meetings 
and trying to disrupt the relationship between the unionmen on strike 
and their officers from the international union. This was my first in- 
sight into the actual nature of Communist interest in industrial dis- 
turbance. Their sole interest in this concern was to inject themselves 
into the situation, and the person who headed up their injection was 
this chap who 2 weeks before I had been fighting shoulder to shoulder 
with in our dispute with the University of Pittsburgh authorities. 



4 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

I might say that 1 year later tlie University of Pittsburgh offered 
me unconditional reinstatement in the university, but due to surviving 
loyalty to the other associates, who were not included in the offer, I 
declined and did not accept this offer. 

This was extended to me by Mr. J. Steele Gough, who was the execu- 
tive secretary of the university, on behalf of the board of trustees at 
the time. Mr. Gough is now head of the Falk Foundation in Pitts- 
burgh. 

Just prior to this incident at the University of Pittsburgh, I was in 
the city of New York, in the spring of 1929, for the first time. I 
visited the headquarters of the Methodist Federation for Social 
Service. There I met the secretary, a little old woman by the name of 
Winifred Chappell. To my rather intense surprise, she began to re- 
late an incident which she was personally a witness to a few days 
before, when she had attended a Communist Party meeting in New 
York City, at which there had been violence involving the stabbing 
of an alleged Trotskyite. This whole incident, somewhat shockingly, 
was related in the gayest of spirits as if it were just part of an eve- 
ning's entertainment. There was no concern about potential murders 
in a political meeting. As far as I know, that finished me up with the 
Methodist Federation for Social Service. I never renewed my mem- 
bership after the beginning of 1930, although I did see this Winifred 
Chappel again in the summer of 1929 in one of the summer camps or 
institutes arranged by the Metliodist Church, where she was teaching 
classes, and at that time she further sought to interest me specifically 
in the concern of various people with the allegedly inspiring events 
taking place in Soviet Russia. I did not see her after that summer. 

In the summer of 1929, I did work for the Finnish Social Demo- 
cratic Federation directing a young people's labor college for their 
children in Ashtabula, Ohio, and Daisytown, Pa. In August of 1929, 
after the conduct of this series of labor college sessions, I was called 
on the telephone by one Horace B. Davis, who at that time represented 
himself and was quite possibly a sort of radical Quaker liberal, but 
who either was at that time or has subsequently become a Communist 
Party person to my knowledge, operating in various unions, having 
been shoved out of Cumberland, Md., on the insistence of the CIO 
Textile Workers for his Communist activities; most recently, I be- 
lieve, at the University of Kansas City. Professor Davis, as he was 
known, called me on the telephone and asked if I would act as an 
observer for the Civil Liberties Union local committee in Pittsburgh 
at a series of Communist meetings on the north side of Pittsburgh 
where there was alleged to be danger of police violence. In accord- 
ance with this request I did attend this meeting, seeing a demonstra- 
tion in one of the north side parks, which then adjourned to a mass 
meeting in the International Labor and Socialist Lyceum, which has 
since disappeared. At that time it was well known and was the head- 
quarters of the Communist Party in Pittsburgh. 

On the way from that meeting, I spoke to one officer whom I knew 
from the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, the waiters' local, 
a man by the name of Zeno. This individual was a professional labor 
spy, as we now identify them. He worked for private detective agen- 
cies engaged in industrial espionage. 

My attendance at that meeting was reported to the Gulf Refining 
Co.. with whom I was at that time on leave of absence in their service 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 5 

station division, and I was blacklisted in the city of Pittsburgh for the 
balance of that year. 

In tlie spring of 1930 I was engaged as an organizer by the So- 
cialist Party, by the Pennsylvania State committee. I was not ac- 
tually, to show the looseness of this particular organization, a member 
of the Socialist Party until after I was employed as a full-time or- 
ganizer. At that time it was suggested to me that I also join the 
party, which I did. That membership continued continuously from 
that time until March of 1941, when I publicly resigned from the 
Socialist movement. 

I functioned as an organizer for the Socialist Party, and my next 
establishment of contact with the Communist, William Albertson, 
was as a result of an incident that occurred at the State convention 
of the Socialist Party in May of 1930. At this time T personally 
sponsored a resolution condemning the British Labor Party Govern- 
ment for the use of troops against Gandhi in India. The issue was 
very bitter because of the pride which all Socialists took in the British 
Labor Government, and the resolution caused a considerable division 
and could not have been defeated. There was publicity on this 
dispute. 

A few weeks later in Pittsburgh, on a downtown street, for the 
first time since I had seen him trying to break up my meeting for 
the teamsters union in 1929, I saw this William Albertson, who then 
gave me an index into the psychology of this particular group by 
asking why, when I had so many supporters at this State convention, 
did I not organize them and lead them out of that organization and 
split and form an organization of my own. 

Beginning in 1931, 1 was engaged jointly as newspaper correspond- 
ent and publicity director for the two Socialist members of the 
house of representatives in the Pennsylvania State Legislature and, 
as such, I was a member of the Legislative Correspondents Associa- 
tion in my capacity as a correspondent, of course, not as a publicity 
man. I served in that capacity during the regular session of 1931, 
the special session of 1931, the special session of 1932, and regular 
session of 1933, during the period that that legislature was in session. 

In the early summer of 1931, upon the adjournment of the legisla- 
ture, I returned to Pittsburgh to find a demonstration or starvation 
strike of miners being waged in western Pennsylvania counties. This 
strike was not an industrial dispute in the normal sense, inasmuch 
as the majority of the so-called strikers were actually unemployed 
miners, but the unemployment and food situation was actually so 
acute that these miners, having no organization, expressed their re- 
sentment in terms of a strike, although they had no jobs for the most 
part. This was an ideal place for the Communists to operate, and 
they had moved in under the heading of their National Miners Union, 
because of the sympathy for the miners which is very strong in all 
sections of the labor movement as such, and because of the general 
community sympathy for the plight of the miners who, living in 
their small towns, had none of the even minor charity that a small 
city affords because there was nobody in their town except miners, 
and they were all unemployed and pretty hungry. 

It was an ideal situation from the Communist point of view, but 
the Socialist Party office, after consulting with some of the members 



6 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

of the American Federation of Labor in the Pittsburo;h Central Labor 
Union, decided that in spite of the Communist leadership, we could 
not let the miners <ro unaided. We therefore orfranized the labor and 
Socialist minei-s relief fund, and we shipped hundreds of tons of food 
and clothing into this so-called strike area, which was actually not a 
strike area at all. However, I place emphasis upon this because it is 
a pattern of Communist activity which could enable me in 1946, which 
was 15 years later, in discussing the experience in Communist coun- 
tries with the UNRRA, the ITnited Nations Relief and Rehabilitation, 
and the political use of relief, I found there was not a single instance 
that they experienced that was not duplicated in the Communist rela- 
tionship in this relief field in Pittsburgh in 1931. The pattern was so 
absolute and mechanical. 

For example, we discovered — we liappened to rent offices iii the same 
building in Pittsburgh, and one day, first in the Communist press and 
then in a release in the daily press, there was a charge that we were, 
as a labor and Socialist relief committee, using the alleged similarity 
of names, cashing checks and contributions actually aimed at their 
miners relief committee. 

We had some experienced old hands wlio had fought the Commu- 
nists in 1919, who immediately said, "This is an evidence, from all 
past experience with the Connnunists. that they are doing precisely 
this because they only charge you with doing a discreditable thing if 
they themselves are already engaged in it.*' We therefore got hold 
of a postal inspector and moved in on tlieir office and found that they 
had been doing precisely this. Checks had forged endorsements, 
using the similarity of names, and had been cashed and were being 
cashed and were in their office at that time, and we forced them to 
make restitution. 

Throughout the miners' area, going out on our relief trucks, we 
found, for example, that on 1 or 2 occasions the relief stations scat- 
tered through the western Penns^dvania mining area did not get aid 
from the Communist ti'ucks some mornings. The shipments didn't 
come in or the money ran low. On those morninjxs they were crude 
enough to go through with their trucks and leave large bimdles of 
Daily Workers in empty relief stations where the potato barrel was 
empty. They left Daily Workers. This is an example of the type of 
callousness Avhich is possible in their type of operation. 

At this time we had a rather interesting experience also with the 
attitude of the liberal magazines in a contest involving Communists 
as against some other type of labor organization in this area. The 
Nation magazine sent a correspondent iiito Pittsburgh, and he pro- 
ceeded to consult the Communist office and wrote an article completely 
false, alleging that the labor and Socialist relief fund was giving relief 
only to Socialist miners. We had at that time exactly six members 
of the Socialist Party in that entire Pittsburgh mining area, and we 
were shipping tons of food. But we did discover as part of the 
Communist pattern that this was exactly what was being done to 
recruit members to the Communist Party irom this trade-union front, 
the National Miners Union, in the course of this strike. Thev were 
told if they signed a party card, they would be sure to get these relief 
shipments which were being raised by private solicitation across the 
country. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 7 

In the late fall of 1931 and beginning in the winter of 1932, we 
were still shipping relief as we were making arrangements with 
authorities for the gradual transfer of these miners' relief kitchens to 
public responsibility because the fiction of a strike had disappeared, but 
the people's needs still remained and public authorities were beginning 
to take on this responsibility, and we arranged that transition. Before 
that transition occurred, we were repeatedly, particularly in Washing- 
ton County, in several meetings of this miners union, from which all 
the Communists and their various relief and other functionaries had 
disappeared for some 2 or 3 months before, but these same locals were 
in receipt of appeals for the West Virginia-Ohio Miners Relief Com- 
mittee, these hungry miners, because the Communists had started a 
new operation in the West Virginia -Ohio area stimulating the same 
sort of strike. But they were sending to these hungry miners — whom 
they left without leadership, help, assistance at all — appeals to con- 
tribute to their new scene of operations. 

This was extremely interesting, because all the details, the charges 
of falsification, diversion of funds, and so forth, which actually repre- 
sented what the Communists themselves engaged in. were typical. 
The story in the Nation magazine was protested by Norman Thomas 
at the time. An individual at the University of Pittsburgh was as- 
signed by the Nation to investigate and get a correction. That indi- 
vidual's name was Colston E. Warne at the University of Pittsburgh. 
Colston E. Warne, subsequently transferring to Amherst College, had 
been one of our advisers during our student conflict with the university 
authorities in 1929, but we had found that he did not deal with us 
aboveboard. He consulted ostensibly with myself and the other stu- 
dent who was known to be a Communist, but we found out later that 
he met privately with the said Communist student and there was where 
the decisions were actually made as to the strategy in the fight on the 
alleged civil-liberties issue in the ITniversity of Pittsburgh. However, 
we did not know this until a few years subsequently. 

This time, Colston Warne was assigned bv the Nation to investigate 
this allegedly false story that they had printed on this miners' relief 
situation. He investigated Init, strangely enough, at the time no 
report was ever made by the Nation as a result of his investigation, 
although the facts were clearly false. As we know now, the reason 
was that Colston Warne made no recommendations for any correx?tion. 
It was purely a coverup operation, because his political sympathies 
were already known. 

It was at the end of that year, in 1933, that he transferred to Am- 
hei-st College, boasting to me at the time that he thought this was a 
pretty safe haven because the president of Amherst in 19;>2 was a 
man who was primarily interested in classical things and was a bug, 
as he said, on academic freedom. He found his berth. He is still 
there. 

My first experience with actual Communist violence had actvuilly 
occurred in the course of the political campaign of 1930. We will 
cut back just for this point, because I want to bring it up later in 1933. 

In 1930, 1 had helped organize a meeting in support of the Socialist 
candidate for governor, which was addressed by Mayor Stumpf of 
Reading, Pa. The meeting was held in a theater on a Sunday after- 
noon. You must remember that I was very much a neop'hj^te in 



8 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

these things. I assumed that political meetings were political meet- 
ings ; that you organized, that you had your hall, your speech, and that 
it was yours. But a half hour before the meeting, a corps of Com- 
munists pushed their way through the doors at the lobby with their 
arms full of Communist literature under leadership of one Carl 
Hacker, H-a-c-k-e-r, subsequently an important leader of the Hotel 
and Restaurant Employees Union in Pittsburgh. These people 
served us with a demand that they had the right to sell their literature 
and dispense it in the lobby of our meeting on the grounds of free 
speech, although all of their literature which they proposed for sale 
contained attacks upon the organization, ourselves, that was spon- 
soring the meeting. They were politely refused, and we explained 
the situation to them. But the meeting was an open meeting. 
Scarcely had the meeting started than people planted in the balcony 
started rising and showering the audience below with mimeographed 
leaflets attacking in false and slanderous fashion the speaker of the 
day. 

We then saw when that incident was over the tactic, which was 
an exact duplicate of the Nazi tactic in dealing with other people's 
meetings, as we will subsequently discover. Before the speaker 
could get well started on his speech, individuals would start popping 
up and standing on their chairs in the middle of the audience, "to ask 
a question" at the top of their voice. To ask a question, of course, is 
in quotes. The only difference here is that we found that when we put 
an usher beside each person that they subsided immediately. They 
were easily intimidated. No violence was necessary. But their own 
expression of it was very significant in their approach to this meeting. 

This was my first experience with the approach of Communists 
into violence and breaking up other people's meetings. Two years 
later I recognized the tactic, because I attended a meeting of the Ger- 
man Democratic Society's in New York City at Town Hall just prior 
to the last Nazi election of 1932. Here I saw the young Nazi Bund 
sympathizers do the exact duplicate of this tactic, that is, the tactic 
of rising, standing on the chair, and shouting at the top of their voice, 
only of course they shouted in German because the meeting was pre- 
dominantly German in its composition, although it was held in Town 
Hall, New York. It was a sympathy meeting with the democratic 
forces going down for the count in Germany. 

In 1933, while at Harrisburg as a correspondent, I was called in 
my capacity as editor of the Young People's Socialist League paper^ 
after 2 years in the Socialist Party I had joined the Young People's 
Socialist League in 1932. I had been elected its industrial secretary. 
That corresponds to trade-union secretary, and editor of its paper, 
the Challenge of Youth, which did not appear until some time early 
in 1933. But while in Harrisburg I received a telephone call from 
the chairman of the Socialist Party in Cook County, 111., announcing 
to me that the Young People's Socialist League organization had been 
substantially infiltrated by Communists, and that I had better get in 
and clean the organization out or they would simply throw the whole 
young people's organization into the middle of the street. The lan- 
guage was perliaps — he was a college professor, but he was fairly 
forcible about it. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 9 

I left Harrisbiirg and proceeded to Chicago, and on behalf of the 
national executive committee of the Young People's Socialist League 
started an investigation, and I found that there had indeed been an 
infiltration. They had even gone so far as to picket for a Communist 
cause a Socialist-Jewish newspaper in Chicago, the Jewish Daily For- 
ward, although they were still ostensibly members of the Socialist 
organization. 

My investigation developed that the infiltration had gone so far 
that it included the national secretary of the organization itself, an 
individual who subsequently appears in the furniture workers' ref- 
erence to which I am directing my current testimony. This indi- 
vidual's name was George Smerkin. He was not a Communist, but 
a very weak youngster. He had committed a breach of confidence; 
this is an interesting example of the way this individual has been 
attached to them. He is now the office manager of the United Fur- 
niture Workers Union in New York. He was permitted to attend an 
executive session of the Socialist Party Convention in Ohio, at which 
certain confidential facts were related, relating to the circumstances 
under which Tom Mooney, of California, had been expelled from 
the Socialist Party in 1911 or 1912. In violation of the confidence 
and in a surge of enthusiasm, he communicated these facts to Com- 
munist friends, and even wrote them in letters. These people then 
came to him with these letters and said to him, "You are not a Com- 
munist, but we have these letters. We think you belong with us. 
Join with us, because if you don't we will reveal these letters to your 
board, and they of course will fire you and you will be no further 
use to us and that will be the end of your career in this organi- 
zation." So he became their stooge within the organization. 

I discovered one morning he had rifled all his mail, abstracted it 
from the office, and left the office before the rest of the staff came in in 
the morning. Inasmuch as this had happened somewhat analogously 
three times in the Young People's Socialist League from its found- 
ing in approximately 1918 on, the pattern was complete. 

I merely convened a meeting of the subcommittee of the office, and 
when he came back he was already removed as secretary. The key 
to the door had been changed, and he was up for trial. 

But because of his key position, this necessitated an investigation 
and a series of expulsions throughout the Young People's Socialist 
League. I j ourneyed to various places in the Midwest. 

In the city of Milwaukee, I identified the leader of the Communist 
infiltrators as a young student in the Milwaukee Industrial Trade 
School by the name of Harold Christoffel. In all cases except this 
individual, I was permitted under the authority of the Young People's 
Socialist League, of which I that year became national chairman, to 
expel these people after presentation of evidence as to their identifi- 
cation with this Communist infiltration effort. However, in Mil- 
waukee the affairs of the young people's organization, instead of 
being in their own hands, were in the hands of a welfare committee 
made up mostly of Socialist Party people, no trade unionists among 
them, as it happened, with whom I was familiar, but mostly business 
people and lawyers. These people assured me that this individual 
was just a misled young man. I presented to them evidence that he 
was a hardened Communist operative, although only in the equivalent 
of high school at the time. 



10 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

I was finally denied authority or any jurisdiction over him. He 
was permitted to remain in the organization from 1933 to 1938, at 
which time, after he had had 5 years' use of Socialist Party member- 
ship as a badge of respectability, as it was in Milwaukee because it 
was in the city administration for many years, they finally expelled 
him 5 years later for having been a secret Communist within the 
Socialist Party for those 5 years. Christoffel was my only failure. 

However, because of the interest, there was one other person over 
whom I had no jurisdiction whom I did identify as a Communist, 
sympathizer at this time. This was a man and his wife, known as 
George S. Wheeler. George S. Wlieeler at that time I had met 
slightly in 1932, in the brief time I was in Chicago. He was secretary- 
treasurer of the Jackson Park branch of the Socialist Party. How- 
ever, when I returned in 1933 to engage in the cleanout of the Comnni- 
nist infiltration of the young people's organization, he was a sympa- 
thizer of these young people. I had no jurisdiction over him because 
the party organization was very loose in any kind of discipline, and 
nothino-'was done about Wlieeler because his views were confined to 
an expression of his views. 

Inasmuch as in subsequent years up to the time I left the Socialist 
Party in 1941, in March 194i, I was customarily called upon when 
it was a question of dealing with Communist infiltration, I kept track 
of people of this sort. I checked in subsequent years, in 1938, when 
I was through Washington in the fall of 1938, a^ain in 1940, again 
in 1941, 1942, and 1943, each time inquiring about George S. Wlieeler's 
sentiments, because I knew of his location in Washington. On each 
occasion I was assured that everybody who knew him well understood 
that he was a bitter and vindictive Stalinist, as we used the term, 
as the term is used in the radical movement to indicate not just a 
Communist but specifically a strong, clear-cut, oriented, official 
Communist. 

Senator Butler. What we call hard-core Communists ? 

Mr. McDowell. Now, yes. There were other versions of the Com- 
munists. I subsequently had experience with that, because in 1937 I 
was in charge of the expulsion throughout the United States from the 
Socialist Party of the Trotskyist Communists who had infiltrated the 
whole Socialist organization and had to be expelled in that year, and 
I was in charge of that particular rather nasty operation. 

It is not exactly the same kind of Communist. There are variations 
among individuals, but the operation is the same. It is a Bolshevik 
operation. It is a conspiratorial secret operation. 

At this time I picked up the trail of one George Smerkin, whom I 
removed from office and subsequently expelled from the Young Peo- 
ple's Socialist League in that year. 

My next contact with George Smerkin was 2 years later, when I 
was State secretary of the Socialist Party of Illinois, and my organizer 
came in to report that he had been in Kockf ord, 111., in the labor temple, 
and he had seen George Smerkin, but as soon as Smerkin saw him 
coming he immediately hailed him and took him aside and said, 
"Please be careful and don't let me down here. I am not known as 
George Smerkin here. I am known as George Stewart." This was the 
first time I picked up the trail. He was there at that time working in 
the Rockford union organizing campaign of the Rockford furniture 
workers. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 11 

In 1934, 1 might point out, we had further experience with the pat- 
tern of Communist civil violence, the outstanding example of which 
was the forcible raid on the Madison Square Garden meeting of the 
Socialist Party in 1934, protesting over the Dollfuss dictatorship in 
Austria, which was invaded by Communists carrying lead pipe wrap- 
ped up in newspaper and which was forcibly broken up by the use of 
gangster tactics from all over the hall, concerted. This was probably 
one of the earliest scandals in the labor movement, and a source of 
considerable disillusionment. 

In 1933 and 1934, 1 became active in the Chicago Workers Commit- 
tee on Unemployment. The Chicago Workers Committee on Unem- 
ployment was inspired largely by the settlement house and social 
workers group in Chicago as a balance to the agitational power being 
organized by the Communist Party in the so-called unemployed coun- 
cils. The Chicago Workers Committee for the most part met in settle- 
ment houses and committees. 

Mr. Duffy. Has that any relation to the Workers Alliance? 

Mr. McDowell. This was the predecessor of the Workers Alliance. 
This was organized in the community by people concerned to prevent 
the complete mobilization of the unemployed and relief-client group 
by the Communists through the unemployment councils. There were 
bitter exchanges back and forth from the very beginning. Because of 
the lack of organizational experience with this sort of thing and the 
difficulty of detecting Communists, the collaboration of the Socialists, 
largely through the League for Industrial Democracy chapter in Chi- 
cago, was solicited, and we did furnish a great deal of the practical 
organization effort, and I became active in that work, speaking and 
organizing these groups. 

In approximately 1934, this movement, the Chicago Workers Com- 
mittee on Unemployment, spread out through the State of Illinois, 
largely in the mining sections, lead by Socialists, who formed the Illi- 
nois Workers Alliance. This is IWA. This group was completely 
Socialist led, and clearcutly protected from Communist domination 
anywhere throughout the State. However, rapidly, by the end of the 
first year, groups elsewhere, because of the success of the Illinois or- 
ganization which ac(i[uired probably the largest single membership, 
began to spring up elsewliere, some of them using similar names. But 
most of them, again in the nature of this thing, being organized by 
Socialists, because the Communists had the unemployed councils and 
the Socialists entered into competitive work with them. 

I worked with this group, was an officer of the Chicago organization 
throughout, from approximately — my first entry into Chicago in 1932, 
for any consistent period of time, from that time forward. 

But in the election of 1936 we began to find out a considerable in- 
filtration of the Socialist elements in the Workers Alliance. This was 
not a serious matter. It could be dealt with and controlled. I might 
say that our disaster came when, in 1935, some of the Socialists in the 
Workers Alliance received the patronage of prominent people, includ- 
ing Mrs. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins, and we did not see very much 
of these people who had originally been Socialist Party members. 
They became more and more New Dealish and less and less officially 
Socialist Party members. 

Finally, in t-he spring of 1936, while the Socialist Party was having 
a lot of difficulties within its own ranks over the question as to whether 



12 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

they should continue to be an independent organization or whether 
they should just all be New Dealers like the others, a program was 
developed by two people in the Workers Alliance, its secretary and its 
chairman, one David Lasser, who had become the national chairman oi 
the National Workers Alliance which had been formed, and the other, 
Paul A. Rasmussen, R-a-s-m-u-s-s-e-n. Rasmussen was still amenable 
to Social counsel, but Lasser had become a constant visitant at the 
White House, and it was no use talking to him any more. He had got 
the blessing from on high. He was sure that the only thing to do 
was to amalgamate all of this organization built over the previous 3 
years under independent or Socialist leadership among the unem- 
ployed and relief workers, to get a United movement, because the 
Communist movement's policy had changecl the popular front tactic in 
1935. They bid for it this first year, not Rfismussen but Lasser. They 
informed the national executive committee of the Socialist Party, of 
which I was an alternate member at that time, of their intention. 
They were advised against it. They were advised that it would be 
fatal. 

But the Socialist organization did not have any disciplinary control 
actually over its members, except the appeal of loyalty, and the merger 
did go through. It was discovered afterward, the Socialists informed 
us, that the Communist unem]:)loyed councils were purely a paper 
organization. Their membership had been completely dissipated and 
all they brought in were their officers and the paper and a few hard- 
core Communists assigned to unemployment work. Their mass fol- 
lowing, which through 1931, 1932, and 1933, had actually enabled 
them to put on mass demonstrations, and so forth, had completely 
disappeared in the course of these early days. They had no following. 
The Communist movement actually was at one of its weakest points 
along about 1937. I am not speaking about votes, or anything of the 
sort. I am speaking about the movement, its membership, its appa- 
ratus. 

In 1936, the Workers Alliance — over our opposition, the Socialist 
Party called a conference of its people to determine what should be 
the ])olicy. Many of the Workers Alliance chapters which were 
under Socialist leadership, such as Milwaukee, began to make arrange- 
ments to pull out of the Workers Alliance because they refused to 
accept the Communist acceptance, the Communist infiltration, not 
being based on membership, but being based on an amalgamation 
which enabled them to take over office, but ostensibly not a majority. 

We found later they had a few sleepers on the board. Ostensibly 
it was a union between a Communist organization giving them minor- 
ity representation on the board, but we found there were some sleepers 
on the board who had been planted there in the early stages to be anti- 
Communists for a while and then to switch over at the last moment. 
But the stumbling block was a young man by the name of Paul A. 
Rasmussen, who was the secretary of the united organization. 

Senator Butler. Do you know what became of him in later years? 

Mr. McDowell. He is now working, I think, for the Chemical 
Workers of the A. F. of L. 

Senator Butler. Was he ever in Government office? 

Mr. McDowell, I don't think so. 

(Discussion off the record.) 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 13 

Mr. McDowell. This Paul Rasmussen was the obstacle to complete 
Communist takeover. Therefore, the way the Communists arranged 
it was that they shipped Lasser, the chairman, to Spain on a trip to 
the Spanish civil war front, and while he was away they brought up 
charges against Rasmussen and pushed him out as secretary and put 
in the Communist, Herbert Benjamin, as secretary. And of course 
when he came back from his little jaunt through Spain and in to 
Moscow, it was an accomplished fact and he, of course, accepted it 
as an accomplished fact. 

Senator Butler. Who is Herbert Benjamin? 

Mr. ]\IcDowELL. Herbert Benjamin is the professional Communist 
in the unemployed field in the years between 1931 and 1936 when he 
moved into this united organization, when they persuaded them to 
amalgamate. 

Senator Butler. Where was he, in New York ? 

Mr. McDowell. He was here in Washington. Benjamin then be- 
came the secretary and ran the organization right down the middle 
of the street from then on. 

In 1938 we had had our stomachs full of it. I consulted with the 
leading person we had in Illinois, who had stayed on in tolerance to 
try to make the thing work, thinking maybe a united front might 
still work. He was now completely convinced that he had had his 
experience, too. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. One David Lasser, whom I knew from the years 
1933 to the present, was, in my firm opinion, never a member of the 
Communist Party. He was a very muddleheaded collaborator with 
the Communist Party throughout the years 1936, 1937, 1938, and 
finally got his fill and broke away, but only as late as the early part 
of 1940. 

The most depressing thing about his record was that he had stayed 
on even after the Soviet-Nazi Pact for a few months, primarily at- 
tracted by office. 

I would say that in the fall of 1937 I had completed an assignment 
which involved expulsion of a Trotskyist-Communist infiltration of 
the membership of the Socialist Party. Some very prominent peo- 
ple — I might say James Burnham was one of the prominent people I 
expelled. 

Senator Butler. Who is he ? 

Mr. McDo\\t:ll. He is fairly well known around Washington these 
days. 

Senator Butler. Is he in the present administration? 

Mr. McDowell. No. He is a very conservative man now. I only 
pass it incidentally because it is one of those interesting things in 
history. He once formulated the classical Communist theory to me 
in the front room of Norman Thomas' house in October 1937. He 
explained to me that "You are a democrat in your procedure and 
philosophy. Therefore, you cannot interfere with me, who does not 
have a democratic philosophy and belief and procedure, in the things 
that I am proposing to do to your organization." 

I said, "If you will give me 30 minutes to write a resolution for 
expulsion and trial, I will see what I can do under democratic proce- 
dure," and I did. I produced the resolution in 30 minutes and I 

43903 — 54 2 



14 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

produced the expulsion, all witliin 30 days. That included a very 
powerful faction in Minneapolis, the Dimne brothers. 

To get back to Lasser and to explain the type of thing we are dealing 
with here, Lasser came in to Chicago and said, "You haven't approved 
my policy of joining, but you have agreed to let the Socialists stay 
within the Workers Alliance after the unemployed councils came in. 
Therefore, will you now go to Milwaukee with me and we will jointly 
plead with the Socialist-led groups there to come back into the Workers 
Alliance," from which they had resigned over Communist domination 
over this Communist union. I had no choice under the policy at the 
time but to go up and make whatever formal presentation to advise 
them what the policy was ; that while we did not approve the merger, 
we felt that people should stay within and fight for their principles, 
and so forth. 

On the way up on the train Lasser turned to me and said, "Do you 
implicitly trust Franklin Roosevelt to fight at all times for democ- 
racy?" 

I said, "Not by a damned sight." 

He said, "Well, then, that means tliat you and I therefore can never 
agree politically, because I trust Roosevelt implicitly on all these 
questions." 

Therefore, I say on the basis of knowledge of the man over these 
years, lie was never a Connnunist, l)ut that he was led into this thing 
by the fact that he believed on the basis of what he was told that this 
w\as the thing that his idol, Roosevelt, wanted to be done. I am not 
so sure that he was right, because he wasn't getting it from the horse's 
mouth. He was getting it from a collateral source in the family. 
Nevertheless, that is what he thought, and that is the basis on which 
he acted. 

This is my estimate. I have been very careful and painstaking 
about this matter of Lasser, because he was the person that we had 
the most bitter clashes with. Personally, I have more reason to be 
aggrieved at him than against any other person, because in the fall 
of 19.38, Se])tember of 1938, they held a convention in Cleveland of 
the Workers Alliance. I went down as an observer. I could not go 
in any other capacity. I frequently, as labor secretary of the Socialist 
Party, covered conventions, and as a newspaperman also for the press, 
A. F. of L. and CIO conventions in subsequent years. At this affair 
I couldn't find any of my — the Socialist remnants which had once 
founded and led an organization of considerable numbers were no- 
where to be found. On one side of the hall were all Communists, 
and on the other side were all New Dealers from the WPA, and so 
forth. It was already being used for political purposes. 

We were having complaints by that time that in a certain campaign 
in Kentucky for Ignited States Senate, there was a cut in relief that 
fall. Nevertheless, the Workers Alliance, according to this political 
decision, were marched out to cheer the candidate of the administra- 
tion that had just cut relief. They did it, by gosh. It is amazing, 
but that is the type of purpose the thing was being used for by that 
time. 

To finish up the Workers Alliance — having finished up the year 
1937, now we will work a little bit faster — I might say that in the 
summer of 1937 we had the first beginning of knowledge of the prob- 
lem of Communist operations in the CIO, which was then just taking 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 15 

shape. Part of this year of 1937 I was the labor secretary, but this 
was only after October, and the rest of it I dealt with in the office as 
an assistant to the man who was then labor secretary. 

Mr. Arens. Labor secretary of what'^ 

Mr. McDowell. Of the Socialist Party. 

We found out in that year that a deal had been made beteen John L. 
Lewis and the Communists in relation to the new unions that were 
being set up under the CIO. The deal included what apparently ap- 
pealed to Lewis as not essential at that moment, although he did 
permit the infiltration of the steelworkers' campaign in the summer 
of 1936. 

The political nature of the steelworkers staff was so evident that 
while people who were members of the Socialist Party were on the 
official staff, from the reorganization people like Leo Krzycki — 
K-r-z-y-c-k-i — former national chairman of the Socialist Party, as 
a matter of fact, in 1936, was assigned to this staff, by the next 9 
months after July of 1936 it was impossible for him to have any- 
thing to do or to get any assignment to work on the steelworkers 
staff because the Communists had taken over so completely in the 
Chicago area. They reached their high point, of course, at the time 
of the Chicago May Day massacre of 1937, at which time I have 
fhe statement from one of the organizers of the Upholsterers Inter- 
national Union, Mike Martin, who at that time was still in the 
Communist Party, who has since broken, that either 31 or 32 out 
of 33 members on the staff of the steelworkers organizing campaign 
in Chicago were attending the Communist Party caucus. People 
who were not of that disposition were literally driven out of the 
campaign. 

This included people whose names are fairly well known now. 
One of the people who was driven off the steelworkers staff by this 
Communist domination that summer was a man by the name of 
Melvin Pitzeley, now the labor editor of Business Week. He was 
forced off, and Leo Krzycki, vice president of the Amalgamated, 
assigned to it. 

Actually, out on the prairie the afternoon of the May Day 
massacre of 1937 — Krzycki told me this personally — he pleaded and 
pleaded with Joseph Weber, who had become the staff member of 
the steelworkers in charge, a long-time Communist in Chicago, for- 
merly head of the unemployed council, and an old antagonist whom 
he had fought bitterly across the years during the formation of 
the Chicago Workers Committees on Unemployed — we knew him 
like any antagonist with whom you fought for nearly three-quarters 
of a decade. He was in charge that afternoon, and Krzycki at that 
time was still a Socialist. He subsequently was led down the garden 
path by his Polish connections after 1944, but at that time a very 
sincere person. He pleaded with Weber not to carry out his plan 
for a picket because the people in charge knew that the police captain 
in charge of the detail out there had a reputation as a sadist and would 
probably welcome a clash, and Krzycki warned him that he was 
leading people into a hail of death that was almost inevitable, 
knowing the police captain in charge and his peculiar disposition. 
But it was deliberate to order those people across the prairie that 
afternoon, knowing what the situation was. They were deliberately 



16 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

ordered. Joseph Weber, this organizer, according to the account 
given me by Leo Krzycki, who, of course, told me this story per- 
fectly freely, because in my capacity with the Socialist Party it was 
perfectly natural that he should discuss trade-union affairs with me. 
The peo])le remaining were told to start leading the picket line across 
the prairie into the police line, into the armed police line, and Weber 
said he would be upstairs and the organizers were to keep in touch 
with him. He went upstairs in safety in headquarters a mile away, 
and from there directed the march of the picket line into that ambush, 
because that is what it amounted to, in 1937. 

This is an example of what was going on in steel. I speak as if I 
were still in the Socialist Party, because I was then. We were very 
disheartened and discouraged, because we found it impossible any 
longer to work. Our efforts and our contracts, particularly among 
Yugoslavs and other groups in the steel industry, had languished and 
good, sympathetic people toward any union movement had been used. 
We had furnished them, and then that was the last we heard from the 
people in the steel workers, because even people whom we recom- 
mended for jobs, for example an individual who I had been very 
friendly with in the Chicago Federation of Labor, Meyer Adelman, 
of the pastry cooks union, was forced out of his business agentship in 
the summer of 1936 by racketeers at the gunpoint, literally. He either 
resigned his post and got out of the local that he built, or else it was 
curtains. 

A big fat man, he had no desire to be a hero, because he couldn't 
get support of any significant sort in the local. We recommended a 
job with the steel workers for this Meyer Adelman, not knowing too 
much of his character except that he had shown courage in combating 
racketeers in his own local union. We found he had no political cour- 
age, because right after he had taken his post he came to us and asked 
for aid in Waukegan, 111., where there was a strong Yugoslav social 
democratic group. These people pitched in on our recommendation 
and helped him, and as soon as he got to be secretary of the town, he 
immediately joined up with the Communist caucus, because that was 
the only way to preferment at that time in the fall of 1936 and the 
beginning of 1937. 

Our concern was with the outfits which were being handed over 
at top and bottom to the Communists. These we discovered by the end 
of 1947 were as follows : First, the white-collar workers, that is to say, 
the organization to which they were handed over was an organization 
which became known as the United Office and Professional Workers 
Union. We had many Socialists active in this group, because there 
were a lot of white-collar workers among them, including the largest 
A. F. of L. local in New York, headed by Sam Baron, who has lost 
more jobs in the trade union movement for being anti-Communist than 
any other man I know of. He broke some of the inside story on the 
Spanish civil war by testifying before the House Un-American Activi- 
ties Committee, I think in 1938. Sam Baron and others. 

We found when these gatherings convoked by the CIO for the pur- 
pose of forming a union were met, the representatives of the CIO in all 
cases were two people, one of whom was a personal friend of mine 
and the other was an acquaintance, though no friend. One was a sort 
of Socialist, John Brophy, and the other was a person whom I had 
known as a Communist since 1929, Len De Caux. The reason I knew 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 17 

liim as a Communist was that he tried to take me to Communist meet- 
ings. His wife and he both in their home tokl me that they were Com- 
munists in every sense of the word. He at that time had the strategic 
post as the actual editor of the Locomotive Engineers Journal in the 
city of Cleveland, when I first knew him in 1929. 

This post, incidentally, in a very conservative, ultra-conservative 
labor organization, was held from 1921 or 1922 on to the end of De 
Caux's position in 1932 or 1933, by a Communist at all times. The 
predecessor was Coyle. This is an example of Communist operation 
in the labor union of a completely unscrupulous sort. 

This is one of the standard stories. Mr. Coyle, as editor and there- 
fore the adviser to the grand engineer of the locomotive engineers in 
.1926, when the United Mine Workers was battling for its life against 
the unorganized competition of the cheap coal from West Virginia 
in the Pennsylvania fields and the central competitive fields in the 
ApjDalachians, the locomotive engineers as a union purchased coal 
mines in the center of the nonunion field in West Virginia. The mine 
workers immediately proposed that as one union to another they should 
give them a foothold by recognizing them as a union. But the secre- 
tary to the grand engineer was a Communist, and the policies' of the 
Communist Party at that time, under the influence of William Z. 
Foster, was to prevent the A. F. of L.'s getting any sort of recovery, 
and the Mine Workers were part of the A. F. of L. So the Commu- 
nists there persuaded the grand engineer of the Brotherhood of Loco- 
motive Engineers to operate Union-owned mines nonunion. This is 
an example of wheels within wdieels when you get into Communist 
intrigue. 

Len De Caux, in the summer of 1937, as a Socialist Party official 
discovered on each occasion as conventions were convoked of the 
United Office and Professional Workers Union, where most of the 
word was passed by Len De Caux, assisted by John Brophy, being 
director of organization, and as the United Cannery, Agriculture, 
Packing and Allied Workers, into which the agricultural workers 
were to be regimented, was formed, also under the supervision of 
John Brophy, it was an understood thing that Communists should 
head these unions fi-om the beginning. That was the deal made by 
John L. Lewis with the Communists. 

Mr. Arens. I wonder if you could clarify the record on that. What 
unions specifically were involved? 

Mr. McDowell. The ones involved in the deal ? 

Mr. Arens. Is that the office workers, the predecessor union to 
Flaxer's present union ? 

Mr. McDowell. No. That is a separate outfit entirely. These 
were unions which the Communists were to head from the beginning. 
In the case of the office workers, I might say naturally the mine work- 
ers looked upon this as a contemptible part of the deal, because why 
give away the office workers ? It never occurred to them until many 
years later that an office workers union with a closed-shop contract 
can supply all the secretaries to all the trade-union officers in any 
organization, because they have to recognize their own union. There 
was nothing more strategic than this group of ordinarily ineffective 
white-collar workers. So the Communists, like the Connecticut 
Yankee in King Arthur's Court, "Just call me boss." That was suffi- 



18 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

cient title for them. They wanted the office workers. They wanted the 
one group of people, and they got them, where there is the greatest 
amount of exploitation and unease in America, namely, the migratory 
farmworker. That is where America falls shortest in its economic 
rewards, the migratory farmer, and here is a great source, as they 
thought, of agitation. 

The reason we knew was that we had 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me a second, Mr. McDowell. You were enumer 
ating the unions. 

Mr. McDowell. They were, respectively, the ones which the Com- 
munists were to head. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, let's get those. 

Mr. McDowell. The United Office and Professional Workers, cov- 
ering the office employees ; the United Cannery, Agriculture, Packing 
and Allied Workers, which were to cover the agricultural workers, 
cannery, and miscellaneous. These were handed over directly, with 
the definite provision that designated Communists were to become 
presidents in the key offices. 

Donald Henderson, Columbia University farmer, was to be the head 
of the agricultural workers. Lewis Merrill, L-e-w-i-s M-e-r-r-i-1-1, 
was made head of the office workers. 

The deal also affected certain other organizations which were to be 
manipulated by the Communists, although they preferred non-Com- 
munists as the heads. 

iSIr. Arens. This deal, so the record is perfectly clear, was between 
vrhom ? 

Mr. McDowell. It was between Lewis and the Communists, a per- 
fectly cold-blooded proposition. Le^vis thought he wasn't giving 
anything away. 

Senator Butler. Do you later get into the purpose of the deal ? 

Mr. McDowell. The purpose of the deal was to get the CIO organ- 
ized quick and to get Lewis a tremendous membership. The Com- 
munists were known to be tremendously active people, devoted workers, 
and they had footholds in this field; particularly they had been con- 
centrating on the white-collar workers since 1934. Mary Van Kleek, 
of the Russell Sage Foundation, was their ace-in-the-hole, and the 
reason I know iSIary Van Kleek is a Communist is that in the ordinary 
course of conversation — the secretary of the Socialist Party in Illinois, 
Ina White, is a New England spinster, and she was a member of this 
very exclusive organization known as the Colonial Dames, which is so 
much more exclusive than the DAR because to be a member of the 
Colonial Dames you must have your lineal ancestors mentioned in 
Colonial official documents. That makes it even more exclusive. 
Mary Van Kleek is also a member of the Colonial Dames. 

There was a social workers conference which was the big concentra- 
tion, l)ecause the Communists hoped to move in from the unemployed 
at one end and the relief workei-s, social workers' set-up on the other, 
and you couldn't beat that combination, because the social workers 
would administer the relief, they would give it only to the Communists, 
and one hand Avould wash the other. It worked ver}' admirably, as a 
matter of fact, up until a very few years ago. 

Mary Van Kleek sat down with Miss Ina White, and they talked it 
ovei', and Mary Van Kleek, one old New Englancler to another, said. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 19 

"I am a member of the Communist Party. What about you?" She 
says, "Everybody knows I am a member. I am an officer of the 
Socialist Party." 

Ina White came back to Chicago and quite obviously reported it to 
nie. So the argument went on for years subsequently as to whether 
Mary Van Kleek, who led the Communist effort in this field from a 
vantage point in the Russell Sage Foundation, was a Communist. She 
admitted it where there was no pressure at all in a private conversation 
in 1934. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. In June of 1940 I visited the convention of the 
United Steel Workers meeting in the INIorrison Hotel. There in the 
lobby I met John Brophy, an old acquaintance and friend since 1929. 
Brophy at this time was still working under Lewis, but very indignant 
over Lewis' two policies, one of isolation from the European conflict, 
his isolationist policy, and his collaboration with the Communists in 
connection with his isolation policy. 

Brophy therefore told me how this was handled in a specific case. 
He said to me, "Do you know how that so-and-so," referring to Presi- 
dent Lewis, then of the CIO, "made me handle the west coast situa- 
tion ? He called me in privately and told me" — this was in 1937 also — 
"I want you to go to the west coast and to hand over the management 
of the CIO on the west coast to Harry Bridges, and I want you to make 
clear," Brophy said Lewis told him, "at the time that you do it that 
you are doing it entirely on your own responsibility and that I have 
nothing whatsoever to do with it." 

This is the end of the account of John Brophy as to how the thing 
was handled. 

At no time did Lewis deal with the boys directly. It was always 
through subalterns who were instructed exactly what to do and how 
to misrepresent it. That was the way the thing was handled. 

Tlie reason that we came into contact with this first was that, as 
part of the agricultural workers that was invited in the Southern 
Tenant Farmers Union, which now is part of the A. F. of L., loiown 
as the Agricultural Workers L^nion. The Southern Tenant Farmers 
Union had been organized in 1933-34 when the Wallace policy on cash 
subsidies for restrictions had put an immense cash bonus on evictions 
by southern plantation owners to avoid any claim of the sharecroppers 
to any i)ortion of the casli. This was protested at the time, by the way, 
to Wallace, and he refused either to answer letters or even to see 
close personal friends who called his attention to it. He was abso- 
lutely incommunicado. 

The people making the protests were able to see the President of the 
United States, but the Secretary of Agriculture was inaccessible as 
this policy worked out. Thousands of sharecroppers were evicted en 
masse and piled with their goods along the roads of the Southern 
States, Arkansas, Tennessee, and the other sharecropping States. 

As a result of a policy that was enriching the plantation owners, 
these people were having the slightest earth that was around their 
economic roots just simply ruthlessly shovelled away. The Southern 
Tenant Farmers Union emerged as a tenant and sharecrop})er organi- 
zation then during that period, largely subsidized and aided, because 
it never paid its own dues — these people were poverty-stricken beyond 



20 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

belief — it was largely sup])orted by Norman Thomas and a group of 
Socialist and liberal friends. That is how it was financed. 

From the first this group was in conflict with various Communist 
operations in the agricultural field, so the feeling was very sharp 
and intense between them. Wlien H. L. Mitchell, still president of 
the Agricultural Workers Union of A. F. of L., got to the convention, 
he found that Brophy had changed the stakes. It was originally to 
be a federation which w^ould allow their organization to carry on its 
particular kind of work. When he got there he found that Brophy 
was telling him. no nonsense about this, you just come in and you are 
part of Donald Henderson's organization. He consulted with us 
about it, and we tried to intervene with John Brophy, as an old friend, 
as a Socialist sympathizer of years past, and got at that time a curt 
reply that if he wanted to continue in existence as an organization, he 
had better get in and accept the terms on which he would get in. 

As a result, an uneasy relationship persisted until 19?>8, at which 
time this H. L. Mitchell led the first breakaway from the CIO organi- 
zations on the issue of the Communist domination. This was the 
breakaway of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union locals in Arkansas, 
Tennessee, and IMississippi, from Donald Henderson's outfit, which 
subsequently changed its name and became the Food and Agricultural 
Workers Organization, food and tobacco, and I think survives as one 
of the Communist organizations. That, however, is an example. 

It came to our attention that another type of deal was on. This 
did not involve anything the Communists, the presidency, or the chief 
position in the union, as in the case of the office workers and the agri- 
cultural workers. It involved in the case of the United Federal 
Workers appointing a very respected and honorable man, Jacob Baker, 
as president, but appointing a Communist as secretary-treasurer, a 
girl by the name Eleanor Nelson. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. I believe we were summarizing the situation as it 
existed in the fall of 1937 in relationship to two unions already 
enumerated which were understood to be handed over to Communist 
complete operation. There were then, in addition to the United 
Federal Workers, which was to organize obviously Federal employees, 
which was headed by a very respected and honest citizen, who 2 years 
later said that he had to resign because he couldn't even read his own 
mail. 

The second that occurs to me immediately is the State, County, and 
Municipal Workers Union, and the third was a new furniture workers 
union of the CIO which was to be formed by taking advantage of 
difficulties of the Upholsterers International Union on jurisdictional 
questions within the A. F. of L. and which, as the others, was to be 
headed by a non-Communist. In this case the understanding was 
that the president would be Sal B. Hoffman, newly elected president 
of the Upholsterers International Union. This was the second place 
at which this agreement went astray. The first occasion of course 
actually was that wliich led to the departure the following year of the 
Southern Tenant Farmers Union from the Agricultural Workers 
setup. That was the first split-off which revealed the Communist 
control and the revolt against it. 

Now came the case of the Furniture Workers Union. This union, 
because of the failure of that original deal, has at all times been one 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 21 

of the places where the policy of the Communists within the CIO end 
of it has leaked most perceptibly because they have not been able since 
the upset of their plans in 1937 to give an account completely of their 
control of this outfit. 

There always has been a yeasty situation within the organization as 
a result of the open warfare carried on by the Upholsterers Interna- 
tional Union when they evaded the trap and weren't dragged into it. 

]\Iy research when I assumed the post of director of organization of 
the Upholsterers International Union, that being my first capacity, in 
June of 1945, was to make an investigation into the specific history of 
this, as I had some personal contact with it. This personal contact 
came at the A. F. of L. convention in 1937 in Denver. I covered this 
convention as a newspaperman, and at one session a man by the name 
of Boris Muster, a delegate from the Upholsterers International 
Union arose to make a speech. The first part of his speech was a bitter 
complaint of the grievances of the upholsterers in terms of their juris- 
dictional problems relating to woodworkers and was in a sense hostile 
to the convention. 

The individual concerned, finding the convention's expression very 
hostile, began to shift and wound up his speech with a pledge of un- 
dying loyalty to the A. F. of L. under any and all circumstances. 

At this point Louis Budenz, who at that time was a very active Com- 
munist and was there at the press desk representing the Daily Worker, 
called me and Lou Stark, of the New York Times, and several other 
newspapermen together to reassure us and tell us that we should dis- 
regard Muster's speech, that it had no foundation in fact, because 
actually Sal B. Hoffman in Philadelphia was going to lead the whole 
outfit into the CIO after this convention was over. 

Budenz was giving the dope as he had it straight from the party's 
mouth at that time. He called us together and told us this was part 
of the scheme. This is where the edge of the thing shows to the open 
world what was going on. 

Actually a deal had been worked out, the terms of it had been 
worked out between Sidney Hillman and the Conmiunist group within 
the Upholsterers International Union in Xew York in that year 1937, 
under which the Upholsterers International Union was to secede and 
around it would be grouped a lot of other independent local unions, 
including Federal unions that could be pried loose from the American 
Federation of Labor and this would be the foundation for a new fur- 
niture workers union, a new setup within the CIO. 

This also was handled by John Brophy. 

In the course of my research, my appetite was, of course, Avhetted by 
that contact I had with it, because within a few days after the adjourn- 
ment of that convention m Denver the newspapers carried the story 
that there had been an upset and instead of the upholsterers going out 
of the A. F. of L. and becoming part of a new CIO union, they had 
repudiated the whole set up, and a mere segment had seceded and 
formed a CIO union which received a charter late that year, but only 
a rump section. 

Plaving this first handling when I came into the Upholsterers Inter- 
national Union in 191:5, I made an intensive research into it because 
negotiations at that time for a no-raiding or peace pact between the 
Upholsterers International Union and the Furniture Workers Union 

! P n R T . I C ! 



22 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Avere proceeding, the purpose being not to amalgamate the organiza- 
tions but to avoid, if possible, outright competition in various sectors. 

The political basis was that JSIuster, the man who at Denver had 
under the pressure of the audience switched from a hostile, anti- 
A. F. of L. position in the same speech to a very pro-A. F. of L. posi- 
tion, was now the head of the furniture Avorkers. He was what Sal 
Hoffman was intended to be, the stooge head of a Communist-domi- 
nated union. 

So I went back over the circumstances, and this is essentially in 
brief outline the story of Communist operations in the furniture 
industry, an industry which does not attract attention because it is 
scattered throughout all the United States. It has no significance 
in the normal course as a war industry, although in periods of con- 
version the bigger plants in the industry do fidfill war contracts. But 
in which there always has been a bitter struggle over this Communist 
issue within the furniture industry and which continues to this day. 

Tliis was evident, so far as I believe, the first record of it was fonnd 
in my research in the August 1922 issue. 

This union did not publish a journal until May of 1922. after hav- 
ing been in existence theretofore for ^0 years, but in the August 1922 
issue there is a lead editorial by the union president who declares, 
"The issue is, shall they, the Communists, scuttle the ship of the Amer- 
ican labor movement, or will labor make them walk the plank?" 

This contest with Communists in the union, of which there appear 
to be always a scattering, ranged through the twenties. 

Mr. Arens. Identify the union again, please. 

Mr. McDowell. This is the Upholsterers International Union. 

In 1929. in a series of articles in various Communist and near- 
Commnnist publications, William Z. Foster called for a new policy 
of dual unionism, abandoning the policy pursued from 1922, the first 
open activity of the Communist Party of America, to 1929, for (he 
most part, of boring from within the existing unions. This was a 
policy of dual imionism. The Trade Union Educational League, a 
Communist-front organization of Foster's, was now converted into 
the Trade Union Unity League, which became the trade-union center 
in accordance Avith instructions received that year from Moscow. 

The furniture field was considered snbsidiarv to the needle-trade 
field, in which the Communists because of the breakup of the work- 
ing gronp believed they Avoidd have the maxinuun chance to fiet their 
base, and from this base to make a bridgehead into the rest of the 
labor moA'ement. 

The organization that came into existence in various forms was 
known as the Furniture Workers Industrial Union, the National 
Furniture Workers Industrial Union, and vaiHous variants of this 
name. One of the new people to appear in the furniture trade at this 
time was a garment sewer by the name of Mon-is Pizer, a garment- 
industry sewer, who because of a mistaken belief that there was a 
similar tie between something in the upholstery trade, which is palm 
and needle, and something in the garment trades, was transferred 
bv the Communist Party because of their weakness of leadership into 
the furniture industry, and he began to appear somewhere after 19o0. 
He is definitely what is known as a colonizer. 

When an organization is too weak to a great extent, thev transfer 
from one trade to another. He came into the Upholsterers I'''nion, not 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 23 

into the Upholsterers Union but into the new Fnrnituie Workers In- 
dustrial Union, which was very nuich weaker than the needle-trades 
industrial union, which was their dual union in the needle trades. 
However, their tactics were the same attempts at raid, backdoor agree- 
ments, anything under heaven in order to get themselves a foothold. 

They were not very successful, but in the city of New York they did 
succeed in organizing by 1934 and 1935 a woodworkers union, a fur- 
niture woodworkers union, mostly in the shops making frames origin- 
ally for upholstered furniture. Tliis was under the Furniture AVorkers 
Industrial Union organization. Some time in 1935 when the Com- 
munist Party line changed and abandoned dualism and the instruc- 
tions were to come back into the A. F. of L.. all of the names of the 
people who had been active in trying to break up the upholsterers in 
order to form the Furniture Workers Industrial Union came back, 
and at that time as j^art of A. F. of L. unions, including fur workers, 
they were accepted on the ground of a declaration of past offenses and 
their intention in the future to be devotedly loyal to the A. F. of L. 
Of course their devoted loyalty lasted 2 years. 

This group of people represented very little addition. The grou])s 
they brought in were primarily as folloAvs : Their members, who had 
gone out and formed a competitive union, came back into the Up- 
holsterers Local 76 of New York, which they had completely lost in- 
fluence in during the period of their dual-union tactics. They brought 
in this new organization under a man by the name of Max Perlow. 
This 76-B, it was called, linked with the old upholsterers local. They 
also brought in and with it George Smerkin, alias Stewart, of Rock- 
ford, 111., the Rockford Furniture Workers local. They brought in 
also a group in Los Angeles of some importance. These were the 3 
centers of Communist strength — New York, Illinois outside of 
Chicago, that is. and Los Angeles. 

By 1937 there had been an increase in membership in the union, and 
in the spring of 1937 an argument that had been going on for some 
years was settled, the argument being the question of inclustrial organ- 
ization of the whole upholstered furniture industry. The union 
elected a new president in the spring of 1937. Sal B. Hoffman of Phila- 
delphia, with a long history of local union ex})erience and an organ- 
izer for the international union many times in the past. 

The immediate problem of a new president was a long-standing con- 
flictwith the Carpenters Union of the A. F. of L. back to 19li over 
the jurisdiction over the woodworkers within furniture plants, where 
the upholsterers were already organized in most cases. This was an 
old story and also there was a problem relating to building trades- 
men, linoleinn layers, carpet layers, and so forth. 

These problems resulted in some tension with the American Federa- 
tion of Labor over its failure to act on jurisdictional problems. 

The Communist group by this time had become very active and had 
taken office. In 2 years' time they had moved into a considerable num- 
ber of offices in the shifting situation. They were unified as far as the 
support of Hoffman is concerned. There was no opposition to that. 
He w^as elected unanimously by the convention. Then on the board 
appeared certain names, including Morris Pizer. who is identifiecl 
as having come over from the needle trades first to found the TUUL in 
the furniture industry and then transferred into the upholsterers when 
the party line changed in 1935. 



24 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Now in 1937 this group of people came to the general executive board 
of the upholsterers and suggested that they join the CIO and solve 
this whole problem of jurisdiction by going out and organizing whom- 
ever they pleased by joining the CIC). At this time not only were there 
people who were loyal as such to the A. F. of L. in the union but there 
were people who were dependent for their jobs because of their build- 
ing-trades cards being honored in the building trades, such as the 
linoleum layers. Therefore the new international president said he 
was perfectly willing to consider a solution of the problem by a change 
of affiliation, but he was not going to go along with it unless the tran- 
sition was approved by the overwhelming proportion of the members. 
He therefore suggested that a new union affiliation could only be taken 
by a referendum in which 70 percent of the vote was in favor because 
there should be no 51 -percent votes because in the nature of union ref- 
erendum it would be unrepresentative and the organization would 
merely split itself into parts and not move anyplace. 

This was unanimously agreed to by the general executive board, by 
the persons including those subsequently identified as the Communist 
caucus. That included, first, Max Perlow, from 76-B ; second, Morris 
Pizer; third. Jack Hochstadt. 

All of these people were party to the agreement for a 70-percent ref- 
erendum in case of any change in affiliation. Agreement was worked 
out with John Brophy, representing the CIO, and Hofiman, represent- 
ing the upholsterers, to summon a conference to confer as to what 
should be done. Inasmuch as the upholsterers were bound to move only 
in case of this special referendum, a specified number of votes, it was 
understood clearly with Brophy that this conference was to be a con- 
ference to consider furniture union and industry problems but no 
union was to be formed. However, in specific abrogation of the agree- 
ment for this conference which was to be held in Washington, D. C, 
the weekend following Thanksgiving in 1937, Brophy sent out a letter 
the last sentence of which stated to consider the formation of a new 
union. This was a specific violation of the agreement which he made 
with Sal Hoffman, but it was in specific compliance with the deal which 
had been made througli Hillman for the CIO and Lewis with the Com- 
munist group of the furniture workers in New York. 

The experience with Brophy in 1937 as related in the record is ex- 
actly the same as the experience of H. L. Mitchell, of the Agricultural 
Workers Union in trying to get assurance out of Brophy in his case 
in 1937. 

It was more abrupt in the case of Mitchell because he was finally 
told he had no choice in the matter. In the case of Hoffman and the 
upholsterers, an old-established union, the arrangement was that 
Brophy for 30 daj's was unavailable. He could not be reached to be 
questioned about this violation of the agreement in the call of this 
Thanksgiving Day conference. However, toward the end of Novem- 
ber a delegation appeared in the office of the Upholsterers International 
Union, then in New York, headed by Pizer and Muster, who appears 
here for the first time in this situation. Pizer, Perlow, Hochstadt, 
Magliacano, all known, with the exception of Muster, as the members 
of the Communist unit. 

This is the story as related to me in detail by President Hoffman in 
getting this research background of the history of the furniture work- 
ers — United Furniture Workers Union, CIO. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 25 

During this period lie was completely unable to get Brophy by 
telephone or to get any answer to his communication. However, when, 
a few days before the Thanksgiving conference date in Washington, 
this delegation showed up in his office, they asked him what he was 
going to say in his speech to the conference. Hoffman then told them 
that he didn't know that he was necessarily going to the conference 
because the conference call Avas in violation of the agreement that he 
had with John Brophy, of the CIO. 

There was a tremendous amount of excitement, and they told him 
that he had to go, and they even offered to tell him what he was to say. 
They wanted to write his speech. They said that he must say that 
they would found a new union. This Avas in violation of their own 
unanimous agreement on the general executive board. They said that 
is unimportant, completely unimportant. 

The delegation left the office, and within 30 minutes of the time they 
left the office John Brophy, who could not be reached for the previous 
30 days voluntarily, called Hoffman and asked him how he was doing. 
There was just time enough for the Communist delegation to get out 
of the office and contact Brophy and Brophy in turn to call Hoffman to 
straighten out the whole thing. 

Just prior to this period a great deal of pressure had been applied 
to Hoffman as president of the union, including two sessions to which 
he had been escorted by this Communist clique in the New York up- 
holsterers local in the office of Sidney Hillman. Sidney Hillman had 
told him that he had to go along with the course of history and asked 
him what was his hesitation. He pointed out that he had two or three 
thousand linoleum layers with building-trades cards whose jobs would 
be innnediately imperiled if they severed A. F. of L. affiliations. 

At this time he makes some point of the statement that Hillman made 
to him that he had no choice and that the people were no consideration 
of importance and their jobs were no consideration of any importance. 

This was the last of two conferences with Hillman, at which time 
Hillman put the pressure on him to come along with the CIO program 
regardless and in disregard, as a matter of fact, of the agreement of his 
executive board to go only on a TO-percent referendum. 

By this time it became evident to him that there was not to be a 
legitimate organization but that this was an attempt to tvirn him into 
a stooge, a front president for an organization that they were going 
to set up and manipulate. He, therefore, conferred with the officers 
of the A. F. of L. and found that there was a different factor involved 
here that had special significance. Reluctantly in the earlier part of 
1937 a proposal for labor unity had arisen, largely through the initia- 
tive of the teamsters union, and while Lewis was bitterly opposed 
to any such proposal he could not afford openly to oppose it. So 
Lewis had told them that, in addition to the other factors at this 
Thanksgiving 1937 conference, there must be a furniture union formed 
detaching the upholsterers from the A. F. of L., because there was a 
meeting of this unity meeting the Monday following Thanksgiving 
and if they pulled this detachment or secession of the upholsterers 
union from the A. F. of L., the A. F. of L., in all honor and self- 
defense, would be compelled to pull out of the unity negotiations be- 
cause of the breach of the faith which was involved. The onus for 
breaking off the unity negotiations would lie upon the A. F. of L. 



26 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

They would be in that position in the public eye. The}^ had to have, 
because of political needs of the CIO president at that time, the 
chairman, because the CIO, of course, was thought constituted until 
1938 as an organization with a president, but he was chairman of 
the CIO — Lewis had to have the new furniture union with the up- 
holsterers seceded that weekend in order to serve his purpose. 

The A. F. of L. officers asked Hoffman therefore to go to this con- 
ference and to do anything that was necessary to prevent a new union 
being formed on the spot and the upholsterers implicated in the pro- 
ceedings which would put the A. F. of L. officials in an impossible 
position on the following Monday. 

So there are two sets of purposes met in this conference. The 
Communist delegates — Pizer, Perlow. Hochstadt, Magliacano — pro- 
ceeded to come as delegates from tlie upholsterers union and proceeded 
to ]>our every kind of vilification and abuse that they could invent 
upon the union and all its historv here in conference with other unions. 

Mr. Duffy. And Sirota? 

Mr. McDowell. Sirota? Sirota was the other one of the group. 
There were five. The five I believe we should recapitulate with: 
Pizer. Perlow, Magliacano. Hochstadt, and Sirota. This was the 
group. 

The essence of it was that the upholsterers group was able to 
solidify themselves and agree that they would promise almost any- 
thing as long as the conference itself did not form a union. So they 
filibustered for the better part of 2 days and they never did get to 
the place of forming the new union as a consequence. But they were 
taken out and told that John L. Lewis Avanted to see them, and they 
were ushered into it. They said Lewis would not see them unless they 
said a new union was to be formed. He said nothing about this, but 
when Lewis came into the thing to meet the delegation down here in 
downtown Washington he started addressing them as the new CIO 
Furniture Workers Union. Sal Hoffman, speaking for the upholster- 
ers, said : "But, Mr. Lewis, there isn't any new union formed. We 
have just agreed to set up a program and to carry on a referendum 
of our locals and the other locals involved." 

Lewis turned on his heel and walked out of the conference. 

The following Monday the Daily Worker carried a story, regardless 
of the facts, to the effect that a new union had been formed and the 
upholsterers had joined a new unioiL There was a complete falsifica- 
tion of the facts. They were called on it. On the following Monday 
the Communist group came in plus Muster this time, into the union 
office and they said there was no further nonsense, that they must go 
CIO, and they regardless of anything else were all going to go CIO. 

This amounted to a mass resignation and Hoffman simply rose and 
said, all right, there is the door. Get cut. You have now resigned. 
Because by this measure he lost all the Communist members on his 
board, because under the democratic rules of the organization had 
they stayed they could have tied up his machinery completely in 
charges and countercharges in democratic proceedings for a long 
period of time. 

The constitution of the union at that time went to such democratic 
extremes that an individual member accused and subject to expulsion 
could demand a referendum of the entire international union in the 
United States and Canada with unlimited right to press his case in 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 27 

writing at the union's expense. This was an example. Any officer 
challenged by charges was automatically suspended. Therefore, the 
salvation as far as this Communist operation was concerned was this 
maneuver which made these people show their hand and expose them- 
selves as desiring to defy their own unanimous decision on the board. 
They then went out the door along Avith Muster. Within a few weeks 
a CIO charter was announced to a United Furniture Workers Union, 
and this union was formed by the setting up of these former A. F. of L. 
federal unions which were cletaching themselves from the A. F. of L. 
by some local unions the CIO had picked up in the furniture and 
woodworking trades in the course of time, and local 76 of the up- 
holsterers, and 76-B. 

The arrangement was that the old upholsterers local in New York 
did not have enough Communist strength in the 2 years they had bcv-n 
in to enable them to swing it, so they {promised jNlustei-. the — at that 
time — incumbent business agent of the New York local, the presidency 
of the new CIO union now that they had lost Hotfman, and on this 
basis Muster became the president of the international union and 76 
local, although not a Communist-dominated local, but on the basis of 
this deal the Communist strength and the Muster strength, with his 
allieSj.were sufficient to SAving it into the CIO as a local. 

No referendum of course was ever conducted. The strange per- 
formance on this was that many of the people who were identified 
with the Communists did not break immediately, although they were 
under instruction to do so. In Los Angeles the local there was sum- 
moned to a meeting by Harry Bridges, because the Los Angeles 
local was supposed to have a majority of leftwingers as a result of 
the comeback of 1935. Harry Bridges met secretly with what he 
thought were all reliable people — some of them were not as reliable 
as he thought they were — to tell them what was to be done to secede 
and join the CIO along with everyone else. 

This is the time Bridges had been made head of the CIO on the 
west coast and was switching from the A. F. of L. at that time and the 
movement was on. 

The Rock-ford local, under this George Stewart, whose record they 
did not know at the time, had no knowledge of his record, stayed in 
the upholsterers, pledged loj- alty, as a matter of fact, and was warned 
at a meeting in Chicago in December 1937 that inasmuch as they 
were a new local, recently affiliated, they could go peaceably but if 
they stayed and made any j^retense and went later they would be 
penalized by the union defending its right. 

What they did subsequently was to have a vote, and there was 
only one dissenting vote, and they did go CIO in the early part of 
1938. The convention founding the United Furniture Workers was 
held in Rockford in 1938. 

From the begining, as a result of this unconsummated deal which 
had been broken up by the upholsterers footwork in 1937, there was 
a great deal of dissension over the political issue. The political issue 
was never possible of submerging in the United Furniture Workers 
CIO because of the background. It is our opinion that Morris 
Muster, who I might say is a man of identically the same tempera- 
ment as David Lasser, that Morris Muster was^ never a member of 
the Comuiunist Party, but he did collaborate with them completely. 



28 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

The test of this collaboration of Morris Muster is to be found in the 
test of the crisis of March 1943 in United States-Russian relations 
as reflected in the labor movement. 

On the same weekend of March 1943 Admiral Stanley, the Ameri- 
can iVmbassador, delivered an ultimatum to the Soviet demanding 
that they give publicity in the press to the extensive lend-lease and 
Litvinov, in Washington, simultaneously announced to President 
Green, of the A. F. of L., and Phil Murray, of the CIO, that two 
Polish Jewish trade-union leaders. Alter and Ehrlich, honored and 
respected leaders of the Jewish labor movement in Poland for 25 
years before the outbreak of war, who had been arrested upon the 
Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, had been released a month fol- 
lowing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, and had disappeared 
subsequently, that these two men who had been personally intervened 
for by the whole labor movement in the United States and whom 
"Wendell Willkie had submited a personal request to Stalin for their 
release, had been executed on the charges that they were aiding the 
Nazis in Poland. 

These of course were Jewish labor leaders, known and respected 
throughout the world. 

This caused a crisis in the whole Soviet alinement in the labor move- 
ment, and it is in this connection that we have to establish how 
complete was the domination of the President of the United Furni- 
ture Workers by the Communists in this State. 

A mass meeting of protests over the Alter-Ehrlich assassinations 
by the Soviet was organized in INIecca Temple, New York, and here 
came almost all the old European unions. The president of the 
Amalgamated Clothing Workers Bank in New York, one Adolph 
Held, was an old personal friend of years standing of the murdered 
men, but he was called by Sidney Hillman, president of the Amal- 
gamated and warned if he dared attend that meeting at the temple, 
his connection with the union — he had been president of the union's 
bank of New York — would cease automatically. Held did defy him 
and turned up at that meeting and he was replaced as president of 
the bank the following week by a young socialite fellow-traveling 
lawyer of New York. 

Although Held had been, as I say, president of the bank from the 
beginning. 

Muster's connection with this was related to me directly following 
the incident by James B. Carey, the secretary of the CIO, who did 
attend and speak at that meeting. He said by the evening of the 
meeting he had received calls from every identified Communist leader 
in the CIO threatening him that if he attended that meeting they 
would do everything from attacking him in the convention to, as Joe 
Curran said, bloody his nose for him. 

There was only one person among the group they had their fingers 
in control of that had not called, and that was Morris Muster of the 
furniture workers. 'Wliile Carey was sitting at dinner a call came 
and he picked up the telephone. He said "Hello, Morris." Muster 
at the other end said, "How did you know I was calling." He went 
on to tell him he knew why he was calling because he had been called 
by Saul Mill, the whip of the Communist forces in New York City, 
and told to call. He said yes, he had. But he never made his argu- 
ment because Carey said he told him his side of it first and he never 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 29 

bothered afterward. He didn't have the push. But he had been to 
the phice where he had on that political purpose to make the call. 
That is how much he was under their control. 

This issue stayed under cover until the fall of 1945. At that time 
President Hoffman of the upholsterers' union following the war made 
several proposals for the maintenance of industrial peace, one for 
the arbitration of any disputes before strikes which was made at the 
Furniture Manufacturers' Association, and privately he sent a mes- 
sage to Muster, whom he did not regard as a Communist, whom he 
regarded merely as a soft stooge which the Communists used as a 
front man, that he would like to agree not to compete in the organiza- 
tion of workers and because of the inevitable clashes that would 
follow if some agreement could be reached. 

Subsequent to that a meeting was held in the Hotel IMcAlpin in 
New York along about September of 1945, and at this meeting there 
were present in addition to President Hoffman and myself, and one 
or two other vice presidents from the upholsterers' union, Muster, 
Pizer, Perlow, and one or two others whose names are not important. 
It was a comparatively small meeting. 

On the way down the hall after the meeting Hoffman in my presence 
said to Muster, "Just what is the idea of your being so close to Pizer 
here? After all, we know where Morris stands." Muster said, "Oh, 
no, you have Morris all wrong. He has changed. He is all broken 
off from that connection completely." 

Muster put his arm around Pizer and his arm around Hoffman and 
said, "This is a new situation." Perlow, of course, nobody made any 
implication that he was. Everybody knew he was a tough, hard party 
supporter. But Pizer — well, it so happens that Pizer had tried the 
same thing on Sal B. Hoffman in 1937, 8 years before, had paraded 
before him as a person who was not really on the in. Later on he broke 
down and frankly admitted that the only thing was that he, Pizer, 
in 1937 was, along with Jack Hochstadt, in the party, in the top party 
faction, in the upholsterers situation, and he voted 2 against the 3 
others, namely, Sirota and Perlow, not to push the issue to split the 
upholsterers' union. Pie explained that he had taken this matter to 
Jack Stachel, and the majority had been upheld and that was it. 

This was Pizer's double role in 1937, first to present himself to Hoff- 
man as a nonparty person, a person Avho was independenit, broken away 
from his old associations which sent him into it, and then franldy to 
tell them it was merely a matter of dissent within the party faction and 
a split in which he was in the minority and overruled by the party dic- 
tator. Jack Stachel. 

This set the stage for 1945-46. 

(Wliereupon, at 1 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m. the same day.) 

AFTER RECESS 

Senator Buti,er. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. McDOWELL— Continued 

Mr. Duffy. Mr. McDowell, was Morris Muster continuing in a posi- 
tion as president of the United Furniture Workers of America during 
this period of 1945 ? 

43903—541 3 



30 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. ISIcDowELL. Morris Muster was at that time president and had 
been president of the United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, 
since its founding convention in Rockford in 1938, and he did con- 
tinue to be president after this date until July 1, 1946. 
May I give further background for the conferences? 
Mr. DuTFT. If you would, please. 

Mr. McDo^\ai:LL. Subsequent to this initial conference at the Hotel 
McAlpin in New York City, at which time at the adjournment of the 
conference there occurred this exchange between President Sal B. 
Hoffman and Morris Muster and Morris Pizer, in which, as indicated 
in the account of the conversation, Muster indicated his belief in 
Pizer's presence that Pizer was now a good fellow and no longer serv- 
ing the Communist interests, but one of us — my recollection is that 
President Hoffman at that time expressed skepticism about it to 
both Muster and Pizer's face, and Muster reassured him, but Pizer 
smiled but made no response. 

It should be further recorded that Muster, in conversations in the 
course of these conferences, indicated that he had been very antago- 
nistic to the Communists during the period of the Soviet-Nazi pact, 
understandably so, and of course he and all his family are Jewish, 
and he indicated in these conversations that Pizer had also, during 
that period at least, broken away. 

There were subsequent conferences held to discuss this matter of 
a no-raiding agreement between us. One was held in November in 
the offices of the United Furniture Workers on Fifth Avenue. A 
subsequent conference was held finally in the very early spring of 
1946, at which time the conferences were abandoned because in each 
case of each proposal made by the Upholsterers International Union 
for the agreement that one union or the other should leave another area 
of the industry alone to be covered by collective bargaining activities 
of the other, objections were raised, whether it was on a trade basis or 
on a State basis, and finally in private conversation at the end of 
the early spring 1946 conference, Pizer and Perlow indicated that 
their only interest was to persuade the upholsterers to quit calling the 
United Furniture Workers Union leaders Communists, and if we 
would do that they thought peace and harmony would abide, and no 
formal agreement of any kind would be necessary. 

Subsequent to the last conference held. President Hoffman related 
to me immediately on his return one afternoon that he had had a pri- 
vate telephone call from Morris Pizer, that Pizer had invited him to 
have lunch with him in Philadelphia to discuss a trade problem in 
relation to one of the concerns with which both of our unions had 
some collective bargaining relationships, and that in the course of 
this luncheon Hoffman, with the background of Pizer's 1937 kidding 
of him about having left the organization and then confessing that 
the only thing that was involved was that he belonged to the soft 
minority within the party fraction within the Upholsterers Union in 
New York — and that was the whole story — and he had been reversed 
by Jack Stachel, the director of the Communist Party, and that they 
therefore had had to go through with the split and the attempt to 
break up the Upholsterers Union in 1937: althougli he would have pre- 
ferred to have followed a somewhat different tactic, it was not a 
difference of policy. It was not a difference with the party's instruc- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 31 

tions on basic policy. This was the record, and knowing this, Presi- 
dent Hoffman told me of another incident to illustrate the duplicity 
of the man, Pizer. Prior to the breakaway of the Communist group 
for the second time from the Upholsterers International Union at the 
end of 1937 to form the CIO, and of course with a push in this case 
from the union, a complaint had been lodged against Morris Muster 
as business agent of the local union 76 in New York. The complaint 
was that he had not paid his assessment in a strike assessment that 
had been levied in the early part of 1937. 

The laws of the international union are so drawn that no one is 
eligible for office unless he is in continuous good standing for 2 years 
previous to their nomination. Continuous good standing means that 
you have never been in arrears with respect to any obligation. 

Muster was summoned to the International Union office and asked if 
this were true. Muster said yes, it was true, he had not paid the 
assessment, but the reason he had not paid the assessment was that he 
didn't think that as business agent he was obliged to pay the assess- 
ment, as an officer. 

Pizer accompanied Muster on this interview. Wlien Hoffman then 
turned to Pizer and asked, "Did you tell him that as an officer he did 
not have to pay the assessment?" Pizer said he had told Muster. 

Then he asked Pizer, "Did you pay the assessment?" for he was also 
an officer of that same local union. And he said, "Yes, I paid the 
assessment." 

At that point President Hoffman pointed out that under the laws 
he had no choice but to disqualify Muster from holding further office 
after the beginning of 1936. His only powers as International Presi- 
dent enabled him to allow Muster to continue to finish out his term, but 
the law is so rigid that when it came up for renomination in the fall — 
all elections in those days were for a maximum of 1-year term — Muster 
was out of his union job. 

Therefore, during this period. Muster was in the identical position 
that the young man, George Smerkin, alias Stewart, was in in 1933. 
He had been trapped by the Communists into being ineligible for 
office under the old setup, and therefore he had a choice of either being 
nothing or becoming an international president. 

With this complete cul-de-sac in which they had him, he was avail- 
able at all times to be their stooge in 1937. He was not a too willing 
stooge, but he was in a position where they had a person who, unless 
they were a very honorable and scrupulous person, would be inevitably 
tempted to take this way out, which would leave them in the movement. 
The other way he would go back to the bench. That would have been 
the only choice. 

^ This is an example of the duplicity, the smiling, open-faced admis- 
sion of duplicity on the part of the man Pizer. He admitted that he 
had counseled his friend, so to speak, to a course ; he admitted that he 
then had carefully avoided following the same course, and he made 
no apology for it whatsoever. 

Therefore, this is the individual, again, who in the fall of 1945 and 
the spring of 1946 let Muster believe that this time he was no longer 
a loyal servitor of the Communists. This was a strategic deception, 
because on June , 1946, the biennial convention of the furniture work- 
ers met in the city of Detroit, and from the opening of this con- 
vention to the hour that it adjourned, it was unable to transact any 



32 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

business because the Communist issue split the convention right down 
the middle. 

At the critical moment on the roUcall vote which determined the 
control of the convention, Muster assured friends that Pizer would 
be his supporter ; but at that moment Pizer cast his vote on the Com- 
munist sicle, and control passed openly into the hands of the Com- 
munists on the board as far as the convention was concerned. 

At this moment, having been in session for 5 days and the issue 
being so bitter as recorded in the press of the day, 5 days of conven- 
tion were unable to transact the adoption of any business whatsoever. 
They could never get past the credentials committee's reports. 

At the end of the convention they finally decided to elect officers. 
Muster was elected in a contemptuous gesture, with the Communists 
in control of the convention, without opposition, as president. But 
all his supporters at this convention, where Muster for the first time 
had challenged the Communists, his supporters refused to take office 
and took their appeal to the office of Phil Murray, president of the 
CIO, with the demand that he intervene and clean up this situation, 
which was headed up hj a man, the secretary-treasurer, by the name of 
Max Perlow. 

Following this appeal to Phil Murray to intervene and take over the 
affairs, the appeal being made by Muster, who remained helpless in 
the office but still with the title and powers of president, appealing 
to Phil Murray to intervene and recognize this as an abnormal and 
illegal situation because the convention majority was on the basis of 
loaded per capita of certain locals which were carrying members in the 
armed services, and these members, nonvoting in the election of dele- 
gates, were nevertheless claimed by the Communists for the purpose 
of controlling the convention. That is, they did not represent dues 
payments because no dues were paid by soldiers. 

That was something we adopted in our union, and this union in 
peculiar fashion always copies administrative measures probably a 
month or so afterward. They copied the same thing. They had that 
system. 

So this was a basis for legal intervention by the president of the 
parent organization, CIO. 

Murray, however, refused, after some lengthy discussion. The 
reason for that can now be revealed, as this was a matter that I had 
personal knowledge of. The appeal was made to Murray again dur- 
ing the month of June. He reserved answer but indicated by the 25th 
of June that he would not intervene; that some measure might be 
taken to amalgamate the two unions, Furniture Workers and the 
International Woodworkers of America on the west coast of the United 
States, primarily, who, however, had a terrific problem over the Com- 
munist issue within their organization at that very precise moment, 
also revolving around the secretary-treasurer of that union, who was 
a Communist and who since has been removed. 

This was no solution for the anti-Communist elements in the United 
Furniture Workers. In the early weeks of June they came into our 
union — they told us of the situation in our office in Philadelphia, and 
they requested tliat we not take partisan advantage of their situation 
by moving in on their supporters, but that we support them in their 
effort to take over and rid themselves of the Communists within their 
own union without imperiling their position. This we agreed to do. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 33 

I was present when President Hoflfman agreed that we would do 
this. We would make no move, we would encourage them. We would 
even give them financial support to fight the Communists. We would 
make no attempt, as the word goes, to take them over. 

This went very well except that we warned the committee that 
came to our office from the United Furniture Workers after this 
convention — we warned them that in our opinion, after having been 
a willing front for the Communists all these years, Morris Muster 
did not have the intestinal fortitude to make a fight, but we agreed 
to support them anyhow. 

On the 30th day of June 1946 I had convoked a conference of the 
upholsterers union locals in the southeastern States in the city of 
Asheville, N. C. My conference was finished on Saturday afternoon, 
and on Sunday morning, together with the local union officer from 
Asheville, I walked up "the hill to Mountain Park Inn above Ashe- 
ville, N. C. I had in my mind a newspaper from the previous day 
indicating that as a result of the expiration of price controls, and 
so forth, as of that evening, June 30, 1946, newspapers throughout 
the United States were striving desperately to locate Phil Murray to 
get the usual statement on the issue. They had been unable to find 
him. 

I walked into the entrance to Mountain Park Inn and found several 
people whom I knew as officers on the steel workers, CIO, board. 
There was a secret meeting going on in the Mountain Park Inn of the 
board, which no one, even in the office in Pittsburgh, was allowed to 
divulge the location of. 

From a member of the board at that meeting I secured the following 
story of the crisis, which now relates to the United Furniture Workers 
situation. 

At the opening of this session which had been demanded by Clinton 
Golden, at that time second ranking man to Philip Murray witliin 
the steel workers, how at Harvard University as part of their trade- 
union progTam — Clinton Golden had demanded a showdown in the 
steel workers official family saying that one Lee Pressman and his 
Commie supjDorters must get out of the steel workers, or he, Clinton 
Golden, would get out. That was the issue, and that required the 
secret meeting. 

The battle had been going on all Saturday and had been resolved 
that Sunday morning. May I correct that date. That Sunday 
morning would have been June 30. It was the 30th day of June, 
but the OPA had expired as of the last week day, which was the 
night before, Saturady. That was the connection in which they 
souglit to find Phil Murray, who was in Asheville, N. C, inaccessible. 

By Sunday morning, Van A. Bittner, subsequently deceased, from 
West Virginia, who had joined in the showdown with Clint Golden, 
insisting that either they sliould resign or Pressman should get out — 
Van Bittner had been detached from the combination and Golden 
stood alone. The result was that afternoon of June 30, Sunday, 
Golden's resignation was accepted, the second ranking man in steel 
from its inception, has been accepted, and Lee Pressman had been con- 
firmed in his position in the steel workers, CIO. 

Mr. Duffy. What was the official capacity that you refer to ? 

Mr. McDowell. He was in a position which was not formal but 
which was equivalent to vice president. He had been the adminis- 



34 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

trative officer of the steel workers up until that date from its forma- 
tion in 1936, for 10 yeai-s, and at this time he made the choice, and the 
choice was given back to him. 

A cover was converted to tliat under which Mr. Golden was to serve 
as liaison man with Government, between the steel workers and the 
Government, but he stuck by his resolve. He held no further official 
position in the steel workers union. 

Senator Butler. You say he has since been deceased? 

Mr. McDowell. No. Clinton Golden is at Harvard. He is out 
of the labor union, conducting a trade-union school at Harvard. 

(Discussion oE the record.) 

Mr. Duffy. May we go back on the record now ? 

Mr. McDowell. The interesting bearing of this on the furniture 
workers case is to throw light on subsequent policy of the CIO in 
relation to the United Furniture Workers, CIO. After this exhaust- 
ing battle, Phil Murray on July 1, the following Monday morning, 
faced the fact that on the front page of the New York Times was the 
searing resignation as president of the CIO Furniture Workers, of 
Morris Muster, on the grounds that as a trade unionist his record 
"would not permit me to remain liead of a Communist-controlled 
organization." 

That is a quotation from his statement. He said at that time that 
a small minority of a thousand Communists dominated the 42,000- 
member union. The statement is a matter of official record. It was 
printed in the New York Times of July 1. 

This of course resulted in the opening up of the entire situatioji. 
The people who had previously asked our union to stay away from it 
asked us now to intervene and to accept their affiliation. A large 
number of locals, stretching all the way from Philadelphia to Wis- 
consin, seceded and attempted to make their secession from the United 
Furniture Workers into the Upholsterers International Union 
effective. 

This was the most extensive desertion, proportionate to its member- 
ship, that occurred in any international union over such a political 
issue so far as I have been able to determine. It included also the 
secession of a large proportion of the staff of this union. 

The battle to confirm the secession legally by elections under the 
auspices of the National Labor Eeiations Board extended from this 
resignation of Muster in 1946, July, until late in 1948 before the wave 
of secessions had completely ceased and before the organization had 
been able to stabilize. 

An emergency was declared, and the successor in the United Furni- 
ture Workers to Morris Muster became, namely, the person who had 
on previous occasions successfully betrayed him, Morris Pizer, not the 
well-known Communist secretary-treasurer, Perlow, who was identi- 
fied beyond all possibility, but Pizer, who had acquired this reputation 
of being the compromiser and the conciliator, and so forth and so on, 
contrary to his private conversations indicating he Avas a hard party 
man at all times. 

This secession resulted in the transfer of probably between 7,000 
and 8,000 members, actual dues-paying members, from the United 
Furniture Workers Union to the Upholsterers International Ujiion, 
but it came at a time when the full resources of the CIO, regardless 
of the issue, were thrown behind the United Furniture Workers, CIO. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 35 

I give an example of that in the fact that wherever we had a Labor 
Board case, every pressure that could be brought to bear, official and 
unofficial, on the Labor Relations Board by the CIO — and that was 
considerable in 1946 — was brought to bear to delay these elections, 
where the people had expressed themselves by overwhelming votes in 
meetings, and then their collective-bargaining business would be tied 
up in knots for weeks and months as the Board delayed or discussed 
whether they could or could not give them elections. 

In some cases the Board's position was supported by actual rules 
affecting existing contracts, and in other cases we found there was no 
explanation. Contracts were not necessarily a bar, but there was con- 
stant delay in the process of the Board. 

This resulted in the reconsolidation of the now clearly Communist- 
dominated Furniture Workers Union of the Grand Rapids situation, 
for example. Here is an interesting example of what selfish policy 
leads to in these circumstances. 

Walter Reuther, president of the auto workers, over the bitter oppo- 
sition of the Communist-led clique in his own union, did nevertheless 
in the course of the campaign for ratification of the people's choice 
in Grand Rapids at a union meeting to transfer away from the old 
furniture workers outfit, sent his brother, Victor Reuther, in to make 
a radio speech on his behalf in Grand Rapids, in which he declared 
that this story of Communist domination of the furniture workers, 
although it was attested to by the man who had been its only inter- 
national president for the previous 9 years, who resigned on that ac- 
count, that this was a figment of other people's imagination and that 
there was nothing to it. 

It should be entered in the record and noted that the Auto Workers, 
CIO, exactly 2 years later, at the expiration of the contract, renego- 
tiated by the furniture workers after their reinstatement in this plant, 
chartered an auto workers local in this same plant of the American 
Seating Co. on the grounds that the furniture workers was Commu- 
nist dominated, 2 years later. 

This is an example of the problem, legislatively, that you have to 
deal with in the utilization of selfish and ambitious purposes of indi- 
viduals by the Connnunist operation. 

Senator Butler. Do you believe at this moment that there is any 
substantial Communist element in Reuther's Automobile Workers 
Union ? 

Mr. McDowell. Oh, yes. I think that they are, in my opinion, 
within sight of at least nominal control of Ford Local 600, which is 
the largest local of the whole international union. 

Senator Butler. Local 600 ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. 

Senator Butler. Where is that, in Detroit ? 

Mr. McDowell. In Detroit. That local has approximately 50,000 
members. That has as many members in that one local union, almost, 
as we have in the United States in the furniture industry. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDo^vELL. There were approximately 2,000 people involved 
in the Grand Rapids situation, in which the auto workers took the 
position, first, that their CIO obligations compelled them to be politi- 
cally colorblind in 1947, when the election actually occurred; but 2 
years later, when it was to their advantage to keep it in the CIO, they 



36 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

suddenly announced that they had known it was Communist domi- 
nated all alono;, and chartered it as an auto workers local, and it still 
is an auto workers local. 

The furniture workers' history from here on in becomes relevant 
to the issue of Communist domination and their method of operation 
under the conditions obtaining in the postwar period and under the 
conditions of major hostility of American sentiment toward commu- 
nism. 

In 1947, August, there became effective the Management-Labor 
Relations Act, known as the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which act re- 
quired, in order to use the services of the National Labor Relation 
Board in representation elections, and so forth, that officers file affi- 
davits attesting that they are not members of the Communist Party or 
supporters of the Communist cause. In the case of the upholsterers, 
we have had this rule and enforced this rule as part of the taking of 
an oath of office since 1939. This, therefore, represented no problem. 

However, the United Furniture Workers was faced immediately 
with the problem, should they comply or should they not comply? 
As far as we are able to determine, and our intelligence service was 
pretty good, Perlow and other Communists within the furniture work- 
ers were advised as early as October of 1947 that, if necessary to con- 
tinue in their positions of trade-union leadership, they would be 
allowed to sign the affidavits after filing pro forma resignations from 
the party. But they were not encouraged to do so. This was only 
an allowance in extremis. 

There was, therefore, no compliance on the part of anv of the Com- 
munist-dominated unions in the fall of 1947 or 1948. This was made 
practical, and the postponement of the application of the party policy 
to comply only under necessity was made possible due to the fact that 
Lee Pressman persuaded Phil Murray that he must follow the proce- 
dure of the United Mine Workers and defy the law and refuse to 
comply or to be eligible under it. This gave the cover which was neces- 
sary for the Communists to avoid compliance in the early 2 years. 
They were, however, prepared to comply under the party orders, as we 
get the information, at any time it became necessary to hold their 
trade-union positions. 

They did not comply at any time in 1948, but the issue was a bitter 
issue at their convention held in Chicago in June of 1948. At that 
convention, on a rollcall vote successfully manipulated, they refused 
even to allow the question of compliance or noncompliance *to be put 
to the referendum vote of the membership. 

This created a crisis within their organization, and in the fall of 
1948, the vote against compliance or submission of the question of 
compliance in the furniture workers convention was given as 22,552 
to 16,090. ' 

Mr. Duffy. Let me have that again now. 

Mr. McDowell. This was the vote in the 1948 Chicajro convention 
of the CIO Furniture Workers Union, which voted against compli- 
ance with the Taft-Hartley law and the filing of the anti-Communist 
affidavits, and which also, by this vote as given above, refused to per- 
mit the issue to be voted upon by the members in referendum. 

This extraordinary exertion of power even to deny a referendum 
resulted in a series of crises within the United Furniture Workers 
Union in the successive meetings of its general executive board, in 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 37 

the course of which Pizer emerged as the leader of the compliance 
forces in 1948 and 1949, and Perlow as the leader of those opposed 
to compliance duplicating the reported division in the party fraction 
over a hard as against a soft policy in the upholsterers union as of 
1937, of the same people. 

In 1937, according to Pizer's own report to president Hoffman, 
Pizer and Hochstadt had wanted a conciliatory policy on the seces- 
sion of the upholsterers, and Perlow, Sirota, and Magliacano had 
wanted the most rigid application of the party's current policy. This 
is exactly duplicated as to the personalities in the struggle which 
preceded the CIO Furniture Workers Union convention in 1948 and 
following. 

I have just run across some data from the New York Times on 
the origin of this peculiar fight between Pizer and Perlow. 

Mr. Duffy. Put it on the record. Will this lead up to the 

Mr. McDowell. All this now bears on the question of Pizer's policy. 

Mr. DuFFT. Will this lead up to the expulsion hearing ? 

Mr. McDowell. Yes. 

As the CIO convention of 1949 approached, a new factor affected 
the decision of the United Furniture Workers. It was clear that 
Phil Murray finally had determined to challenge the open defiance 
of CIO policy by the Communist-led clique of affiliated unions headed 
by Flarry Bridges of the longshoremen on the Pacific coast. 

In accordance with its prior announcement, the CIO convention 
did adopt an order requiring all unions to conform with the CIO 
policies or be subject to expulsion. However, the United Furniture 
Workers, CIO, had given way to the compliance issue, first of all, 
the Communist-influenced unions, some months before. A referen- 
dum had been initiated and its outcome was never in doubt. 

As a resulf. out of a clear blue sky at the beginning of June 1949, 
the United Furniture Workers' officers, including the open and at 
all times avowed Communist Max Perlow, filed affidavits of non- 
Communist membership. Because of personal history, Perlow felt 
it necessary to issue a simultaneous statement to the general press 
declaring that he had changed none of his views or loyalties from 
the condition obtaining before he formally resigned from the party 
in order legally to execute the affidavit. 

This, in the opinion of all legal consultants that we could call upon, 
made his affidavit in violation of the law. 

Consequently, on June 6, 1949, President Sal B. Hoffman, of the 
Upholsferers' international Union, filed telegraphic protest with At- 
torney General Tom Clark, and with General Counsel Denham, of the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

The telegram to Mr. Tom Clark, Attorney General, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D. C, under date of June 6, and identical with 
telegram sent to General Counsel Denham, was as follows : 

Urgently protest and request investigation of filing of compliance afBdavit by 
Max Perlow, secretary-treasurer, United Furniture Workers, CIO. Acceptance 
of such compliance, accompanied by publication of continued devotion to Com- 
munist principles, would make mockery of tlie law and those of us who, like 
ourselves, have complied regardless of cost. Under our own laws, we have spe- 
cifically refused to accept such pro forma compliance and have expelled officers 
making such plea, regardless of time or occasion. My administrative assistant, 
Mr. McDowell, will spend this entire week in Washington and be glad to discuss 



38 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

matters with you further. Address, McDowell, 1740 K Street NW ; phone, 
Executive 7786. Signed, Sal B. Hoffman, President, Upholsterers' International 
Union. 

May I state for the record that General Counsel Denham advised 
us that he had forwarded our protest and the affidavits to the Attor- 
ney General, in accord with his interpretation of his responsibility 
under the law, and the prosecuting division of the Department of 
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did invite us to supply 
material, and a complete record of the supporting newspaper state- 
ments, the past record, affiliations, offices held, activities participated 
in, and even information as to the party name of Charles Lawrence 
under which Perlow held his actual party membership, was furnished 
to the Department of Justice. 

We continued to supply information, including recordings which 
showed in the Grand Rapids situation of American Seating Co. that 
at a word from a known Communist goon-squad leader, Louie Kaplan, 
formerly of the shipbuilding workers, and who has had established 
connections with J. Peters, Communist espionage agent, IMax Perlow 
within an hour confirmed arrangements made by said Kaplan, who 
was employed by the United Electrical Workers, expelled from the 
CIO at the 1949 convention, and whose word had only the weight 
officially of an officer of another union, unless it carried political 
authority. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. Outside of a few telephone conversations in early 
1950, nothing was ever heard of this case again from the Department 
of Justice. 

The decision of the CIO convention in the fall of 1949 provoked a 
new crisis after compliance within the furniture workers. It is notice- 
able here that the furniture workers was the very first of all unions 
with Communist officers to adopt the policy of compliance, and I would 
point out that in a conversation between myself, organizer Harry 
Smulyan, S-m-u-1-y-a-n, and the above-referred-to Luigi Kaplan, 
representing the UE, we were told by this pretty authoritative Com- 
munist operative in Grand Rapids, in August of 1949, (1) that the 
UE was going to comply also with the Taft-Hartley law; (2) that 
they were going to withdraw in advance of the expulsion action of 
the CIO convention; and (3) that they had been approached by repre- 
sentatives of Jolin L. Lewis to transfer their affiliation to his district 
60 organization upon their separation from the CIO. 

Mr. Duffy. To transfer their affiliation to the United Mine 
Workers ? 

Mr. McDowell. To the United Mine Workers, upon their exclusion 
or departure from the CIO. This invitation was not only to the UE, 
but to all the CIO unions who were going to be in difficulties with CIO 
policy at the forthcoming convention. 

The first two items were confirmed by subsequent events, namely, 
the UE did comply, as did in succession the other Communist-domi- 
nated unions within the CIO ; and the UE did withdraw, somewhat 
in anticipation of expulsion from the CIO by its convention action. 

In the case of the United Furniture Workers, it was clearly a case 
that no substantial union could survive under the United Furniture 
Workers' name without CIO support. It is not an independent or 
self-supporting organization, and the CIO could have taken over its 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 39 

major portions in short order, either in a new union or amalgamating 
it with an existing union which had solved its Communist problem, 
relatively speaking, in the case of the International Woodworkers of 

The same division within the United Furniture Workers board as 
it appeared on compliance developed on the matter of comphance 
with the CIO convention decision following its adjournment. On 
November 20, 1949, a Sunday, a statement was issued by Morris Pizer, 
apparently in Chicago, stating the United Furniture Workers would 
stay in the CIO, and therefore comply. On November 21, 1949, a 
Monday, a statement by Perlow was issued to the press, gently chiding 
Pizer for issuing a statement prior to a general executive board meet- 
ing scheduled for December 6 and 7. 

However, the New York Times says it received Perlow's statement 
in the same envelope and by the same messenger, with a copy of 
Pizer's statement that they would stay within the CIO. 

Perlow the same day, according to the postmark, sent out a letter 
and his press release, but not Pizer's, mailing them to the entire 
United Furniture Workers' list. 

There is reason to believe that Pizer's statement was an original 
hasty reaction to the discovery that, following the CIO action now 
on record to put the furniture workers on trial, practically no section 
of their remnants in the Midwest and even the big 76 local in New 
York would stand for voluntary departure from the CIO. 

The reaction of Perlow could scarcely have been so prompt unless 
Pizer consulted him step by step, or else that Pizer had been preparing 
to break with Perlow during and before the CIO convention. 

On December 8, 1949, the United Furniture Workers issued a state- 
ment denying having refused to seat two members on the board at 
this meeting, and quoting Pizer as denying he issued any statement 
against undemocratic procedures in this case before the board. 

A press committee composed of Gus Brown, of Los Angeles ; Frank 
O'Connor, of Boston ; and Bernard Mintner, of New York, all hard- 
ened, recognized Conmiimists, was appointed to speak exclusively for 
the board at these meetings. 

On December 9, 1949, the United Furniture Workers board issued 
a statement announcing the defeat of Pizer's motion to stay in the CIO 
unconditionally, and adoption of two resolutions against the CIO 
favoring remaining only with autonomy, which resolutions were re- 
ferred to the June 1950 convention in Chicago. 

Ostensibly from this date forward the controversy between Presi- 
dent Pizer and Secretary-Treasurer Perlow became more and more 
bitter. The convention of the United Furniture Workers in June of 
1950 did vote overwhelmingly to comply with CIO policy. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. I think we now come to the essence of the thing. 

At the showdown convention of the United Furniture Workers, 
the issue was whether to stay in the CIO or not. Although the debate 
was bitter and the division sharp, the only mention of the word "Com- 
munist" in any of the discussion was made by Allan Haywood, an 
outsider representing the CIO and presenting the ultimatum to the 
convention to comply or be expelled. 

The convention made precisely one change in the official family, 
namely, replacing Max Perlow, unqualified admitted member of the 



40 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Communist Party, by his own statement to the press even after filing 
the Taft Hartley affidavit, and his replacement was Fred Fulford of 
Indiana, at all times since his first identification with the union, begin- 
ning in 1938, a loyal follower of the Communist clique within the 
union. 

Senator Butler. Do you think he was a Communist ? 

Mr. McDowell. Fulford, as a matter of course, was accepted as one 
of the Communists, and when named to his face by myself in the city 
of Jasper in 1946 and 1947, he did not even bother to go to the trouble 
of denying it. He just let it be assumed that it was an established 
fact, and made no challenge to it. 

However, this reform, anti-Communist faction is exclusively made 
up of people identified with the Communist movement in the past in 
this union. Starting with Pizer, who made no bones about his Com- 
munist Party membership, up until 1946 at least, William Gilbert of 
Chicago who, together with his wife, until their removal to Chicago 
from Massachusetts were on the Sam Adams School of the Commu- 
nist Party in Boston, Jack Hockstadt of New York, always identified 
as a Communist but also as a personal friend of Pizer's; and on the 
board, the convention after this supposedly bitter clean-out fight left 
vacancies for the hard-core Communists, such as Brown of Los Angeles 
and Magliacano of New Jersey, who on the surface refused at that time 
to accept office on the general executive board. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. Bearing on the question of the validity of the 
change of loyalty of Pizer and his supporters, all previously identified, 
together with their opponent, Perlow, as active Communists, is the 
series of events immediately preceding this convention and following it 
to save the jobs of appointees prominently identified in the office as 
Communist personnel. 

The first of these was George Smerkin, alias Stewart, office man- 
ager, previously identified as under Communist domination and direc- 
tion as early as 1933 and subsequently. George Smerkin was fired on 
the thinnest of pretexts within a few weeks before the convention by 
the obviously condemned and slated-to-go Perlow. No substantial 
reason was given. 

The next most important post in the office, also appointive — impor- 
tant, that is, next to secretary-treasurership of the union — is the direc- 
torship of the insurance fund. The director of this is one Abraham 
Zide, Z-i-d-e. This individual, even more than Perlow, is a publicly 
identified Communist of many years' standing in New York. Practi- 
cally a standing officer of each year's Communist May Day celebration. 
Further, this individual was considered the closest personal friend of 
Perlow. Yet Perlow certainly foreseeing his own removal at the 
forthcoming convention, a few weeks before the convention fires his 
close friend and party associate as director of the insurance fund on the 
ostensible given grounds that he had failed to pay a claim for some $75 
due in a maternity case to Max Perlow's own daughter, employed in 
the office. 

Immediately following the removal of Perlow at the convention, the 
new and yet the old president, Morris Pizer, with a great flourisli and 
release to the press, reappoints George Smerkin (alias Stewart) as 
office manager, and Abraham Zide as director of the insurance fund. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 41 

In the normal course, no procedure or tactic would have been more 
effective to insure the least possible turnover of office personnel with 
all the strategic positions that they had following the ostensible change 
at the convention. 

Further hearing on the validity of the change of position is the fact 
that in the case of Gus Brown and local 576 of the United Furniture 
Workers in Los Angeles, Calif., also admittedly, openly a long-time 
Communist-dominated local, pressure from the strongly anti-Com- 
munist State CIO council obviously and publicly applied, led Pizer 
to disestablish this local, suspend its charter, and set up a new local 
which, however, conveniently occupies quarters in the same building 
with the expelled local, and expelled Gus Brown. 

However, in the case of local 140, United Furniture Workers, in 
the city of New York, where no such CIO pressure was applied, this 
local, under Alex Sirota, has continued to be affiliated with the inter- 
national union, to be identified as a center of Communist Party trade 
union activity, to defy the international union, to publish bulletins 
vilifying and slandering the officers of the international, including 
Pizer, to separate its insurance fund from the international union's 
insurance fund, maldng it completely financially independent, and 
to this date, so far as known, no action to terminate the charter or 
affect the charter and standing of local 140 has been taken by Pizer. 

Senator Butler. That does not look like they are fighting too much, 
does it ? 

Mr. McDo-\vELL. An analysis can further be made of the attacks on 
Pizer in the columns of George Morris, the labor columnist of the 
Communist Daily Worker, and it will be found that the impeachment 
is made, but by Communist standards of vilification and abuse it is a 
soft impeachment, indeed. I can speak from experience, because I 
have seen what they can say when they are talking about myself or 
anyone who is actually in the enemy camp as far as they are concerned. 

It should be noted that as of October 19, 1951, more than a year 
after this convention at which the change was made, the fight between 
Pizer's own local 76 and this Communist-dominated 140, had gone to 
the point that acid was being thrown in a contest between the two 
unions for membership in a shop, and yet no action has been taken by 
Pizer to terminate the charter of the Communist local that has at- 
tacked in this fashion his own local union and its officers. 

I don't know whether it is worth putting that clipping in the record. 

Senator Buti.er. Yes, you can make that a part of the record. 

(The clipping referred to follows:) 

3 Seized as Vandals in Furniture Factory ; Offense Is Linked to Interunion 

STRUOQIiE 

(Special to the New York Times) 

North Pelham, N. Y., October 19.— Three New York men were arrested here 
early today in the factory of the Trans Furniture Co. at 14 First Street and ac- 
cused of destroying new furniture with acid and knives. The police said the 
offense stemmed from a jurisdictional fight between locals 76 and 140 of the 
United Furniture Workers, CIO, for control of the factory's 25 employees 

Damage to the furniture amounted to $1,700. The acid was so strong that it 
had eaten into the trousers of two defendants, and when they were arraigned the 
men wore cell blankets around their legs. 

The defendants are Harold Antell, 26 years old, of 340 Pennsylvania Avenue 
Brooklyn; Richard L. Koral, 27, of 350 Cathedral Parkway, New York, and 



42 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Walter G. Donaldson, 36, of 1460 Beach Avenue, the Bronx, Antell and Donald- 
son received the burns. 

District Attorney George M. Fanelli of Westchester County appeared at the 
arraignments before Justice of the Peace John Hyland and asked that l)ail be 
set at $50,000 for each defendant. All were booked on charges of burglary and 
malicious mischief. Bail of $40,000 each was ordered and none was provided. 

Police Chief George Burrows said the case was related to the recent destruc- 
tion of $9,000 worth of furniture in a New York factory involved in a tight between 
the two locals. Some of the work of that factory was being performed by the 
plant here, he said. 

Both locals have members working for Trans Furniture, Chief Burrows 
explained, and on September 26 local 140 began an all-out fight to control all 
the workers. The chief declared that union records indicated that the three 
men arrested today were members of local 140, although they intermittently 
dv^nied it, refused to talk, or gave conflicting stories. 

Midnight was chosen for breaking into the factory because police shifts take 
place at that hour, the chief said. The intruders were seen entering an alley 
beside the factory, however, and 5 regular policemen and 2 auxiliary policemen 
surrounded the place. The intruders had smashed a window to gain entrance. 
The chief said they possessed, in addition to the acid and knives, burglar tools, 
stench bombs, and several vials of chemicals that could be used in starting 
fires. 

Mr. McDowell. I think at this point I will suspend this, as far as 
the information bearing on the union is concerned. 

I should like to point out that the imperceptible conversion of Pizer 
and Fulford is matched by the also amazing conversion of J. Ruben, 
jj.u-b-e-n, and the since deceased, I think it is, Gertrude Lane, of the 
hotel and restaurant employees union in New York. As far away as 
1935, I had my last contact with William Albertson, expelled from 
the University of Pittsburgh with me in 1929, when officers of the 
InternationalLadies Garment Workers Union in 1935 reported to me 
that Albertson was in New York and was in charge of an alliance 
between open racketeering elements and the Communists, which had 
successfully taken over control of the New York hotel and restaurant 
trades. 

It has been reported to me that the interest of the Communist move- 
ment in the control of the New York hotel and restaurant trades which, 
like furniture, is not obvious until you consider that in the case of 
the hotel and restaurant trades this gives them control over that 
ahnost invisible person, the waiter, the hotel chambermaid, and all 
hotel functionaries in the city of New York, which is the headquartere 
of the United Nations and of other considerable economic, business, 
political, military, and diplomatic activity. 

As I indicated, it was our information that Albertson, who obvi- 
ously, with his family ties directly in the Soviet Union, was very 
close to direct communications — it has been reported to us, with some 
verification, that the actual boss of Lane and Ruben, who have now 
within the year and a half foresworn from Communist allegiance 
publicly, was a representative of the Soviet secret police. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Duffy. Mr. McDowell, do you have any additional informa- 
tion regarding the activities of any of the leadership of the United 
Furniture Workers of America at this time ? 

^Ir. McDowell. No. There is every indication that as of the tran- 
sition in 1950 at the convention, each one of these people, except the 
acknowledged hard-core Communists, namely, Gus Brown on the west 
€oast, and Sirota and his staff in New York, have scrupulously ab- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 43 

stained from even the slightest appearance of anything in connection 
with even mildly middle-of-the-road liberal causes. They are pecu- 
liarly circumspect. 

Mr. Duffy. Do you think that the leadership of this labor organiza- 
tion is actually in good faith in their denunciation, or at least their 
refusal of accommodation of the Communist conspiracy or adherence 
to the Communist doctrine since 1950, at which time the CIO saw fit 
not to expel them ? 

Mr. McDowell. They are the only exception. So far as I can de- 
termine, the soft treatment meted out to them by Haywood and Mur- 
ray, Haywood acting as the agent of Murray, was not related to any 
facts within that union, but to the fact that both Murray and Hay- 
wood felt deeply implicated because of their support to this union and 
their refusal to deal with Muster's request for a cleanout in 1946. 

Mr. Duffy. Off the record. 

( Discussion olf the record. ) 

Mr. McDowell. It is most interesting to see the type of editorial 
comment carried in the United Furniture Workers press, whose edi- 
torial board is composed of international president Morris Pizer, 
Fred Fulford, and George Strassler, and Michael De Cicco, D-e 
C-i-c-c-o. Three of the four were identified over all the years as 
Communists. George Strassler, who used the names of both Strassler 
and Strass, was identified as part of the Trade Union Unity League 
inheritance as early as 1940. There is no other record of him or iden- 
tification, and there is no way of knowing whether he is Strassler or 
Smerkin (alias Stewart) . I haven't been able to find out. 

Mr. Duffy. You don't know whether they are the same person ? 

Mr. McDowell. I don't know. Stewart's name has disappeared. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. McDowell. There is one thing which double agents of the Com- 
munists are not permitted until the very last stage in order to protect 
their usefulness in that ultimate extremity, and that is to denounce 
the Communists by name. In the editorial appearing in the United 
Furniture Workers press as late as the issue of March 1953, under the 
title "Peace and the UN," while a policy of negotiation is urged even 
without a truce in Korea at that time, which was the Communist Party 
line, the ostensibly anti-Communist references in the editorial care- 
fully eschew the word "Communist," although they use general terms 
such as "dictators" and "Stalin's heirs." 

This needs to be compared with the similar remarkable performance 
at the 1950 cleansing convention at which not one person in Pizer's 
group ever identified Perlow and the opposition as Communists by 
name, according to the record of the proceedings. 

Senator Butler. That editorial will be received for the record. 

(The editorial referred to follows:) 

Peace and the U. N. 

International tensions have been mounting at such a rate in the past few 
months that a determined peace effort at this session of the United Nations is an 
absolute necessity. 

Many opinions to the contrary aside, such an effort can be made successfully 
without sacrificing any of the moral principles held dear by democratic peoples. 
For negotiation is as often a matter of laying one's cards on the table as it is 
a matter of compromise. 



44 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

At the present time, such an effort would mean that the United States, the 
United Kingdom, France, and the other nations of tlie free world — wliile making 
perfectly clear their intention to remain militarily and economically strong as 
long as aggression threatens — would state again, but in more forceful terms, 
their supitort of an enforceable scheme of international control of production 
and distribution of both atomic and conventional weapons — coupled with an 
international program of international and technical assistance to the devastated 
and underdeveloped areas of the world. 

In the case, specifically, of Korea, the ]>osition of the free world would be 
that, as much as a truce is desirable, there is no reason why discussion of all 
important issues involved in tlie Korean war should not be undertaken at the 
United Nations immediately, without waiting for a battlefield truce, inasmuch as 
many of the relevant issues already have found their way to the floor of the 
U. N. General Assembly. 

These are the kind of proposals that dictators such as Stalin's heirs can 
understand. You cannot win their honest agreement to any principle in any 
case, but you can convince them that peace is preferable to war when those 
whom they would like to conquer are strong and determined and able to resist 
aggression but yet, as they well know, prefer peace. 

Mr. McDowell. In reference to a statement made this morning 
in relation to the history of Chicago organizations in the unemployed 
field, it should be noted that the Chicago Workers Committees on Un- 
employment were organized in 1931 in opposition to the Communist 
unemployed councils; that the IWA, Illinois Workers Alliance, 
springing from this group, was apparently organized in formal fash- 
ion in 1933 or the very beginning of 1934, and that those elements 
represented in the Chicago Workers Committee on Unemployment 
who were able to maintain themselves in the workers alliance after 
the juncture with the Communists in April of 1936 did withdraw in 
Illinois at the end of 1938 and the beginning of 1939, leaving the 
workers alliance to collapse in the following year. 

Senator Butler. Mr. McDowell, on behalf of the subcommittee, 
I wish to extend to you our appreciation for your extremely valuable 
and vital testimony that you have presented today. 

This session will terminate subject to the call of the Chair. 

(Whereu])on, at 4: 05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to 
the call of the Chair.) 



SUBYEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOE 

OEGANIZATIONS 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ JD. C. 

The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 10 
a. m., in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman Welker 
(acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators Welker (presiding) and Butler. 

Present also : Senator Goldwater. 

Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroeder and Ed- 
ward R. Duify, professional staff members. 

Senator Welker. Senator Goldwater, will you stand and be sworn ? 
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give before 
the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Senator Goldwater. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. BAERY GOLDWATER, A UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator Welker. Ybu are a Senator from the great State of 
Arizona ? 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. 

Senator Welker. You may proceed with -your testimony in this 
matter. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. Senator Welker and Senator 
Butler. 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee to give 
you some of my own remarks and to insert into the record some of the 
prepared brief that my staff and people interested in this movement 
which Senator Butler has started have prepared, regarding S. 1606, 
which I hope that I will aid by S. 1254. 

The people in Arizona have iDeen working on this for years. 

International communism is against everything we believe in — 
America, God, the dignity and rights of individuals, and democracy. 
Communism is dedicated to world revolution and the dictatorship 
of the proletariat. Its weapons in America are treachery, deceit, in- 
filtration, espionage, sabotage, corruption, and terrorism. It is using 
those weapons against us now — inside of our own country. 

45 

43903 — 54 4 



46 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Tlie House Committee on Un-American Activities, in reporting on 
the Internal Security Act of 1950 (U. S. Code Congressional Service 
vol. 2, 81st Congress 2d sess., p. 3886) said : 

The need for legislation to control Communist activities in the United States 
cannot be questioned. 

Over 10 years of investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities 
and by its predecessor committee has established (1) that the Communist move- 
ment in the United States is foreign-controlled; (2) that its ultimate objective 
with respect to the United States is to overthrow our free American institutions 
in favor of a Communist totalitarian dictatorship to be controlled from abroad ; 
(3) that its activities are carried on by secret and conspiratorial methods; 
and (4) that its activities, both because of the alarming march of Communist 
forces abroad and because of the scope and nature of Communist activities here 
in the United States, constitute an immediate and powerful threat to the security 
of the United States and the American way of life. 

The findings which support these conclusions and the vast quantity 
of evidence on which they are based are set forth in detail in the 
numerous reports which connnittees of Congress have printed and 
circulated. 

There can be no compromise or appeasement between the ideals of 
our Republic and communism. The Communists still follow the 
Marxist line: "Parliaments are corrupt, and voting and legislating 
are pleasant forms of rituals for deluding the workers." 

Congress has passed several laws aimed at curbing subversive 
activities. 

The Alien Registration Act of 1940 made it a crime to advocate the 
overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and 
violence. While force and violence is a basic principle to which the 
Communist Party members subscribe, the present line of the party, 
in order to evade existing legislation, is to avoid the open advocacy of 
force and violence and to resort to secret and conspiratorial methods. 
Consequently, the act is rendered less effective in dealing with Com- 
munist activities because of strategies and tactics of the Communists. 

The McCormack Act of 1938 required registration of individuals 
who are acting as agents of a foreign principal. The Communists are 
skillful in deceit and in concealing their foreign ties. 

The problem of how to enact laws to defend the Nation against the 
Communist Party is a perplexing one, but one with which we must 
keep wrestling. If we lose this battle, it will be because of com- 
placency. 

In safeguarding our own liberties, we must operate within the 
framework of the Constitution. In 1950, in analyzing the problem, 
the House committee said : 

Communism as an economic, social, and political theory is one thing. Com- 
munism as a secret conspiracy dedicated to subverting the interests of the 
United States to that of a foreign dictatorship, is another. 

The committee went on to say : 

We hold no brief for the economic, social, and political theories which the 
Communists advocate, but we contend that, under our constitutional system, 
ideas must be combated with ideas and not with legislation. If communism in 
the United States operated in the open, without foreign direction and without 
attempting to set up a dictatorship subservient to a foreign power, legislation 
directed against it would neither be justified nor necessary. This, however, is 
not the case. 

The committee said that "a careful analysis of the strategy and tac- 
tics of communism in the United States discloses activities by reason 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 47 

of which the committee has concluded that legislation can and should 
be directed" against those strategies and tactics of the Communist 
Party involving espionage. 

Therefore, Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950 
which made it unlawful for any officer or employee of the United 
States to communicate any information classified by the President of 
the United States as necessary to the security of the United States to 
any representative of a foreign country, or any member of a Commu- 
nist organization, and likewise made it illegal for any member of the 
Communist organization, or foreign representative of a foreign gov- 
ernment, to receive such information. The law also made it illegal 
for a member of a Communist organization to hold any office in the 
Government, or for a member of a Communist organization to conceal 
his membership in seeking employment in any defense plant, and 
made it unlawful for any employee in a defense plant to be a member 
of a Communist organization. The Secretary of Defense designates 
defense plants. 

The Internal Security Act requires that Communist organizations 
register with the Attorney General and that they give the names and 
addresses of their members. Any organization registered as a Com- 
munist organization must show on its publications that it is dissemi- 
nated by a Communist organization. 

The Internal Security Act creates a Subversive Activities Control 
Board appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The Board may, upon application of the Attorney General, 
determine whether any organization is a Communist organization. 
Judicial review is provided after a hearing to the Circuit Court of 
Appeals of the District of Columbia. Communist organizations are 
divided into two types: Communist-action organizations and Com- 
munist-front organizations. The former is defined as substantially 
directed, controlled, or dominated by a foreign government, or a for- 
eign organization, controlling the world Communist movement and 
operated primarily to advance the objectives of the world Communist 
movement. The Communist- front organization is one substantially 
directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist-action organiza- 
tion primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to 
a Communist-action organization. 

The act of October 16, 1918 (8 U. S. Code 137) was strengthened 
by the Internal Security Act of 1950 and provided for the exclusion 
of aliens seeking to enter the United States to engage in activities 
prejudicial and dangerous to the United States, and for the exclusion 
of aliens who are members of the Communist Party, or who advocate 
the doctrine of world communism, or who are members of any organ- 
ization which is registered, or required to be registered, under the In- 
ternal Security Act, unless the alien can show that he did not know, 
nor had reason to believe, tliat such organization was registered, or 
required to be registered. It was also provided that no person may 
be naturalized who is a member of a Communist organization. 

The Emergency Detention Act of 1960 was also passed as a part 
of tlte Internal Security Act of 1950. This act provides that the 
President may in time of an internal security emergency cause the 
apprehension and detention of persons as to whom there is reasonable 
ground for belief that they probably would engage in espionage or 



48 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

sabotage activity. This law provides for the issuance of a proclama- 
tion by the President. Tlie President may issue a warrant for the 
arrest of such a person, a preliminary hearing must be had before an 
officer appointed by the President, with a full hearing before a Deten- 
tion Review Board appointed by the President with a right to appeal 
to the Federal courts. A proclamation can only be issued by the 
President in the event of invasion of territory of the United States, 
a declaration of war by Congress, or an insurrection in the United 
States in aid of a foreign enemy. 

Membership in the Communist Party is not illegal per se under any 
Federal law. If a Communist organization or a Communist operates 
in such a way as to come within the definitions and performs acts 
which are outlawed, then it, or he, violates the law. If an organiza- 
tion changes its characteristics, then the object of the law has been 
accomplished. The most important thing in the combating of com- 
munism is to keep the people informed accurately and fully and con- 
tinuously about the activities, nature, and strategy of the Commu- 
nist Party. 

A petition of the Attorney General of the United States sought to 
force the Communist Party to register under the Internal Security 
Act of 1950. The Attorney General, in a verified petition, after 
summing up the program of the Communist Party in the United States 
and in the world, concluded that "in the event of a war between the 
Soviet and any other nation, it is the recognized duty of all American 
Communists to defend and support the Soviet Union." Another con- 
clusion made in his petition : 

In the event of war between the Soviet Union and the United States, the 
Communists in the United States have obligated themselves to defeat the military 
efforts of the United States and to aid and support the Soviet Union. The 
Communist Party teaches its members that in such event they must act to foment 
a civil war in the United States as a means for impairing the Nation's military 
effort and for establishing a Soviet America, having a dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat such as exists in the Soviet Union. 

In the final conclusion in the petition, the Attorney General said : 

To the leaders and members of the Communist Party, patriotism means soli- 
darity with, and support of, the Soviet Union. 

At this point I would like to insert in the record certain instructions 
with which Judge Medina instructed the jury which considered the 
case of the 11 Communist leaders in New York in 1949, who were 
charged with violation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 — instruc- 
tions which further define and label the Communist conspiracy within 
this country. 

At the trial of 11 Communist leaders in 1949 in New York, charged 
with the violation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, Judge 
Medina, in his instructions to the jury in October of that year, told 
them that these defendants were charged with conspiring with each 
other and others unknown to the grand jury to knowingly and wil- 
fully advocate and teach the duty, or necessity, of overthrowing, or 
destroying, the Government of the United States by force and vio- 
lence ; and in this connection, to organize the Communist Party as a 
society grou]), or assembly of persons who teach, or advocate, such 
overthrow, or destruction." 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 49 

The act under which they were indicted says : 

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or willfully, advocate, or 
teach, the duty, or necessity of overthrowing, or destroying, any government in 
the United States by force, or violence ; to organize any society, group, or assem- 
bly of persons who teach, or advocate, the overthrow, or destruction of any 
government in the United States by force or violence. 

Judge Medina told the jury : 

It is perfectly lawful and proper for the defendants, or anyone else, to advocate 
reforms and changes in the laws, which seem to them to be salutory and neces- 
sary. No one has suggested that the defendants transgressed any laws by advo- 
cating such reforms and changes. No syllable of the indictment refers to any 
such matters. Furthermore, should you find from the evidence that the de- 
fendants organized, or helped organize, and assumed, or were given leadership 
in the Communist Party as a legitimate political party solely with the view of 
electing candidates to political office by lawful and peacefiil means advocating 
reforms and changes in the laws, or the adoption of policies by the Government 
favorable to their contentions in the matters just referred to, you must render 
a verdict of not guilty, and even if you do not so find from the evidence, you 
cannot bring in a verdict of guilty against any defendant — unless the prosecu- 
tion has satisfied you of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with 
the instructions. 

The Government introduced evidence that plans were deeply laid to 
place energetic and militant members of the Communist Party in key 
positions in various industries indispensable to the fuctioning of the 
American economy, to be ready for action at a given signal, and such 
action was to consist of strikes, sabotage, and violence of one sort or 
another appropriate to the consummation of the desired end; that 
is to say, the smashing of the machine of state, the destruction of the 
Army, and the police force, and the overthrow of the Government and 
what Communists call bourgeoisie democracy. 

In the course of his instructions to the jury. Judge Medina said : 

The prosecution further claims that the process of indoctrination at these 
various schools and classes was sought to be accomplished by the defendants by : 
(1) A persistent and unremitting playing upon the grievances of various minority 
groups, such as young people, veterans, Negroes, housewives, Jews, and those 
suffering from economic handicaps of one sort or another — rubbing salt into 
these wounds and doing their best to arouse and inflame antagonisms between 
various segments of the population; (2) by insistence that the Communist 
Party alone is qualified to assume and to retain leadership of the revolutionary 
movement for the smashing of the capitalist state machine, and the ushering in 
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that accordingly Communists must 
at all times maintain what they call their vanguard role and the elimination at 
all times of others who claim to be seeking by various means to attain the same, 
or similar ends; (3) by constant study and discussion of the steps by which the 
Communists came to power in the Soviet Union, including the details of the 
revolution of October 1917, in Russia, the strategy and tactics followed, includ- 
ing the wearing by the workers of uniforms of the Russian soldiers and sailors, 
the street fighting and so on ; (4) by constantly stressing their claim that capi- 
talism during the period of time specified in the indictment was on its last legs, 
or moribund, that the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable, that the 
workers should hate the capitalist system and their employers, and the Army 
and the police as mere instruments of Wall .Street monopolists and exploiters, 
who are said to hold the Government of the United States in their clutches; (5) 
by picturing the Government at the United States as imperialistic and tending 
toward fascism and the Soviet Union as the protector of the rights of minorities, 
and the only true and complete democracy and as dedicated to peace; (6) by 
indicating the doctrine that a war with Russia would be an imperialistic and an 
unjust war, in which event it is said to be the duty of those subscribing to de- 
fendants' principles to turn the imperialistic war into a civil war and fight 
against their own Government, meaning the Government of the United States. 



50 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

The judge, in reviewing the defense, said : 

The defendants asserted that they regarded the establishment of socialism in 
this country as necessary if the people are to live in peace and prosperity, that all 
their activities are directed toward the ultimate establishment of socialism, and 
take two forms which interact with and influence each other, the political and 
the educational. 

The defendants asserted that they sought to form a Peoples' Front 
Government, such as was elected in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, 
and Rumania, and that this would only come about if and when a ma- 
jority of the people wanted it and were ready to struggle for it. 

The judge was very careful to charge the jury : 

Among the most vital and precious liberties which we Americans enjoy by- 
virtue of our Constitution are freedom of speech and freedom of the press. 
We must be careful to preserve these rights unimpaired in all their vigor. Thus, 
it is that these defendants had the right to advocate, by peaceful and lawful 
means, any and all changes in the laws and in the Constitution ; they had the 
right to criticize the President and Congress ; they had the right to assert that 
World War II, prior to the invasion of Russia by Germany, was an unjust war, 
an imperialist war, and that upon such invasion it became a just war worthy 
of all material and moral support; and they had the right to publicly express 
these views orally or in writing. They had the right, thus, to assert that the 
Government was at all times exploiting the poor and worthy workers for the 
benefit of the trust and monopolies. They had a right, thus, to assert that 
what they called the democracy of Russia is superior in all respects to Amer- 
ican democracy. They had a right to assert that the Marshall plan was a mis- 
take, that billions of dollars should be loaned to Russia and that legislation 
adversely afCecting Communists should not be passed. Whether you, or I, 
or anyone else, likes, or dislikes, such, or similar and analogous views, or agrees, 
or disagrees, with them, is wholly immaterial and not entitled to the slightest 
consideration in deciding this case. Unless a minority had a right to express 
and to advocate its views, the democratic process as we understand it here 
in America would cease to exist and those in power might remain there indefi- 
nitely and make impossible any substantial changes in our social and economic 
system, or in the texture of our fundamental law. 

The Court told the jury : 

You must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
defendants had an intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of the United 
States by force and violence, and that it was with this intent and for the purpose 
of furthering that objective that they conspired both (1) to organize the Com- 
munist Party of the United States as a group or society to teach and advocate 
the overthrow or destruction of the United States by force and violence, and 
(2) to teach and advocate the duty and necessity of overthrowing or destroying 
the Government of the United States by force and violence. 

With this background, I now come to S. 1254, which I have intro- 
duced to eliminate Communists from positions of influence and control 
in labor unions. This bill would enable the Subversive Activities 
Control Board to prohibit any individual found to be a Communist 
labor representative from functioning as a representative of em- 
ployees, and would also enable the Board to prevent any labor organ- 
ization found to be a Communist labor representative from function- 
ing as a labor organization until it had removed from influence or 
employment any officer or employee found by the Board to be a Com- 
munist labor representative. This could only be done by proceedings 
brought by the Attorney General before the Board. The Board is 
enabled to appoint a labor panel of retired Federal judges. The de- 
cision of the Board is appealable to a circuit court of appeals. 

Why is such legislation required? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 51 

The CIO in 1950 expelled 11 of its 41 international unions because 
they were Communist dominated. The resolution on the expulsion 
read : 

We can no longer tolerate within the family of CIO the Communist Party 
masquerading as a labor union. The time has come when the CIO must strip the 
mask from these false leaders whose only purpose is to deceive and betray the 
workers. So long as the agents of the Communist Party and the labor movement 
enjoy the benefits of afliliation with the CIO, they will continue to carry out 
this betrayal under the protection of the good name of the CIO. 

I ask consent that that list of these 11 unions be inserted into the 
record at this point. 

(The names of those unions and the dates of their expulsion are:) 

The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, November 2, 1949 

The United Farm Equipment Workers, November 2, 1949 

Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, February 15, 1950 

United Office and Professional Workers, February 15, 1950 

United Public Workers, February 15, 1950 

Food, Tobacco, and Agricultural Workers, February 15, 1950 

American Communications Association, June 15, 1950 

International Fur and Leather Workers Union, June 15, 1950 

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, August 29, 1950 

Marine Cooks and Stewards, August 29, 1950 

International Fishermen and Allied Workers, August 29, 1950 

Senator Butler. Senator, may I ask a question at that point ? Have 
you ever talked to any officer of the CIO in connection with the expul- 
sions, especially with reference to the material upon which they 
formed the basis of the order of expulsion ? 

Senator Goldwater. Senator, that was brought out at a hearing 
before the Senate Labor Committee in the 1st session of this Congress, 
and you will find in the record of those hearings several references to 
the reasons why they were expelled. 

I will say that there was nothing too definite. Tliis decision evi- 
dently came about as the result of years of study on this subject and 
years of public opinion on the subject. 

Senator Butler. Has the CIO or any other officers or officials ever 
made an offer or tender to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 
of the United States on the material that they have in connection with 
Communist infiltration of unions ? 

Senator Goldwater. Not that I know of. I am not aware of any 
such offerings having been made. 

Senator Butler. Do you not think that that would be very helpful 
if we could have that material ? 

Senator Goldwater. I think it would be extremely helpful and I 
might suggest that in the course of these hearings on both your bill 
and mine we might consider subpenaing those officials of the CIO. 

Senator Butler. I am leading up to that. Do you think that that 
is the method or do you think that we should ask them to come in and 
sit down and confer, with the hope that they would volunteer source of 
that information, because to me it is a very valuable source of infor- 
mation about Communist infiltration. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, I should hope that they would volunteer 
sucli information, but based on the attitude of their officials last year 
when questioned on S. 1254, 1 doubt if they would. S. 1254 was con- 
stantly referred to as a "thought control bill." Now, your bill would 
receive the same label. 



52 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Butlek. Do you happen to know that when the Senator 
from Minnesota, Senator Humphrey, held hearings on Communist 
activities in labor organizations that Mr. Carey, of the CIO, proposed 
a method dealing with this subject of Communist infiltration of labor 
organizations ? 

Senator Goldwater. I was aware that some approach had been 
made to that, but I am not familiar with his proposed method. 

Senator Butler. I would like this record to contain the views of 
Mr. Carey as expressed before the Humphrey committee, and I think 
that he should come and be interrogated on those views by this com- 
mittee. Do you agree with that ? 

Senator Goldwater. I agree with that. 

Senator Welker. The acting chairman would like to suggest that 
a first approach would be to invite the officials of the CIO to submit 
to the committee their evidence with respect to the reasons why the 
expulsions were made, and in the event the invitation is rejected, that 
this committee then issue a subpena duces tecum and bring in the 
files and records on the subject matter. 

Senator Goldwater. In 1939 the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities listed the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union as a 
Communist-dominated union. Ten years later the CIO acted upon 
the findings of the House committee and expelled this union from its 
membership (p. 6, October 1952 hearings. Senate Judiciary sub- 
committee). 

The CIO said as to the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers inter- 
national leadership : 

The testimony at the hearings, both oral and documentaiT, demonstrates con- 
clusively to thife committee, and the committee finds that the policies and activ- 
ities of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers are directed 
tovpard the achievement of the program and the purposes of the Communist Party 
rather than the objectives set forth in the CIO constitution. This conclusion is 
Inescapable, both from an analysis of the policies adopted by Mine, Mill, and as 
shown by documentary exhibits submitted by the imion, and by direct and uncon- 
tradicted testimony by former oflficers of the union that the Communist Party 
directs the affairs of the union. 

At the hearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in October 1952, former officers of the Union adinitted 
they had been members of the Communist Party and identified a 
number of the officers of the present Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 
as having been members of the Communist Party. 

The following officers and employees were subpenaed by the com- 
mittee and refused to testify as to whether they were Communists or 
not on the grounds that to testify would incriminate them. 

Senator Welker. Senator, may I interrupt there. They refused 
to testify on the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which really 
means that they are not obligated to give testimony against themselves, 
ratlier than to incriminate themselves. It is a technical matter of 
which they will take advantage. 

Senator Goldwater. I see. I said that on the grounds that to 
testify would incriminate them. 

Senator Welker. That is not correct as a matter of law. There 
objection goes to the fact that no witness is obligated to give testimony 
against himself. Am I correct, counsel ? 

Mr. Arens. That is correct, sir. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 53 

Senator Goldwater. I will take the correction. 

Those persons were: Nathan Witt, general counsel; John Clark, 
president; Clinton Jencks, international representative; Herman 
Clott, Washington lobbyist for the union ; Orville Larson, vice presi- 
dent; Holmgren, assistant editor of the union newspaper; Rudolph 
Hansen, paid employee; Maurice Travis, secretary-treasurer of the 
international union; Graham Dolan, who said he had no title but 
worked on special assignments for President Clark, Vice President 
Larson, Vice President Wilson, and Secretary-Treasurer Travis ; and 
Albert Skinner, regional director and coordinator of the Kennecott 
bargaining counsel. 

I will not go into all the details of the hearing. They are available 
in the report of the hearings issued by the United States Printing 
Office. 

I would like, at this time, to insert in the record a photostatic copy 
of page 3 of the Union of August the 15, 1949, which contains the 
statement of Maurice Travis, the international secretary and treasurer 
of this union, on signing the Taft-Hartley law affidavit, in order that 
his union could qualify under the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Senator Welker. Senator Goldwater, may I interrupt ? Will you 
identify the union for the purpose of the record ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. It is the official publication of the Inter- 
national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. It is entitled, 
"The Union." This is a f)hotostatic copy of the issue of August 15, 
1949. 

Senator Welker. Without objection, it will be so entered. 

(The document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. I." follows: ) 

Exhibit No. 1 

[From the Union, August 15, 1949] 

Travis Statement on Signing Taft-Hartley Law Affidavit 
By Maurice Travis, International Secretary-Treasurer 

The executive board of our international union has voted to comply with the 
Taft-Hartley law. I support this decision. 

As most of the membership knows, I have stated, more than once in the last 2 
years, that if it became important to the life of our union to comply with Taft- 
Hartley, I would support such a step. The reasons which have now made it vital 
to our union to comply are the betrayal of labor's fight for repeal of the Taft- 
Hartley Act by the controlling leadership of both the CIO and the AFL, by the 
81st Congress and the Truman administration — a betrayal which now saddles 
the labor movement with this law for another two years — and as part of that 
betrayal, the adoption of raiding, gangsterism and strikebreaking as official policy 
by reactionaries in the leadership of CIO. 

Since the executive board meeting at which compliance was voted, I have de- 
liberated very carefully on my course and I have also had the benefit of thorough 
discussions with my fellow ofiicers, executive board members, and members of 
the staff. The unanimous opinion of my fellow ofiicers and the others in the in- 
ternational union is that the most effective way in which I can serve the inter- 
national union is by continuing in my post as an ofiicer of the international union. 

Since the interest of the international union is uppermost in my mind, I have 
been confronted with the problem of resigning from the Communist Party, of 
which I have been a member, in order to make it possil)le for me to sign the Taft- 
Hartley afiidavit. I have decided, with the utmost reluctance and with a great 
sense of indignation, to take such a step. My resignation has now taken place 
and as a result, I have signed the afiidavit. 

This has not been an easy step for me to take. Membership in the Communist 
Party has always meant to me, as a member and officer of the international 



54 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

union, that I could be a better trade unionist ; it has meant to me a call to greater 
effort in behalf of the union as a solomn pledge to my fellow members that I 
would fight for their interests above all other interests. 

The very premise of the Taft-Hartley affidavits is a big lie, the same sort 
of lie that misled the peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan down the road to 
fascism. It is a big lie to say that a Communist trade unionist owes any higher 
loyalty than to his union. On the contrary trade luiions are an integral part of a 
socialist society, the kind of society in which Communists believe. Therefore, I 
believe that good Commimists are good trade unionists. 

The biggest lie of all is to say that the Communist Party teaches or advocates 
the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. If I had believed this 
to be so I would not have joined the Communi^^t Party. If I had later found it 
to be so I would never have remained in it. All the slanders by the corrupt press, 
all the FBI stool pigeons, and all the persecution of Communist workers will not 
make me believe it is so. I believe that when the majority of the American 
people see clearly how rotten the foundation of the capitalist system is, they will 
insist on their right to change it through democratic processes, and all of the 
reactionary force and violence in the world will be unable to stop them. 

It is because I believe these things that I have fought the affidavit requirement 
of Taft-Hartley. I believe it is a blot on American life; I believe under our 
bill of rights, for which our forefathers fought, that an American has as much 
right to be a Communist as he has to be a Republican, a Democrat, a Jew, a 
Catholic, or an Elk or a Mason. Free voluntary association is the very corner- 
stone of the democratic way of life. I have been a Communist because I want 
what all decent Americans want, a higher standard of living for all the people, 
the ending of discrimination against Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and all other 
minority groups. I want a peaceful America in a peaceful world. Despite my 
resignation from the Communist Party, I will continue to fight for these goals 
with all the energy and sincerity at my command. 

I am also taking this step because I believe it is one effective means of bringing 
home, not only to the membership of the international union but to the people 
generally, the dastardly and unprecedented requirement that a man yield up his 
political affiliations in order to make a Government service available to the people 
he represents. This is a dangerously backward step in American political life 
which threatens all of our democratic institutions. Americans have the right 
to belong to the political party of their choice and trade union members have 
the right to choose their own leaders. Denial of these principles undermines 
democracy and gives comfort to the arrogant reactionaries who seek to put our 
country on the road to fascism. 

At the same time, I want to make it absolutely clear that my opinion continues 
to be that only a fundamental change in the structure of our society, along the 
lines implied in the very words of the charter of our international, "Labor produces 
all wealth — wealth belongs to the producer thereof," can lead to the end of 
insecurity, discrimination, depressions, and the danger of war. 

I am convinced that capitalistic greed is responsible for war and its attendant 
mass destruction and horror. I am convinced it is responsible for depression, 
unemployment and the mass misery they generate. The present deepening de- 
pression, growing unemployment, and threat of war confirm my conviction that 
the only answer is socialism. 

As a matter of fact, this Socialist concept has always been the guiding principle 
for American workers. The struggle led by the great Eugene V. Debs, the early 
fight for the S-hour workday, the steel and packing struggles led by Bill Foster, 
the stormy history of the I WW were all influenced by socialist ideals. 

As a member of our international union I have always been proud of and have 
drawn strength from its basic Socialist tradition. No other union in this country 
matches ours in its glorious working-class history. Our union, and its prede- 
cessor, the Western Federation of Miners, has carried on some of the most bitter 
and courageous struggles in the history of the labor movement. I have always 
been inspired by the fact that early leaders of this union were socialistic in one 
form or another, that Bill Haywood also took the road to communism and died not 
only a great leader of the working class but as an honored and respected 
Communist. 

Therefore, I want to make it crystal clear that my belief in communism is 
consistent with what I believe to be the best interests of the members of this 
union and the American people generally and thnt I am especially hapny to be 
able constantly to remember that it is consistent with the finest traditions of 
the international union. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 55 

I know that sooner or later we will turn this present shameful page in American 
life, that the reactionary offensive will be beaten back and that the American 
workers will again resume their march on the road to peace, progress, and 
prosperity. Particularly do I know that the day will come when loyalty oaths 
and affidavits will be a thing of the past, when the true test will again be service 
to the people and, for trade-union leaders' service to their members. 

In the meantime, I am sure that every member of the international union joins 
me in my pledge to fight to keep this international union strong, to bend every 
effort to make it even stronger, to continue to keep it on a progressive, militant 
course, and to do everything in my power to make life in our country happy, 
secure, prosperous and peaceful. 

It's Official Now 

President John Clark announced last week that he had been officially notified 
in a letter from the National Labor Relations Board that Mine-Mill is in full 
compliance with the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act and is now eligible to 
use the processes of the Board. 

The formal compliance notification followed the unanimous decision of Mine- 
Mill's international executive board to meet the signing requirements of the 
Taft-Hartley Act. 



Officers Hail Tbavis' Stand 

Statement by President John Clark, Vice President Reid Robinson, and Vice 
President Orville Larson : 

Pursuant to the resolution adopted at the last meeting of the international 
executive board, the international union has now fulfilled the necessary steps 
to effect compliance with the Taft-Hartley Act. 

There is little to add to what has already been embodied in that resolution 
except to reaffirm our determination to fight for the welfare of the international 
union and to maintain this international union on its progressive and militant 
course. 

Let no one believe for a moment that compliance with Taft-Hartley means 
that we intend to retreat from the basic policies we have pursued and advocated. 
Recent developments have only served to emphasize the correctness of those 
policies. The war danger is still with us. We mean to fight against it. The 
danger of mass unemployment and a terrible depression hangs, like a cloud, 
over the entire country. We mean to fight against this danger by advocating 
policies which will give greater security to our members and to the mass of the 
American people. 

We also know that the usual propaganda will be unloosed against us in con- 
nection with the signing of the affidavits. The action and the statement of 
Brother Travis speak for themselves. We regret that this action is necessary, 
but we commend him for his forthright and courageous stand, and we are happy 
that the international union is thus assured of his continued leadership. 

At the same time, we must again enter our most violent protest against a pro- 
vision of the law which tells a man what political party he may or may not join 
and which interferes with the freedom of union members to pick their own 
leaders without the help of the Tafts and the Hartleys. 

As far as the rest of us are concerned, we have been called Communists in 
the past and expect to be called Communists in the future, despite the affidavits, 
as long as we follow policies to which the reactionaries and Fascists are opposed. 

We know that other Americans in recent history, like Franklin Roosevelt 
and Frank Murphy, were also called Communists when they pursued progressive 
policies, and that the CIO in its early days and its leaders were similarly de- 
nounced. Such name-calling cannot alter the actual facts. Such name-calling 
will not deter us in giving the kind of leadership which the rank and file of this 
international union expects from us. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me say here, that under the Taft-Hartley 
Act, an employer, or the National Labor Relations Board cannot go 
beyond the non-Communist affidavit filed by the union officials. If the 
affidavits are filed, the employer must comply with the law and must 
bargain with the union whether or not he thinks that the affidavits are 
false and that the representative is still a Communist. 



56 SUBVERSIVE mFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Let me call attention to what Mr. Travis says regarding Bill 
Haywood : 

I have always been inspired by the fact that early leaders of this union were 
socialistic in one form or another, that Bill Haywood also took the road to 
communism and died not only as a great leader of the working class but as an 
honored and respected Communist. 

Senator Welker. And Mr. Haywood was the gentleman who was 
prosecuted in the State of Idaho for conspiracy with Moyer and Petti - 
bone in the early years of the twentieth century to kill Governor 
Speunenburg. I think that should go in to show that his activities 
dated way back. 

Senator Goldwater. I might add that Bill Haywood, as you will 
remember, was head of the International Workers of the World dur- 
ing World War I. In 1918 he was found guilty in a Federal court in 
Chicago of espionage, sabotage, and interfering with the war effort of 
World War I. Pending his appeal he jumped bail, fled to Kussia, and 
now lies buried in the Kremlin as one of the heroes of communism. 
His heroism consisted of treason to his countr3^ 

Senator Welker. Now, if we could go back to the statement I made 
about Bill Haywod, I should say in fairness to Mr. Haywood that the 
prosecution of the Haywood, Moyer, Pettibone case in the State of 
Idaho for planning the killing of Governor Speunenburg, was repre- 
sented by the late and great Senator William E. Borah. The defense 
was represented by the great and late Clarence Darrow. Messrs. 
Haywood, Moyer, and Pettibone were all acquitted of the charge. 

We will proceed. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Consider the case of Nathan Witt, general 
counsel of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and the brains of the 
union, Lee Pressman, former general counsel of the CIO testified 
before the Un-American Activities Committee in the House in 1950 
and said that he and Witt both belonged to the Communist Party at 
one time and that he. Pressman, John Abt, Charles Kramer, and Witt 
worked in a cell together. Ware was the liaison with the Communist 
Party of this cell and he collected their dues- Wliittaker Chambers 
in 1948 testified that Ware, Abt, Witt, Pressman, Alger Hiss, Donald 
Hiss, Henry H. Collins, Charles Kramer, and Victor Perlo belonged to 
the Ware- Abt- Witt group. 

Witt was former executive secretary of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. In 1940 he wrote the United States Senate when the 
NLRB was being investigated that he was not and had never been a 
member of the Communist Party, a Communist sympathizer, or one 
who used the Communist Party line. 

At the hearing in 1952, Witt refused to testify as to wdiether he was 
a Communist on the grounds that he was exercising his right under 
the fifth amendment not to give testimony against himself. Nathan 
Witt was also a member of the board of trustees of the Jefferson School 
of Social Science, which the Saturday Evening Post of March 12, 1949, 
said was the biggest school for the teaching of communism in New 
York, and annually enrolled 3,000 students which was a fraction of 
the total signed up b}' the national chain of Communist schools. 

How does a union become Communist-dominated, and how did 
these CIO unions become Communist-dominated? To begin with, 
when the first attempts were made to orgjinize mass production in- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 57 

diistry, there was an acute shortage of trained organizers. Unknow- 
ingly, many Communists were used and they installed themselves 
and their sympathizers in key positions in many of the new unions. 
The newly organized workers, with no experience in unionism, were 
no match for these skilled technicians. The result was that in union 
after union the Communists controlled the top level tliough the mem- 
bership was overwhelmingly American in its sympathies. In the 
CIO findings on the expulsion of the Mine, Mill and Smelter 
Workers : 

Both Wilson and Eckert made it perfectly clear to the committee that the 
fact that this union followed the Commimist Party line was not accidental. 
It was the result of the complete domination of the union's leadership by the 
party. The party group within the union has a systematic working apparatus 
for making its decision and for translating these decisions into union policy. 
At the top, there was a party steering committee of four members. This com- 
mittee, of which Eckert and Maurice Travis were members, determined Com- 
munist policy within the union. They did this in consultation with the leaders 
of the Communist Party. Meetings were frequently held with the Communist 
Party leaders, such as William Z. Foster, chairman of the party ; Eugene Den- 
nis, general secretary; John Williamson, its labor secretary; and Gil Green, 
its lUinois director. In addition, there was a regular envoy of the Communist 
Party, who was designated as liaison man between Mine, Mill and the party. 

In meetings of this steering committee, which was sometimes enlarged to 
include such persons as the union's research director and the editor of its 
newspaper, the policies to be adopted by Mine, Mill were determined by these 
Communist leaders. Their decisions were tlien brought to the so-called pro- 
gressive caucus of the union, which contained all of the Communist and pro- 
Communist leaders of the union ; all anti-Communist groups of the union were 
excluded from this caucus. The Communist decisions were invariably adopted 
by the caucus and were then brought before the official bodies of the union and 
adopted as union policy. 

This was the transmission belt by which the decision of the Communist 
Party leaders became decisions of the International Union of Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Workers. 

The membership, of course, had a theoretical veto power, but the party's 
control of the union's newspaper, control of its organization, and control of 
its leadership enabled the Communist Party to conceal its dictation of union 
policy and thus to maintain its power over the union's affairs. The right of 
the union membership to control policy given lipservice by the leadership was 
thus frustrated. The membership had no voice, for instance, in the decision of 
Eeid Robinson to resign as president — a decision made by the Communist 
Party for party reasons. He had no control over the appointment of Maurice 
Travis, a newcomer to the union, as executive assistant to President Robinson, 
an appointment dictated by the Communist Party for its own purposes. The 
membership had no control over the appointment of organizers and, as a result, 
approximately 90 percent of the union's staff are members of the Communist 
Party. 

Eckert, in testifying before the Senate committee in Salt Lake in 
October 1952, said : 

The Communist Party regarded MMSW as one of the key unions In America, 
because of its strategic position in the nonferrous metal industry a"nd also 
because they have locals in Alaska and close proximity to the Soviet Union. 
That is an interesting note, because the MMSW locals up there, which are 
completely dominated by the Communist Party, are only 40 miles from Soviet 
Russia. Because of the importance they attach to MMSW, they made special 
efforts to reactivate me in the Communist Party. I became active in the party 
again from that time (1945) until the time I left MMSW, or just prior to 
leaving MMSW in 1948. 

Eckert testified before the subcommittee on this steering committee 
in MMSW. Eckert said that the steering committe was composed 
of Maurice Travis, Eckert, Al Skinner, and Charles Powers, and they 



58 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IX CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

received their instructions from Gil Green, State organizer of the 
Communist Party in Illinois. 

The steering committee, he said, would also meet with William Z. 
Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party, Eugene Dennis, 
and other top leaders to discuss matters affecting the Communist 
Party. He testified that the following was the way the union adopted 
its 10-point program in 1946 : It was first discussed by the steering 
committee: it was then submitted to the enlarged party meeting held; 
from this meeting it was taken to what was called the progressive 
caucus inside the MMSW, which consisted of the party people on 
the staff of the union and certain nonparty people who were on the 
staff and other people who were not on the staff, but were in the 
MMSW union. 

He said the progressive caucus would then make these proposals 
where it was necessary to have them approved by the international 
executive board to the international executive board of the vmion, 
which was almost evenly divided between the right and left wings. 
Those decisions would then usually become the decisions of the union 
and sometimes, as in the case of the 10-point program, submitted to the 
convention, as was done in the instance of the Cleveland convention 
in 1946, and became adopted by the convention as the official program 
of the union. As he said : 

It originated in the steering committee and passed down to this large party 
meeting, then to the progressive caucus, the international executive board, and 
finally adopted by the international convention. Irrespective of the various 
channels through which it went, it started with the Communist Party and 
crystallized as doctrine, or program, of the union as a whole. (Pp. 51-58.) 

There were approximately 126,000 in the union then (1946). The 
end result was the convention adopting a program which originated 
with a small number of people who were Communist Party members, 
wliich was later adopted as a program of over 120,000 members. 
Eckert said that the party membership of the union never averaged 
1 percent at any time and that a small number of Communists, even 
4, a steering committee, could commit a union of 100,000 members to 
a ])rogram which they, the 4 Communists, or a few more, originated. 
(P. 59.) 

Eckert said the Communist personnel did not seep very far down 
because if it had it would be very much larger; here and there, there 
might be a shop steward who might be a member of the party, or a 
local union president, or a local member of the executive committee, 
or shop committee, but, by and large, the control of the union by the 
Communist Party was exercised from the top. (P. 59.) 

Tlie Communist Party leadership was able to maintain itself in 
control by the following procedure : A staff of the people who have 
contacts with the membership would go out and campaign for their 
particular candidate. They would get up at the meetings and speak 
for them, and they were not above stuffing the ballot boxes where it 
was necessary to do so. (P. 60.) 

Ec]i:ert said he knew Mr. Nathan Witt was a member of the party 
and had attended many party meetings with him. He was one of 
the top party men and liaison man between the Communist Party 
and various unions that were under the control of the Communist 
Party, including the MMSW, and frequently was the person who 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 59 

transmitted various things to MMSW, party decisions which were 
to be put into effect inside the union. 

The unfortunate and tragic thing is that most of the members 
of the union are not aware of this Communist domination and are 
loyal Americans. There is no law which now protects the rank 
and file of a labor union from Communist domination of their inter- 
national union. 

I say that those men are entitled to the leadership of loyal Ameri- 
cans. S. 1254 would provide a means to eliminate from a union 
Communist leadership such as Travis and Witt, This bill would 
permit local unions to bargain as bona fide labor unions and as a 
part of a bona fide international union. Employers would no longer 
be compelled by law to sit down with a Communist representative. 
The union newspaper would no longer be a vehicle for Communist 
propaganda to be dropping its indoctrinations drop by drop, issue 
by issue. 

I cannot conceive of a single reason, or justification, for the Gov- 
ernment of the United States permitting men who are Communists 
to head and to run a labor organization. I think loyal members of 
the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, for example, are entitled to 
their Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union free and clear of 
Communist domination. Their strikes, if they strike, should not 
be under any cloud that it is for political purposes and under a 
leadership over which they have no control. 

My bill would not destroy the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers — 
it would protect them and preserve them. 

The ease with which 4 or 5 men can control a large international 
union makes me think that we should start an investigation into 
the general subject of international unions to determine how demo- 
cratic they are in the election of their officers. In many interna- 
tional unions the same person has been president for many years. 
The constitutions, conventions, systems, appointments of interna- 
tional representatives, control over locals, have made it possible for 
one man to perpetuate himself in office. The membership should 
have control of the selection of the officers. 

On Friday, April the 24th, 1953, Albert J. Fitzgerald, general 
president of the United Electrical Kadio and Machine Workers of 
America, told the Senate Labor Committee at its hearing that S. 1254 
and its companion House bill H. R. 3993 was a "thought-control 
piece of legislation." Because Senate bill 1606 will undoubtedly 
receive the same charge from this and similar unions, I think it is 
well to discuss that attack at this time. In the first place, the UE 
dwells on the alleged fact that orders of the Subversive Activitie-s 
Control Board will operate to destroy unions. Nowhere does he 
advert to the fact that the membership of a union, which is the object 
of such an order, will have the opportunity to purge itself of the 
few individual leaders whose Communist activities give rise to the 
order, and that they can, in that manner, preserve their union with 
all its rights and privileges under the Federal laws. 

Secondly, he quarrels with the various legislative standards and 
definitions which the bill provides as guides to be used by the Board 
in determining whether or not a union, or an individual union official, 
is a Communist representative. Here he employs the well-worn shib- 
boleths of thought-control and guilt by association. Mr. Fitzgerald's 



60 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

remarks are to be found on -pnges 1995 to 2010, inclusive, of part 4 of 
the hearinofs before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of 
the United States Senate of the Sod Congress. 

During the Senate hearings last year on labor, it became evident 
to me that for any proper consideration of a bill such as Senator 
Butler's bill or mine, we should include a study of what the unions 
have in their constitutions today to protect themselves against Com- 
munist infiltration and for that purpose my staff made this study. 
For this study 89 national or international union constitutions cover- 
ing a combined union membership of approximately 12 million were 
examined. Forty-seven of these constitutions had provisions either 
of a specific or a general nature which barred Communists from union 
office or membership or both. It should be noted that a refusal to 
accept Commimists as members can serve as an effective bar against 
Communists holding union office since, as a rule, officers rise from 
membership ranks. The combined membership of these 47 unions 
was about 8.2 million or roughly two-thirds of the total membership 
covered by the sample. 

In the attached table, "Selected list of unions with constitutions 
barring Communists from office or membership," a separate column 
shows the date of the union constitution consulted in the study. A 
number of the unions hold conventions at intervals of 2 vears or longer 
and constitutions are generally dated to indicate only the initial year 
in which provisions became operative. 

The information, as found in the union constitutions, was classified 
according to whether the constitution contained either (1) a specific 
provision barring Communists, or (2) a more general provision de- 
signed to eliminate undesirables from membership or office. Specific 
provisions all had in common a mention of the word "Communist." 

Illustrative of such types of clauses is the following: 

No member shall be eligible to hold oflBce in this union or act in any ofBcial 
capacity for this union or subordinate body thereof who shall be subject to 
orders or discipline of any party or organization (such as the Communist Party, 
Nazi or Fascist organization) which makes its interests and policies on union 
matters binding upon its members irrespective of the decisions, interests, and 
policies of the union. 

Provisions of a more general character were those which apparently 
could be construed as barring Communists although the word "Com- 
munist" actually did not appear in the constitution. Virtually all the 
union constitutions identified as having such clauses had provisions 
somewhat similar to the following which appeared in one constitution : 

No person shall be eligible either to membership or to retain membership in 
this international or any local xmion affiliated with the international who shall 
be a member of any organization having for its aim or purpose the overthrow, 
by force of the Constitution and Government of the United States. 

Two provisions in the general category differed substantially from 
this type of clause : one was a requirement that officers be willing to 
execute affidavits necessary to secure access to Government agencies; 
another required officers to file statements as required by law indi- 
cating acceptability under law as a qualified representative of the 
union. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, this study is in tabular form with some com- 
ments, and I would like permission to insert it in the record at this 
place and at this time. 

Senator Welker. Without objection, so ordered. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 61 
(The document referred to marked "Exhibit No. II," follows:) 



Exhibit No. II 

Selected list of unions tcith constitutions barring Communists from offlce or 

memhersMp * 



Name of national or international union 



AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 



National Agricultural Workers Union 

International Union, United Automobile Workers of America 

Bakery and Confectionory Workers' International Union of America_ 
Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists, and Proprietors 

Inteniational Union of America 

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and 

Helpers of America 

International Brotherhood of Bookbinders 

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron 

Workers -• 

Building Service Employees' International Union 

International Chemical Workers Union 

International Association of Cleaning and Dye House Workers 

Coopers' International Union of North America 

Flight Engineers' International Association 

American Federation of Grain Millers 

United Hatters, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union 

Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. 

International Jewelry Workers' Union 

International Longshoremen's Association 

International Association of Machinists 

National Organization Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America 

American Federation of Musicians 

Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America 

International Photo-Engravers' Union of North America 

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America 

Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, 

Express, and Station Employes 

Retail Clerks International Association 

United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof 

Workers Association 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen 

and Helpers of America 



Date 

of 
consti- 
tution 



General 
Specific provision 
provision which may 
barring be construed 
Communists as barring 
from — Communists 
from— 



CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS 

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural 

Implement Workers of America 

International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers 

United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers of America 

Federation of Glass, Ceramic, and Silica Sand Workers of America 

National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association 

Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America 

United Optical and Instrument Workers of America 

American Radio Association 

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America 

United Steolworkers of America 

Transport Workers Union of America 

Utility Workers Union of America 

International Woodworkers of America 



INDEPENDENT OR UNAFFILIATED UNIONS 

Engineers, Architects, and Scientists, National Professional Associa- 



tion- 



National Federation of Federal Employees 

International Union of Life Insurance Agents 

LTnited Mine Workers of America 

The Society of Tool and Die Craftsmen 

Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc- 
National Union, United Welders of America 



1950 
1947 
1951 

1949 

1949 
1949 

1948 
1950 
1950 
1950 
1949 
1951 
1950 
1950 
1949 
1950 
1947 
1949 
1948 
1950 
1951 
1950 
1950 

1947 
1947 

1949 

1950 



1951 
1950 
1950 
1950 
1950 
1951 
1949 
1949 
1950 
1950 
1950 
1950 
1950 



1948 
1950 
1950 
1948 
1949 
1950 
1950 



Mem- 
ber- 
ship 



X 
X 

X 
X 
X 



X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 



X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



OflSce 



X 



X 



X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



Mem 
ber- 
ship 



X 
X 



X 

"x" 



X 

x" 



X 



X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 
X 



Offlce 



X 
X 



X 



X 



X 
X 



X 



1 The omission of a union from this list does not necessarily mean that its constitution does not include 

provisions barring Communists. 

43903—54 5 



62 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Union Teial Pkocedures Wheke Communism Is an Issue 

The constitutions of the following unions covered trial procedures where 
communism may be an issue. These 10 unions were selected arbitrarily for 
illustrative purposes. 

1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America (AFL). 

2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Imi)le- 

ment Workers of America (CIO). 

3. International Association of fU-idge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Work- 

ers (AFL). 

4. Building Service Employees' International Union (AFL). 

5. International Chemical Workers Union (AFL). 

f>. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union (AFL) . 

7. International Association of Machinists (AFL). 

8. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Woi-kers of America (CIO). 

9. Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc. (Independent). 
10. International Woodworkers of America (CIO). 

Generally the trial procedures were listed under sections of the constitution 
dealing with disciplinary matters. Usually, the procedures were not exclusively 
designed to handle charges of communism but could be utilized in any one of a 
numlier of specified violations of union constitutional provisions. 

The procedure followed by the International Union, United Automobile. Air- 
craft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), may be of par- 
ticular interest in view of the special attention paid to this problem at the UAW- 
CIO's March 1953 convention. The 1951 constitution of the union (art. 10. sec. 
8) provided that members were ineligible to hold elective or appointive office in 
any UAW local union or in the international union if they were "a member of or 
subservient to any political organization, such as the Communist, Fascist, or 
Nazi organization." A detailed trial procedure (art. 48) by a local union trial 
committee (for charges involving the Communist issue as well as a number of 
others) provided in part that local trial committee verdicts of guilty could be 
reversed by a two-thirds vote of the local union membership. However, verdicts 
of acquittal were held as final and could not be reversed by the membership. 

At the 1953 convention this trial procedure was changed. Amendments were 
passed to UAW's constitution which provide that local union trial decisions of 
acquittal involving charges of communism (or other totalitarian leanings) could 
be reviewed by the international union executive board upon an appeal by any 
member of the local union or the ITAW regional director. The international 
board could then order a retrial if it found that the verdict appeared to be con- 
trary to the evidence. The intent of this amendment, as stated by a UAW spokes- 
man, was to provide review of decisions "which may have been arrived at 
fraudulently or in a manner not consistent with this kind of a democratic 
organization." 

The experiences which UAW had in dealing with Communist influence in its 
large Ford local. 600 were in large part responsible for these amendments. In 
his 1953 report to the convention, UAW president Walter P. Reuther described 
how the international union intervened in local 600 to prevent five members from 
holding office who had been accused of subservience to Communist doctrine but 
who had been acquitted by a local union trial committee. President Reuther 
pointed out that the international union was able to act under certain "emer- 
gency" provisions. However, he recommended more adequate machinery "to 
deal with the few Communists in our ranks who, while attempting to take advan- 
tage of the democratic privileges to weaken and destroy both our union and the 
free institutions of our country." 

The trial procedure followed in one of the lai-gest AFL affiliates, the Inter- 
national Association of Machinists, is outlined in the union's constitution effec- 
tive April 1, 1949 as amended and effective April 1, 1950. 

ARTICLE K 

Code: Charges 

Section 1. It is the duty of any member who has information of the violation 
of any provisions of the constitution of the Grand Lodge or the constitution of 
local lodges, iiy any member or members, to immediately prefer charges in writing 
against any such member or members by filing same with the jiresident of the 
local lodge to which the accused member or members belong, who shall supply 
a copy of the same to the member against whom the charges are preferred and 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 63 

turn over the oiij;inal charges to the committee provided for by the following 
section. (In the event tlie president, or the president and other officers of the 
lodge ai"e involved in the charges filed, the next ranking officer shall proceed as 
herein set forth. In the application of this section the order of rank of officers 
shall be president, vice president, and past president. In the event the presi- 
dent, vice president, and past president are involved in the charges, or are absent, 
the i-ecording secretary shall call for nominations of a temporary chairman and 
the members present shall immediately proceed to select a temporary chairman 
by majority vote. The temporary chairman selected shall then proceed to carry 
out the requirements of this section.) 

Appointment of trial committee 

"Sec. 2. Wlienever charges have been preferred against a member of a local 
lodge the president of such lodge shall immediately appoint a committee to 
investigate the charges, take testimony, and decide upon the guilt or innocence 
of the one accused. The committee so appointed shall within 1 week thereafter 
notify the member against whom the charges liave been preferred as to the 
time and place, when and where, to appear for trial. (In the event the presi- 
dent, or the president and other officers of the lodge are involved in the charges 
filed, the next ranking officer shall proceed as herein set forth. In the applica- 
tion of this section the order of rank of officers shall be president, vice in-esident, 
and past president. In the event the president, vice president, and past presi- 
dent are involved in the charges, or are absent, the recording secretary shall 
call for nominations of a temporary chairman and the members pi'esent shall 
immediately proceed to select a temporary chairman by ma.iority vote. The 
temporary chairman selected shall then proceed to carry out the requirements 
of this section.) 

Evidence 

'"Sec. 3. The accused shall have the privilege, either in person or by attorney 
(the attorney being a member of the local lodge) to cross-examine all witnesses 
appearing for the prosecution and present all such evidence as he may deem 
proper in his own behalf. The committee shall consider all of the evidence in 
the case and thereafter agree upon its verdict of guilty or not guilty. If the 
verdict be that of guilty, the committee shall then consider and agree upon its 
recommendation of punislimeut. 

Appeai'ance 

"Sec. 4. If a member of a local lodge fails to appear for trial when notified 
so to do, the trial shall proceed as though he were in fact present. 

Trial procedure 

"Sec. 5. 

"1. Call trial committee to order. 

"2. Examine due books. 

"3. Clear the trial chamber of all people except the trial committee, the trial 
reporter (who need not be a member of the International Association of IMachin- 
ists), the plaintiff and his attorney, the defendant and his attorney, and a repre- 
sentative of the grand lodge, if in attendance. 

"4. Segregate the plaintiff and the defendant. 

"5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall remain in the trial chamber until 
trial is concluded. 

"6. Tlie chairman shall read the charges and ask the defendant if he is 'guilty' 
or 'not guilty.' If the plea is 'not guilty' the trial shall then proceed. 

"7. The plaintiff or his attorney shall present his case first. 

"8. Witnesses shall be called into the trial chamber one at a time, and will 
leave the trial chamber upon completing their testimony, subject to recall by 
either the trial committee, the plaintiff, the defendant, or the representative 
of the grand lodge. 

"0. Plaintiff's witnesses shall be called first. 

"10. Defendant and his attorney shall have the right to cross-examine plain- 
tiff's witnesses. 

"11. Defendant's witnesses shall then be called. 

"12. Plaintiff' and his attorney shall have the right to cross-examine the de- 
fendant's witnesses. 

"13. Before the trial committee shall begin their deliberations upim the testi- 
mony given, all persons except the trial committee shall leave the trial chamber. 



64 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Report of trial committee 

"Sec. G. The trial committee shall report at the uext regular meeting of the 
local lodge. Such report shall be iu two parts as follows : 

"First : The report shall contain the findings and verdict of the trial committee 
together with a synopsis of the evidence and testimony presented by both sides. 

"After the trial committee has made necessary explanation of its intent and 
meaning, the trial committee's verdict with respect to guilt or innocence of the 
•defendant shall be submitted without debate to a vote by secret ballot of the 
members of the local lodge. 

"Second : If the lodge concurs with a 'guilty' verdict of the trial committee, 
the recommendation of the committee as to the penalty to be imposed shall be 
submitted in a separate report to the lodge and voted on by secret ballot of the 
mpmbers then in attendance. 

Voting on report 

"Sec. 7. The recommendation of the committee may be amended, rejected, or 
another punishment substituted therefor, by a majority vote of those voting 
on the question, excepting that it shall require a two-thirds (%) vote of those 
voting to expel the defendant from membership. 

"If the lodge reverses a 'not guilty' verdict of the trial committee, the punish- 
ment to be imposed shall be decided by the lodge by a majority vote of those 
voting on the question, except tlnit it shall require a two-thirds (%) vote of 
those voting to expel the defendant from membership. 

Limit of fines 

"Sec. S. No fine shall be imposed upon any member or applicant eligible to 
membership in this association in excess of $50.00 unless the same is first 
approved by the executive council. 

Ajipeals 

"Sec. 9. Appeals may be taken from the decision of any local lodge or Grand 
Lodge officer to the international president: Provided, lunvcver, that such ap- 
peals must be taken within 30 days after the decision. Thereafter appeals may 
be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of sec. 6, article XXV of the 
Grand Lodge Constitution. 

Rights of members and lodges during appeal 

"Sec. 10. While any member or local lodge is exercising the right of appeal 
the financial standing of such member or local lodge shall not be impaired by 
refusal to accept dues or per capita tax until after the executive council has 
passed upon the appeaL Should any member or local lodge decide to appeal 
from the decision of the executive council they must comply with the provisions 
of sec. 6, article XXV of the Grand Lodge Constitution. No individual mem- 
ber or local lodge shall appeal to the civil courts for redress until after having 
exhausted all rights of appeal under the provisions of this constitution and 
the constitution of the Grand Lodge." 

Senator Butler. May I ask the Senator whether after a review of 
those provisions he feels that they are in his opinion effective for the 
purpose ? 

Senator Goldwater. I would say that they are not 100 percent 
effective . I do not believe that all of the unions have reviewed their 
constitutions to strengthen the clauses that would prevent Com- 
munists from attaining positions of power in the union. 

Senator Butler. Good strides have been made in tliat direction? 

Senator Goldwater. We cannot condemn in any of this discussion 
the union movement as a whole in the country, because we are only 
talking now about ten and one-half unions. I say ten and one-half 
because the CIO is beginning to make inroads into the International 
Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. I do think that the study 
will be of value to the committee and will be of value to the unions 
themselves to show where their constitutions are weak and where they 
might reinforce them to strengthen them in this regard. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 65 

In view of all these studies that we have made on the dangers of 
Communist-controlled unions to this country, both in times of peace 
and in times of war, I prepared a bill and introduced it. This bill 
carries the Xo. S. 1254. 

Briefly stated, what this bill proposes to do is to subject labor or- 
ganizations to the general techniques of the McCarran Internal Secu- 
rity Act. The latter statute creates a Subversive Activities Control 
Board, which has the duty of passing upon the subversive character 
of various political organizations and societies. The proposed bill 
would authorize the Attorney General, after investigation, to bring 
any labor organization which he believed to be Communist-influenced 
before the Board and present evidence of its character before the 
Board. A labor organization aggrieved by the findings of the Board 
is given the same right of review in the circuit court of appeals which 
is given to litigants before the National Labor Relations Board. 

If an adverse finding is made against a labor organization and the 
labor organization fails within 30 days to purge itself by expelling 
its Communist officers, the labor organization loses whatever rights and 
privileges it has under Federal and common law. 

Thus all its collective-bargaining agreements become void; it no 
longer is entitled to exclusive recognition as the representative of 
employees ; it does not have the right to initiate or participate in any 
Labor Board proceedings; and the immunity which labor unions en- 
joyed from injunctions under section 20 of the Clayton Act and sec- 
tions 1 and 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is taken away from it. 

After my bill was introduced. Senator Butler introduced his legis- 
lation and it is known as S. 1606. The purpose of my testimony at 
this time will be directed toward what we feel are the deficiencies of 
S. 1606. I want you to keep in mind that I am not criticizing Senator 
Butler's bill. I um trying to point out where these 2 bills might be 
merged to present 1 bill that would be workable and constitutional. 

Senator Butler. Senator, I think that that is a very admirable 
idea, and I pledge you the fullest cooperation in that effort. Certainly, 
on the record, if there is any doubt of the constitutionality of my bill, 
I will not push it because I would not push any unconstitutional 
legislation. 

Senator Welker. We will proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. The purpose of both S. 1606 and S. 1254 is to 
provide a means whereby communism in labor unions can be elimi- 
nated as a threat to the national security and to the national economic 
structure. It is fairly well agreed that the non-Communist affidavit 
provision of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which was 
intended to accomplish that objective, has been ineffectual. The prin- 
cipal reasons for its ineffectiveness are the following : 

(a) A Communist has no moral compunction against signing a false 
affidavit. 

(h) Communist influence over labor organizations is by no means 
limited to that exerted by the union officers who are required to sign 
affidavits. 

(c) The affidavit requirement affects only a union an officer of which 
is a member of the Communist Party on the day he signs the affidavit. 

(d) There is no administrative machinery whereby the validity 
of the affidavits can be determined. 



66 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

(e) Mere disqualification from availing itself of the proceedings 
provided for in the National Labor Relations Act is not a sufficient 
deterrent to compel a labor miion to rid itself of Communist influence. 

The two bills in question are intended to operate as an effective sub- 
stitute for the present non- Communist affidavit requirement by empow- 
ering an independent governmental agency to make an administrative 
determination of the existence of Communist influence in a particular 
labor union and to provide effects of such a determination which will 
result in the elimination of that influence. 

Any legislation of this sort will, of course, meet with considerable 
opposition. That opposition will be directed initially toward the 
prevention of its enactment by Congress and thereafter toward ren- 
dering it invalid by court decision. 

Accordingly, any bill which is to overcome this opposition and which 
is to accomplish the purpose for which it is designed must be analyzed 
in the light of the following factors : 

(a) Its ostensible and latent fairness. 

(b) The extent to which it apprises the administrative agency, the 
courts, the parties to the proceedings and the general public of the 
considerations which Congress believes essential to a determination of 
the existence of Communist influence. 

(<?) Its capability of accomplishing the objective. 

(d) Its constitutionality. 

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate wlierein S. 1606 is 
deficient when analyzed in the light of these factors and to point out, 
where such is the case, the absence of such deficiencies in S. 1254. It is 
not intended as a detailed analysis of either bill and the discussion 
will be confined to the more important features of the legislation. 

COMMENCEME:NrT OF PROCEEDINGS 

Under S. 1606 proceedings could be instituted against a labor union 
by anyone who saw fit to file a charge against it. This is obviously 
both unfair and unnecessary. Such a provision would be subject to 
valid and strenuous objections that it would permit unlimited harass- 
ment of unions by employers, by rival unions, and by disgruntled 
individuals. 

It might result in the Subversive Activities Control Boai'd's being 
so deluged by variously motivated charges as to render it inca]>able 
of carrying out the provisions of the law and in giving tlie law itself 
the appearance of being ridiculous and picayune. 

Communist influence in labor unions is a matter of such national 
concern as to require constant investigation by the Department of 
Justice. If that investigation reveals the necessity for instituting 
proceedings under legislation of this sort, such proceedings should be 
instituted by the Attorney General. Furthermore, the charge of its 
being Comnnmist influenced is of such obvious concern to a union 
that it is entitled to have such a charge made against it only on the 
basis of a verified petition. 

Apparently none of these factors was taken into consideration in 
the preparation of S. 1606. It calls for no part to be played by the 
Department of Justice or by the Attorney General. It calls for no 
prechnrge investigation. It permits anyone to file a charge. It does 
not require verification of the charge. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 67 

S. 1254, on the other hand, covers all of these points. Under S. 
1254 only the Attorney General can institute proceedings against a 
union, and he can do so only on the basis of a verified petition. And 
the bill would require hhn to file a petition if he has reason to believe 
that a union is Communist influenced. Presumably this latter require- 
ment presupposes the duty to investigate, but it would be preferable 
to place in any legislation on this subject a provision specifically 
requiring the Attorney General to investigate comnuniism in labor 
unions. 

In this connection another objection to S. 1606 lies in the provision 
that, after the filing of a charge and a determination by the Subversive 
Activities Control Board that the charge is meritorious, the Board 
itself would issue a complaint against the charged labor union. This, 
of course, is not an unusual provision, but it does permit the customary 
attack that the Board w^ould be playing the role of both prosecutor 
and judge. Under S. 1254 the Board would serve only in the capacity 
of judge. 

EFFECT OF A COMPLAINT 

S. 1606 provides that if the Board issues a complaint against a labor 
union that union is immediately rendered ineligible for the benefits 
and procedures of the National Labor Kelations Act. This is a very 
unfair provision. The effect on a union of such temporary ineligibility 
pending a hearing and ultmiate determination by the Board could 
be extremely drastic, and yet it would be predicated solely on the filing 
of a charge by somebody and an ex parte investigation by the Board 
prior to issuance of the complaint. 

The union w^ould be given no opportunity to answer the charge or 
the complaint before it became ineligible. It is not unlikely that 
such a procedure would be found by the courts to be lacking in the 
essentails of due process of law and that, at least to the extent of this 
prehearing ineligibility, the legislation would be declared unconsti- 
tutional. (See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Goimnittee v. McGrath. 
341 U. S. 123, 95 L. ed. 817.) 

Under S. 1254 a labor union against which a complaint had been 
issued would be given its full day in court before any action of the 
Board would affect it. 

HEARING PROCEDURE 

S. 1606, no doubt in the interest of brevity, prescribes the procedure 
to be followed by the Board in conducting a hearing merely by refer- 
ence to certain sections of the Internal Security Act of 1950. Under 
normal circumstances there would be no objection to this method of 
prescribing procedure, and there certainly is no constitutional objec- 
tion to it, but since proposed legislation of this type will be attacked 
on ihQ emotional grounds of persecution, witch hunting, fascism, 
thought control, star chamber and similar rousing epithets, it would 
seem desirable to spell out in the bill itself, where everyone can see 
them, substantially all of the details of the hearing procedure. 

In this way the usual safeguards, such as the rights to representa- 
tion by counsel, the right to a public hearing, the right to cross-ex- 
amine witnesses, the right to offer oral and documentary evidence, 
the right to have subpenas issued, and the availability of an official 



68 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

transcript, would be readily apparent to all concerned, S. 1254 does 
set out the hearing procedure and the safeguards in detail. 

CONGRESSIONAL GUIDES 

Again, presumably in the interest of brevity, S. 1606 fails, except by 
reference to sections of the Internal Security Act of 1950, to spell out 
the matters which Congi^ess believes should be considered by the 
Board in making a determination of Communist influence in a labor 
organization. Since this legislation deals with a specific subject, 
namely, communism in labor unions, and since it presumably will be 
attacked by arguments particularly applicable to that specific subject, 
it seems highly desirable that any bill on the subject should be a com- 
pletely integrated and all-inclusive measure which by its own text sup- 
23lies the answers to objections which may be raised against it. 

S. 1254 does spell out in detail the matters to be considered by the 
Board and in doing so takes into account the particular problem of 
communism in labor unions which it is designed to elminate, rather 
than relying solely, as S. 1606 does, on the considerations which were 
embodied in the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION BY UNION 

Under S. 1606 the penalty against a union for being Communist- 
dominated is to deny to it access to the benefits and procedures of the 
National Labor Relations Act. That penalty becomes operative on 
a temporary basis immediately upon the issuance of a complaint. 

It becomes operative permanently upon the issuance of a final deter- 
mination by the Board, or until that determination is ultimately set 
aside by the courts. In other words, the only way a union can rid 
Itself of the penalty imposed by S. 1606 is to upset the Board's de- 
termination after an appeal to the courts. This would give an af- 
fected union no alternative to appealing from an adverse determina- 
tion by the Board. 

Once that adverse determination had been made by the Board there 
would be no incentive for a union to clean house and to rid itself of 
Communist leaders, because such action would not relieve the union of 
the permanent disqualification provided for in S. 1606. It is obvious, 
therefore, that this permanent disqualification feature of S. 1606 not 
only defeats the purpose for which the legislation is intended but 
would result in endless litigation as the only means of survival. 

This is not true of S. 1254. Under that bill the Board, having made 
a determination that a union was Communist influenced, would afford 
that union an opportunity of purging itself of that influence and 
thereby avoiding the effects of the adverse determination. 

Thus, a union found to be Communist-influenced would have the 
alternatives of cleaning house or of appealing to the courts. In the 
face of clear and convincing evidence supporting the Board's deter- 
mination, which would make a favorable outcome on appeal an 
obvious impossibility, a union which wished to survive would of neces- 
sity choose the house-cleaning alternative. Lacking this feature, 
S. 1606 is open to the attack that it is designed to bring about the 
permanent destruction of unions. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 69 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF BOARd's DETERMINATION IN RELATION TO RIGHT OF 

APPEAL 

As pointed, out above, under S. 1606 a union would suffer the penal- 
ties imposed innnediately upon the issuance of a complaint against 
it. It would have no right of appeal at that time. Following a hear- 
ing and an adverse determination by the Board it would have its first 
opportunity to appeal, but the penalties of the law would remain 
operative against it until the Board's determination was ultimately 
set aside by the courts. 

There is probabl}- no valid constitutional objection to this latter 
feature, namely, the operation of posthearing penalties pending the 
outcome of judicial review, but here again the bill is open to attack 
on the grounds that it is designed to bring about the destruction of 
unions by the o])eration of penalties during the lengthy period of time 
Avhich proceedings for judicial review necessarily involve, S. 1254 is 
also deficient in this respect and open to the same attack. 

In both cases the situation is unjustified, because there is a likeli- 
hood that a union could circumvent this feature anyway by applying 
for an injunction against the Board pending a judicial determination 
of the constitutionality of the law. In fact, until such a determination 
has been made and the constitutionality of the law has been sustained 
by the courts, this feature of both bills would compel all unions 
threatened with Board proceedings to take that course of action. If 
one recognizes the propensity of Communists to employ obstructionist 
tactics, it is foolhardy to afford them unnecessary obstructions. 

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 

S. 1606 would give the reviewing court broader authority to set 
aside determinations of the Board than is generally given by statutes 
authorizing judicial review of administrative decisions. Under S. 
1606 the findings of the Board would be conclusive, that is, not sus- 
ceptible to being set aside by the reviewing court, only if those find- 
ings were supported '"by a preponderance of the evidence." In other 
words, if the reviewing court were of the opinion that the weight of 
the evidence was not in favor of the findings of the Board, it could set 
those findings aside. 

This would mean that in every case the reviewing court would 
determine independently which way the evidence preponderated, and, 
in effect, no value would be given to the adjudication of facts by 
experts or specialists in the field of Communist activities. This scope 
of review would be so broad as to afford little or no justification for 
having the matter decided by an administrative agency in the first 
instance. Since the Board would be serving merely as a medium for 
transmitting the evidence to the reviewing court, the jurisdiction to 
make the initial adjudication might just as well be given to the court 
and the administrative procedure eliminated entirely. 

This feature of S. 1606 represents the opposite extreme of the 
Wagner Act wherein the findings of the National Labor Relations 
Board were conclusive on the reviewing court "if supported by evi- 
dence." The Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, adopted a po- 
sition midway between these extremes by making the findings of the 



70 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

NLRB conclusive "if supported by substantial evidence on the record 
considered as a whole." That same text is embodied in S. 1254. 

PENALTIES 

The major deficiency in S. 1606 is the lack of penalties adequate 
to encourage a union to rid itself of Communists. Under S. 1606 
an adverse determination by the Board would have only one effect 
on a union. It would become "ineligible to act as exclusive bargain- 
ing agent or to become, or to continue to be, the recipient of any pro- 
cedural or substantive benefit under or by virtue of the Labor-Man- 
agement of 1947, as amended." This is no more and no less than 
the penalty currently imposed on a union which does not file the re- 
quired non-Communist affidavits. 

The prime example of the inadequacy of such a penalty is the 
United Mine Workers. For more than 6 years that uuion has ignored 
the non-Communist affidavit requirement of the Taft-Hartley Act and 
thereby rendered itself ineligible to file unfair labor practice charges 
against employers or to participate in representation elections. And 
yet that union has continued to flourish, has held a club over the na- 
tional economy and the Federal Government, and has suffered no 
ill effects from its self-imposed ineligibility. 

The same could be true of any of the powerful unions which are 
notoriously Communist-dominated and which occupy strategic posi- 
tions in our national economy and in our national defense effort. 

If legislation of this sort is to have the salutary effect which both 
S. 1606 and S. 1254 seek to encourage, it must have teeth in it. 

Under S. 1606 a union found to be Communist-dominated would 
still have the protection of the anti-injunction features of the Norris- 
LaGuardia Act and of the exemption from the antitrust laws. Like- 
wise its collective-bargaining agreements, including provisions in them 
for compulsory unionism and the checkoff of union dues, would con- 
tinue to be in full force and effect. These weapons and governmental 
protections are ample to permit the continuation of Communist lead- 
ership in a union, regardless of the ineligibility which would con- 
stitute the sole penalty under S. 1606. 

S. 1254 is far more realistic in this respect and would have far 
greater possibilities, if enacted, of accomplishing its objective. Under 
S. 1254 a union found by the Board to be Communist-influenced would 
not only be ineligible under the National Labor Relations Act but 
also would automatically be denied the protections of the ISTorris- 
LaGuardia Act and the Clayton Act, and, in addition, its collective- 
bargaining agreements would be rendered null and void. These 
would be real deterrents and real incentives to self-house cleaning. 

CONCLUSION 

S. 1606 has a laudable and essential purpose, but as integrated 
legislation to accomplish its objective in a highly controversial field 
it is considerably deficient. It is first and foremost deficient in the 
penalties which it would impose; they are unrealistic and would pro- 
duce little in the way of results. 

Its other principal deficiency lies in the fact that its shortcut ap- 
proach makes it subject to attack on the grounds of unfairness, am- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 71 

biguity, and unconstitutionality. With respect to its brevity, other- 
wise praiseworthy, it sliould be noted that the past 20 years have pro- 
duced a great increase in the number of regulatory laws enacted by 
Congress and, concomitantly, in the volume of judicial interpretation 
of their provisions. There has been enough experience along this line 
to indicate that the enactment will succeed best in its purpose which 
spells out in considerable detail its substantive and procedural 
requirements. 

From this standpoint alone S. 1254 is preferable to S. 1606 because 
S. 1254 makes the necessary effort to go into detail and to contemplate 
the various situations which may arise. Such an effort will avoid both 
the fate of un workability at the hands of a confused or disgusted court, 
and the fate of emasculation at the hands of a hostile court. 

1 would like permission to liave inserted in the record a copy of 
S. 1254. 

Senator Welker. Without objection, so ordered. 

(The document referred to, exliibit No. HI, is inserted on p. 137.) 

Senator Goldwater. Since the introduction of my bill, S. 1254, last 
year, I have caused a study to be made of the bill for the purpose of 
making changes which might serve to improve the legislation, and, 
further, to bring it in line with recent court decisions on the subject. 

The most substantial change is to focus on "Conmiunist-influenced 
labor organization" to the exclusion of individuals therein. This has 
the advantage for constitutional purposes of directing the enforcement 
aspects at collective and group activities rather than the individuals. 

At the same time, little of the efficacy of S. 1254 is sacrificed, since 
one definition of a "Communist-influenced labor organization" is an 
organization which allows its policy to be influencecl by one found to 
be a "Commimist labor oflicial." This shift in emphasis has neces- 
sitated (1) changes in terminology, (2) changes in the definition of 
Communist influence, and (3) changes in procedure. 

I therefore should like to submit for the record a schedule of sug- 
gested changes in S. 1254, and a memorandum in support of these 
suggested changes. 

Senator Welker. Without objection, so oidered. 

(The document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. IV," is as fol- 
lows:) 

Exhibit No. IV 
Memorandum in Support of Suggested Changes in S. 1254 

I. general tenor of suggested changes 

The most substantial change suggested in the approach of S. 1254 is to focus 
on "Communist-influenced labor organization" to the exclusion of individuals 
therein. This has the advantage for constitutional purpose of directing the 
enforcement aspects at collective and group activities rather than the indi- 
viduals. At the same time, however, little of the efficacy of S. 1254 is sacri- 
ficed, since one detlnition of a "Communist-influenced labor organization" is an 
organization which allows its policy to be influenced by one found to be a 
"Communist labor official." Tins shift in emphasis has necessitated (1) changes 
in terminology, (2) changes in the definition of Communist influence, and (3) 
changes in procedure. 

(1) Terminology. — The term "Communist labor representative" has been 
eliminated, and in its place the terms "Communist-influenced labor organiza- 
tion" and "Communist labor oflacial" have been substituted. This split is de- 
sirable because the two are no longer dealt with in the same way, and therefore 



72 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

there need be no common description referring to both individuals and organiza- 
tions. Eitlier the organization or the individual, but not botli, could still be 
referred to as a "Communist labor representative,'" but in the interest of avoid- 
ing confusion with the original bill, it has been thought best to use the new 
terminology for both organizations and individuals. 

(2) Definitions. — The definitions have been changed in a way which shifts 
the emphasis of the original draft without losing its effectiveness. A labor 
organization can be found to be Communist influenced only if there is found to 
be danger of its acting in a particular manner — engaging in political strikes or 
other inimical collective activity — or if it is found to be influenced by a Com- 
munist lal)or oflScial. A "Communist labor ofiicial" is in turn defined in terms 
of acting, advocating, or soliciting, rather than merely speaking or believing. 

These changes are made with a view to the problems under the first amend- 
ment to the United States Constitution raised by the bill. The nearest Supreme 
Court case in point is the recent one of American Vommvnications Akso. v. 
Douds (339 U. S. 382, 94 L. Ed. 925). Two parts of the non-Communist-oath 
provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were Ijefore the Court. Five of the six par- 
ticipating Justices voted to sustain tlie constitutionality of that part of the non- 
Communist-oatti provision which required disclosure of afiiliatiou with the 
Communist Party. The provision of the oath which required disclosure of 
belief in the forceful overthrow of the Government was afiirmed by an equally 
divided Court ; Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, and Black voting against the 
validity of this provision. Justice Jackson's opinion was based on the piemise 
that the first amendment forbade imposition of a penalty for one's belief alone. 
Justice Frankfurter's dissent was based solely on the vagueness of the provision ; 
but subsequent expressions of his indicate he might well have sided with Jack- 
son and Black on the belief point. See, e. g.. Garner v. Board of PuMic Works 
of Los Angeles (341 U. S. 716, 724, 94 L. Ed. 1317. 1325) ; Wiemann v. Undegraff 
(344 U. S. 183) ; United States v. Rumelu (345 U. S. 41). 

As to the three members of the Court not participating in the Douds decision, 
the later case of Osman v. Douds (339 U. S. 846, 94 L. Ed. 1328), indicates that 
Justice Minton would vote to sustain both provisions, whereas Justice Douglaa 
would vote to invalidate the section dealing with belief. Justice Clark, though 
he participated in either of these cases, v\-ould probably vote to sustain both 
provisions. Thus the full Court, prior to the death of Chief Justice Vinson, 
would have sustained a measure based on disclosure of belief without action 
by a 5-4 vote. The recent change in Chief Justices makes the issue sufficiently 
doubtful to require as much circumspection as possible in draftinu- a provision 
of this nature. 

The suggested changes remove all question of belief per se from the sections 
defining Communist-influenced organizations, but in order not to deprive the 
Board of the power to consider beliefs as evidence of tendencies to act, such 
consideration is specifically allowed in section 5. This is actually no more than 
the spelling out of normal canons of relevancy, and it requires a Board finding 
of actual tendency to act before such individuals can be found to l)e Communist 
labor officials. This two-part procedure should meet some of the usual shib- 
boleths about "guilt by association" and "freedom of belief" because it would 
make belief and association relevant in determiug an individual's propensities 
to act — as they surely are in any system guided by commonsense — but at the 
same time they would not be conclusive of the question as they are in the present 
bill. The practical ramifications so far as penalizing Comnuniist-iu^uenced 
unions are not significant; a properly oriented Board will be able to bring as 
many Connnunist-influenced unions to book under the changed sections as under 
the present bill ; but for constitutional purposes the changes are significant and 
helpful. 

(3) Procedure. — Under the suggested changes, individuals, as such, would not 
be involved in pi-oceedings before the Board. Its sole power would be to make 
a finding that a particular organization is a "Commuuist-inl^uenced labor organ- 
ization." This would make the changed bill in some respects less coercive than 
the present bill, which latter allows the Board to issue detailed orders requiring 
an organization to rid itself of certain oflicials. A court might well balk atJ 
this provision, whereas it would permit the same result to be accomplished by; 
less direct methods. The very simple and superficially innocuous procedure of 
giving the Board only the power to say that a union is Communist influenced 
would actually accomplish all that the more obnoxious procedure does, since a 
finding against the union could be based on the fact that its policy is influenced 
by communistically inclined individuals. The union wnnld know, without being 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 73 

directed by the Board, that it must rid itself of tbese objectionable persons in 
order to get its status redetermined. The suKS'ested procedure is practically as 
sweepin.n' an enforcement device as is provided in the present bill, since a mere 
finding:' of Communist influence would cut off the union from all the prerogatives 
that failure to comply with specific orders of the Board does under the present 
bill. 

II. DETAILED BEASONS FOR CHANGES 

Folh)wing is a more detailed analysis of individual changes. Wherever the 
change is necessitated solely by the above-mentioned shift in operation of the 
bill from both organizations and individuals to only organizations, the Roman 
numeral I appears after the suggested change. Where the change is indicated 
in whole or in part by considerations other than this change in focus, such 
considerations are set forth. 

2 : 5-6—1. 

2 : 15-lU— I. 

3 : 2 — This change is suggested in order that no labor organization against 
which a declaration of Communist intlueuce is outstanding can avoid the effect 
of such declaration by any merger or reorganization. 

3 : 23-5 : 19 — These charges carry out the approach described in I above. The 
definition of "Communist influenced labor organization" is phrased in terms of 
actions or tendencies to act. Likewise, the definitions of "Communist labor 
official" and "political strike" emphasize action. 

5 : 20—1. 

5 : 20-21—1. 

6 : 1 — The adjective "any" is necessary here because the change in 5 : 20-21 
deletes the prior mentioned "individual." 

6 : 2—1. 

6:5 — The adjective "certain" is susceptible of an undesirably restrictive 
Interpretation. 

6 : 7—1. 

6 : y— I. 

6 : 10-11— I. 

6 : 20-23—1. 

6 : 25—1. 

7 : 5-6—1. 

7 : 8 — The phrase "present evidence" is substituted for the phrase "give testi- 
mony" in order to broaden this provision and insure the right to present docu- 
mentary as well as oral evidence. 

7 : it — This change is necessary in order to be consistent with the sentence 
beginning on 6 : 24, providing for notice of hearing. 

7 : 11— See 7 : 8. 

7 : 22-8 : 2 — The provision allowing subdelegation has been deleted because of 
its dubious constitutional implications. The question of subdelegation has never 
been squarely passed on by the Supreme Coiu't, but at least would furnish an 
added ground of attack on the bill (Cf. Morgan v. Umtecl States, 298 U. S. 468, 
SOL. ed. 1288). 

8 : 17-11 : 10 — Here the provisions of section 3 and section 5 of the present 
bill, both relating to the disabilities resulting from a Board order, have been 
consolidated under one heading. As explained in I, above, it has been thought 
best to confine the Board to a simple declaration from which the disabilities 
follow automatically. There is no need in a bill the purposes of which are 
those of this bill to give the Board discretionary power to frame its orders in 
a manner such as it believes would effectuate the policy of the bill. Likewise, 
the penalties are confined strictly to deprivation of privileges otherwise granted 
to labor organizations by Congress. This is thought desirable because of the 
opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in Douds where he stresses the fact that the 
non-Communist oath provision of the Taft-Hartley Act imposes no criminal 
penalties, but merely denies resort to privileges conferred by Congress. 

The requirement that the Board's order have become final before it is opera- 
tive is inserted in the interest of fairness to the organizations and of following 
established procedures. The more general practice is to deny efficacy to the 
orders of the agency until a court has ordered them enforced ; see e. g.. Federal 
Trade Commission, 15 U. S. C. 45 (c) ; National Labor Relations Board, 29 
U. S. C. IGO (e) ; Federal Communiications Commission (senible), 47 U. S. C. 401, 
402 : Subversive Activities Control Board, 50 U. S. C. 793 (b) ; on the other hand, 



74 SUBVERSWE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

orders of the Securities Exchange Commission (15 U. S. C. 771 (b)) and of the 
Federal Power Commission (16 U. S. C. 825) are effective immediately, subject 
to the discretionary power of the agency or of the reviewing court to grant 
temporary stays. A declaration by the Board under this bill could well sound 
the death knell for a union ; even if the order were effective only for a few 
months it could seriously cripple the union. Such a result should obtain only 
after the union has had a chance to challenge the Board's order in the reviewing 
court. 

In (i) the termination of all collective-bargaining agreements is spelled out 
in detail in order that there mav be no mistake about the reti'oactive application 
of the bill. 

In (ili) the language is made specifically applicable to a petition filed with the 
NLRB "thereafter or theretofore." This is to obviate the result reached by the 
Supreme Court in N. L. R. B. v. Dant, 344 U. S. 

The provisions of (v) have been thought necessary because of tlie unwilling- 
ness of some of the courts of appeals to liar the NLRB from processing a com- 
plaint brought ostensibly by individuals, even though it was fairly clear that 
such individuals were "fronts" for a noncomplying union. See e. g.. 'N. L. R. B. 
V. Augusta Chemical Co. (5th Cir.), 187 F. 2d (>3, 04; N. L. R. B. v. Clausen (3d 
Cir.), 1.S8 F. 2d 439; Contra, N. L. R. B. v. Alsirle, Inc. (6th Cir.), 102 F. 2d. 678. 

In (e) the Board is required to issue a declaration where it concludes that 
an organization is not Communist influenced. It is elemental fairness to give 
a conclusion favorable to an organization the same publicity as is given an ad- 
verse conclusion. 

In (f) it bas been thought desirable to put a moratorium of 1 year on the 
union's right to reopen a proceeding. This will make an adverse decision by the 
Board which is in turn sustained by the courts a more serious blow to a labor 
organization than if such organization could immediately reopen the proceeding. 
Therefore, the unions coming up for adjudication before the Board might well 
feel that prudence was the better part of valor and clean house on their own. 
In so doing, they might well rid themselves of officials who could not constitu- 
tionally be reached by any law. 

11 : 11-13 : 4 — The detailed provisions in section 4 of the present bill are prob- 
ably su])erfluou3. A short statement of the desired result will save verbiage 
and at the same time prevent the courts from saying that by detailing the corners 
which may be cut in an emergency. Congress has in elTect forbidden the Board 
to cut any other corners. A short expression such as is suggested here will 
prevent this application of the rule of expressio unius, exclusio alterius. 

13 : 4-15 : 3 — Section 5 is now incorporated in section 3. 

15 : 3-18 : 1 — These changes have been partially explained in I above. 

"The Board shall consider" has been substituted for "the Board may con- 
sider" in order to make the provi.sion mandatory. Congre.ss should do more 
than permit the Board to consider such highly relevant factors ; it should require 
the Board to consider them. 

The detailed language regarding affiliation in (i) should give the provision as 
sweeping an effect as possible, and avoid any repetition of the problem presented 
to the Supreme Court in NLRB v. HighUunl Park Mfg. Co. (341 U. S. 322, 95 
L. ed. 969). This same language is repeated in each of the subsections. 

The provisions of 6 (b) (5) have been added because of their obvious relevancy 
and usefulness as a source of information. The provisions of 6 (b) (6) are 
added because such information also may be relevant. Certainly where an 
individual can be compelled to take the .stand, as he can here, this not being a 
criminal proceeding, his refusal to answer on grounds of self-incrimination can 
be upheld only if a relevant answer would incriminate him. His refusal to an- 
swer is in effect an affirmation that the truthful, relevant answer he would 
give would be at least a "link in the chain" of evidence tending to incriminate 
him. The Board can use this line of analysis to support its finding against 
unwilling individuals and thus dispense with the necessity for immunity con- 
tained in the present bill. The refusal to answer on gromids of self-incrimi- 
nation has long been held admissible in a civil proceeding, and a fair subject 
of comment even in a criminal proceeding. See Adanuon v. Calif wnia (3.32 
U. S. 46, 60, 91 L. ed. 1903, 1913) and cases cited. 

18 : 1-4 — Since this bill merely gives an added function to the Board, there 
is no reason to think that the provisions of the Internal Security Act would not 
apply to the Board in carrying out this function even without the specific enum- 
eration of those provisions in this bill. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 75 

18 : 5 — "Its" is substituted for "sucti," since in view of the change in 18 : 1-4, 
there is no longer any antecedent to which "such" relates; the same elfect is 
obtained bv inserting the word "hereunder" after "functions." 

18 : 13— i. 

IS : 15—1. 

18 : 16-18—1. 

19 : 1-2 — This change is necessary to achieve consistency with similar refer- 
ences in other parts of the bill. 

20 : 6-14 — Though this provision appears in the Internal Security Act, neither 
the reason nor the necessity for it is at all clear. Unless such reason or necessity 
is made apparent to the committee, there is no point in putting in such a vague 
and all-inclusive provision. 

20 : 15-21 : 4— See comment under 15 : 3-18 : 1, 6 (b) (6) . 

21 : 4—1. 

21 : 13—1. 

21 : 16-17 — Since the only action taken by the Board will be a finding of fact, it 
is desirable to call it a declaration rather than an order. 

21 : 17—1. 

21 : IS— I. 

21 : 18 — An emphatic statement of finality and immunity to collateral attack 
is more appropriate in this section than elsewhere. 

21 : 20 — This provision has been broadened to encompass an individual who 
appears on behalf of an organization but is neither a party nor a counsel. 

21 : 21— See 21 : 20. 
' 21 : 23-23 : 8 — The procedure for judicial review has been revised in order to 
more clearly designate the ciix'uit court in which review may be sought. It is a 
more standard practice to require the person aggrieved to actually seek the 
review than the agency, and certainly such a practice imposes no great hardship 
on the person aggrieved. Specific reference to the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia has been omitted, since that court is already burdened 
with a great deal of review of agency action ; and unless a labor organization 
were actively engaged in representing employees in the District of Columbia, 
the Court of Appeals for the District should not be called upon to review the 
action of the Board under this bill. The provision relating to judicial review 
has been shortened because much of the language in the present bill appears 
unnecessary. 

23 : 23 — The power of the court on review to modify an order of the Board has 
been deleted. This is because it is now contemplated the Board will issue only 
a finding of fact to the eftect that an organization is or is not Communist 
influenced. Thus there would be no purpose to be served by allowing a court of 
appeals to modify such a declaration. 

24 : 19—1. 

24 : 21-24—1. 

25 : 2—1. 

25 : 6—1. 

25 : 11— I. 

25 : 12-26 : 19 — For constitutional purposes as suggested in section I above, 
it is desirable to eliminate all of the criminal penalties contained in this bill 
since they give no added eflicacy. 

26: 19-26: 23 — No reason is apparent for this provision and, therefore, it is 
deleted. 

26 : 23-27 : 2 — The existing non-Communist-oath provisions of the Taft-Hartley 
Act should not be repealed until it is certain that this substitute bill will stand 
up in court. 

27 : 14 I. 

27 : 14-15 — The bill in its present form would give the Board power to order 
an election upon the mere commencement of proceedings by the Attorney Gen- 
eral. This in effect passes judgment on the organization before it has had a 
hearing. 

Suggested Changes in S. 1254 

2 : 5-6 ^ — Delete "and persons functioning as Communist labor representatives." 
2 : 15-16 — Delete "Communist labor representative" and substitute "such labor 
organization." 



I Number preceding colon refers to page (number), of S. 1254 ; numbers following colon 



refer to lines. 



76 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

3 : 2 — Add, after "as amended", the following : "The term "labor organization' 
shall include any successor organization ereate<l or utilized in whole or in part 
for the purpose of evading any provision of this Act." 

3 : 23-5 : 19 — Delete all of section 2, subsection 5, beginning on this line, and 
substitute the following: 

"(5) A 'Communist-influenced labor organization' is one which (a) is likely 
to engage in or to solicit others to engage in (i) political strikes as herein de- 
fined or (ii) any other concerted activity one of the purposes of which is to 
aid the world Communist movement or (b) allows its policy to be directed or in 
any substantial degree influenced by one who is a Communist labor official, as 
herein defined, whether or not such Communist labor official is an officer or 
member of the union. 

"(6) A 'Communist labor official' is one who is in any substantial degree in- 
fluential in formulating or executing any part of the policies of a labor organi- 
zation, whether or not he is a member of such labor organization, and who 
advocate or counsel that such labor organization engage in the practices set forth 
in subsection .5 of this section. 

"(7) A 'political strike' is any concerted work stoppage, one of the purposes 
of which is to aid the world Communist movement." 

5 : 20 — After "any," insert "Communist influenced." 

5 : 20-21 — After "organization", delete "or individual found to be a Communist 
labor representative." 

6 : 1 — Before "individual", insert "any." 

6: 2— Delete "or individual." 

6: 5 — Delete "certain." 

6: 7 — Delete "or individual." 

6 : 9 — Delete "labor representative"' and substitute "influenced labor organiza- 
tion." 

6 : 10-11 — Delete "the persons named therein whom he alleges are Communist 
labor representatives" and substitute "such labor organization." 

6 : 20-23 — Delete remainder of paragraph, starting "and any or all." 

6:25 — Delete "persons" and substitute "organizations." 

7 : 5-6 — Delete "organization and the persons" and substitute "organizations." 

7 : 8 — Delete "in person or otherwise and give testimony" and substitute "and 
present evidence." 

7: 9 — Delete "complaint" and substitiite "notice of hearing." 

7: 11 — Delete "testimony" and substitute "evidence." 

7 : 22-8 : 2 — Delete sentence beginning "in appointing." 

8 : 17-11 : 10 — Delete from sentence beginning "If, upon the preponderance" to 
the beginning of section 4 on page 11, and substitute the following : 

"(d) If, upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Board finds that any labor 
organization named in the petition is a Comuiunist-influenced labor organization, 
it shall issue a declaration to that effect and serve copies of such declaration on 
such organization, on the National Labor Relations Board, and on the Attorney 
General. When any such declaration becomes final, it shall have the following 
effects : 

"(i) All collective-bargaining agreements to which such labor organization is 
a party shall be deemed to have terminated by operation of law and shall be 
of no further force or effect whatsoever. 

"(ii) No employer shall be obligated to recognize or bargain with such labor 
organization as a representative of any of his employees. 

"(iii) The National Labor Relations Board shall have no jurisdiction to 
entertain or process any charge or petition filed thereafter or theretofore by 
such labor organization unuer the provisions of the National Labor Relations 
Act, as amended, or to permit such labor organization to intervene or participate 
in any proceedings, including representation elections, under such Act. 

"(iv) The limitations on the .iurisidiction of the courts in labor dispute cases 
prescribed by section 20 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 738) and sections 1 and 7 
of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (47 Stat. 70, 71) shall not apply to labor disputes 
to which such labor organization is a party. 

"(v) Any proceeding brought by an individual before the National Labor 
Relations Board or any court, which, if l)rought by the labor organization with 
which such individual was affiliated at the time his alleged cause of action arose, 
would be affected by subparagraphs i-iv of this subsection, shall be affected to 
a like extent by this section if such labor organization would derive any advan- 
tage from such individual's successful prosecution of such proceeding, whether 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 77 

or not such individual would also derive any advantage from tlie successful 
prosecution of such proceeding. 

"(e) If the Board shall find that any labor organization named in a petition 
is not Communist influenced, it shall issue a declaration to that effect and serve 
copies of such declaration on such organization, on the National Labor Relations 
Board, and on the Attorney General. 

"(f) Not less than one year after a declaration of the Board has become 
final, the labor organization adversely affected by such declaration may file 
with the Board a verified petition for a redetermination of the existence of 
Communist influence in such labor organizations. Copies of the petition shall 
be served on the Attorney General, who shall be a party to the proceeding. If 
on the basis of the facts set forth in the petition there is reason to believe that 
Communist influence in such labor organization no longer exists, the Board 
shall hold further hearings to consider evidence of events which have occurred 
since the issuance of the declaration. No evidence shall be received which 
was received at prior hearings to which this organization was a party. If, 
upon the preponderance of all of the evidence received at all of the hearings 
to which such labor organization was a party, the Board finds that such labor 
organization is no longer a Communist-influenced labor organization, it shall 
issue an order rescinding its previous declaration and serve copies of such order 
on the labor organization, on the National Labor Relations Board, and on the 
Attorney General. Not more than one petition for redetermination involving a 
particular labor organization shall be filed within any one-year period." 

11 : 11-13 : 4 — Delete all of section 4 and substitute the following : 

"Sec. 4. When, upon allegations contained in the petition of the Attorney 
General there is reason to believe that the national security would be injured 
by an interruption in the production or delivery of goods of any employer whose 
employees a labor organization named in the petition represents or claims to 
represent, the Board shall take all steps to expedite the proceeding consistent 
with appropriate recognition of the rights of the parties under the circum- 
stances." 

13 : 4-15 : 3— Delete all of section 5. 

15 : 3-18 : 1— Delete all of section 6 and substitute the following : 

"Sec. 6. (a) In determining whether a labor organization is Communist influ- 
enced, the Board sliall consider, among other things : 

"(i) Whether it or any international, national, regional, or local labor or- 
ganization with which it is afliliated or of which it is a constituent part, or which 
is afliliated with it has at any time engaged in or aided an organization engaged 
in a political strike. 

"(ii) Whether it or any international, national, regional, or local labor or- 
ganization with which it is affiliated or of which it is a constituent part, or which 
is afliliated with it. has accepted financial or other support from a Communist- 
action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist foreign govern- 
ment, or the world Communist movement. 

" ( iii ) Whether its funds, resources, or personnel, or those of any international, 
national, regional, or local labor organization with which it is afliliated or of 
which it is a constituent part, or which is atfiliated with it have been used to 
promote by word or deed the military, economic, or political iwlicies of any Com- 
munist-action organization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign 
government, or the world Communist movement. 

"(iv) The extent to which its declared positions on public questions, or those 
of any international, national, regional, or local labor organization with which 
it is afliliated, or of which it is a constituent part, or which is afliliated with it 
have not deviated from those of Communist-action organizations. Communist- 
front organizations, Communist foreign governments, or the world Communist 
movement. 

"(v) The extent to which its members are or ever have been members of any 
Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist for- 
eign government, or the world Communist movement. 

"(1)) In determining whether any person is a Communist labor oflieial, for the 
purpose of in turn determining whether a labor organization is Communist in- 
fluenced, the Board may consider, among other matters : 

"(1) Whether he has aided by funds or services any Communist-action organi- 
zation. Communist-front organization, Comnninist foreign government, or the 
world Communist movement. 

43903—54— — 6 



78 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

"(2) "Whether he has been employed by any Communist-action organization. 
Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government, or the world 
Communist movement. 

" (3) Whether he is or ever has been a member of any Communist-action organ- 
ization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government, or the 
world Communist movement. 

"(4) The extent to which his utterances and activities, both public and private, 
have not deviated from those of Communist-action organizations, Communist- 
front organizations, Communist foreign governments, or the world Communist 
movement. 

"(5) Findings of Federal and State agencies and legislative committees 
involving his loyalty. 

"(6) His refusal to answer any question upon grounds of self-incrimination." 

IS : 1-4 — Delete sentence beginning "In the performance.'' 

18:5 — Delete "such" and substitute "its"; after "functions" insert "here- 
under." 

18: 13 — Delete "(1)" and draw remainder together with line 12. 

18: 15— Delete "and." 

18 : 16-18 — Delete all of these three lines. 

19 : 1-2 — Delete "examiner or agent" and substitute "agent or agency." 

20: 6-14 — Delete sentence beginning "No person shall be held." 

20: 15-21 : 4— Delete subsection "(b)." 

21:4— Delete "(c)" and substitute "(b)." 

21 : 13— Delete "an" and substitute "a labor" ; delete "or individual." 

21 : 16-17 — Delete "enter an order finding" and substitute "issue its declaration 
that." 

21 : 17 — Delete "or individual to be" and substitute "is." 

21 : 18 — Delete "labor representative" and substitute "influenced labor organ- 
ization." 

21 : 18 — Before "Where" insert "A declaration issued under this subsection 
shall become final upon its issuance, and shall be subject neither to review nor 
collateral attack in any judicial proceeding whatever." 

21 : 21 — Delete "party or counsel" and substitute "representative or counsel." 

21 : 23-23 : 8— Delete from "Any party" in 21 : 23 to "It" in 23 : 8, and substi- 
tute: 

"Any party aggineved by any declaration issued or order entered by the 
Board pursuant to .section 3 hereof may obtain a review of such order in the 
United States court of appeals for a circuit in which the labor organization 
involved is actively engaged in representing employees by filing in such court, 
within 60 days of service upon it of such declaration or order, a written petition 
praying that the order of the Board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall 
thereupon be served upon the Board and upon other parties to the action, and 
the aggrieved party shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the 
proceeding, certified by the Board." 

23 : 23 — Delete the remainder of subsection starting "Tlie jurisdiction of the 
court" and insert : 

"(b) The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order of the 
Board. Petitions filed under this subsection shall be heard expeditiously. The 
judgment and decree of the court shall be final and its jurisdiction exclusive, 
except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court on certi- 
orari." 

24 : 18 — Insert before "order" "declaraton or." 

24 : 19— Delete "or .section 4." 

24 : 21-24 — Delete all of subsection following "filing" and sul)stitute "a peti- 
tion for review, if no such petition has been duly filed in an appropriate United 
States Court of Appeals ;". 

25: 2 — Insert before "order" "declaration or." 

25 : 6 — Insert before "order" "declaration or." 
25:11^ — Insert before "order" "declaration or." 

25 : 12-26 : 19— Delete all of section 11. 

26 : 19-26 : 23— Delete all of section 12. 

26 : 23-27 : 2— Delete all of section 13. 

27 : 14— Delete "or individual." 

27 : 14-15 — Delete "proceeding under this act has been commenced by the 
Attorney General" and substitute "declai*ation of the Board has become final." 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 79 

Senator Butler. I want to say for the record that I want any bill 
that comes out of this committee to be known as the Butler-Goldwater 
bill. 

Senator Goldwater. During the course of the hearings before the 
Senate Labor Committee last year, I attempted to bring out discus- 
sion on S. 1254 and also H. R. 3993 which is a companion bill in- 
troduced by Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona. The gist of 
these discussions boils down to the fact that it was "thought control" 
and that will be the big argument that the unions will use against this 
legislation if any of the unions feel inclined to object to legislation 
that would assist them in ridding themselves of Communists. 

I have made a study of this contention and, to conserve time, I ask 
permission to have inserted in the record at this point an analysis of 
the contention that S. 1254 and H. R. 3993 constitute thought-control 
legislation. 

Senator Walker. Without objection, it will be so ordered. 

(Document referred to, marked "Exhibit No. V," follows:) 

An Analysis of the Contention That S. 1254 and H. R. 3993 Constitute 

ThoL'Ght-Control Legislation 

i. intkoduction 

S. 1254, introduced by Senator Goldwater, and H. R. 3993, introduced by 
Congressman Rhodes, are identical in text. They would require the Subversive 
Activities Control Board, an independent governmental agency, to determine, 
upon a charge initiated by the Attorney General, whether or not a labor union is 
influenced or controlled by Communists and by what individuals such influence 
or control is exerted. If the Board sustained the charge made by the Attorney 
General, it would issue an order directing the union to rid itself of such com- 
munistic influence or control within a specified period of time. Failing to com- 
ply with such order and until compliance, the union would be denied the rights 
and privileges of a labor organization under the National Labor Relations Act, 
the antiinjunction protection of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the antitrust exemp- 
tion of the Clayton Act, and the right, under the Labor-Management Relations 
Act, 1947, to enforce its collective bargaining agreements with employers by 
actions in the Federal courts. 

The bills prescribe legislative standards to aid the Board in determining the 
existence of communistic influence or control. Public hearings are required on 
all charges filed by the Attorney General, and the right of court review is af- 
forded to both unions and individuals affected by Board orders. Criminal pen- 
alties are imposed only upon unions and individuals who continue to act as 
labor representatives after the orders of the Board affecting them have been 
reviewed and affirmed by the courts. 

II. BASES OF THE THOUGHT-CONTKOL CONTENTION 

It has been contended by some tliat legislation of this sort constitutes thought 
control. This contention must be based on one or the other of the following : 

1. An attempt to distort the purpose of the proposed legislation by branding it 
as antilabor and applying to it a catch-phrase, or epithet, which will generate 
public condemnation ; or 

2. A sincere belief that by enacting such legislation Congress would be un- 
constitutionally abridging the freedom of speech vouchsafed by the first amend- 
ment. 

For those who advance the thought-control contention as a red herring and 
who seek thereby to divert Congress from the conscientious reexamination of 
a real national problem, no answer to the contention is required. Suflice it to 
say that every legislative effort to protect this country against internal sub- 
versive activities has been faced with the same contention. 

But for those who, although they recognize the gravity of the problem, never- 
theless advance the thought-control contention in the sincere belief that this type 
of legislation goes beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, a sincere and 



80 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

forthright answer is required. They uuist have an answer to their fear that, 
in seeking- by this means to combat a recognized evil, we would be destroying the 
very thing we are purporting to protect; in other words, their fear that by 
suppressing freedom of thought and association in this way, we would be ajv 
proaching the very totalitarianism which the Communists are seeking to establish 
by such means as the control and domination of trade unions. The purpose of 
this analysis is to supply that answer. 

III. THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE 

The term "thought control," even when used by those who are sincerely per- 
turlied by the aspect of this type of legislation, is misleading. Communism is 
fundamentally an idea or belief, but its significance today lies not so much in 
the idea itself but in the plan of action designed to implement that idea, the 
plan of affirmative and violent action to establish and enforce that idea in the 
form of world dictatorship by the ruling power of one nation. A person may 
have the intent to rob or to murder, but, absent any action on his part to im- 
plement that intent, our concept of liberty would not permit us to restrain him 
just for having such evil thoughts. The same is true of a person who is only 
a Communist in the philosophical sense. When, however, the robber, or the 
murderer, or the Communist, reaches the point of affirmatively implementing his 
intent to employ force or violence to gain his end, he has reached the action stage 
where his intentional conduct, not his thoughts, becomes the legitimate object of 
social scrutiny and possible limitation. 

It is with this concept of modern communism in mind that the fundamental 
issue presented by this legislation must be defined. The determination to be 
made is whether or not, under present circumstances and with respect to com- 
munism, the necessity for preserving law and order and our national sovereignty 
justifies an abridgement of a fundamental liberty, and whether or not such 
abridgement is within the constitutional powers of Congress. Specifically, the 
issue is whether or not communistic infiltration of trade unions constitutes a 
thi'eat to national security sufficient to justify restraining the liberty to foster 
communism through union power, and whether or not the exercise of that liberty 
can be constitutionally restrained in the manner proposed by this legislation. 
As so defined, it is obvious that the issue cannot be properly characterized as 
a thought-control issue. 

IV. THE ESTABLISHED FACTS 

The portion of this issue which requires a determination of the extent of the 
threat to our national security in relation to an impairment of individual liberty 
must be resolved on the basis of facts. These facts are well established and 
cannot be validly disputed. They have been established by hearings conducted 
by congressional committees, reports of congressional committees, legislative 
findings by Congress, verdicts of Federal juries, and decisions of the Federal 
courts. Tliese are the established facts : 

1. There exists a world Communist movement whicli is a worldwide revolu- 
tionary effort designed to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the 
countries throughout the world. 

2. One of the traditional and primary means of accomplishing this purpose is 
Communist infiltration of labor unions. 

3. The goal of the American Communist party is the overthrow of the Govern- 
ment of the United States by force and violence. 

5. The American Comnmnist Party has infiltrated and dominates and controls 
certain labor unions in this country. 

6. The goal and the activities of the American Communist Pai-ty constitutes a 
clear and present danger to the Nation. 

V. NATIONAL NECESSITY V. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 

In the face of the.se established facts Congress must decide whether or not 
the infringement on individual liberty embodied in the proposed legislation is 
justified. The specific liberty involved is the liberty to participate in and 
encourage Connuunist action in the trade-union movement — l)y speech, l)y asso- 
ciation, and by international conduct. Tlie objective of that Conmninist" action 
is the overthrow of our Government by force and violence, a clear and present 
danger to our national security. The mere statement of the liberty involved 
and of the ultimate result of its unlimited exercise provides the answer for all 



SUBVERSIVE IN^FLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 81 

loyal Americans. Congress, with the support of the people, has answered the 
question before in analoc;ous situations by imposing more drastic restraints on 
that liberty. Federal legislation applicable to Communists and organizations is 
nothing new. In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, also known as the 
McCormack Act, was passed, requiring agents of foreign governments to register 
with the xVttorney General and to label their propaganda. In 1939, the Hatch Act 
forbade membership in Communist, or like organizations, to Federal employees. 
In 1940, the Voorhis Act, supplementing the McCormack Act. required registra- 
tion by native groups which participated in civilian-military drill and in specially 
defined political activities. In 1940, by virtue of the Smith Act, it became a 
Federal crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach" the overthrow of the Govern- 
ment by force or violence. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act denied to unions whose 
officers' failed to file non-Communist affidavits, the procedures and benefits of the 
National Labor Relations Act. And in 19.50, Congress passed the Internal 
Security Act, which requires the registration of all Comnuuiist organizations, 
prohibits tlie issuance of passports to members of such organizations, and pro- 
hibits the employment of such members by the Federal Government, or by private 
defense facilities. All of these enactments, except the Taft-Hartley Act, provided 
for criminal penalties. 

If the measures just enumerated were justifiable infringements on individual 
liberty in the face of the Communist threat, and in each instance Congress found 
them to be justified, certainly far less justification is needed for legislation such 
as that under discussion, which does not suppress or outlaw the Communist 
Party and does not forbid any individual to be, or become, a philosophical Com- 
munist, or a full-fledged and active member of the party, but which, in effect, 
only prohibits such a person from holding a position of influence in a labor union 
if that union wishes to continue to avail itself of the special rights and protection 
afforded it by specific Federal laws. 

It seems clear from the foregoing that there is ample justification, as a matter 
of congressional policy, for the proposed legislation. 

Vr. CONGRESSIONAL POWER 

Coming now to the portion of the issue which requires a determination of 
congressional power to enact such legislation, it is necessary first to state certain 
fundamental principles with respect to the liberty of free speech vouchsafed by 
the first amendment to the Constitution. All of those principles can be gleaned 
from the 1951 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case which 
involved tlie conviction of the top 11 Communists for violation of the Smith Act 
(Dennis v. United States (341 U. S. 494, m L. ed. 1137) . They are as follows : 

1. The right of free speech "is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but * * * 
must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations." 

2. "No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to pro- 
hibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The 
question with which we are concerned * * * is not whether Congress has such 
power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the first * * * 
amendment (s) to the Constitution." 

3. Restrictions on freedom of speech are constitutional where there is a "clear 
and present danger" that "substantive evil" will result from nonrestriction. 

4. Since the purposes and activities of tlie Communist Party constitute such a 
"clear and present danger" legislation which punishes the advocacy of the doc- 
trines of the Communist Party does not violate the first amendment. 

The statute involved in the Dennis case presented a far more difficult question 
as to the power of Congress than does the proposed legislation under discussion. 
The Smith Act made it a crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach" the over- 
throw of the Government by force or violence. Actually, the Supreme Court had 
already, prior to the Dennis case, passed upon the very contention which is 
advanced against the Goldwater-Rhodes bill. 

In American Communications Association v. Douds (839 U. S. 382, 94 L. ed 925 
(Sup. Ct. 1950) ) , the Court had before it the non-Communist affidavit requirement 
(Sec 9 (h)) of the Taft-Hartley Act. The petitioners in that case contended 
that the requirement was unconstitutional because it deprived "unions, union 
officers, and members of unions of freedom of thought, speech and assemlily, in 
violation of the first amendment." The Court rejected that contention. The fol- 
lowing quotations from the decision will demonstrate more clearly than attempts 
to paraphrase them the reasoning of the Court and the basis for its decision : 

"One such obstruction (of commerce), which it was the purpose of section 9 
(h) of the act to remove, was the so-called political strike. Substantial amounts 



82 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

of evidence were presented to various committees of Congress, including tbe com- 
mittees immediately concerned with lahor legislation, that Communist leaders of 
labor unions had in the past, and would continue in the future, to subordinate 
legitimate trade union objectives to obstructive strikes when dictated by party 
leaders, often in support of the policies of a foreign government. And other 
evidence supports the view that some union leaders, who hold to a belief in 
violent overthrow of the Government for reasons other than loyalty to the Com- 
munist Party, likewise regard strikes and other forms of direct action designed 
to serve ultimate revolutionary goals, as the primary objectives of labor unions 
which they control." 

******* 
"No useful purpose would be served by setting out at length the evidf'nce 
before Congress relating to the problem of political strikes, nor can we attempt 
to assess the validity of each item of evidence. It is sufficient to say that Con- 
gress had a great mass of material before it which tended to show that Commu- 
nists and others prescribed by the statute had iufiltratetl union organizations, 
not to support and further trade union objectives, including the advocacy of 
change by democratic methods, but to make them a device by which commerce 
and industry might be disrupted when the dictates of political policy required 
such action." 

***** 4: * 

"The difficult question that emerges is whether, consistently with the first 
amendment. Congress by statute, may exert these pressures upon labor unions 
to deny positions of leadership to certain persons who are identified by particular 
beliefs and political affiliations." 

•F •I* sjc ^ ^ qC )p 

"Although the first amendment provides that Congress shall make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech, press or assembly, it has long been established 
that those freedoms themselves are dependent upon the power of constitutional 
government to survive. If it is to survive, it must have power to protect itself 
against unlawful conduct and, under some circumstances, against incitements to 
commit unlawful acts. Freedom of speech thus does not comprehend the right 
to speak on any subject at any time." 

si* *l* y* jt ^ ^ jls 

"Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Commu- 
nist doctrine, or the holding of particular beliefs, because it is feared that un- 
lawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is iu 
protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be sub- 
stantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h), 
in other words, does not interfere with speech, because Congress fears the con- 
sequences of speech ; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has deter- 
mined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations 

and beliefs." 

******* 

"In essence, the problem is one of weighing the probable effects of the statute 
upon the free exercise of the right of speech and assembly against the congres- 
sional determination that political strikes are evils of conduct which cause sub- 
stantial harm to interstate commerce and that Communists and others identified 
by section 9 (h) pose continuing threats to that public interest when in positions 
of union leadership." 

*****:!<* 

"But, insofar as the problem is one of drawing inferences concerning the 
need for regulation of particular forms of conduct from conflicting evidence, 
this Court is in no position to substitute its judgment as to the necessity or 
desirability of the statute for that of Congress." 

* * * * * * * 

"In this legislation. Congress did not restrain the activities of the Commu- 
nist Party as a political organization; nor did it attempt to stifle beliefs. Com- 
pare West Vir(/inia SUite Board of Education v. Barnctte (319 U. S. 624, 87 
L. edition 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 147 A. L. R. 674 (1943) ). Section 9 (h) touches 
only a relative handful of persons leaving the great majority of persons of 
the identified affiliations and beliefs completely free from restraint. And it 
leaves those few who are affected free to maintain their affiliations and beliefs 
subject only to possible loss of iiositions which Congress has concluded are 
being abused to the injury of the public by members of the described groups." 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 83 

"It is contended that the principle that statutes touching first-amendment 
freedoms must be narrowly drawn dictates that a statute aimed at politcal 
strikes should make the calling of such strikes unlawful, but should not at- 
tempt to bring about the removal of union officers, with its attendant effect 
upon first-amendment rights. We think, however, that the legislative judgment 
that interstate commerce must be protected from a continuing threat of such 
strikes is a permissible one in this case. The fact that the injury to interstate 
commerce would be an accomplished fact before any sanctions could be applied, 
the possibility that a large number of such strikes might be called at a time 
of external or internal crisis, and the practical difficulties which would be en- 
countered in detecting illegal activities of this kind, are factors which are 
I)ersuasive that Congress should not be powerless to remove the threat, not 
limited to punishing the act." 

Hf * * * ^ * 1(! 

"Of course, we agree that one may not be imprisoned or executed because 
he holds particular beliefs. But to attack the strawman of 'thought control' is 
to ignore the fact that the sole effect of the statute upon one who believes in 
overthrow of the Government by force and violence — and does not deny his 
belief — is that he may be forced to relinquish his position as a union leader." 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Douds case and its 
reasoning in the light of fundamental concepts of constitutional power and 
individual liberties, should allay the fears of any sincere person who would 
otherwise be perturbed over the contention that the proposed legislation con- 
stitutes "thought control." lu principle, the Goldwater-Rhodes bill embodies 
the same approach to the problem of communism in labor unions as that of 
the Taft-Hartley Act, namely, to deny instrumentalities, admitted or proven 
to be Communist-controlled, the opportunity, under the cover of rights and 
privileges granted by Federal laws, to foster the class warfare and to foment 
the industrial strife which constitute an integral part of the Communist pat- 
tern. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, such Communist control has to be admitted 
before Communist-directed union conduct is denied the special legislative sup- 
port and protection afforded by Federal law. It is quite obvious that the Taft- 
Hartley procedure has not worked with any marked degree of success — mainly 
because of the Communist's lack of respect for an oath and of the ease with 
which the oath requirement can be circumvented. The proposed legislation 
abandons the oath procedure and gives the Government the opportunity to 
prove, if it can, the existence of Communist control. Once that fact is estab- 
lished, by due process and open proceedings, the consequences which ensue 
are substantially the same as those in tlie present law. 

The essence of the proposed legislation is to provide a means whereby the 
members of a labor union, the rank and file, as they are commonly called, can 
be informed by their Government, on the basis of proven facts, that their leader- 
ship is such as to constitute a threat to themselves and to their country. When 
they have been so advised, they are then given reasonable time and opportunity 
to decide whether they wish to continue as a Communist-controlled union, or to 
rid themselves of their subversive leadership. If they choose the former course, 
which they have the right to do, no prohibition is imposed against their choice. 
The only result will be the withdrawal of special Federal support and protection 
for union conduct which, because of Communist direction, the Congress believes 
to be inimical to the best interests of the United States. 

It is the Communist-directed union conduct, not the Communist idea or belief, 
which this legislation would attempt to regulate. The facts requiring legisla- 
tion to protect this Nation against "communism in action" are a matter of 
public record. The power of Congress to provide the means for that protection 
within the framework of our constitutional government is a matter of judicial 
decision. This is the answer to those with conscientious fears of the implica- 
tions of this type of legislation. It is the correct answer to the issue defined at 
the outset. 

Only those who fail or refuse to recognize the proven objectives of commimism, 
or those who refuse to accept the established fact that the infiltration of the 
trade-union movement is a primary means of attaining those Communist objec- 
tives, will disagree with this conclusion. The others, the informed and loyal 
members of society, will accept the findings of Congress and the decisions of the 
courts. They will be able to disting-uish between "thought" and "action" and 



84 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

to recognize the necessity and justification for controlling the latter, not the 
former. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Cliairman, that concludes my testimony on 
this legislation, and I want to again thank the committee for the oppor- 
tunity of presenting this report. I feel that this is vital legislation and 
I am certain that if tlie proper bill comes out of this committee, the 
Senate will act on it. The President in his message, as you will recall, 
used words that could be construed to mean that he was hopeful of this 
type of legislation being presented so that we could do away with the 
non-Communist affidavits of Taft-Hartley, both for the employees 
and now for the employer, as the President has suggested. 

Senator Welker. Tlie acting chairman wants to thank the distin- 
guished Senator from Arizona and make this observation: that in 
the many hearings over which I ha^e presided, I have never heard 
more profound, sincere, and adequate testimony. I congratulate the 
Senator from Arizona. 

Senator Butler. May I on the record associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Idaho. 

Senator Welker. The meeting Avill recess. 

(Thereupon, at 11 a. m., the meeting was recessed, subject to the call 
of the Chair.) 



SUBVEESIYE INFLUENCE IN CEKTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administkation 

OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

W ashington^ D. G. 

executive SESSION CONFIDENTIAL 

The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 15 
a. m., in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler, 
presiding. 

Also present : Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroe- 
der and Edward R. Duffy, professional staff members. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, do you solenmly promise and swear 
that the evidence you will give the task force of the Internal Security 
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Denham. I do. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Arens, will you proceed ? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT N. DENHAM, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, will you kindly identify yourself by name, 
residence, and occupation? 

Mr. Denham. I am Robert N. Denham. My residence is at 207 
West Bradley Lane, Chevy Chase, Md. I am an attorney-at-law, 
practicing in Washington. My office address is 1025 Connecticut 
Avenue. My firm name is Denliam & Humphrey. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly cite for the record a brief resume of 
your background, with particular reference, if you please, to your ex- 
perience in the field of labor-management relationships ? 

Mr. Denham. Well, there is a certain amount of it that goes back to 
the time prior to my association with the National Labor Relations 
Board, and has to do with some of our old financial matters, when I 
was associated with the Irving National Bank in New York City. 

We frequently had occasion, as bankers sometimes do, to take more 
or less charge of the operation of the business of some of our cus- 
tomers, and that threw me very frequently in contact with labor in the 
abstract, and very frequently labor, as employed, but not very much 
of labor relations, as we know it today. That was back in the twen- 
ties. 

85 



86 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

My first real contact was in 1938, wlien I was asked by the Xational 
Labor Relations Board if I would hear, as trial examiner, a few cases 
for them, in order to break down the backlog that they had of cases 
that were jammed up on them. I was not well acquainted with the 
Wagner Act at the time, but was given what information and mate- 
ral was readily available, and I immediately set about hearing some 
of the cases that the Board had pending. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, at that point, will you state for the 
record when you went with the National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Denham. In March 1938. 

Senator Buiter. In March of 1938 ? 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. I expected to only be employed for a few 
weeks, to get rid of three or four cases, but the few weeks extended 
out into a number of years. 

I made the necessary rearrangements of my affairs, to let that be 
possible. 

I continued on then with the Board as one of its trial examiners, 
from March of 1938 until July of 1947, when I was appointed General 
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board under the provisions 
of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us a thumbnail sketch of the 
powers and duties of the Office of General Counsel, under the provi- 
sions of the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Denham. The General Counsel's duties, I might say, were 
worked out when we got together, when the act was passed, and the 
General Counsel had been designated. I got together with two of the 
members of the Board, because Mr. Herzog was ill, and we worked out 
those necessary additions to the legislation and the authority granted 
by the legislation, which would allow the General Counsel to really do 
the job. Our picture of it was that the General Counsel had complete 
charge of and was responsible for all of the operation of the field work 
of the Board, and it must be borne in mind that all of the business of 
the Board originates in one of the regional offices in the field. 

The General Counsel had charge of the selection and handling of 
all of the personnel in the various field offices. There were, I believe, 
22 regional field offices at that time. I do not recall the exact number. 
There were several subregional offices running in personnel from a 
couple of hundred in the New York office to maybe 25 or 30 in some 
of the others. 

His job there was to see that appropriate regulations were issued 
for the conduct of the business of the offices, the treatment of petitions 
and charges that were filed, investigations conducted, and then the 
issuance of complaints, in cases which were complaint cases. 

Autonomy was given to the regional directors, and, by way of a 
continuance of the Wagiier Act operations, they were allowed to issue 
complaints without reference to the General Counsel, so long as the 
issuance of those complaints represented matters that were established 
policy under the new Taft-Hartley Act. 

The attorneys were all under his direction and they worked accord- 
ing to and under his direction and control, as that was exercised 
through an Associate General Counsel. 

Matters having to do with representation cases were reserved to the 
Board, but the processing of those had to be done in the field, and 
consequently the facilities of the General Counsel's offices in the field 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 87 

were made available to the Board, and regional directors were desig- 
nated as the agents of the Board for that purpose, and they conducted 
their investigations on behalf of the Board. 

Another one of the matters that was delegated to the General 
Counsel was the control of section 9 (h) afiidavits, the non-Commu- 
nist affidavits, which were all filed in Washington. 

Mr. Arens. In just a few moments we would like to specifically 
interrogate you in reference to that whole area of the 9 (h) affidavits, 
but we are at this time just building a background. 

Mr. Denham. Leaving the field operation, he was then charged 
with the direction and control of all of the attorneys, which meant the 
attorneys who were in an advisory capacity in Washington, and the 
enforcement attorneys, whose job it was to enforce the Board's orders, 
and to defend any matters of litigation. 

The Board was not permitted to employ any attorneys except that 
the individual members of the Board were allowed to employ law 
clerks to look over records and advise them as to their content, and 
serve directly, just the member by whom they were appointed. 

By special arrangement and delegation, the General Counsel was 
given complete charge of all the administrative affairs of the Board. 
He had charge of all the so-called housekeeping. 

Budgetary matters were handled by the General Counsel and the 
Chairman of the Board and the Board members jointly. 

The General Counsel was the last available source of appeal. If a 
person filed a charge in the field and the regional director felt that it 
was not worthy of the issuance of a complaint, the complaining party 
then had the right to file an appeal with the General Counsel as a 
matter of right, and the General Counsel had a Division there of men 
whom I personally selected to advise me on such appeals. 

They were almost the only ones whom I had the freedom to select. 
I had to take over most of the rest of the organization from the old 
Wagner Act setup. 

That new group was the Policies and Appeals Division of the Gen- 
eral Counsel's Office. They made an investigation and examination 
of whatever records were available from the field office, arrived at 
their conclusions, and then discussed them with a committee of the 
General Counsel's Washington office, and the results of w^hat that 
consideration might be were then submitted to the General Counsel 
for approval. 

Senator Butler. Does that mean that the General Counsel was the 
final authority on whether or not a complaint should be issued in cases 
arising under the complaint of unfair labor practices ? 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. There was no appeal from his decision. 

Senator Biitler. Pie was the final authority? 

Mr. Denham. I might say it was sometimes embarrassing, and that 
is one thing I think the public should have a break on, because no 
man is perfect. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, may I ask this: You have given consider- 
able background and a general idea, I think, for the record, which 
obviously qualifies you as an expert in this field. Without indicating 
the details, could you tell us when it was that your association At^ith the 
National Labor Relations Board as General Counsel was terminated? 

Mr. Denham. September 18, 1950. 

Mr. Arens. Was that by resignation ? 



88 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. I may say it was suggested by the President, 
through Mr. Steelman, that tlie resignation would be very w^elcome. 

Mr. Arens. I assume— and if I am mistaken, please correct me, 
that you regarded that as a discharge by the President ? 

Mr. Denham. Practically that ; yes. 

Mr. Arens. May I respectfully suggest at this time, if you please, 
Mr. Chairman, that there be inserted in the record at this point in 
haec verba, the contents of section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act, so 
that tliis record will reflect the language to which Mr. Denham will 
allude in his testimony? 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. 

(The section referred to follows:) 

(h) No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting 
commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organi- 
zation under subsection (c) of this section, no petition under section 9 Ce) (1> 
shall be entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge 
made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is 
on file with the Board an aflSdavit executed contemporaneously or within the 
preceding 12-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the 
officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an 
affiliate or constitvient unit, that he is not a member of the Communist Party 
or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member 
of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of 
the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional 
methods. The provisions of section .35A of the Criminal Code shall be appli- 
cable in respect to such affidavits. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, would you kindly tell us on the basis of 
your background and experience the objective or reason for 9 (h) ? 
What is the problem sought to be attacked by 9 (h) ? 

Mr. Denham. I can only give you my concept of the legislative 
mind on that subject as developed from the history and from comments 
made from some committees in executive sessions in tlie early days 
of the act. 

Senator Butler. And also, Mr. Denham, your connection and asso- 
ciation directly with the author of the bill — or did you have such 
association ? 

Mr. Denham. I was not very well acquainted with Mr. Taft and 
Mr. Hartley until after the bill had been passed. I was quite well 
acquainted with Senator Donnell and was responsible for throwing 
some thoughts out wliich may or may not have been passed on by him, 
but many of which made their appearance in the bill finally. 

So that is for just what it may be worth. The thing that we had 
all complained about, and it was just the rumblings of those who were 
bitterly opposed to the thing that we call communism, was that we 
had found an influence in the operation of many of the labor unions. 
It was very well known that Harry Bridges definitely controlled the 
longshoremen in San Francisco, and it was pretty well believed that 
he had been and was a member of the Communist Party, and his han- 
dling of that situation indicated that he had very little regard for 
what we conceive to be the rules of law and order. 

I may say that these are my own experiences. When I get to the 
hearsay part, I will identify that. 

We ran into a situation in the Northwest involving the Interna- 
tional Woodworkers of America, which at that time had as its presi- 
dent and a couple of its vice presidents men who were well-known or. 



SUBVERSrV'E INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 89 

definitel}', extensively reputed to be members of the Communist Party, 
and their conduct of their business was exactly the same way. 

The g:eneral counsel for that oraanization at that time had been a 
very well-known member of the IWW, one of their legal lights, in the 
earlier days. I had had some contacts with TWW in the days preced- 
ing the First World War. I had occasion to come very closely in 
contact with that situation and to observe the communistic tendencies. 

We were trying to settle a situation involving the Carlisle Lumber 
Co., in one of the Board's earliest cases. I wanted to put some men 
back to work and get the lumber mills going. We had it all settled, 
and this group of international officers came in. If I had had a base- 
ball bat, they would all have been in the hospital. 

They then called another meeting of the same group and, if I have 
ever seen Communist influence in action in the labor unions, I saw it 
there, because I was invited to attend the meeting. 

They finally said "We don't care a blankety-blank about the 275 
men who are being thrown out of work in this thing, or will be, or 
their families. That does not make a bit of difference. AVhat we are 
going to do is, we are going to close this outfit up. That is all we want 
to do." 

It was just that general, and, incidentally, at that meeting they suc- 
ceeded in having the crowd completely reverse themselves and go 
along their line which promised nothing, even though a few days before 
they had unanimously voted for the settlement. Fortunately, World 
War II saved them. 

As a trial examiner I was called on to hear some cases in Hollywood 
in 1945. They involved some of the studio workers, the Council for 
Studio Unions, as they were then known, which included practically 
all of the employees of the various crafts in these studios. 

When I mention "studios" I am speaking of the eight major studios 
that were in operation in Hollywood at that time. 

The controversy that arose was an acute one, although it involved 
only a very few people, some fifty-odd. An election had been ordered 
by the Board and every vote cast had been changed. 

Incidentally, I point that out as one of the outstanding examples of 
what can happen when the employees in an economic strike have been 
replaced but nevertheless are allowed to vote in an election. 

The issues there were very acute. I will not describe them unless 
you want them. 

It involved the demands of this Council of Studio Unions, which 
was headed up by a man named Herbert Sorrell as president and a 
man named Mussa as vice president. 

They very definitely attempted to sabotage the situation in that 
case by walking out of the hearing that the Board was holding, pre- 
liminary to ordering an election, without any cause, and they simply 
told me when they were on the stand and I asked why they had walked 
out, they said they had all of these employees signed up to be their 
members, they were abandoning their old union and going over to the 
new one. The further answer was, "We weren't going to be delayed by 
any Labor Board hearings, and things of that sort. We are going to 
make those — again "blankety-blank so-and-so's do business with us." 

Well, the outcome of that is a matter of history and record in the 
records of the Board. 



90 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

I came back and made certain recommendations which would have 
been very, very obnoxious to SorrelFs outfit, and I may say that 
Sorrell definitely was a Commie. I have held his card in my hand and 
seen it. Incidentally he appeared before a congressional connnittee 
some several years ago, gave some testimony. His cai'd was put in 
evidence and was examined by the FBI. He had used a diiferent name^ 
but anyone who had ever seen the signature could not mistake it. 
He had made a mistake in trying to sign it and then wrote over the 
mistaken letter anyway. The card was sent to the FBI for verifica- 
tion against authentic signatures by SorrelL The FBI came back 
with a report that Sorrell, the witness, and the person v,'\\o signed this 
card were the same person. Nothing was ever done about it. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have his full name ? 

Mr. Denham. Herbert Sorrell. He is still out in Los Angeles, and 
I think he is the business agent for the painters' union in the Holly- 
wood Studios. 

Mr. Arens. In Hollywood itself? 

Mr. Denham. Yes; the studios there. The painters' union in the 
studios is a separate organization. 

I do not know to what extent this Council of Studio Unions is still 
functioning but I have been told that they have practically dropped 
out of existence. 

] have also been told that Sorrell still is there and is now in liis 
original job as business agent for the painters' union there. 

Those are just three outstanding examples in which I have person- 
ally come in contact. There was a real problem and the idea was that 
the Congress would put a stop to this communistic control and in- 
fluence in labor organizations. It was pretty well known that there 
were manv organizations in the East which came in the same class. 
Most of them have now already been found out, been pointed out, and 
many of them have been disciplined by their own organizations. I 
am thinking of what the CIO did with some of its organizations when 
they threw them out. 

What the}^ were trying to do was to make it impossible for labor 
unions to utilize the services of the National Labor Relations Board 
if they had in their list of officers anyone who could not under oath 
state that he was not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens, Could I at this point ask you, in view of the fact that 
you have given us a very fine background of the 9 (h) provision, to 
tell us, on the basis of your experience and intimate knowledge, Mr. 
Denham, the history. What happened after the passage of 9 (h) ? 

Mr. Denham. It did not take very long. At first the unions that had 
these background reputations of communism held off. They could 
not make up their minds just what they wanted to do. 

The A. F. of L. led the parade, however. In October 1947, I think 
it Avas, following the effective date of the act, the A. F. of L. had its 
convention out in San Francisco and amended its constitution. 

Their constitution provided that they would have a president and 
secretary and treasurer and 13 or 14 vice presidents, who were the 
Board of Trustees. They did not change the structiu'e at all. They 
simply changed the name more than anything else. 

That Avas done because Mr. Lewis was one of those vice presidents, 
and he had stated that he would not sign such an affidavit regardless. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 91 

and, of course, they knew, and they had come to me and asked me if I 
could not let down the bars, and I would not do it, and said that if they 
did not have Lewis's signature on there, and he was a vice president, 
they would simply not be able to function, and none of the A. F. of L. 
unions could function. 

So they changed their constitution and said "We have just two 
officers. One is the president and the other one is the secretary-treas- 
urer, or whatever it is." 

Of course, some time after that there was a question about whether 
the A. F. of L. had to liave any affidavits in there at all. 

That was a battle which I fought with the Board for almost 3 years, 
before we finally got the Supreme Court to tell the Board that the law 
meant what it said. 

Then other unions began making similar changes. They would 
eliminate a certain office held by somebody who could not sign an 
affidavit without endangering his liberty and without committing per- 
jury. Those switches were made in a number of organizations. 

The packing workers did it. The office workers did it. 

Mr. Arens. Was the office workers union the Flaxer union? 

Mr. Denham. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. That is the one that is Communist controlled. Did the 
fur workers do it? 

Mr. Denham. I do not know. The fur workers did not come in 
until much later. 

Mr. Arens. I see. 

Mr. Denham. There was not anything that could be done about 
that at the immediate time. 

Subsequently the Board did try to cover that, but not until the other 
stuff had developed, and we first got an announcement by a man named 
Perlo, who v\^as an. official in the furniture workers union. 

Perlo announced that he had been for 10 years an active and ardent 
member of the Communist Party, that he believed in it, that he was a 
supporter of it. 

I think the Perlo story is pretty w^ell known. He announced that 
he was going to protect his union by resigning from the Communist 
Party on one day, and signing the affidavit on the next day, to the 
efTect that he is not, underscoring the word "is", is not a member of the 
Communist Party and does not support them. 

Tliat was the first time that that language of the Act had a focus put 
on it in that fashion. He signed his affidavit. I knew by reputation 
much of his background. 

I immediately sent the affidavit, within 24 hours, up to the attor- 
ney general's office and suggested that they might want to do some- 
thing about it. 

I had sojne telephone conversations with Alec Campbell. I had 
many conversations with Alec Campbell about it and he said, "Well, 
that is just what we want. We are going to do something about it." 

Nothing happened. 

Well, it was not very long before we got some of these affidavits in 
from others. I had instructed the man in charge of these affidavits 
that when any suspected one came in — and he knew whose I regarded 
as suspected ones — to send them immediately to my office. 

They came along with Matles, from the United Electrical Workers. 



92 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Then came Herbert Sorrell's, this fellow I spoke of. I would shoot 
them up to Alec Campbell, and I couldn't give you the names of all of 
them, to save my life. There must have been 50 or GO. 

Then they said "Fine, we are working on it." We never got very 

far. 

Then Mclnerney came in after Campbell resigned, and then came 
Harry Bridges' affidavit, and then Ben Gold's affidavit, and a few 
others equally notorious. 

So it got to a point where it was quite evident that the Department 
of Justice was not going to do anything, and when I kept jacking 
Mclnerney up he finally came out and said, "Mr. Denham, we snnply 
are not going to make any effort to prosecute any of the people who 
signed these affidavits." 

And I think that was publicly announced. 

He said, "because of the language which the affidavits use from the 

statute." 

Mr. Arens. He meant the language in the present tense ? 

Mr. Denham. Yes; that was the whole thing. He said, "There 
is nothing to prevent a man from saying he resigned yesterday, and 
therefore he is not a member." 

That was where the weakness developed. I begged and pleaded 
with him, and I think wrote a letter or two on the subject saying, "For 
God's sake, the American public is entitled to at least have you try 
one, and, if the thing is so deficient as all that then, of course. Con- 
gress will undoubtedly want to do something about it, but I don't be- 
lieve that the attorney general is entitled to simply say 'this law is 
not enforceable and we are not going to do anything about it,' so 
that a man who commits perjury and knows that he is committing 
perjury in his heart is allowed to get away with it." 

But that made no impression and nothing was done, and more of the 
affidavits came in after the announcement was made. 

Mr. Arens. Was any test case developed on 9 (h) to your knowl- 
edge ? 

Mr. Denham. Later on there were two cases, that I recall. They 
got one poor little colored business agent in a union of laborers down 
here in Washington, as I remember, and there was a case that was 
brought against him. I do not know what happened to it. 

Then there was another one which was subsequently reversed by 
the Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds, as I recall. That case 
was brought up in New Jersey. These are the only ones about which 
I know. 

Mr. Arens. I think the time has arrived, Mr. Denham, for us to 
ask you what your appraisal is of 9 (h) . You have told us about the 
background and something of the background of 9 ( h ) . AVliat is your 
appraisal, on the basis of your own experience as an expert, of the 
efficacy of 9 (h) ? „...., 

Mr. Denham. As it is now written, so that the affidavit is in the 
present tense in which makes it unusable as the basis for prosecution, 
then I say that it should be changed ; but the theory and doctrine of 
9 (h) is one of the most valuable things we have in the law, in its pres- 
ent structure. I feel that if 9 (h) were revamped— and revamped in a 
way that would not only say "I am not," but "for a considerable time," 
and I would go back not a year or 2 years, but I would go back 15 years 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 93 

or more — "I have never been a member or a supporter or a sympath- 
izer with the Communist doctrines or Communist Party, advocating 
the overthrow of the Government by force," and that would have its 
effect and would be a valuable thing. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you a question or two right at that point, 
Mr. Denham ? 

I am not in any sense taking issue or trying to debate the subject 
with you, but do you not feel that even though 9 (h) were revamped 
so as to, on its face, at least, embrace persons who had at any time been 
members of the Communist Party that it would be relatively simple 
for the Communists themselves in a labor organization to step aside 
and not hold office, but to put people up whom they could control, and 
still have the labor organization under the control of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mr. Denham, That is a point that is extremely well taken, and I 
know of several places where it has been tried. 

Mr. Arens. Then 9 (h) would not, even though it had been re- 
vamped, meet that situation, would it ? 

Mr. Denham. As long as it maintains that form, no, it would not 
meet that situation. 

I might say that we had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at 
that conclusion, and, when I say "we," I am talking about the Board 
and the General Counsel in August of 1947. 

We had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to 
who fitted into the term "officers" as the same is used in section 9. 

"We tried all sorts of definitions, and there were a lot of people in 
the picture then, not necessarily members of the Board, but we had 
in our group at the time 12 or 11 staff members who were not inclined 
to be as tough on digressions from things that we call American pro- 
priety as I would like to see people be. 

Consequently, there was a good deal of discouragement when we 
attempted to go forward on it. We had a good deal of difficulty find- 
ing anything that would meet a description of "officers," and finally, 
in desperation, we said, "Well, we will take the constitutions of these 
unions, and where any constitution describes an officer or an office, the 
holder of that so-called office, or the man who is that officer, is an offi- 
cer under this section, and that is going to be that." 

So that was the way the term "officer" was limited. 

Mr. Arens. You also have the problem there, do you not, that 9(h) 
does not cover locals. 

Mr. Denham. No; 9 (h) covers everything. That was where my 
big battle with the Board came in. 

Mr. Arens. The Board took the position that 9 (h) does not cover 
locals ? 

Mr. Denham, No. The Board took the position that 9 (h) did not 
cover the A. F. of L. or the CIO ; that it covered only the international 
unions that made up the A. F. of L. and CIO, the plumbers, and car- 
penters, and fur workers and the rest of them, but stopped when the 
top federations were reached. 

Mr. Arens. I mean the locals w^ithin the nationals. 

Mr. Denham. It did go down into the locals. 

Mr. Arens. 9 (h) did? 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. Our interpretation carried it right down. 

43903—54 7 



94 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Butler. Each one of the men that has come before tins 
task force who holds any office in any local union must sign a Com- 
munits affidavit? 

Mr. Denham. That is quite true. 

Mr. Duffy. This was your Highland Park Manufacturing case 
that decided this, was it not? 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. At first the Board and I were in agree- 
ment that the structure of those who had to sign the affidavits started 
off like a pyramid, in three parts, three major parts. The lower 
major part was made up of the officers of various locals, the locals 
of the carpenters and of the teamsters and of all the rest of them, in 
both the A. F. of L. and CIO, and independent groups as well. 

The next higher segment of that pyramid were the officers of the 
various internationals who made up the federations; that is, the 
national officials of the carpenters and teamsters and the rest of them. 
My position always was that the pyramid went right up to the top 
and took in the officers of the A. F. of L. and the officers of the CIO 
and any other of tliese other federations. 

The Board changed its position, however, and reached the conclu- 
sion that that should not be the rule. As a result, we had really very 
much of a knockdown and drag-out battle over that, and for a couple 
of years or more the Board persisted and took the position that this 
was it and would not permit it to be litigated. 

They said, "That is discretionary, whether they have complied with 
section 9 (h) ; whether we have received the affidavits; that is the end 
of it, and nobody is allowed to question it." 

But we succeeded in getting it before the courts, and eventually the 
Supreme Court got it and sustained the position that the A. F. of L. 
and the CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of that act 
and had to provide the affidavits as well. 

Mr. Aeens. Did you have difficulty with reference to how you in- 
terpreted the words "membership or affiliation"'? Did that create any 
particular problem? 

Mr. Denham. That was part of it; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I think that 
would be particularly interesting here. Would you kindly give us, 
Mr. Denham, what your interpretation was, when you were General 
Counsel, of the words "member" and "affiliate" within section 9 (h) 
of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Denham. That goes back to the Perlo matter. The thing was 
originally begun with Perlo and followed by all those who came in 
his tracks. They said, "Why, I resigned yesterday, and I made this 
affidavit today, and therefore I am not subject to any prosecution for 
perjury." 

My position was that those were not good-faith affidavits, that they 
were matters which — while the Board had to accept them at face 
value — were nevertheless matters which obviously were made in bad 
faith and did not constitute a resignation from the Communist Party 
and a complete fracture of their relationships, and it should be matter 
that would justify prosecution, regardless of the language of the act, 
which is in the present tense. 

I was unable to make any impression on the Department of Justice, 
however. They never did proceed on that line, so that from that point 
of view we never saw eye to eye, and we never got any action. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 95 

As to the other matter that you mentioned, though, about the 
question of the structure, the Board, in making its determination as 
to who would be required to sign these affidavits and arrivnig at the 
conchision that the officers of the A. F. of L. and CIO woukl not be 
required, interpreted the term "national or international labor or- 
ganization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit'' as applying 
only to the international unions and their various locals. 

As I say, I was of the opinion concerning the national organization 
of the A. F. of L. that the internationals are all affiliates of the A. F.. 
of L. and the CIO and that the locals are constituent units of the 
various affiliates, and therefore the pyramid went up to a point. 

That, however, has been decided now, and we do not have to worry 
about it any longer. 

But I fairly believe that there should have been, and there could 
have been, successful prosecution on that matter if appropriately 
carried out along the lines of good faith. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, then, a person ^Yho resigns from the 
Communist Party only for the purpose of complying with the pro- 
visions of 9 (h) has not, in your o])inion, severed or fractured his 
relations with the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Denham. I think he still believes in the Communist Party. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, the President the other day, in his 
hibor message to the Congress, intimated that he would like to see 
section 9 (h) go out of the act and some legislation similar to the 
legislation proposed here in S. 1254 and 1606 be substituted in its 
place. 

What is your view in that connection? 

Mr. Denham. "Well, it is the result that all of us want; and, if 
legislation would accomplish the result, I think all of us should and 
would be for it. 

This section as it now stands does not do the job and is deficient. It 
slioukl be changed if you are going to use it. 

There are any number of approaches. I think the one contained in 
S. 1606 is an excellent one, with one or two possible deficiencies there. 

One of them is that you will note from experience that, when you 
get into litigation or anything in the nature of a hearing or lawsuit 
Avith any of those who are in the Communist picture, they can drag 
it out until it becomes interminable. 

If we had very much of that, as unquestionably there would be, I 
just wonder whether we would really find facilities to carry out that 
extended litigation. 

Mr. iVRENs. I do not quite understand. 

Senator Butler. I think the point that Mr. Denham is making is 
this. Unless you. take the life away from the union upon the com- 
plaint being found to be substantial by the Subversive Activities 
Control Board, you do not have a workable bill. 

Mr. Arens. Isn't that what S. 1606 does? 

Mr. Denham. That is what S. 1606 does. That is the one thing. 
Who is going to police this communistic thing? 

Now, conceivably this is the proper way to do it, and I like the 
theory of it with the single possible exception that there might h& 
some sort of conflict between the Labor Board and your special Board 
here, growing out of each one's feeling that his own little special 



96 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

bailiwick is being invaded, and that conceivably might come into the 
picture. 

It might be well to give consideration — and consideration has prob- 
ably been already given — to possibly merging the procedures here into 
the operations of the National Labor Relations Board, and let them do 
a little policing on their own. 

Mr. Akens. "\Ylien you say "merging" do you mean merging the 
function prescribed in S.1606 for the Subversive Activities Control 
Board, and the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Denham. I do not know whether it is feasible, but this is think- 
ing out loud, as it were. 

I have not had opportunity to give any detailed study to the matter. 

Senator Butler. That leads me to another question, Mr. Denham : 

Do you not think it would be more desirable to put this problem in 
the field of internal security and take it away from labor relations 
altogether? It is not really a matter affecting labor relations. 

Mr. Denham. Under this bill, S. 1606, Senator, that is exactly what 
is being accomplished, and the Labor Board is being served with notice 
that this is the finding ; that this is what, under the law, we have found, 
and that this is a directive to you to lay off this subversive outfit and, 
in fact, withdraw any bargaining power that they now have. 

Senator Butler. And they would have no discretion in that regard. 

Mr. Denham. They would have no discretion at all. 

Senator Butler. And the chance of conflict then w^ould be at a 
minimum. They would have no discretion. They would have to 
put it into effect. 

Mr. Denham. This bill has another feature. Of course, you will 
find that that committee would find itself involved in an avalanche 
of litigation immediately, going to the constitutionality, just exactly as 
the Wagner Act did, in 1935. But that is a calculated risk that we 
have to take in passing any legislation that is of this sort. 

Mr. Arens. What would be the allegation with reference to con- 
stitutionality?. I am not clear on that. 

Mr. Denham. Well, you w^ould find they would probably come 
both on the infringement of the right of free speech and the right 
of assembly, and a lot of other things of that character — the same 
things that have been brought up by the Communists and our civil 
rights organizations. 

Mr. Arens. This would certainly be within the purview of the 
Internal Security Act. 

Mr. Denham. Definitely, I think so. I am not raising the ques- 
tion of constitutionality, because I think it can be brought within 
the purview of the Internal Security Act. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you in passing, what is your appraisal, from 
the constitutional standpoint, which the Senator discussed a moment 
ago, whereby the right of the labor organization to act as a bargaining 
representative under the National Labor Relations Act would be de- 
prived to it, upon a finding of substantial domination of the organi- 
zation by the Communists? 

In other words, are you depriving them of due process? 

Mr. Denham. I am between two fires on a thing of that sort. I 
would like to see it done. I would like to see a board of this sort 
cloaked with power to use, and given discretionary authority to pro- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 97 

ceed along those lines. I think it would be intended that they would 
have that in any bill that was passed, but there again you would 
probably find that this is going a little bit too far. 

I say that you may find that you would be charged with advanc- 
ing too far over into government by men rather than government 
by laws. 

The National Labor Relations Board has taken the position in 
defending its right, for instance, to set aside perfectly valid con- 
tracts, has taken the position before the courts, and there was one 
case that I argued up in Chicago last week, which involved that au- 
thority of the National Labor Eelations Board to set aside an ab- 
solutely valid contract that had no defects whatever, on the theory 
that there had been a schism in the ranks of the employees which was 
such that it would serve the welfare of the country for the Board to 
intercede and hold a new election. 

This falls in that category, so I think it would be rather difficult 
for the Board to take that position. 

Senator Butler. Now, Mr. Denham, labor itself has taken the po- 
sition that you can do administratively what S. 1606 would do legis- 
latively. I think it was Mr. Carey who appeared before the 
Humphrey committee in 1952, and suggested that we can get around 
Communist infiltration in labor unions by withdrawing from the 
employer his right to contract with a Communist union. That would 

{^reserve the bargaining right, but there would not be anything to 
)argain over, because the contractive union has left the factory and 
has gone somewhere else. 

He suggested that it could be handled almost exactly in the way 
that this bill would handle it. 

Mr. Denham. I would rather not comment on Mr. Carey. He and 
I have had so many differences of opinion officially that I probably 
do not have the same agreeable regard for his opinions as other people 
might have. If you are going to do a thing, there is only one way to 
do it, and that is, to do it, and do it straight from the shoulder. 

I have some very definite opinions with reference to these Com- 
munist activities. I expressed them in a letter that I wrote to you 
acknowledging receipt of a copy of this bill, some 6 or 8 months ago 
and, if any legislation is to be passed, it should be absolute and un- 
equivocal in its language, and definite in its purpose. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any doubts on any of the phraseology in 
any of this proposed legislation ? 

Mr. Denham. There are just a few things in this bill where I feel 
questions might be raised. 

Mr. Arens. I think it would be helpful to the committee to have 
you point those out. 

Mr. Denham. They are not material. They are little things. 

The outstanding thing is, as I say in the letter to Senator Butler 
here on April 28, that a glance at the bill indicates one outstanding 
virtue that it has. 

Senator Butler. I am wondering if it would not be well to put that 
letter into the record. That letter will be inserted into the record. 



98 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

(The letter referred to follows:) 

April 28, IDaS. 
Hon. John Marshall Butler, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator Butler: I find your letter of April 20, to which was at- 
tached a copy of your bill, S. 1606, pertaining to the control of Communists in 
labor unions, when I returned to my office this morning. A quick glance at the 
bill indicates one outstanding virtue it has that is possessed by none of the 
others that have been suggested. I refer to the provision whereby you take a 
leaf out of section S (b) (4) and 10 (1) of the Taft-Hartley Act and, in effect, 
issue an injunction restraining the NLRB from entertaining any business from 
the union under consideration at the very threshhold of your investigation. That 
is when preemptory action is most necessary, but I am afraid it will kick up 
considerably more of a disturbance than has thus far been caused by the in- 
junction provisions of Taft-Hartley. 

As you may well supix)se, I am giving a great deal of study to the present 
investigations that are being made concerning the Taft-Hartley Act and hope 
to be able to come up with some suggestions that will be of value to the Congi-ess 
if we can just find appropriate sponsors for them. 

This business of handling the Communists to many is like handling almost 
any other knotty problem, and you will not have solved it unless someone takes 
hold of it with very firm hands and, continuing his grip, forces it through to 
final I'ecognition. 

I regret my inability to find anything that is honorable in any position the Com- 
munists take, or any movement or promises they make. Apparently those who 
are individuals in the Communist Party and tho.se who are the international 
organizations in the world structure live by the same philosophy, and that is that 
their world is theirs to plunder and to lie and to cheat, and that any method 
of doing so is wholly justifiable. My answer to tliat is to scrap the United 
Nations, bring out our generals who are of the MacArthur and Van Fleet type, 
recognize that there is one treatment for the rule or ruin bully, call for volunteers 
to apply that ti'eatment, and then proceed. To be sure, it will cost some Ameri- 
can lives and be another drain on our economy, but if we continue to treat these 
Communist nations, and the individuals of the party as those who have either 
national or personal consciences, sooner or later the entire civilization of the 
world is going to find it is backing off the shelf edge of a cliff into nothinguess. 

This is not intended as warmongering, but is just another t.vpe of genuine 
Americanism which, once upon a time, prodded our Pilgram Fathers to pa.v 
bounties for the scalps of bears and other predatory animals when they very well 
could have used the money for other purposes. 
Sincerely, 

Robert N. Denham. 

Mr. Denham. Going back to discussing these questions of possible 
minor things in the text, I can only make one suggestion, and that is, 
that nothing be left to the imagination in planning a bill of this sort 
and in finding any of the remedies which are sought. 

I think that it would be well to give consideration — if it can be 
done — to things that may not be available now, and one of those things 
is the FBI records. 

I do not know to what extent you have those records available, but 
get those records of persons who would be made the subject of charges 
under section 117. 

One of the great powers that the Labor Board has is in the source 
of its investigation and the extent, the places, to which it can go in its 
investigation. 

Thoy have been given very broad power of invesigation, and yon 
should have the same thing for your Board in this case. It woidd 
have to make some extended investigations and some very keen ones, 
in order to arrive at the point where it could consistently say to the 
Labor Board, "Here is a suspension order against this organization." 

That is No. 1. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 99 

Mr. Arens. Could I interpose a comment, and ask you ^Yhat you 
think about it, Mr. Denham, so that this record brings up all the is- 
sues. 

Do you think it would be conducive to clarify, still keeping the bill 
effective, if it were prescribed exclusively who it is that would bring 
the charges under 117? 

Mr. Denham. That, of course, raises another question, and I am now 
going back to problems that we met in the Labor Board that parallel 
the problems that are inherent in this. 

Under the National Labor Relations Act, anybody can bring a 
charge. 

It does not have to be an employer. It does not have to be a union. 
It doesn't even have to be an employee, when you get right down to it. 

If you want to limit the source of your charges, where would you 
place your limit ? 

Mr. Arens. I do not know. I was just wondering if you had a 
comment to make on that particular issue, because, as our 117 is pres- 
ently drafted, there is no specification as to who would bring the 
charge. 

Mr. Denham. You have the same language here that is in the Taft- 
Hartley Act and in the old Wagner Act, practically identical. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think there should be a specification ? 

Mr. Denham. AVell, in a case of this sort, the entire country's wel- 
fare is at stake and is involved, and I just hate to let anybody file a 
charge, because you are bound to have a lot of crackpot charges. 

On the other hand, if you set limitations which will prevent the 
individual who has some real information from filing a charge, you 
may limit yourself out of court. I would rather give a whole lot more 
thought to a suggestion like that than I have had an opportunity to 
give since a telephone call yesterday morning, but I just do not know 
where you would place the limit as to who might file charges. 

Mr. Arens Well, you have a possibility of two extremes. You have 
the possibility of your crackpot coming in and, as you say, cluttering 
up your procedures, and on the other hand, if you get too specific in 
designating who should bring the charge, that person may not be dis- 
posed to bring charges when they ought to be brought. 

Mr. Denham. That may be. 

We attempted to do this in connection with the National Labor 
Relations Board — and I think it could be equally applicable here : 

There were a great many charges filed in the Labor Board by labor 
unions who wanted to throw up a roadblock against some action by 
a rival union, or some one who probably wanted to charge an inde- 
pendent union with being company dominated. 

Particularly was that true in representation cases where a contesting 
union was not quite ready for the election, and they would file a charge, 
utterly baseless, because the Board had a rule that it would not process 
a representation case as lono; as there was a charge outstanding. 

I set up a procedure which took a long time to get underway. It 
required that when a person filed a charge, he had 72 hours, I think 
it was, within which to produce to the Regional Office, sufficient evi- 
dence of his own bona fide and the prima facie value of his charge, to 
justify the office proceeding on it. 

Until he did that the investigators were simply barred from going 
out and trying to do anything. He had to bring in something to 



100 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

justify the charge. It worked fairly well, because the rule was, that 
the regional office was compelled to dismiss the case, dismiss the charge, 
if they did not get that material in within a reasonable time. 

Of course, they extended the 72 hours very frequently, to more time 
than that, but it did serve to keep the docket clear of crackpot charges. 

Something of that sort might be a rule here. It might be a regula- 
tion of the Board. It might be incorporated in here under certain 
regulations that the Board might publish or adopt, or you might 
write them into the act, but I certainly would have that in mind as a 
protective move to do away with the crowding of your docket. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, 1 invite your attention now, if you please, 
to the language appearing on page 2 of S. 1606 in lines 11 and 12 par- 
ticularly, which read as follows : 

* * * the Board shall investigate such charge and if it has reason to be- 
lieve that allegations therein contained are meritorious, it shall issue and cause 
to be served * * * do you have any observations or comments to make on 
that language? 

Mr. Denham. The word "meritorious" is, I think, one that could 
be improved upon. 

What you are actually intending to say is that, if the Board has 
reason to believe that in substance the allegations as contained in the 
charge are true and provable, it shall issue and cause to be served, a 
complaint, etc. In other words, it may have reasons to believe that 
the allegations are true, but still not have reason to believe that it can 
prove them, and in that event any action would probably be purpose- 
less. 

I think that you will find that the use of unequivocal language in a 
matter of this sort, particularly is highly essential. The Communist 
mind and the minds of two or three other classes of persons who come 
afoul of regulatory language are addicted to the use of semantics in 
everything they say and do, particularly when they are trying to give 
an obscure or double meaning to a piece of legislation. 

For that reason, in anything that I have had occasion to write, I 
have tried to put it in unequivocal language, that is capable of but 
one meaning, and which will cover as much as possible of the question 
that might be raised. I would suggest that some language similar 
to what I have just suggested be substituted for that word "meritori- 



ous." 



Mr. Arens. Now, may I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to 
any other items in this particular bill, or any other bill of this charac- 
ter pending before the committee, on which you would like to com- 
ment ? 

Mr. Denham. On page 2 in line 6, and again on page 3 in line 17, 
we find the use of the words "who have consistently aided, supported, 
or in any manner contributed to." 

Again you find a word there which might be manhandled and mis- 
handled in the use of the term "consistently." It does not occur to 
me right at the moment what other term could be used that would 
more clearly set out what is intended there. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, your thought there is that some Com- 
munist-controlled organization could point to one deviation from the 
norm of its conduct which would break the "consistency?" 

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



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 101 

My impression is that that is another place where you will find a 
possible hole being poked, in the thing. Now, the principle that is 
involved here is an excellent one, and I want to just think out loud, if 
I may, for a moment, concerning the effect of a suspension order, be- 
ginning on line 25 at page 2, going through the top 4 lines of page 3. 

* * * order providing that such labor organization shall be ineligible to 
act as exclusive bargaining agent or to become, or to continue to be, the recipient 
of any procedural or substantive benefit under or by virtue of the Labor-Man- 
agement Relations Act of 1947, as amended. 

Now, it is very clear to me what we are driving at there, but again, 
if you should by chance run into the thing which we have been con- 
fronted with in the National Labor Relations Board for quite a 
number of years up until the last 6 months or so — and that is the 
propensity on the part of the Board and its staff or those who really 
do the work for the Board members, to avoid exactly the thing that 
this suspension order provides for, or something of that same nature, 
not necessarily in connection with communism — and you run into a 
new word of that sort, you might find that this language would be 
again subverted. 

What you are driving at, as I see it, is to provide that such labor 
organization shall not be eligible to institute, either by itself or 
through anyone acting on its behalf, as a front or as a disclosed or 
undisclosed representative, any proceedings before the National Labor 
Relations Board, and the National Labor Relations Board shall not 
have jurisdiction to entertain any such effort to institute proceedings 
of any character. That is one point. 

And, in the event that such an organization has been certified by 
the Board as a bargaining agent, the effect of such certification shall 
be suspended. 

Mr. Arens. Could I ask you a question right there ? 

Mr. Denham. May I just add one thing? 

Mr. Arens. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Denham. And that if, in any event, such organization has been 
recognized by an employer without certification by the Board, none 
of the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act imposing 
obligations upon the employer shall be applicable as between the 
employer and the designated union or any of its members or repre- 
sentatives. 

Mr. Arens. Could there be a possible problem here, Mr. Denham, 
along this line ? 

Here would be a labor organization that was Communist-controlled 
named the XYZ labor organization. 

Tomorrow it is served with this intermedial suspension order. The 
next day it changes its name from the XYZ to the ABC organization, 
and goes right on. 

Should there, in your judgment, be some language here which would 
preclude change of name or which would identify ? 

Mr. Denham. In the specific law, with reference to making it 
applicable? 

Mr. Arens. Predecessor or successor. 

Mr. Denham. Predecessor or successor to that organization. I am 
pointing out things where you are liable to run into decisional prob- 
lems in connection with the interpretation of the application of this 



102 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

thing, which we have seen paralleled in the interpretation of the 
National Labor Relations Act. 

I have not had an opportunity to investigate section 13 (c), (d) (1) 
and (2), (e), and (f), of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 
1950, as amended, to determine the limitations, if any, or the defini- 
tions, if any, of the method of proceeding with the hearings that are 
provided for. 

Now, we have the Administrative Procedure Act, which un- 
doubtedly would come into play in any such hearings, and you may 
want to take into consideration the extent, if any, to which you may 
want to deviate from some of the phases of the Administrative Pro- 
cedure Act. 

The Administrative Procedure Act provides that the hearings must 
be held before a qualified trial examiner, and that the established rules 
of procedure and evidence, as far as practical, will be followed. 

It sets up a lot of the rules of procedure that are designed to protect 
the public in connection with the proceedings of our various ad- 
sentation cases. 

On the other hand, there are certain exceptions that are especially 
provided for in, I think, section 5 of that act. You may want to 
study the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act to these 
hearings, and the question of whether, and to what extent you want 
to loosen up the conduct of those hearings, by giving the Board or its 
examiner, a greater degree of liberty in his conduct of the hearings. 

As a matter of fact, there are several exceptions that are written 
into the Administrative Procedure Act which, for instance, make it 
possible for a hearing to be conducted before someone other than a 
qualified trial examiner. 

That is true in the Labor Board again, with reference to repre- 
sentation cases. 

Now, at times, it has been rather embarrassing to everyone that that 
exception is in there because, in connection with representation cases, 
you can get into some mighty hot, knockdown and drag-out legal 
battles, and to have a case heard before somebody who is inept and does 
not know the rules of evidence and does not know procedure and prob- 
ably is not even an attorney, as frequently happens, results in a record 
that, when it gets down to the courts, is poorly made ; and, unfortu- 
nately, when they do that, the Board says "We are not going over 
any of that any more, we have already litigated it in the very informal 
hearing in the representation case. 

That is the extreme of the thing that can happen when any ad- 
ministrative body is excepted from the provisions of the Adminis- 
trative Procedure Act. 

On the other hand, there are a lot of things where it probably can 
be excepted. But in these cases you are going to run into a great 
program of obstructive tactics. You are going to have a bad time 
when these hearings are held, at best, and I think it would be smart 
to take a look at all of the rules of due process, and see that they are 
observed. 

However, I do not think that you should go all out on some of these 
things, so that they could take advantage and keep you in court for 
the rest of jouv life. 

(Discussion off the record.) 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 103 

Mr. Arens. Please put on the record now very concisely, what you 
have just said. 

Mr. Deniiam. You have just asked about the question of a charge 
being filed against local X which is a part of district 49 or 60 or some 
other district of an international, which district is in turn part of the 
international organization, and where investigation shows that local 
X definitely is Communist-dominated, but in your investigation of 
that thing, and your verification of the charge, you may find that this 
communistic domination runs up into the operations of the district 
and then you may find that it even goes up into the operations of the 
international in some regard. 

When your charge is limited just to local X, you may find yourself 
embarrassed if you attempt to proceed against the district, of which 
local X is a part, or against the international, unless the person who 
files the charge should file an amended charge, based upon the infor- 
mation that has been subsequently turned up. 

In other words, in my opinion, you might run into a great deal of 
difficulty if you attempt to bring any prosecution or any regulatory 
limitations against an organization that had not been charged with 
irregularities. 

(Further discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Denham, do you. feel that the legislation on this 
subject might deal with the situation where a Communist-dominated 
labor organization would, after its suspension, purge itself of its Com- 
munist affiliations and influences, and then come in and seek to be re- 
instated, given certification? 

_Mr. Denham. "Well, I think you almost have to make some pro- 
vision for the organizations against whom proceedings are taken, to 
purge themselves, using a great deal of care to see that the purging is 
real and not just on the surface ; for instance, making very sure that 
the persons who were in the picture and gave rise to the prosecution 
in the first instance are now definitely and completely out of it and 
that they are not hidden down in the rank and file crowd. 

It is difficult to justify continuing a life sentence on a union for 
something that can be and has been corrected that the pardon should 
be most sparingly used. 

I think that you could only do that, however, as a result of probably 
another hearing. I would be very slow to do it, on the basis of some 
certification by the members of the union or officers of the union. I 
would want to do some investigating and make dead sure that that 
is a fact because, if this procedure that is contemplated by this bill 
is worth having at all, it is worth prosecuting right down to the en- 
tire bitter end, not letting these folks who are very much inclined, 
if they are Communist-influenced, make things seem to be what they 
are not. They have little, if any compunction about lying. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any suggestions to make with reference 
to a situation wherein there would be several Communists within a 
labor organization in sensitive areas, but where they were not of 
sufficient strength in the organization to substantially— and I em- 
phasize the word "substantially" — direct the organization within the 
purview of this proposed legislation ? How would you suggest deal- 
ing with them ? 



104 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Denham. I think I would deal with the outfit exactly the 
same way as has been pointed out, because they are not there unless 
they want to be there and have a reason for being tliere. 

Mr. Arens. The bill, as presently drafted, as I construe it, deals 
only with the situation where the labor organization is substantially — 
and I again emphasize the word "substantially'' — dominated by in- 
dividuals who are Communists. 

Mr. Denham, Knowing the training and discipline of the Com- 
munists, if you have persons who are really and truly party members, 
or who are informed fellow travelers — and those fellows are as much 
under discipline as the members, in a somewhat dilferent manner — 
if you have those people within an organization, they are there for 
the purpose of spreading their own little gospel. 

Mr. Arens. Or espionage, or any of these subversive activities. 

Mr. Denham. Any one of a number of things that might happen, 
and in these daj^s when in any labor union we have activities that to 
some extent impinge on our defense operations, or to some degree ex- 
tend into classified activities, I think it is just dangerous to allow any 
Communist the freedom of fraternizing with people of this sort 
under the bonds of the so-called brotherhood of labor organizations. 

Mr. Arens. Have you given any thought to legislation other than 
that legislation which currently is in the Internal Security Act and 
the proposed bills here, which would undertake to drive out of labor 
organizations individual Communists, as distinct from trying to 
cope with the situation where there is a Communist domination? 

Mr. Denham. I have done a good deal of study and a good deal of 
work in connection with the possible revision of the Taft-Hartly Act. 

I have expressed my opinion with reference to the handling of that 
act a number of times publicly, and before some of the committees. 

I have a feeling that there are too many Commies, or Communist 
sympathizers, or fellow-travelers who are under cover in the staff 
of the National Labor Relations Board. 

Many of them are in positions where they cannot be disturbed by 
the officers of the Board who may very definitely want to get rid of 
them. 

I have advocated that they repeal the old Taft-Hartley Act and 
enact another law which parallels it, which will permit the President 
to make a fresh start with a staff that is not in bad repute. Such a staff 
undoubtedly would include many of the present stafi", but the question- 
able ones could be eliminated in that process. Then, in connection 
with the cases where you have union shops, so that the union is in 
a position to impose some regulations, permit the employer at the re- 
quest of the union, to make his own investigation of the union's record 
and charges and so forth, and discharge preemptorily any employee 
whom the union charges and the employer finds and has reason to 
believe is a Communist or a supporter of the Communist doctrines. 

That is all set out in a revision of that act which I think you have. 
It is a rather voluminous thing. 

Mr. Arens. At the present time, under the present law, in certain 
circumstances, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to dis- 
charge a Communist because he is a Communist. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Denham. If he discharges him at the instance of the union 
just because he is a Communist, there is a question. But I would be 



'SXTBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 105 

pretty willing to defend an employer who did that, on the grounds 
of public policy. 

I think technically you could say that the charge that that was 
an unfair labor practice, that he was discharged at the request of 
the union for other than nonpayment of dues, et cetera 

Mr. Arens. If an employer at the present time refuses to bargain 
with a labor organization which has been certified by the National 
Labor Relations Board but which he, the employer, knows is Com- 
munist-controlled and dominated, that is an unfair labor practice. 

Mr. Denham. The Board has held that that is an unfair labor prac- 
tice, and I think has been supported by some courts, in connection with 
that. 

Mr. Arens. In your judgment, would that situation necessitate 
legislation to correct it, in addition to the legislation that is proposed 
in these bills ? 

Mr. Denham. I think that is one of the places where the Taft- 
Hartley Act should be shored up, and some reinforcement given to 
it, and it could be done. There is language that would permit it to 
be done. I would say that it would be very desirable. 

Just exactly what that language would be, I do not know ofTliand, 
but I have just finished writing a contract for one of our clients, in 
which we reserved the right to discriminate against an applicant for 
employment where he is a native of, or his country or origin, is one 
of the Communist countries. That is how far I feel I am entitled to 
protect my client. 

Of course, refusing to bargain is another matter. That, I think, 
is up to the Board, and when the Board has issued certification, unless 
there is some very good reason that is a dependable one, the employer 
is under an obligation to bargain. There is no place in the act where 
it justifies an employer refusing to bargain with a union because it has 
some members that he does not like. 

Mr. Arens. Mr, Denham, in order to further explore all possible 
avenues of approach to this serious problem, what is your thinking 
with respect to a provision of the law which would preclude the letting 
of any Government contracts, particularly defense contracts, to a 
contractor who would in turn contract with a labor organization which 
is found to be controlled by Communists ? 

Mr. Denham. I would even go further. I think that that is a pro- 
vision that belongs in S. 1606. We may legislate against their certi- 
fication by the Board. We may deprive them of the authority of the 
Board to regulate them. We may even deprive them of the right to 
insist upon the rights of a recognized union that has not even come 
before the Board. But that is not going to stop employers who have 
been doing business with some of them over the years from continuing 
to do so, and continuing to recognize them and do business with them 
and let them and their members participate in the production of de- 
fense material that may go right into the classified area all along the 
line. 

It is not impossible, although it is extremely difficult, for an em- 
ployee to get a Q-clearance that will put him into classified work, but 
I just do not think that a man who cannot get a Q-clearance should 
be allowed to be even working under the same roof, even though a 
partition separates him from a fellow who is on classified work. 



106 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

I might say that if you are going to ostracize unions that are the 
subject of Communist influences and dominations from the Labor 
Board, you certainly, it would seem to me, would not only be justified, 
but almost have the duty to ostracize them from being permitted to 
have their members engage in Government defense work, or Govern- 
ment work at all. 

You have your Walsh-Healy Act. 

I would even go one step further and put a provision here that would 
prohibit a union which has been designated as in suspension from strik- 
ing, for instance, for recognition, or using any other economic means 
of forcing an employer to do business with it. 

This thing has so many ramifications, that before you get through 
you have covered a lot of territory. 

Mr. Arens. We want to cover as many of these ramifications with 
you as possible, because of your boundless experience in this area. 

Mr. Denham. This thing of the Government contracts, I think, 
belongs in there, and I should make it applicable to unions that are 
in suspended status while you are conducting your hearings. 

As sure as God made little apples, your Board is not going to run 
its hearings and get through with them in 2 days. It is probably going 
to take 6 months, and a lot of damage can be done under a Government 
contract where these fellows are allowed to be in. 

We have clients in our office doing classified work, and just the 
thought of having Communists on their grounds as cleanup men, to 
me, is quite obnoxious. 

Mr. Arens. Have you given thought, Mr. Denham, to exploring still 
another avenue of approach to this problem? 

Mr. Denham. May I interrupt? 

I am having most of my thought right now because I have not had 
an opportunity to sit down and analyze this thing as you have here, and 
I have not had occasion to do it as I shall, now that we have had this 
session. 

Mr. Arens. We will appreciate your cooperation very much. What 
would be your thinking with respect to a provision which would em- 
power an agency of the Government, on the basis of confidential in- 
formation from security reports, to cause action to be taken to dis- 
charge from sensitive employment persons engaged pursuant to a Gov- 
ernment contract who are found to be security risks ? 

Mr, Denham. It is being done right now. 

Mr. Arens. Administratively? 

Mr. Denham. Yes, sir. 

For instance, the various sensitive agencies, when they come down, 
will say to the contractor, "You get rid of Joe Doakes. He is a se- 
curity risk," and they get rid of him. That is the end of it. 

Mr. Arens. Why is it that we just came back a few weeks ago from 
the Pittsburgh area, where we discovered numerous hardcore Commu- 
nists engaged in plants which were under contract with the Federal 
Government making defense equipment? 

Mr. Denham. Somebody just has not been on the ball. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Denham, we will suspend at this time, with 
the profound hope that in the course of the next several days we will be 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 107 

able to resume this testimony on the basis of further study and con- 
sideration of some of these ideas which we have exchanged here, both 
off and on the record. 

We thank you very much for your appearance today. 

Mr. Denham. I shall be glad to do whatever I can. 

Senator Butler. The committee is in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p. m., the committee recessed, pursuant to 
call of the chairman.) 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administra- 
tion OF the Internal Security Act and Other 

Internal Security Laws, of the Committee 

ON THE Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. G. 

EXECUTIVE session 

The task force of the subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., 
in room 341, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler presiding. 

Present: Senator Butler. 

Also present : Richard Arens, special counsel ; and Frank W. Schroe- 
der and Edward R. Duffy, professional staff members. 

Senator Butler. Will you hold up your right hand ? In the pres- 
ence of Almighty God, do you solemnly promise and declare that the 
evidence that you give to the task force of the Internal Security Sub- 
committee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 

Mr. Frank. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF NELSON FEANK, LABOR COLUMNIST, NEW YOEK 
WORLD-TELEGRAM AND SUN, NEW YORK CITY 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence, 
and occupation? 

Mr. Frank. My name is Nelson Frank. I am a labor columnist 
for the New York World-Telegram and Sun, 125 Barclay Street, New 
York City. 

Mr. Arens. Will you give us a brief thumbnail sketch of your back- 
ground insofar as it relates to the field of labor ? 

Mr. Frank. I have been a labor columnist since 1949 on the World 
Telegram and for 5 years before that I was doing general reporting, 
mostly labor. Previously I worked with the naval intelligence on 
the Communist desk and Communist unions were one of my fields of 
activity, so that I picked up quite a bit of information during that 
time. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of 3'our experience as labor editor 
for the New York World-Telegram and Sun, have you had occasion 
to accpiire information and to keep yourself currently posted on the 

109 

43903—54 8 



110 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

situation with reference to Communist penetration and control of 
various labor organizations? 

Mr. Frank. That is right. I have sort of made a specialty of Com- 
munists and Communists in unions particularly. 

Mr. Arens. And you have kept current on that ? 

Mr. Frank, I have kept current on that as far as I could. 

Mr. Arens. May I therefore, Mr. Chairman, respectfully invite 
the attention of Mr, Frank to each of several labor organizations and 
ask him to give us a rundown on the situation so far as Communist 
penetration is concerned on the basis of his exp)erience, background, 
and information ? 

Senator Butler. Yes, indeed. Proceed. 

Mr. Arens. May I first invite your attention, Mr. Frank, to the 
United Electrical Workers and ask you if you would first identify 
the organization and then tell us the extent of Comnumist penetra- 
tion and control of UE and the power of UE in the labor field ? 

Mr. Frank. I will try to keep it brief, but the United Electrical 
Workers was originally formed through a merger of several different 
union groups, one of the principal ones being the Metal Workers In- 
dustrial Union, which was a Communist, and openly Communist, 
union that had existed in the early 1930's, Out of that organization 
came James Matles, who has always been considered the brains of 
UE. He is presently under court action for denaturalization of citi- 
zenship on the ground that he was a Communist when he first became 
a citizen in 1984. 

The UE was almost from its inception Communist controlled, al- 
though it always had a considerable non-Communist bloc, and its orig- 
inal president, James B. Carey, was never a Communist, although in 
the early days he went along on a number of front organizations. 
However, when he began opposing them seriously, the Communists in 
the UE had enough power to immediately remove him as president 
even though he was at that time, as he is today, the Secretary of the 
national CIO. 

UE has consistently followed the Communist line to whatever ex- 
tent possible and ultimately was expelled from the CIO at the Cleve- 
land convention of the CIO in November of 1949. 

Mr. Arens. Who are the top leaders of UE at the present time? 

Mr. Frank. There are three top leaders of whom Matles with the 
title of director of organization is probably the principal one; Julius 
Emspack of Schenectady, who has been identified before a number of 
congressional committees as a member of the Communist Party, as has 
Matles, is the secretary-treasurer; and the president of the union is a 
man from Lynn, Mass., named Albert Fitzgerald, who has always 
gone along with the others, although the general feeling used to be 
that he was not actually a member of the party. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us, if you please, the extent of the Com- 
munist control of UE and the number of persons in UE who would 
be influenced or subject to Communist direction, wittingly or unwit- 
tingly. 

Mr. Frank. Let me say this: In 1949 UE claimed 600,000 mem- 
bers, although it probably only had around 450,000 at the most. In 
the years since then Carey has set up the International Union of 
Electrical Workers, CIO, and has done a fairly successful job of raid- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 111 

ing the UE, so it is doubtful if UE now has bargaining rights for over 
200,000. The UE actual Communist membershi]:) would probaJjly be 
very small. It would probably be in the hundreds or perhaps a thou- 
sand at the outside. However, anybody of any importance in the or- 
ganization would be either a party member or completely amenable 
to the party, so that the organization has been completely Communist 
controlled, has remained completely Communist controlled. 

Mr. Arens. Where does UE have its strength geographically in the 
United States and in what industries? 

Mr. Frank. The principal strength is in the small electrical shops 
now, I believe, but it still has the key General Electric plant in 
Schenectady with some fifteen to twenty thousand workers, depend- 
ing upon the conditions. It has a few shops in Westinghouse, but 
mainly it has small plants or small shops around the country where 
the UE representative will know all the workers and where through 
his personal contact he can keep them from breaking ott' and going 
over to the CIO. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, may we cover substantially the same ground 
with reference next to the mine-mill labor organization? If you tell 
us a word about its background, a word about the officers, a word 
about its control and strength of membership, and so forth, we would 
appreciate it. 

Mr. Frank. I cannot tell you too much. The mine-mill originally 
was one of the older American unions under the name of the Western 
Federation of Miners. It grew up under CIO to a membership alleg- 
edly of around 100,000. It is a key, as UE is a key in some of the elec- 
tronics fields, in some of the principal zinc and copper mines of the 
country. 

Mr. Arens. What is the top leadership of mine-mill? 

Mr. Frank. The principal Communist leader there is a man who 
I believe is still secretary-treasurer, Maurice Travis. Its president I 
think is Clark. I don't know too much about his political association. 
Originally when it was at its strength in CIO its president was a man 
named Reid Robinson, who was vice president of CIO and who every- 
body assumed was a secret member of the Communist Party, but after 
he got cited as having attempted to borrow some money from one of 
the employers he had to drop down to a lower position in the organ- 
ization. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, the same type of rundown on 
the fur and leather workers. 

Mr. Frank. The fur and leather workers is a merger of Communist 
unions, the Fur Workers Industrial Union, which was headed by Ben 
Gold and most of the people who now head the fur and leather work- 
ers, and the A. F. of L. fur union, which merged about 1936 to form 
the current leather workers, Ben Gold, the president of the union, 
was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party and 
was openly admitted to be the only Communist who did not deny his 
membership when the CIO had a considerable number of Communists 
on its executive board. 

Mr. A.RENS. What is the fur and leather workers' status ? 

Mr, Frank. That is a peculiar organization. In New York City 
in the fur industry they are in a very bad way with probably only a 
few thousand people employed out of a possible 12,000 or 15,000 who 



112 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

might normally be employed. In fact, conditions are so bad that they 
had to reduce the pension payments to their retiring members, which 
was an nnnsual thing in union activity. 

However, they have been successful throughout much of the rest of 
the country in controlling a large part of the leather industry and also 
they are in a very broad field. They have trappers in all the camps 
and outlying parts of the United States who are members of their 
union. 

Mr. Arens. I do not believe I made myself clear. What is its 
status ? Is it an independent ? 

Mr. Frank. Yes. The fur workers like the mine-mill and UE were 
expelled from the CIO. The union was expelled in 1950 as mine-mill 
and UE had been expelled in 1949. There was a brief period during 
which the fur workers announced that it had disaffiliated from the 
CIO, but that was in anticipation of CIO's expulsion, which came a 
couple of weeks later. It is unaffiliated rather than independent, I 
might say. 

Mr. Arens. Did you give us the names of the top leadership of 
the fur workers ? 

Mr. Frank. Well, Ben Gold is the president. The secretary- 
treasurer is a kindly Italian man who was originally with the A. F. 
of L, organization and who apparently keeps his mouth shut and 
goes along with Gold, although no one accused him of being Com- 
munist. His name is Pietro Lucci. The union has a whole series of 
vice presidents. One of them is Irving Potash, who is currently in 
Leavenworth Prison as one of the Communists convicted in the first 
Smith Act trial. 

Another vice president is Leon Strauss, who is always in the fore- 
front of whatever Communist front is functioning in New York and 
is one of the leaders of the veteran group of left-wingers in New 
York. He was recently the chairman of an anti-McCarthy rally that 
was held in New York, Senator Joseph McCarthy. He is the sort of 
person who is always pushed forward whenever any Communist activ- 
ity has to be done by the union that they do not want Mr. Gold to 
be involved in. 

By the way, Mr. Gold is presently under indictment for perjury in 
connection with signing his Taft-Hartley affidavit of noncommunism. 

Mr. Arens. Where was that indictment found ? 

Mr. Frank. In the southern district of New York. 

Mr. Arens. This meeting you are talking about which was pre- 
sided over by Mr. Strauss was a meeting at which there was kind of 
a mock trial of Senator McCarthy? 

]Mr. Frank. That is right. It was an alleged trial of Senator Mc- 
Carthy where a number of people got up and allegedly made accusa- 
tions against him, accusing him of responsibility for practically any 
anti-Communist activity that practically anybody else had done. One 
of the witnesses at that trial which Strauss presided over was Julius 
Emspack of the UE. 

Mr. Arens. We are now enumerating the leadership of the fur and 
leather workers. Would you continue, please? 

Mr. Frank. They have other officials: Jack Schneider, who is up 
for deportation and manages to get off and on of Ellis Island pretty 
regularly. In general no one has ever had any doubt about their 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 113 

being a Communist- controlled union and they themselves never en- 
tered the general denials that most did. 

Mr. Arens. At this mock trial up there Abram Flaxer was also 
one of the 

Mr. Frank. He was listed as being one of the speakers and I be- 
lieve he spoke also. 

Mr. Arens. Would you identify Abram Flaxer? 

Mr. Frank. Flaxer has never been listed as resigning the i^resi- 
dency of something called the United Public Workers. 

Mr. Arens. What is his status with the law as of the moment? 

Mr. Frank. He is under sentence, I believe, for contempt of your 
committee for having refused to present records of his organization's 
membership, and presumably also as a result of your activity his or- 
ganization seems to have been dissolved, which is one way of getting 
rid of communism. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly go on and give us more of the leader- 
ship of the fur and leather workers unless you have already covered 
them ? 

Mr. Frank. I would say just one other thing, and that is that Ben 
Gold when he was going to sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit publicly 
announced that he had resigned from the Communist Party so that 
he could sign this, but that he would continue to believe all the things 
that he had believed while a Communist, and a check of his record 
would show that he not only believed but continued the same activi- 
ties thereafter, publicly at least, that he had always done as an open 
member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. Let's be sure we have covered in broad outline the ma- 
terial with reference to the Fur and Leather Workers. We have had 
the record now reflecting the leadership and the fact that it was ex- 
pelled from the CIO. Would you give us now, if you please, your 
best estimate as to the membership of the Fur and Leather Workers ? 

Mr. Frank. I would say that it probably has around 60,000 or 
70,000 members. These things are always difficult because not in- 
frequently they will get bargaining rights for a broader group than 
they actually have membership, but including the leather groups, its 
principal strength these days, I would say it is around 70,000. 

Mr. Arens. Where is the concentration of strength ? 

Mr. Frank. Of course, the headquarters of the organization and the 
political concentration is in New York City. For the rest, it is all 
around the country, wherever there are leather shops. I don't know 
the leather industry too well. 

Mr. Arens. To your knowledge do they have any contracts with 
the Government in defense work, say, such as UE has, that is, com- 
panies for which UE works? 

Mr. Frank. I would imagine if any leather jackets are being made 
for pilots or if any type of leather suits are being made for jet use 
that probably people from the fur industry are working on them. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other comment in general on the Fur and 
Leather Workers? We are trying here to lay the broad picture. 

Mr. Frank. Just one other thing. They have recently concentrated 
on organizing a group of fishermen who would seemingly be entirely 
outside of their jurisdiction except that the fish they bring in is the 
type that is used for making oil which is used sometimes in tanning 
leather. 



114 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. Where is that project developing? 

Mr. Frank. I believe it is in Delaware, along the coast of Delaware. 
In addition to Delaware there are parts of Maryland where they come 
in and where the fish are processed for future use. This group of 
largely Negro workers were never organized before the fur workers 
concentrated on them and it would be very interesting to know how 
many of them ultimately would be considered for future use for 
espionage purposes. It is probably very valuable to the Soviet Gov- 
ernment to have people along the coast. 

Mr. Duffy. What influence does the Fur and Leather Workers 
Union have over the shoe workers? 

Mr. Frank. They have no influence over the shoe workers at all. 
It is a completely different group. 

Mr. Arens. ^lay I invite your attention, if we have completed in 
broad sketch the fur and leather workers, to the American Communi- 
cations Association. Kindly identify the organization and give us the 
leadership of it, the status of it, and information respecting its func- 
tioning and activities, membership, and the like. 

Mr. Frank. The ACA, as it is known as, is an outgrowth of a group 
known as the American Kadio Telegraphists Association, which was 
headed by a man named Merwyn Rathborne, who has since testified 
on the west coast that he was a Connnunist while he was in the or- 
ganization. He testified, I believe, against Harry Bridges in Bridges' 
perjury trial out there. For some years now it has been headed by a 
man named Joseph Selly, and Selly has refused on numerous occasions 
to answer whether he is a Connnunist or a member of the party, and 
so, too, has the secretary-treasurer of the union, Joseph Kehoe, who 
was brought in when the union succeeded in easing out its previous 
secretary-treasury, w^ho had been active in a lot of Communist fronts^ 
but apparently wasn't considered completely reliable. 

The organization has deteriorated — it never amounted to a great 
deal — to a considerable degree, in spite of which it still has contracts 
with some 15 key communications organizations. 

Mr. Arens. It was expelled by the CIO ? 

Mr. Frank. That is right. It was also expelled by the CIO in 1950, 
as all of these were, on the ground that it was Communist-dominated. 

Mr. Arens. It was also cited by the Internal Security Subcom- 
mittee a couple of j^ears ago. 

Mr. Frank. That is right. You did a very fine job there. 

There is a very interesting thing about the ACA. I doubt if it 
has over 10,000 members remaining in it and about 5,000 or a little 
better are employed in the New York area in the Western Union Co., 
and the only way it got them was that about in 1946 there was a 
petition before the National Labor Relations Board calling for the 
determination of bargaining rights between the ACA and the respect- 
able and patriotic, I might say, A. F. of L. Commercial Telegraphers 
Union. Tlie Labor Board at that time, for reasons best known to 
itself, decided to cut the country up into 7 areas, 1 area of which 
consisted of New York and part of New Jersey where the ACA was 
certain to win, and the rest of which was cut up into other parts of 
the country where the commercial telegraphers would win. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think that is kind of gerrymandering in favor 
of the Communist union ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 115 

Mr. Frank. It was a practice that the Board did not, I believe, 
ordinarily follow. The practice of the Board normally was to make 
an overall bargaining unit, but in this particular instance it divided 
the whole — after all, this was just one company, the Western Union 
Telegraph Co. — they divided the company up into seven regions, I 
believe they called them, and the result was that in this one region, 
which obviously ACA would have control of since everybody knew 
that they were there at that time, it made it possible for them to retain 
control of New York. 

There liave been a number of elections in which, generally speaking, 
around one-third to 40 percent or better of the workers in Western 
Union have voted against ACA, but because of the fact that the 
messengers vote equally with the key telegraphers and the key me- 
chanics — and the ACA strength is supposed to be among the lower 
£aid woikers tliere — they have managed to retain control in the 
abor Board elections. 

Mr. Arens. ACA still services the tie-lines and lease lines com- 
ing out of the Pentagon, does it not ? 

Mr. Frank. I believe that is right. I know also that they service 
the Newfoundland landing of the Atlantic cable. 

Mr. Arens. Let's get that again. Wliat is the Newfoundland land- 
ing of the Atlantic cable ? 

Mr. Frank. Where the Atlantic cable touches the North American 
Continent, and I believe from there on there are relays from that 
point to other parts of the North American Continent from four 
cables. ACA handles those relays at that point and elsewhere into 
New York, in and around New York. They also handle E,CA com- 
munications and a number of others. 

Mr. Arens, Mackay ? 

Mr. Frank. I believe so. 

Mr. Arens. We have had testimony — and see if you liave any basis 
to give us information on this — that the ACA people have a device 
called a monitoring device that they plug in and can listen to the 
messages on the lines which they service. Is that correct? 

Mr. Frank. I don't know about that. It sounds reasonable, but I 
am not familiar with that. 

Mr. Arens, What is the soiutc of your information that the ACA 
Communist-controlled organization services the North Atlantic cable? 

Mr. Frank. I am frequently called by members of the opposition 
at the World Telegram office of the various unions and they will give 
me information and I have carried stories about it. If I had thought 
of it I could have brought clip]iings of them. As a matter of fact, 
I can submit photostats, if you like, for inclusion in this record as to 
what is some of the work that they do. One of tlie men who had been 
fighting the Communists in ACA for years called to tell me about 
this cable thing. 

Senator Butler. I think it would be well to have those clippings 
and it will be ordered that they be inserted in the record as a part of 
the record. 

Mr. Arens. What relationship does the ACA Communist-con- 
trolled labor organization have with people who operate radios on 
the ships at sea ? 

Mr. Frank. None at this time. Originally those people on a num- 
ber of the ships — the A. F. of L. had a considerable group — the larger 



116 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

group originaly were part of ACA, but tliey broke off and formed 
the American Radio Association, which is a CIO organization, and 
in fact the president of that organization — his name is Steinberg, 
but I cannot think of his first name — was the person who instituted 
the charges in the CIO against these Communist unions. 

Since he has the smallest union the CIO wanted to make these 
j)eople look as bad as possible, and Steinberg brought the charges 
against the unions on the basis of which CIO expelled them. 

Mr. Arens. What connection — I want the record to reflect this 
accurately — does your ACA labor organization, Communist-con- 
trolled, have with the messages coming out of the Pentagon right 
now while you are talking ? 

Mr. Frank. I have heard it is considerable, but I am not familiar 
with that. 

Mr. Arens. They service the tie lines and lease lines out of the 
Pentagon, do they not ? 

Mr. Frank. I believe that it is those principally coming into New 
York City, which is one of the main centers from where they go all 
around the country. I know that they also have something on the 
west coast and they also have things going into Hawaii, I know. 

Mr. Arens. The ACA Communist labor organization services the 
private tie lines and lease lines coming right now from the Pentagon 
in through New York and on out overseas on the east coast; is that 
not correct? 

Mr. Frank. I believe that is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And in the process of servicing the lines the persons 
under discipline of the ACA have access to the actual language that 
is coming out from the Pentagon right now ? 

Mr. Frank. That would be correct. 

Mr. Arens. Could you tell us, if you please, whether or not ACA 
is presently certified by the National Labor Relations Board as a 
bargaining agency? 

]Mr. Frank. Oh, yes. The Board goes to great trouble to hold 
elections between ACA and the Coimnercial Telegraphers every year. 
They have held 1 each year for the last 2 years at least in New York 
City for Western Union. This is in spite of the fact that both Mr. 
Selly and Mr. Kehoe, and the attorney for the union, Victor Rabino- 
witz, have all refused to answer questions about being members of the 
Communist Party and also several of them about association with 
espionage activity. 

Mr. Arens. You indicated that the ACA was losing some strength 
in the course of the last few years. It has, has it not, recently won 
an election overwhelmingly in New York City ? 

Mr. Frank. Not in any new field that I know of. 

Mr. Arens. In the Western Union. 

Mr. Frank. In the Western Union case, which it held in New 
York City and I believe Newark, which it had had for some years 
previous, it again won an election to retain bargaining rights there. 
1 might say also in most of the places they have either a union shop 
or an agency agreement which permits the employer to deduct union 
dues from anyone who doesn't want to join the union. 

A contract was just signed in one of the RCA groups whereby 
those who want to get out of the vmion are permitted to do that, but 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 117 

they must pay union dues. They must pay the equivalent of union 
dues, and some of them hated the union so and disliked being asso- 
ciated with the union which was so openly Communist that they were 
delighted. They considered this an improvement, to permit them 
to get out of the union. 

Mr. Arens. Let me get this clear for the record. Let me restate it 
and see if I have interpreted your thoughts correctly here. Is it your 
testimony that a person who is presently a member of this Communist- 
controlled union, if he decides tomorrow morning that he doesn't 
want to be a member of any organization controlled by the Com- 
munists, nevertheless is obliged because of some contract to pay reg- 
ular dues to that Communist-controlled organization before he can 
earn his daily bread? 

Mr, Fkank. That is right, and he must continue in the union, as 
a matter of fact, except that in one of the contracts for a brief period 
they were permitted to drop out of the union, but they still had to 
pay the equivalent of union dues to the organization in order to re- 
main on the job. That, by the way, is not an unusual labor practice. 
It comes with particular ill grace in connection with a Communist 
organization. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, may I invite your attention to the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and ask you 
to cover it in about the same outline form which we have been dealing 
with here on these other Communist-controlled labor organizations? 

Mr. Frank. This is the organization that is headed by Harry 
Bridges. 

Mr. Arens. And who is Harry Bridges? 

Mr. Frank. Bridges is an Australian-born longshoreman who 
originally was in Joe Ryan's International Longshoremen's Associa- 
tion, but split off from that to form this group in the early days of 
the CIO. He was, along with his union, expelled from the CIO be- 
cause it was Communist dominated in 1950 and he has since absorbed 
at least 1 and possibly 2 other groups that were expelled from the 
CIO. 

Mr. Arens. When was the Bridges' union expelled? 

Mr. Frank. They were expelled, I believe, in the summer of 1950 
and with them at that time there was a union called, I believe, the 
Pacific Fishermen's Union headed by a man named Jurich, and this 
was expelled from the CIO, but had in the meantime been absorbed 
into Bridges' union. He has most recently been in the process of 
absorbing" the workers, some several thousand, on the west coast 
who are members of another union that was expelled from the CIO, 
the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, headed byone Hugh Bryson. 

Bryson, incidentally, is up on charges of perjury in connection 
with filing his non-Communist affidavit, 

Mr. Arens. Wlio else in the Longshoremen's Union is a Communist 
besides Bridges? 

Mr. Frank. I don't know the west coast situation well enough. 
I believe one of his officers named Robertson was convicted with him 
originally for perjury, a case which was thrown out on the basis of 
the statute of limitations having run, but Bridges' union has been 
and is completely Communist dominated and everyone has always 
taken for granted that it was. 



118 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. Do you know anything about the strength of Bridges' 
union in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Frank. It is supposed to be very strong there, but I don't know 
anything about it. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know anything about the aggregate member- 
ship of Bridges' hibor organization ? 

Mr. Fr^vNK. He used to chiim around 100,000. It is my guess he 
may liave as many as 50,000, inchiding warehousemen. There are 
several important locals of men working in warehouses who were 
allegedly anti-Communist and who on occasion used to come out with 
votes against the desires of Bridges, but nevertheless always sup- 
port him when the chips are down and go along wdth him and havo 
remained with him. 

Mr. Ar.ENS. May I invite your attention to the Marine Cooks and 
Stewards Union? You alluded to it, but I think we might give it 
separate consideration. 

Mr. Frank. That is a craft union. It is only the cooks on the ships 
that sail the west coast. On the east coast the CIO National Mari- 
time Union, wdiich is a good solid anti-Communist union, takes in 
both the cooks and the deck and the engineer personnel, but on the 
west coast things are different, and there is one union for the deck 
personnel and another union for the engine personnel, plus a third, 
this Communist union, for the cooks, and this union has been under 
considerable pressure from both the A. F. of L. Sailors' Union of the 
Pacific and for a brief period from the National Maritime Union 
more recently. 

With the indictment of Bryson they have been very worried, and 
the Labor Board, for some reason which is unknown, has bothered 
them a little on the west coast. The result is that the marine cooks 
have apparently all been signing authorization cards for Bridges' 
union to represent them in any election, so that the situation is such 
that it is obscure in my mind wdiether the marine cooks is actually in 
existence still or whether it is partially in existence and partially 
within Bridges' union as a means of having Bridges protect them. 
They numbered a few thousand members. A union cannot exist nor- 
mally with that few members. It takes more to run a union than the 
dues from several thousand members would normally bring in, so by 
getting into a larger union it would be able to function where it 
wouldn't otherwise. 

Senator Butler. I have to go to the floor, and I would like to ask 
one question before I go. This is more or less out of order. What I 
would like to know is this : In your experience have you ever seen any 
liaison, connection, link, or association among these Communist unions 
looking toward the formation of a third labor organization or any 
other cohesive group ? 

Mr. Frank. There was just one so far as anybody knew, just one 
meeting in New York City, where they got together with various 
representatives and had some sort of a discussion, but apparently 
everybody was afraid of everybody else, even though they were all 
interested in working with the Communists. They were also inter- 
ested in protecting their jobs, apparently. 

Senator Butler. When was that meeting? 

Mr. Schroeder. October 7, 1961, Senator. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 119 

Senator Butlek. As far as you know, there have been no other 
efforts to make this a cohesive group ? 

Mr. Frank, In general I think that they have preferred not to. 
Thej^ have been sort of afraid of it for several reasons : One, because 
they are afraid that the larger unions might try to absorb some of the 
smaller ones, but also because of the fact that they would then be 
tapped openly as a Communist federation. 

Senator Butler. Do they have to your knowledge any liaison, or do 
they work together under cover ? 

Mr. Frank. Some of them do; yes. In certain places one will help 
another, and it is not unusual to have representatives from the differ- 
ent ones sliowing up at the same Communist front, as, for example, 
this anti -McCarthy meeting where there was supposed to have been a 
representative from AC A there, though I don't know who that was, 
and from UE, and from fur. This is the sort of thing that goes on. 
Senator Butler. In other words, to promote the Communist line 
wherever they can do it without attracting too much attention or with- 
out jeopardizing their own position there is cohesion and they do work 
together toward a connnon objective? 

]\Ir. Frank. That is right. Also I am sure someone in the Com.- 
munist Party, whoever the labor representative today be, more or less 
tries to direct their activity. For example, a number of the Com- 
munist unions have been calling for dealings with Red China, cojn- 
mercial dealings — Bridges' union, for example. 

Senator Butler. We had that on the west coast. Harry Bridrres 
wound up his testimony out thereby parroting the Commie line tJ)at 
we must now start to resume trade with Red China. 

Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention to the Dining Car Workers' 
Union ? 

Mr. Frank. I am afraid that most of what I know about that I 
know from you people, except that I have talked to some of the people 
from the A. F. of L. Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union who liave 
given me a few things about that, but you had a hearing on that, and 
you know the score, and I think that your record show^s the degree to 
which that is Communist controlled much better than I know. 

I have had very little to do with that. The only thing is, after 
jour hearing, in which the attorney for that union — a man named, I 
believe, Archibald Bromsen — refused to answer about his Communist 
associations, I was called on the phone by someone who told me that 
he was the attorney for the local A. F. of L. teamsters in New York 
City. I believe it was the bank guards' local who drove these armored 
cars, the armored car local. That is what was. 

So I wrote a story quoting what you had said about Bromsen, and 
the A. F. of L. fired him immediately, and he was very indignant about 
it, and he tried to explain to them that it was all a big mistake, but 
lie stayed fired. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, we have thus far been discussing the na- 
tional Communist-controlled labor organizations. May I invite your 
attention to the DPOWA and ask you for j'^our comments ? 

Mr. Frank. That is the Distributive, Processing, and Office Workers 
of America, which was CIO and even to this day has not officially 
been listed as having been dropped by CIO. This union was formed 
by a merger of two of the unions expelled from the CIO, the United 



120 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Office and Professional Workers Union, which had been headed by a 
man named James Diirkin, and a merger of the Food, Agricultural, 
and Allied Workers, which was headed by a man named Donald Hen- 
derson, and a third group in New York City, the Distributive Workers, 
which were composed of a number of locals that had split off from 
the CIO in 1948. 

Within the past few years there has been a series of shakeups in 
that organization, with the first result that they got rid of Durkin, 
and he ended up working in some shop for the first time in many years ; 
and subsequently they got rid of Henderson; and at least a year and 
a half ago the last of the people that I knew to be still sympathetic 
with the Communists who had worked for Durkin was dropped, and 
the organization at that time was under attack in the Daily Worker 
and was attacking the Daily Worker in reply to a degree. 

It has been my considered judgment, after having talked to the 
union's president, Arthur Osman, and others of the officers, that, al- 
though they once were Communists, they have broken with the party. 
As always happens when anybody breaks with the party, a degree of 
poison remains in the system, and it is a question of how far they get 
away from the party and how anti-Communist they become and how 
soon. I think that Osman perhaps has gone further away from the 
party than some of the otliers, but I don't think that any of them are 
in the party now or are subservient to the party. 

This is with one single exception. 

Mr. Arens. How about the locals ? 

Mr. Frank. That is what I am coming to. There is one local in 
New York City of about 6,000 members. It is called local 1199, the 
retail drug clerks' local. It is headed by a man named Leon Davis; 
and, although Davis has apparently kept his mouth shut and voted 
along with Osman and the others in the statements that they have 
made attacking Communists, which they had to make in order to get 
into the CIO early last year, Davis is nevertheless apparently still 
aliened with the Communists. 

One thing more than anything else that indicates this to me is the 
fact that when Osman finally fired his last Conmiunist employee— 
as far as I know of, at least — a man named Moe Foner, who I be- 
lieve was an education director in Osman's union, Davis immediately 
liired him, and he is working for Davis to this day. 

Mr. Arens. In what organization ? 

Mr. Frank. In this retail clerks' local, the drug clerks' local ; and, 
in addition, an opposition member of the union has called me and 
told me that the union voted to send money to Harry Bridges with- 
in the past year, something that Osman would not have done, at this 
point at least; and also I hear other stories within that local. 

It is always quite a problem when a union eitlier breaks with the 
Communists or either when it is completely non-Communist to be- 
gin with, what to do about a local that is leftwing because in New 
York State at least, and perhaps in some of the other States, the courts 
usually uphold the right of the local to con^plete freedom if the in- 
ternational tries to step in or the national union tries to step in and 
take over. 

No one likes to lose members, and particularly in this instance where 
the DPOW has possibly 50,000 or 60,000. This local represents at 
least 10 percent of the membership. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 121 

Mr. Duffy. Is Davis presently on the executive committee of dis- 
trict 65? 

Mr. Frank. Yes, I believe he is one of the members of the execu- 
tive board. I believe he even has the title of vice president. I know 
that at the last convention which the DPO had some time last year an 
attack on this local was read by one of the speakers. It was not a 
political ground, but over the refusal of this local to join the overall 
pension fund which, the charge was made, would make it possible to 
aid some of the poorer locals of the organization, but it was an un- 
usual thing for the organization to attack the local. That did occur 
at that time. 

Now, as for these people, I have talked to Osman on a number of 
occasions, and the others, and also I think that I am something of 
an authority on the question of breaking with Communists, and I 
feel that they have definitely broken, although, as I say, to my mind I 
would like to see them go further and come out against the party 
more solidly than they have. They have definitely attacked the party. 
They have definitely said things which no Communist can say and re- 
main with them. 

As a matter of fact, I attended one of their conventions 2 years ago 
at which a statement of disavowal of communism was read by the 
union secretary-treasurer, David Livingston, and I remember that the 
Daily Worker reporter at that time looked very glum after the thing 
was read. 

I have made it a practice whenever I find that anybody or any union 
is on the verge of splitting with the Communists I will go to them 
and try to offer help to them in any way I can and to get their side 
of the story in. I did that with Joseph Curran in the National Mari- 
time Union, which had been completely Communist-controlled until 
the fight began, with Michael Quill of the Transport Workers' Union, 
with Morris Pizer and others in the United Furniture Workers, and 
other groups. 

Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention to another national labor 
organization which has, so we understand, been in the throes of a 
purge of Communists, the United Furniture Workers, and ask you 
Avhat information you have on that group ? 

Mr. Frank. The United Furniture Workers was a completely Com- 
munist-controlled union up until 1950. Its president had resigned 
several years before in protest on the ground that the Communists 
were running the union and anything that the Communists did the 
furniture workers could be depended upon to go along with them. 

In 1950 when the CIO prepared to expel the other unions, or actu- 
ally in 1949 at the CIO convention, charges were preferred against 
the furniture workers. At that time, so I learned, Jacob Potofsky, 
the president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, sought out 
Morris Pizer, president of the furniture workers, and offered to give 
him financial assistance in organizing furniture workers if he would 
break with the Communists and stay with CIO. 

Pizer had a long record of having been both in and out of the 
party, I believe, according to others who knew the score, and after 
talking it over with several other people who had been alined with 
the Communists, Pizer started to battle them in 1950. 

The principal Communist spokesman in the union at that time was 
the union secretary-treasurer, a man named Max Perlow, who had 



122 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

been the first person who openl}' admitted that he was resignino- from 
the Connniinist Part}^ so that lie could sign a Taft-Hartley non-Com- 
mnnist affidavit. In the light in which Mr. Pizer, with considerable 
assistance from heads of two locals in New York, Jack Hochstadt and 
Michael De Cicco, they ultimately took the matter to the convention 
that year in June of 1950 and defeated not only Perlow. but all of the 
other board memb.n-s, who I belieA'e at that time constituted a ma- 
jority, the Communist board members, that is, the union has been 
basically anti-Communist since then. 

There were at that time I believe at least three locals which had 
been Connnunist which remained Communist. One of them in Los 
Angeles ultimately split off. This was headed by a man named Gus 
Brown. In New York City, Local 140, which is headed by three 
people, Sol Tishler, president; Alex Sirota, manager; and Barney 
Minter, business agent, is apparently still Commvuiist-controlled, and 
Pizer for reasons best known to himself has never bothered to inter- 
vene, although in 1952 when re]:)resentatives of this local were supposed 
to be involved in the May Day parade, if I remember correctly, the in- 
ternational intervened and disavowed any such action. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, before getting into locals — and I want to 
get into that shortly — may I ask you now : Are there any other 
national labor organizations which are Communist-controlled, out- 
and-out Communist-con.trolled ? 

Mr. Frank. Out-and-out Communist-controlled. I can thiidi of no 
international union which is. However, a considerable ]^oi'tion of 
strength nationally is held by the Comnuinists in the ClO's United 
Packing House Workers. 

Mr, Arens. I want to get into that type of labor organization in a 
little while, but before we leave the internationals may I ask you if 
you have had occasion to compute the approximate money take by 
these Communist international labor organizations in the United 
States ? 

Mr. Frank. It would be a very hard thing to pin down exactly. 

Mr. Arens. "What is you best estimate? 

Mr. Frank. I would say, allowing for approximately half a mil- 
lion members in these Communist unions, and assuming that they take 
an average of $2.50 a month in dues, that it would be roughly a million 
and a quarter dollars in dues each montli that these organizations have. 

Then, in addition to that, there would be other money coming in 
froili welfare funds which, while it might not be touched exactly for 
iiefarious purposes, nevertheless could provide jobs for people who 
were needed by the party. 

jNIr. Arens. You mean jobs for people to administer the funds the 
party would control ? 

Mr. Frank. Not necessarily jobs to administer the funds, but they 
could be put on the payroll with the title of administrator and actually 
do other work, outside work. I think that there are a number of 
unions .where that sort of thing allegedly occurred, where the party 
would assign somebody to Avork for the union, but actually the person 
would be doing outside work most of the time, if not all of the time. 

Mr. Sciiroeder. Paid agents for the Communist Party? 

Mr, Frank. That is right, in a way of subsidizing party j^eople. 

]Mr. Arens. May we direct attention, if you please, Mr. Frank, to 
the Communist-controlled local labor organizations which I would 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 123 

describe as organizations either affiliated with an international which 
is not necessarily Communist, or an unaffiliated Communist-controlled 
labor organization which is not international or national in scope ? 

Mr. Frank. This gets to be a verj' broad order because all sorts of 
unions are apt to have 1 local or 1 or 2 locals lost in the big shuffle 
of the number of locals that the international would have. 

Mr. Arens. You mean lost to the Communists? 

Mr. Frank. No; which might be just lost as far as the interna- 
tional is concerned. They might be completely unaware of the thing, 
and the Communists might have control. 

For example, the A. F. of L. Painters' Union for some peculiar 
reason always seems to have a lot of locals that will line up for various 
Communist viewpoints. By reading the Daily Worker one can get an 
occasional line on what happens, and you will suddenly find that in 
Seattle a local will do something, or in Los Angeles, or in Missouri, in 
the most out-of-the-way places that one may not have ever heard of. 

Mr. Arens. You say they may do something. What do you mean 
by that? 

Mr. Frank. For example, call for the repeal of the Smith Act. 

Mr. Arens. To follow the Connnie line is what you mean? 

Mr. Frank. That is right, call for repeal of bills which are obnox- 
ious to the Communists, so it is hard to actually say that any particular 
union has absolutely no Communists in it. 

In New York City, for example, we have the International Ladies' 
Garment Workers; A. F. of L., which at one time had a considerable 
Communist contingent and even today in one of its locals, which is 
headed by a militant anti-Communist, where the Communists can still 
get around 3,000 votes for their candidate. 

Of course, in that union David Dubinsky, the president of that 
union, brags that he has Communists in the union but that he uses 
their dues to fight the Communists, which is a different sort of ap- 
proach than the Communists enjoy. 

However, the principal place that the Communists are supposed 
to be strong now is in the CIO's United Packinghouse Workers, which 
was under investigation by CIO itself and ultimately was ordered by 
Walter Eeuther to clean house after Reuther's secretary-treasurer in 
his own auto workers, Emil Mazey, had in effect given them a white- 
wash, which the CIO investigation had indicated they did not de- 
serve. 

Mr. Arens. Identify the packinghouse labor organization : Where is 
it ? What is its strength ? Who are its leaders ? What do you know 
about it from the standpoint of Communist penetration and control ? 

Mr. Frank. The United Packinghouse Workers is headed by Kal]ih 
Helstein, who was originally an attorney for the union and gradually 
worked his way in to be the president, and its headquarters are in 
Chicago where the greatest Communist strength exists. 

The representative of the union in New York City, for example, is a 
man named Meyer Stern, who at first announced that he was going to 
resign his post because he would not sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit 
and later kept his post and did sign, and he was always assumed to be a 
party member, and there were those who said that they knew him to 
be that. 

In Chicago it was known that there were several key locals that had 
a considerable influence in the organization that were Communist- 



124 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

controlled. What happens in an organization like this and what I 
have heard expressed is that by having different groups, a gi'oup of 
Communists and a group of anti-Communists, it is possible for certain 
of the leaders to steer a middle course and manage to retain their con- 
trol of the national headquarters. 

In any event, the packinghouse workers definitely have a large 
Communist contingent and the CIO has done nothing about it outside 
of Reuther sending out this letter telling them to clean house, which 
they haven't done yet so far as anybody knows. 

There are many other peculiar situations where Communists get into 
things. In New York City the brewery workers, who were part of 
CIO's United Brewery Workers, ultimately split off and went into 
the A. F. of L. Teamsters, which is normally a good solid anti-Commu- 
nist union, but when these people were called before a congressional 
committee three of the people of the brewery workers refused to answer 
as to whether they were Communists or anything about their back- 
ground. At least the top man there had been listed as having his 
name on a Communist petition at one point. 

Despite this fact the teamsters have talien no action against them. 

There are supposed to be a couple of other Communists doing some 
organizing work for the teamsters in New York City. 

As I say, no union likes to give up membership and particularly 
where the CIO had had these people in for a considerable length of 
time and had never done anything about them. I presume the 
teamsters felt perfectly justified in taking the same people in and re- 
taining them. 

There are other locals in New York. There is a local of the A. F. of 
L., Jewelry Workers, Local No. 1, which has been Communist for 
years, which was always associated with the May Day parades and 
with whatever else was around. 

Mr. Arens. Is it presently ? 

Mr. Frank. It apparently is to this day Communist. 

Mr. Arens. What is its affiliation ? 

Mr. Frank. It is Local No. 1 of the International Jewelry Workers' 
Union, A. F. of L. I have here a copy of one of its recent, in the 
past few months, publications called the Jewelry Workers' Bulletin, 
and I call your attention to the fact that it is printed by the union, 
or bugged, as it is called, No. 412, which is the New Union Press, a 
printshop owned by the Communist Party. 

There was a time when a considerable amount of literature was 
printed for various unions by this printing company, but at this time 
it does work almost exclusively for pretty much open Communist- 
fronts, and I know of no other union at this moment that is using 
this company. 

The Communist Party owns a printshop in New York named the 
Prompt Press where its main theoretical organ, the monthly maga- 
zine Political Affairs, is published and also a number of the party 
pamphlets. On the same floor and using, I believe, some of the same 
machines is the New Union Press, which is in large part interchange- 
able, or was until the A. F. of L. printing union clamped down on 
them a while back with the Prompt Press. Both of them are part of 
the Communist Party, and for years it used to be very convenient and 
very easy to simply look at the union label on a piece of literature to 
tell whether it was Communist-printed or not. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 125 

Naturally I have not exhausted this subject. I think there are 
other locals in other unions around the country that may be Com- 
munist-controlled, but I have given you typical examples of the 
situation. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, we have, first of all, been discussing here 
today what I have called national and you have called international 
unions. I mean nationwide labor organizations which are Commu- 
nist-controlled. Then we have been discussing local unions which 
are Communist-controlled. Now ma,y I ask you what information 
you have on the basis of your background and experience respecting 
individual Connnunists or Communist cells within non-Communist 
or even anti-Communist labor organizations? 

Mr. Fit:VNK. In any of the unions that were formerly Communist- 
controlled when the Communists were ousted from control they 
woidd cei'tainly have a certain degree of power, or membership, or 
adherents in the ranks. The only union that I know of that took the 
thorough precaution of barring Communists from actual member- 
ship, and they did this more on national security grounds than on 
union membership grounds, was the National Maritime Union, CIO, 
headed by Joe Curran, and this union, which initially first ousted the 
Communists and then later amended its constitution to bar Com- 
munists from liokling office, then got to the point of barring Com- 
munists from membership in the union. In this they were justified 
because at that time the Coast Guard barred Communists from sail- 
ing on ships and so the union said there was no point in having them 
in the union if they couldn't work. 

In the other unions that were Communist-controlled where the 
Communists have been thrown out, there have always been a few 
around who meet regularly and plan probably for ultimate reseizure 
of the organization. In the auto workers where the Communists at 
one point had some strength, there are still a few of them around. 
I think that some of the other unions also must occasionally wonder 
what is happening and suddenly discover that there are some Com- 
munists they can't locate or that are moving around inside the 
organization. ' 

I think that even among the most conservative of unions it is likely 
that Communists may get in and begin working in a cell, and I would 
like to call your attention to one local that I have heard about in San 
Francisco, a piledrivers' local of the carpenters, which is a good solid 
organization for the most part, but where a former vice president of 
the National Maritime Union who was an open Conununist Party 
member, Blackie Myers, is supposed to be working at this time. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, on the basis of your background and ex- 
perience, are you in a position to state for the record here the degree 
to which the Kremlin places importance on penetration of labor 
organizations by Communists in the overall Communist-conspiracy 
program ? 

Mr. Frank. Oh, sure. It has always been considered one of the 
principal points in Conununist strategy to infiltrate and control trade 
unions. In the first place, it gives the party a mass base out of which 
to get new members and also it gives, if it is a strategic industry or 
even one of some degree of nonsti'ategic value, them values that the 
Russians can get out of it. 

43903 — 54 9 



126 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

For example, the fur workers used to be reportedly much interested 
in getting furs purchased from Russia. This of course would be of 
economic value to the Russians, and the business people who had good 
relations with the Russians were said to have especially good relations 
with tlie workers' union. 

Mr. Arens. To what extent are the Communist-controlled labor 
organizations used for the purpose of undertaking to subvert policy 
by the Government ? 

Mr. Frank. I would say to the fullest possible extent because a 
miion may be of particular value. It is in the hometown of a Con- 
gresman or a Senator, and he presumably is interested in having the 
good will of these working people, where he may be completely un- 
aware of the political situation involved. 

Mr. Arens. Have the Communist-controlled labor organizations, 
for example, been used in the interest of subverting policy by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States with reference to the Far East? 

Mr. Frank. Well, most recently a number of the Communist unions 
within the past year have been 1 by 1 coming out and calling for 
greater trade with Red China saying that this was necessary, that 
only by dealing with Red China and the other Iron Curtain countries, 
although they would not use that phrase, would American industry be 
maintained and could business be retained. 

What happens is that sooner or later unconsciously some of the 
decent unions may fall for this sort of approach because their interest 
may come that way, but initially the desires and the policy of the 
Soviet leaders find expression in the unions that are Communist-con- 
trolled and even some where there may be only one single Communist. 

A man may get up in a meeting or a convention and propose some- 
thing that sounds perfectly reasonable to the people who are not 
familiar with the situation, and it may go through, and it will sud- 
denly find a perfectly legitimate union coming out for a Conununist 
policy simply because of one diligent Communist being on the scene. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, could you give us the benefit of your views 
respecting the seriousness to the free world of the control by the Krem- 
lin of labor organizations worldwide as distinguished from their con- 
trol in just the United States, concerning which we have been 
speaking ? 

Mr. Frank. I think, of course, it is a very btid thing for a foreign 
government, particularly a government such as the Soviet Union, to 
control any gi'oup inside another country. This becomes particu- 
larly dangerous in the matter of an economic organization like the 
union which could possibly tie up one whole industry, and it becomes 
especially bad where they have control in a mmiber of countries and 
could possibly start a series of strikes or other economic action, slow- 
downs or sabotage, within a particular industry in a number of coun- 
tries. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us a little illustration of what you 
have in mind? Let us take, for example, the shipping industry. 
What is your thought on that? 

Mr. Frank. I could very well see where the Communists would 
possibly use Harry Bridges' control of the piers of the west coast 
and especially in Hawaii to disrupt communications at the very mo- 
ment that they might be doing the same thing in Canada, or in Mexico, 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 127 

or ill other parts of the world where they might have the power. We 
have a specific example of this in the strikes that the Communists ran 
in this country in 1940 and 1941 to disrupt defense production in the 
North American Aviation plant and in the AUis-Chalmers plant and 
at the very moment like actions were taking place, protests against 
the war were going on in England and elsewhere. 

Mr. Arens. Then would it be a safe observation to make that this 
issue of Communist penetration and control of labor organizations 
transcends just the area of labor-management relationships? 

Mr. Frank. I think very definitely. It is a matter of national in- 
terest. It is a matter of international interest, as a matter of fact, 
to the American Government, and I think that the labor aspect of it 
is an incidental part. Ab a matter of fact, the workers would be bet- 
ter represented in every instance in their economic demands by le- 
gitimate non-Communist unions. It would be to the interest of the 
country as a whole to have reliable citizens controlling the unions 
or directing the unions rather than the people who are subservient 
to a foreign power. 

Mr. Arens. You have several subissues there, do you not, Mr. 
Frank? Let me suggest what is crossing my mind and see if you, on 
the basis of your background and experience, would concur. You 
have the issue of the possibility of espionage by Communist-con- 
trolled labor organizations on behalf of the Kremlin, do you not, 
because the workers under the disoipline of the Communist control 
of the labor organization could procure vital defense secrets; is that 
not correct? 

Mr. Frank. That is right. As a matter of fact, you have right here 
in Washington a perfect example of that where the former secretary- 
treasurer of the union that subsequently became Mr. Flaxer's union 
was the recruiting agent for espionage inside the State Department, ac- 
cording to testimony that came out in the Alger Hiss case. 

One of the witnesses in that case, Julian Wadleigh, testified that 
when he finally decided to join the Communist Party he went to 
Eleanor Nelson and talked to her about the possibility of joining the 
Communist Party. She was then a top official of the CIO union, at 
that time called the United Federal Workers, and she advised him 
not to join the party and said she would put somebody in touch with 
him, and assumed he was an active espionage agent. 

Mr. Arens. Then in addition to the possibility, and, indeed, dem- 
onstrated certainty, of espionage as a result of Communist control of 
labor organizations, you would have also, or there is also, is there not, 
the threat of policy subversion which we have discussed ? 

Mr. Frank. Yes. Of course, by all means that would go on all the 
time. They would use that to whatever extent possible. 

Mr. Arens. Then we have also, do we not, the threat of using the 
Communist-controlled labor organization to procure funds for the 
Communist Partj^ in carrying on other nefarious work? 

Mr. Frank. That is right. The unions have always been a source 
of funds for the party, for the party press, and so on. As a matter 
of fact, people who were elected to posts in the Communist unions 
were expected to ante up a certain amount. 

Mr. Arens. Then we have also, do we not, the threat of the Com- 
munist-controlled labor organization being a springboard for the re- 



128 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

cruitment of additional members into the party to do the actual party 
work? 

Mr. Frank. That is right. Earl Browder one time in testimony 
referred to that as "transmission belts" to the party. 

Mr. Arens. May we with this background invite your attention to 
certain bills which have been introduced into the United States Senate, 
one by Senator Butler of Maryland, one by Senator Goldwater of 
Arizona, one by Senator McCarran of Nevada, and perhaps others, 
attempting each in its own way to deal with certain of these problems, 
and ask you what your thinking is with reference to these bills and 
the provisions of the bills? 

Mr. Frank. I think that by and large they are all to the good. I 
think that the more legislation you have, the more means by which 
you can hit the Communist, the sooner you will be able to get rid of 
him. I think that the Taft-Hartley non-Communist affiidavit ini- 
tially w^as a very valuable clause. In fact, it has always been my be- 
lief it was largel}^ contributory towards forcing the CIO ultimately 
to take action to expel its own Communists because that act automati- 
cally divided the CIO into those unions which could without any 
trouble sign the non-Communist affidavit and those which woidd have 
to worry about being cited for perjury if they did, and that automati- 
cally led to a divergence which was not a simple trade union divergence 
and I think ultimately contributed largely to the split. 

I think, as a matter of fact, that that clause, 9 (h), although I do 
not know whether that concerns this subcommittee, of the Taft- 
Hartley Act should be maintained and strengthened. 

Mr. Arens. How would you suggest strengthening it? 

Mr. Frank. Of course, I think that the proposal of President 
Eisenhower to add employers is a desirable thing simply as a matter 
of politeness to the legitimate anti-Communist unionist, I think that 
the law should be amended to read not only that the person is not a 
member of the Communist Party, but that his actions are not devoted 
to aiding the Communist Party. 

The CIO constitution, which was changed at the time the Com- 
munists were expelled, said that no person who was a Communist or 
whose activities were devoted to assisting or aiding the Communists 
should be permitted to hold office, and I think that since it is so often 
difficult to pinpoint that a person is in the party, although practically 
everybody may know it, but legally it would be difficult to prove, this 
is one of the better ways of doing it. 

I have proposed before and I still think that an ideal arrangement 
and one which would certainly get the Communists away from sign- 
ing the affidavit would be to attach to the clause that the signing of 
that affidavit shall serve as a waiver of immunity for any questions 
that that signer may later be asked on the subject of communism. 

I think also you will find that a number of these Communist unions, 
who will first sign an affidavit and then refuse to answer on grounds 
it will incriminate them under the fifth amendment if they tell 
whether they were actually party members when they signed it, are 
just making a mockery of that clause of the law at this time, I 
think that it would probably be perfectly legal to ask that question, to 
also agree to answer any questions in the future on that subject, and 
I believe that the Communists themselves would not sign the affidavit 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 129 

under these conditions because they would lay themselves open to 
much, much embarrassment. 

Mr, DuFFT. Do you mean, Mr. Frank, that it would be prudent 
to have an immunity statute covering that particular area? 

Mr. Frank. No; I see no reason for anybody to give them im- 
munity. I think that they have a right to waive their own immunity 
if it is optional with them. We have in New York City a law which 
states that any person who is employed by the city who refuses to 
waive immunity before any grand jury if he is asked to or who re- 
fuses to answer any question and stands on his constitutional right 
before a legislative committee or otherwise is automatically off the 
payroll as a city employee. 

The law has been upheld, and we have ousted a number of people 
from their jobs that way. It is optional with them. If they want 
to keep their job all they have to do is waive their immunity. If 
they don't want it there is no compulsion on the part of the city to 
keep them on the job. 

I think the same thing would apply, the same interpretation the 
Supreme Court gave, in upholding the 1) (li) clause in the first place, 
that if a person taking oath that he is not a Communist, at the same 
time waived his rights to answer any question about commmiistic 
activity, immunity, I am sure that it would be perfectly legal. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, assuming for the sake of this question that 
the law precluded certification by the National Labor Relations Board 
of a Communist-controlled labor organization as a bargaining agent, 
would not the Communist-controlled union be free to go right on with 
its control of a labor organization and contract with an employer 
even though it was not certified by the NLRB ? 

Mr. Frank. Yes. Exactly that situation existed at the time the 
Taft-Hartley Law went into effect in 1947 and the end of 1949 and 
early 1950 when some of these Communists came around and signed 
the affidavit. I think, therefore, that the provisions of Senator Gold- 
water's bill which bars a union that has been cited as Communist from 
collecting dues and so on is all to the good. 

My feeling, however, is that what is unfortunate about the proposals 
in this bill is that it would take years to get this thing into action. 

Mr. Arens. First of all, you would agree that it would be desirable 
not to permit certification by the NLRB of a Communist-controlled 
labor organization? 

Mr. Frank. Definitely ; by all means. 

Mr. Arens. Then how would you undertake to meet the secondary 
problem of striking at the Communist-controlled labor organization, 
which is, for the purpose of this question now, decertified ? 

Mr. Frank. I think that the National Labor Relations Board might 
be given the power to act as regards Communist unions just as it now 
has the power to act against company unions. 

Mr. Arens Describe that. 

Mr. Frank. Under the present rulings and interpretations which 
have been upheld of the NLRB, the Board has the power to hold a 
hearing and to find that a certain union in a certain place is a company 
union — that is, that it is employer-controlled — and they have a right 
to go into court and demand that that union be disbanded. They have 
done that in numerous instances, principally in the early days of the 



130 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

NLRB, but I think even to this day cases of company domination come 
up and unions are ordered disbanded. 

I think that that same right could be extended to the Board to deal 
with Communist unions. I think that the Board has all the facilities 
for finding out whether a union is Communist-dominated and it should 
have the power to direct that that union dissolve and disband and cease 
trying to function as a union, just as it now does with unions that are 
controlled by employers. 

I think that some parts of the Goldwater bill might be applied to 
make this operate — the Goldwater or the Butler bill. 

Mr. Arens. We have covered two points at the moment. One, I 
assume from your conversation, is to a degree that the law ought to 
preclude certification of a Communist-controlled labor organization. 

Mr. Frank. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Secondly, that the NLRB or some other agency of the 
Government ought to be in a position to say that the XYZ labor organi- 
zation is not a labor organization ; it is in fact a front of some kind 
operated by the Communist Party because of its control. 

Mr. Frank. That is right. 

Mr. Aeens. May I ask you some other questions with respect to the 
issues that are before the subcommittee ? What would you do or what 
do you think could be done to distinguish between locals which are 
Communist-controlled and a national or international that is Com- 
munist-controlled? In other words, let me point an illustration for 
you, completely hypothetical, and see what you would do about it. 

Here is an international labor organization which is Communist- 
controlled. It has 16 locals, 2 or 3 of which are strongly anti-Com- 
munist. How would you deal with that situation so as to protect the 
anti-Communist locals ? 

Mr. Frank. I think that the answer to that would be, if a union 
was ordered to disband or to cease functioning or to be cited as Com- 
munist, as in the case of the Butler bill, I would say that the non- 
Communist groups would then have to break away, or perhaps they 
could form common cause with the non-Communists who might exist 
or who would certainly exist in the Communist-controlled locals, be- 
cause there is no 100 percent control in any situation. 

Mr. Arens. Let's change the situation around in a contradictory 
manner. Let us assume that there is a strong international which is 
non-Communist or anti-Communist which has three locals, all of 
which are completely controlled by Communists. How would you 
strike at that situation by legislation so as not to jeopardize the 
security of the international, but at the same time striking at the 
locals? 

Mr. Frank. I think that someone should have the power to cite 
this situation to the international president of the union with the 
demand that he take action on pain of losing his own certification, 
and I think that once that situation exists he will act. For the most 
part presently where you have a situation where a union is non- or 
anti-Communist and you merely have individual locals, they are usu- 
ally known to the top officer, and he just doesn't want to bother with 
them. It is trouble, and these people have always been there, and 
they aren't bothering him and maybe even sometimes they will vote 
with him on some issues that he will need their votes, but once it 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 131 

became to his advantage to get rid of them, to reorganize those locals 
to the point of administrators, or it became disadvantageous to have 
them there as Communist unions, I think he would take action. 

In that respect, I think if it were possible to amend the 9 (h) section 
of the Taft-Hartle}^ Act so as to permit well-known anti-Communists 
to be excluded from signing the affidavit, you would have a situation 
where everyone would be interested in having themselves so cited. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you about still another issue? We are 
jumping around on a series of issues which are all germane to this 
overall problem. What would you suggest be done, if anything, 
legislatively with reference to Government contracts let to a firm 
which employs persons in a Communist-controlled labor organiza- 
tion or has a contract with a Communist-controlled labor organization ? 

Mr. Frank. I don't know that I would do anything because it seems 
to me that that is a problem that must be settled at the Labor Board 
first. Where you have a corporation like General Electric Co. which 
deals with a lot of unions, but whose principal unions are the lUE 
under Jimmy Carey, which is anti-Communist, and the UE, which is 
Communist, with Matles and Emspack, they are ordered by the Labor 
Board to deal with these people. 

Mr. Arens. The query in my mind was this : Would it be feasible 
and desirable to have a law precluding the letting of a Government 
contract to an employer who in turn has a contract or proposes to 
have a contract with a Communist-controlled labor organization? 

Mr. Frank. Only if some other agency of the Government, that is, 
the Labor Board, has not first told that employer that he had to deal 
with that union. In other words, you have a situation in Schenectady, 
N. y., which is controlled by the Communist UE and where all sorts 
of major Government projects may be perhaps going on. 

The Labor Board after an election there certifies that local of UE 
to General Electric. They have to deal with them under the law. 
Now, if at the same time you have another agency of the Govern- 
ment coming along and saying — — 

Mr. Arens. I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting just from 
the standpoint of the overall problem: Would it not be salutary if 
the law precluded the letting of a contract by a Government agency 
to an employer who in turn would have a contract with a labor organ- 
ization which had been found by an agency of the Government, pre- 
sumably the NLRB or the Subversive Activities Control Board, to be 
a Communist-controlled organization? 

Mr. Frank. Yes. In that sense it would be an additional weapon to 
stop the Communists and all to the good. I think that certainly the 
more ways you have of hitting at them the sooner you are going to 
get rid of them. I think that the Butler bill and the Goldwater bill 
are all to the good, and what I am unhappy about with them is only 
the fact that, having seen what is happening with the Subversive Ac- 
tivities Control Board with the Communist I*arty and now with some 
of the fronts wliere it is taking years and years first to present the case 
and then to appeal it in each instance all the way up to the Supreme 
Court, it takes too long. 

You would have that same problem with the Communist unions. 
In other words, they would still be around for years, whereas I would 
like to see them out soon. 



132 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. May we direct our attention to still another issue and 
see what your thinking is on it, on the basis of your background and 
experience ? What thoughts do you have with respect to precluding 
by law a Communist-controlled labor organization from having ac- 
cess to any defense facility or defense plant ? 

Mr. Frank. That also would be all to the good. 

Mr, Arens. You know, of course, in the Internal Security Act 
there is a provision which prohibits a member of a Communist-action 
organization from having access to a defense facility, but as of the 
moment the Communist Party itself has not been finally determined 
to be a Communist-action organization nor has the Secretary of De- 
fense proclaimed a defense facility. 

Mr. Frank. For example, on the situation on the west coast, I 
might cite this : Where members of the Bridges' union and members 
of Bryson's Marine Cooks and Stewards were cited as Communists by 
the Coast Guard and barred from going on the piers and therefore 
actually from working. 

Mr. Arens. Under the Magnuson Act ? 

Mr, Frank. That is right. However, the union itself was never so 
cited, and therefore the union was permitted to go there, and even 
some of its officials who might very easily be Communist, but who 
weren't asking for jobs. 

Mr. Arens. That brings us to a little refinement, does it not, as 
between the workers having access to a plant and tlie union having 
access to a plant ? 

Mr. Frank. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. The Internal Security Act prohibits apparently the 
individual worker from being employed in a defense facility. It 
does not prohibit the Communist labor representative from going on 
the defense establishment. 

Mr. Frank. That is right. Of course, what is involved there is 
something else, and that is that if you have in a small town a situa- 
tion where there is somebody from a Communist union functioning 
all the year round and getting to know the people in the union, he will 
pick up more information in the evening chatting over a glass of beer 
than he will by getting into the plant, because the company will prob- 
ably be discreet in what departments it would permit him to get into. 

Mr. Arens. TYliat about the Communist shop stewards ? 

Mr. Frank. The Communist shop steward, of course, could get into 
it, but he would get in only his own department, and his department 
might be a restricted one which is making a 3-inch screw or something 
of that sort, whereas the union official who is living in the town all 
year around gets to know everybody in the community and sitting 
around and talking with the people might very easily, and be on the 
payroll of the union as a justification for being in the town, might 
very easily pick up a lot more information that way, 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Frank, do you have fui'ther observation with ref- 
erence to the provisions of this bill in front of you and these other 
bills which are currently pending before the subcommittee? 

Mr. Frank. I would suggest that in addition to the Communist 
officers being compelled to sign affidavits and having action taken 
against them, that staff members also should be directed to sign 
affidavits, that is, by the Labor Board or the Subversive Activities 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 133 

Control Board or someone else should have the power to direct that 
certain people whom they may be suspicious of in an organization — 
it may be and it probably would be the editor of the union's paper 
or the liead of its research department — be directed to sign. 

I would like to suggest, if I may, with all due respect to you, sir, 
and the Senator, that the provision in the Butler bill saying that 
"Whenever it is charged" and then later a reference to "anyone who 
is or ever has been a member of the Communist Party," is much too 
sweeping. You have throughout the country some of the best anti- 
Communists who ai-e anti-Communist because they were in the party 
and they know particularly how bad it is. 

I think that you should be most meticulous in trying to avoid en- 
dangering their situation, and also I think you could save yourself 
a lot of trouble by avoiding their opposition, because they themselves 
have to worry about this sort of thing. There are always opposition 
people who will say that anybody M^ho ever was a Communist is no 
good. 

Actually a man like Hedley Stone, who is the treasurer of the 
National Maritime Union, is certainly one of the best anti-Communist 
trade unionists in this country. 

Mr. Aeens. I hope you understand, Mr. Frank, that the bill is only 
a first beginning, ancl that is why we are having these hearings, to 
modify it, and to polish it, and to perfect it. 

Mr. Frank. Yes. I think that 3'ou must be most careful to recog- 
nize that a person has broken ancl is doing a competent job because 
he is the one man that the Communists are never going to make 
progress with again. He has been there and knows the danger. Any- 
body else who hasn't been there is at least open to indoctrination, so 
I would think that it would be desirable to make a distinction be- 
tween unions that as of a certain date, or have a continuing Com- 
munist association or Communist trend — I have always felt also that 
the Labor Board should be in a position to take judicial notice where 
a union is notoriously known as a Communist union and take action 
thereon, which it has never done up until the past year when it took 
a few minor steps. 

Senator Butler. We thank you, Mr. Frank, for your most helpful 
and informative testimony. The hearing will now be recessed subject 
to the call of the chairman. 

Mr. Frank. Thank you, sir, very much. 

(Whereupon, at 1 : 25 p. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene 
at the call of the Chair.) 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1954 

United States Senate, 

Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciarf, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The task force of tlie subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to 
call, iu room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler, 
chairman of the task force, presiding. 

Present : Senator Butler. 

Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schroeder and 
Edward Duffy, professional staff members. 

Senator Butler. The committee will be in order. 

I would like to announce that this is a legislative phase this morn- 
ing. Heretofore the internal security phase of the inquiry has been 
conducted in executive hearing. This is an open hearing, as you 
know, to investigate the legislative phase of the matter. 

We have Avith us this morning, representing Mr. Velde, the chair- 
man of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives, his counsel, Mr. Robert L. Kunzig. 

Mr. Kunzig, if you would like to, we would like to have you come 
up and sit here to my right. 

Will counsel call the first witness? 

Mr. Arens. May I respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, that I think 
it would be well if the record would reflect the three bills which 
are currently pending before this task force of the Internal Security 
Committee. 

Senator Butler. S. 1606, S. 1254, and S. 23. 

(The bills under consideration are as follows:) 

[S. 1606, 83d Cong., 1st sess.] 
A BILL To amend the Internal Security Act of 1950, and for other purposes 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, Tliat the Internal Security Act of 1950, as 
amended, be further amended as follows : 

By adding to the duties now devolving upon the Subversive Activities Control 
Board, created by section 12 (a) thereof, the following : 

"Seo. 117. Whenever it is charged that any 'labor organization' as defined in 
section 2 (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, is 
substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by any individual or individuals 
(whether officers of such labor organization or not) who are or ever have been 
a member or members of the Communist Party or of any Communist-action or- 
ganization, or Communist-front organization, as those terms are defined in sec- 

135 



136 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

tion 3 (3) and (4) of said Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended, or who 
have consistently aided, su] "ported, or in any manner contributed to or fur- 
thered the activities of such organizations, or of any other 'totalitarian dictator- 
ship' as defined in section 3 (15) of said Internal Security Act of 1950. as 
amended, the Board shall investigate such charge and if it has reason to helieve 
that allegations therein contained are meritorious, it shall issue and cause to 
be served on sucli labor organization a complaint stating the charges together 
with a notice of hearing before the Board or any examiner thereof stating the 
place and time of such hearing which shall be not less than twenty days from 
the date of service of such complaint and notice of hearing. 

"Simultaneous with the service of such complaint and notice of hearing on 
such labor organization, the Subversive Activities Control Board shall cause to 
be served on the National Labor Relations Board and the General Counsel thereof 
copies of such complaint and notice of hearing together with an intermediate 
suspension order providing that such labor organization shall be ineligible to act 
as exclusive bargaining agent or to become, or to continue to l»e, the recipient of 
any procedural or substantive lienefit under or by virtue of the Labor Manage- 
ment Relations Act of 1947, as amended. 

"Sec. lis. Upon the service of such complaint and notice of liearing the Board 
(or any member thereof, or any examiner designated thereby) shall be empowered 
to hold hearings in accordance with the applicable provisions of section 13 (c), 
(d) (1) and (2), (e), and (f) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 
as amended. 

"Sec. 119. If after such hearing the Board shall conclude that such labor or- 
ganization is dominated, directed, or controlled by any individual or individuals, 
whether officers or not. who are or ever have been a member or members of the 
Communist Party, or of any Communist-action organization, or Communist-front 
organization, or who have consistently aided, supported, or in any manner con- 
tributed to or furthered the activities of such organizations, it shall make perma- 
nent the intermediate suspension order provided for in section 117 of the Act, 
and shall serve such final order on such labor organization and copies thereof 
on the National Labor Relations Board and the General Counsel thereof. 

"Sec. 120. The disqualifications of such labor organization provided herein 
shall not render void or voidable any collective bargaining contract previously 
executed between such labor organization and any employer, insofar as such 
contract bestows rights or benefits upon either the employees or the employer : 
Avd provided further. That elections to select a successor exclusive bargaining 
agent may be directed by the National Labor Relations Board without regard to 
the limitation provided by section 9 (e) (2) of the Labor Management Relations 
Act of 1947, as amended. 

"Sec. 121. Any party aggrieved by the final suspension order of the Bo»rd may 
obtain a review of such order by filing in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia, within sixty days from the date of service upon 
it of i*uch order, a written petition praying that siich order be set aside. A 
copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Board, and thereupon 
the Board shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the entire record 
in the proceeding, including all evidence taken and the report and order of the 
Board. Thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and shall 
have power to affirm or set aside the order of the Board ; but the court may in 
its discretion and upon its own motion transfer any action so commenced to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein the petitioner resides. 
The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by the preponderance of 
the evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for 
leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the 
court that such additional evidence is material, the court may order such ad- 
ditional evidence to be taken before the Board and to be adduced upon the pro- 
ceeding in such manner and upon such terms and coiulitions as to the court may 
seem proper. The Board may modify its finding as to the facts, by reason of 
the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, 
which, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence shall be conclusive, and 
its recommendations, if any, with respect to action in the matter under con- 
sideration. 

"If the court shall set aside such final suspension order of the Board, the decree 
of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, 
as provided in title 28, United States Code, section 1254. However, landing 
review by the Supreme Court, the final suspension order of the Board shall 
retain its full force and effect." 



' SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 137 

Exhibit No. Ill 

[S. 1254, 83ci Cong-., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To establish effective means to determine Communist domination in unions and 
to eliminate Communists from positions of influence and control in labor unions 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assemUed, That certain labor organizations representing 
employees employed in industries affecting commerce are led, dominated, influ- 
enced, or directed by members of Communist organizations, and, whenever 
it will serve the ends of the world Communist movement, it is the purpose of 
such leaders to encourage and foment strikes, slowdowns, industrial strife, 
and unrest, with the objective of disrupting or obstructing commerce or with 
the objective of impairing the security and defense of the United States. 

To prevent such disruption and obstruction of commerce and impairment of 
the security and defense of the United States, it is hereby declared to be the 
public policy of the United States to withdraw and withhold, as hereinafter 
provided, from such labor organizations and persons functioning as Communist 
labor representatives certain of the advantages, rights, privileges, and immunities 
created by laws enacted by Congress with the intention of assisting and protecting 
associations of employees which represent employees in dealing with employers 
with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- 
ment, or conditions of work, and which assist employees in concerted activity 
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection; 
and it is further declared to be the public policy of the United States to prevent 
any Communist labor representative, as herein defined, from functioning or 
acting in any manner as such a collective bargaining representative of employees 
employed in industries affecting commerce, or engaged in the performance of 
services for, or in the manufacture or assembly of goods or materials to be 
delivered to any department or agency of the United States. 

Sec. 2. For the purposes of this Act — • 

(1) The terms "person," "employer," "representative," "labor organization," 
"commerce," "affecting commerce," and "labor dispute" shall have the same 
meaning as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 

(2) The term "employee," except where used to refer to an individual in 
the employ of a labor organization, means any individual employed by any 
employer who is engaged in a business or industry affecting commerce or who 
is employed by any employer who is engaged in the pertormance of services for, 
or the production, manufacture, or delivery of goods or materials to a depart- 
ment or agency of the United States Government and includes any such person 
whose work has ceased as a consequence of or in connection with any current 
labor dispute and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially 
equivalent employment. 

(3) The terms "Communist-action organization," "Communist-front organiza- 
tion," and "Communist organization" shall have the same meaning as defined 
in the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the term "world Communist move- 
ment" shall mean the world Communist movement as described in and referred 
to in section 2 of such Act. 

(4) The term "Board" means the Subversive Activities Control Board created 
by section 12 of said Internal Security Act of 1950. 

(5) Any person who is an officer, or employee of, or who is otherwise influ- 
ential in or responsible for the policies of a labor organization shall be deemed 
to be a Communist labor representative for purposes of this Act only if there 
exist reasonable grounds to believe that — 

(a) such person advocates or has aided or supported, financially or other- 
wise, the advancement of the economic, international, military, and govern- 
mental doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement, while 
knowing or having reason to know that such doctrines, policies, or aims are 
tliose of the world Communist movement ; 

(b) such person has knowingly aided or supported, financially or other- 
wise, any Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization, 
Communist foreign government, or any organization listed as subversive 
by the Attorney General under the provisions of Executive Order G'SSS 
subsequent to the time such organization was so listed ; or 

(c) such person has instigated or encouraged or may instigate or encour- 
age strikes, slowdowns, or other interruptions of work among employees, for 
the purpose of aiding and supporting the world Communist movement or 
a Communist foreign government. 



138 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

(6) A labor organization shall be deemed to be a Communist labor repre- 
sentative for purposes of this Act only if there exist reasonable gi-ounds to believe 
that— 

(a) it or any parent labor organization with which it is affiliated is oper- 
ated or functions in whole or in part as an instrumentality for promoting 
or publicizing and advocating the economic international and governmental 
doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement ; 

(b) it or any parent labor organization with which it is affiliated is oper- 
ated or functions in whole or in part as an instrumentality for giving aid 
and support to any Communist foreign government. Communist-action organ- 
ization, Communist-front organization or the world Communist movement; 
or 

(c) any individual found to be a Communist labor representative is an 
officer or employee of, or is influential in or responsible for the policies of 
such organization, or is an officer or employee of, or is influential in or 
responsible for the policies of any parent labor organization with which such 
oi^anization is affiliated. 

Sec. 3. (a) The Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any 
labor organization or individual found to be a Communist labor representative 
from functioning as a labor organization or representative of employees for the 
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and is fur- 
ther empowered to issue orders which shall have the effect of preventing any 
such labor organization or individual or employees acting in concert with such 
organization or individual from claiming any protection, privilege, or assistance 
otherwse afl:orded labor organizations, representatives of employees, and asso- 
ciations of employees under certain laws enacted by Congress. 

(b) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any 
labor organization or individual representing or claiming to represent employees 
is a Communist labor representative, he shall file with the Board and cause to 
be served upon the persons named therein whom he alleges are Communist labor 
representatives, a petition for an order of the Board which will effectuate the 
public policy of the United States and purposes of this Act as herein provided. 
Each such petition shall be verified under oath and shall contain a statement of 
facts upon which the Attorney General relies in support of his petition for the 
issuance of such an order. The Attorney General may, in his discretion, join in 
a single petition a parent organization and any or all of its affiliated organiza- 
tions whether designated as "Locals", "Councils", "Districts", or otherwise, and 
any or all of the officers, or employees thereof, and any or all of the persons 
influential in, or responsible for the policies of such affiliated organization. 

Upon receipt of such petition, the Board shall serve upon the persons named 
therein a notice of hearing before the Board or a member thereof, or a designated 
agent or agency, at a place therein fixed, not less than five days after the serving 
of said notice. The Attorney General shall be permitted to amend his petition 
at any time prior to the closing of the hearings held thereon. The labor organi- 
zation and the persons named in the petition shall have the right to file an answer 
to the original and to any amended petition and to appear in person or otherwise 
and give testimony at the place and time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion 
of the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the proceeding and 
to present testimony. In any such proceeding, the rules of evidence prevailing in 
courts of law or equity shall not be controlling. 

The Board is specifically empowered to establish and maintain a continuing 
panel, called the Labor Panel, to be made up of retired members of the Federal 
judiciary who shall volimtarily make themselves available for service upon 
such panel at the request of the Chairman of the Board. The Board may then 
designate, as its agent for the purpose of conducting any such hearing, a subpanel 
consisting of not less than three nor more than five of the members of said Labor 
Panel. In appointing any such subpanel, the Board shall clearly state whether 
the subpanel shall have full authority to issue a final order on the petition, the 
hearing on which it shall be appointed to conduct, or whether such subpanel 
shall have power only to make recommendations to the Board upon such peti- 
tion Each member of the Labor Panel shall be reimbursed by the Board for 
all reasonable traveling and living expenses that shall be necessarily incurred 
by him in connection with his services on said Labor Panel and on any subpanel 
that may be drawn therefrom. Neither service on said Labor Panel, or any sub- 
panel drawn therefrom, nor acceptance of reimbursement for traveling and 
living expenses for any such service, shall disqualify any member of said Labor 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 139 

Panel from the right to receive any Federal or other pension, retirement, or 
disability payment to which he may be entitled. 

(c) The testimony talien by any member, agent, or agency designated by the 
Board shall be reduced to writing and filed with the Board. Thereafter in its 
discretion, the Board upon notice may take further testimony or hear argu- 
ment. If, upon the preponderance of the testimony taken, the Board finds that 
any labor organization or individual named in the petition is a Communist labor 
representative, then the Board shall state its findings of fact and issue and 
cause to be served on such person an order which — 

(1) if directed to a labor organization, may require that such organiza- 
tion shall, within the period of time specified in the order — 

(A) dismiss or otherwise permanently remove from influence in. 
or from office or employment by the organization, any of its officers 
or employees found by the Board to be a Communist labor representa- 
tive ; 

(B) disaffiliate and sever completely all connections and relations 
with any affiliated labor organization found by the Board to be a Com- 
munist labor representative ; and 

(C) take and carry out to the satisfaction of the Board such other 
affirmative action required by the Board which will, in the Board's 
opinion, effectuate the public policy of the United States and the pur- 
poses of this Act by removing from any position of control or influence 
in the labor organization or any organization affiliated with it, the 
persons found by the Board to be Communist labor representatives. 

(2) if directed to either a labor organization or a person found to be a 
Communist labor representative, shall require, but need not be limited to 
requiring, that such organization or individual — 

(A) shall cease and desist from acting as the representative, spokes- 
man, leader, adviser, or agent of employees engaged in any concerted 
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and 
protection ; 

(B) shall cease and desist from soliciting, or from accepting from 
employees, or from their employer, pursuant to the terms of any assign- 
ment, check-off, or other agreement, any money or thing of value as 
the initiation fees or membership dues of such employees in a laljor 
organization ; and 

(C) shall cease and desist from instigating, encouraging, or sup- 
porting, directly or indirectly, any strike, slowdown, or other interrui> 
tion of work among employees. 

(d) If within the time specified in an order of the Board, the Board shall 
be satisfied that a labor organization subject to such order has fully complied 
therewith it shall, upon application of such organization, enter a further order 
of the Board staying the elfect of its prior order insofar as such prior order 
is applicable to the organization : Provided, That no such order staying the 
effect of a prior order shall in any way affect the application of such prior order 
to individual persons found by the Board to be Communist labor representatives : 
Provided further, That if at any time subsequent to staying its prior order, 
the Board shall be of the opinion that the labor organization has ceased to re- 
main in compliance with such prior order, it may, upon not less than five days 
notice to such organization, reinstate such prior order in full force and effect. 

(e) During any time there is in effect and applical>le to any labor organiza- 
tion or individual an order of the Board which has not been stayed by the 
Board as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the provisions of section 5 
of this Act shall be applicable to such organization, to such individual, and to 
any employees who act or attempt to act in concert with such organization or 
individual. 

Sec. 4. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall allege in his petition that 
any labor organization or individual named in a petition filed under the pro- 
visions of section .3 of this Act represents or claims to represent employees of 
an employer who is engaged in the performance of services for, or the produc- 
tion, manufacture, or delivery of goods or materials for any department or agency 
of the United States Government and that the interruption of such services or 
deliveries may be injurious to the security or defense of the United States, 
the Board shall give such petition priority over all other petitions except those 
of like nature and shall schedule a hearing thereon before members of the Board 
or a subpanel of the Labor Panel. The following provisions, in addition to 
the provisions of section 3, shall be applicable to such a petition and hearing. 



140 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

(b) The Board shall forthwith notify each labor organization and individual 
named in such petition that a hearing, as provided in section 3, shall be held 
within not more than ten days. No adjournment or postponement of such 
hearing shall be granted except for very gxave cause. The hearing shall be 
conducted in as expeditious a way as possible, consistent with appropriate 
recognition of the rights of all parties. Where advisable, the Board may order 
the continuation of hearing sessions at night and on weel^ends, in the interests 
of expedition. 

(c) Immediately upon termination of the hearing, the Board shall issue 
its decision and order. If the Board shall And that any labor organization or 
individual named in the petition is a Communist labor representative, such 
order shall be in the same form and contain the same provisions, to the extent 
appropriate, as an order issued under section 3 hereof. If within the time 
specified in such order, the Board shall be satisfied that any labor organization 
subject to such order has fully complied therewith, the Board shall enter an 
order staying the effect thereof: FrovidccJ, That no such order staying the 
effect of a prior order shall in any way affect an order applicable to individual 
officers, employees, or others who are influential in, or responsible for the ix)licies 
of snch organization: Providt'd further, That if at any time sub.sequent thereto, 
the Board shall be of the opinion that the labor organization has ceai^ed to 
remain in compliance with its order, the Board may, with or without advance 
notice to the organization, reinstate such order in full force and effect. 

Sec. 5. Whenever there is in effect against a labor organization or individual 
an order of the Board as provided in section 3 or section 4, such order shall have 
the following effect : 

(a) For the purposes only of section 7, section 8 (a), and section 9 of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, no such organization or individual shall 
be deemed a labor organization or representative of employees within the mean- 
ing of such Act and no action taken by employees in conjunction with, or pursu- 
ant to the leadership of any such organization or individual shall be deemed to 
be collective bargaining or concerted activity within the meaning of section 7 
of said Act, as amended. 

(b) No court of the United States shall find that any controversy concerning 
terms or conditions of employment, concerning a collective bargaining agreement 
or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, 
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment 
constitutes, involves or grows out of a "labor dispute" within tlie meaning of the 
Norris-LaGuardia Act (Act of March 23. 1932. ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70) if such an or- 
ganization or individual is directly or indirectly involved in such controversy. 

(c) No such organization and no other organization having as an officer or 
employee an individual against whom an order of the Board is in effect shall be 
deemed to be a labor organization within the meaning of section 6 of the Clayton 
Act (Act of October 15, 1914, ch. 323, 3S Stat. 730) nor shall any of the provisions 
of section 20 of said Act be applicable in any case in which any such organization 
or individual is interested or involved. 

(d) The provisions of section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 
1947, shall not be applicable to, and no court of the United States shall have 
jurisdiction to hear or determine any cause of action brought by such organiza- 
tion or individual which — 

(1) is brought by the organization or individual as a representative of 
employees ; or 

(2) is based in whole or in part upon the failure or refusal of any employer 
to carry out the terms of a collective bargaining agreement entered into with 
such an organization or individual as the agent or representative of em- 
ployees : Provided, That nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the jurisdic- 
tion of such courts with respect to actions brought by employees who have 
disaffiliated from or disassociated themselves from such organization or 
individual. 

Sec. 0. (a) In determining whether a labor organization is a Communist labor 
representative, the Board may consider among other matters — 

( 1 ) whether any officers, employees, or others who have been active in its 
management or the tuanagement of any parent organization with which it is 
affiliated have been active in the management, direction, or supervision of, or 
have functioned as representatives of any Communist-action organization, 
Communist-front organization. Communist foreign government, or the world 
Communist movement, or have been, subsequent to January 1, 1949, members 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 141 

of or participants in the activities of the Communist Party of the United 
States ; 

(2) whether it or any parent organization with which it is aflBliated has 
knowingly accepted financial or other support from a Communist-action 
organization, Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government 
or the world Couuuunist movement; 

(3) whether its funds, resources, or personnel, or the funds, resources, or 
personnel of any parent organization with which it is affiliated have been 
used to advocate, disseminate and publicize or otherwise promote the mili- 
tary or international economic or political policies of any Communist-action 
organization. Communist-front organization, Communist foreign government, 
or the world Communist movement ; 

(4) whether tlie positions advocated or supported by it or by any parent 
organization with which it is affiliated, particularly with respect to military 
or international economic or political matters have, during any substantial 
period of time, been identical or substantially identical to positions advo- 
cated on like matters by a Communist-action organization, Communist-front 
organization. Communist foi'eign government, or the world Communist 
movement ; and 

(5) whether any oflBcers, employees, or others active in its management, 
or officers, employees, or others active in the management of any parent or- 
ganization with which it is affiliated, have participated in the activities of^ 
and supported the programs and policies of, any international labor organi- 
zation which regularly adheres to the policies advocated and supported by 
the world Communist movement, and whether the organization or any par- 
ent organization with which it is affiliated has, since January 1, 1949, spon- 
sored or paid for, in whole or in part, the trip of any person or persons to « 
country controlled by a Communist foreign government. 

(b) In determining whether any person active in the management of a labor 
organization or active as a representative of employees for the purpose of col- 
lective bargaining is a Communist labor representative, the Board may consider 
among other matters — 

(1) the extent to which such person has been responsible for formulating, 
effectuating, or publicizing the activities, policies, or programs of any labor 
organization or parent organization with which it is affiliated which the 
Board finds to be a Communist labor representative ; 

(2) the extent to which such person has knowingly received financial 
assistance from, given financial assistance to, been a member of, or a par- 
ticipant in activities of, a Communist-front organization, Communist-action 
organization, or the world Communist movement ; and 

(3) whether such person has been a member of or a participant in the 

activities of the Communist Party of the United States, subsequent to 

January 1, 1949, or been a member of or a participant in the activities of any 

organization listed as subversive by the Attorney General under Executive 

Order 9835, ssubsequent to the time such organization was so listed as 

subversive. 

Sec. 7. (a) In the perfoi-mance by the Board of its functions under this 

Act, the provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 12 

of the Internal Security Act of 1950 shall be applicable to the Board. In the 

performance of such functions, the Board is athorized to delegate to any group 

of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise 

and two members of any such group shall constitute a quorum thereof. 

(b) In addition to its other duties under the Internal Security Act of 1950, 
it shall be the duty of the Board, upon petition of the Attorney General under 
section 3 or 4 of this Act — 

(1) to determine whether any labor organization is a "Communist labor 
representative" within the meaning of subsection 6 of section 2 of this Act; 
and 

(2) to detei*mine whether any individual is a "Communist labor representa- 
"tive" within the meaning of subsection 5 of section 2 of this Act. 

(c) The Board shall have the authority from time to time to make, amend, 
and rescind in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act such 
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
Act. 

Sec. 8. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have filed with the Board a 
petition pursuant to section 3 or 4 of this Act, the Board (or any member thereof 

43903 — 54— — 10 



142 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

or any examiner or agent designated tliereby) may hold hearings, administer 
oaths and affirmations, may examine witnesses and receive evidence at any place 
in the United States, and may require by subpena the attendance and testimony 
of witnesses and the production of books, paper, correspondence, memoranda, and 
other records deemed relevant to the matter under inquiry. Subpenas may be 
signed and issued by any member of the Board or any duly authorized examiner. 
Subpenas shall be issued on behalf of the organization or the individual who is 
a party to the proceedina: upon request and upon a statement or showing of 
general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. Such attend- 
ance of witnesses and the production of such documentary evidence may be re- 
ceived from any place in the I'nited States at any designated place of hearing. 
Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage paid witnesses in 
the district courts of the United States. In case of disobedience to a subpena, 
the Board may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the 
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evi- 
dence. Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction 
of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to 
oliey a subpena issued to any person, issue an order requiring such i)erson to 
appear (and to produce documentary evidence if so ordered) and give evidence 
relating to the matter in question : and any failure to obey sur-h order of the 
court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any 
such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an in- 
habitant or wherever he may be found. No person shall be held liable in any 
action in any court. State or Federal, for any damages resulting from his pro- 
duction of any documentary evidence in any proceeding before the Board if he 
is required, by a subpena issued under this subsection, to produce the evidence; 
or any statement under oath he makes in answer to a question he is asked while 
testifying before the Board in response to a subpena issued under this subsection, 
if the statement is pertinent to the question. 

(b) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from pro- 
ducing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in obedience 
to the subpena of the Board, on the ground that the testimony or evidence re- 
quired of him may tend to incriminate him or sul)ject him to a penalty or a 
forfeiture ; but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or 
forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning 
which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimina- 
tion, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall 
not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for prejury committed in so 
testifying. 

(c) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to 
such proceeding shall have the right to present its case with the assistance of 
counsel, to offer oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and 
to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true dis- 
closure of the facts. An accurate stenographic record shall be taken of the testi- 
mony of each witness, and a transcript of such testimony shall be filed in the office 
of the Board. 

(d) Where an organization or individual declines or fails to appear at a hear- 
ing accorded to such organization or individual by the Board pursuant to this 
section, the Board may, upon evidence adduced by the Attorney General, enter 
an order finding such organization or individual to be a Communist labor repre- 
sentative. Where in the course of any hearing before the Board or any examiner 
thereof, a party or counsel is guilty of misdemeanor, which obstructs the hear- 
ing, such party or counsel may be excluded from further participation in the 
hearing. 

Sec. 9. (a) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Board shall have ten days 
following service of such order upon it to file with the Board a notice of its 
objection to such order and a demand that the Board petition a court of the United 
States for review thereof. Promptly upon the filing with the Board of any such 
notice and demand, it shall be the duty of the Board to petition any United States 
court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia), or if all the United States courts of appeals to which application 
may be made are in vacation, any United States district court (including the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia), within any circuit 
or district, respectively, wherein any labor organization or individual found 
by the Board to be a Communist labor representative resides or transacts business, 
for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate temporary relief or re- 
straining order, and shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the entire 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 143 

record in the proceedings, including the pleadings and testimony upon which 
such order was entered and the findings and order of the Board. Upon such 
filing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and 
thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question deter- 
mined therein, and shall have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining 
order as it deems just and proper, and to make and enter upon the pleadings, 
testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript a decree enforcing, modi- 
fying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order 
of the Board. No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, 
agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect 
to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. 
The findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by sub- 
stantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. If 
either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and 
shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is mate- 
rial and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evi- 
dence in the hearing before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the court 
may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Board, its members, 
agent, or agency, and to be made a part ol" the transcript. The Board may modify 
its findings as to the facts, or make new Ihidings, by reason of additional evidence 
so taken and filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which findings 
with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the 
record considered as a whole shall be conclusive, and shall file its recommenda- 
tions, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order. The juris- 
diction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final, 
except that the same shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States 
court of appeals if application was made to the district court as hereinabove pro- 
vided, and by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or 
certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code. 

(b) When granting appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order, or 
making and entering a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, 
or setting aside in whole or in part an order of the Board, as provided in this 
section, the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity shall not be limited by the 
Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the 
jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes", approved March 
23, 1932 (U. S. C, title 29, sees. 101-115). 

(c) Petitions filed by the Board under this Act shall be heard expeditiously 
and, if possible, within ten days after they have been docketed. 

Sec. 10. Any order of the Board issued under section 3 or section 4 of this Act 
shall become final — 

(a) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing with the Board, 
as provided in section 9, a notice of objection and a demand that the Board 
petition for review of its order, if no such notice and demand has been duly 
filed within such time ; 

(b) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for 
f-ertiorari, if the order of the Board has been affirmed by a United States 
court of appeals, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed ; 

(c) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Board has 
been affirmed or the petition for review dismissed by a United States court 
of appeals ; or 

(d) upon the expiration of ten days from the date of issuance of the 
mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of the 
Board be affirmed. 

Sec. 11. (a) Whenever there shall be in effect and applicable to any labor 
organization or person a final order of the Board issued under the provisions of 
section 3 or section 4 of this Act, it shall be unlawful for such labor organization 
or person to — 

(1) act as the representative, spokesman, leader, adviser, or agent of em- 
ployees engaged in any concerted activity for the purpose of collective bar- 
gaining or other mutual aid and protection ; 

(2) solicit or accept from employees or from their employer, pursuant 
to the terms of any assignment, check-off or other agreement, any money 
or thing of value as the initiation fees or membership dues of any employees 
in a labor organization ; or 

(3) instigate, encourage, or support, directly or indirectly, any strike, 
s-Iowdown, or other interruption of work among or by employees. 



144 SUBVERSIVE ESTFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

(b) Any labor organization which willfully violates any of the provisions of 
this section shall be punished for each such offense by a fine of not more than 
$10,000. 

(c) Any individual who willfully violates any of the provisions of this section 
shall be punished for each such offense by a fine of not more than $10,000, or 
by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such imprisonment 
and fine. 

(d) For the purposes of this section, each of the offenses enumerated in sub- 
sections (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall be considered separate offenses 
and each day on which any such offense occurs or is continued shall constitute 
a separate offense. 

Sec. 12. No findings or order of the Board issued under the provisions of this 
Act shall be received in evidence in any criminal proceeding except a proceeding 
involving the provisions of section 11 hereof. 

Sec. 13. Section 9, subsection (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 
amended, and the reference to said section 9 (h) contained in section 8 (a) (3) of 
said Act, are hereby repealed. 

Sec. 14. The National Labor Relations Board is empowered and directed to 
take official notice of all hearings and orders of the Board and to adopt such 
rules, regulations, and policies as will effectuate the policies of this Act and the 
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. For this purpose, the National Labor 
Relations Board is specifically empowered, notwithstanding the provisions of 
section 9 (c) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and notwith- 
standing any administrative policy of the National Labor Relations Board, to 
direct an election of representatives in any bargaining unit then represented hy 
a labor organization or individual against which a proceeding under this Act 
has been commenced by the Attorney General : Provided, That there has beeu 
filed with the National Labor Relations Board a petition for such an election by 
20 per centum or more of the employees in such bargaining unit. 

Sec. 15. If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to 
any labor organization, person, or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the re- 
mainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to labor organizations, 
persons, or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall 
not be afl:ected thereby. 



[S. 2.3, 83cl Cong., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To make it unlawful for a member of a Communist orgauizatiou to hold an office- 
or employment with any labor organization, and to permit the discharge by employers 
of persons who are members of organizations designated as subversive by the Attorney 
General of the United States. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Rcijrcsentatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Subversive Ac- 
tivities Control Act of 1950 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first Congress) is amended 
by renumbering paragraph (15) as paragraph (16) and inserting after the para- 
graph (14) the following new paragraph: 

"(15) Labor organizations are at times infiltrated by subversive persons who- 
are members of Communist organizations and fronts and whose activities dis- 
rupt normal peaceful labor relations and limit or embarrass the choice of loyal 
citizens in afliliatiug with loj'al labor organizations." 

Sec. 2. Subsection 5 (a) (1) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 

as enacted in the Internal Security Act of 1950 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first 

Congress), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph : 

"(E) to hold any office or employment with any labor organization, as that 

term is defined in section 2 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 

amended by section 101 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (61 

Stat. 137-138)." 

Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as enacted 
in the Internal Security Act of 19.50 (Public Law 831, Eighty-first Congress) is 
amended by adding the following subsection : 

"(d) Nothing in this Act or any other statute of the United States shall pre- 
clude an employer from discharging without liability an employee who volun- 
tarily contiimes as a member of an organization duly designated by the Attorney 
General of the United States as subversive, or who has actively concealed his 
membership in such an organization, or who has refused to state to a duly 
constituted congressional legislative committee whether or not he is or has 
knowingly or willingly been a member of such an organization." 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 145 

Mr. Arexs. Mr. Chairman, the first witness wlio is scheduled to 
appear this morning is Mr. Geor<?e E. Bader, vice president and 
works manager of tlie Precision Scientific Co. 

Mr. Bader, would you kindly come forward and assume the witness 
chair, there ? 

Senator Butler. Mr. Bader, do you, in the presence of Almighty 
God, solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this task 
force of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth ? 

Mr. Bader. I do. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE EDWARD BADER, CHICAGO, ILL., VICE 
PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF MANUFACTURING, PRECISION 
SCIENTIFIC CO. 

Mr. Bader. George Edward Bader, Chicago, 111., vice president in 
charge of manufacturing. Precision Scientific Co. 

Mr. Arens. ]\Ir. Bader, would you keep your voice up so that the 
committee can here you clearly ? 

Mr. Bader, Surely. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Bader, you have been scheduled at your request 
to appear to testify with reference to the legislation which is cur- 
rently pending before this task force of the Internal Security Sub- 
committee of the Senate. 

Mr. Bader. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And I should like you just to proceed now in your 
own way at your own pace to make such comments as you feel are 
pertinent to the legislation which is pending. 

Mr. Bader. Well, I would like to present the background. I have 
been associated with the Precision Scientific Co. since 1950, since 
September 1951 as works manager, and more recently as vice president 
in charge of the manufacturing of the company. 

The Precision Scientific Co. manufactures research and develop- 
ment apparatus for use in scientific and technical laboratories. We 
supply the Atomic Energy Commission, the Munitions Board, the 
Medical Procurement Agency, and other Government agencies, with 
apparatus for their research and development laboratories. 

Mr. Arens. Do you also supply or produce defense material ? 

Mr. Bader. Yes, We developed for the armed services a mobile 
petroleum laboratory. It was airborne. This laboratory was made 
for the purpose of testing gasolines, greases, oils, and other petroleum 
items in the field. There were four of these units used in Korea. They 
were for the purpose of testing materials that were captured or con- 
fiscated, or for checking to see whether or not our supplies have been 
sabotaged. 

These mobile laboratories cut down on the length of time that was 
required to test these items. Normally, they were sent back to field 
laboratories for testing, which sometimes incurred a long delay, in 
fact, in instances, so long that when time was not available they would 
destroy the supplies rather than take a chance on losing them or using 
them to their disadvantage. 



146 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. I understand your company had something to do with 
the development of the iron lung, which has become so famous in the 
course of tlie last few years. 

Mr. Bader. Yes, Precision Scientific Co. was a codeveloper of the 
orginal iron lung. We also manufactured blood plasma units, War- 
burg units which are used in cancer research, ionograph Keller units, 
ovens, incubators, autoclaves, and such metal ware as is used in testing 
and research laboratories in the metallurgical, biological, petroleum, 
and chemical fields. 

Mr. Arens. Now, in June of 1953, did you have occasion or did 
your company have occasion to have negotiations with the industrial 
mobilization and procurement and planning division of the armed 
services ? 

Mr. Bader. Yes, we were asked to negotiate, and the agency asked 
us for a schedule, which we were unable to give them, because of the 
circumstances at that time, caused by the unrest in the Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Workers Union. 

Senator Butler. Will you state for the record the percentage of 
your manufacturing output that is restricted ? 

Mr. Bader. We at present have nothing restricted. We have had 
in the past classified materials that were restricted, confidential, and 
top secret. 

Mr. Arens. Were you able to make commitments with the Govern- 
ment for the production of this vital materiel which the armed serv- 
ice wanted you to produce ? 

Mr. Bader. No, sir, we were not. 

Mr. Arens. And why were you not able to do so ? 

Mr. Bader. Because of the uncertainty of our relations witli this 
labor union. 

Mr. Arens. And what labor group is that ? 

Mr. Bader. That is the International Union of Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Workers. 

Mr. Arens. And is that the same gi'oup which was, about a year 
ago, exposed by the Internal Security Subcommittee as a Communist- 
dominated labor organization? 

Mr. Bader. Yes ; at Salt Lake City, at the Salt Lake City hearings. 

Mr. Arens. At the hearings we had in Salt Lake City ? 

Mr. Bader. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. When were those? September? 

Mr. Bader. October 7 and 8. 

Mr. Duffy. 1952. 

Mr. Arens. Would you just proceed at your own pace to tell of 
the difficulties which you have had or your organization has had with 
the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. 

Mr. Bader. Well, when I accepted the responsibility of manufacture 
of our items, which was in September 1951, 1 noticed immediately that 
I was alarmed at the unrest, and the conditions that seemed to prevail 
among the workers. 

I was at a loss to explain any reason for that, because they had just 
negotiated a contract with this union. 

So I thought I would make a study. And during this study, I 
found out that the union had been granted everything that they had 
asked for. They had been given complete fringe benefits that are 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 147 

compatible with this era. And I couldn't understand why we would 
have the situation that we did. There was particular unrest. The 
arguments that the union would put forth were inane. There was no 
basis or foundation for the requests that they were making. 

There were such instances as that they would grieve because the 
workers didn't get overtime. When we scheduled overtime, they 
wouldn't allow the workers to work the overtime that was scheduled. 

Senator Butler. Will you tell us for the record how many em- 
ployees you have at the plant ? 

Mr. Bader. We have approximately 250 in the bargaining unit. 

Shall I continue? 

Mr. Arens. If you please, sir. 

Mr. Bader. There was a time in the negotiations when the union of- 
ficials refused to negotiate with the officers of the company, stating 
that they would negotiate only with the wives of the officers of the 
company — the wives of the officers of the company having no part in 
company affairs. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have reason to conclude in your own mind that 
the disruption caused by Mine, Mill was occasioned by something 
other than a deep sincere concern for labor conditions of the mem- 
bers? 

Mr. Bader. The disruption in working and the arguments put forth 
by the union weren't for contractual gains. That is what I couldn't 
understand. And until I completed my investigation — 

Senator Butler. What type of work were you doing at that time ? 

Mr. Bader. At that time I was works manager in charge of manu- 
facturing. 

Senator Butler. And what type of work was being processed in the 
plant? 

Mr. Bader. Manufacture of the items such as I have mentioned. 

Senator Butler. Any of it secret or restricted ? 

Mr. Bader. Some of them were classified. 

Senator Butler, Was there a deadline on the production of the 
items ? 

Mr. Bader. Many of them were under directives. 

Senator Butler. Will you explain what you mean by that, that 
they were under directives ? 

Mr. Bader. They were under directives issued by the National Pro- 
duction Authority at the request of the Atomic Energy Commission 
and the Munitions Board and the various Government agencies to 
complete the Savannah River project and other projects for the AEC. 

Mr. Arens. What is your backlog of orders at the present time, un- 
fulfilled ordere which you have with the National Production 
Authority ? 

Mr. Bader. Our entire backlog for the company is well over a 
million, and I would say 40 percent of that is to fill Government 
orders. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Bader, although the Mine, Mill and Smelter 
Labor organization has been ejected from CIO because the CIO found, 
in effect, that it was Communist controlled, and although Mine, Mill 
and Smelter has been repeatedly exposed by congressional committees 
as being) a Communist controlled organization, your company is 
obliged to bargain with the Mine-Mill under the existing arrange- 
ment. Isn't that correct? 



148 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Bader, That is true. The National Labor Kelations Board 
certified this union, after an election in, I believe, March of 1953. 

Mr. Arens. And your company, if it did not bargain with this 
Communist controlled labor organization, would be, under the pres- 
ent arrangement, guilty of an unfair labor practice? 

Mr. Bader. An unfair labor practice. That is true. Wq have that 
charge against us. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have that charge against you at the present 
time ? 

Mr. Bader. An unfair labor practice; yes, sir. 

Mr. xVrexs. Will you tell us about that, just in your own way in- 
formally, please? 

Mr. Bader. I would have to go over it very briefly, because it is a 
legal matter. 

Mr. Arens. I didn't mean to suggest that you get into the legal 
technicalities. Just in general, now, what is the situation ? 

Mr. Bader. In 1952, in October, the union, INline-Mill, cancelled 
their existing contract which had been in efi'ect for over a year. At 
the same time another union, the International Brotherhood of Elec- 
trical Workers, intervened. There was cause for an election. The 
NLRB held an election. We objected to the election, the company 
did, but the election was run off, and IVIine-Mill won the election. 

After due course of time, the XLRB certified the Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Union. We wrote to the Board and said we believed that 
they were Communist dominated, and we would not recogT.ize them. 

Mr. Arens. The NLRB would not certify as a bargaining agency a 
company union, Avould it ? 

Mr. Bader. A company union? Of that I am not sure. I can't 
answer that. 

Mr. Arens. I think we might discuss that with the next witness, 
who is a technician in this field. 

Now, will you just kindly proceed with your problems with United 
Mine, Mill and Smelter? 

Mr. Bader. All right. 

After we refused to bargain witli the union or recognize them as 
a certified union, they filed an unfair labor practice. There was a 
hearing on that at the time. Our counsel wanted to present evidence 
that they were Communist dominated, which he was not allowed 
to do. 

Mr. Arens. He was not allowed to present that evidence before 
the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Bader. At the hearing. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. And when was that hearing ? 

Mr. Bader. That was in — I am not sure. I would have to check 
my records. 

Mr. Arens. About when was it ? Last year ? 

Mr. Bader. It was in '53 ; yes. 

Mr. Arens Proceed, if you please, sir. 

Mr. Bader. The case was up before the Board, and there had been 
a hearing, and we were waiting for a decision on it. The workers 
were still employed, and they worked all during that time, after their 
vacation period, which was July 23, 1953. At that time, Mine-Mill 
called the workers out, and they struck. They were out for 10 weeks. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 149 

Our counsel secured a temporary injunction in the circuit court of 
the State of Illinois. On this temporary injunction, the workers then 
returned to their jobs. 

Mr. Arens. Does your company want to bargain with a Com- 
munist-controlled labor organization? 

Mr. Bader. No ; we will not bargain with a Communist-controlled 
organization, and we will carry it to the Supreme Court if necessary. 

Mr. Arens. Now, is there anything else? 

Mr. Bader. I believe that that would conclude my observations, 
Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have information, Mr. Bader, respecting the 
number of working days that were lost because of the interruptions 
by the mine-mill people ? 

Mr. Bader. Well, there were manj^ hours lost. There were 10,000 
hours in 1951. There were around seven or eight hundred hours in 
1952. And up until June 1953, there were over 15',000 hours. And 
then after June, they had the 10-week strike. So, 10 weeks at ap- 
proximately 250 people, eight hours a day, would be the total of the 
number of hours lost. 

Mr. Arens. And it is your testimony, as I understand it, that all 
of the contractual obligations of the company were fully met ? 

Mr. Bader. At all times, yes. 

Mr. Arens. Is it your feeling that the strike, or the work stoppages, 
were deliberate, by this Communist controlled labor organization, for 
the purpose of interfering Avith the defense effort ? 

Mr. Bader. Yes, I do believe that. I can find no other reason to sup- 
port such work stoppages. We filled our part of the contract at 
all times. Our contract was very liberal, not only in my mind, but the 
average interpretation of it would be that it was very liberal. 

Mr. Arens. Now, as a typical businessman, Mr. Bader, with a 
typical business organization, small-business organization, producing 
for the defense of this great country, do you have any worries or 
concerns about the fact that a Communist-controlled labor organiza- 
tion has access to your plants and to your blueprints and to your 
lathes and to your establishment there, which is producing defense 
materiel ? 

Mr. Bader. Yes ; I have concern, because such an organization, with 
an ulterior motive, that would comply with the, dictates of the Com- 
munist Party, Avould not only injure our defense program, with the 
Atomic Energy Commission, and all the other Government organiza- 
tions, but it would doom to oblivion a company such as ours. 

Mr. Arens. Now, you are not coming before this commitee with 
any objective to try to bust a union or beat down wages or anything 
of that kind, are you ? 

Mr. Bader. No, sir ; that is for sure. 

Mr. Arens. What is your purpose in coming before this committee, 
under the chairmanship of the Senator from Maryland ? 

Mr. Bader. Well, principally to try to make the people and the 
Government agencies realize w^hat is actually going on and what we 
are letting ourselves in for if something isn't done about it and done 
very quickly. 

Mr. Arens. Is there anything else which you would like to present 
to the committee, Mr. Bader? 

Mr. Bader. No, sir. I believe that completes my testimony. 



150 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Butler. Can you tell me to what extent, if you know, this 
slowdown and strike interfered with the completion of these atomic 
energy installations that you have referred to in your testimony ? 

Mr. Bader. Well, no ; I don't know exactly to what degree. I know 
it must have been to a serious degree, because the expediters would 
obtain directives, and they would send representatives to our plant to 
tell us of the penalties of noncompliance. And when we would ex- 
plain to them that it wasn't that yve didn't want to or wouldn't like 
to — it was that we were unable to, because of our association with 
this union. 

Senator Butler. Did any of the representatives of the Govern- 
ment of the United States at any time threaten to withdraw the con- 
tract from you on account of the Communist influence of this labor 
union ? 

Mr. Bader. No, sir; they didn't. Maybe, for one reason, we are 
the sole manufacturers of these items, and there isn't any place else 
they can obtain them except from us. They were necessary for the 
defense program, and we were the only ones that could supply them. 

Senator Butler. Did you ever discuss that matter with any of the 
Government agencies or official of a Government agency? 

Mr. Bader. Well, off the record with them, yes. There didn't 
seem to be any recourse open to us at the time. 

Senator Butler. In other words, had it not been for the fact that 
you were the sole producers of these items, this contract would have 
been taken away from you and given to some other company that 
didn't have a Communist-controlled union? 

Mr. Bader. Without a doubt. Without a doubt. 

Senator Butt.er. And that is your testimony? 

Mr. Bader. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. So that this record may be perfectly clear, it is a fact, 
is it not, that under the present practice and policy which is in vogue, 
you are obliged to contract with the Communist-controlled United 
Mine, Mill, and Smelter organization? 

Mr. Bader. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And you are obliged to let their men in your plants? 

Mr. Bader. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. And you are obliged to let Communists into your 
plants? 

Mr. Bader. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. And all the force and power and effect of this Govern- 
ment of the United States is behind the mine, mill, and smelter organi- 
zation to force you to permit them to let their Communists in your 
plants ? 

Mr. Bader. As things are right now, yes. 

Mr. Arens. That is under the present state of affairs. 

Mr. Bader. That is under the present state of affairs. 

Mr. Arens. Which, in part at least, is attempted to be remedied by 
the several bills which are before this subcommittee. 

Mr. Bader. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, Mr. Bader? 

Mr. Bader. Not unless there are more questions I can answer. 

Mr. Arens. We thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Butler. Thank you very much. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 151 

Mr. Arens. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Barnabas F. Sears 
be invited to assume the witness chair. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, in the presence of almighty God, do you 
solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you give this task 
force of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. Sears. I do. 

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

TESTIMONY OF BARNABAS F. SEARS, CHICAGO, ILL., ATTORNEY 
FOR PRECISION SCIENTIFIC CO. 

Mr. Sears. My name is Barnabas F. Sears. I live at Aurora, 111. 
I am a member of the bar of the State of Illinois, with offices at 1 
North La Salle Street, Chicago, and I am also a member of the bar 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. I appear here on behalf 
of the Precision Scientific Co., as their attorney, and I also appear 
individually as a citizen. 

Now, you heard what Mr. Bader had to say. I should like to add 
some facts to some of the facts that he outlined. 

I should like to call your attention to the fact that we, as his counsel, 
got into the case sometime in October of 1952, at which time there 
was pending — I think it was around October — a petition for certifica- 
tion under section 9 of the Taft-Hartley Act by local 1031 of the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers had been the bargaining agent in 
that plant for some 5 years. And my attention was particularly at- 
tracted to the case when Mr. Bader brought me a photostatic copy 
of a letter that appeared on the bulletin board of the plant, written 
by Mr. John Clark, president of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, to 
Mr. Edward DeClair, who was shop chairman. That letter I wish 
to read in the record. Dated October 20, 1952 : 

Deab Brother DeClair: I wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation the 
message of support you sent to us in Salt Lake City at the time we appeared be- 
fore the McCarran committee. 

Our ability to defeat the efforts of McCarran to destroy our union depends 
upon the rank and file of our union and expressions such as yours indicate that 
we will defeat our enemies. 

Sincerely and fraternally yours, 

John Clark, President. 

It occurred to me as rather unusual that a committee or a sub- 
committee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate could be an enemy of any organized group, and particularly 
a labor group. 

So we produced transcripts of the hearings before the McCarran 
committee, and I want to say that it would have been impossible for 
us to have come as far as we have in the legal battle that we have 
had with this union were it not for the evidence which was adduced 
at that committee hearing. 

And I want to take this opportunity of personally thanking that 
committee for the very great aid that we received. 



152 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, at that point, I can assure you that 
this task force has only one purpose. We want to get to the facts 
of this situation. 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. As the last witness just said under oath before 
this task force, he has to bring Communists into his plant to do 
Government work of a secret and restricted character. He cannot 
discharge those men. He cannot fail to bargain with that union. 
If he does, he is in violation of law. 

And, on the other hand, if there is anybody else that can do the 
work, if he is not the sole producer of the item, the Government will 
go so far as to take it away from him and deny him the right to work 
on that and keep his company going and put it over into some other 
company, where there are not Communists, rather than go to the 
root of the trouble and find out how we can get these Communists 
out of our plants. And that is the sole purpose of this committee, 
to try to get some light on how we can accomplish that purpose. We 
are not out to bust any union. All I want to do — any union that 
shows good faith and comes out and will clean out the Communists 
will have the full support of this Internal Security Subcommittee 
and of all the Senators. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Sears. I am sure of it also. 

Now, in order to really understand the situation, you will have to 
understand the problem that we had from a legal standpoint. 

Senator Butler. I would like very much to have you put that 
problem on this record, so that we can study it and hope to evolve 
legislation that will correct this situation. 

Mr. Sears. Now, here is what happened. Mine-mill, as I say, 
moved and was granted leave to intervene in this section 9 Taft- 
Hartley proceeding, which is an investigatory proceeding, for the 
purpose of determining a collective bargaining representative. The 
hearing officer was sent out. We appeared before the hearing officer. 
We objected to the intervention of mine-mill. We objected to mine- 
mill being placed upon the ballot. We asked the hearing officer to 
take judicial notice of the proceedings before the McCarran com- 
mittee and the evidence adduced by that committee. 

We called the record's specific attention to Senate Document — I 
forget the number. It referred to the expulsion by the CIO after a 
public hearing of various Communist-dominated unions, including 
mine, mill, and smelter workers union, and he told us in no uncer- 
tain terms that that matter was not litigable in that proceeding. And 
thereupon he filed his report with the Board, and the Board entered 
an order placing mine-mill on the ballot. 

Senator Butler. In other words, he held that that testimony was 
not relevant to the issue on the certification under section 9 of the 
act? 

Mr. Sears. That is correct. That is exactly what he held. 

Mr. Arens. May I just clear the record here? Was it your con- 
tention that mine-mill was not in fact a bona fide labor organization, 
but that it was an agency of the Comnumist Party ? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. We claimed two things. In the first place, 
we claimed that the affidavits they had on file under 9 (h) were false, 
and No. 2, that it was not a labor organization within the meaning of 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 153 

section 2 (f ) of the Taft-Hartley i^ct, because its policies and direc- 
tives were the policies and directives of the Communist Party, and it 
was but an agency of that party. That is exactly what we claimed. 

Senator Butler. Did you offer to adduce testimony to prove that 
charge ? 

Mr. Sears. We did, indeed. 

Senator Butler. And that process of proof was refused? 

Mr. Sears. Correct. And we are still in the section 9 proceeding. 

Mr. Arens. Did you show to the Board that, in the hearings by 
the McCarran committee when we were out in Salt Lake City about 
a year ago, ten of the top officials of the mine-mill outfit were identified 
as Communists '? 

Mr. Sears. We did not at that time have the actual transcript. But 
we later procured the transcript, and with the brief we filed in the 9 
proceeding, in objecting to mine-mill being placed on the ballot, we 
physically appended to our brief that exhaustive and voluminous 
document, being the hearings out in Salt Lake. 

Now, mine-mill was placed upon the ballot, and immediately when 
the Board ordered mine-mill to be placed on the ballot, then who be- 
came tlie subversives? Interesting thing. Immediately mine-mill 
started to bulletin the plant and elsewhere, saying that we had made 
phony arguments with respect to their communistic affiliations — 
within the Board's order putting them on the ballot; that far from 
them being subversive, we were subversive, because we were defying 
the Goverimient. They carried that election 2 to 1. They beat a 
very legitimate patriotic labor union in Chicago, Local Union 1031 
of the Electrical Workers, 2 to 1, with that argument that our argu- 
ment that they were communistic was phony and the fact that it was 
phony was evidenced by the fact that this Government agency, the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board, permitted their name to be placed 
upon the ballot. 

We objected to the election, for the same reasons. Those objec- 
tions were overruled. 

Thereupon, they went before the Board, and they filed a charge 
that we had refused to bargain with them. They asked that we bar- 
gain with them. We wrote them a letter stating specifically that we 
were not going to bargain with them, because they weren't a labor 
organization and they hadn't filed truthful affidavits under 9 (h). 

The complaint was issued. We went to a hearing. We subpenaed 
Morris Travis and John Clark, served a subpena on them out in 
Denver. We finally got them in before the Board. 

At the hearing before the trial examiner, we made exhaustive and 
detailed offers of proof. We not only proved all of the evidence that 
was adduced by the McCarran committee, as substantive proof of the 
fact ; in fact, we had one of the witnesses testify. One of the witnesses 
subpenaed, I should say. But we had Clark and Travis on the stand, 
and we took the photostatic copies of the affidavits which they filed 
before the Board and asked them whether their signatures were 
appended to those affidavits. We were not permitted at that hearing 
to ask them any question with respect to that. 

Senator Butler. This was before the hearing examiner of the 
National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Sears. This was before a trial examiner, Senator, in the 
adversary proceeding, where due process emerges. 



154 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. May I ask this question : Had the coin been turned tho 
other way, and had the labor organization, some labor organization, 
undertaken to establish that there was a company union which was 
dominated by a company, the National Labor Relations Board would 
take jurisdiction, and would, if the facts sustain the charge, not certify 
an organization which was company dominated, would it not? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, is this the fact : that the National Labor 
Relations Board will not certify a labor organization which is domi- 
nated by a company as a bona fide labor organization, but that the 
National Labor Relations organization will certify a Communist 
agency as a labor organization ? 

Mr. Sears. Well, of course, that depends upon what they finally 
decided in our case. 

Now, our case isn't over yet. I mean, we are back here in a section 
10 proceeding. 

Mr. Arens. That has been their practice, has it not ? 

Mr. Sears. That is correct. That has been their practice. 

Mr. Arens. That Communist controlled labor organizations, 
organizations that had been repeatedly exposed by the Government of 
the United States, the congressional committees, as Communist con- 
trolled, are certified now by the National Labor Relations Board as 
bargaining agencies? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. But that company unions are not certified, because 
they are controlled by an outside source? 

Mr. Sears. Because they are controlled and supported, financially 
or otherwise, by the company. You are right. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. Even though that company and its management 
may be perfectly free of all Communist influence ? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir, and even though that company may be acting 
in the interest of those employees. You still can't have a company 
union. 

Mr. Arens. The theory of the decertification of a company union 
is that the union is controlled by an outside source. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. Sears. It is controlled by an outside source, specifically the 
company. 

Mr. Arens. But somehow or other the National Labor Relations 
Board, to date, has not adopted that same policy that a Communist 
labor organization is controlled by an outside source, to wit, the Com- 
munist Party ? Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Sears, Yes, sir. That is right. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, you find no fault with the ruling of 
the NLRB that a company union should not be recognized ? 

Mr. Sears. That is right. 

Senator Butler. But, on the other hand, you say if you do not 
recognize them because they are a company union, you should not 
recognize an organization that is controlled by an outside source that 
would be even more detrimental to the company employees than the 
company itself. 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. The difficulty began when the board assumed 
to have authority to enact a rule which said they were not going to 
litigate the question of compliance with Taft-Hartley; I mean the 
question of 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 155 

The question of whether a Communist-dominated union is a labor 
organization within the meaning of section 2 (f ) of the Taft-Hartley 
Act has never been specifically decided. 

As a matter of fact, the Canada Labor Eelations Board, in a case 
a year or two ago, decertified the Canada Seamen's Union because it 
was a Connnunist-dominated union, without benefit of 9 (h) of the 
Taft-Hartley Act, or without benefit of our Smith Act, and absolutely 
on language similar to 2 (h) of Taft-Hartley. They had no trouble. 
And Ave furnished the committee with a citation on that case. But 
that is where the trouble started. 

I think the legislative history of 9 (h) particularly is ambiguous, 
and I think that an employer has the right, faced as we were in that 
section 10 adversar}' proceeding, to prove the fact, namely, that the 
officers of this union were members of the Communist Party. But we 
weren't permitted to prove that fact. 

Thereupon, the trial examiner issued an intermediate report, whicli 
said that he recommended to the National Labor Relations Board that 
we bargain with this union. Right awaj^, some more literature. We 
are subversives. We are defying the Government. Why doesn't 
Bader, and Warner, who is chairman of the board, follow the dictates 
of the L^nited States Government and bargain with us, with this union, 
with this loyal American union. We have a lot of that in the record. 

Then we went along. There were a lot of intermittent work stop- 
pages. They would call them out to attend a union meeting, obvious 
Communist Party discipline, as a matter of fact, to show their 
strength. 

And then on the 23rd of July, they struck. They struck to enforce — 
and this is important — they struck to enforce a certification, that cer- 
tification by the National Labor Relations Board. 

Now, under existing law, the employer is the only one who may test 
that certification. But the only way he has is to refuse to bargain 
witli the union. 

Thereupon a complaint is filed against him under section 10, and h& 
goes through that complaint procedure that we went through, and the 
record now, in the old 9 case that I talked about before, the section 9 
case, is filed in that section 10 case, and that is the only way he can 
get that certification reviewed. And he is the only one that can get 
it reviewed. 

But what if the union strikes, as this union did, to enforce that 
certification? The employer has no open door to a Federal court 
room. The Federal courts are closed to him entirely. Specifically, 
the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits an injunction, and an injunction 
is the only remedj' he can have. The only thing that is going to 
protect him from a destructive strike is the preservation of status, a 
return to the condition existing prior to the strike, so that he, like 
any other citizen litigating a question, can preserve status and not 
destroy the subject matter of the litigation. 

Now, that is where Precision Scientific Co. was on the 23d day of 
July when these people went out — with all the propaganda and every 
thing else about defying the Government, that it was a lawful strike, 
that they were striking to enforce a certification of the National Labor 
Relations Board, that we were subverting the processes of the law by 
refusing to recognize them. 



156 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

So we stood the strike for about 10 weeks, to the point of imminent 
bankruptcy, as the records before Judge Dunne in the circuit court 
of Cook County will disclose — and I have a transcript of that record 
with me — and then we went into the circuit court of Cook County for 
an injunction to order the officers of this union to order the men back 
to work, similar to the injunction that Judge Goldsborough issued 
against John L. Lewis, and also to restrain the strike. 

And the theory of that case was two-fold. Number one, we com- 
plained that Illinois, as a sovereign State in this Union, had the right 
to determine the question of whether or not a subversive organization 
threatening its integrit}^ and sovereignty was a lal)or organization 
within the laws of Illinois. 

Mr. Arens. Who represented Mine, Mill in these negotiations and 
in these legal controversies? 

Mr, Sears. Well, Mr. David Rothstein of Chicago represented them 
in the injunction proceeding. He represented them dui-ing the sec- 
tion 9 proceeding. And he was aided by Mr. Nathan Witt. 

Mr. Arens. Nathan Witt was at one time identified with the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board, was he not? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, he was. 

Mr. xIrens. And what was his capacity with the National Labor 
Relations Board? 

Mr. Sears. I think he was Secretary of the Board, as I recall. 

Mr. Arens. And now he is one of the counsel for this Communist- 
controlled Mine, Mill? 

Mr. Sears. He is general counsel for the Mine, ISIill and Smelter 
Workers. 

Mr. Arens. He went from the National Labor Relations Board with 
the Communist labor organization; is that right? 

Mr. Sears. That is where he went. 

I want to say, however, on behalf of Mr. Rothstein, not on behalf 
of Mr. Witt, that during the entire course of this litigation, Mr. Roth- 
stein has acted as a very honorable gentleman at the bar. I want to 
say that on behalf of Mr. Rothstein. 

Now, this is another thing that is important to the consideration 
of this matter. We filed a very detailed complaint. As a matter of 
fact, we pleaded evidence, really. All of the evidence that was un- 
covered before the McCarran Committee w^as in that complaint. And 
after we filed the complaint, we made a motion for a temporary in- 
junction. And under Illinois practice, a defendant would be per- 
mitted to file an answer denying the allegations of that complaint. 

Of course, that had to be a sworn answer, because our complaint was 
sworn to. And thereby that defendant could put the plaintiff to the 
burden of proving, at least prima facie, the facts alleged in that 
complaint. 

They filed no answer. They filed a motion to dismiss which ad- 
mitted the allegations of the complaint, and they premised their argu- 
ment upon the proposition that an Illinois equity court had no juris- 
diction to do anything; that the matter was exclusively within the 
Federal domain. 

Now, in addition to the theory that Illinois, as a sovereign State, 
has the right to protect its own sovereignty and integrity from attack, 
regardless of whether the attack takes the form of a labor organization 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 157 

or not, the other theory was that in any and all events an equity court, 
or a constitutional court, such as an Illinois equity court, had the right 
to protect the business of its citizens from destruction, pendente lite, 
whether that lite was in a Federal court or before a Federal agency, 
or in a State court. And after a long hearing and after much evidence 
with respect to the financial position of the company, Judge Dunne 
issued such an injunction — after a very deliberate hearing. 

Well, immediately they started to operate on Judge Dunne. They 
put in paid ads. 

In the November 25, 1951 issue of the Chicago Daily News and the 
Chicago Herald American, they inserted the paid advertisement which 
is appended to my statement for the record, and in addition to that, 
they distributed copies of that paid advertisement among the workers 
at Precision, among the workers at the big Harvester plant in Chicago, 
and elsewhere. 

Now, they took an appeal to the appellate court of Illinois from 
the order issuing the injunction, where the matter is now pending or 
waiting for the filing of briefs. It hasn't been argued there orally 
yet. But the important thing that I wish to emphasize upon this 
committee, if nothing else, is this : That this problem is twofold. And 
I don't want to deprecate the importance of the public interest in the 
question of communism in labor unions, but we don't want to lose 
sight of the property interest of the employer. Because he is the one 
most immediately affected by the impact of a political strike. It is 
his property that is going to be damaged. And he must have the 
open door of a courtroom to protect his property, so that he should 
have the right, as every other citizen has the right, to defend himself. 

Now, I am not speaking against these three bills at all, and the 
fact that a public agency under those bills has the jurisdiction to in- 
vestigate the question of communism, because I saw the value of that. 
As I said before, had it not been for the McCarran investigation out 
in Salt Lake, we wouldn't have the case we have today. 

But more consideration, if I may suggest it, should be given to the 
proposition that an employer, faced with a Communist-dominated 
labor union in his plant, should have a courtroom open to him. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, may I say at this point that this com- 
iriittee is a task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee. We are 
interested only in the internal security of the United States. 

The matter that you raise at this point w^ould come more properly 
under the Labor Committee. I think that is legislation that should 
be considered by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. 

This committee has only to do with matters affecting the internal 
security. And this committee felt that the situation that we are dis- 
cussing posed a threat to the security of the United States, because if 
Communist-dominated organizations are permitted to have free access 
to our defense plants, where secret and restricted work is being car- 
ried on, we have no secrets from our enemies. If Communist-domi- 
nated organizations have access to our plants in time of emergency, 
we have no security against sabotage. If Communist-dominated 
unions and their stooges are admitted into our plants, we have no 
sure production. Because, as you know, many methods can be em- 
ployed to slow up production. 

43903 — 54 11 



158 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

We are interested in those phases of the internal security. And 
while I would express no opinion on the merit of what you say, that 
a man's property should be protected, I think that is something that 
does not properly fall within the purview of this investigation. 

Mr. Sears. I think, perhaps. Senator, your observations are cor- 
rect. It only has, let us say, an indirect bearing. 

Senator Butler. There is no question that it does have indirect 
bearing. But I do not think that we can take cognizance of it here. 

Mr. Sears. Well, I think, then, that I have said about all that I 
care to say on the subject. I Avould be very happy to answer any 
questions that any of you gentlemen may have. 

Mr. Arens. I should like to ask you two or three questions, if I may. 
please. 

Assuming that legislation were on the lawbooks precluding certi- 
fication by the National Labor Relations Board of an organization 
which was found by a legitimate agency of the Government to be 
Communist-controlled, how would that affect this situation which you 
and your friend, Mr. Bader, have been discussing? 

Mr. Sears. Well, if the Communist-dominated union was found to 
be a Communist-dominated union prior to the fact of a strike, it would 
be very helpful. 

Mr. Arens. Well, now, let's assume that Mine, Mill had not been 
certified as a bargaining agency : Couldn't Mine, Mill just operate as an 
independent organization, unless there were further legislation? 

Mr. Sears. Absolutely. 

Mr. Arens. And couldn't INIine, Mill just contract with the Precision 
Co. or any other company ? 

Mr. Sears. Sure. Apart from the Board, a business agent of 
Mine, Mill could come in and say, "Take a look at these cards. These 
are authorization cards. I ask "you to recognize my organization as 
the bargaining agent of your employees." 

The employer says, "Well, now, if you will kindly go over to the 
National Labor Relations Board and file a petition, and if my people 
vote for you, I will recognize you." And the business agent can say, 
"Well, that is all very well, my friend, but I want you to recognize 
me now. And if you don't * * *" 

I have tried at least two cases where they have said, "If you don't 
recognize me this afternoon, we will 'hit the bricks' " as the expression 
goes 'in the morning.' '" 

There is nothing unlawful about that. 

Mr. Arens. Well, precluding certification is only one plug in the 
dike, isn't it ? 
■ Mr. Sears. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Let's, then, Mr. Chairman, get the opinion of Mr. 
Sears about some other holes that have to be plugged before we at 
least legislatively meet this particular situation. 

Is there anything in the present law or policy of the NLRB which 
authorizes the Precision Co. to discharge and fire out of the plant 
a person who is a Communist ? 

Mr. Sears. Specifically, not. 

Mr. Arens. Well, let us assume for the sake of argument that one 
of the congressional committees, or a court, concludes that Mr. John 
Smith is a Communist, and that you look down the payroll of the 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 159 

Precision Co. and find that Mr. Jolm Smith is there engaged and 
has secret bhieprints on his desk right now pertaining to defense 
work. Can j^our company, without jeopardizing your interests, fire 
Mr. John Smith ? 

Mr. Sears. In those circumstances, yes. 

Mr. Arens. How can you do it under these circumstances, and not 
under the preceding circumstances ? 

Mr. Sears. In the first place, under the circumstances outlined 
by the bill, you have at least a record of the fact that the man is a 
Communist. Now, I personally think, although I could be very 
easily mistaken about this, that, if I had a known Communist in the 
plant, I would think I have the right to fire him as an employer. So 
far as the Taft-Hartley Act is concerned, it only prohibits my dis- 
charging or discriminating against a man because of bona fide activi- 
ties on behalf of a labor organization. Other than that, I can fire 
him, because I don't like the color of his hair, for example, absent a 
specific provision in a collective-bargaining agreement with respect 
to causes for discharge. 

Mr. Arens. Well, don't the collective bargaining agreements which 
you presently have with Mine, Mill, preclude the company from firing 
a Communist ? 

Mr. Sears. That I don't know. I coudn't say that. I would be 
a little doubtful of that. 

Mr. Arens. Now, is there anything in the present law, Mr. Sears, 
which precludes the letting of defense contracts to a plant which is 
bargaining with a Communist-controlled labor organization? 
Mr. Sears. Nothing that I know of. 

Mr. Arens. As a matter of fact, that is in existence at the present 
time in your plant. That is an illustration, is it not? 
Mr. Sears. That is a very good illustration of it. 
Senator Butler. Mr. Sears, I would like to make this as much of 
a two-way street as it can be done. I am looking out for the internal 
security. If there is any proof that any employer or any of the man- 
aging authority of the plant are Communists, they should be dealt 
with in a similar manner. 

Mr. Sears. Precisely. Certainly I am not here as a citizen talking 
about communism at an employee level and not talking about com- 
munism at a management level. 

Senator Butler. That is right. It could work both ways. 
Mr. Sears. I want to stamp it out at every level, as far as I am 
concerned. 

Senator Butler. If the employer or any officer of the company or 
the persons owning, controlling, or managing the company who would 
have access to this data would have access to this, they should be fired 
and the contract withdrawn ? 

Mr. Sears. Absolutely. What I know about the history of com- 
munism doesn't indicate that it is found necessarily at the employee 
level. 

Senator Butler. And I want to make that clear, that it is not the 
purpose of this committee to condemn any labor organization simply 
because it is a labor organization. The purpose of this committee is 
to protect the internal security of America. 
Mr. Sears. Correct. 



160 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Buti.er. And we may find just as ninch Communist infil- 
tration and influence in the upper or the employer level as we do in 
the employee level. I want to make that clear for this record. 

iNIr. Sears. I am glad you did because I feel that way about it, too, 
Senator. 

Mr. Akens. Mr. Sears, it has been suggested from some quarters 
that, after all, this question of Communists in labor organizations 
is just a (juestion either of the labor organizations to look after, or 
it is a question of a squabble between labor and management. Your 
plant doesn't have access to security records of this Government, does 
it? 

Mr. Sears. That I couldn't answer. 

Mr. Arens. You are certain that your plant doesn't have access to 
the FBI records ? 

Mr. Sears. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Arens. And you are sure also that the labor organizations 
<loirt have access to the FBI records? 

Mr. Sears. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. It would follow, then, would it not, that the job of 
ascertaining who are the Communists in labor organizations and 
whether or not a particular labor organization is dominated by the 
Comnnmists would be a job for those who do have access to the se- 
ourit}' I'ecords of this Government? 

Mr. Sears. Of course. It is peculiarly a function of government, 
as the Senator from Maryland pointed out, whether it be at an em- 
ployee level or at a management level. I mean, it is up to the Gov- 
ernment to jirotect its own sovereignty and integrity. And one of 
the basic principles of the Government is self-perpetuation. And 
that is all the Government is doing. 

Mr. Arens. Assuming for the sake of argument that the rank and 
file of the mine, mill — and I would hazard a guess that this is the 
case — are loyal, patriotic American citizens, before they could divest 
themselves of Comnnmists in the labor organization, they would 
first have to know who are the Communists in the labor organization, 
would they not? 

Mr. Sears. Precisely. 

Mr. Arens. And, before they could know Avho are the Connnunists 
in the labor organization, they would have to have the records 
or the facilities presently available only to the security agencies of 
the Government of the United States. Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Sears. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. Arens. Doesn't it then follow that, if this is a job of cleaning 
Communists out of labor organizations and out of defense plants, 
it is a job for a duly authorized agency of the United States which 
does have access to security records? 

Mr. Sears. I would say it is peculiarly within their province. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Sears, have you given any thought to the prob- 
lem which troubles this subcommittee, at least troubles me, the situa- 
tion in a labor organization where you might have your Communists 
not officers in the organization but actually the men who pull the 
strings behind the scenes? 

Have you given any thought to that? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 161 

Mr. Sears. Well, now, if I may be permitted to say, Mr. Travis 
at one time was president of this union. We are talking now spe- 
cifically about Mine, Mill. He is now secretary-treasurer. But, as 
I understand it, for all intents and purposes, he is the actual leader 
of the union. Now, were you to move him out from the so-called offi- 
cial family, the legislation, any legislation, which would reach only 
officers of the organization would be valueless. I mean, it shouldn't 
be predicated solely upon their official position but any position of 
control, influence, or dominion which they exercise in fact, without 
regard to their title. 

Senator Butler. But, by like token, any such legislation would 
have to have necessary safeguards thrown around it to be sure that 
the charge is substantiated? 

Mr. Sears. Exactly. I mean, you would have to prove the fact. 

Mr. Arens. We are glad to get your observation on it. That is a 
troublesome issue, that the Communists are not above placing front 
men in an organization, men wliom they can control, and actually sit 
back, like Edgar Bergen controls Charlie INIcCarthy, and operate a 
labor or any other organization to the benefit of the Communist Party 
and to the detriment of the security of our Nation. 

Mr. Sears. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Are there any other issues which you would like to dis- 
cuss with the subcommittee? 

Senator Butler. Have you any suggestion on any of these bills 
that 3^ou think would make the bills a better piece of legislation? 

Mr. Sears. Well, I think, as Mr. Arens pointed out, I don't be- 
lieve the bills are comprehensive enough to coA'er a person who might 
not be an officer but might, in fact, be in control of the union. 

Mr. Arens. I am disposed to think at least it is attempted to be 
made that way. 

Mr. Sears. But, other than that, I think that, having in mind the 
specific purposes of the bill as the Senator pointed out, I would say 
that they are a veiw fine step in the direction of the desired objective, 
in my opinion. 

Mr. Arens. Do 3^ou think legislation is needed, Mr. Sears, on the 
basis of your study of this problem, to preclude individual Com- 
munists from being in labor organizations? 

Mr. Sears. Well, I just don't see how we can legalize the Com- 
munists in any fashion. Noav, we want to bear in mind, of course, 
as we well know, that a Communist is a man who believes in the violent 
overthrow of the United States Government by force. Now, how 
he can have rights in our society, or how a man can have rights in a 
society which he seeks to destroy, is a little difficult to understand. 
I think that I am a liberal, in a sense. I want a man to have the bene- 
fit of all of our cherished traditions. But how we can give rights to 
a man who seeks to destroy us — I find that a little difficult. 

Senator Butler. We may be getting into another field there. 

Mr. Sears. I think we are. 

Senator Butler. It is a little difficult, as we all know, to obtain 
absolute proof of the state of mind of any given individual. 

Mr. Sears. That is right. 

Senator Butler. And whether means will be devised by the Con- 
gress, through wiretapping and compulsory testimony, irrespective 



162 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

of the fifth amendment, and immunity in those tilings, are matters 
that are now being considered by Government. And if the day comes 
that those things are actually on the statute books, and then we prove 
a man to be a Communist, I can't conceive that that man would not 
be subject to discharge bv an employer without incurring the wrath 
of the National Labor Eelations Board or any agency of the Govern- 
ment. I hope that would not be the situation. 

Mr. Arens. I would like to probe with Mr. Sears this issue just a 
little bit further, Senator. 

How would you go about dealing with a Communist-controlled 
labor organization which is not certified, in order to drive them out 
of defense industries and drive them out of vital industries? A lot 
of industries are vital to the defense of this country, which themselves 
are not defense industries, such as the steel industry. 

Mr. Sears. Well now, I think you have got article 4, section 4, of 
the Constitution of the United States, that nobody seems to want to 
read, which says that the United States Government shall guarantee 
unto the States a republican form of government. I think there is 
ample authority there for the Congress of the United States to enact 
implementing legislation. You know, there is the old Lloyd case in 
Illinois, People against Lloyd, in 304 Illinois, where Lloyd, et al., 
were convicted under a statute of the State of Illinois very similar 
to the Smith Act, of conspiring to overthrow the Government of the 
United States and the Government of the State of Illinois by force. 
Xow, anyone familiar with the history of communism in the labor 
movement — or if unfamiliar they could read Mr. Justice Jackson's 
opinion, I believe either in the Douds case or the Dennis case — as to 
how they took over Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. 

Now, the United States Government has an interest in the safety 
and the integrity of the United States Government as well as all of 
the several States. So that without regard to whether these labor or- 
ganizations, these Communist-dominated labor organizations, or any 
Communist organization, is found in a vital defense industry or 
otherwise, it is still, it seems to me, within the province of the United 
States Government to enact legislation pursuant to article 4, sec- 
tion 4. And if you read what Hamilton said in the Federtilist with 
respect to the purpose of article 4, section 4, you will find that it fits 
this situation particularly. That was the principal basis of our 
argument before Judge Dunne, that the State of Illinois had the 
right to protect its sovereignty and integrity. It wouldn't inake any 
difference whether the union was certified or it wasn't certified. Its 
existence, whether it is a Communist-dominated union or any Com- 
munist organization, within the borders of a particular State, threatens 
the sovereignty and integrity of the State. And thereby the State 
or the Nation 'has the right to protect itself against that particular 
type of menace. 

Mr. Arens. Do you suggest any amendments to tlie Norris- 

LaGuardia Act or the Clayton Act in order to try to deal with this 

menace of Communist penetration and control of labor organizations? 

Mr. Sears. I think there is a provision in Senator Goldwater's 

bill that treats of that, I think, intended for that purpose. 

As I recall the bill, it says that if there is a Communist in the 
official familv of the union, it should not be a labor dispute within 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 163 

the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. And I assume that that 
would mean that a private citizen, having a justiciable status before 
the court, could urge the point. I assume that is what it means. 

Mr. Arp:ns. Are there any other points that you would like to make ? 

Mr. Sears. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. We thank you ever so much. 

Senator Butler. Thank you very much, Mr. Sears. 

Are there any other witnesses? 

Mr. Arens. There are none others scheduled for this morning, but 
we have witnesses scheduled for the next few days. We have some 
scheduled for tomorrow morning. 

Seiiator Butler. The statements offered by Mr. Sears and Mr. 
Bader will be made, at this point, part of the official record. 

(The statements referred to are as follows:) 

Statement of IJarnahas F. Seaks, Chicago, III., Attorney for Precision 

Scientific Co. 

(Barnubas F. Sears served as chairman of the labor section of the Illinois 
State Bar Association from 1945 to 1948 and as chairman of the labor section 
of the American Bar Association during 1951 and 1952. He is presently the 
labor relations sectinn member of the house of delegates of the American Bar 
Association and a member of the board of governors of the Illinois State Bar 
Association. Mr. Sears speaks from his personal experience on this subject 
and does not purport to speak on behalf of either the Illinois or American 
Bar Association.) 

THE legal hurdles IN BATTLING COMMUNISTS IN LABOR UNIONS 

I do not intend to be so presumptuous as to outline the background of Com- 
munist influence in the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 
which is so well known to the distinguished members of this committee. You 
are aware of the expulsion of mine, mill, and smelter workers from the CIO 
for Communist domination after a full public hearing and upon extensive 
and conclusive evidence, all of which was fully set forth in their report, which 
was included in Senate Document 89, 82d Congress, 1st session, pages 97-109. 

You are likewise aware of the extensive public hearings held by the Senate 
subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act 
on October 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1952, at Salt Lake City, Utah. 

At those hearings 10 of the oflQcials of mine, mill, including the president, 
vice president and secretary-treasurer, were subpenaed to testify concerning 
their membership in the Communist Party and Communist influence in the 
union. In response to every question concerning their relationship to the Com- 
munity Party these officers refused to answer and invoked the privilege against 
self-incrimination. They further refused to testify whether they had ever 
signed Taft-Hartley non-Communist affidavits on the ground that their answers 
might tend to incriminate them. In addition to this refusal to testify, the 
subcommittee heard direct and positive testimony in which John Clark and 
Maurice Travis, the president and secretary-treasurer of the union, were identi- 
fied again and again as Comlnunist Party members. After hearing the evi- 
dence this committee of the United States Senate reported : 

"It should be a matter of deep and continuing concern to all patriotic citizens 
that the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which op- 
erates in an industry so vital to the security of the Nation, is controlled by 
officers who have been identified under oath as Communists and will not deny 
their memliership in the Communist Party." 

You have heard the testimony of George Bader, vice president of Precision 
Scientific Co., of a long history of agitation and unrest and the frustration of 
normal collective bargaining by the activities of this union. But it was not un- 
natural that this company was slow to discover the real basis and route of this 
unrest and harassment. The expulsion of this union from the CIO received 
little publicity but the company became greatly concerned when they discovered 
posted upon the company bulletin board a letter from John Clark, president of 



164 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

the international union, directed to Edwai'd DeClair, vice president of the local, 
and an employee of Precision Scientific Co., in which John Clark thanked 
DeClair and tlie members of his local for their support and assured them that 
with their continued support they would be able to "defeat their enemies" refer- 
ring to a committee of the United States Senate as enemies. After reading the 
conclusive testimony before the Senate committee the officials of Precision 
Scientific Co. sought my legal advice in combating Communist infiltration into 
their plant, which is a vital supplier of the military branches of our Government. 

We were at first comforted by the knowledge that the Members of Congress 
have long been mindful of the insidious nature of communism in the labor 
movement and its effect in promoting strife through political strikes and out- 
rageous activities while at the same time almost completely ignoring the legiti- 
mate needs of the employees. Congress was mindful of the Communist menace 
when it enacted the Smith Act in 1940, which made illegal the advocacy of the 
oveiihrow of the United States Government by force or violence or other uncon- 
stitutional means. 

After 1940 Congress became additionally aware of the grave danger of Com- 
munist infiltration in labor unions. After receiving voluminous testimony 
Congress determined that interstate commerce must be protected from a con- 
tinuing threat of political strikes (.4. C. A. v. nonds. 399 U. S. 382. 406). To 
effectuate the determination. Congress enacted section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley 
Act in a solemn purpose "to wholly eradicate and bar from leadership in the 
American labor movement at each and every level adherence to the Communist 
Partv and believers in the unconstitutional overthrow of ovir Government." (V. 
L. r'. B. v. Htfihland Park Mfg. Co.. 341 U. S. 322. 252.) 

We were further comforted by the fact that Illinois had enacted in 1917 an 
anti-Communist statute very similar in context to the Federal Smith Act, which 
made illegal organizations for the purpose of advocating the overthrow of the 
Government by force or violence or other illegal or unconstitutional means. 

P.ut despite the comfort we received from these basic laws and policies, we ran 
into the face of the unfortunate phraseology of section 9 (h), its ambiguous 
legislative history and the administrative limitations superimposed upon it, 
erroneously, we respectfully submit, by the National Labor Relations Board. 
It has consistently held that an employer had no right to litigate the question 
of compliance with section 9 (h). ( Shawnee Miinnp Co.. 82 N. L. R. B. 1266; 
Lion Oil Co.. 76 N. L. R. B. 56.5.) It has also held in earlier decisions that the 
truth or falsity of the affidavits were immaterial, and not even subject to Board 
investigation. " (Alpert d Alperf, 92 N. L. R.B. 127.) Its later efforts to protect 
its processes from abuse have been thus far thwarted by injunctions (Farmer 
V. United Electric and Machine Worker.9 of America et al., decided Dec. 4. 1953. 
.53 A. L. C. 1384) mainly, we believe upon procedural grounds rather than a 
realistic ai>praisal of the substantive question involved. 

To us the problem became real when many of the employees of Precision 
Scientific Co.. also concerned with the Communist domination of Mine. Mill 
turned to local 1031 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
AFL, which in the fall of 19.52 filed a petition seeking a representation election. 
Mine. Mill was granted leave to intervene in that proceeding. At the hearings 
which followed, the company strenuously objected to having Mine. Mill appear 
on the ballot with local 1031 on the ground that the union was Communist- 
dominated and had not complied in good faith with section 9 (h) of the Taft- 
Hartley Act. Both the company and local 1031 offered evidence of the Com- 
munist domination and the falsity of the affidavits. The hearing officer re- 
jected all of our evidence and arguments on the ground that compliance with 
.section 9 (h) was an administrative matter upon which the company and the 
petitioning local 1031 had no right to be beard, and upon the further ground 
that the truth or falsity of the non-Commimist affidavits had no bearing upon 
compliance. Briefs were filed before the National Labor Relations Board raising 
the same question, and the Board rejected our contention in the following 
language : 

"The employer and the petitioner objected to intervention of the intervener on 
the ground that it was not in compliance with the filing requirements of section 
9 of the act. The bearing officer overruled this objection and rejected evidence 
in support of the employer's and petitioner's position. The Board has held that 
compliance with these requirements is an administrative matter not litigable in 
section 9 and 10 proceedings under the act." 

On March 3. 1953. an election was held pursuant to the Board's order and 
Mine. ^Mill received 138 votes out of the 210 cast. The company filed objections 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 165 

to the election again raising the question of the union's compliance with section 
9 (h). Again the trial examiner and the board summarily rejected our argu- 
ment, and Mine, Mill was certified as the collective bargaining representative of 
the company. 

One may legitimately ask why 138 of our employees would vote for a union of 
such a communistic background if their activities were as obvious as we suggest. 
The answer is actually very clear. By skillful propaganda, Mine. Mill twisted 
the meaning of the Board's decision into an explicit endorsement of Mine, Mill's 
position. Mine, Mill took the very section 9 (h) that was designed to prevent 
Communist infiltrati-on into trade unions as a means of adjudicating their 
Americanism. 

After the Board's order directing an election, Mine, Mill distributed a leaflet 
entitled "Company and IBEW 1031 lose round 1." It further stated that, "The 
Labor Board threw out the phony arguments of Precision and of Mike (The 
Bosses) Darling (president, local 1031) to keep us off the ballot on grounds 
of communism * * * So Bader and Darling's conspiracy to deprive Precision 
workers of the right to vote for the union of their choice is beaten." 

It is not unusual that the individual employees of the plant readily believed that 
the Board's decision was more than a mere administrative and legal one, but 
that it amounted really to an endorsement of Mine, Mill and a vindication against 
the charges of communism. Thus one of the most dangerous Communist-domi- 
nated unions in the country was able to win an election by cloaking itself in the 
mantle of the Labor Board's order. 

The Precision Scientific Co. was anxious to bargain with its employees but 
was imwilling to permit a Communist-dominated union to entrench itself in this 
company and to be in a position to control vital war production. Facing the 
order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring it to bargain with this 
union, whose purported compliance with section 9(h) could not be acknowledged 
under oath, the company felt forced to remain firm. Regretting its inability to 
deal with its loyal employees and bargain with them, it was nevertheless forced 
to reject Mine, Mill's demand for collective bargaining in order to finally get a 
judicial determination of its duty to bargain with a Communist-dominated 
union. It seemed inconceivable to us that Congress ever intended that the 
administrative orders of the Government should be used to protect, encourage, 
and revitalize the very communistic and subversive force that Congress has so 
clearly condemned. 

In so proceeding we understood full well the hazards. We understood that a 
crippling strike to enforce the certification of the Board could bring this comi)any 
into bankruptcy and total destruction. On the other hand the alternative, to 
reco.tmize this union, meant ultimate ruin in the form of continual luirest, inter- 
mittent "quickie" strikes, and finally the political strike. And so Precision did 
what many other Americans have been forced to do. fight for the right to conduct 
its business along American lines and principles. It refused to recognize the 
certification of the Board requiring it to bargain, thereby following the only 
avenue permitted it by Federal law to test the validity of the certification. In 
the meantime it granted its employees a 10-cents-per-hour wage increase and kept 
in full force and effect paid holidays, vacations, and other lecognized terms 
and conditions of employment. 

Uiion our refusal to bargain with the union on the sole ground that it was 
Communist-dominated, an unfair-labor-practice charge was filed against us and 
a complaint issued upon this charge. 

Again we answered the charge by alleging that we refused to bargain with 
Mine. Mill for the reason that it was dominated and controlled by members of 
the Communist Party, that it was not a labor organization witbiri tlie meaning 
of section 2 (5) of Taft-Hartley, and that it was not in compliance with section 
9 (h) of that act. While it could possibly be contended that a representation 
proceeding and an election should not be delayed pending a long hearing on Com- 
munist domination of a union (the union might not win the election), an en- 
tirely different situation is presented when an emplo.ver is charged with a 
refusal to bargain. In the first place such a proceeding is an adversary as dis- 
tinguished from an investigatory one. Rights such as due process emerge. The 
Board order is enforcible by the courts. Rights over the economic welfare of 
citizens are created. Contractual commitments, enforcible in the courts, are 
necessary concomitants. The future of the company and its employees are at 
stake. We could never believe that Congress intended that an employer be 
required to bargain with a Communist-dominated union, much less that an 
agency of the Government could be used to compel it to submit to communistic 



166 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

infiltration into its business, without according it the right to be heard and 
prove the fact. 

This unfair labor practice case was referred to a trial examiner of the NLKR 
who held hearings in Chicago. The NLRB in response to our subpena for the 
Taft-Hartley affidavits filed by the officers of this union refused to comply, and 
the subpena we had served upon them for the production of these affidavits was 
revoked by the trial examiner. We were, however, permitted to subpena ]\iaurlce 
Travis and John Clark, officers of the union. At the hearing the trial examiner 
rejected all of our offers of proof with regard to the Communist domination of 
Mine, Mill. The trial examiner refused to permit us to question Maurice Travis 
and John Clark with regard to their membership in the Communist Party. The 
trial examiner even refused to permit us to ask Travis and Clark whether they 
had in fact signed Taft-Hartley affidavits. In this connection it should be noted 
that Travis and Clark had previously refused to testify before a Senate subcom- 
mittee as to whether or not they had filed such affidavits. We offered to prove by 
extensive testimony that this union is in fact dominated and controlled by the 
Communist Party and is not a labor organization but is a subversive organization 
acting to further the ultimate Communist goal — the overthrow of our form of 
government. 

After the conclusion of this hearing, and on October 21. 19.5.3. the trial examiner 
filed his intermediate report in which he found that we had violated the act in 
refusing to bargain with I\Iine. Mill and recommended an order to force us to 
bargain collectively with this union. In due course we filed exceptions to the 
intermediate report together with briefs before the NLRB seeking an acquittance 
from this charge. 

In view of the past decisions of the Board we cannot be overly critical of the 
regional officers for the action they have taken against us, but it strikes us as 
anomalous to be condemned by a Government agency for participating with all 
our ability in the struggle against subversive domination and infiltration into 
labor unions — an objective long commended by Congress. All during these pro- 
ceedings the union has distributed to our employees and to the public generally 
pamphlets implying that we are the un-American and subversive people. James 
Pinta, business manager of the local union, wrote a letter to the NLRB stating that 
we were "brazenly violating the law and defying the United States Government." 
This letter was published and circulated generally as was another miraeogi-aphed 
handbill stating that we were against the Government and accusing the officers 
of the company of "defying the United States Government's order" and stating 
that the officers of the company are "proving that they are the subversives defy- 
ing the law and the Government." They further circulated a mimeographed 
"open letter" to the commissioner of police of Chicago in which they conclude that 
"the police are actually siding and abetting Precision management in their viola- 
tion of the Federal law." and further threatened that they will file a charge 
with the NLRB against the commissioner of police charging him with a violation 
of Federal law. 

These same slanderous statements and attacks have been made repeatedly while 
we are doing nothing more than seeking to preserve our legal rights in our fight 
against Communist infiltration into our business. 

While we were proceeding through the noi-mal legal channels to obtain an 
adjudication of our rights the union began a program of intermittent work 
stoppages and walkouts without notice from November 19. 1952, through ^lay 
of 19.53. ITien on July 23, 1953, the union declared a full-scale strike at Pre- 
cision. They first established a large picket line of strangers of between 60 
and 80 people. 

Thus while in possession of ample evidence indicating clearly that the inter- 
national and local officers of this union were members of the Comiuunist Party, 
we were confronted by the very real problem of overcoming the strike by force 
or recognizing this union as the Federal processes afforded us no remedy. 
Indeed the Norris-LaGuardia Act specifically denied us access to the Federal 
courts. After withstanding the strike to the point of imminent bankruptcy and 
finding it unabating, we sought recourse to the State court in the form of an 
injunction proceeding to restrain the strike upon either of two theories : 

(a) That the union was not a labor organization under the laws of Illinois 

because its existence threatened the sovereignty and integrity of the State; and 

(h) That an equity court has inherent jurisdiction to protect tlie business of 

a citizen from destruction pendente lite, whether the litigation be pending in a 

State court or a Federal agency or court. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 167 

We Hied a lengthy and detailed complaint. We set out almost word for word 
the evidence developed by the McCarran committee in Salt Lake City. We 
averred that the officers of this union were members of the Communist Party 
and that its policies and aims were dictated and dominated by that party. We 
swore to that complaint. We applied for a temporary injunction, upon notice 
to the union, upon tlie liliuu: of our complaint. Notwithstanding that Illinois 
practice iiermits a defendant to file an answer denying the facts alleged in the 
complaint and puts the plaintilf to the burden of proving the facts alleged in 
order to procure such a temporary injunction, no answer was filed by the union. 
It elected merely to file a motion to dismiss and supported it by its basic ar- 
gument that the State court had no jurisdiction, that the matter was exclusively 
witliin the Federal domain. In otlier words, if the union could enforce its 
certification by force, the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act affording us a re- 
view of the certification were but ephemeral and illusory. 

P^ortunately for us. for otherwise we wouldn't be here, we were heard by a 
judge, the Honorable R. Jerome Dunne of the circuit court of Cook County, 
111., who thought and l)elieved that the law did not intend that we be suffocated 
by a crippling strike while we were endeavoring to test in the only manner 
provided by law the validity of a certification procured from the National 
Labor Relations Board by a notoriously Communist-dominated union. Or 
maybe he thought that the Sovereign State of Illinois through the agency of one 
of its constitutional courts had the inherent right to protect its own sovereignty 
and integrity and tlie property of its citizens from destruction at the hands of 
an organization which would not deny under oatli before him that its officers 
were members of the Communist Party, although afforded the opportunity to 
do so. 

After argument, he issued a temporary injunction, commanded the officers 
of the union to order its members bade to work and enjoined the strike until 
the further order of the court. Immediately he became the subject of villifica- 
tion and abuse by the union. Handbills were circulated at the Precision plant, 
at tlie Harvester plant in Chicago, and others, paid advertisements appeared in 
the November 2.5, 1953, issue of the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Herald 
American newspapers. Tlie extent of the villiflcation is best indicated by copies 
of this advertisement attached hereto. 

An appeal from the temporary injunction was taken by the union to the 
appellate court of Illinois where the matter is now pending. The unfair labor 
practice case, charging us with a refusal to bargain with this union is pending 
before the National Labor Relations Board on briefs submitted by the parties. 
On February 4, 1954, tliat Board entered an order calling for a separate admin- 
istrative investigation and hearing to determine whether Travis, the secretary- 
treasurer of the union has admitted that all affidavits filed by him with the 
Board are false and whether the membership of the Union was aware of tlie 
falsity of those affidavits. A motion by the union, addressed to the Board 
and challenging the validity of that order is pending so that the fact of that 
investigation and the scoiie of the hearing is presently undetermined. 

By now, the following should appear obvious: 

(1) That section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is ineptly worded and its 
meaning obscure. 

(2) That the public policy enunciated in the Smith Act has received no atten- 
tion from either the Board or the courts in dealing with the problem of a 
Communist dominated union. 

(3) That Federal law affords no protection to an employer faced with a 
strike for recognition by a Communist-dominated union, be that union certified 
by the P.oard or otherwise. The employer must either win the strike or recognize 
the union. The Federal courts are closed to him for all practical puriioses. 

(4) That the Federal law providing for a review of a certification by the 
Board is an illusory right if the certified union strikes for recognition. Again, 
insofar as Federal law is concerned, the employer must either win the strike 
or recognize the certified Communist-dominated union. Even if he wins the 
strike, he still must defend the charge of a refusal to bargain. The union is 
still accorded the processes of Federal law. If the employer loses the strike, 
he must recognize the union. Automatically he loses his right to review the 
certification for, by recognizing the union (which requires him to bargain) the 
refusal to bargain case becomes moot and the certification final. 

Now, what is the remedy? In the first place, give the employer his day in 
court. After all, he is the one most immediately concerned with the impact 
of a political strike. The danger of a Communist-dominated union is to him, 



168 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

most immediate. He and he alone sustains the damage incident to intermittent 
quickie strikes, but rehearsals for the final show. On him primarily falls the 
liurden of the ever-present unrest resulting from the propaganda thrusts of the 
fellow travelers in his plant. Is he to be without remedy except at the grace of 
a Board notoriously slow in its processes? Unless like any other citizen he is 
free to protect his property in a court having jurisdiction to preserve it, pendente 
lite, the great tradition of due process is but an empty phrase, and his factory 
may become but a memory. 

And when I say, give him his day in court, what do I mean? I mean, in the 
finest American tradition, let him defend himself. Let him have control of his 
own case. Spell out clearly that 9 (h) of Taft-Hartley means what we might 
think it means, namely, that he has the right to produce evidence that the ofl3- 
cial family of the certified union is infested with Communists. Spell out clearly 
that section 2 (5) of the act does not include a Communist-dominated organiza- 
tion as a labor organization within its meaning and that an employer, at least 
in a section 70 case under the act, has the right to prove the fact. After all, 
the Canada Labor Relations Board, without benefit of the Smith Act or a 9 (h) 
provision in its act, and, upon language almost identical with section 2 (5) of 
our act, held, upon evidence similar to that which we sought to introduce in our 
case before the Board, that the Canada Seamen's Union, a Communist-domi- 
nated union, was not a labor organization within the meaning of its act. It 
decertified that union and saw no difiiculty in the production of necessary evi- 
dence before it by the employer involved in that case. (Branch Lines, Ltd. and 
Canadian Seamen's Union (Canada Labor Service, par. 16,022; certiorari denied 

(•(928 "HT as (teox) 

Afford an employer, confronted with a Communist-dominated union, the open 
door of a Federal courtroom. Enable him to obtain a stay order, upon notice 
and a proper showing of good cause, to protect and preserve his business while 
he defends himself against a charge that he has refused to bargain with a Com- 
munist-dominated union. If we can't pause to inquire into the subversive affilia- 
tions of the offic'al family of this union seeking to have its name placed upon 
a Government-printed ballot so that it can be voted for at a Government-con- 
ducted election, thereby giving governmental aid and sanction to the traitorous 
purposes of its oflScers, at least let us pause and give the one person most directly 
and immediately concerned and affected, an opportunity to defend himself. It 
is siieer idiocy to cram this union down his throat. It is most un-American to 
do so without affording him an opportunity to defend himself. It is nothing 
less than paternalism in its most naked form to turn the job over to the exclusive 
domain of a Government agency. 

We repeat, but for the wisdom and fortitude of a chancellor of an Illinois 
equity court, we would not be here today. Precision Scientific Co. would have 
passed from the industrial scene. A 30-year-old business with a great capital 
investment would have been destroyed with the attendant loss to this Govern- 
ment of its great ingenuity and skill in the development and manufacture of 
the basic scientific apparatus necessary to make this country strong and pros- 
perous. The only alternative would have been for the oiBcials of this company 
to affix their signatures to a collective-bargaining contract conferring upon 
local 758 of Mine, Mill the quasi-governmental powers of a collective-bai-gaining 
agent by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. In the words of Chief 
Justice Stone, we would be conferring upon this Communist-dominated union 
"power not unlike that of a legislature." (Steele v. Louisville and Nashville 
Railroad Co. 323 U. S. 192, 198). We do not believe that Congress will permit 
a company to face this alternative. We do not believe tliat this Congress would 
rely solely upon the courage and fortitude of Judge Dunne, of Illinois, and others 
like him as the sole Imlwark against subversion in labor organizations. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 169 



(ADVERTISEMENT) 



(ADVERTISEM 



mL 



(AbVEBTISEM&lT) 



DAN 



WHEN LABOR'S RIQHTS 

ARE INVADED THE 

FREEDOM OF ALL IS IN 

DANQERI 



On Sepl.mber 30, 1953. Cook 
rounty Circuit Judge Jerome 
Dunne handed down an injunc- 
tion againot a otrike of this 
I'nion at Preripion Scientific 
Company which is a ^rave 
thrtot to all unions. It is vith- 
oui previous precedcDt or any 
basis in law. 



BACKGROUND 

In March, 1953 this Union won an 
NLRB election decisively. We were 
certified as bargaining agent by the 
NLRB on April 10, 1953. 

The Company refused to recognize 
tbe Union or to bargain. 

The Labor Board issued a complaint 
against the Company for refusal to 
bargain and held hearings. 

The Trial Examiner of the Board 
has rejected the Company's arguments 
and recommended the Company be 
ordered to bargain with Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Workers. His report is now 
pending final action in Washington. 

Meantime, on July 23rd, the Union 
vent on strike for union recognition. 

The Company filed suit for an in- 
junction and $1,000,000 damages. 

On September 15, Master in Chan- 
cery, I. Brown, recommended the 
Company* suit be dismissed. He up- 
held tbe Union's contentions that the 
Federal Government has jurisdiction 
in this case and that no cause for an 
injunction was shown. 

On September 30th, Judge Dunne 
over-ruled tbe Master's report and 
issued tbe injunction. 




THIS 

INJUNCTION 

MUST BE 

REVERSED! 



THIS INJUNCTION MEANS! 



This union has complied with the proviuonB of the 
Taft-Hartley Act, evidenced by notice from tbe Labor Board 
confirming that compliance, and by the Board's action in 
certifying this union. 

There was no violence in this strike, no contract viola- 
tions, no jurisdictional dispute — none of the usual grounds 
for injunctions. 

The Company*s only claim irns the McCarlhyhe nrgi> 
ment that this strike ivas a Communist conspiracy to over- 
throU' the government! 

Long before McCarthy, Hitler and Mussolini busted 
the unions in Germany and Italy with the same false charge 
of "Communism," and sent thousands of labor leaders to 
concentration camps, or lo execution. 

When McCarlhyism leads to charges tantamount to 
treason against the former Pres^ident of llie L^niled States — 

When McCarthyism reaches the point of destroying 
the rlgiit to strike through the injunction — 

Then — it is time for Labor and all pprsons who 
believe in our democratic freedoms to speak up lo 
defend the freedom and liberty ^aranteed us by our 
constitution. 

Judge Dunne's decision creates thefoilowing issues: 

t) If Mrvos thos«, especially fh« Republican Administration, 
who ore stekinq to make "Slates Rights" apply tc> labor 
costs and it sets aside the federal law and procedure In 
favor of stote court deciding such issues. 

2) It severely restricts the right to strike, since any employer 
can find on issue to challenge o certification end get on 
in|uftetion while Labor Board proceedings go on for months. 

3) It applies "McCarthyism," which was the Compony's only 
argument, to brook a strike and drive workers to work 
without a union contract and under conditions set by 
the employer. 

4) It puts in practice the principles of the Gotdwater-Rhodes 
Bill and the Butler Bill now pending in Congrets, which 
hove been denounced by oM orgonixed labor. 



This caee Bvmbolizes the many attack* beinp made on labor's rifihta under llie present "Big Busi- 
ness" Administration in WafibinRlon. It is typical of llie purpose of the Butler Bill, allowing ihe 
outlawing of Unions, now pendinp in Congress. Labor has to act together, unitedly, to defeat these 
attacks or we will be pushed back to the open shop, 50e an hour days of Hoover! 

All Americans should join in protecting labor's rights as the foundation stones of democracy. 



TAKE ACTION! 



We urge all unions and Individual citiiens 
by the following action: 

1. Make public statements protesting this 
injunction. 

2. Join "Amicus Curiae" (friend, of the 
court) in the appeal this union is making 
to the higher courts. 

3. Send resolutions and statements to the 
National Labor Relations Goerd, Wash- 



to act to reverse this dangerous precedent 

ington, D.C. urging the Board to speedily 
uphold its Trial Examiner and' compel 
Precision Scientific Company to obey 
the law and bargain with the legally- 
certified union of its employees. 

4. Urge U. S. Senators and Congressmen 
to defeat the Butler Bill, which can out- 
law unions, now pending in Congress. 



INTERNATIONAL UNION Of MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS 

LOCAL 758. IliO S. OAKLEY BLVD.. CHICAGO. MO i-7010 



170 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Statement of Geokge E. Badeu, Vice President and Wouks Managek, Precision 

Scientific Co. 

I have been associated with Precision Scientific Co. since September 1950 
and as works manajier since September 1051 and more recently as vice presi- 
dent in charge of manufacturing. Precision Scientific Co., 3737 West Cortland 
Street, Chicago, 111., is the world's largest manufacturer of scientific research 
and production-control apparatus in the metal line, ^\'e supply the Atomic 
Energy Commission, the Munitions Board, the Medical Procurement, and other 
Government agencies, along with commercial, technical, and medical reseai'ch 
and development laboratories, witli testing and research apparatus pertinent to 
the petroleum, biological, metallurgical, and chemical fields. 

Precision Scientific Co. was founded in 1919 and througli the years has grown 
to a company producing approximately $4 million of laboratory equipment each 
.vear. In the past we have manufactured vital equipment for the Armed 
Forces mucli of which was classified material. 

During recent years the company developed an airborne mobile petroleum 
laboratory. Such a laboratory was used in the Korean theater for testing and 
(becking gasoline and other petroleum products captured from the enemy, also 
in determining whether or not United States Armed Forces petroleum supplies 
had been sabotaged. 

Prior to the development of this mobile laboratory, confiscated supplies or 
materials of which there was a suspicion of sabotage were normally sent to 
field offices for checking and testing. This practice often caused great delay 
and sometimes made it impossible to use the captured materials and supplies in 
question for a long period of time. In some instances the extreme urgencies 
surrounding the situation did not permit the time required to send testing samples 
to the base laboratories for testing; therefore, the materials were destroyed. 

The company was codeveloper of the iron lung and has contributed to important 
research work on blood plasma units, centrifuges, Warburg units. Kjeldahl, 
recordomatic titrometer, robomatic refractometer, automatic distillation units, 
biological oxidation determination units, ovens, incubators, sterilizers, auto- 
claves, stills, lonographs, and many other such products. All of these develop- 
ments are of gi-eat importance in scientific research and progress in the petroleum, 
chemical, biological, metallurgical, and medical (including cancer research) 
fields. 

In June 1953 the Chief of the Chicago Branch of the Industrial Mobilization 
and Procurement and Planning Division of the armed services and the Medical 
Procurement Agency requested us to make certain commitments for vital pro- 
duction in the event of total mobilization. Most of the products are manufac- 
tured and can only be manufactured by Precision Scientific Co., but because 
ot our great difficulties with the Communist-dominated union of Mine, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers, we have been unable to make sucli commitments up to the 
present time. Because of cur difficulties we have been unable to deliver many 
items which have been demanded under National Production Authority directives 
which are essential to the defense effort. We could not meet a directive to handle 
a high temperature rectifying bath to the North American Air Craft Co. which 
was indispensable for the proper testing of certain military aircraft parts. This 
is just one of the examples of our inabilitv to take our proper place in the defense 
effort. 

At the present time we have well over a million dollars in unfilled orders, 
much of which have been given priox-ities by the National Production Authority. 
I am in constant receipt of urgent requests from companies in vital defense work 
for the Munitions Board and the Atomic Energy Commission, urgently requesting 
lis to deliver equipment necessary for their work. The harassments, the work 
stoppages and the strikes we have been burdened with make it impossible to 
properly manufacture and fill our orders, and thereby (in addition to dooming 
this company to oblivion) seriously hinder and retard scientific and medical 
research of the Atomic Energy Commission, various branches of the Armed Forces 
and vital defense industries. 

With this background of the company, I would like to review the unprec- 
edented difficulties that we have had with the International Union of Mine, 
Mill, and Smelter Workers. 

Shortly after I assumed the responsibilities of works manager, I realized 
a sense of alarm about the unusual amount of strife and unrest that existed 
among the employees of the company and in addition thereto the lack of normal 
peaceful labor relations existing between the union representatives and the 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 171 

representatives of management. This condition puzzled me particularly be- 
cause a 2-year contract had been ne.wtiated and acreed upon in recent months. 

I determined to make a study of tlie conditions that existed during the period 
of the negotiation and the contractual terms agreed upon, and determine what 
demands had been made during that negotiation by the union and what por- 
tion of those demands had been refused or agreed to by the company. 

As a result of the study I made in this regard, I found that the company had 
agreed to all of the demands of the union, and that from the i)eriod of Feb- 
ruary 1.5 to April 26, 10.51 (the date the contract was signed), many of the 
negotiating period pressure tactics were used to accomplish the demands made 
at the bargaining table. It did appear to me, however, that the tactics used 
were somewhat severe. 

I disclosed that immediately after the signing of this contract, in which the 
company had agreed to all of the demands of the union, that an activity began 
that was more disruptful and obstructive than during the negotiating period 
prior to the contract agreement. Upon further investigation I determined 
that the contract terms agreed upon embraced all of the usual fringe benefits 
that exist in this industrial era and therefore could not be the source of the 
difficulty. 

I discovered that the activities were not directed to contractual gains, but 
were directed to encourage industrial strife and unrest, thereby disrupting and 
obstructing the company's ability to produce its products. 

From the period of the signing of the contract (April 26, 1951) to the time of 
my investigation, I found that activities of the union and their representatives 
during this period were typical of the following: 

1. That during the months of May through September of 1951 of a total 
of 97 working days during this period, 72 of those days were in part or in 
whole utilized by the shop committee of this union in meeting with other of 
our employees in attempts to disclose grievances that may have existed in 
our plant. That during the month of October 1951, 22 of a total of 23 
working days were devoted to the same purpose. 

2. That during this period there wei'e many occasions when the employees 
would refuse to work overtime for no other reason than that they were 
instructed by the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers officials to refuse. 

3. There were instances where the union representatives gave permis- 
sion for the worker to work overtime and then refused to allow this work 
to he done when the scheduled time arrived. 

4. That during the meetings of the union representatives and employees 
purportedly aggrieved, the union representatives' activities were carried to 
a point of fanatical badgering of the management representatives attending. 

5. It became apparent that the meetings attended by management rep- 
re.sentatives were intended to put management in the position of being ridi- 
culed, slandered, and abused. 

6. It became apparent that the union representatives' activities were suc- 
ceeding in developing in the minds of our employees a state of confusion 
and unrest as a result of these abnormally strifeful labor relations. 

Upon the completion of my study of these conditions. I was unable to under- 
stand the reason why the company should be bui'dened with these totally un- 
precedented activities in the field of labor relations. I was without recoui'se 
other than to advise management that we continue to strive for better relations 
through the medium of negotiation and peaceful settlement of whatever prob- 
lems existed in the minds of our people. 

We proceeded along these lines until October of 1952. at which time the 
union threatened to cancel the existing contract, which was to expire on Feb- 
ruary 16, 1953, if we didn't immediately grant numerous preposterous and un- 
reasonable demands. We refused to negotiate a new contract prematurely and 
thereupon the union canceled the existing contract. 

In reviewing the labor-management events from the date of signing the con- 
tract, April 26. 1951, to the date of cancellation, October 17, 1952, a period of 
343 workdays had elapsed during which there were 185 meetings with the 
union representatives for the purpose of peacefully working out the predica- 
ment with which we were burdened. During the same period the company 
was plagued with seven complete woi-k stoppages, countless work slowdowns, 
and suffered general harassment and obvious attempts to create a subservient 
management. Such events resulted in time lost of 10,625 hours in 1951, 792 hours 
in 19.52, and 11,192 hours up until .lune 1953. 

The management did not realize the union's objectives for all of this inane 
activity until late October 19.52, when on the union bulletin board there was 



172 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

posted a letter dated October 20, 1952, on International Union of Mine, Mill, 
and Smelter Workers stationery, addressed to Edward DeClair, vice president 
of the local union and chairman of the shop committee, signed by John Clark, 
president of the international union, which letter read as follows : 

OCTOBEE 20, 1952. 
Del\r Brother DrClair: I wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation the 
message of support you sent to us in Salt Lake City at tlie time we apiieared 
before the ]McC«rran committee. 

Our ability to defeat the efforts of McCarran to destroy our union depends 
upon the rank and file of our union and expression such as yours indicate that 
we will defeat our enemies. 

Sincerely and fraternally yours, 

John Clark, President. 

The appearance of the above letter on the union bulletin board, placed there 
by union representatives for our employees to view, caused me to take the 
following steps : 

1. Obtain press clippings of the Senate investigation held at Salt Lake 
City referred to in the above letter. 

2. Secure copies of the Senate investigation report on the hearings before 
that committee. 

8. Secure legal counsel after studying the contents of the Senate inves- 
tigation report on the hearings. 

After fully studying all of the material we could secure relative to the Inter- 
national Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers and the reports of the 
investigating committees of the Senate, relative to Communist domination of 
said union, and consolidating the findings therein with the experiences we had 
been undergoing with representatives of the same union, we concluded that the 
representatives of the International Union of Jline, Mill, and Smelter Workers 
were not acting as a labor organization as defined in section 2 (5) of the Labor- 
Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, but obviously was a front for 
an organization wherein the purpose of its leaders is to disrupt normal, peaceful 
labor relations, encourage, and foment strikes, slowdowns, industrial strife and 
unrest, whenever it served the ends of the world Communist movement. 

We further concluded from the material and Senate investigation reports that 
the activities of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 
is obviously directed, dominated, and controlled by individuals who are or have 
been members of the Communist Party, whose primary purpose is tliat of pro- 
moting and achieving the program and the purpose of the Communist Party, 
including the overthrow of the United States Government by force or other 
illegal and unconstitutional means. 

We have, therefore, as a result of our conclusions, refused to acknowledge 
representatives of the Interantional Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 
as bargaining representatives of the employees of Precision Scientific Co. and 
have been and are prepared to take our case before the highest trilmnal of the 
United States of America. 

Senator Butler. The task force will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 15 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., 
Friday, February 19, 1954.) 

(Subsequently the following letter and statement were ordered 
printed in the record by Senator Butler, acting chairman of the task 
force.) 

The Western Union Telegraph Co., 
Washington, D. C, Februari/ 18, 1954- 
Hon. John INIarshall Butler, 

Clinirmnn, Task Force, Suhcommittce on 
Internal Security, Senate Office Building, 

Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Chairman : I shall appreciate it if you will arrange to have the 
attached statement incorporated into the record of the hearings on S. 1606, 
S. 1254, and S. 23. 

Tours very truly, 

K. W. Heberton. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 173 

Statement of J. L. Wilcox, Vice President of Employee Relations, 
THE "N^'estern Union Telegraph Co. 

Because of the nature of the telegraph business representing, as it does, a 
vital part to our national security, the problem of Communist-dominated unions 
and the infiltration of Communists into a critical industry's workin.iJi; forces has 
Ions been under serious consideration by Western Union. It is for this reason 
that I am particularly .urrateful for this opportunity to present the company's 
view of the problem and to recommend a solution. 

It is not strange that section 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act re- 
quiring union officers to take a non-Communist oath, has been wholly ineffective. 
One has only to read the following excerpt from Lenin to realize that the mere 
taking of a false oath would cause little trouble to the conscience of a member 
of the Communist Party : 

"It is necesary * * * if need be * * * to resort to all sorts of stratagems, 
maneuvers and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, in order to penetrate 
the trade unions, to remain in them and to carry on Commmiist work in them 
at all costs." 

Even though legislation could be adopted which would effectively eliminate 
the presence of a Communist in union office or result in the decertification of 
the union, the problem would yet remain with regard to the Comnuniist employee 
working in a key position in an industry vital to the national security. 

It seems to me that this is an equally important problem and also a difficult 
one with which to cope in those industries which are particularly susceptible to 
sabotage. 

While the union officer in the telegraph industry does not as a rule have ac- 
cess to the plant the real danger stems from his ability to cut off, in time of 
emergency by means of the strike weapon, the flow of communications so vital 
to the health, safety, and welfare of the Nation. 

Similarly in time of emergency, the individual Communist employee having 
access to sensitive and often delicate equipment constitutes a real danger whether 
or not he belongs to a Communist-dominated union. 

The problem therefore is twofold : 

1. The Communist-dominated union. 

2. The Communist employee working in a key position. 

At present the employer is unal)le to take any legal steps to combat either of 
the above conditions. 

As regards No. 1 — it has previou.sly been pointed out that even though the Taft- 
Hartley law offers adequate provision for the elimination of the self-confessed 
Communist union officer, he has only to swear to his innocence to remain immune 
from its effects. 

As regards No. 2 — there is at the present time nothing in the way of legislation 
to permit the employer to deal effectively with this problem especially as it relates 
to the identification of Communists in industry's ranks. 

Labor men, of course, realize the dangers inherent in any legislation that would 
in any way interfere with the employees" free choice of representation. Never- 
theless concern for the national security must prevail in any consideration of 
the possible limitation of such free choice. It is common knowledge that the 
Communist minority seizes control of a labor organization often by taking advan- 
tage of the fears, ignorance, or indifference of the membership or because the 
membership is unaware of the existence of a Communist group within the union. 
Once entrenched they become self-perpetuating and cannot be dislodged by the 
application of union bylaws and procedures. This subversive minority utilizes 
its position to the detriment of our national welfare. It therefore becomes neces- 
sary that legislation be enacted which will remedy this dangerous situation. 

Thus we have no hesitation in recommending that Congress use its full legisla- 
tive power to eradicate dangerous Communists from positions of power or in- 
fluence in labor unions and to further provide immunity for those industries 
engaged in or effecting interstate commerce that discharge from their ranks 
known Communist employees and subversives. 

Senate bill 1254 and its companion H. R. 7171 appear to me to effectively deal 
with the problem of Communist-tainted labor organizations. The further prob- 
lem of Communist employees working in key positions is more complex and 
difficult to deal with because of the possible encroachment on personal liberties, 



43903 — 54 — —12 



174 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

and it seems to me that item (d) of bill S. 23 at least represents an approach to 
its solution. 

Since I and other company oflBcials appeared before the subcommittee of the 
Committee of the Judiciary, 82d Congress, 1st session, I would like to include 
in the record by reference the testimony given at that time. 

In conclusion please again let me thank the committee for this opportunity 
to present my company's views and to express the earnest hope that the legisla- 
tion so necessary to the security of the Nation will at last receive favorable action 
by the Congress. This statement has been submitted by letter in the interest of 
saving the committee's time. Should it be deemed advisable that my personal 
appearance would be helpful, I shall consider it an honor to comply at the com- 
mittee's convenience. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 
or THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, 
in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler (chair- 
man of the task force) presiding. 

Present : Senator Butler (presiding). 

Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schroeder and 
Edward Duffy, members of the professional staff of the subcommittee. 

Senator Butler. The committee will be in order. 

This morning we are continuing the legistlative phase of the several 
bills pending before this task force. We have heretofore in executive 
and private session had a volume of testimony in connection with the 
internal security phases of the several bills. These hearings this morn- 
\ng will be in the nature of legislative hearings. 

Mr. Arens, will you please call your first witness 1 

Mr. Arens. Mr. William W. Miller, the vice president of the 
Stewart- Warner Corp. in charge of industrial relations. Will you 
kindly come forward, Mr. Miller ''. 

Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly 
swear and declare the evidence you will give before this task force of 
the Internal Security Subcommittee of tlie United States Senate will 
be the truth; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. Miller. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM W. MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
STEWART-WARNER CORP., NORTHFIELD, ILL. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence, 
and occupation i 

Mr. Miller. My name is William AV. Miller. I live in Northfield, 
111. I am vice president of Stewart- Warner Corp., in charge of 
industrial relations. 

Mr. Arens. And you also have an officer post in the industrial rela- 
tions commission of the Illinois Manufacturers Association? 

Mr. Miller. I am chairman of the industrial relations committee 
of the Illinois Manufacturers Association. 

175 



176 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr, Arens. Mr. Miller, has your company, the Stewart-Warner 
Corp., had any experiences or difficulties with a Communist-domi- 
nated union or organization ? 

Mr. Miller. We have had considerable experience, and I would 
like to tell about it. 

Mr. Arens. Will vou kindlv, in vour own wav and at vour own 
pace, just relate to the committee the ex])erie7ices which you have had? 

Mr. Miller. I want to make it clear that I am telling about my own 
company's experiences with this union and my own personal recom- 
mendations as to the legislation before you based on these experiences. 

Stewart-Warner has contracts in its various plants with about 11 
different hibor unions. This includes the UAW, the lUE, Steel 
Workers Union of the CIO, Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union, 
which was expelled from the CIO, and the IBEW and the lAlNI, AFL, 
a completely independent union, and about four other unions which 
represent smaller groups of employees. 

We try to maintain a sound, friendly, businesslike relationship 
with the unions representing our emj^loyees, and, in general, I would 
say that we have been successful in doing so. 

I want to tell you, however, about our company's experiences with 
a union which was dominated by Connnunists, and how the Taft- 
Hartley Act is inadequate to protect employees and employers and 
the ]:)ublic from Connnunist-dominated unions, and my recommenda- 
tions on the legislation before you are based on those experiences. 

My story is, to some extent, unique. 

Senator Butler. I think at this point, if you w'ill excuse the in- 
terruption, I would like to read into the record the testimony of J. 
Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, before the House Subcom- 
mittee on Appropriations, on December 9, 1953. Mr. Hoover said at 
that time, and I quote: 

In re.i^ard to the infiltration of labor, the Communists regard labor unions as 
instruments to be controlled and used to develop the Communist revolution. 

A national conference held in August of this year of the Communist Party 
reaffirmed the time-honored premise that control of the labor union is of primary 
importance to the development of the Communist revolution in this country. 

They desi^nt^d, particularly, the automobile industry as being the prime 
target because it is well known that it is one of the most vital industries to 
our national-defense production. 

In New York, the party has set a goal for 65 percent of its membership to 
become employed in the basic industries of the country. Instructions were 
issued for the reorpmization of the Communist Party in Los Angeles recently 
to organize on an industrial basis and party members were requested to secure 
work in the basic industries in that area, thus showing the trend of placing 
as many members as they can in the key industries of the country — the basic 
industries which if disrupted would materially affect our national defense. 

Currently, some trade unions operating in the maritime, mining, electrical, 
and the communications fields are chief strongholds of the Communist Party. 
The Communist Party still maintains its strongest bases in those unions, which 
were expelled from the CIO during 1949 and 1950. All of this poses a major 
and dangerous threat to our national security, because it involves these vari- 
ous unions that were expelled by the CIO. One of those unions represents a 
large portion of all employees in the electrical industry of the United States. 
Another union that was expelled exercises life-and-death control over our 
Pacific coast commerce ; another union has members employed in the production 
of copper and zinc which are essential to the national defense efforts. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Arens. I wonder if we could ask you what your company 
produces ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 177 

Mr. Miller. At the particular plant which is involved here, which 
is what we call our main plant in Chicago, Illinois, we are primarily 
a producer of parts for the automotive industry, and in wartime we 
produce a large number of fuzes and then, of course, these parts, also, 
go into military production, also. 

Mr. Arens. Does your company have defense contracts of any 
character ? 

Mr. Miller. Oh, yes, we have substantial defense contracts and 
still have them. 

Mr. Arens. Are they restricted or secret ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes; we do. We, also, have in this particular unit 
that I am talking about, radar contracts and things of that type ; Gov- 
ernment contracts. 

Mr. Arens. "VVliat Communist-dominated union has the bargain- 
ing rights for your plant ? 

Mr. Mn.LER. At the present time, we do not, but I am going to tell 
you about the time when the UE was the Communist-dominated un- 
ion and had it in our plant. We are one of the few companies that 
has been successful in getting rid of a Communist-dominated union. 

Senator Butler. You do not now have any mine, mill and smelter 
workers as employees ? 

Mr. Miller. We have the mine, mill and smelter workers in our 
diecasting plant in Chicago. So far as we know, the individuals in 
our employ do not include any Communists, although the union, in- 
ternational union itself, in my opinion, is Communist-dominated. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed, then, with your testi- 
mony ? 

Mr. Miller. As I said, I think our story is unique. 

In most instances, it is difficult to show how the Communists gain 
control of a local union and the extent that they are successful in 
doing so. Now, all of the facts that I am going to give you came 
from the sworn testimony given in the famous trial of the 11 Com- 
munists before Judge Medina in New York, from sworn testimony 
given in a National Labor Relations Board proceeding in which we 
were a party, and from testimony supported by affidavits offered in 
that proceeding. 

In August of 1945, a girl by the name of Florence Hall, a Stewart- 
Warner employee, was elected to the governing committee of the 
Communist Party in Illinois, and it was known as the Communist 
Party State Committee. The party shortly thereafter decided to 
make our Stewart-Warner plant in Chicago a concentration ])oint, 
and a point of concentration for the Communist Party of Illinois. 
Now, Florence Hall, herself, admitted these facts in the trial before 
Judge Medina. At that time, Florence Hall was not an officer of 
local 1154, UE, which was the union which had the bargaining rights 
in our plant at that time, but it was noticed that she interru])ted 
executive board meetings in order to tell John Kelliher, the president 
of the union, what steps the executive board should take. 

We had another employee in the plant at that time by the name of 
Garfield Herron. It later developed that he was an FBI agent in- 
vestigating communism in our Stewart- Warner plant, and he testified 
for the Government in the trial of the 11 Communists before Judge 
Medina. He testified concernino; classes in communism that were 



178 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

conducted at the home of John Kelliher, the president of our local 
union, and elsewhere. These classes ^Yere conducted by Everard Hall, 
who was the husband of this Florence Hall. 

A number of Communist Party meetings were held with a key 
group of Stewart-Warner employees, most of whom were at that 
time or later selected as top officials in local 1154. UE. 

Mr. Arens. Did Stewart-Warner at that time have defense con- 
tracts? 

Mr. Miller. We did have defense contracts. 

Mr. Arens. Were you working on secret defense material ? 

Mr. Miller. We were. 

Now, toward the end of 1945 and the beginning of 1946, many 
Stewart-Warner employees began to become aware of the fact that 
the Communists were trying to gain control of the local union there 
in our plant. An employee by the name of William Conner, running 
on an anti-Communist platform was elected president in a closed 
election, opposing this John Kelliher. 

The Communist-dominated executive board, however, refused to let 
Conner take over the office of president and it wasn't until after he 
had to file a suit in court and until the judge ordered them to do so 
that he was able to take office as president. In the meantime, this 
girl, Florence Hall, that I spoke about, pulled a sitdown strike in her 
department with a statement that the employees would not go back 
to work until Conner was taken out of the plant. She and other 
Communist leaders threatened non-Communist employees, physically 
assaulted them at union meetings, and on one occasion one of the 
Communist leaders attempted to push one of the non-Communist 
people dow^n the stairs in our plant. 

However, in future elections, the Communists again regained com- 
plete control of the executive board and the presidency. 

In March of 1948. a printed pamphlet published by a committee 
for CIO policy in local 1154, UE-CIO, was circulated at the plant 
by employees of Stewart-Warner. Now, I have put in the statement, 
which I have furnished you, excerpts from that and it gives in rather 
full detail the extent that the Communists gained control of the local 
and the steps that they wanted. The excerpts state as follows : 

The disciplined Communist minority wliich lias seized control of our interna- 
tional union, the paid organizing staff, the U. E. News, and our local union 
administration has given our union the repulsive reputation of being Communist 
dominated, thereby weakening the confidence of the members of their union. 

The effective functioning of our union has been hampered. Collective bar- 
gaining and membership losses have been misrepresented and minimized by the 
administration. Important matters such as the union shop, adequate night- 
shift bonus, veterans program, welfare program, etc.. which affect many or all 
of our members, have been betrayed in the interest of partisan politics. 

The local executive board majority, in flagrant violation of the local constitu- 
tion, has instituted a conspiracy against the membership by failing to report 
decisions affecting the membership to the local meetings, and by refusing to sub- 
mit their actions for approval of the local membership. 

Democratic processes within our union have been replaced by methods of 
character-assassination and an attitude of arrogance and dictatorship toward the 
rank and file. Petitions have been ignored. 

Our local newspaper has been turned into the private organ of the Kelliher- 
Hall-Communist faction, allowing only praise of the administration, and denying 
free expression of opinion. 

Regularly constituted committees have been forced into inactivity unless con- 
trolled by and for the Communists and their stooges. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 179 

Candidates for union oflBce have been supported not on the basis of merit or 
ability as union men or women but because of their willingness to accept orders 
from the Communist Party. Charter members of our local have been discouraged 
into inactivity or purged. 

The democratically elected chief stewards have been hounded and attacked 
for refusing; to place adherence to the Communist Party program ahead of the 
interests of the rank and file. They have been denied the assistance necessary 
for efficient prosecution of grievances. 

Officers and members who have refused to submit to Communist dictation have 
been relegated to second-class membership. They have been prevented from 
carrying on legitimate union activities, and have been denied the floor at local 
meetings. 

Our local treasury has been depleted by contributions to a variety of Com- 
munist-front organizations, and by support of Communist activities ; for ex- 
ample, the American Youth for Democracy (successor to the Young Communist 
League) ; the Chicago Star (Chicago "edition" of the Daily Worker) ; the Pro- 
gressive Party (political arm of the Communist Pai'ty), the American Commit- 
tee for Protection of Foreign Born (front committee for protection of Commu- 
nist aliens), etc. 

Repeatedly, the interests of the rank and file members who pay the bills have 
been deliberately sacrificed to carry out the pernicious activities of the Com- 
munist Party adherents in our union. 

Now, continuing, in November of 1948 this same Florence Hall 
told a girl by the name of Ruth Hunt, who had just been elected re- 
cording secretary of local 1154, and her husband as follows: "We 
want to know if you people are willing to come into the Communist 
Party. Unless you are a member of the Communist Party, you can't 
go anywhere in the union." 

Ruth Hunt and her husband told Florence Hall that they would 
not join the Communist Party, and Mrs. Hunt was not permitted to 
take office as recording secretary because of that. 

In January of 1949, Florence Hall told a union membership meet- 
ing that she was a Communist and proud of it. 

There is a great deal more evidence on how the Communists were 
able to control and did control the local union in our plant, and b}'^ 
their typical Communist activities control all of the union activities 
in support of the party line. 

On June 1, 1949, our company, as it had a right to under the con- 
tract which was then in existence with the UE, terminated that con- 
tract. On the same date, we received a demand from Local 1031, 
IBEW, AFL, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, for 
bargaining rights in our plant. We immediately submitted the ques- 
tion of bargaining rights to the NLRB for a decision, for an election. 

Because of the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act with respect to 
the filing of non-Communist affidavits, local 1154 elected not to file 
the affidavits and I don't think that they could have. 

Mr. Aeens. That is the UE ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes; that is the UE, and it did not appear on the 
ballot but it campaigned for a no-union vote. In July, the employees 
voted 1,041 to 886 in favor of the IBEW. The National Labor 'Re- 
lations Board, however, permitted this man, John Kelliher, the Com- 
munist president of the local union, and other individuals, to file 
unfair labor practice charges against the company in connection with 
the election. Now, although the Board did not 

Senator Butler. Just at that point, I would like to know if this is 
still taken from the testimony before Judge Medina ? 



180 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Miller. This particular fact did not appear before Judge 
Medina, and it appeared in the records of the National Labor Re- 
lations Board. 

Senator Butler. Prior to that time, had John Kelliher been iden- 
tified and proven to be a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Miller. He had been identified in the testimony before Judge 
Medina as being a member of the Communist Party, that classes in 
communism were conducted at his home. That had appeared in sworn 
testimony before Judge Medina. 

Senator Butler. But yet the National Labor Relations Board per- 
mitted these charges to be filed by a known Communist ? 

Mr. Miller. That is correct. 

Senator Butler. Will you proceed ? 

Mr. Miller. The Board did not have any objections to the elec- 
tion filed in accordance with its rules, and yet because of these im- 
fair labor practice charges which were filed by this Communist, John 
Kelliher, they refused to certify the AFL union, which won the elec- 
tion, while these unfair labor practice charges were pending. 

Now, that was an unprecedented act. Never before insofar as we 
could find out, had the Board ever refused to confirm an election be- 
cause there were unfair labor practice charges. 

Senator Buti.er. Especially would that be the case where it is 
known to the Board that the person making the charge was, in fact, 
a Communist. 

Mr. Miller. In that hearing, we offered to prove that he was a 
Communist, and that he was fronting for a Communist local, and that 
the local was Communist dominated, and the Board held that that 
had no bearing and refused to permit us to offer proof on that subject. 

Now, the employees still wished to have the AFL as bargaining 
agent, even though the Board would not certify them, and about 6 
months later they presented the company with the signatures of a 
majority of the employees, asking for representation by the AFL. 
We, thereafter, recognized the union, and have since maintained bar- 
gainingrelations with them. 

The Board, however, continued to prosecute these unfair labor prac- 
tice charges, and continued to refuse to certify the IBEW. Even- 
tually, the circuit court of appeals dismissed all of the unfair labor 
practice charges but it was not until after still another election which 
the IBEW won, two-and-a-half years after the first election, before 
the IBEW was certified. 

Now, during this period, the United States Government, through 
the National Labor Relations Board, was fighting the battle of the 
individuals fronting for the Communist Party, and the Communist- 
dominated union in our plant. The National Labor Relations Board, 
as I said, took the position in this litigation the fact that this union, 
which a majority of the employees had repudiated, the fact that it 
was Communist-dominated was completely immaterial and it had 
no bearing whatsoever on any of the issues before it, and the Board 
permitted this Communist president of a Communist local, and he was 
fronting for tliem, to hold up for two-and-a-half years the certifica- 
tion of the non-Communist union that the majority of the employees 
wanted. 

Mr. Arens. INIay I ask you this question : You are also a lawyer, 
are you not ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 181 

Mr. Miller. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Arens. If a labor organization is organized b}^ a company, a 
company union, will the National Labor Relations Board certify that 
organization as a bargaining agency ? 

Mr. Miller. It will not. 

Mr. Arens. Why not ? 

Mr. Miller. Because they say it is dominated by the employer, and 
it cannot, therefore, represent the employees. 

Mr. Arens. But if an organization is conceived and controlled by 
the Communist Party as an agency of the Kremlin in this country, 
what is the policy of the National Labor Relations Board so far as 
certifying that agency is concerned ? 

Mr. Miller. If the affidavits have been filed, the Board will do 
nothing. It cannot, under present legislation, evidently do anything 
to protect the employees from the Communist-dominated union. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Miller, did any agency or department of the 
government, at any time during this controversy, speak to you or to 
any officer of the company' in connection with withdrawing the Gov- 
ernment contracts from the company ? 

Mr. Miller. We did not have that situation. The only thing that 
occurred was that one or two people, I forget exactly who they were 
now, wanted to make sure that they were not working on any Gov- 
ernment business. 

Senator Butler. So if they had found, if the agency or depart- 
ment of the Government you referred to had found that the members 
of this Communist local were, in fact, engaged on that work, you 
would have been penalized by having that contract taken away from 
you, rather than going to the root of the evil and putting the Com- 
munists out. Is tTiat right ? 

Mr. Miller. It could have happened ; yes. 

Mr. Arens. Could I also ask you this : If the NLRB certifies the X 
organization as a bargaining agency, is your company obliged to bar- 
gain with that X Communist-controlled labor organization? 

Mr. Miller. We are, we have no alternative. 

Mr. Arens. What if you do not bargain with them, and what if you 
just say, "We are not going to bargain with you; you are a Com- 
munist" ? 

]Mr. JMiiXER. We will be prosecuted by the National Labor Relations 
Board through the courts. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly continue your testimony ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, our experiences have convinced us of the neces- 
sity for enactment of legislation such as either the Butler bill. Senate 
bill 1606 ; or the Goldwater bill. Senate bill 1254. 

Senator Butler. I direct your attention to this point, Mr. Miller : 
In the bill, S. 1606, as it is presently drafted, it deals only with infil- 
tration in labor organizations. Would you be willing that that bill 
contain a provision that if an employee or any officer or director or 
person in control of the company is known to be a Communist or 
Communist dominated, that then those people must be purged before 
they can deal with a good union ? 

Mr. Mn.LER. I see no objection to that. As a matter of fact, how- 
ever, there is no problem that I have heard of, of Communist domina- 
tion of employers. It is a little bit like the situation that if my wife 



182 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

is sick and I take her to a doctor, the doctor doesn't say, "Well, I will 
give both of you medicine." I see no necessity for it. That is the 
same reason I see no real necessit}' for the surrgestion that employei-s 
likewise file non-Communist affidavits. No employer has any objec- 
tion to it, but there isn't the problem there. 

Senator Butler. Let me call this to your attention : That there has 
been some evidence to the effect that some companies would rather deal 
with a Communist-dominated union because by so doing they can get 
a better advantage than they can in dealing with a union not Com- 
munist dominated. 

Mr. Miller. I have no sympath}^ for that position. 

Senator Butler. Is there any way that you could suggest that the 
Congress could reach that situation ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, by your bill, or the Goldwater bill, which makes 
that union ineligible to represent employees. It doesn't leave it as a 
question of judgment for the employer as to whether he does or does 
not recognize that union. It should be left so that no one has a right 
to bargain with that union, and that union does not have any right 
to represent employees. I am heartily in favor of the fact that they 
should have no rights whatsoever and it should not be left up to the 
employer as to whether he does or does not want it. 

Mr. Arens. Let us assume that legislation were enacted precluding 
the certification by the National Labor Relations Board of an organi- 
zation that is found to be Communist dominated. What could be 
done, in your judgment, to preclude the organization itself without 
certification from contracting with an employer and from engaging 
in work, particularly in defense establishments? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I think the current bills make these unions ineli- 
gible to represent the workers, and I don't think the employer should 
have any more rights than anyone else. 

Senator Butler. The employer would not be able to deal with 
them ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, and I think that you are entirely right in that 
particular approach. It shouldn't be a question of advantage to the 
employer as to whether or not he wants to. The evil is in the Com- 
munist domination, and it should be stamped out completely and it 
shouldn't be left as a question as to whether the employer does or does 
not wish to do it. 

Mr. Arens. You think this is a matter just between labor organiza- 
tions and employers, or do you think there is an overriding public 
interest here ? 

Mr. Miller. It is the public that is interested in this thing. 

Mr. Arens. Why is that ? 

Mr. Miller. And the Government. The Communist Party is en- 
gaged in a conspiracy to overthrow by force the United States Govern- 
ment. It is also engaged in a conspiracy to terminate the type of 
existence that we have. That is our system. The thing to do is get 
at the root of the evil and prevent it from gaining control of this 
large segment of our public life, the labor unions. 

Senator Butler. You think that they are actually doing what 
Mr. Hoover has pointed out they are going to do, and they are putting 
in basic industries people who, in a time of emergency, will have a 
slowdown or a strike or sabotage or something of the kind and, in 
that way, will prevent us from defending oureelves ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 183 

Mr. Miller. Absolutely, and as a matter of fact with a handful of 
people, I think 20 or 25 people, they did do that and were able to 
control a plant which employed 10,000 people during the height 
of the war. 

Senator Butler, Therefore, as long as you have the bargaining 
rights given by the NLRB to a union known to be Communist- 
dominated, you just lay yourselves open that much more to the 
hazards of their conspiracy ? 

Mr. Miller. That is absolutely right. 

Communist-dominated unions exist today, and everybody knows it, 
and the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law with respect to non-Com- 
munist affidavits are of no value because these unions have learned 
how to get around them. 

Mr. Arexs. May I ask you this question, which is sometimes sug- 
gested : Why shouldn't the Government just sta}^ out of it and just 
let the unions fight it out with the Communists ? 

Mr. Miller. The unions haven't been able to do it. 

Mr. Arens. The unions do not have access to security records of 
the Government, do they ? 

Mr. Miller. Not so far as I know. 

Mr. Arens. They do not have the investigatorj?^ facilities available 
to the Government, do they ? 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Mr. Arens. You feel it is a proper province for the Government? 

Mr. Miller. It is for the protection of our existence. After all, 
the CIO— was it about 1949 ? 

Mr. Arens. It was in 1949 and 1950. 

Mr. Miller. Took the policy it was going to expel the Com- 
munist unions from the CIO. But there are still strong Communist 
unions in this country today. 

Mr. Arens. And still they are certified by the NLRB? 

Mr. Miller. Of course, they are, and the officers of those unions have 
filed non-Connnunist affidavits, although nobody believes it. They 
are still Communists and thej' are Communist-dominated. 

Mr. Arens. You gave an illustration a little while ago, in the 
earliest part of your testimony, about a Communist who would call 
one of her colleagues on the phone during executive board meetings 
and issue directives. That brings to the attention of the subcommittee 
the problem which the subcommittee has been wrestling with of the 
method by which the Communists could put non-Communists in office 
and then act like Edgar Bergen does with Charlie McCarthy and 
pull the strings. Have you concerned yourselves with that problem ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. In our local that we had in our plant at that 
time, the way that the officers were elected — and this appeared from 
testimony given in the NLRB proceedings and from testimony that 
was offered — first, there would be a small group of the Communist 
Party who would get together and discuss "who shall we have for 
the various executive board offices." They would decide who would 
be the next officials. Then they would come out of their Communist 
Party meetings, and get to a little larger group, who were sort of 
sympathizers and who would go along with them, but who were not 
necessarily members of the party. Then they would theoretically 
bring up the subject for discussion for the first time there, and then 



184 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

that little larger group would decide on the same candidates that the 
Communist Party had earlier decided upon. Then the larger group 
would get further suj^port and they would be the official candidates 
of the local, not knowing that the original selection of these people 
had been done in a small caucus meeting of Communist Party people 
or members. 

Mr. Arexs. Is your company empowered under the contract ar- 
rangements you have with any of the labor organizations with whom 
you deal to fire people that are Communists? 

Mr. Miller. We are, at the present time. May I tell you a little 
bit about the story of that? 

Up until we terminated our contract on June 1, 1949, at that period 
of time, we knew that we had some Communist employees in our plant. 
We wanted to discharge those employees. We were faced with the 
fact that arbitrators in general say that membership in the Communist 
Party is not just cause for discharge. That is hard to believe, but that 
is what the decisions are. We were 

Senator Butler. Just a moment. Whose decisions are those ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't recall the names of them. 

Senator Butler. Are they independent arbitrators, employed by 
companies and unions, to arbitrate their differences ? 

Mr. Miller. That is correct. I don't remember the names of the 
decisions but you can find them in the labor arbitration reports. We 
gave serious consideration to this problem which we knew was con- 
fronting us. 

Senator Butler. That is a well-established principle. 

Mr. Miller. In general, I would say that is the principle, because 
arbitrators are not governed as judges are by the rule of stare decisis, 
and it is also possible that a new man deciding the thing might do 
something. But the general trend is to say membership in the Com- 
munist Party just by itself is not a just cause for discharge. Most 
union contracts provide that you have to have just cause for discharge. 

We did not feel that we would be safe in discharging these Com- 
munists because we felt that the net result would be that we would 
have to reemploy them by order of an arbitrator and pay them back 
pay and so forth and so on. So we could not take any action on that. 

Senator Butler. Did you take any action by advising the depart- 
ment of Government which had granted the contract that you had 
actual Communists working on defense production ? 

Mr. Miller. We advised them as to all of the people that we had 
and we gave them any information that we had, but at that time and 
since then, so far as I know, no department of Government will tell 
you that you should discharge an employee and say that you may 
quote them as saying so, and giving it as a reason for it. Therefore, 
you are left in the same position that you are, and you can't give that 
as a justification. 

Senator Butler. Do they institute any investigations, or to your 
knowledge have any investigations ever been instituted by reason of 
notice from you to a department or agency of the Government that 
a given person, Mr. X, is a Communist and is working on defense 
work? 

Mr. Miller. I don't knoAv whether they did or not. I don't know 
what went on from there. EvidpTitly, there were some investigations 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 185 

o;oin^ on, because it later developed that this man, Garfield Herron, 
that I referred to, was an FBI ag:ent workino; in onr plant, although 
we didn't even know about it until the day he testified in New York. 

Up to June 1, 1949, we didn't feel that we were safe in discharging 
anyone who was a Comnnmist. After we terminated our contract in 
the fall of that year, at a time when we had no union which had any 
contractual relationship, we established a policy that we would not 
retain in our employ any employee who was a Communist Party mem- 
ber or sympathizer, or who had been such since Pearl Harbor. 

We discharged, I think, about 8 or 10 people on that basis. Since 
that time, in our contract with the IBEW in that plant, and in our 
contract with the lAM in that plant, each representing different 
groups of employees, we have retained the right to discharge em- 
ployees on the basis of their membership in the Connnunist Party. 

But, you see, the trouble is that most employers are not in a posi- 
tion where they can establish such a policy because of the fact that 
arbitrators will not hold that it is just cause for discharge. 

Mr. Arens. The employers also have this problem, do they not, 
of not knowing who the Connnunists are, and the employers do not 
have access to securitv records and the partv is underground in large 
part? 

Mr. Miller. In some cases, as in our case, it becomes public 
knowledge that certain individuals are Communist Party members. 

When a girl like Florence Hall, for example, gets up in a 
union meeting and says, ''I am a Communist and proud of it," it 
becomes general knowledge. But, there are a gretit many that they 
have no knowledge of whatsoever. There are a great many that we 
had no knowledge of. But that is whv I think that the bill before 
you, I think it is Senate bill 23, Senator IVIcCarran's bill, is important. 
It will establish a policy of the United States Government that it is 
justifiable to discharge a Communist. 

Now, if that policy is established by the United States Govern- 
ment, then I think that you will get a complete reversal of the trend 
of the arbitration decisions and they will then hold it is just cause to 
discharge a Communist. Then, the companies would be in a posi- 
tion to protect themselves against this Comnnmist group, one of whose 
main purposes is to cause as much discordance as possible between em- 
ployer and the employees. 

Mr. Arens. Are you conversant with the shop steward system, Mr. 
Miller? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Could you, in just very brief thumbnail sketch, tell 
us what the shop steward system is ? 

Mr. Miller. The unions in almost all plants have a stcAvard who 
is one of the employees who is either selected by the union or elected 
by the group, who will represent a certain group of employees, gen- 
erally in a department of maybe 35 or 50 employees, and this steward 
is the representative of the employees in discussions with the manage- 
ment representatives, the foreman or whoever it is, on the problems 
arising in that particular group. 

Mr. Arens. Does the shop steward report to the leadership of the 
labor organization? 

JNIr. Miller. Yes. 



186 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Aeens. And if the labor organization is Communist controlled, 
then the shop steward reports to Commnnists? 

Mr. Miller. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Is he, in fact, designated by the leadership or is his 
appointment in large part determined by the leadership ? 

Mr. Miller. In local 1154, UE, the Communist-dominated union 
which was in our plant, in general, tried to appoint, or at least direct, 
what stewards w^ould be appointed- When the people in a particular 
department got too excited about some arbitrary action, why then they 
might give in and let them elect one. In the IBEW, AFL, in our 
plant today, all of the stewards are elected by the employees in the 
group. 

Mr. Arens. Did you concern yourselves, or are you now concerned 
about the potential for espionage in the various industrial establish- 
ments producing defense material which are manned by people under 
the discipline of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Miller. It is a constant problem. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any illustrations in mind as to what pre- 
sented itself in your plant? 

Mr. Miller. Only to this extent : In one of our plants we have secret 
material, radar equipment and things of that kind, for the Govern- 
ment. We would have Communists who were working not on that 
particular material but over in another part of the plant. But you 
see, these people know where everything is, and we try to keep the 
thing protected, but where you have an employee in the plant who 
knows where everything is, it would be so simple for him to go over 
where he isn't supposed to be at some other time and discover some- 
thing that he shouldn't. We tried to prevent it, but it creates a ter- 
rific problem. 

Mr. Arens. Have you concerned yourselves with this situation, 
whereby agencies of the Government have found that certain labor 
organizations are Communist controlled, and at the same time other 
agencies of the Government are letting Government contracts, defense 
contracts, to establishments in which those Communist-controlled 
labor organizations are engaged? 

Mr. Miller. That is true, but, as a matter of fact, I don't think 
the Government has any otlier choice. You take some of your larger 
companies, like (jeneral Electric and Westinghouse, for example, who 
have a Communist-dominated union in some of their plants. If the 
Government were not to allow General Electric or Westinghouse to 
have any contracts, I don't think that they would be able to get some 
of the work done that they have to get done. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any concern with respect to the potential 
for sabotage, as distinguished from espionage, by Communist-con- 
trolled labor organizations engaged in the defense establishments of 
this country? 

]Mr. Miller. It would be a very simple thing where you have a 
nucleus in a particular plant upon giving the word to completely 
sabotage the plant or any production in it, because the employee who 
has access to the plant can do anything. Nobody could prevent it. 
Senator Butler. Mr. Miller, I would appreciate it, if you will, to 
point out to the subcommittee any infirmity in any of the legislation 
or any comments that you may like to make about any of the 
legislation. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 187 

Mr. Miller. May I make a couple of suggestions about your bill, 
Senator Butler ? Your bill, as I understand it, provides that upon 
the filing of a complaint that a particular local is Communist domi- 
nated, notice of it is sent to the NLKB and, automatically, the union 
is barred from representing the employees while the trial is going on. 
Senator Butler. What happens is this : A complaint would be made 
and the Subversive Activities Control Board, which has access to the 
source material and a lot of material that the ordinary individual does 
not have, would find the report to be of substance, or the complaint 
to be of substance. Then, the bargaining right would be withdrawn. 

Do you think that would be too severe ? 

Mr. Miller. I, personally, think it would be a little severe. 

Senator Butler. That has been criticized and that may be a very 
legitimate objection to the bill. Certainly, we are not wedded to 
that, and we have three bills here by which we are trying to find some 
solution to a problem, and we would appreciate your telling us what 
you think about the problem. 

Mr. Miller. I think it is a little severe for this reason : At the pres- 
ent time, the Government doesn't do anything. We are going on today 
without any protection from the Communist Party. Now, it seems 
to me that it is only fair to give whatever union is accused of being 
Communist-dominated a full hearing, and an opportunity to present 
the facts, before any action is taken. I think that your bill is a little 
strong in that way. 

There is one other thing that I would like to mention about your 
bill. We are particularly sensitive on this question of individuals 
fronting for a union, and I don't know whether or not your bill covers 
that sufficiently. The Goldwater bill, I think, covers this fronting 
thing, but your bill, on page 3, at the end of line 1 says, "such labor 
organizations shall be ineligible to act as exclusive bargaining agent 
or to become or continue to be," and I would suggest that you consider 
adding after those words such words as, "directly or indirectly," or 
something like "directly or through individuals acting in concert with 
such labor organization." 

I take that language from the Goldwater bill, which does cover this 
question of fronting. 

Our problems arose before the NLRB came in. The UE wasn't 
permitted to file any complaints or to do anything before the NLRB, 
because they hadn't filed the non-Communist affidavits, but it didn't 
make the slightest bit of difference because the Communist president 
could do anything that the union could have done. And he was suc- 
cessful in holding up the certification of the union that a majority 
of our employees wanted. So, you have got to stop anybody acting 
for them, as well as the union itself. 

Senator Butler. Thank you very much. It was nice of you to 
take your time to come here and give us your advice and experience in 
this field. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness is Adm. Ellery W. Stone. 

Senator Butler, Will you please rise ? 

Do you solemnly swear, promise, and declare the evidence you give 
before this task force of the Internal Security Subcommittee will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Mr. Stone. I do. 



188 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

STATEMENT OF ELLERY W. STONE, PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN 
CABLE & RADIO CORP., NUTLEY, N. J. (ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, RUFUS D. McDONALD, OF DAVIS, POLK, WARDWELL, 
SUNDERLAND & KIENDL, NEW YORK, N. Y.) 

Mr. Arexs. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence, 
and occupation ? 

Mr. Stone. My name is Ellery W. Stone, and my residence is 2 
Kingsland Road, Nutley, N. J., and my occupation is president of 
American Cable & Radio Corp., a company engaged, through operat- 
ing subsidiaries, in the international telegraph business. 

Mr. Arens. Will you proceed in your own way to present your 
testimony to the subconnnittee ^ We will appreciate it. 

Mr. Stone. Thank you. I am grateful for this opportunity to 
discuss with you my company's views on how to deal with the problem 
of Communist domination of labor unions. The suggested approach 
to legislation which I would like to offer today represents, in my 
opinion, a new and possibly a more direct approach to this Commu- 
nist problem. 

It is based upon my conviction that from the point of view of current 
need, it is easier and more effective, perhaps even more democratic, to 
help the union memberships themselves get rid of their Communist 
officials, than it is to legislate the Communists out of the unions 
through involved and complicated judicial processes. 

Simply stated, I am here today to recommend that the immediate 
solution lies in the changing and strengthening of sections 9 (h) of 
the present Taft-Hartley Act. This is the short-range objective. I 
further believe that concurrently there could well be a long-range ob- 
jective to brand certain unions as Communists by utilizing a govern- 
ment agency such as the Subversive Activities Control Board. This, 
of course, is what is involved, sir, in your own bill. That is the long- 
range approach. 

Before I go into detail about the American Cable & Radio plan, I 
would like to give you a short background about myself and the 
organization which I represent. 

The American Cable & Radio Corp. and its operating subsidiaries 
of Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., the Commercial Cable Co., and All 
American Cables & Radio, Inc., are subsidiaries of the International 
Telephone & Telegraph Corp. During the war, I served as a rear 
admiral on duty with the Navy as Chief Commissioner of the Allied 
Control Commission in Italy, with Soviet officers attached to my com- 
mand, and I was, also, a member of the Mediterranean Advisory Com- 
mission on which sat Connnunists or Soviet diplomats. 

I have had some experience, I think I can say, wdth Communist 
methods of infiltration. 

My appearance today is on behalf of my companies which are en- 
gaged in work vital to the national defense and which have been re- 
quired in the past to deal with the union publicly labeled as Commu- 
nist-dominated. This union, the American Communications Associ- 
ation, was expelled by the CIO in 1950 for and here I quote from 
the language of the CIO, "consistently following the Communist 
l^arty line." Key officers of the ACA have been identified as Com- 
numists by witnesses before congressional committees, and ACA of- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 189 

ficers, when placed under oath, have resorted to the fifth amendment 
and refused to answer the question, "Were you a Communist as of the 
time you signed the non-Communist affidavit under the Taft-Hartley 
Act?" 

Despite the action by the CIO expelling ACA because of its, and 
here I quote the CIO language, "subservience to the interests of the 
Communist Party and through that party to the Soviet Union," and 
despite the fact that key officers of ACA were, thereafter, identified 
as Communists by labor witnesses including former ACA members 
before congressional committees, and despite the fifth amendment 
refuge taken by officers of ACA, ACA as of today continues to repre- 
sent a large segment of employees in this sensitive and vital industry. 

Mr. Arens. Could you pause there just a moment. Admiral, to 
relate for the purpose of the record some of the contracts which the 
American Communications Association, this Communist-dominated 
labor organization, has at the present time ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes ; at the present time they represent the employees 
of the Western Union Telegraph Co., both in the metropolitan di- 
vision of that company, which means New York City and the sur- 
rounding area, and they rei3resent the cable employees of Western 
Union Telegraph; namely, the employees engaged in the interna- 
tional business of Western Union, similar to the activities of my own 
company. 

Mr. Arens. They service the cables of messages going overseas to 
Europe from the United States ? 

Mr. Stone. They handle all of the international messages of West- 
ern Union going to and from Europe and going part way to South 
America, where they are turned over to a foreign company. 

Mr. Arens. May I explore that just a little further for a moment? 

It is a fact. Admiral, is it not, that the employees in the American 
Communications Association have access to the messages which go 
overseas — all messages going over the North Atlantic ? 

Mr, Stone. Not all, but all of Western Union's. 

Mr. Arens. All of Western Union's messages ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, and all of the messages of the RCA Communica- 
tions, which is a subsidiary of the Radio Corp. of America. 

Senator Butler. Does that comprehend. Admiral, the leased cables 
out of the Pentagon, and other agencies of the Gevernment? 

Mr, Stone, Any leases which Government agencies have with 
Western Union and RCA and with my company involve necessarily 
that our employees monitor and be familiar with what is passing over 
those cables, in the normal discharge of their duties. 

Senator Butler, In other words, then, the most confidential mes- 
sage out of the State Department or the Pentagon or any other agency 
or department of the Government going over those cables is moni- 
tored by these people who are members of a Communist-dominated 
union ? 

Mr. Stone, That is correct. But I should like to emphasize that 
not all members of these Communist-dominated unions are, by any 
means, Communists, 

Senator Butler. I was very careful in saying that. They are not 
Communists or may not be Conununists themselves, but they are 

43903—54 13 



190 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

members of a miion that has been proved to be Communist dom- 
inated ? 

Mr. Stone, That is correct. 

Senator Butler. And they handle the secret messages going from 
the State Department and the Pentagon and other departments and 
agencies of the United States Government ? 

Mr. Stone. That is quite true, sir. 

Mr. Arens. As a man wlio said you had considerable experience 
in Communist techniques, and who obviously appreciates the signifi- 
cance of the defense of this Nation, what is your appraisal of a situ- 
ation in which the tie lines and lease lines coming out of the Pentagon 
are serviced by personnel of a Communist-dominated labor organi- 
zation ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, I think it is inimical to the security of this coun- 
try. It is well known that one of the tenets of the Communist Party 
is to have their members astride vital lines of communications, both 
shipping and electrical communications, and I referred to some of 
these dangers, gentlemen, later in my prepared statement. 

Senator Butler. You may proceed in your own way. 

Mr. Stone. I do not want to interrupt you. 

Although the ACA has not represented the American Cable & Ra- 
dio employees since 1948, it recently has exerted an all-out effort to 
win back its position as bargaining agent in our company. 

On May 28, 1953, a representation election was held among the em- 
ployees of American Cable & Radio Corp. and the ACA, having been 
accorded by the NLRB, over our strenuous protests, the status of 
a legitimate union, was placed on the ballot by NLRB together with 
CIO and AFL unions. 

Mr. Arens. Would you pause just for a question there which I think 
will clear our record? It is a fact, is it not. Admiral, that this com- 
mittee in 1951, and again in 1952 released testimony which established 
conclusively that the American Communications Association was 
dominated and controlled by the Communist Party? 

Mr. StonL. I have read all of that testimony, and I could come to 
know other communications than what you have just stated, sir. 

Mr. Arens. But in chronology of events here, thereafter on May 
28, 1958, the National Labor Relations Board placed the name of this 
Communist-controlled labor organization on a ballot, right along with 
the CIO and AFL unions, for submission to the members, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct, and may I say that in some of the 
strenuous protests which I referred to, we quoted from the reports of 
this committee. Unhappily, it was to no avail. 

To date, the results of this election have not been finally determined, 
but I may say that the ballot, the final ballot which was counted only 
last week, put the ACA in third place, and if ACA does not appeal 
it, it would appear that they will not lie on the runoff ballot, which 
in that case would be confined to AFL and CIO communications 
unions. 

Mr. Arens. That is with what company? 

Mr. Stone. My company, sir American Cable & Radio Corp. 

Mr. Arens. ACA still has contracts with other companies? 

Mr. Stone. They still have contracts with Western Union and RCA. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 191 

Nevertheless, my company has been compelled to acknowledge the 
compliance status of AGA because our legislative processes have not 
yet produced a means to restrict this type of union. I should briefly 
explain our operations. 

Our tliree subsidiaries in the United States operate a network of 
submarine telegraph cables and radio telegraph circuits to and from 
most of the principal countries of the world. Some of these coun- 
tries are behind the Iron Curtain. 

Over these cable and radio circuits flow international telegraph 
traffic of all kinds. Our services are used by the public and by agen- 
cies of the United States Government, such as the State Department 
and the Armed Forces. Our circuits are also used by American con- 
cerns engaged in defense work. 

Let me explain why the question of national security is so important 
with regard to the communications industry. 

Our cable and radio facilities are used for defense purposes by var- 
ious agencies of the United States Government. Many messages are 
sent by these agencies which must be monitored by our employees. If 
sent over a leased circuit, the message is cut into a teleprinter for the 
purpose of testing and regulating the circuit. In addition to direct 
Government business, we also handle many messages to and from 
private companies having important defense contracts. In order to 
handle these messages properly, our employees must read various mes- 
sages concerning shipments and orders of rubber, steel, aircra ft, and 
other vital defense materials. Furthermore, we operate what are 
known as shore-to-ship radio stations. To insure proper routing of 
marine messages, the operators, of necessity, must and do have knowl- 
edge of the location of ships at sea in all oceans. Because today, 
under shortwave conjmunications, it is possible to work from Long 
Island to ships in almost any sea, the consequence is on our trafiic 
routing board at South Hampton, for example, the location of hun- 
dreds of ships are posted constantly, so we know how to send mes- 
sages, whether through a west coast station of ours or through an 
east coast station. 

In a state of emergency, in order for the Government to function 
at all, it must have available to it all international cable and radio 
facilities. It cannot afford to risk any possible breakdown or espio- 
nage in the operation of these facilities. 

I need not point out the necessity for immediate contact with over- 
seas ambassadors, and much of the traffic of the State Department 
goes over the facilities, I am happy to say, of the three commercial 
companies. Western Union, EGA, and American Cable & Kadio. 

In the present state of the world, the prompt transmission of vital 
communications, without danger of interception or sabotage, is es- 
sential. It is equally essential that subversive elements be denied 
access to and use of international communication facilities for send- 
ing to our enemies abroad intelligence acquired by espionage. 

Gentlemen, I turn now to our specific proposals which we should 
like to submit for amending the law. 

Mr. Arens. Before you do that, may we ask you a question or two 
here, please. Admiral? 

It has been suggested, or was suggested in the past that after all we 
need not be too concerned about this because defense secrets are trans- 



192 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

mitted by code or by messenger. Admiral, are there not certain mes- 
sages which are not transmitted by code which we would not want 
the Commmiists to know about? 

Mr. Stone. That is true, and even as to coded messages, it is cus- 
tomary, all military services, to intercept ciphered or coded messages 
of the enemy, with the expectation and hope of breaking them. 

Mr. Arens. Do the codes go over these wires. 

Mr. Stone. Certainly. 

Mr. Arens. Then, the code is available for interception by the Com- 
munists, is that correct? 

Mr. Stone. The coded message is. 

Mr. Arens. That is what I meant. 

Senator Butler. And it is constantly available to give them fresh 
opportunities owing to the situations in the world as it goes day by 
day, and they can take the cipher and relate it to the event and in that 
way it aids them in breaking the code? 

Mr. Stone. That is one of the means that all intelligence people use 
in breaking coded messages. 

Senator Butler. You can take the ciphered message and try to re- 
late it to the events of the clay, and if you have many hundreds of 
such examples, you are very greatly aided in breaking the code, are 
you not? 

Mr. Stone. That is quite correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is the subcommittee being unduly apprehensive in hav- 
ing a concern about this situation where the code of the United States 
military is from time to time made available to the Communists via 
these tie lines and lease lines which are serviced by people in a Com- 
munist-controlled labor organization? 

Mr. Stone. No ; I think that you are doing what should have been 
done a long time ago, except if I may correct one statement you made, 
the code itself, of course, is not available. 

Mr. Arens. The coded messages, I mean. 

Mr. Stone. That is right, and I think that there is a very great 
need to plug up this wide-open gap in our security measures. 

Mr. Arens. Just to make the record clear on a point which we have 
made from time to time in these hearings, I would like to ask you 
this : If Western Union did not bargain with the American Communi- 
cations Association, this Communist-controlled labor organization, 
and did not permit these people on its plants to use its facilities. 
Western Union would be guilty of an unfair labor practice, would 
it not? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. I am not a lawyer, but I have had 
some experience with the National Labor Relations Board, and my 
counsel is sitting at my side, and I am sure he would support my 
reply. 

The particular suggestions that we should like to make run to sec- 
tion 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act. I should liko to , oad what we 
would propose. That is that section 9 (h) be amended to read as 
follows : 

No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting com- 
merce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organiza- 
tion under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued 
pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of 
section 10, unless there is on file with the Board and with the regional office 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 193 

of the Board where the affiant resides an information affidavit executed con- 
temporaneously or within the preceding 12-month period by each officer of 
such labor organization and each person who is in a position substantially to 
direct, dominate or control any national or international labor organization 
of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit. The information affidavit shall 
contain the following questions and information : 

(o) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party 
in the United States of America or any other country or of any Communist 
Party subdivisions, subsidiaries or affiliates? 

(ft) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a Fascist, Nazi or 
totalitarian organization? 

(c) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization, as- 
sociation, movement, group or combination of persons which : 

1. Advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government 
by force or violence ; 

2. Seeks to alter the form of government of the United States by un- 
constitutional means? 

(d) Are you now, or have you ever been a member of, or associated with, any 
of the organizations designated by the Attorney General of the United States 
as totalitarian. Fascist, Communist or subversive? 

If your answer to any of the above questions is "Yes," state below the names 
of all such organizations, associations, movements, groups, or combinations of, 
persons and dates of membership. Give complete details of your activities 
therein and malfe any explanation you desire regarding your membership or 
activities therein. 

The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable ia 
respect to such information affidavits. 

A proposed section 9 (h) (2) is: 

It shall be the obligation of all labor organizations to furnish to the mem- 
bers of such labor organizations copies of all such information affidavits at 
the time the information affidavits are placed on file with the Board. 

Section 9 (h) (3) : 

If it is found, after an investigation conducted by the Board, that ah officer 
of a labor organization or a person who is in a position substantially to direct, 
dominate or control such labor organization has provided an affirmative answer 
to one of the questions in the information affidavit indicating membership any- 
time after June 25, 1950, or has su;bmitted any false statement to the Board, the 
Board shall order such labor organization to remove such person within 30 days 
from the date of such order, from such office or position. If the labor organiza- 
tion submits proof, satisfactory to the Board, that it has complied with the 
Board's order within the required period it shall be considered to be in compli- 
ance with this section. If the Board finds that the labor organization has not 
complied with its order, the Board shall find that the affidavit is invalid and 
that such labor organization is not in compliance with this section. 

Those constitute the modifications of section 9 (h) of the present 
act which we desire to submit. I would like to follow with a short 
discussion of what I think the effect would be. 

Senator Butler. Would you proceed, please? 

Mr. Stone. Under our plan, all officers, all officials and leaders of 
labor organizations, each year, must fill out under oath, an informa- 
tion affidavit. There are four basic questions which are asked in this 
affida\at, as follows : 

1. Are you now or have you ever been a Conmiunist ? 

2. Are you now or have you ever been a Nazi, Fascist or member 
of a totalitarian organization ? 

3. Do you now or have you ever belonged to an organization advo- 
cating the overthrow of this government by force and violence ? 

4. Do you now or have you ever belonged to any of the organiza- 
tions on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations ? 



194 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

No union shall be considered in compliance with the labor law unless 
its official representatives and leaders have appropriately filled out 
and filed the information affidavit with the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

Our suggested amendment recommends that it will be the obligation 
of labor organizations to furnish each individual member copies of all 
the information affidavits which are placed on file wdth the Board. It 
is our belief that union members are entitled to know if their leaders 
and officials are presently and/or have been in the past associated or 
affiliated with any Communist or subversive organization or move- 
ment. Each union should, therefore, be required to disseminate to all 
its members copies of the information affidavits so that these members 
may be able to evaluate for themselves properly the motives and back- 
gi'ounds of their leaders. 

In my judgment, the administration of this law would develop 
along the following lines: 

1. It should be expected that in most cases the questions will be 
answered in the negative. Certainly, the bulk of the unions in this 
country are not Communist-dominated. Our suggested amendment 
requires that the Board reach a finding after it has conducted an in- 
vestigation into the validity of each information affidavit which has 
been submitted and filed. The Board's decision in the case where all 
answers are negative would be to consider the affiant as being in com- 
pliance with section 9 (h) as modified, unless, after an investigation, 
the Board finds any of the answers to be false. 

2. If a union officer or leader gives answers which are untruthful, 
then he is subject to prosecution under section 35 A of the Criminal 
Code. In the event that a false answer is given, then his union shall 
have 30 days in which to disassociate the representative from his posi- 
tion with the union. I am not advocating that he be thrown out of the 
union, simply that he be removed from office and thus not be in a posi- 
tion to control the affairs and activities of the union. If the union 
does not do so within 30 days, then the Labor Board shall hold that 
this labor organization is not entitled to rights guaranteed by the 
labor law. 

3. If an officer or leader of a union answers that since June 25, 1950, 
he has held membership in or has current association and affiliation 
with the Communist Party or Fascist, Nazi or totalitarian organiza- 
tions, then his union shall have 30 days in which to disassociate him 
from his position. We have fixed an earlier date than that of the affi- 
davits in our suggested amendment because we believe that the central 
weakness in section 9 (h) as it is now interpreted is that it merely 
requires an official to state that he is not a Communist as of the very 
moment when he signs the affidavit. 

Now, the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Olney, last year gave 
testimony before the Senate Labor Committee which is very revealing 
on this point. We lielieve that by giving the Labor Board authority to 
base its investigation on an earlier fixed date, there will be prevented 
a recurrence of the situation which presently permits labor leaders to 
allege resignation from the Communist Party immediately prior to 
the signing of the affidavit in order to be in compliance with sec- 
tion 9 (h). 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 195 

At the same time, this provision would not result in the government 
penalizing the labor leader who was a Communist, subversive or 
totalitarian prior to June 25, 1950, and who ceased being a member 
of such organizations before that date. 

4. If a labor leader or official admits to membership in the Com- 
munist Party or other listed organizations prior to June 25, 1950, it 
would be the responsibility of the individual union members within 
his own union to decide whether or not they desired to be representeri 
by such a person. 

It is their decision to make, and who else can better judge, whether 
an individual, formerly a member of the Communist Party, has cor^- 
pletely divorced himself from the tenets of communism and genuinelv 
accepted democratic beliefs, than the members of such an individual's 
union. 

This is the fundamental structure of the amendment which we ar(i 
oflFering for your consideration. I have tried briefly to outline for 
you the objectives of our suggested amendment. 

The situation today, gentlemen, as I understand it, is that many 
members of unions cannot be certain that leaders of their unions are, 
in fact. Communists, although they liave been publicly accused of 
being Communists. Apparently, the common answer of such a labor 
leader is to say that the Government recognizes our union and we have 
all the privileges that any other union has, and we cannot be what 
our enemies allege us to be. He never appears before his members as 
a confessed Communist, even at some time in the past. 

The membei-s, in my judgment, are honestly confused because they 
have the record of the Labor Board endorsing these people as in com- 
pliance with the law. My view is that our suggestion will at least put 
all of the facts before the members. If the Communist leader perjures 
himself, the Government can step in. But, all of the facts are put 
before the members, and they can decide whether this labor leader has, 
in fact, reformed and is truly deserving of their support as an officer 
of their union. 

In conclusion, I believe that Americans do not really want to be 
represented by Communist or Fascist leaders and this includes those 
many thousands of union people now represented by the so-called left 
wing unions because of the present weaknesses of section 9(h). 

It is my conviction that the solution to the problem of Communist 
domination of unions will depend largely on the extent to which the 
Congress of the United States adopts legislation which will provide 
the tools with which American labor can free itself from Communist 
domination. The proposed legislation which we are offering today 
will, in our opinion, assist union members themselves if they wish to 
get rid of presently underground Communist leaders. 

At the same time. Senator Butler, I do support the long range ob- 
jective of the bill which you have introduced. I see nothing incongru- 
ous in having the long-range approach made through the Subversive 
Activities Control Board as you have proposed, together with a more 
short-range, and I think a more expeditious approach to the problem 
as I have proposed. 

That completes my testimony. 

Senator Butler. Thank you, sir. This bill and all of this legisla- 
tion is devoted to one thing only and that is to get communism out of 



196 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

the labor organizations. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and if I 
thought that the labor organization could do that of its own volition, 
I would never think of introducing a bill in Congress for that purpose. 
It just seems to me that in the years since 1949 and 1950, since these 
Communist unions were ejected by the CIO, progress has not been 
made toward removing them from the bargaining position under the 
NLRB, which they today enjoy. 

It seems to me that there is an overriding public interest there that, 
possibly, the Congress will have to step in and do something about. 
I would be the last one to have any legislation if the unions themselves 
could handle this situation. I look upon these bills as a tool in the 
hands of the union to be used by the labor organizations themselves, 
for the purpose of doing what we all want to do. 

Mr. Stone. I quite understand the objective, and I find no fault. 
Senator, with the approach, but I suggest that one of the reasons we 
have made so little progress since 1949 and 1950 is the essential weak- 
ness of section 9 (h) , as drafted. It was my hope that some modifica- 
tion of this type could eliminate that weakness. 

Senator Butler. Admiral, we will certainly study that. 

Now, I want once more to make it perfectly clear for this record 
that it is your opinion that you do have today encoded messages 
going out of the Pentagon and out of the State Department and other 
offices of Government — there are messages of a secret character and 
messages in code that are being exposed to the enemy ? 

Mr. Stone. There is no question about it, sir, and I cannot empha- 
size it strongly enough. 

Senator Butler. Thank you very much. 

The subcommittee will stand in recess until a date to be announced 
next week. 

(Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed at 11 : 30 a. m., Friday, 
February 19, 1954, subject to call.) 



SUBYEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOE 

OKGANIZATIONS 



FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal. 

Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in room 457, 
Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler (chairman of the 
task force) presiding. 

Present: Senators Butler (presiding), Jenner (chairman of the 
subcommittee) , Welker, and Eastland. 

Present also: Richard Arens, special counsel; Edward R. Duffy, 
professional staff member; Frank W. Schroeder, profeessional staff 
member. 

Senator Butler. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Witness, will you please rise and be sworn? In the presence 
of Almighty God, do you solemnly promise and declare that in this 
hearing before the task force of the Subcommittee on Internal Secu- 
rity of the Committee on the Judiciary, to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Drummond. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD DRUMMOND, KELLOGG, IDAHO 

Senator Welker. Your name is Harold Drummond ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is right. 

Senator Welker. You reside at Kellogg, Idaho ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is right. 

Senator Welker. And have for how many years ? 

Mr. Drummond. For 48 years. 

Senator Welker. In fact, you were born there ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is right. 

Senator Welker. And your occupation ? 

Mr. Drummond. I am an automobile dealer. 

Senator Welker. I think it is safe to say, Mr. Chairman, that 
the witness and I have been friends since our childhood days, having 
entered the University of Idaho together. It has been a friendihip 
that has lasted all these years. 

Mr. Drummond, are you identified with any association which has 
for its purpose the combating of communism or subversive influences 
within our country ? 

197 



198 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. DRuaiMOND. I am, Senator. Would you like to have me de- 
scribe the association ? 

Senator Welker. Wliat is the name of the association? 

Mr. Drummond. The association is called The Shoshone County 
Anti-Communist Association, Inc. 

Senator Welker. Wliere is the principal place of business of this 
corporation ? 

Mr. Drum]mond. At Kellogg, Idaho. 

Senator Welker. Now will you describe for the committee the 
industries of Kellogg, Idaho, and surrounding terrain ? 

Mr. DRUisrMOND. Our principal industry in Kellogg and the sur- 
rounding terrain is mining. In our district locally our chief minerals 
are lead, silver and zinc, with some other minerals produced as by- 
products. 

In the area near to us in western Montana, of course, is the corner 
area as well as lead and zinc. To the west of us, in eastern Washing- 
ton we also have a mining area of some extent in the Metaline district. 

Senator Welker. For the purpose of the record, is it a true assump- 
tion that in the area in which you live it is commonly known as the 
Coeur d'Alene district, which is the mining district of the State of 
Idaho, the principal mining district ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. And it has produced huge volumes of the metals 
named by you for many, many years? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. Will you be kind enough to name to the commit- 
tee the principal operators of the different mines? 

Mr. Drummond. In the Coeur d'Alene district, we have the Bunker 
Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Co., which is regarded 
as one of the world's largest producers of lead, zinc, and silver. We 
have the Sunshine Mining Co., which is the largest producer of silver 
in the United States, producing somewhere near a fourth of all the 
silver produced in the country. We have the Day mines, which are 
composed of several properties, the American Smelting & Eefining Co., 
which has the Morning mine at Mullan and the Page mine at Kellogg. 
Then we have numerous smaller properties. 

Senator Welker. Have you mentioned the Hecla ? 

]Mr. Drummond. And the Hecla IMining Co. I forgot to mention 
that. I am sorry. 

Senator Welker. The Hecla is a large producer? 

Mr. Drummond. The Hecla is a large producer. 

Senator Welker. You have identified yourself as president of the 
Shoshone County Anti-Communist Association. Could you give the 
committee a brief background as to why the committee was formed, 
when the association was formed, and its general purpose? _ 

Mr. Drummond. Yes. In August of 1051 there was growing con- 
cern in our district about the influx of communism, not only in our 
labor unions but among businessmen as well. I want to make that 
point clear, because our association has been accused of being anti- 
labor and antiunion, which we are not, and we are not picking on 
labor unions particularly. 

I want to make my position clear here today that we regard at least 
95 percent of the men in our unions as good, loyal Americans, and 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 199 

we are only after the 5 percent who are Eeds. I should like at this 
time to read this very short letter which was written on October 5, 
1951, to Harvey Wilson, who at that time was State commander of the 

DAV. 

Senator Welker. We will suspend for a moment. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Drummond. The reason I want to read this is because this let- 
ter outlines our aims and purposes at that time, and I want to show you 
what they were then and what they still are. 

Mr. Harvey Wilson, 

Wallace, Idaho. 
Dear Harvey : In line vfith our recent <'onversation regardins; the anti-Commu- 
nist movement in our district, I am submitting a brief outline of the organiza- 
tion and accomplishments to date. The spark which ignited the fire in this 
district was, as you know, a radio broadcast, sponsored by the leaders of Mine, 
ISIill, and Smelter Workers local at Wallace. This broadcast featured a report by 
Mr. Jack Blackwell. recording secretary of Wallace Local 14, International Union 
of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers on his trip to Europe, along with 10 others, 
to study labor conditions. It seems that about 98 percent of the time was 
spent in Russia and Mr. BlackwelFs report was the most pro-Soviet propaganda 
that any of us had ever heard or ever expect to hear. This brazen and cocksure 
broadcast has acted as a boomerang to the Communists and their fellow travelers 
and party-line followers in this area. 

Senator Butler. May I interrupt at that point? Do you have a 
copy of the broadcast? 

Mr. Drummond. I have a tape recording of it here, and also type- 
written copies of it. 

Senator Butler. I would like at the end of that letter to have it 
made a part of the record, the contents of that broadcast. 

Mr. Drummond (reading) : 

This was more than the good Americans in this district could stomach and 
as a result a group of men met to decide how they could best offset this 
diabolical attack on our way of life. It was decided that they would inaugurate 
a radio program to point out the fallacies of the Blackwell report and to educate 
the people as to communism in the various phases of our activities, our schools, 
churches, Government, home, and labor unions. 

The Shoshone County Civic Group was the organization formed to carry on 
this work. This group was successful in instituting this program and augmented 
their radio work with newsiiaper and word of mouth propaganda. It is worthy 
of note that this group was composed of people from all walks of life, laboring 
men, merchants, teachers, clerks, professional men, salesmen, and so forth. 

Blackwell's pro-Soviet propaganda has united people as nothing else could 
have. It seemed that what was heard coming from our local radio station 
could not happen here. Peoi^le could hardly realize that it was a fact that 
Communist I'arty line tactics has become so brazen that they could be practiced 
before our very eyes. The Shoshone County Civic Group expanded rapidly to 
cover the towns in the Coeur d'Alene mining area. So as to identify the move- 
ment without doTibt as to its purpose, the name was changed to the Shoshone 
Anti-Communist Group. Practically every civic, fraternal, service, and religious 
organization in the area has now affiliated itself with the movement and have 
representatives at every meeting. I should like to definitely state now that the 
Shoshone Anti-Communist Group — 

By way of explanation that was the name at that time. It has since 
been changed to the Association, Inc. — 



^(^^ 



I should like to definitely state now that the Shoshone Anti-Communist Group 
has as its sole pi:rpose to oppose communism wherever it is found, in the 
schools, in the church, in government, in the home, or in labor unions. We are 
an action group and not a debating society. We do not discuss politics or 
religion or whether you are a union man or nonunion man. We are not anti- 
labor, not antiunion, but anti-Communist. To that end we are dedicated. 



200 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

It goes on to tell about a tremendous parade we had, a 7-mile-long 
parade of automobiles in Anti-Communist Week, whereby the mayors 
of three towns dedicated the week of September 23, 1951, as Anti- 
Communism Week. 

In closing, Harvey, I should like to stress one fact. W'e know that the 
Commies are strong in our schools, in our churches, and government and labor 
unions. We know they are a subversive element dedicated to the overthrow of 
our government. Knowing these things to be true they can be eliminated only 
by the united action and effort of all of us. Our strongest support can come 
from the service organizations. Therefore, I ask each and every one to do your 
utmost to oppose this evil force which is trying to destroy our way of life. 
Remember, don't be unconscious, be Commie-conscious. 

Senator AVelker. Now, Mr. Drummond, you have related the in- 
stance of the 7-mile parade. For the purpose of the record and to 
enlighten the committee, would you tell us the population of the cities 
in the Coeur d'Alene mining area that you have heretofore described? 

Mr. Drum?iiond. The total population of the three cities could be 
approximately fifteen or sixteen thousand people. 

Senator Welker, And the principal cities? 

Mr. Drummond. Wallace, Kellogg, and Mull an. 

Senator Welker, Wallace, Kellogg, and Mullan. 

The Chairman has said that at this point there be inserted in the 
record the Jack Blackwell radio speech that started your organiza- 
tion's work. Do you have that, so that you can hand it to the reporter ? 

Mr. Drummond. I do. 

Senator Butler. That shall be made a part of the record at this 
point. 

(The document referred to is read in the record below.) 

Senator Wfxker. I was very interested in your statement, Mr. 
Drummond, that you were definitely not antiunion. And I take it 
that your testimony here is not given for the purpose of aiding one 
union to combat or to infiltrate a certain industry as against another. 
Is that a correct assumption ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is a fact. 

Senator Welker. Your entire work is dedicated to the fight against 
communism, not only in the mining industry but wherever it is found ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 

Senator Welker. You have mentioned the union that controls or 
at least controls most of the labor in the Coeur d'Alene. Would you 
name that union again for us? 

Mr. Drummond. The union which is bargaining organization in the 
Coeur d'Alene area is the International Union of Mine, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers. 

Senator Welker. And about how many members belong to that 
union ? 

Mr. Drummond. Are you speaking of our local area? 

Senator Welker. Yes. 

Mr. Drummond. If I answered that question, Senator, it would be 
merely a gness. I don't know what their membership is. 

Senator Welker. Well, you tell us about the number in the entire 
mining district that you are familiar with? 

Mr. Drummond. I would say perhaps they have a membership of 
about a thousand. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 201 

Senator Welker. Wliat areas are controlled by the Mine, Mill and 
Smelter Union ? It not only controls the labor in the Coenr d'Alene 
area of Idaho that you described, but is it a fact that it controls at 
least a portion of the mining industry in Montana, western Montana, 
and eastern Washington ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is a fact, yes. 

Senator Welker. And are there any other areas within the State 
of Idaho ? 

Mr. Drummond. It is the bargaining agent for some properties in 
southern Idaho. I believe at Hailey, Blackbird mine, and I am not 
sure whether it is Stibnette mine or not, which is closed, but I believe 
it is. 

Senator Welker. No, I do not believe Stibnette mine has ever been 
unionized. I am quite certain that they do not represent the workers 
at Stibnette. 

Mr. Drummond, based upon your research, do you happen to know 
how the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Union came into existence? 

Mr. Drummond. I know some of the history of it. Would you like 
to have me start from the beginning of it ? 

Senator Welker. Yes. 

Mr. Drummond. As I understand it, the first union in the Coeur 
D'Alene area was the Western Federation of Miners, which was 
formed way back around 1893. And then the Western Federation 
of Miners developed gradually into a local union which eventually 
passed out of existence. And then I believe, during the NRA of 
1935, another local union was formed which affiliated with an AFL 
group and then later on became affiliated with CIO and in 1950, the 
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers was, as 
you know, expelled from CIO because of its Red activities. At the 
present time it has no other affiliation. 

Senator Welker. Tell us a bit more about Jack Blackwell. When 
he made his trip to Russia; was he an officer of the lodge? 

Mr. Drummond. He was recording secretary of local 14 at Wallace, 
Idaho, which has since joined with local 18 at Kellogg to become one 
local. 

Senator Welker. And where is Mr. Blackwell now? 

Mr. Drummond. I believe Mr. Blackwell at the present time is in 
the metaline mining area, in eastern Washington. 

Senator Welker. Do you know whether or not he is connected with 
the union there ? 

Mr. Drummond. He is. 

Senator Welker. In an official capacity ? 

Mr. Drummond. That I cannot answer. I don't know if he is an 
official over there or not, but I know that he is still in the union. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be highly enlight- 
ening to the committee and to the chairman of our full committee, 
who is here, and the chairman of this task force, yourself. Senator 
Butler, if it could be read into the record the radio speech that Mr. 
Blackwell gave. I do not know whether it is going to take too long, 
but I have had occasion to read it. 

I think it should be read into the record. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. Counsel will read the ad- 
dress of Mr. Blackwell. 



202 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr, AjtENS. Off the record. 

( Discussion off the record. ) 

Senator Butler. Was Blackwell at that time an officer in the 
union ? 

Mr. Drummond. Yes. He was recording secretary of local 14. 

Senator Butler. So you had a forum consisting of 3 union men, 
2 union officers and 1 counsel to the local union ? 

Mr. Druimmond. Correct. I have a tape recording of it also. 

Mr. Arens. (reading) : 

Radio Talk by Jack Blackwell 

The followins report is presented by Jack Blackwell who recently returned 
from Europe where he was a guest of European labor unions. KWAL, is non- 
partisan and nonpolitical and does not necessarily endorse the statements or 
opinions expressed in the following discussion. The program is transcribed. 
(Bill jMoore speaking.) 

Several months ago we of the Hard Rock Miners Union were invited to send 
a member of our iniion to Europe with a delegation that had been invited to 
visit France and Italy and that they might also visit the Soviet Union. This 
invitation was extended by the General Confederations of both France and Italy, 
the dominant labor organizations of these countries. Although the time was 
short in which to organize such a big project, we felt that here was a real oppor- 
tunity to see for ourselves if the conditions in these countries were as described 
by the newspapers we read and the radio programs we hear daily over our favorite 
stations. We also realized that if we were to send a member of our union then 
we had to enlist the support of other labor groups in the Inland Empire and based 
on these conclusions we asked the woodworkers union of Coeur d'Alene and 
numerous A. F. of L. and railroad union representatives to meet with us and see 
if we could accept this invitation. Needless to say, all of us present enthusiasti- 
cally decided to pool our efforts and resources to the eud that we sent such a 
delegate on this extended trip. We then proceeded to select someone, who in 
our opinion, would meet the many requirements that such a delegate would have 
to meet. Because of the nature of the countries to be visited and the types of 
social, economic, and political concepts that pi'evail in these countries we con- 
cluded that anyone who liad preconceived political or social views along socialistic 
lines couldn't l)ring back a convincing report of what he heard and observed. 

We believe we reached an ideal choice in the person of Jack Blackwell, record- 
ing secretary of the Wallace Miners' Union and president of the Northwest 
Council of our union. We believed this to be so because Jack Blackwell has never 
identified himself with any political group nor has he ever indicated any leftist 
leanings or lean to any right wing group. Jack, to us, has always been a guy 
who freely and honestly expressed his views as he saw them, and it is for this 
quality that we finally decided that he should be our member on this delegation. 
In preparing his presentation Jack had to carefully con.sult all of his notes to 
determine the best way to make this report. He finally selected a question and 
answer method as the best way to pose the many questions that are asked dally 
on every street corner. I have listened to many of the experiences he encountered 
on this trip and I am personally convinced that the answers you are about to 
hear are made in the best spirit of Jack, that they are honest and straight forward 
as he heard and observed them. Since Tom Lynch, our counsel from Spokane 
is with us today, .Tack requested that Tom and I ask the prevailing questions that 
are on most people's minds. I take great pleasure in presenting to our listening 
audience. Jack Blackwell. 

Jack Blackwell. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and members of mine- 
mill. I will answer all questions to the best of my ability as to what I observed 
and heard on this trip. 

Tom Lynch. What countries did you visit on this tour? 

Jack Blackwell. I visited France, Poland, Russia, and Italy. I was in four 
other countries besides. I was in Germany, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Aus- 
tria in transit. 

Bill Moore. Jack, how did you find conditions in regard to wages and to cost 
of living? In other words, what was the standard of living for the working 
class ■.' 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 203 

Jack Blackwell. We found wages adequate to the cost of living. Here in tlie 
United States we find high rent and high clothing prices and high food prices. 
We also found the same conditions there in Russia, especially. They had high 
food costs and high clothing costs, but their rent was very cheap. But, their 
wages w^ere adequate to keep care of all the people that were working. In France 
and in Italy we found the wages lower than the standard of living was set. 
Therefore, we found poverty and hunger in those two countries. 

Tom Lynch. What do tlie people of France and Italy think of us? 

.Jack Blackwell. Us as a people they think we are all right, but us as a 
government, dominating their country, they have no use for us. They have 
signs all over France, "Americans, why don't you go home." It seems as though 
everything we're doing for them is not benefiting the working people. In Italy 
the same exists except for the signs. Those people there were beaten during 
the war and they don't express their opinions such as most of the people in 
France. 

Bill Moore. What does the average person think of the Marshall plan? 

Jack Blackwell. Everybody we talked to in regarding labor they didn't 
think very much of it— they^in fact they said that it wasn't helping the work- 
ing people at all. It was helping capitalists in their countries. I talked to 
telephone operators, models, department-store workers and I told them who 
I was and what I represented and they came out and said that it wasn't help- 
ing them. The plants — the people working in industries and plants and they 
were very much against it because it was cutting down all their industries. 
ITiey were getting all these machines over there on the market already manu- 
factured, therefore, cutting people out of labor. That's the main reason, I 
suppose, that they don't like the Marshall plan. 

Tom Lynch. You mentioned Russia as one of the countries you visited, did 
you have any difficulties getting through the iron curtain? 

Jack Blackwell. Well, we had to laugh about that. Tlie only difficulty we 
encountered was in getting a taxi and going over to the Russian Consul and get- 
ting our passports and telling them that we wanted to go in there and survey 
labor conditions in Russia. 

Bill Mooke. How long were you in Russia, Jack? 

Jack Blackwell. We were there approximately 3 weeks, 23 days to be 
exact. 

To^[ Lynch. Did you talk to the common people there or to the "big shots"? 

Jack Blackwell. We talked to everybody. When we first went in there, we 
were acquainted with the leaders and they gave us their system of organiza- 
tional procedure from the top to the bottom and then we visited the different 
plants on our agenda through Russia. And we talked to thousands of people 
and we picked them out from the crowd here and there. We ran into lots of 
people who spoke our language. 

Bill Moore. You say you visited the plants there. Did you talk to the workers 
on the job? 

Jack Blackwell. Yes, we talked to — in every plant we were in we had in- 
terpreters, of course, and we also had on this delegation members who could 
speak French, Polish, German, Italian and, of course, English. And in these 
plants we met several people that could speak these different languages, except 
the Italian language — we didn't rind anybody in Russia that could speak the 
Italian language. A very great number of them could speak English, German, 
and French and when we found out they could speak through one of our dele- 
gates why, we contacted these people and hung back from the interpreters and 
we asked' them questions and we got the same answers from them as we got 
from our interpreters. We — we put the things together and compared notes all 
the way through and in every plant and every city we were in, why that's the 
answers we received. 

Tom Lynch. This doesn't sound much like the items you read in the leading 
newspapers. Tell me, did you visit places of your own choosing or was this a 
conducted tour? 

Jack Blackwell. When we first went in there they asked us where we wanted 
to go. We were sunirised. We thought, too, that they would show us the cities 
of their choosing. So we picked from different cities where we studied on the 
basic industries of Russia and we picked four basic cities where we knew that 
they had industrial plants in those cities. And they asked us how long we in- 
tended to stay. We said 2 weeks. And they said, "sorry, — you won't be able 
to see all those cities," so we said we might be able to extend our stay a few 
days — it was just about a must that we owed to our people who sent us over 



204 SUB\ ERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

here to see txese different industries because they represent — everyone of those 
cities represent a business or a trade that we're in. 

Bill Moore. How were you treated by the people there? 

Jack Black well. We were shown nothing but respect and kindness aU 
tlirough Russia. In fact, I've never seen a people any place in any country 
that I've ever been in, and I've been from Japan now clear over to Russia. I 
never seen anybody who showed the consideration that the people do for us. 
They heartily hate our Government, we know that, but as far as the working 
people and the common people in the United States, they like and they love. 

Tom Lynch. How did you find wages and the living standards of the people 
in Russia? 

Jack Blackwell. Well in wages, we have to break that down. They get 
paid by rubles ; a ruble is a quarter of the American dollar. And the lowest 
wages we found were 600 rubles a month, and they were sweepers, and they 
wei'e told people drawing a pension of half of their — -of half to 100 percent of 
their former wages, which would run according to what they did, of course, but 
their average wage was around a thousand rubles, which would be §200 a month. 
We did run into people that — working people, mind you ; I don't know what the 
leaders received — but the working people we talked to, some people made aai 
high as $1,700 a month and the average all through the country, though, was 
around $250 a month, which was very much higher than our standard of liv- 
ing. And they also have banks over there which the money they have left they 
deposit in the bank, and they can do anything they want with that money. 

Bill Moore. What do the Russian people think of us? 

Jack Blackwell. The Russian people like us. I stated that once before, 
that their feeling for us is nothing but respect. 

Tom Lynch. Now, do the Russians have a secret police comparable to the 
Gestapo of Germany prior to World War II? 

Jack Blackwell. Everybody is going to say this was a conducted tour ; we 
were directed here and we were directed there ; I know that ; but in all the 
places we were we made it a point to go out at all hours of the day, all places 
we were we made it a point to go out at all hours of the day, all hours of the 
night by ourselves, go through the town and talk to people we thought we could 
converse with, some places we were fortunate enough to find people who could 
speak English or one of the other languages we could speak. But usually 
when we ran into children between 14 and 16 and 17 years old — of age — they, 
a lot of them, spoke English ; and, as far as the police were concerned, we 
never saw anybody following us around. And the police in that country there, 
they operate without any guns. They're standing out there on the streets and 
corners and directing traffic, and they don't even pack a gun. When they find 
somebody violating a law or misdemeanor, why, they just go up and speak to 
them ; they never raise their voice, never raise their hand or shake their fist in, 
their face or point their finger at them, or anything like that. I saw one 
trafiic violation, and we just stood there and watched this guy go over to him. 
And he walked over thei-e and put his hands behind his back and was standing 
there talking to him. When the light changed he nodded his head and the 
fellow took off. 

Bill Moore. We're vitally interested in the mining industry in this area. Did 
you visit any of the mines in Russia? 

Jack Blackwell. I was very unfortunate in this respect toward our hard- 
rock mines. They were up in the north of Russia, and we never got to go into 
that country. But they did make it possible for me to go to Tula- — that is about 
122 miles south of Moscow — to visit a coal mine. Not being a coal miner or ever 
being in one in the United States, I can't exactly give a true opinion of the 
difference in the coal mines here and there, but what I did see there, this mine 
Vv'as about 180 feet deep, and the first thing I noticed was the bulkheading in 
the drift I went in. For about 200 feet it was made of brick ; it was all bricked 
over and whitewashed vei'y clean ; and from there on it was all timbered ; and 
we visited about four different headings ; and each heading there were men 
working there. And, in fact, in this mine there was about 8 or 10 percent women 
Avorking. And the miners are the highest honored workers in all the Soviet- 
dominated countries — Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and in any country that 
are under the Soviet rule. 

Tom Lynch. Well, how are working conditions there ; was there a speedup, 
or just what was the true working conditions? 

Jack Blackwell. In every plant we went in we never saw anything that 
looked like speedup with the exception of one bakery. And there a woman — this 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 205 

was 98 percent vvomeu working there — was sitting down taking bread off a belt 
system and putting tliem in another conveyor running toward the oven, and she 
was working fairly fast, but she worked 1 hour and then she rested an hour and 
she got paid for S hours' work. And the shoe factory we went into, before we 
went in there this shoeman who was with us, when he was told it was on a con- 
veyor system he said, "Boy, the people in America sure would never stand for 
anything like that." But, when we went back in there to look at it and when we 
came out he said it was one of the best operated shoe factories he had ever been 
in in his life, and the workers have plenty of room, and they don't have to work 
fast. If they happen to miss a shoe while standing there talking, as they were 
doing to us — we stopped the workers right there and talked to them — why, this 
piece goes down around the conveyor and comes back to them, the pair of shoes 
that they'd missed. 

Bill Moore. I understand that there are no strikes in Russia. Is it against 
tlie law to strike? Well, what is the reason for this? 

Jack Blackwell. No ; it's not against the law to strike, and it's true they 
don't have any strikes there. We asked that question, too. We couldn't under- 
stand that, because our system of economy seems to call for strikes and trouble 
over hei'e, but it doesn't over there. 

(Next question missing on tape.) 

Jack Blackwell. It's true nobody is forcing them to go to school, but we did 
see competent doctors and nurses ; in fact, in every plant that we were in, they 
each had clinics to large hospitals in their plants according to the number of 
workers there. They had nurseries there. The women that were working 
on the jobs, they could go see their kids at certain hours ; at feeding time or 
if the children were sick their mothers were right there, and they didn't have 
to cart them all over town. The doctors themselves were very competent ; the 
nurses, very competent. They were picked on in these plants to care for any 
major or minor accidents or sickness that occurred on this job. 

Bill Mooke. What kind of educational system do they have ; how does it com- 
pare with ours? Are the children taught to hate us? 

Jack Blackwell. They have a wonderful education system there. They have 
beautiful schools, well-lighted schools, clean ; and the children are taught more 
on a political phase of their country than we are. They're taught world hap- 
penings, history, same as we're taught here, but they're taught a lot of other 
things that are not taught here until we get to college. By that time I^er — we 
were either set in our minds what we were going to do or become, what political 
leanings we were going to have. Of course, they have one political leaning 
there ; they're taught the history of their country in that respect, and very few 
things like this happen here in the United States. 

I ran into children who when they were 12 years old could speak very good 
English. They're taught a foreign language at that age and usually by the time 
they're through high school they can speak and write fluently the language they 
are taught. And, in fact, in Yalta — the last night we were there we were 
swimming in the Black Sea and I swam out quite a ways and I started back in 
and I was about 500 yards from shore and I heard some guy holler at me and 
I raised up in the water and here was this fellow coming toward me and he 
started talking Russian to me. And I told him I was American and I didn't 
understand his — the Russian language. So he says, "Oh, an America" and he 
started talking to me in English, and started to ask me questions. Well, I asked 
him questions, I asked him what he did, whether he was a student in school and 
how come he learned to speak English so well. Well, he said, his mother and 
father could both speak English and he picked it up from them and then he 
studied English in the schools there. And at 12 years old he could speak almost 
as good English as I. But, of course, he could speak better English because 
we're not taught the higher English as they are, they're taught the English from 
the English books and they have the different pronunciations, and enunciations 
on their speech. Of course, they don't understand our slang and they think it's 
terrible the way we murder the English language. But, I asked this kid the 
leading questions that we had asked everybody else and he answered me the 
same way. And, when I got to shore he went on another way and I dressed 
and he came over there. And he was just a kid. It surprised me just to see 
the size of him — he was just like our 12-year-old kids in this country here. But, 
he was very friendly and another thing the children where we were at — when 
they found out we were Americans they said, "Send our love to the children of 
America." 

43903 — 54 14 



206 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Tom Lynch. Some people have referred to Russia as a childreu's paradise. 
Did you see anything over tliere that bore this out? 

Jack Blackwell. Yes, I did. They have pioneer camps in Russia where they 
can — oh — send about 20,000,000 cliildren to these pioneer camps in tlie summer 
months during vacation. And, they're just like our summer resorts. They're 
very beautiful, all equipped for cliildren, on lakes, seashores, rivers, and in the 
mountains and they're also taught in those summer camps. They're taught as 
they go along — they don't waste much time as far as education is concerned. Of 
course, they don't go to schf)ol ij or 6 hours a day, maybe an hour or two a day 
they attend classes. And, in the evenings they have games and in the daytime 
they have games — evei'yone of tliem had volleyball courts, soccer fields, and slides 
for the smaller kids, swings — and they had competent people running them. 
Nurses and doctors in most cases. So, if any sickness occurs while these kids 
are out there they're kept care of in a first-class — in a first-class way. 

Bill MoorB. What is the status of women in the Soviet Union? 

Jack Blackwell. They have full equality with men. On every job that we 
saw that women were working on they got the same wages, same rights, same 
privileges as the men. And the funny thing about it we never saw any fear in 
there, you know — I've seen fear in the United States during the depression and 
I've worked on jobs whei'e I was afraid to look up for fear the boss would look 
down my neck and drive me to work. We never seen anything like that in 
Russia. 

We followed — well in tliese plants we were followed by anywheres from 50 
to 2.000 people followed lis around — they just spontaneously quit their jobs and 
followed us around like it didn't make any difference to them whether the boss 
was standing there or not and some of the — some of the directors were a little 
sore about it liecause they were right in there among us and we didn't know the 
interpreters from the workers in the plants and, of course, we would always 
try to get mixed up with them as much as possible. 

ToM Lynch. Do they have any children working there? Do they have child 
labor laws in the Soviet Union? 

Jack Blackwell. Yes, we found children working there biit the youngest 
children we saw working were 14 years old but they worked 3 hours a day and 
were paid for 8 hours a day and they went to school 5 hours a day and the 
rest of their time was their own free time like everybody else. But they were 
learning a trade, they wanted to pick up this trade so they're usually asked at 
a younger age than our kids are v;hat they want to do, and if they want to be a 
policeman, O. K. get that. If they want to be a shoeworker or miner — but in the 
mines, children don't work in the mines, 18 years old is the .youngest children can 
work there, and they go in as students to begin with. Now if they want to con- 
tinue to go to school without working they have that free right to do. If they 
want to go on through higher, it's according to the grade — just like we have 
here in the United States, but if they want to go there is no economic question on 
whether they can go. They get to go. 

Bill Moore. Jack, how much war talk did you hear over there? Do they 
want war with us? 

Jack Blackwell. Every town, every city, every plant we were in all you could 
hear was peace. Those people are building for peacp. In all the plants we were 
in we never saw any preparation for war. We were in automobile factories, 
tractor factories, steel mills, bake shops, metal type shops, printing plants, and 
(blank) gardens, hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, schools, and all these 
places that we were in there was nothing but talk of peace. And these people 
reall,y mean it now, this is the way I can see it and the way I saw it when they — 
th.ey say peace they mean peace. They don't want war, they just come out of 
one of the most devastating wars that ever happened in the history of the 
world. And their country was practically destroyed in the cities that we 
visited. Now they're building for the workers and for peace. It's no doubt 
in our minds, we know this, they told us this, that they're iireparina; for war 
in Russia, but they sa.v that this is a war for proteetioiu Well, that's not for 
me to decide upon or anybody else in my class to decide upon anything like that. 
But the.v are preparing for a war of protection. They don't want to prepare 
for a war of aggression. We saw lots of soldiers over there but of course, 
we didn't ask them any questions about the soldiers. We see lots of soldiers 
here — we know what the soldiers are here for and those soldiers there are for 
the same reason, I suppose. But, we went over there to survey labor, not to 
get into any political mixup and ask them any impertinent questions as — such as 
that. And as far as the people are concerned they're not in a town we visited 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 207 

or a family we visited— probably— that had not lost somebody in the war. Where 
a country lost 10,000,000 people well it's not very hard to find just thousands 
of them "that lost brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers. We talked to 
one sirl, she was a waiter tliere, in (sounded like Deparosia), that she'd lost her 
whole family. The Germans had murdered her whole family— she'd seen her 
sister hung and this girl was one of the quietest and sincerest people I've ever 
seen in my life. I don't think I heard her — we were there 'A days— I don't 
think I heard her say five words all the time that we were there. And we in- 
quired about her and that was the answer we got to the question, so you can 
see that war to them is something that is entirely out of their minds — they don't 
want war. They don't absolutely want war, the common people. I can't say 
what the higher ups want or anything like that but they love their government 
and if their government said war I think they'd be preaching war too. If — 
I know if our Government said war I think we'd have a lot of people preach- 
ing give them the atomic bomb and destroy them completely. They never talk 
like that of anything in that manner. 

Bill Mooke. .lack, this has been very impressive — a — just two questions in 
one. I understand that they gave you a very nice camera but did not allow you 
to take any pictures with it to back up what you have told here, and one further 
question, do you think that this trip was a good one and do you think that 
we should have more like it. that is exchange of working i>eople between this 
country and the Soviet Union? 

Jack Blackwell. To your first question, yes, they did give me a nice camera. 
A — according to — I'm not a cameraman — but according to the people I've talked 
to about this camera they say it's one of the best cameras manufactured. I'm 
sorry that we didn't take any pictures with the camera they gave us but sev- 
eralof the delegates had cameras there — our chairman had a moving-picture 
camera and they all took pictures. They hadn't had them developed there in 
Russia — most of them were colored films and they don't have facilities to de- 
velop color and it takes — they have facilities — but it takes about a week and 
when we wanted them developed we were never in one place over 3 or 4 days, 
but we did have pictures taken there by newsreel people and photographers 
in Russia and I have the Russians — I have the pictures to show to anybody 
that wants to see them. Now to your next question. 

Bill Moore. My nest question was simply this, Do you think that there should 
be more trips like the one which you took? 

Jack Blackwell. Yes, I definitely do. If we can make a trade with all the 
working people with all the countries, not just Russia alone, but every country 
in Europe and send 3 or 4 delegations over there a year and have 3 or 4 of their 
delegations come over here at the expense of our Government or our unions, 
and the same — the same relegated to their countries, it would be a wonder- 
ful thing, a very educational program to all the people in the United States. 

Bill Moore. Thanks, Jack, a lot for this wonderful interview. I think it's 
something that answered all the questions that needed to be answered, ques- 
tions that are asked by all the people in the Coeur D'Alene District. A — A — 
thank you very nmch. 

You have been listening to a discussion of European labor situations by Jack 
Blackwell, member of the Wallace Mine Mill Union. KWAL is nonpartisan and 
nonpolitical and does not necessarily endorse the views just expressed. The 
program was transcribed. This is KWAL with studios and transmitter at 
Osburn, Idaho. 

Now, Mr. Drummond, would you kindly indicate in the record 
the number of plants in which people are employed who are mem- 
bers of the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Union ? 

Mr. Drummond, Are you speaking now of the State of Idaho ? 

Mr. Arens. The State of Idaho specifically. That is the State of 
which you have a competent knowledge, as I understand it. 

Mr. Drummond, Yes. I would say around 30 mines and reduction 
plants. 

Mr. Arens. So that the record reflects specifically what the Mine, 
Mill, and Smelter Union is, that is the union which was exposed by 
the Internal Security Subcommittee about a year and a half ago as 
a Communist-controlled organization, is that correct? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 



208 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. And that is the union which was expelled from CIO in 
1950 because CIO found that Mine, Mill, and Smelter consistently 
followed the line of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any information based upon your inves- 
tigation and experience, Mr. Drummond, which would indicate an 
interlocking, interweaving relationship between Mine, Mill, and Smel- 
ter Union in Idaho with the Communist Party, specifically the Com- 
munist Party headquarters in Idaho ? 

Mr. Drummond. I have information to the effect that when a change 
of officers took place at local 14 at Wallace, Idaho — I can't give the 
exact 3"ear, but I can look it up — in cleaning out the office, the com- 
plete files of the Communist Party were kept there and fomid there, 
and a number of Communist Party cards, of which I have a record 
of the numbers with me todav, were found there. At the local office 
in Kellogg, during the term of office of Phil Wilkes, who, upon his 
death 3 or 4 years ago had a wreath made in the form of the hammer 
and sickle over his coffin, a known Communist during his term in the 
Communist Party, files were kept at the office of local 18 in Kellogg. 

Mr. Arens. What material is produced in these establishments serv- 
iced by people engaged who are members of Mine-Mill ? 

Mr. Drummond. Well, we have very strategic minerals produced 
there which, in case of war, in case those industries were closed by 
strikes, would have a very serious effect on the Nation. That is ex- 
plained very well in this Cosmopolitan Magazine of 1952, the first 
paragraph, which is very explicit on that and deals with Nathan 
Witt's part in the 1949 strike which actually did hamper the produc- 
tion of strategic materials which at that time were very much needed 
to conduct the war or action in Korea. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, it is a fact, is it not, that under the 
existing situation, if the operators of those mines refused to bargain 
with Mine, ISIill, and Smelter Union, this Communist-controlled or- 
ganization, that would be an unfair labor practice ? 

Mr. Drummond. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, it is a fact, is it not, that the operators 
of the mines in your State, in Idaho, producing the strategic materials, 
are obliged by Federal law to bargain with a Communist-controlled 
labor organization ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is right. They cannot discriminate against 
the Communists. 

Mr. Arens. And if they do so, it is an unfair labor practice and 
they would be subject to the penalties of the law, is that correct, under 
the present practices? 

Mr. Drummond. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of your background, experience, and study 
and investigation of this situation, have you developed any appre- 
hension as to the potential for sabotage of the war potential of this 
country in the event we were obliged to go to war ? 

Mr. Drummond. I think we should be very apprehensive of that 
because of their ability at the present time, due to the fact that they 
are Communist controlled they could close every one of our strategic 
properties in a legal manner and, as well as that, if necessary, they 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 209 

have men planted in every property that is producing strategic mate- 
rials in which sabotage could be accomplished, 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, in the Salt Lake City hearings of the 
Internal Security Subcommittee about a year and a half ago, in Oc- 
tober 1952, one Rudy Hanson was identified as a Communist by live 
witnesses before the Internal Security Subcommittee. Do you have 
information as to where he is at the present time? 

Mr. Drummond, At the present time, Mr. Hanson is employed by 
the Page Mine of the American Smelting and Refining Co. Said mine 
is located at Kellogg. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make inquiry of the operators of the mine with 
respect to what motivated them in employing or engaging Rudy 
Hanson ? 

Mr. Drummond. I did. Our association was very much put out 
by the fact that we had spent time and effort in fighting Communists, 
and as I stated before, not only in the labor unions but everywhere. 
In this particular case, after your hearings in Salt Lake City, shortly 
after Rudy Hanson resigned as international representative of Mine- 
Mill, and shortly after applied for a job with the Federal Mining Co,, 
was given a job underground which did not set very well with our 
association. Upon inquiring about that, we were told that the mining 
company could do nothing else, that they could not discriminate 
against this man because he had been proven to be a Communist, 

Mr, Arens. I believe, Mr. Drummond, you have some letters which 
have come into your possession with reference to the Communist activi- 
ties in the mining area in Idaho. I will ask you now, if you will kindly 
identify those letters, comment upon them, and if it meets with the 
approval of the chairman, we will have them or a photostatic copy of 
them incorporated into the record. 

Senator Butler. They will be made a part of the record. 

(The material referred to is read into the record below with re- 
marks.) 

Mr. Arens. I would suggest he identify the letters and comment on 
them. 

Mr. Drummond. This letter is a notice of a Communist Party meet- 
ing to be held at 7 p. m. in the office of the union hall in Kellogg, 
Idaho. Would you like to have me read the letter ? 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Mr. Drummond (reading) : 

February 8, 1946. 

Deab Comrade : The Kellogg branch meeting will be held Tuesday, February 
12, at 7 p. m. in the office of the union hall. The situation is such that it requires 
the attendance of every available member. To retain membership in the Com- 
munist Party, certain obligations must be carried out. First, dues should be paid 
promptly. Second, attendance at meetings is also a requirement under the con- 
stitution and it is absolutely necessary in order to have correct policy on a demo- 
cratic organization. 

As you are well aware, the national and local situation both demand your 
attention unless you are willing to submit to the program of reaction. We have 
reached a stage in our country where members of the Communist Party must 
contribute some time and effort toward building and consolidating our party. 
The owning class, with the assistance of the administration, is plunging our 
country into another depression. The workers are the ones who will suffer. The 
Commimist Party is the only organization capable or willing to give correct 
leadership in the critical period ahead. You can judge the quality of the party 
according to your own understanding and activity. Are we prepared to give 



210 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

correct leadership? If not, it is because you are not contributing your share in 
the way of formulating the program and creating activity. We will be looking 
for you at the meeting Tuesday at 7 p. m. 
Comradely yours, 

Executive Boakd, the Kellogg Cltjb. 

I have another letter that is not relative to that same question. 

Mr. Arens. The Chairman has already ordered that that letter be 
a part of the record. 

Now will you kindly identify the next letter, comment upon it and 
then submit it to the chairman ? 

Mr. Drummond. I have a letter here which this man and another 
man's letter I will read claim are forgeries. Upon investigating it 
somewhat I find that these are the rough drafts of letters which were 
typed and sent out and which were signed. This letter is dated Kel- 
logg, Idaho, May 11, 1946. 

Senator Buti^er. When you say they were signed, they were signed 
by the man who claims it is a forgery ? 

Mr. Drummond. This man claims that this is not his signature. 

Senator Butler. Yes, but then that letter was typewritten and it 
is your testimony that he did sign the typewritten copy ? 

Mr. Drummond. That is as I understand it. I want to explain that 
before I read this, because perhaps on that basis you would rather skip 
this one letter. 

Senator Butler. It is not clear to me whether the man admits that 
he signed the typewritten letter but not that copy. 

Mr. Drummond. I see what you mean. I think we had better skip 
this one. I have some others. 

I have a letter here to Morris Travis, treasurer of mine-mill, whom 
I think has been identified on more than one occasion. 

Mr. Arens. As a Communist? 

Mr. Drumisiond. As a Communist, yes. This letter is dated at 
lone, Wash., on April 19. 1945. Would you like to have me read this ? 

Senator Welker. Where is lone. Wash., with respect to your home? 

Mr. Drummond. lone, Wash., is in eastern Washington, and ap- 
proximately 150 to 175 miles from Kellogg, in the immediate metaline 
mining district. This letter goes on : 

Heltx) Traais : .Tust a word to let yon know the sentiment of the workers in 
the locality. Things are not good. I find there has been an influx of I WW's 
into the area. You know the defeatist line they have politically. Yet they are 
militant as the devil to the average union guy. Neal Logan, the former IWW 
president of the Bishop, Calif., local, is working at the Ponderay, and as near 
as I can find, there are about 10 or 11 friends with him. I haven't exposed my- 
self as yet, and it has resulted in my having to plan to gain contact through 
shop stewards set up. They are strictly Fascist in their politics. The worst 
of the situation is their militancy. It forces the present leadership to accept 
their srecial policy by acclamation of the rank and file who fall for the militant 
attitude they express. Truthfully, the present so and so's are dilatory as heU, 
which provides the IWW's with a perfect oriening. They are also sparring with 
the cement plant as a sideline, the program being that a strike will win if nothing 
else will. 

Incidentally, if yon are going to irive NLRB hearing officer anythinsr to hang 
his hat on. there will have to be some work done by competent people. I will 
give all the help I can. but I am handicapped by having to work. Some of the 
leadership is sniping at the international, possibly wobbly influence. My per- 
sonal analysis of the whole thing is that the local has changed from a local 
of action to a local that inst talks. There is nothing being done to educate the 
workers and it is slowly dying. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE EST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 211 

May I make a comment here at this point ? 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Mr. Drummond. The next few sentences I am about to read show 
something that I have, as president of the anti- Communist Associa- 
tion and our association has maintained for a long time, that the 
American laboring man has done a better job of circumventing com- 
munism than any other faction of our society. This statement that 
this man is going to make here helps to substantiate that statement. 
The reason I want to make that is that we want 95 percent of our 
laboring people to understand that our association certainly is not 
against them. 

Now to continue with the letter. He goes on to say : 

I am having more success in recruiting fanners, small business people, and 
lumberjacks into this Communist Party of America than I have with the 
miners. At least, the miners are slower to accept Marxist iwlicy. Well, that is 
about all on the union setup. But to me it is plenty. If you can suggest any 
plan of action, it will be appreciated. I have never had any direct contact with 
this sort of opposition before. 

Now, on the personal side of the ledger, I can tell you it will be impossible 
for me t<> remain at undertrround work for any extended period. My lungs 
won't take it at all. Actually, since March 11, I have had to miss nine shifts 
and I now weigh only 150 pounds. I may be able to go on an outside jo)) by 
May 1, and if I can, I will stay. Otherwise, I will have to quit. If I am to 
receive the State appointment, I want to be working in the industry. Hon- 
estly, that is the only reason I am staying at all. I haven't heard anything 
from anyone on the appointment. Apparently it has been forgotten or filled, 
or something else has happened. 

Travis, if you know any information, good or bad, I would appreciate know- 
ing how the situation actually is. As far as myself, it isn't so important but I 
am not going to jeopardize my health a great deal further on promises alone. 
Since the 1.5th of February I have personally felt that there would be no ap- 
pointment, so it won't be a big shock to me to learn it has fallen apart. In 
other words, Travis, don't pull any punches. If it cannot be done, say so. 
Then I can go ahead on a program of some sort. If it is not to be had, I will 
feel sorry only because I think a real job could be done, and I think I could 
handle the job. If you have any questions on the union situation, I will try to 
answer them. 

Sincerely, 

Jack Gallagiiee. 

Io7ie, Wash. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Drummond, do you have any comments to make 
in general respecting the legislation, the several bills, which are pend- 
ing before this committee? 

Mr. Drummond. Yes, I do. Our association feels that this com- 
mittee has done a very fine job in the work it is doing, and trying 
to do. We are very proud of our own Senator from Idaho, Senator 
Welker, for his part in it. We feel that the bills which you now have 
proposed are entirely in order, that there certainly is need to put 
teeth into the laws, to be able to actually control communism in the 
labor unions. But at the same time, we should like to see a union put 
in suspension for a period of time and then their bargaining rights 
taken away from them if they don't kick out the Commies rather than 
to do it too quickly. In other words, we think that the laws should 
not penalize the 99 percent of the good, loyal American union people 
who, sure, maybe they are radical about their unions, but they are cer- 
tainly good, loyal Americans. 

We feel that the 99 percent of those people should not be penalized 
and their bargaining rights destroyed by trying to get at the 1 percent. 



212 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

So if, in the enactment of that legislation, you could place a union in 
suspension, and give it time to clean the Commies out and then if they 
do not then use other means. 

Mr. Arens. Thank you very much, Mr. Drummond. 

Senator Butler. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness is Albert J. Fitzgerald, president of 
the United Electrical Workers. 

Senator Butler. Kaise your right hand. In the presence of 
Almighty God, in this matter now in hearing before the task force of 
the Subcommittee on Internal Security, do you solemnly promise to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the trutli, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. EITZGEEALD, PRESIDENT, UNITED 
ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OE AMERICA 
(UE), ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS NIXON, LEGISLATIVE REPRE- 
SENTATIVE 

Mr. Arens, Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. My name is Albert J. Fitzgerald, my residence 
is 9 Raddin's Grove Avenue, Lynn, Mass. I am president of the 
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a confirmation 
of request by you for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I requested an opportunity to appear to testify 
on the legislation pending before this committee and the request has 
been granted. 

Mr. Arens. You are accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have with me my legislative representative, Mr. 
Nixon. 

Senator Butler. Will your testimony include all three bills now 
pending? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. Counsel, proceed. 

Mr. Arens. You have a prepared statement, do you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I do. 

Senator Butler. Before you proceed with your prepared statement, 
may we ask you a few questions here. How long have you been presi- 
dent of UE? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Since 1941. 

Senator Butler. And UE is a labor organization which was 
expelled from the CIO? 

Mr. Fii'ZGERALD. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. It was not expelled from the CIO ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. It is affiliated with the CIO ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Was it at one time affiliated with the CIO? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was, and we withdrew in 1949. 

Senator Jen NER. 19 — what was that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. 1949. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 213 

Mr. Arens. You have been active in the labor movement for some 
time? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler, Wait a minute. At that point, the CIO never 
passed any resolutions of suspension or in connection with your union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They may have several months after we withdrew. 
I don't know. 

Senator Butler. You were out ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We never received any communications from them 
or anything to the effect that they considered our case or that we 
would have to appear before them. We withdrew in, I think it was^ 
September of 1949, 

Senator Butler, Are you affiliated with any other labor organiza- 
tion at this time ? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, We are completely independent. 

Senator Butler. Completely independent? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Completely. 

Mr, Arens, What is a company union? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, A company union is a union under the domination 
of the employer. 

Mr, Arens, And the National Labor Relations Board will not cer- 
tify a company union, will it, because they say it is not a bona fide labor 
union. Isn't that the sum and substance of it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Because it is controlled by an outside source. 

Mr, Fitzgerald. It is controlled by the company. 

Mr. Arens, And you, of course, feel that is bad, do you not, to have 
a labor organization controlled by an outside agency or entity? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly do think it is bad for a labor organiza- 
tion to be controlled by any outside organization. 

Mr. Arens. Would you think that it would be equally bad for a 
labor organization to be controlled by an agency of a foreign power, 
namely, the Communist Party? 

Mr. FiTzGER^iLD, I am opposed to the domination of a labor organ- 
ization by any group whatsoever, 

Mr. Arens. Who is the secretary-treasurer of the UE ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. His name is Julius Emspak. 

Mr. Arens. And do you know whether or not he is a Communist? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, I have no personal knowledge of that. 

Mr, Arens. You know he has been identified as a Communist by 
live witnesses before congressional committees ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I know that he and many others have been iden- 
tified as Communists before congressional 

Mr, Arens, Who are members of UE ? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, Wlio are members of all kinds of organizations. 

Mr, Arens, Are they also members of UE ? 

Mr, Fitzgerald. We have had some named, yes. 

Mr. Arens. How about James Matles? What is he in UE? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He is the director of organization. 

Mr. Arens. And he is or has been identified as a Communist before 
congressional investigations by live witnesses ; has he not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say he probably has. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of Jerome Joseph? 



214 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I requested an opportunity to 
appear here to testify on the legislative aspects of the bills pending 
before this committee. In the past week you have had several rep- 
resentatives of indvistry appear here to speak in favor of these bills. 
They were not interrogated the same way that I am being inter- 
rogated at the present time. 

I would appreciate it if we had an opportunity to give our testi- 
mony here and then after we give our testimony we will be glad to 
answer questions. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. You can proceed with your 
statement. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, our organization is a firm believer 
in a strong trade-uniim movement. We have a prepared statement 
here. Eather than take the time of the committee by going through it 
all, we would like to introduce that for the record and tlien Mr. Nixon 
and I will give a brief summary of what is contained in it. 

Mr. Arens. Wlio prepared this statement? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine 
Workers. 

Mr. Arens. Wlio — I mean what individuals prepared the state- 
ments ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The staff in the offices of the UE. 

Mr. Arens. Did any Communists work on this statement ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, I again repeat, can I have the same 
privilege as the representatives of industry had ? 

Senator Butler. If you will answer that question, we will let you 
proceed. 

Mr. Arens. Could I ask this one question so we can clarify the air? 
You believe, do you not, Mr. Fitzgerald, that Emerson was not too 
far off when he said "Wliat you are speaks so loudly I can't hear 
what you say"? Don't you think the committee is entitled to know 
who prepares these statements and out of whose mouth these words 
that are on that paper have come? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you that these words on this paper 
come out of the moutli and represent the views of the members of this 
organization that I represent. 

Mr. Arens. Of all of the members? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Were all of the members consulted in the process of 
preparing this statement? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No more so, I suppose, than all of the constituents 
of the Senators were consulted in the conduct of these hearings. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us now what Communists participated in the 
preparation of that statement, if any. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know of any Communists that partici- 
pated in the j^reparation of the statement. 

Senator Butler. Proceed. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As I said, Mr. Chairman, we would like to intro- 
duce the statement for the record. 

Senator Butler. It will be made a part of the record. 

(Mr. Fitzgerald's prepared statement follow^s:) 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 215 

Statement of the United Electbical, Radio and Machine 
WoRiCERS OF America (UB) 

TO protect JOBS, WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, PROTECT THE FULL FREEDOM OF 
WORKERS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN UNIONS AND UNION LEADERS AND TO ENJOY 
COMPLETE PERSONAL POLITICAL FREEDOM 

This statement proposing any and all legislative proposals seeking to limit the 
full freedom of workers to choose their own unions and union leaders and to enjoy 
complete personal political freedom, is presented on behalf of the more than 
300,000 workers in the electrical, radio, machine, and farm equipment industries, 
who are represented in collective bargaining by the United Electrical, Radio and 
Machine Workers of America (UE). These UE workers are employed in more 
than 1,000 plants, where the UE has been democratically chosen in repeated secret 
elections to be the bargaining agent. The UE presents its views on this Federal 
legislation dealing with trade unions with a deep feeling of pride in the record 
of service of the union to its members, and with a profound concern for the gen- 
eral welfare for our country and the American people. 

The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran legislation being considered by this 
committee, compi-ise the most far-reaching proposals for regimentation and Gov- 
ernment control of trade unions ever seriously advanced in the United States. 
These bills, if enacted into law, would end the right of workers freely to choose 
their unions and union leaders by giving a Government bureau absolute licensing 
power to determine which unions shall be permitted to exist and which workers 
shall be permitted to be union leaders. In addition, employers would be em- 
powered without limitation to tire employees at will on the basis of political 
beliefs and association. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills would put 
into effect a combination of a hated and destructive employer's blacklist, and Gov- 
•ernment-employer control of unions characteristic of totalitarian labor fronts. 
This would mean the destruction of the free trade union movement in America 
at the very moment that the economic needs of the working people most urgently 
require the strongest possible, and freest, union organization. 

The fundamental principle motivating all branches of organized labor, and all 
civil liberties organizations, in their opposition to such legislative proposals, is 
nowhere better stated than in the unanimously supported report of the resolu- 
tions committee to the 1953 AFL Convention which said : 

"We cannot emphasize too strongly that the trade unions needs to be genuinely 
free trade unions and cannot represent the vital interests of the working people, 
and that democracy is jeopardized when their organization's structure and lead- 
ership are determined by anyone outside their membership. This holds true for 
every democratic country." 

The views of the UE on this type of legislative proposal can only be adequately 
evaluated within the framework of the following fundamental premises upon 
which our position is based. 

FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES UPON WHICH UE OPPOSITION TO BUTLER, 
GOLDWATER AND M'CAKRAN RILLS ARE BASED 

First : The general welfare of our country and its people requires the existence 
of strong, independent and powerfully effective trade unions. What is good for 
the trade unions of the American workers is good for America. The UE holds 
this to be true for the following reasons : 

(a) Only through collective bargaining carried out by strong trade unions can 
realistic progress be made toward the wage and working conditions needed to 
guarantee the purchasing power and high living standards required to offset de- 
pression and create stabilized peacetime full emplovment. There is today, in 
1954, grave concern about the economic outlook of our country. Already more 
than 4 million workers are unemployed. Already existing unemployment and 
the concern for the future is generally based upon doubts that there will be 
adequate peacetime civilian markets creating sufficient demand for the output 
of our factories to maintain full employment. 

A year ago the UE argued before the Congress for the full repeal of the Taft- 
Hartley Act and the defeat of the Goldwater-Rhodes bill on the grounds that 
legislation to strengthen rather than weaken the power of unions was needed 
to offset depression. We said then: 

"Today in relatively boom conditions, the general economic welfare similarly 
requix-es increased bargaining power by the trade unions as an antidote to de- 
pression. The limitations on organizational advances and on the bargaining 



216 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

power of labor in past years have weakened the labor movement's ability to main- 
tain wage levels adequate to create the purchasing power required to stabilize 
peacetime full employment. The need is as great in 1953 as it was in 1935, to 
strengthen the arm of trade unions as a general antidote to depression — this time 
depression lying ahead rather than at hand." 

We charged then that antilabor union weakening legislation like the Taft- 
Hartley law was a depression maker. 

Today, events have verified this UE observation. Serious unemployment is 
at hand. The danger of full-scale depression is tremendous. Yet, in spite of 
a growing mass need for mass markets employers use every weapon at their 
command and the Government rushes increasingly in to aid employers to gain 
strength to drive to cut wages and reduce working conditions through speedup. 

Now, more than ever, America ne<?ds strong unions to achieve steady, substan- 
tial and general increases in the purchasing power of the people through rising 
real wages. Only through collective bargaining, carried out by strong unions 
can these wage advances required by the general welfare be obtained from em- 
ployers who are driving for maximum profits by getting more work for less pay. 

(&) Effective genuine democracy, based on the popular rule of the people of 
America, requires a vigorous and powerful trade-union movement to offset on 
behalf of the ordinary people the vast economic, political and propaganda power 
of giant industrial and financial interests. In modern industrial society there 
is a grave problem of autocracy of wealth, based on the power of multibillion 
dollar industrial and financial corporations, and on associations of concentrated 
economic power, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Cham- 
ber of Commerce, the Committee for Constitutional Government, the American 
Mining Congress, etc. ; based on the virtually complete big-business domination 
for propaganda purposes of the means of communication in newspapers, maga- 
zines, radio, TV, and movies ; based on the power of wealth in our political life. 
To avoid this autocratic domination of our life through the preservation of 
democracy for all, requires as its basic essential the counterbalancing force of 
a free and strong trade-union movement. 

Second : Only genuinely and completely free trade unions, controlled ex- 
clusively by their members who have full freedom of choice of their union, their 
union policies and their union officers, and who enjoy uninhibited political free- 
dom as workers can have the independent strength and effectiveness required to 
protect the economic welfare and democracy of the country. This means that no 
outside force, whether that be governmental, employer, religious or political, 
can be substituted for membership control of unions if they are to be effective. 

This basic premise is the same as that upon which our American democratic 
society as a whole is based, the proposition that our country's security and wel- 
fare is rooted in the democratic control of its policies by all of the people. In our 
unions as in our country, anything that strengthens, deepens and extends popu- 
lar democratic control serves the security and welfare of the country. Anything 
that limits or interferes with that democratic control weakens our security and 
welfare. 

TIE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

1. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills, and any other variations of 
these measures or proposals limiting the right of workers to choose their own 
unions and their own union leaders, and to exercise their unrestricted individual 
political freedom of belief and association should be repudiated. Federal legis- 
lation must protect and in no way limit the absolute right of workers to freedom 
of choice. 

2. In pursuit of the general welfare, the Government should give effective 
protection and encouragement to organized labor specifically with regard to 
labor's right to organize and to engage in free collective bargaining with the 
unlimited right to strike. This requires the following: (1) Repeal all sections of 
the Taft-Hartley Act putting limitations on the Wagner Act in its protection of 
labor's riglit to organize freely and bargain collectively; (2) enactment of the 
provisions contained in the LaFollette- Thomas oppressive labor practices bill of 
1942 and S. 603 (antilabor espionage bill) introduced in the 83d Congress by 
Senator Murray. 

The vnendivfj employer drive against organized labor 

The current drive to toughen the Taft-Hartley Act and add legislation estab- 
lishing Government licensing control of unions is part of the long and uninter- 
rupted history of the fight against organized labor and collective bargaining by 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 217 

the dominant employers of the country. The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran 
bills beini? pushed by the NAM, the chamber of commerce, and giant corporations 
are obviously part of this continued antagonism to organized labor. The em- 
ployer aim has always been to prevent effective collective action by workers. 
The first effort was, and it continues to be the aim of many employers, to prevent 
any whatsoever unions from being organized. When forced to retreat, the em- 
ployers have sought to gain their aims through pure company unions, and that 
continues to be a^major aim for many employers. When forced away from pure 
company unions, the employers have sought in every way conceivable to dominate 
and infliaence their workers' unions. The proposals before this committee repre- 
sent the zenith of this employer effort, the drive to set up systematic employer 
censorship and control of unions through Government agency. 

The rising threat of depression has stepped up the employer drive against 
union organization. In every plant in the country employers prepare for busi- 
ness setback by stepping up their campaign to cut wages and speed up produc- 
tion. They are seeking increasingly to relocate their production in nonunion 
areas and to break down and escape from union wages and working conditions. 
As the employers turn on the screws on workers economically, they move at the 
same time to weaken the unions so as to prevent workers from fighting back to 
protect themselves and their working conditions. 

Employers know that their planned program of ruthlessly driving for more 
work for less pay, coupled with rising unemployment, will lead to increasingly 
aroused activity and militancy on the part of their employees. Afraid of the 
power of the awakening giant of labor, big business now uses its temporary 
control of the Government to attempt to tie down the giant before he is fully 
aroused. This is the background of the push for Butler, Goldwater, McCarran 
legislation to destroy the internal democracy and rank-and-file control of 
American unions. 

The familiar pattern — antilabor aims disguised as anticommunism 

It is axiomatic that real antilabor aims are never openly stated. From the 
first attacks on union organization in America, antagonistic employers have 
always clothed their attack on collective bargaining and unionization under 
the camouflage of alleged opposition to "radicals," or "agitators," "anarchists," 
"Socialists," and "Communists." The history of the labor movement makes 
this pattern of disguise clear beyond any question of doubt. 

When the Senate Labor Committee in 1938 investigated the drive of em- 
ployers against the civil rights of workers to organize into their own unions in 
1938, it concluded "Although, as the investigation reveals, the employer directs 
his spy forces against any kind of union activity, he cloaks his hostility under 
the pretext that he is defending himself and the country against communism." 

In the history of the union organization of the mass production industries of 
America during the thirties, the employers main weapon was the charge of "com- 
munism." The House Un-American Activities Committee under the leadership 
of Martin Dies was a principal employer weapon used against CIO organization. 
The widely distributed antilabor leaflet entitled "Join the CIO and Build a 
Soviet America," the attacks on John L. Lewis and Sidney Hillman as soviet 
agents, the Un-American Committee's smear of the CIO Political Action Com- 
mittee as a "Communist front," are all symbols of this employer disguise of 
their attack directed at the wage and working conditions of their employees. 

Today this anti-Communist camouflage for antilabor aims is being used to 
screen a general attack on the people and to excuse the destruction of basic civil 
liberties in our country. This leading Kepublican Party spokesman smeared 
20 years of Democratic Party administration as "20 j^ears of treason." Mean- 
while, using this disguise, giant corporate and financial interests of the country, 
anxious about their profits, concerned lest their power be challenged, press for 
Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran type legislation to paralyze the labor move- 
ment. In the words of the CIO Oil Workers : 

"Communism, communism, communism, communism — the word is being re- 
peated over and over again by the practitioners of the big lie technique, repeated 
until it hums in the ears of nearly all Americans. * * * The constant repetition 
of the word is intended to whip up hysteria, to cause people to lose all sense 
of reason and all emotions of charity. 

"The hysteria is being coldly, carefully, deliberately cultivated by a group 
of men in powerful positions. They are creating this hysteria as a smokescreen 
behind which they hope to remold America in a pattern completely different from 
that we have known in the past. 



218 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

"They want to bring about an end to what they think is this damned fool- 
ishness of common people organizing and expi*essing themselves and promoting 
the common welfare * * * through labor unions for example. * * * An ex- 
ample of their real intention, behind this phony facade of 'anticommunism' is 
found in Senate bill 1606, known as the Butler bill which is now i)ending before 
Congress. * * * The Butler bill would destroy bona fide trade unions under the 
pretext of fighting communism." 

The drive to replace trade union democracy with Government controls pro- 
ceeds under a special smokescreen of propaganda about sabotage and espionage. 
This special propaganda base is required because the aims of the Butler, Gold- 
water, McCarran legislation are so extremely anti-American and antidemo- 
cratic. Close inspection of the proceedings of the various hearings dealing 
with this legislation and the atmosphere in which they are surrounded reveals a 
calculated effort to create the impression that it is sabotage and espionage which 
justifies the drastic antidemocratic steps proposed. A false picture of a nation 
at the mercy of saboteurs and spies operating in our industrial plants is de- 
liberately created. 

Fortunately the facts are clear to expose the fakery of this "sabotage and 
espionage" atmosphere. One can search the records of all the investigating 
committee hearings, all the Government reports, all the testimony of antilabor 
companies, all the results of all the forces hungry for evidence to support their 
espionage and sabotage tales and yet this fact remains: there has not been a 
single verified instance of union-connected sabotage or espionage in any indus- 
trial establishment in America. There was no instance of union-connected sab- 
otage or espionage during the recent Korean war. There has been no such in- 
stance in connection with any phase of the cold war military production. There 
has been no evidence of a single instance of union-connected sabotage or espio- 
nage during World War II and there was no such evidence in the period prior to 
American entry into that war. 

Officials of the giant General Electric Co., appearing repeatedly before com- 
mittees of Congress, have pressed for drastic antilabor legislation. Yet, when 
asked for any examples of sabotage or espionage in their plants have been un- 
able to furnish any such instances. The reason simply was that there are none. 

Repeated efforts of congressional investigators to elicit such evidence have 
utterly failed, and this failure underlines the absence of any single act of 
sabotage or espionage by unions or imion leaders in America. 

A further significant example of this fact is contained in the hearings of 
this committee in Pittsburgh on November 10, when Committee Counsel Arens 
asked Witness Matt Cvetic, who was identified as a "former undercover agent for 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Communist Party" whether he had 
"information which you can furnish to the committee with reference to activi- 
ties of Communists identified in the FE, in espionage, sabotage or other extra- 
curricular activities." Mr. Cvetic answered. "Yes sir : I have." What then 
followed is significant and should be carefully evaluated by all who care to 
look at the facts. Having thus been pressed to give his evidence about espionage 
and sabotasre in the UE, this Government witness proceeded at length and with- 
out limitation presumably to say everything he had to say on this subject. Any- 
one reading his testimony will find that he does not even allege a single solitary 
instance of sabotage or espionage by any union, including the UE which was 
then imder investigation. Curiously the three specific situations to which Mv. 
Cvetic referred involved the United Steel Workers of America: (1) An inner 
union disjiute on how much to settle steel wage increase demands for in 194S; 
(2) the election of an alleged "Communist agent" by workers in Edgewater 
Steel Co. as the president of their union : and (3) the case of the Crucible Steel 
Co. of 2,800 workers where Mr. Cvetic claimed that "about S or 10 party mem- 
bers" were elected to leadership in that union. None of these situations could 
even remotely be classed as sabotage or espionage. 

The simple, irrefutable fact is. this Senate subcommittee is considering pro- 
posals to obliterate the democratic choice of workers at a time when there is 
absolutely no evidence of any acts of sabotage or espionage connected in any way 
with any American union or union leader. 

Hiding behind this propaganda camouflage is the real aim of the sponsors of 
this legislation to weaken the trade unions to such a degree that they cannot 
stand as an effective obstacle against employers' actions cutting wages and 
lowering working standards. The fact that the Butler, Goldwater, and McCar- 
ran type of legislation is being pushed by employer forces who brouglit about 
the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, who insist on a 100 percent antilabor 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 219 

NLRB, and who are striving to undermine unions and union conditions in their 
plants,' offices and mines reveals the true autilabor aim of these bills in spite 
of the anti-Communist camouflage. 
Current proposals to outlaw unions 

The Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills embody almost every evil aspect 
of the employer campaign to legislate free unions out of existence. They would 
deprive workers of the right to choose their own unions or their own leadership 
and give the McCarran Act Subversive Activities Control Board and the United 
States Attorney General power of life or death over unions and the power 
arbitrarily to exclude any individuals whose views did not please them from 
active participation in union affairs. 

Almost immediately upon its introduction, the Goldwater bill was attacked 
by an American Federation of Labor spokesman as a "lisliiug license to the 
McCarran Act Control Board to probe into the affairs of unions everywhere 
and decide which unions and employees it wished to purge." AFL Research 
Director Glen Slaughter of the AFL League for Political Education, who at- 
tacked the bill, added— 

"It would order out of business any union that ever advocated anything the 
Communist Party advocated, including income taxes and public schools. No 
bill in recent years has so clearly resembled the thought control so charactertistic 
of totalitarian regimes" (AFL News Reporter, March 27, 1953). 

In one way or another, other spokesmen of CIO and AFL have expressed their 
disapproval of the type of legislation of the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran 
bills. 

UE warned against just such proposed legislation when James J. Matles, its 
director of organization, and Russ Nixon, its Washington representative, in 
1952, testified before the subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee chaired 
by Senator Humphrey. 

Tliese bills would place directly in the hands of the employer the power to 
deny to his employees the right to political and economic beliefs that run con- 
trary to his own." They would provide an instrument for the suppression of 
economic and political dissent among working people and, by extension among 
all Americans, would deprive the people of the right to adopt and carry out their 
own program in the people's own interest. 

The Nazi lahor-front parallel. — The provisions of the proposed legislation 
present a number of startling parallels with the union-destruction program of 
Nazi Germany. 

Determination by a Government thought-control board as to which union has 
the right to survive is a historical repetition of the policy statement made by 
Dr. Robert Ley, director of the German labor front. Through the authority 
granted him by Hitler, he ordained that — 

"It is the will of the Fuhrer that outside of the German labor front no other 
labor organization * * * is to exist * * *." 

The political tests provided for unions and their officers and employees, called 
for by the Butler, Goldwater, McCarran bills are more than reminiscent of the 

decree issued by another official of the German labor front, who stated 

"All po.*;tions on factory and employee counsellor's councils in Germany must 
be filled by National Socialists. There must no longer be any factory in which 
Marxists or 'Christians' hold the leading positions. Orders should therefore be 
given immediately that Communists and Catholic factory or employee counsellors 
who are still holding office shall be dismissed." 

These bills attempt to disguise the attack on all of organized labor as merely 
an attack on "Commimists" and in the interests of the national welfare. This is 
a crude but accui-ate restatement of the Nazi German labor front direction to 
those charged with the wrecking of the organized labor movement in Germany. 
The Nazi order states — 

"The taking over of the independent unions must proceed in such fashion that 
the workers and employees will not be given the feeling that this action is directed 
against them, but on the contrary, an action against a superannuated system 
which is not directed in conformity with the interests of the German nation." 

The American people, and particularly the working people organized in free 
labor unions are not yet ready to accept the schemes and plans of Hitler as an 
American way of life. Amei'ican workers are particularly sensitive that the 
Hitler-like union-wrecking plan set forth in the Butler, Goldwater, McCarran bills 
have been the pet project of such corporations as the General Electric Co. and 
Westinghouse Electric Corp. 



220 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

General Electric Co. Vice President Boulware recently publicly proposed that, 
after being proscribed by the Government agency — 

***** a cease-and-desist order prohibit (ed) the designated individuals and the 
organization froru soliciting or reviewing union dues, encouraging or supporting 
strikes or other interferences with production, and from any attempt to compel 
employers to recognize or continue to recognize the organization or individual as 
a bargaining representative. Consideration should be given to providing criminal 
as well as civil penalties for violation of such a final order * * *" 

And Westinghouse Electric Corp. President Gwilyn A. Price proposed : 

*'A union found to be Communist-dominated should be an outlaw — not merely 
a second-class citizen of the industrial community * * * Communist-dominated 
unions should be effectively prohibited from engaging in any form of union 
activity * * *" 

Workers recognize that, if their right to choose their own unions and leader- 
.ship on the basis of program and record is destroyed, and the right of a Govern- 
ment agency to outlaw unions is established, the decisions as to which unions 
shall be approved and which outlawed, will, in the last analysis, inevitably be 
made by the employers. 

All unions are endangered. — It is argued in extenuation of the proposals to 
establish political control over the labor movement that it is not intended to 
outlaw many, but only a few unions. 

Once it is established that the Government can set up categories of outlawed 
unions and officially approved unions, any union desiring to maintain its status 
on the approved list must conform in policy and program to the rules that poli- 
ticians and employers establish. 

The fact that these proposals are at the moment ostensibly directed against 
the progressive and democratic unions — the ones at the moment under the heavi- 
est red-baiting attack — does not reduce the danger of the proposals to all labor. 

To whatever degree any union fights to serve the interests of its membership, 
it too will be red-baited, and it too, outlawed in its turn. 

THE ATTACK ON TIE EXPOSES THE ANTILABOR CHARACTER OF PROPOSALS FOR GOVERN- 
MENT LIMITATIONS ON DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND UNIONS 

It is commonly proclaimed that in the initial round, the UE would be among 
the first of the unions attacked by the various proposals to limit the workers' 
rights to free choice. The record of the UE, its internal democratic operation, 
its long struggle for the welfare of its members, and its devotion to the best 
interests of the entire Nation, thus serve to make clear the general antilabor 
and antidemocratic character of the proposals to limit free choice of workers 
under the disguise of attacking Communist-dominated unions. 

The foundation of the proposal to destroy the UE and its leadership is the 
charge that the UE is Communist dominated. A genuinely democratic union 
• •annot be dominated by any outside force. The irrefutable fact of the inner 
democracy of the UE — that the UE is rim by its membership alone — gives the lie 
to any and all charges of any outside domination of the UE. 

UE democracy 

The obvious fact is that a union run by its membership cannot be dominated 
by any outside force whatsoever. 

The membership is the highest body of the UE. All actions of the union con- 
vention affecting the union constitution must be submitted to the membership 
of the local unions for ratification or rejection at special membership meetings 
called for the purpose, and no such actions can be put into effect until ratified by 
the membership. 

The highest ix»licymaking body in the UE, under the UE constitution, is the 
annual convention — not the officers of the union. Every local union, pro- or 
anti-administration, has equal right to elect and send delegates to the con- 
vention, with voting power proiwrtional to the local's membership. Every local 
has an equal right to submit resolutions to the convention, and through its dele- 
gates to take part in the debate on all questions and to vote on every issue. 
There is no packing of UE conventions with machine-paid delegates, no strong- 
arming of opposition delegates, no cutting off of discussion by high-handed chair- 
men, as occurs so frequently and repeatedly in the conventions (when they have 
them) of some unions which the chairman of this subcommittee never finds it 
necessary to attack. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 221 

Locals of the UE adopt their own constitutions and bylaws, the only restric- 
tion being that these shall not conflict w^ith the constitution and bylaws of the 
international union. The members of local unions elect their own ofiicers, shop 
stewards, and other local functionaries and conduct their own affairs. In the 
locals as in the international union, the membership is the highest body. 

Members or locals in opposition to the policies or leadership of the UE are 
protected in their right to be in opposition, however distasteful or injurious their 
policies, in marked contrast to the pi-actice of certain "approved" unions whose 
top officials dictatorially remove the elected officials of opposition locals pure- 
ly and simply for the purpose of wiping out opposition. 

The UE practice of democracy extends to every part of the work of the union. 
It is demonstrated again in the method by which our members determine the 
nature of their demands for negotiations, what settlements they shall reject or 
accept and whether or not to strike. 

Since its foundation in 1936, the UE has guarded the principles of rank-and- 
file control and internal democracy upon which the union was built, as ex- 
pressed in the preamble to the UE constitution : 

"We * * * form an organization which unites all workers in our in- 
dustry on an industrial basis, and rank-and-file control, regardless of craft, age, 
sex, nationality, race, creed, or political beliefs, and pursue at all times a policy 
of aggressive struggle to improve our conditions." 

The incontrovertible fact of membership control of the demands, settlements, 
strikes, and general program of the UE makes nonsense of the pretended fear 
that the oflScers of the UE may transform the union overnight into an instru- 
ment of subversion. Nothing in the record of the union or its leadership justifies 
such a fear. 

The attack upon the UE is being based very frankly upon the program and 
policies of the UE. 

The program and policies of the UE are determined democratically by the 
membership, and in consequence reflect the needs, aspirations, and opinions of 
the membership. 

The attack, then, is on the needs of the membership, and upon their right to 
formulate their own policies and express their own opinions upon economic and 
political questions. 

The record of the TJE 

The record of the UE, its policies and activities have been an open book since 
the organization of the union. This record has been proudly proclaimed by the 
UE throughout the country and spread upon the records of many Congresses. 
It is not intended here to attempt a lengthy restatement of this record. The 
highlights of the UE record, however, reveal the reactionary character of the 
attacks on the UE, indicates the evil inspiration of those attacks, and shows 
that the attacks on the UE endanger the entire free labor movement and the 
general welfare of the country. 

The UE has consistently maintained its political independence. It has not 
abandoned its political independence to any party or any outside group. It 
was essentially this independent political position and the refusal to join 
the leadership of CIO in giving up political independence that led to the first 
disagreement of the UE with the CIO, and ultimately to the withdrawal of 
the UE from the CIO. UE's refusal to climb in any political party's pocket 
also led to the vindicative antagonism of powerful political machine forces. 

The UE under its present leadership, has an outstanding record of organiza- 
tion and collective bargaining. Under this leadership the UE organized the 
electrical, radio, and machine industries of the country. Throughout its 18 
years of existence the UE has waged a constant fight against speedup and 
rate-cutting by the giant corporations of the electrical manufacturing industry. 
The UE has led in the fight against the exploitation of women and Negro 
workers in our industry. The contracts and wage levels in the industry are 
a monument to the union organization of the industry, the devotion and serv- 
ice of rank-and-file members, and the leadersliip of the UE in its struggle to 
better working conditions and improve wages. The UE has sought to in- 
crease the activity and participation of its membership in the political and 
legislative issues of the country and year after year has appeared before 
the Congress in behalf of legislation aimed to better the living conditions of 
the working jpeople, and to protect the democratic rights of all the people. 

43903—54 15 



222 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

The traducers of the UE assert as their most basic fabrication that the UE 
•'througli Commiinist domination serves the purposes of Soviet foreign policy." 
A careful and objective look at the facts thoroughly exposes such slanderous 
allegations. The position of the UE on foreign-policy matters as set forth 
in its annual conventions and as carried out by its officers and representatives, 
simply reveals that the UE has followed consistently, a policy designed to 
serve the interests of its membership by constantly seeking to maintain peace 
in the world, resolutely opposing Fascist and colonial exploiting forces through- 
out the world, through a foreign policy determined by the influence of the 
common people rather than of special, profiteering interests. 

At the outset of considering this question, two points should be made. (1) 
The UE is a trade union and, as such, the overwhelming bulk of its activities, 
deliberations, policies, and pronouncements have to do with basic trade-union 
questions and related domestic policies. The press of tliese issues has, per- 
force, required that a minimum of time and attention be given to some of the 
broader questions of world affairs. The record reveals this to be the case. UE 
pronouncements on foreign policy are limited almost exclusively to general; 
convention resolutions and do not deal with the specific issues which arise 
regularly in the course of time. 

Indeed there are some in our union who feel that the UE should have given, 
more time and more specific attention to the overwhelming important ques- 
tions of foreign policy. The facts remain tiiat over the years in UE, as a 
trade union, has been overwhelmingly concerned with trade-union problems. 
(2) Through the year 1947 the UE, as a section of the CIO, participated in 
the formulation and fully agreed with the foreign-policy position taken by 
CIO. This fact applies at all stages, including the period immediately prior 
to World War II, when the CIO, as so many others, had grave doubts about 
United States involvement in the European conflict, with lend-lease, conscrip- 
tion, etc. 

In 1947 the split that began between the UE and the rest of the CIO, inso- 
far as it involved foreign policy, resulted not from a change in UE policy 
but from a change in CIO policy. Without deviation the UE has followed the 
policy developed by the late Franklin D. Roosevelt and enunciated as our na- 
tional policy at Yalta and Potsdam declarations at the end of World War II. 
A close inspection of the issues of this period shows that only the applica- 
tion of the most extreme McCarthyism in the trade-union field can lead to 
allegations of "service to Soviet foreign policy by the UE." 

To restate : It is the position of the UE that all proposals which would estab- 
lish Government controls depriving workers of their free choice of their union, 
or of their free choice of their union officers, are profoundly antidemocratic 
and are a major weapon of the antilabor forces seeking to destroy the free 
and effective American labor movement. The facts are that the UE is a demo- 
cratic rank-and-file organization, loyal to the best interests of the American 
people, and that the democracy of the UE in organization and practice in- 
sures that it cannot be dominated by any outside force whatsoever. The 
attempt to force labor into conformity with' the policies of Government and 
industry, by outlawing unions which dissent from these policies, threatens the 
living standards and democratic rights of the whole people, not the members 
of organized labor alone. Under the false pretense of guarding against sabotage 
and treason, powerful and wealthy economic royalists are hoping to use their 
power in Washington to outlaw all opposition to their policy of profiteering and 
repression — to crush dissent in America, to take away from the people the 
right to determine for themselves the issues of plenty or poverty, of freedom 
or subservience, of peace and war. It is that attempt that is treason ta 
American democracy, American welfare, and American security. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We would like to briefly summarize what is con- 
tained. First, as I said, we believe that it is to the best interests of 
the country that we have a strong trade-union movement in America. 
We believe it is particularly necessary at the present time because of 
the unemployment situation that has gone upward of over 4 million 
people today. 

We don't think that anything should be done to weaken the trade- 
union movement during this particular period. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 223 

At the last session of Cono-ress we appeared before the House Labor 
Committee and the Senate Labor Committee and we testified at that 
time on the Taft-Hartley law and also the Goldwater-Rhodes bill 
which is at present before this committee of yours. We were in 
opposition to it then because we felt then, and we stated so, that it 
was a depression maker, that it would weaken the strength of the 
unions, all unions. It would put them into a position where they 
would be unable to really bargain and succeed in getting sufficient 
benefits for the people that they represent. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, may I ask a question at this point ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. Do you believe that there are any Communists 
in labor organizations in America at the present time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Why, I suppose that there are probably Com- 
munists in every labor organization. 

Senator Butler. Do you feel that 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As well as other organizations. 

Senator Butler. Do you feel that there are any Communist-domi- 
nated unions existing in America as of this time ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that there is any. We have been 
accused of being a Communist-dominated union any number of occa- 
sions, and I want to emphatically deny before this committee that we 
are a Communist-dominated union. 

Mr. Arens. You, of course, have done an awful lot to throw the 
Communists out of your union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We depend upon the good sense of our members 
to see to it that they have the proper kind of people to represent them. 

Senator Butler. May I proceed with this just a moment? I want 
you to go along with your statement, but I do want to get this one 
thought in the record. It has been said from time to time by a great 
number of witnesses, including the certain officers of the Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, that your UE union has consistently fol- 
lowed the Communist line. Do you deny that allegation? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I certainly do, Mr. Senator, Up until 1948 
this union was affiliated with the CIO. I was vice president in the 
Congress of Organizations myself — the Congi-ess of Industrial Or- 
ganizations. Up until 1948 we did not have a single disagreement 
inside of that organization. We supported all of its policies, and I 
think that practically everything that was voted upon in that organ- 
ization was unanimous. 

Senator Butler. But such a statement was made by the Congress 
of Industrial Organizations, was it not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was, after 1948, when we refused to be domi- 
nated by even them. 

Senator Butler. Do you know what that was based upon ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was based, I suppose, upon a desire on the 
part of the Congress of Industrial Organizations to inflict their type 
of domination on the international unions that were affiliated with that 
organization. 

Senator Butler. And do you think that was true of each of the 12 
or 13 unions that they expelled from their membership ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am only here. Senator, in the capacity as a 
representative of the UE. I have no knowledge of what went on inside 
of those organizations. 



224 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, I don't want to disturb you in 
your statement. I will ask you one more question : If you were con- 
vinced that there were Communists in labor organizations that con- 
trolled the activity of the organization, what would be your method 
of getting rid of that influence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Senator, I think that if I knew of a situa- 
tion where I knew that Communists or any outside group whatsoever, 
outside of that union, was controlling or dominating the organization, 
I think I w^ould make that fact known to the membership, and I have 
every confidence in the members of the trade-union movement, and I 
know that if they felt that it was being dominated by an outside force, 
whether it be Communists or any other outside group, they would put 
an end to that domination and kick them out of office. 

Senator Butler. That leads me to another question that I wasn't 
going to ask you. I tell you in good faith I will not pursue this line 
too far, because I want to hear your statement about this legislation. 
But we held hearings in Pittsburgh, for instance, in connection with 
your union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, Senator. 

Senator Butler. We had, what, 12 or 13 officers of your local union 
appear before our task force in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. Of that number, we had — and don't hold me to 
these figures because my memory might not serve me well — 11 out of 
the 12 hid behind the fifth amendment ; did they not. Counsel ? 

Mr. Arens. And they were identified by live witnesses as mem- 
bers of the party. 

Senator Butler. And they were identified by live witnesses as 
members of the party. Now, what would you say about that in con- 
nection with the members of the union ? You suppose the membership 
of the union continues to elect such people as that, puts them in our key 
industrial plants. What would you do? We have a problem here. 
AVhat is your answer to it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. First let me say, Mr. Chairman, on that partic- 
ular subject that you are raising, while I was not present in Pittsburgh 
at your hearings, I am aware of them. I very frankly don't like the 
expression of hiding behind the fifth amendment. I don't think at 
any time that an individual, a citizen of this country, invokes the priv- 
ileges guaranteed him under the Constitution of the United States, he 
is hiding. 

Senator Butler. I realize that, and those witnesses were offended 
genuinely or otherwise that we would suspect that they were hiding 
Ijchind the fifth amendment. But they refused to answer questions 
touching upon their activities. Let's put it that way. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In many instances, these witnesses that have 
appeared, and identified individuals as Communists — in fact I think 
most all of these people that appeared before you there — denied 
emphatically that they were engaged in espionage or sabotage. 

Senator Butler. No, Mr. Fitzgerald, you are wrong about that. 

Some of them went so far as to say, and the hearings are here 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I say most of them. 

Senator Butler. That is true ; most of them did. But some of them 
testified that they, at the direction of the Kremlin or other Russian 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 225 

authority, would not bear arms for the United States, would not work 
in plants. Am I right. Counsel ? I do not want to put things in the 
record that are not correct. But here we have a situation of people 
who are officers of a local union, dominating some 25,000 employees 
in the Turtle Creek Valley of Pennsylvania, doing the most secret 
work. Some of them say they will not bear arms for the United States, 
some of them say they would not hesitate to harm the United States, 
and 11 out of the 12 of them refused to answer whether or not they 
were Communists or engaged in Communist activities. Now, that 
is a real problem that faces the people of this country. 

Now, I am asking you, as a good American what would you do 
about that situation ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. From my understanding of your hearings in Pitts- 
burgh, Senator, no officer of the UE answered questions in the way 
that you just stated that questions were answered there. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Fitzgerald, you may be right, but I will ask — 
the hearings are here. 

Mr. Arens. They have not been released, Senator. 

Senator Butler. The hearings have not been released. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Nixon just informed me that there was one 
fellow who was a steward in one of our plants in Erie, a shop steward, 
who refused to answer those questions and claimed the privilege of the 
fifth amendment on that ; that no other representative of this union 
that was there made any such statements as you say, and in fact all 
of them denied very emphatically that they ever had or ever w^ould 
engage in espionage or sabotage or anything of that kind. 

Mr. Arens. Communists don't believe in that, do they ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know, sir, what Communists believe in. 

Senator Butler. I stand corrected, then, on the record. But I do 
say this, that all out of 12 men of the UE union that appeared before 
our committee in Pittsburgh refused to answer questions touching 
upon their activities. And indeed some of them even refused to say 
where they went to school. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, that is an indication of how mistrustful 
working people at least are today of the committees that are roam- 
ing around the country, Senator. They have great fear of those 
things. They have great fear of them. I am not questioning your 
committee or I am not impugning motives of the committee when I 
say that. But there is real, genuine fear on the part of working people 
with what is going on in the country today with committees. 

Senator Welker. May I have a question? 

Senator Butler. Yes, indeed, Senator Welker. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, you started to say that the men 
called before congressional committees feared witnesses who I as- 
sumed had testified that they knew the member of the union to be a 
Communist. Is that correct? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Welker. I did not attend the hearing in Pittsburgh, nor 
have I read anything about it, but I assume, from your informa- 
tion, that certain of the witnesses who appeared in Pittsburgh had 
been identified by these so-called witnesses who said they were mem- 
bers of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 



226 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Senator Welker. And you say that that has brought about a great 
deal of fear by the unions and officers of the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right, sir. 

Senator Welker. And you think it is a serious problem 2 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Very much so. 

Senator Welker. These roving congressional committees that rep- 
resent the American people, that your men are afraid to testify because 
of, I take it, these people who, the least that you can say about them, 
have committed perjury against these witnesses, or against your 
members. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me tell you what happened. Senator, there in 
Pittsburgh. 

Senator Welker. Then you tell me, if you will answer that. Your 
men are afraid of these witnesses who have identified your member- 
ship or groups as being members of the Communist Party; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They are not only afraid of these witnesses, they 
are afraid of the whole atmosphere that prevails in the country at the 
present time, the whole atmosphere of suspicion. 

Senator Welker. I suppose you are afraid of these witnesses who 
have come before congressional committees and identified certain 
people as being Communists. Now, that is correct, is it not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Very fearful of them. 

Senator Welker. Well, you are mindful of the fact that those wit- 
nesses are under oath, are you not ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I understand that they are under oath, but 
I understand that it is privileged testimony. I do not know of any 
evidence of any one being able to bring any action against them because 
of testimony that they bring before a committee. 

Senator Welker. I would like to ask you this one question : Have 
you or any member of your organization ever attempted to prosecute, 
by filing a criminal complaint against any of these witnesses you fear 
for the crime of perjury? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We are primarily engaged 

Senator Welker. Answer the question. Have you or any of your 
organization ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, if you want to ask the questions and an- 
swer them too, it is all right. I cannot answer questions the way you 
want me to do. I am perfectly willing to answer any question you ask 
me in my own way. But I don't see how I can answer the questions 
just exactly the way you want me to. 

Senator Welker. I do not want to argue with you, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
because I will tell you this, that if I ever felt that one of these so-called 
informers that you are afraid of, committed perjury under oath be- 
fore this committee, I would lend every assistance I could to you or any 
aggreived man to see that that man went to the penitentiary. But 
the question I want to ask you is have you or any other person in your 
union, to your knowledge, ever attempted to prosecute one of these 
individuals for the crime of perjury? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; we have not. We haven't the money, the 
time, or the inclination to do so. 

Senator Welker. I believe, then, that you would allow your union 
to be smeared and slandered and lied about and not have the time, the 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 227 

inclination or the money to go down to the district attorney and insist 
upon a warrant? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We have confidence enough in our membership to 
know that they will see through these smears and lies. 

Senator Butler. Have you ever reviewed the report of the CIO in 
connection with your union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have never even seen it, sir. Again, Mr. Chair- 
man, I say we would like to have the same privilege that industry has 
in testifying on the bills that are pending before this committee. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I am sure you will not object to 
this question : I was very much impressed with your statement about 
this allegation that has gone throughout the country that your union 
was kicked out of CIO. And you are under oath here. I am im- 
pressed by that, because I am not one to use an accusation that is easily 
made and hard to disprove. It is your testimony that that statement 
that you were kicked out of CIO because of Communist domination 
is false ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It is my testimony. Senator, that we withdrew from 
the CIO in September or October of 1949. We withdrew because the 
CIO tried to dominate this organization in a political way. They 
passed a resolution endorsing the Truman administration and prac- 
tically the entire Democratic Party, and said that any international 
union that did not conform with that was violating the policies of the 
CIO. We said at that time that we were not going to be dominated 
by any one, that we were going to permit our members to freely choose 
who they wished to choose as representatives in the Government of 
the United States. After that, they set up a raiding, venture on our 
organization. 

Senator Welker. That is what I want to get into. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, if their accusation was false that you were kicked out 
of their union because of Communist domination, that would ox)en the 
gate for raiding in every type of a union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Of course. That is why they did it. 

Senator Welker. Every type of an independent union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

Senator Butler. Wliy did you not bring charges against the CIO 
then? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Bring charges against the CIO ? 

Senator Butler. Yes. Why didn't you assert your legal right to 
show that the CIO was smearing your union and illegally calling your 
union Communist dominated, because when they do that they are call- 
ing the officers of that union Communists, aren't they ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, sir, they set up this raiding program, as I 
was trying to 

Senator Butler. Answer that question. That is a very actionable 
word. That is actionable per se. And you could not sit as the head 
of a union and have some other national union or international union 
say that you are Communist-dominated or that your union is Com- 
munist-dominated when you know it is not true, and do nothing about 
it. Why would you let the CIO do that ? 

Mr. Fitzgi:rald. On the best advice of our legal department, on the 
advice that we received from our legal department, the fact that some- 
one calls you in this country Communist dominated, or Communist 



228 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

controlled, or accuses you of following the Communist line, there is 
no more basis for suit there 

Senator Butler. Wait a minute. They not only do that, they call 
you Communist dominated and then they follow it up with the next 
local union to raid your union, and take your treasury away from you 
and take your membership away from you, and still you don't do any- 
thing about it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I know is that we still have a strong, powerful 
union. We represent over 300,000 people in our industry and I think 
we are doing something about it. 

Senator Butler. Tell us what it is. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, do you not think you would be 
doing a lot more about it had you made it plain to the American people 
before today that that accusation was false in its entirety ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. My God, Senator, we have been making it plain 
every day since it was first leveled against us. I have testified before 
any number of Senate and House committees. I have repeated this 
story on dozens of occasions. Other officers of this union have gone 
around to the people and we have repeatedly denied these accusations. 
This certainly is not the first time we have done it. 

Senator Welker. Very well. Now, you say that your best legal 
advice tells you that that accusation is not actionable. Have you ever 
even filed a lawsuit against CIO for that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we 

Senator Welker. Actual slander and libel. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No ; we did not file a lawsuit against the CIO on 
that. We filed a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board 
when they tried to take our bargaining rights away from us, using the 
same 

Senator Butler. You were on pretty safe ground there; were you 
not? You could win that? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Using the same labels, and we were sustained in 
the courts, in the Federal courts on that. 

Senator Welker. Why didn't you file an injunction against CIO ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Because we know of no way it can be done. On 
the advice of our counsel we just did not. 

Senator Welker. Very well. But you didn't file a lawsuit. The 
counsel does not decide these things, the court decides them. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, on many occasions, before this committee, I 
suppose as the result of testimony that you have heard, this committee 
has said that the United Electrical Workers was a Communist-domi- 
nated union, that it was going to be investigated. We deny that alle- 
gation. We have no intentions of suing you. We expect that we will 
be able to prove to our membership, and eventually to the working 
people at large throughout this country that those are false accusa- 
tions. 

Mr. Arens. Do you deny that James Matles is a Communist agent? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Again, Mr. Chairman, could I have the same 
privilege that industry representatives had here ? 

Senator Butler. Go ahead. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to repeat, of course, but I assume 
that you gentlemen will agree with me, as many other committees 
have, that a strong trade-union movement in the United States is not 
only necessary but it is an asset to our democratic way of living. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 229 

Senator ButleR. I do not think anybody will argue that point with 
you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We feel, as I said, that this legislation weakens not 
only our union but every trade union in the country. We think that 
one of the main quarrels that we have with it is that it will take away 
from the working people of this country the right to choose the kind 
of a union that we wish to have represent them, and it will also take 
the right away from the working people of this country to elect, in 
a democratic way, the officers whom they desire to represent them. 
We have made a study of the legislation and we think that that would 
deprive them of that right. I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, 
if there is no objection on your part, to let our legislative represent- 
ative, Mr. Nixon, take a few minutes of your time to generally de- 
scribe this legislation to you. After he gets through, I would like 
again to come back on and do a little talking to you about our organ- 
ization. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. Mr. Nixon can proceed. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr Chairman, I know that this is the first time in 
your legislative hearings that you have had a witness, I believe, who 
had the opportunity to take the position and inclination to take the 
position of general opposition to the three bills that are pending be- 
fore this committee. I want to tell you that we appreciate the privi- 
lege of coming before you as we have done for many years, to give you 
our views on the legislation. 

You have three pieces of legislation before this committee. There 
is your own bill, the Butler bill, there is the Goldwater bill which m'sls 
transferred to you from the Senate Labor Committee and on which 
hearings were held last year, and there is Senator McCarran's bill, 
S.23. It is our very considered opinion that this legislation comprises 
the most far-reaching proposals for regimentation and Government 
control of unions that has ever been seriously advanced in the United 
States. It is our considered opinion that these bills, if they were en- 
acted into law, would end the right of workers freely to choose their 
own union leaders, by giving a Government bureau absolute licens- 
ing power to determine which unions shall be permitted to exist and 
which workers shall be permitted to be union leaders. 

Senator Welker. May I interrupt you ? That is a general accusa- 
tion against all three bills? 

Mr. Nixon. This is a general characterization about all three bills. 

Senator Welker. All three bills ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. Mr. Nixon, is that a valid comment on those bills, 
granted that the workers themselves elect to high offices in these unions, 
persons known to be Communists ? 

Mr. Nixon. I think as we go along we will develop our position 
clearly. 

Senator Butler. This is by way of enlightenment for me. Wliat I 
am getting at is this : The law provides that a company union is a 
slanted union, and that makes it illegal, because it may be under the 
domination of a company. If you elect a person known to be a Com- 
munist who is devoted to the overthrow of this Government by force, 
and put that person at the head of a union, don't you think that the 
Congress or the people generally should have something to say about 



230 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

that ? I do not see how it necessarily destroys the union or interferes 
with legitimate union activity. But you go ahead. 

Mr. Nixox. Sir, as I understand the prescription of company unions, 
the point there is exactly that because of interference by the company, 
which Congress has decided has extraordinary economic power aris- 
ing from his position as employer, the free choice of the workers has 
been destroyed, and the point against company unions is that this is 
not a genuine reflection of free choice. That is the point. 

Mr. Arens. How about interference by the Communist Party? 

Mr. Nixon. I think that there is no economic power even to be 
alleged in a worker-employer relationship that could be said to be 
comparable here. The point, to state for a moment, with the National 
Labor Relations Act, and what at least is still the philosophy of the 
Labor Management Act is that the employer has peculiar powers aris- 
ing from his position as the man who can hire and fire, pay wages 
and so on, and that out of this, given the history of labor, the Govern- 
ment decides to try to protect the workers from any limitation on 
their freedom of choice. If, after due deliberations it finds that there 
has been such activity by the employer which prevents the workers 
by the use of his power of economic coercion and influence from exer- 
cising free choice, then that is proscribed. Now, it seems to me this is 
not only contradictory to what I say, but it happens to illustrate the 
emphasis on free choice which I make. 

Senator Butler. I get that point, you ought to have a free choice. 
But here, the result is in the exercise of the free choice you have 
persons who, in some cases, are known to be Communists who are in 
these plants who are the heads of these unions, who are directing 
Communist activities. Now, what are you going to do about that ? 

Mr. Nixon. Any person who is a Communist, or who is alleged to 
be a Communist, in the present circumstances, who is elected an officer 
of the union, has to overcome by some kind of quality of relationship 
with workers, tremendous obstacles. He does not go into the elec- 
tions, if he is elected, with big advantages on his side. He has nothing 
comparable to the economic power of the employer. 

Senator Butler. We have heard much testimony from highly re- 
spected and competent witnesses that the Communist technique in 
having these key people at the original meeting where the officers are 
chosen has overcome the will of the worker. Have you anything to 
say about that ? 

Mr. NixoN. Yes. Of course when Mr Fitzgerald — ■ — 

Senator Butler. Will you cover this in your statement? 

Mr. NixoN. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr Chairman, I had hoped to be able to use our 
organization as an example of how this could not happen, the points 
that you are raising. 

Senator Butler. Go ahead. 

Mr. Nixon. I am trying to make a constructive approach. 

Senator Butler. I am trying to guide you along the lines of in- 
formation for this committee. And I assure you that this committee 
is not antilabor, and we don't have any idea of busting any unions. 
We want light on this very important subject. This is a matter of 
great public interest, and of great public concern. I want to get all 
the light on it I can get. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 231 

Mr. Nixon. I know you yourself have said that you are aware of 
the big step that is being considered here. I know you understand 
the importance of that. 

Senator Butler. I certainly do. I fully understand it and I shall 
conduct myself accordingly. 

Mr. Nixon. I think my presentation will show that we are making 
a responsible approach. 

Senator Butler. Good, you go right ahead. 

Mr. Nixon. It is necessary, as a starting point, to lay out this prin- 
ciple of free choice. It means democracy in our unions in the same 
sense as you have it in the country. To see what it means and see 
what the implication is of any limitation on that free choice. The 
fundamental principle motivating all branches of organized labor 
and all civil liberties organizations in their opposition to such legis- 
lative proposals is nowhere better stated than in the unanimously 
supported report of the resolutions committee to the 1953 AFL con- 
vention, which said, and I quote : 

We cannot emphasize too strongly that the trade unions need to He genuinely 
free trade unions and cannot represent the vital interests of the working people 
and that democracy is jeopardized, when their organization's structure and 
leadership are determined by any one outside their membership. This holds 
true for every democratic country. 

We think that that is a very excellent statement of basic principles, 
and that is what lies behind our own opposition to these proposals. 
Mr. Fitzgerald has already indicated but I would like to quickly re- 
state the fundamental principles upon which we base our opposition 
to the legislation before you. First is the opposition that the gen- 
eral welfare of our country and its people requires the existence of 
strong, independent, and powerfully effective trade unions. We be- 
lieve this for two reasons. We believe that only through collective 
bargaining carried out by strong trade unions can realistic progress 
be made toward the wage and working conditions needed to guaran- 
tee the purchasing power and high living standards required to offset 
depression and create conditions of full employment. 

We emphasize this because there is everywhere now a concern about 
our economic future, and we say this is the time when steps need to 
be taken to strengthen unions in the protection of the general eco- 
nomic welfare of the country rather than the opposite. We believe 
this also, that effective genuine democracy in our country, based upon 
the popular rule of the people, requires a vigorous and powerful 
trade-union movement, to oft'set on behalf of the ordinary people the 
vast, economic, and political and propaganda power of giant indus- 
trial and financial interests. 

I am not going to stop to discuss this. You understand what we 
mean. Perhaps we have a difference. But I think the view of all 
trade unions would be that we have to have as an indestructible back- 
bone of democracy in our country, strength, collective bargaining, 
organized strength in the ranks of workers, if they are to offset the 
very real facts of life in our modern industrial society in which we 
have great powerful economic forces that have to be balanced by the 
strength of labor. 

Secondly, that only genuinely and completely free trade unions, con- 
trolled exclusively by their members who have full freedom of choice 
of their union, their union policies, and their union officers and who 



232 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

enjoy uninhibited political freedoms as workers can liave the inde- 
pendent strength and effectiveness required to protect the economic 
welfare and democracy of the country. This means that no outside 
force, whether that be governmental, employer, religious, or political 
should be substituted for membership control of unions if those unions 
are to be effective. This basic premise is the same as that upon which 
our whole democratic society is based. In our unions as in our 
country, anything that strengthens, deepens, and extends popular 
democratic control serves the security and welfare of the country. 
Anything that limits or interferes with that democratic control weak- 
ens our security. It is on this basis of these premises that we oppose 
the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran bills, and any other variations 
of these measures or proposals which limit the right of workers to 
choose their own unions and their own union officers and to exercise 
their unrestricted individual political freedom of belief and associ- 
ation. 

We believe that Federal legislation must protect and in no way limit 
the absolute right of workers to freedom of choice. We are staking 
the security of our country, we are staking the welfare of our country, 
we are staking everything that we believe in on the confidence we have 
that the working people, preserving their own independent political 
freedoms in the country and in their unions will safeguard every in- 
terest of our country, and that there is no substitute to be made for 
that, and there is no justification for anybody saying "You don't know 
what is good for you. We will help you decide." 

There is no substitute for the basic democracy of unions as a safe- 
guard of the effectiveness of those unions. And, of course, the wel- 
fare of the country. 

Mr. Arens. Before he leaves that point, Mr. Chairman, may I ask 
him a question ? 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nixon, before the workers themselves can make a 
free and independent choice of their representatives in a labor organi- 
zation, it is essential, is it not, that the workers know the facts with 
respect to whether or not a given individual is a Communist ? 

Mr. Nixon. It is essential that they know, that they be in a position 
to judge the candidates the same way that it is essential for every 
citizen to be able to judge a candidate for public office. 

Mr. Arens. The worker working at a rate does not have access to 
security files of this Government to inform him as to whether or not 
James Matles or Julius Emspak or any one of a number of people 
who are currently in UE are Communists, do they ? 

Mr. Nixon. We are living in a real world, Mr. Arens. You can 
be secure that in every election to which we go, whether it is election 
for bargaining rates for our 300,000 people, or whether it is an indi- 
vidual election of officers, we get this stuff thrown at us in every way, 
in every direction. I don't want to quibble with you. We say it is 
just fantastic, the stuff that is thrown at us. But for the purpose of 
your question, you can be sure that our elections do not proceed in a 
vacuum where these charges are not made. They are made. All of 
the testimony is thrown into our election. We go into those elections 
and we say to workers, "These things are not true. This is true, this is 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 233 

the situation, and judge by your contact with our union, its record, 
judge by the record of its people." 

And we 

Senator Butler. Mr. Nixon, is not one of the strong tilings that 
you have in your favor, and one of the things that you answer these 
wavering workers with, do you not say to them, "Look, the National 
Labor Relations Board, a Government agency, has certified us and 
said that we are as clean and as pure as we can be"? Is not that 
one of the answers that you give them? Do you not invoke the 
agency of Government to give you crystal pureness that maybe you 
don't have ? 

Mr. Nixon. Since 1947 we have not been relying on the prestige of 
the NLRB to sustain us very much. 

Senator Eastland. Answer his question. 

Senator Butler. But you are certified by the NLRB. 

Senator Eastland. Answer the question yes or no. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes ; we are certified. 

Senator Butler. And you have told employees that "here this fine 
Government agency is behind us. How can we be Communists?" 

Mr. Nixon. I tell you what we have done in that connection. We 
have made the observation that our officers have repeatedly signed 
affidavits 

Senator Butler. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, yes. And you have 
also told them that "This great Government agency is behind us; 
how can anybody say we are Communists when this Government 
agency certifies us ?" 

Do you not tell the people that ? 

Mr. Nixon. No, we do not do that. Senator. 

Mr. Arens. On these non-Communist affidavits that you just 
alluded to, you know it is a fact, do you not, that these officers after 
they sign these non-Communist affidavits come before this commit- 
tee and throw the fifth amendment at us after we have had live 
witnesses name them as Communists ; is that not a fact ? 

Mr. NixoN. The affidavits speak for themselves, and the actions 
of our people safeguarding themselves when they come before com- 
mittees also speaks for itself. 

Mr. Arens. Does the UE leadership tell these people that these 
people are Communists, that the secretary-treasurer is a Communist, 
that James Matles, the director of organization, is a Communist, that 
live witnesses under oath before a committee of the United States 
Congress have identified scores of your key people as Communist 
agents ? Do you tell your membership that ? 

Mr. Nixon. No. 

Mr. Arens. Of course you don't. 

Mr. Nixon. Just a moment. I had not finished my answer, Mr. 
Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Go ahead. 

Mr. Nixon. I said no, of course we do not. We tell them the facts 
that they have signed five non-Communist affidavits. We quote ta 
them, like from the hearings of the subcommittee — 

Senator Butler. Do you tell them, Mr. Nixon, when they appear 
before the committees of the Congress and are asked whether or not 



234 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

they were Communists at the time they made that affidavit, they refuse 
to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Nixon. If we don't, yon can be sure our enemies do. We dis- 
cuss it very tlioroughly, and we fight it out on a democratic basis with 
our membership. I think you ought to recognize, for example, a 
statement like this, since you raise this question. These are the 
hearings of the subcommittee on Appropriations. These are in 1952. 
Mr, Mclnerney, who was the Assistant Attorney General in charge 
of the Criminal Division, was being questioned by Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. You have cases, have you not, in which the FBI has 
furnished proof of Communist Party membership prior to the signing of the 
non-Communist oath and Communist Party membership subsequent to the 
signing of that oath? 

Mr. MclNERNEY. No. 

Senator McCarthy. Communist Party activities? 

Mr. MclNERNEY. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Attending Communist meetings? 

Mr. MclNERNEY. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you sure of that? 

Mr. MclNERNEY. We process those cases at least four times. We have sent 
them out to the United States attorneys to institute grand jury procedings on 
them if they can develop the proof. I have looked at the UEW cases myself, and 
I recall statements in the FBI reports that are unusual in the FBI reports, such 
as "no evidence of Communist Party activity since execution of non-Communist 
oath." 

Of course we use that kind of stuff. 

Mr. Arens. Do you tell your people what the members do is resign 
from the party the day before they sign the non-Communist affidavit 
and then go on under Communist discipline? Do you ever tell them 
that? 

Mr. Nixon. I am not going to jump at loaded questions. 

Mr. Arens, Do you ever tell them that ? 

Mr. Nixon, We tell them no lies. 

Mr. Arens, Wliat would you do to drive the Communists out of 
theUE? 

Senator Eastland. You are telling no lies ? Wliat do you mean by 
that statement? 

Mr. Nixon. I meant we do not tell them what he said as a prop- 
osition. 

Senator Eastland, Well, if what he said was true, would it be a 
lie ? I mean if it was true, of course, 

Mr. Nixon. I will answer that without any hesitancy. If it was 
true, it would not be a lie. 

Senator Easti.and. Would it be a lie ? 

Mr, Nixon, Of course, absolutely. 

Senator Eastland, Your officials have never been members of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr, Chairman, could I once again ask that as 
representatives of a trade union we be given the same privileges before 
your committee as industry people have been given ? 

Senator Butler. We will let you malce your statement and then we 
will cross-examine, if that is the way you want it. 

Senator Welker, I think here, we have been going back and forth, 
I think the Senator is entitled to that. 

Senator Eastland. I want it answered. 

Mr, Nixon, What was the question ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 235 

Senator Eastland. I ask if the oflScials had ever been members of 
the Communist Party. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Senator, I only can repeat what I said. We 
figure that this is an impartial committee, seriously studying the legis- 
lative aspects of the three bills that are pending betore you, that 
representatives of industry in the past week have been down here and 
have been permitted to give their testimony and then asked questions. 
I will tell you frankly, we will be willing to be asked questions after 
we get our statement on the record. 

Senator Eastland. I want you to answer that question, because 
it certainly is persuasive as to your testimony. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can say is that the officers of this organiza- 
tion, each year, sign an affidavit saying that they are not members of 
the Communist Party. We deny emphatically accusations of espio- 
nage or sabotage or any allegations of a conspiracy on the part of this 
union. We figure that we are good, loyal Americans. 

Senator Eastland. On the part of the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We figure the officers of the union are good, loyal 
Americans, interested in the welfare of our country. We requested 
an opportunity to come here 

Senator Eastland. Now will you please answer my questions. Have 
they ever been members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. All I can say, again. Senator is that we are sign- 
ing- 



Senator Eastland. Mr. Chairman, I think he ought to answer the 
question yes or no. 

Senator Butler. I direct that you so answer the question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we are 
getting the same kind of treatment here 

Senator Butler. Well, will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald (continuing). That industry members — I am lead- 
ing up to an answer. 

Senator Butler. I think we have not been too hard on you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am leading up to an answer on it, Senator. We 
came here to testify on legislative aspects of this bill, and I again 
want to appeal to you to let us complete our testimony. We are not 
going to run away. We will stay here. We will answer your ques- 
tion. 

Senator Eastland. I want my question answered now. You want 
to make a statement, and the influence that I think the answer to 
that question will have a lot to do with the influence of your testimony 
to this committee and to the Congress. If you have never been a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, say that, if that is the fact. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Do I understand. Senator, that you have directed 
me to answer that question? 

Senator Butler. I feel that you should answer that question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You have directed me to answer it. 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Has any other witness during the course of these 
hearings, these present hearings, been directed to answer questions 
by the committee? 

Senator Jenner. Many witnesses have been directed to answer 
questions. 



236 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald, You mean during the present hearings on this 
particular legislation that is pending here. 

Senator Butler. Yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. This is on the legislative aspects of the hearing, on 
the legislative aspects of the hearing. 

Senator Butler. Well, it is very apj)arent, Mr. Fitzgerald, that 
you do not want to answer the question. Why do you not want to 
answer the question ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want to answer it because I don't think it 
is pertinent at this particular time. 

Senator Eastland. We are the judges of that, 

Mr. Fitzgerald, So that we will not waste time, and we will get 
back to it later on when I get to my part of the testimony, for the pres- 
ent time, I suppose you want me to claim the privilege of the fifth 
amendment, which I will do. 

Senator Butler, We do not want you to claim anytliing. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Then I will claim it, sir. 

Mr. Arens, Do you feel that a truthful answer to the question by 
the Senator from Mississippi will furnish information which might 
be used in a criminal prosecution of you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I feel that under the Constitution of the United 
States that I have the right to claim the privilege of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Butler. That is all right. You have claimed it, and we 
will proceed. 

Mr. Nixon. I would like to direct the attention of the committee 
back to the basic question of the legislation pending before this com- 
mittee and its merits and its possible demerits. 

Senator Welker, How long is it going to take you? 

Mr, Nixon, It will not take me very long, sir. 

Senator Butler. No; I want to hear it, I want it to be on this 
record, 

Mr, Nixon, We think that the proposals before this committee have 
to be considered in the framework of a long and uninterrupted history 
of the fight against organized labor and collective bargaining by 
dominant employers in this country. The Butler, Goldwater, and 
McCarran bills which are being pushed by the NAM, the chamber of 
commerce, and giant corporations are obviously a part, in our opinion, 
of continued antagonism to organized labor. 

Senator Butler, May I break in just for a moment? As far as I 
am personally concerned, I cannot answer for the McCarran bill and 
I cannot answer for the Goldwater bill, but, as far as I am personally 
concei-ned, I have not talked to one member of management in con- 
nection with that bill, I have had absolutely no contact with the 
NAM or any other similar organization. And, as I have consistently 
said, that bill may not be the proper approach, but I feel that this 
is a matter of great public interest, I feel that the people of America 
are entitled to be protected against the evils of infiltration of Com- 
munists not only in labor organizations but in any field. This is one 
of the fields that the Internal Security Committee is looking into, I 
can assure you and all other people of labor that I am not the tool of 
anybody, I do not take orders from anybody. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 237 

Mr. Nixon. You will notice in our statement that we are very 
careful to not put our position down into the level of charging moti- 
vations to you or anybody. 

Senator Butler. I wanted you to know that. 

Mr. Nixon. We have tried to keep this on the level of the basic 
issue and off personalities which we think the level a Senate com- 
mittee warrants. 

Senator Butler. Just a minute, Mr. Nixon. 

Will 1 : 30 be all right with you if we recess now ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Senator Butler. This task force will stand in recess until 1 : 30 this 
afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 1 : 30 p. m. the same day.) 



43903—54 16 



238 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Senator Welker. The meeting will come to order. 
The record will show that Senator Welker, of Idaho, is acting as 
chairman in lieu of Senator Butler. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. FITZGERALD, PRESIDENT, UNITED 
ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 
(TIE), ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS NIXON, LEGISLATIVE REPRE- 
SENTATIVE— Resumed 

Senator Welker. Mr. Nixon, when we suspended for the noon 
recess you were testifying. You will proceed. 

Mr. Nixon. It will not take long for me to summarize the basic 
statement of the union. Just to sum it up, we had indicated our op- 
position to any legislation which limits the right of the workers to 
choose their own unions and their own union officers and to exercise 
their own individual political freedom and belief and association. 

When we closed, I was making the point that in our opinion the 
proposals before this committee have to be evaluated in the framework 
of what we consider a long and uninterrupted campaign against or- 
ganized labor by very powerful employer interests in this country. 

The fact is that this type of legislation, and more than that, specifi- 
cally these bills, are being supported by the National Association of 
Manufacturers and by the Chamber of Commerce and by other large 
corporations of this country. The employer has always sought, in 
our opinion, ways and means of limiting the effectiveness of labor's 
united strength. Sometimes this has been to prevent any contem- 
plative action ; other times that has been when that effort has not suc- 
ceeded to put into effect unions that they can dominate. 

In our opinion it has always been an effort to limit the democratic 
control of unions which their maximum effectiveness is based upon. 

We feel this very strongly now because, very frankly, sir, with the 
tightening business situation throughout the country we are facing- 
tightening situations in our shops, and the record is one of increased 
pressure to speed up work, and the record is one in our experience at 
this time of increased pressure to reduce wages. 

We cannot avoid the conclusion that, at the same time that the em- 
ployers for what they think to be satisfactory reasons in a given eco- 
nomic situation are turning on the screws in the shops, they are also 
finding it necessary to seek further legislation which will limit the 
strength of the labor movement, the strength of the labor movement 
to protect itself. 

We feel that these measures pending before this committee are part 
of that campaign. 

Now the next point I have to make to this committee is that such 
antilabor objectives are rarely, if ever, openly stated as such, and 
anyone who has studied the history of the labor movement in this 
country knows that it is a history of attacks on workers' efforts to 
organize and that these attacks have more often than not proceeded 
under a camouflage of being directed against radicals, agitators, 
foreign agents, anarchists. Socialists, and Communists. 

This is a simple matter of fact of the history of the labor movement. 

You may recall that when the Senate Labor Committee in 1938 in- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 239 



vestigated this whole area of the interference with workers' civil 

rights to organize, they reached a conclusion in their record which 

said: 

Although, as the investigation reveals, the employer directs his spy forces 
against any kind of union activity, he cloaks his hostility under the pretext 
that he is defending himself and the country against communism. 

That is the end of the quote. 

Senator Welker. That was in 1938, you say ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. I believe it was the La Follette committee 
hearings, sir. 

Very briefly, the history of the thirties which saw the organization 
of mass-production industries in this country, and they^ had to or- 
ganize and make their progress at every stage of the fight in this 
case. The House Un-American Activities Coimnittee under the 
leadership of Martin Dies was a principal employer weapon used 
against CIO organization. 

The widely distributed antilabor leaflet entitled "Join the CIO and 
Build a Soviet America," the attacks on John L. Lewis and Sidney 
Hillman as Soviet agents, and the Un-American Activities Committee 
labeled the CIO Political Action Committee as a Communist front. 
These are all symbols of the employer disguise of their attack which 
we think was directed at the collective bargaining trend of the workers. 

It is our opinion today that the same kind of camouflage is being 
used against the labor movement and for very much the same purposes. 
Now the drive today proceeds not only in the traditional atmosphere 
of radicalness but almost under a special smoke screen of propaganda 
about sabotage and espionage. 

In our opinion, this special propaganda base is required because the 
content of the Butler, Goldwater, and McCarran legislation is so 
extremely destructive of the democratic processes of union organiza- 
tion that it requires a special shield. 

Now a very close inspection of proceedings of the various hearings 
around this whole question indicate that an atmosphere of sabotage 
and espionage has been developed. We will try to show you this is 
unwarranted as far as unions are concerned and is a false picture. 

Fortunately, the facts are clear on this sabotage and espionage ques- 
tion. One can search the records of all the investigating committees, 
all the hearings, all the Government reports, all the testimony of anti- 
labor companies, all the results of all the forces that are hungry for 
evidence to support their espionage and sabotage tales, and yet this 
fact remains : There has not been a single verified instance of union- 
connected sabotage or espionage in any industrial establishment in 
America. 

Senator Welker. You are limiting that to what years ? 

Mr. Nixon. Certainly it would cover all the years in which our union 
has been in existence. 

Senator Welker. Wlien did your union come into existence ? 

Mr. Nixon. 1938, wasn't it? _ 1936, 1937, and 1938. 

Senator Welker. I think it is common knowledge that at the start 
of trade unionism there were some destructive forces at work. I recall 
in my own State the Western Federation of Miners, it was one of 
the disastrous things of our State, which alined labor against capital 
and so forth, and at least charges were made of sabotage and destruc- 
tion of mines. 



240 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Nixon. My point, wliicli I think is important, and as far a& 
what terminal points you may go back to, I think it is enough to say 
that certainly within a recent period of 10 or 15 years — this is an 
imjDortant thing — there has not been a single verified instance of union- 
connected sabotage or espionage. 

Mr. Arens. Could you help us on this point? J. Edgar Hoover 
testified before us the other day. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. He testified : 

In regard to the infiltration of labor, the Communists regard labor unions 
as instruments to be controlled and used to develop the Communist revolution. 

A national conference held in August of this year of the Communist Party 
reafBrnied the time-lionored premise that control of the labor union is of primary 
importance to the development of the Communist revolution in this country. 

What do you think about that ? 

Mr. Nixon. I can only tell you what Mr. Fitzgerald has told you,^ 
that that is the position of the Communist Party, or it is the position 
of any other outfit, whatever the nature. This union is inalterably 
of)posed to domination of our organization by anyone that limits its 
control by its membership. 

Mr. Arens. How about the Communists in the union? Are you 
opposed to Communists in the union ? 

Senator Welker. Counsel, let him finish and then let him go 
forward. 

Mr. Nixon. I want to make one other point on this question of 
sabotage and espionage. It is very frequently said as a sort of sec- 
ondary position on this question, but that is true, there haven't been 
verified instances, and we hold these hearings without anything on 
the record. There is a lot of talk about it; it is in the papers, but 
when you get down to it, you haven't a record and there has been 
no instance. 

As a matter of fact, we invite you to tell us if we are wrong. There 
is the point that is made, but you have to worry about the future about 
what might happen. Well, we are not altogether in a situation of a 
vacuum either. We have gone through 3 years of a Korean war. This, 
was a war which everybody recognizes was opposed by the left-wing 
forces, certainly by the Communists and Communist associations in 
this country. They did not believe that was a good step. They didn't 
take quite the same position. 

This would in normal circumstances, this would be the situation 
where you would say, "Well, we will get some of this sabotage and 
espionage." The same thing might be said about the whole period 
of military production under the cold war. These are the circum- 
stances to which you address your attention, and yet the fact remains 
that there has not been a single evidence of union-connected sabotage 
or espionage in the entire period of the cold war or in the entire period 
of the Korean war. 

Mr. Arens. When you say "union-connected," do you mean by a 
labor organization or by Communist agents in a labor organization? 

Mr. Nixon. By any workers who are acting in the capacity as union 
representatives, as officers of a union, anything of that sort. 

Mr. Arens. You are sure about your facts there now ? 

Mr. Nixon. I invite you to suggest an exception. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 241 

Mr. Arens. Well, we had testimony liere before this committee just 
in the course of the last few days about the Communist-inspired strike 
out here for political purposes when the employer was complying with 
all of the requirements of the contract. It is a slow-up of production 
of defense material. Would that not be something that might be in 
jeopardy of national interests ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am glad you mentioned that because that permits me 
to point out what I am saying. Very frequently employers in the 
bitter struggle of industrial conflict charge sabotage and it is familiar 
grounds to say, "Well, this strike is directed in some way from a sabo- 
tage point of view." 

Mr. Arens. But there is not such a thing going on ? 

Mr. Nixon. There has not been a single verified instance of that. 
This committee has no verified instance. 

Mr. Arens. Have you read the executive testimony before this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Nixon. Of course I haven't. 

Mr. Arens. Then your statement is a little bit extravagant, that 
this committee has no information. 

Mr. Nixon. My statement was carefully made, and I said one can 
search the records of all the investigating committees and all the 
reports that I know about, all of the testimony that has been brought 
in here by companies, and goodness knows, over the past several years 
there have been company after company after company talking about 
this question. 

Mr. Arens. Let us take this illustration of it, if we may. Are you 
familiar with the Bridges political strikes on the west coast and in 
Hawaii for the purpose of tying up west coast shipping, inspired, 
controlled, and directed by the Communists as repeatedly exposed 
by congressional committees ? 

Mr. NixoN. That is quite a question, Mr. Arens, because it has so 
many presumptions that you know, of course, I wouldn't answer 
that yes or no. You are assuming these are political strikes. I am 
sure if the ILU were to come here they could establish beyond any 
question of doubt the existence of collective bargaining differences 
at the collective bargaining table. 

Mr. Arens. They would have reasons, they would have rationaliza- 
tion, they would have something they would say, but do you not con- 
cur that the Bridges union on the west coast is controlled by the Com- 
munists ? 

Mr. NixoN. I think 

Senator Welker. If he knows. 

Mr. Nixon. I want to say this : I think it is impossible for a demo- 
-cratic union to be controlled by the Communists. 

Mr. Arens. You are saying it is impossible for black to be white. 
I ask you if you do not as a labor man, a man in this field, concur that 
the Bridges union is controlled by the Communists. 

Mr. Nixon. I certainly do not because fi*om the best knowledge I 
have of the ILU, and I know something about it as a democratic or- 
ganization run by its members. 

Mr. Arens. You believe that is completely inconsistent? 

Mr. Nixon. As you say, I think that would be black being white. 
If you have a democratic organization it is run by their members by 



242 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

definition, and it cannot be run by somebody else because black cannot 
be white. 

Mr. Arens. If you have a Communist Party, is that run by the 
members or by the dictates of the Kremlin ? 

Mr. Nixon. The Communist Party ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. I couldn't testify here about how the Communist Party 
is run. 

Mr. Arens. You have no experience in that field ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am not in any position to speak about the Communist 
Party to tell you how they run themselves or anything. 

Mr. Arens. Have you read about the Communist Party operations ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, that is a pretty general question. 

Mr. Arens. Have you read about the Communist Party operations, 
how they control organizations? 

Mr. NixON. Well, I have read how they do, how they don't. I 
just cannot give you any testimony. 

Mr. Arens. Have you had any personal experience in this field? 

Mr. NixoN. No; I cannot give you any testimony about the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Arens. Do 3^011 have any personal experience in that field at 
all? 

Mr. NixoN. No ; I haven't any personal experience in that field. 

Mr. Arens. You know, of course, that the two key people of the 
IJE are Communist agents, James Matles and Julius Emspak? 

Mr. Nixon. How did you put that? 

Mr. Arens. You know that James Matles and Julius Emspak are 
Communists ? 

Mr. Nixon. I do not know that. I think I told you before if you 
listened this morning that all the officers of this union for 5 years 
have signed affidavits that they are not members of the Communist 
Party. 

Mr. Arens. You think that means they are not Communists if they 
sign affidavits saying they are not Communists, is that correct? 

Mr. Nixon. I would say that is evidence, wouldn't you, Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. Not with the Conmiunists. Do you not know that the 
Communists have no regard for the truth, that they are dedicated to 
treachery, deceit, and lying, or is that part of this fantasy that is being 
developed by the bosses to destroy unions ? 

Mr. Nixon. You make it easy to answer the question about Mr. 
Matles and Mr. Emspak because I know from many years of associa- 
tion with them that they are not motivated by lying or deceit or any- 
thing of that sort. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know that they are not Communists? 

Mr. Nixon. They have signed affidavits for 5 years Avhich say at 
the bottom that if you sign it falsely you are subject to criminal prose- 
cution and fine. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know that they are not Communists? 

Mr. Nixon. I know they signed these affidavits. 

Mr. Arens. Do you liave any other information that leads you to 
believe they are not Communists? 

Mr. Nixon. That is adequate for me. The oath of these men is 
adequate. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 243 

Mr. Arens. Are you prepared to testify under oatli that Matles and 
Emspak are not Communists ? 

Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't testify under oath that you are not a Com- 
munist to my certain knowledge. 

Mr. Arens. What has your labor union or your organization done 
to oust the Communists from the organization ? 

Mr. Nixon. To oust the Communists ^ 

Mr. Arens. Yes, to throw the Communists out of the UE. How 
many have you thrown out ? What is this militant program to throw 
Communists out so that they will not lead the union in paths of de- 
struction to this Government? 

Mr. NixoN. You understand the point I was making about sabotage 
and espionage? 

Mr. Arens. Do you not think the Communists are dedicated to 
sabotage and espionage? 

Mr. Nixon. If they are, then we have an absolute proof that there 
are no Communists in our organization because we have had no in- 
stance of any sabotage or espionage in our organization, and by your 
own definition tliat would mean they are not there. 

Mr. Arens. What have you done to throw^ the Communists out of 
UE? 

Mr. Nixon. I think the way to explain tliis to you and to relate it to 
the legislation which is before this committee 

Mr. Arens. You do not want to answer that question, do you ? 

Mr. NixON. Just a moment, Mr. Arens. I will answer the question, 
but I am also here testifying on legislation, so I want to relate every- 
thing I say here to the issue before this committee. In our union we 
don't drive anybody out of our union, 

Mr. Arens. Even a Communist? 

Mr. Nixon. Even a Republican or a Democrat. 

Mr. Arens. How about a Communist? 

Mr. Nixon. Or a Socialist or a Communist or a vegetarian. We 
have a preamble in our organization which says that all members, all 
workers in our industry are eligible on an equal basis to membership 
and to participation in our organization. There is one test they have 
to run, and you might as well understand it because it is the founda- 
tion of our appearance. 

Mr. Arens. This is crucial, you believe? 

Mr. Nixon. This is the foundation of our appearance here. 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. One test that anyone has to run in our organization. 
They have to stand before their fellow workers and be elected or de- 
feated on the democratic vote of the workers, and we are saying here 
with regard to the legislation there is no substitute for that. I don't 
care what concerns you may have and what differences we might have, 
the entire labor movement is united and goodness Iniows, we have 
differences. 

The entire labor movement is united in saying that there should 
be no substitution for the rank-and-file democratic choice of unions 
and union officers because once you open that Pandora's box, then you 
open the way to destroying the freedom of labor. 

Mr. Arens. Are you saying then that the Communist Party and 
Communists are dedicated to democratic process of selection of lead- 
ers such as we are supposed to know in this country, or would you 



244 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

concur in my analysis that the Communist Party is a dictatorship, it 
is a totalitarian organization in which they do not give a tinker's 
dam about democratic processes as we know them in this country? 

Mr, Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to testify as ex- 
perts on the Communist Party; that is not the reason we are here. 
We are here to testify on legislation that is pending before the com- 
mittee, and I would like again to say to you, let us get back on the 
record on our statement here, and after Mr. Nixon gets through I 
think I will be able to prove to this committee that we have a demo- 
cratically controlled organization ; it is not dominated by any outside 
force. Communist or otherwise, and will be able; in fact, we point 
with pride that it is a model for other unions to follow, and I will 
probably be able to cover some of the points that you are raising. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe Mr. Nixon more or less 
opened up that subject matter and invited that question. Personally 
I wish that we could get the legislative matter finished, but since you 
got into this field I believe I will permit the question to stand, and 
then let us get back to the legislative feature, and you can do what 
you want to about this other matter. 

Mr. Nixon. Would you restate your question, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. I would prefer to have the reporter read it. 

Senator Welker. Read it, please. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Nixon. The answer is "No." I am not saying that, I am not 
in a position and would not attempt to be in a position to testify to 
you about the Communist Party here. What I can testify is about 
our union. 

Senator Welker. Now, Counsel, will you reserve that line of ex- 
amining ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. NixoN. Let me complete the point, which I think is a very im- 
portant one on this question of sabotage and espionage. 

Senator Welker. You are testifying now to the legislative matter ? 

Mr. Nixon. That is right. 

Senator Welker. Let us not get into extraneous matters. 

Mr. NixoN. I am making the point, and I think the record will bear 
it out. 

Senator Welker. You have made the point no less than five times, 
Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Arens. I was wondering if he has some specific provision of 
this bill that he wants to object to and point out what he thinks is 
objectionable, some specific provision. You have had a lot of gen- 
eralities there about breaking up unions and all that sort of thing, 
which is a straight Commie line. 

Mr. NixoN. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Arens. Straight Commie line, that anything that is after Com- 
munists is supposed to have a hidden motive behind it to destroy some- 
body's rights. That is a straight Commie line. Let me ask you this : 
Do you have anything specifically that you want to protest in this bill ? 
Is there anything in this bill that does all these things that you are 
talking about here, destroying unions? 

Mr. Nixon. Of course, everything in these bills that does that. 

Mr. Arens. Point to one provision in this bill that destroys unions, 
and I am not talking about some Communist organization masquerad- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 245 

ing as a union ; I am talking about a bona fide union. You point to 
something in this bill that would destroy a bona fide union, non- Com- 
munist union, a clean union that works for the interests of laborers. 
You point that out to us. I think the committee would be obliged 
to have that information. 

Mr. Nixon. The provision of the Butler and Goldwater bill — 

Mr. Arens. Which provision is that that you have in mind ? 

Mr. Nixon. The said provisions of the Butler and Goldwater bill set 
up the Subversive Activities Control Board as an agency of five men or 
women to have the power to say that under certain tests a union can be 
proscribed, cannot be chosen as a bargaining agent by workers. 

Mr. Arens. If it is Communist controlled. 

Mr. Nixon. And that certain individuals are proscribed from being 
candidates for union office. 

Mr. Arens. If they are Communists. 

Senator Welker. Let him finish, counsel. 

Mr. Arens. I wanted to be sure his sentence was complete. 

Mr. Nixon. All of us in the labor movement are agreed that the 
language of both the Butler and the Goldwater bills is so broad that 
it goes way beyond the question of any actions, illegal, by individuals 
to encompass political censorship and control over unions. 

Now I will give you two or tliree examples. 

Mr. Arens. You would be helpful to the committee if you could also 
suggest language, Mr. Nixon, which would drive Communists out of 
labor organizations, out of defense establishments, and preclude cer- 
tification by the National Labor Relations Board of Communist or- 
ganizations masquerading as labor organizations. 

Senator Welker. Counsel, you are going to confuse the witness. He 
is on a line of thought now, and I cannot even follow. He told us he 
was going to do something. Please wait until he finishes his line, 
please. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. What page are you on now ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am going to address your attention to the Goldwater 
bill, page 4. 

Senator Welker. Do you have a copy of that ? 

Mr. DuEEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. Just let me say before I start on this provision specifical- 
ly that all the unions are agreed on this observation that I made. 
The A. F. of L. and CIO alike, in spite of our many differences, 
agree on this particular proposition that in setting up this kind of 
test you are 

Senator Welker. Wliat kind of test? 

Mr. Nixon. Wliich I am now going to address the attention of the 
committee to. 

Senator Welker. Get down to it. 

Mr. Nixon. Setting up this kind of test gives administrative au- 
thority the power at their discretion to proscribe unions and indi- 
viduals from being union officers. Let me read. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. 

Mr. Nixon (reading) : 

Such i>erson advocates 

Senator Welker. Wliere are you reading from? 
Mr. Nixon. Page 4, section (a) , line 4 : 



246 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Such person advocates or has aided or supported financially or otherwise, 
the advancement of the economic, international, military, and governmental 
doctrines, policies, or aims of the world Communist movement, while knowing 
or having reason to know that such doctrines, policies, or aims are those of the 
world Communist movement ; 

(b) Such person has knowingly aided or supported, financially or otherwise, 
any Communist-action organization. Communist-front organization. Communist 
foreign government or any organization listed as subversive by the Attorney 
General under the provisions of Executive Order 9835 subsequent to the time 
such organization was so solicited ; or 

(c) Such person has instigated or encouraged or may instigate or encoui'age 
strikes, slowdowns, or other interruptions of work among employees, for the 
purpose of aiding and supporting the world Communist movement or a Com- 
munist foreign government. 

Mr. Arens. You are objecting to that language, is that correct? 

Mr. Nixon. Together with the A. F. of L., CIO, and several civil 
liberties organizations in the country. My union says that this lan- 
guage would permit control, censorship, and licensing of unions at 
full discretion to a governmental body. 

Mr. Arens. Do you suggest that a person who has done these things 
here 

Senator Welker. Counsel, would you just as soon withhold your 
cross-examination? Let us get all of his objections, and then we will 
be more orderly, because we will disrupt his line of thinking. Just 
mark that page and then go back. 

Mr. Nixon. Let's be perfectly clear that our basic position is not to 
tell you how to set tests up to be administered in the direction of 
unions; that we want no substitution, none whatsoever, for the free 
choice of workers, of their unions and their union officers. We say 
here is where your national security is founded, in the free choice of 
w^orkers, and that anything that limits that hurts the national security. 

So don't ask me to suggest language that would be proper because 
I think there is no language. 

Senator Welker. Then you go right ahead to your next objection 
to the bill. 

INIr. NixoN. Well, I am perfectly happy to answer counsel's question 
about what it is we mean here. 

Senator Welker. You are inviting. I am trying to protect you 
against cross-examination while you are getting to the meat of this 
bill, and you are just asking for cross-examination. 

Mr. Nixon. I don't mind cross-examination. 

Senator Welker. All right, that is fine. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted 
this matter completed, so I wanted to favor him. He indicated he 
wanted the legislative matters discussed. 

]Mr. Nixon. But this has to do with legislation. Now we are talk- 
ing about legislation. 

Mr. Arens. Let us just test that, if we may, so that the record is 
clear. You do not want legislation designed to throw Communists 
out of labor organizations, you want the workers to do it? 

Mr. NixoN. I want no legislation to limit the rights of workers to 
choose their own union, and their own union officers. We want un- 
limited democracy in our unions, and we say the substitution of the 
Subversive Activities Control Board or any other Government agency 
for the free choice of workers is to set the pattern for destruction of 
the trade-union movement in America. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 247 

Mr. Arens. I was under the impression you said the workers 
would also be the ones to throw the Communists out. 

Mr. Nixon. I did not say that. 

Mr. Arens. How are we going to get the Communists out of the 
organizations ? How are we going to get Matles and Emspak out of 
these hundreds of unions? 

Mr. Nixon. I am not going to let you load me. 

Mr. Arens. You think it is a presumption to say Matles is a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. NixoN. I have answered that at least twice. So let's not load 
the question. I think Fitz did, too. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I had hoped that I would be able to handle some 
of those questions. 

Senator Welker. Once again, Mr. Fitzgerald, I honored you in 
your request, and your legislative gentleman here desires cross-exam- 
ination. In fact, he said he wanted to be cross-examined, so counsel 
is at liberty to cross-examine him within due bounds. I think that 
question was a bit unfair. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He assumes statements of fact. 

Senator Welker. Counsel, I think that was a bit unfair. Yoa are 
assuming that these gentlemen are Communists. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I think I am obliged as an individual 
as well as counsel of this committee because the record of this com- 
mittee and that of the Un-American Activities Committee indicates 
they are Communists. 

Senator Welker. Wliy do you not say that the records of this 
committee show, instead of a question as broad as yours ? 

Mr. Arens. As this record shows, Mr. Nixon, this record today, 
Emspak, Matles, and scores of other Communist agents are in UE. 
How do you propose to get them out of UE or any other organiza- 
tion? 

Mr. NixoN. The record does not show that. We have stated over 
and over again that the record shows that they have signed five valid 
affidavits saying that they are not. That is what the record is here. 
Let's get that straight. 

Mr. Arens. The record shows here that they have been identified 
before congressional committees under oath as persons who are Com- 
munists. 

Senator Welker. I think the witness is confused. He thinks to- 
day's hearing. You are referring to a prior time, are you not, counsel ? 

Mr. Arens. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Nixon. As far as I am concerned the record is as I have indi- 
cated. 

Mr. Arens. Ton tell us how we are going to get Communists — for- 
getting Emspak and Matles — ^liow we are going to get Communists 
out of the UE. 

Senator Welker. If there are any there. 

Mr. Arens. If there are any there. 

Mr. Nixon. If any person in our organization is going to be elim- 
inated from office or from membership, he will have to be eliminated 
from his office by the fact that a majority of the workers decide that 
they don't want him and they want somebody else. That is the only 
way we propose. 



248 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. What if a majority of the people of this Nation speak- 
ing through their representatives say there is an overriding public 
interest, we don't want Communists in labor organizations, particu- 
larly in labor organizations working in defense establishments? 
What would you think about that ? 

Mr. Nixon. In the first place, the people of the country, there is no 
indication that the people of the country want that. That is what 
this committee here is considering, is that right ? 

Senator Welker. That is correct. 

Mr. Nixon. What we are saying to you is that it is against the 
interests of this country and the people of this country to substitute 
for the control of majority rule in unions that they choose and the 
officers that they choose. We are making a further point, so let's be 
clear. We address ourselves to the question of national security, and 
we are saying that you have a background of no verified union-con- 
nected sabotage or espionage. 

You also have this background in periods of international conflict 
such as the cold war and the Korean war, times in which if your pre- 
sumptions were justified, would have elicited, brought forAvard, evi 
dence of this sort. We are saying to you to take this drastic step of 
eliminating the basic elementary freedom for the first time in the 
history of our country in our Labor movement would damage the 
national security of our country and damage the welfare of our 
country, and we are saying on the question of national security that 
it is oiir position that the majority of the workers will not betray 
our country; that the majority of workers, the judgment of the 
workers, can be counted upon to be in the interests of our country, 
and tliere is nothing to substitute for it. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think it is in the interests of the country or 
the interests of the workers, say, to have Communists in defense 
plants ? 

Mr. Nixon. As a matter of fact, you have a screening process in the 
defense plants, and we have never raised a big fuss about that. 

Mr. Arens. You ought to be for it, patriots ought to be for it, that 
they do not want Communists in defense plants. 

Mr. Nixon. Just a moment. We have never raised a question about 
legitimate security measures. That is not the question. The ques- 
tion here is not the right of any individual alone in this situation. 
You try to put this always on the basis of the individual. We put it 
on the basis of the majority of the workers, their rights to freely 
choose. 

Statements were made this morning about 95 percent of workers 
are loyal, to be trusted. Why don't you trust them ? 

Mr. Arens. We certainly do trust them. 

Senator Welker. Just a moment. Supposing that 5 percent of 
those people were loyal, dedicated members of the Communist Party 
who have given their oath and their pledge that at the call they would 
destroy the plant in which they worked and in which they might be 
a member of the controlling union? What are we going to do with 
the 5 percent, Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, if you find anyone in this country engaged in the 
operation for sabotage or espionage, then we have laws to take care 
of that, and we have from the very outset of our organization taken 
a very strong and clear position, making a distinction between actions 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 249 

and political opinions, and we have adopted the basic presumption 
that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. 

We have proceeded on the basis of equal rights in our organiza- 
tion. 

Senator Welker, It would be a little late, would it not, to remedy 
the matter if the plant were to be burned down or destroyed by some 
5 percent or 1 percent of the people that you do not desire in your 
union ? 

Mr. Nixon. Of course, it would be late, but the facts are not to sub- 
stantiate the fears which you mention because, as I say, we have 
been through a period, the Korean war and 5 years or more of cold 
war. We don't have a single, solitary instance. What are we going to 
do, jump in to destroy the basic freedom of the American trade union 
movement ? This is what we are fighting to preserve. 

We are going into every union and set up five men down in the 
RFC rooms, and they will say which unions can exist and who can be 
union officers. We say that if you do that in the name of a ground- 
less concern demonstrated by experience on the question of national 
security, you will be destroying the freedom of the trade union move- 
ment which is individually necessary to the welfare of our country. 

We are not interested in limiting the capacity of our Government 
to protect itself against actions against our national security. If 
you need those laws, pass them, but this is an entirely different piece 
of matter. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us again how are you going to get the Communists 
out of the UE. I understand you are agreeaole to getting saboteurs 
and spies out of the UE ? 

Mr. Nixon. Let us just be careful. I am agreeing to getting the 
spies and saboteurs out of the United States Senate, out of Congress, 
out of churches, out of unions, out of corporations, anywhere in this 
country. 

Mr. Arexs. That is fine, I commend you. 

Mr. NixoN. Anywhere. 

Mr. Arens. Having gotten rid of all the spies and saboteurs in the 
country, how are we going to get rid of spies and saboteurs in the UE. 

Mr. Nixon. If there are Communists. 

Mr. Arens. We want to enlist your support in helping this com- 
mittee drive the Communists out of your organization or any other 
labor organization. 

]Mr. Nixon. If there are Communists in the UE and they are to be 
gotten out of the union 

Mr. Arexs. We are going to say we are going to get them out. 

Mr. Nixon. If they are going to be gotten out, they are going to 
be gotten out if we have anything to do with it on the basis of some- 
body running against them and proving to the. majority of the 
workers that they are a better trade union man and better to liave in 
the office than the other. 

Mr. Arens. How many have you sponsored in opposition to 
Emspak and Matles, who have been identified before committees to 
be Communists ? Wliat are you going to do to get rid of Matles and 
Emspak ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am the Washington representative of this interna- 
tional union, and I have worked under the direction of Fitzgerald, 
Matles and Emspak, the proudest years of my life, because I know 



250 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

they liave been making a contribution to this country's welfare and 
to the welfare of the workers of this country, and 1 have been proud 
to work with them in that. 

Mr. Arens. You would not want to work with them if they were- 
Communist agents ? 

Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't want to work with anybody who was an 
agent. These men are agents of this union. 

Mr. Arens. Are they Communists ? 

Mr. Nixon, Do you want to go over that again ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. I think it is very pertinent to your answer. 

Mr. Nixon. It is not I who is burdening this with repetition. 

Mr. Arens. You avoid the word "Communist" or "Communist 
agents." 

Senator Welker. I think the record should show that these men 
have taken a non-Communist oath, not once but five times, and on that 
basis it is his conclusion they are not Communists, is that a fair 
assumption ? 

Mr. Nixon. Absolutely. I have no knowledge that they are Com- 
munists, but I do know their record of consistent service to this 
country and to the workers, and I am proud to associate with them and 
I judge men by what they do. 

Mr. Arens. Do you not think that Communists have a loyalty that 
is paramount to any other organization, namely the loyalty they have 
to the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Nixon. I have told you I can't — — 

Mr. Arens. You do not know about that ? 

Mr. Nixon. I can't discuss before this hearing that question. 

Mr. Arens. Or Communists. Is that not a fact, trying to get 
Communists out of labor organizations, particularly those organiza- 
tions which serve defense establishments of this Government? Is it 
]iot a fact that Communists have a loyalty to a Communist Party and 
]iot to any labor organization or any other group with which they 
might be affiliated ? 

Senator Welker. If he knows, and I think he said he did not. 

Mr. Nixon. I am not in any position to give you testimony on 
behalf of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. How are we going to get Communists out of the UE ? 

Mr. Nixon. You want me to tell you again ? 

Mr. Arens. Right. 

Mr. Nixon. I will be glad to. 

Mr. Arens. You say we cannot do it by legislation or should not 
do it because it would break up your union ? 

Mr. Nixon. I will tell you. I am repeating only because you 
repeated your question. Communists or any other persons in our 
union will be eliminated from any office if we have anything to do 
with it only on the basis of the democratic choice of the members of our 
organization. 

Mr. Arens. Why have they not been eliminated then as of now ? 

Mr. Nixon. Because in very severely contested elections, in which 
the balance of propaganda and pressure has not been on the side of 
the UE, workers have looked at our record, evaluated our position, the 
work we have done, the reputations and the standing of the men who 
lead this union and have gone into secret polling places and have said, 
"We reject the charges and we choose the leadership of tlie UE," and 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 251 

-we say that for you to do something to take away from the workers 
that right is to start the most damaging attack on the trade-union 
movement that can be taken. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us why have they not gotten the Communists out 
of the UE. 

Mr. Nixon. I will tell you. Because one, they have not believed 
the things that have been said. 

Mr. Arens. They have not believed there are Communists ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Nixon. "VVe have thousands and thousands of elections in our 
organization, and I cannot make a blanket generalization about it 
except to say this, that in every instance they have made an evaluation 
of the merits 

Mr. Arens. But they have not gotten them out yet, have they ? 

Mr. NixoN. They have said, "We choose these people," whoever 
they may be, "to be our leaders," and the thing we are saying to you 
is that you can't take away from workers the right to do that without 
destroying the freedom of the trade-union movement. 

Mr. Arens. That is just the point, you have not answered why you 
have not gotten the Communists out. You keep telling that every 
time you have an election they keep putting them back in. Tell us 
why these Communists are not eliminated from the UE. 

Mr. Nixon. Let's be careful not to put words in my mouth. I said 
if there are Communists in the UE anywhere at any level, they are 
there 

Mr. Arens. Are you for getting them out? Are you for ejecting 
them? 

Mr. Nixon. Categorically? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. NixoN. No. 

Mr. Arens. You are not for ejecting Communists from the UE? 

Mr. Nixon. I judge every man on the basis of service to this union. 

Mr. Arens. But you are not for ejecting Communists from the UE ? 

Mr. Nixon. I personally ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. I don't have anything to do with it. 

Mr. Arens. You are the witness. 

Mr. Nixon. I am for preserving the rights of workers to make 
whatever choice they want. 

Mr. Arens. Would you throw out a man as a Communist ? 

Mr. Nixon. Just because he was a Communist? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. Not if he had a record of showing that he was a better 
trade-union man than the man running against him. I would judge 
him on what is the contribution that this man will make to the welfare 
of the workers. 

Mr. Arens. Let me ask you this : How is the average worker down 
at the lathe going to know whether Mr. X is or is not a Communist ? 
You say this process of elections is going to throw him out, assuming 
the man at the lathe wants to vote against every man who is a Com- 
munist. How is he going to know who is a Communist ? Tell us that. 

Mr. Nixon. He is going to have some trouble because the label of 
Communist, of treason, is being thrown around pretty broadly thes& 



252 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

days, and I suppose the man you mentioned in the hypothetical situ- 
ation 

Mr. Arens, He would be confused ? 

Mr. Nixon. He would be confused. 

Mr. Akens. So would it not be better to have an impartial agency 
of Government with access to security files make a determination as 
to who is and who is not a Communist ? 

Mr. Nixon. I think you may have gathered the hint from my pre- 
vious remarks that nothing is better than letting the workers choose 
whom they want. 

Mr. Arens. But you would choose not to throw Communists out; 
you just told us that? 

Mr. Nixon. I said I would choose to let the workers choose whoever 
they wish, and I would judge whoever runs for office on the basis of 
the contribution to the union. 

Mr. Arens. Notwithstanding the fact that he was a Communist? 

Mr. Nixon. I said I would not categorically vote against a man 
who was making a contribution to the movement. The issue before 
tliis committee is that you want to set up a Government agency to 
substitute for the free choice of workers. That is the issue before 
this committee. 

Mr. Arens. Do you not think there is an overriding public interest 
whereby the public says, "We just do not want Communists in labor 
organizations, particularly organizations which are engaged in de- 
fense establishments" ? 

Mr. NixoN. I think there is an overriding public interest in main- 
taining the unqualified freedom of the trade-union movement of our 
country, and that one of the biggest issues in this country today is 
whether that freedom is going to be taken away from us. 

Mr. Arens. Let us belabor that point a moment. You think the 
paramount thing here is to have freedom of selection. Before there 
can be freedom of selection by a worker in an election, would you not 
say that it is essential that that worker have all the facts? 

Mr. NixoN. I would like to have a situation in which the workers 
did have all the facts, and I think if they had all the facts about a 
lot of things there would be a lot of changes made, and I am not 
thinking about what you are thinking about, either. 

Mr. Arens. Would you think it would be appropriate if the workers 
were informed as to who are the Communists in the labor organiza- 
tions? 

Senator Welker. Now we will suspend at this point because the 
chairman has to go to vote, and I will hurry back as soon as I can. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Senator Welker. The meeting will come to order. 

Mr. Nixon ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, in your absence while you went up 
for rollcall, unless you or counsel want to ask Mr. Nixon any more 
questions, and with the knowledge that the full statement that we 
have presented here has become a part of the record, I would just as 
soon that he conclude his part of it, and I will try to wind up my 
part as quickly as possible. 

Senator Welker. Of course, I assume the counsel will have ques- 
tions ; I do not know. I am just a member of the committee. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He can direct questions to either one of us. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 253 

Senator Welker. Yes, Mr. Nixon, have you concluded? 

Mr. Nixon. With the understanding that the whole statement is in 
the record, the substance of my statement is completed. 

Senator Welker. I understand that the statement is a part of the 
record ; there is no question about that. 

Counsel, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Arens. No further questions of Mr. Nixon. 

Senator Welker. All right, Mr. Fitzgerald, you may proceed. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, we have been mentioned before 
your committee on several occasions — that is, our organization has. 
I think it might be helpful to you if you got an idea just exactly what 
our organization is and how it functions. It will only take me a few 
minutes to give it to you. I think that in it, why, you will get an idea 
why we feel as we do on some of these things that have been raised 
during the course of our appearance here. 

First, of course, we are governed by a constitution that was adopted 
by the membership of our organization all down through the years. 
That constitution, we think, has served us very well, and it is pat- 
terned in most respects after the Constitution of the United States. 
It sets out a task for us, and that is to organize into our union all of 
the workers in the electrical manufacturing industry, regardless of 
race, creed, color, sex, political belief, or anything else. 

We are proud of the job that we have accomplished ; we are proud 
of the record of that union. W^e have fought very hard to preserve 
that constitution. 

I pointed out to you this morning that the union, well, we have over 
300,000 members. We represent workers in about a thousand shops 
from one end of the country to the other. 

Mr. Arens. Could you tell us just in passing what defense estab- 
lishments you have contracts in ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We have contracts with General Electric Co., 
Westinghouse Co., Sylvania, International Harvester, any number of 
our contracts cover shops where there is defense work being carried on. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have contracts where any secret defense work 
is being carried on ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Oh, I think yes, there must be secret defense work 
in GE, Westinghouse, and places of that kind. 

Mr. Arens. How about the Atomic Energy Commission ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we don't have contracts with them, any of the 
shops in our jurisdiction. 

Mr. Arens. You used to have, did you not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. When the atomic energy program first came 
into being I think Mr. Nixon and I made a trip to Judge Patterson, 
who was Secretary of War at the time, and we asked him how those 
setups were going to operate and would there be any real opportunity 
for collective bargaining for the workers in those shops, and he gave 
it as his opinion because of the highly secret nature of the work that 
it would be very difficult to engage in any effective collective bargain- 
ing, so we made no attempt whatsoever to organize any of the atomic 
energy plants. We stayed out of that field completely. 

Mr. Arens. Did the Atomic Energy Commission to your knowledge 
preclude contracts with UE ? 

43903 — 54 17 



254 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The Atomic Eiiergj' Commission at one time issued 
a ruling to the effect that any union that had not signed the non-Com- 
munist affidavits could not represent the workers in an atomic energy 
plant. I think at that time many of the CIO unions, including the 
CIO itself, the steel workers and others, had not as yet signed the 
non-Communist affidavits. 

We contested at the time, in fact the CIO joined in with us and 
filed a brief supporting our contention. I don't remember exactly 
what the ruling was on it, something to the effect that well, you 
haven't been injured yet. This is an agency, you can go back to it 
and discuss it. 

Subsequent to signing the non-Communist affidavits a few years 
afterward, why, we never bothered to try to engage in the organiza- 
tion of those plants because we just didn't feel as though we could 
be of any real service to the workers inside of those shops. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us, if you would not mind, just on this 
same theme, Mr. Fitzgerald, an indication of the quantity of defense 
materiel which is produced in plants in which UE holds a contract'? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Difficult. 

Mr. Nixon. It would be very difficult. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We have no way of knowing it. We will hear 
through the newspapers that the General Electric Co. got a $5 million 
order from the Government. Now we don't know whether any of 
that is secret work ; we have no way of knowing it. It may be, well, 
they could be making light bulbs for the House restaurant for all we 
know. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any contracts with any establishments 
which are Government-owned as distinct from establishments that 
have Government contracts ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we have no contracts in plants that are Gov- 
ernment-owned unless the Government might own a particular plant 
and some company was running it for them. I think the General 
Electric Co. had a few plants that the Government owned but that 
the company was operating for them. I think subsequent to that 
they were able to purchase the plants and the equipment for a song. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, you go ahead, and then we will 
reserve the right to cross-examine later. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As I was saying, this provision in our constitu- 
tion served us well, and we fought very hard to preserve it. I am 
not going to belabor the point ; we have a great deal of confidence in 
our union and the membership of our organization because of the 
way it is run. 

I would like to point out to you that the backbone of our union 
is the steward system in the various plants throughout the country. 

Senator Welker. Is that not about the backbone of every union, 
though ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not necessarily so. Some unions do not have 
any, some unions have limitations on them, maybe 1 to 1,000 people 
or 1 to 500 people, and some run it almost completely from outside 
the plant. 

Senator Welker. Very well, pardon the interruption. 

Mr. Fitzgeraij). Generally speaking, our stewards, each steward 
represents about 50 people within a particular area of a shop. In 
other words, you will be on the floor of a building and in the machine 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 255 

shop end of it there will be 50 people there, and they will elect one 
person from among themselves to act as their union representative. 
These people work on the job. In most instances they are the better 
knoAvn people, the most capable people. 

I am going into this because the accusation has been made on many 
an occasion that the stewards were the spy system that feed the in- 
formation out from inside the plant to the national headquarters of the 
union, and then we send it right over to Russia. 

Now that is a pure figment of someone's imagination. I point out 
to you that these stewards spend at least one-third of their lives with 
their 40 or 50 associates that work with them, and if we go on the 
assumption that 95 percent of the working people of this country 
are loyal to this country and to what this country stands for — and I 
think that is a mistaken figure to use because my guess is it is more like 
Ivory Soap, 99.44 percent pure as far as that is concerned. 

These people know each other intimately. They, as I say, live to- 
gether at least inside the shop one-third of their lives 8 hours a day. It 
is because of that system and tlie way it is selected that we have 
the utmost confidence that there is absolutely no danger to the United 
States in a union with that kind of makeup. 

The allegation has been made, I think, before this committee with- 
in the last week or so by a rej^resentative of the Stewart- Warner Corp. 
that we appoint stewards; that we select Communists and send their 
names in to be stewards inside the shop. Maybe in an isolated instance 
somewhere, to fill a temporary vacancy until such a time as an election 
is held, someone might appoint a steward to fill in for a few days or a 
few weeks until you could make arrangements for the election. 

The chief steward would do that. But eventually every person who 
is a steward in our shops is elected by his associates right on the job 
that he works on. We have gathered together a little information; 
we haven't had an opportunity to look at the record here on the 
testimony of the representative from SteAvart-Warner, but I do want 
to cover a point that was raised here. 

This one was raised about the appointment of stewards. Another 
one was raised about that they got rid of us because it was a Com- 
munist-dominated union. The fact is that in 1949 the National Labor 
Relations Board found that the Stewart- Warner Corp. was engaging 
in a collusive deal witli the IBEW, A. F. of L.. to sign a contract. 

They took that to court, the Board having recommended that this 
contract be thrown out and that they be compelled to deal with us 
The court sustained the company on a technicality, and that was that 
the complaint against them was not filed within 6 months of the oc- 
casion of the signing of the collusive agreement. 

I would like to have the record show that the Stewart- Warner 
people broke with us because we had submitted some wage-and-con- 
tract demands in 1949. They offered — this despite the fact that this 
week they come here and say we aie part of a Communist conspiracy — 
they offered to sign a contract with us for another year if we would 
agree to drop our wage demands at the time. 

Senator Welker. Do you have anything in writing on that, Mr. 
Fitzgerald, or is that just in your conversations? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. These are some notes that I have been able to pick 
up in the limited time that I have, but we are getting them put on 



256 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

paper, and I will be glad to send them to the committee if you wish 
me to do it. 

Senator Welker. Did Stewart- Warner write anything that would 
be evidence of the fact that they were willing to continue ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that these facts that I mention to you are 
contained in the examiner's report for the National Labor Relations 
Board. I think he states them as facts, but we will be glad to get that 
information to you. 

Senator Welker. If you will submit it to the committee we would 
iippreciate it. 

;^Ir. Fitzgerald. The union, of course, has been — there was some 
mention by the chairman this morning of a hearing that he conducted 
in Pittsburgh and where some of the witnesses that appeared before 
him invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment. We look upon the 
fifth amendment when we use it, if we use it, as not in any sense a 
confession of guilt; we interpret the fifth amendment as being a 
shield for the protection of the innocent, and I want to bring up an 
example. 

Senator Welker. As well as the guilty, I take it? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I want to bring up an example of 
why on some occasions people feel it necessary to do that. During 
the course of this Pittsburgh hearing I think you liad a witness there 
by the name of Cvetic. 

Mr. Nixon. Matsie. 

Mr. Arens. Maizie. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We being the kind of union that we are, that 
wants to have as many of our people as possible know what is going 
on, decided to let the stewards in the Erie plant of General Electric 
Co. come down to that hearing to see for themselves at first hand 
what was going on. 

You will probably remember some 25 or 30 people walking into 
the hearing room in a group, and this witness that was identifying all 
kinds of people from our union as members of the Communist Party 
and saying that he had seen them at meetings and other things of 
that kind got up on his feet and pointed to this group of people com- 
ing into the door, and he said "Here comes another group of them 
now, a bunch of Communists from the Civil Kights Congress in New 
York." 

Now, my God, when fellows sit before a committee meeting and 
hear such ridiculous accusations as that made, it is only natural for 
you to become apprehensive, to have a little fear of what is going on. 
It was a group of people from Erie from one of the shops suddenly 
finding themselves accused of that. 

That is why I usually bristle, Mr. Chairman, when the counsel here 
will say that, well, you know that Matles or Emspak or someoue else 
is a Communist, and then using as proof of it, and I don't blame him 
for it, the fact that he was named before some committee by some 
witness. 

I tell you, frankly, I don't place the same degree of confidence in 
the credibility of witnesses appearing before some of these commit- 
tees as the counsel for the committee seems to attach to them. I know 
this, that as a result of that hearing in Pittsburgh one of our local 
union officers, a fellow named Nelson, president of the local union 
that worked in that plant for over 15 years, one of the cleanest cut 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 257 

young fellows I have ever seen in my life and a person who I have 
the utmost confidence in his loyalty to his country ; and his whole rec- 
ord would indicate that he is a fine, upstanding citizen — he, in the 
face of this fear, invoked the fifth amendment of the Constitution. 
This fellow has been signing, as I say, affidavits every year since 1949 
saying that he was not a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. What was the name, do you recall ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Nelson. A couple of months after he appeared 
before your committee — and I am not making any accusations that 
this was the wish of the committee ; I don't think it was — the General 
Electric Co. fired, or suspended him for 90 days, and if at the end of 
90 clays he hasn't cleared himself with someone of these committees, 
why, "then he is going to be discharged from his job. 

This, to me, this coming in particular from a company that sends 
around to its management people a bulletin of this nature, and I 
just want to read one paragraph to you. Management Bulletin No. 
2. It was issued on February 16, 1954. It says, referring to the UE 
and lUE who are in a battle in the electrical organizational field 

Senator Welicer. Trying to get jurisdiction? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. It says : 

Both unions continue to make strong appeals for unity of all GE workers. 
Disunity in the General Electric Corp., said a recent lUE leaflet, helps only 
the company. As workers we don't want to help the company. 

Now listen to this statement from the General Electric Co. : 

Well, as management the company most certainly wants to help the workers 
and believes that unity of GE workers would be a good thing for all, a unity 
that could best be achieved if there were no unions at all standing between the 
employees and their employer. 

I repeat — 

a unity that could best be achieved if there were no unions at all standing be- 
tween the employees and their employer. 

Now, this company has been one of the strongest advocates of the 
type of legislation that is being studied now by this committee. Prac- 
tically every publication they put out they endorse it; they screech 
about tlie security of their plants — all of that; and they recognize 
in this legislation — in our opinion they recognize in these pieces of 
legislation that are pending here the opening wedge toward achiev- 
ing the objective that they set forth in this management bulletin, and 
that is to get rid of all unions that they have to deal with at the present 
time. 

Well, I don't want to belabor the point on that. I think that is a 
sufficient reason for the endorsement of this type of legislation in their 
own statements. 

Mr. Arens. Before he leaves Nelson, do you want to ask him about 
that, Senator? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead. 

Senator Welker. Well, I first want to make this observation, Mr. 
Fitzgerald. Perhaps you and your union and your location are a bit 
different than the people of my State. I believe if someone would 
call me a Communist under oath or otherwise before a congressional 
committee or in a court of law or any place else, I would at first do 
my best to knock him down, and, secondly, I would sue him. 



258 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

I cannot go with you on the proposition that all the time these 
people who claim the amendment, or many times, they are innocent. 
I have practiced law for many years, and I have defended many men 
accused of crime. I have never yet had the opportunity of invoking 
the fifth amendment for an innocent person. 

However, now with respect to the testimony of Mr. Nelson, I am 
looking now at the testimony. It indicates that he was very willing 
to testify that he had never engaged in sabotage and spying, but that 
when he was asked whether or not he was a member of the Communist- 
Party he invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

I think the record speaks for itself that Mr. Xelson was identified 
by two live witnesses. By "live" Ave mean people who came in and 
testified under oath that he was a member of the Communist Party. 
Now certainly there is redress for an accusation such as that. I have 
heard it said that they testify under the cloak of immunity of a con- 
gressional committee, but I have had many, many people testify, 
former members of the Communist Party, before cojnmittees that! 
liave headed, acted on. They are very willing to make that accusation 
out in public, on the radio, write books on it, make speeches on it, and 
I have yet to have knowledge of one being successfully prosecuted or 
sued as a result of those accusations. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, of course. Senator, in the present atmos- 
phere in the country today it is extremely difficult, it is extremely diffi- 
cult for a person to adequately defend himself on those kind of 
charges today. 

Senator Welker. That I do not agree with you, sir. I have 
defended quite a few people with a charge of murder, and I have gone 
into localities where the situation was extremely difficult on behalf of 
my client, and the wheels of justice turn quite favorably, and I say 
this, that I believe the American people would resent, as I woulcl 
resent, very much a man who would commit perjury against a fellow 
man. 

As I told you this morning, if you ever can furnish me information 
that any man who has come before a committee that I am a member 
of and testified falsely, I will assist you in every detail in seeing to it 
that he is prosecuted and sent to prison, because I cannot imagine a 
more heinous offense than that of committing perjury against a fellow 
man and ruining his life and the life and reputation of his family. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. When I made that statement. Senator, I didn't 
expect that you were going to agree with me; I gave it as a matter of 
my opinion. 

Senator Welker. Furthermore, let me make this observation, and 
I do it in all sincerity with great respect to you. I hated to hear you 
take advantage of the fifth amendment today because in my opinion 
the feeling that I gi\asp from traveling about the country, the Ameri- 
can people are getting to feel that those who take the fifth amendment 
are in fact guilty. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, of course 

Senator Welker. If they are not guilty, heaven knows they should 
never take it. 
^ Mr. Fitzgerald. That is an awful wav of whittling away at the 
Constitution. I hated to use the fifth amendment this morning. Sen- 
ator, and I can assure you when I used it I didn't have the slightest 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 259 

feeling of guilt. I used that provision of the Constitution of the 
United States in the sense that an innocent person uses it, and I can 
assure j'ou of that one. 

Now I haven't noticed anywhere yet where the Chief Justice of the 
United States has instituted any suits about the slanders that were 
thrown and the libels that were thrown against him in the last few 
weeks. I have read in the papers about 20 years of treason in this 
country that takes you all back through the New Deal, and if you were 
any part of the New Deal you know the implications there, that you 
are a treasonable personage. 

Mr. Arens. Could you talk about people who actually are Com- 
munists, not people who may be accused of but are now Communists? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead. 

Mr. Arens. What do you think about the Smith Act, which makes 
it a crime to conspire to overthrow the Government by force and 
violence? Do you favor that one? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I^et me tell you on that one, Mr. Counsel, that when 
we were in the CIO the CIO went on record along with many other 
groups of people throughout the country, in fact I think it was even 
vetoed by the President of the United States, went on record in op- 
position to the Smith Act, and I likewise was opposed to it because 
I do not believe in punishing people for their beliefs and ideas. 

Mr. Arens. How about overt acts to conspire to overthrow the Gov- 
ernment of the United States by force and violence? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Overt acts, commissions of crimes of any kind 
against the United States, myself and the union that I represent will 
do every possible thing we can to expose those people committing 
them and do what we can to see that they are brought to justice. 

Mr. Arens. Do you not think that a Communist is dedicated to 
the destruction of the United States by force and violence? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I actually don't know what they are dedicated to. 
I tliink we are in a sad damn state of affairs in this coimtry if we are 
going to let what everyone says is a handful of people as far as the 
total population of America, scare us into passing the kind of legis- 
lation that will put everyone in a straitjacket. I am opposed to that 
kind of stuff. 

Mr. Arens. What if we just put the Communists in a straitjacket, 
would you be opposed to that then ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am afraid, counsel, you wouldnt be satisfied with 
that, putting them in a straitjacket; you would want them hanged. 

Mr. Arens. I would want them shot. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wouldn't agree. 

Mr. Arens. You would be in favor of legislation outlawing these 
conspirators ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am in favor of legislation, and in fact, I think 
you already have it on the books, counsel, legislation outlawing con- 
spiracies. 

Mr. Arens. How about just the Communists? Wliy do you not 
stay with the Communists? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Wliy don't you stay with the Communists? I am 
not getting away from them ; you are getting away from them. 

Mr. Arens. Would you be in favor of legislation outlawing the 
Communist Party in the United States ? 



260 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; I would not be in favor of legislation out- 
lawing any political ide^s. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think the Communist Party is a political party? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know whether it is or not. 

Mr. Arens. You know it is not ; you know it is a conspiracy ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Counsel, are you asking the questions and answer- 
ing them, too ? Wliat are you telling me, what I know, and — ■ — • 

Mr. Arens. Assuming the Communist Party is a conspiracy, would 
you be in favor of outlawing the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If the Communist Party is a conspiracy dedicated 
to the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and 
violence, I believe in punishing them. 

Mr. Arens. Would you be in favor of outlawing the party? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know about outlawing parties. 

Senator Welker. Now, INIr. Fitzgerald, you think on that one. I 
am quite certain that you should think on that one. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me answer you this way : If the Communist 
Party was a party dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of 
the United States by force and violence or if the Democratic Party 
was or the Socialist Party was or the Republican Party was, I might 
be in favor of legislation to outlaw them. 

Senator Welker. You have not answered the question. You said 
you might be. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would be. I am not trying to hedge on that. 
I am against anyone overthrowing the Government of the United 
States by force and violence, and my union is, too. 

Mr. Arens. Now would you be in favor of outlawing any organi- 
zation — let's forget the label now — tliat is dedicated to the overthrow 
of the Government by force and violence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think they are outlawed, aren't they? 

Mr. Arfns. No. The Communist Party is not outlawed. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You think it is not a crime to try to overthrow 
the Government of the United States by force and violence? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, it is, but would you be in favor of outlawing any 
organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Government by force 
and violence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would be. 

Mr. Arens. Now would you be in favor of outlawing or at least 
ejecting from labor organizations any person who is a member, know- 
ing, conscious, active, bona fide member of an organization dedicated 
to the overthrow of the Government by force and violence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In 1941 our union passed a resolution at our con- 
vention setting up some qualifications for membership in this or- 
ganization, and we stated very frankly that any person who commits 
any acts against the union or against the United States of America 
should be expelled from membership in this union. 

Mr. Arens. Well, now, would you tell us whether or not you would 
be in favor of precluding from membership in a labor organization of 
any person who is a member of an organization dedicated to the 
overthrow of the Government by force and violence ? That is a very 
simple question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I would even have to bother with it; 
I think our members would preclude them from becoming members, 

Mr. Arens. Do you know of any people in your organization who 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 261 

are members of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the 
Government by force and violence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no personal knowledge of any, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think, Senator, that question was asked — pardon 
me, I didn't want counsel, rather, not Senator — I think that question 
was asked of me this morning, and I think I answered. 

Senator Welker. No. I do not believe so. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator Eastland asked me that question. 

Mr. Arens. No, he asked you about other people in the organization. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, he said, "I am asking you the question." 

Senator Welker. I did not have that recollection of it. 

Mr. Arens. I did not either. 

Senator Welker. I thought he was going to other people in the 
organization. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, he asked me that question. 

Mr. Arens. You would not mind answering it again? It would 
only take a couple of seconds. Yon would accommodate the com- 
mittee by answering the question as to whether or not 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I should like to refer you back to the answer I gave 
this morning. 

Mr. Arens. But the answer is not to the question. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The answer is to the question in my opinion. 

Senator Welker. In all fairness to you, Mr. Fitzgerald, I am con- 
fused ; one or the other of us is confused, and counsel is confused. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me give you my recollection of the question 
that was asked this morning. Senator Eastland was questioning 
Nixon about Matles and Emspak, asking if they were Communists 
before they signed the affidavits. I attempted to get the hearing back 
on to the purpose that we were supposed to be here for today. I don't 
think that this committee is operating in the capacity today as a task 
force investigating subversive activities or anything of that kind. 

I think what you are doing is functioning, at least that is what was 
stated, on the legislative aspects of the bills that are pending before 
it for study. I tried to get it back on that track again. 

Senator Welker. I remember that part ; yes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Then I got myself involved with Senator Eastland, 
so he switched away from Mr. Nixon, and he said "I am asking you 
the question now, were you ?" 

Senator Welker. I certainly do not recall that, in a direct question 
to you, Mr. Fitzgerald. I am trying to pay attention to it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you I answered it under the assump- 
tion that it was a direct question to me. 

Senator Welker. Then will you go ahead and answer it again ? 

Mr. Arens. To clear the record, are you now or have you ever been 
a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I have been signing affidavits since 1949, and I 
would like to know first 

Senator Welker. I can get another question that will clear that. 
Were those affidavits true or were you lying ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That question will clear it. Those affidavits were 
absolutely true. I was not lying and I will never lie before a commit- 
tee under oath. Now, you said that would clear the question. 



262 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. It clears that part of it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You said it would clear it. 

Mr. Arens. It clears that part of it, 

Mr. Fitzgerald. You said it would clear it. 

Mr. Arens. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say that if you have any evidence to the 
effect that I was, that you ought to prove it, that you ought to put it 
on the table. 

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

Mr. Fitzgerald. Am I now a member of the Communist Party? 
My gfoodness, I think this is badgering, Counsel. I tell you very 
frankly, when it comes to 

Senator Welker. I do not like the form of the questioning, either. 
I think if you will answer the question, are you now or have you ever 
been a member of the Communist Party, we will go on to something 
else. 

You have made it clear. If you desire to use the fifth amendment, 
you have certainly indicated to the committee why you desire to use 
the fifth amendment, and that is a question of fact that the committee 
will weigh. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the fifth amendment is for the protection of 
innocent people. Senator 

Senator Welker. As well as the guilty. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And my name does not happen to be Stevens and 
I am not going to retreat on this. 

Senator Welker. What do you mean by that? I did not ask you 
anythino; about Stevens. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No; but I am just making an emphatic point here, 
because I feel as though I came to testify before this committee on 
legislative aspects pendins: before it. I have been to any number of 
Senate and House committees studying legislation in the past 10 or 11 
years. This is the first committee that I have ever appeared before 
that was studying, getting opinions, mind you, on the legislation that 
they had before them, where you were sworn in when you. gave testi- 
mony. I never hnd that experience before. I didn't object to being 
sworn. I don't object to being sworn when I give testimony. 

Mr. Arens. Then answer the question. Are you now or have you 
ever beon a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, with the feeling that the fifth amendment is 
for the protection of innocent people, I am not going to answer that 
question. I am goinir to invoke that privilege. 

Senator Welker. You invoke the privilege. 

Mr. Arens. Now will you tell us, then, how we are going to get the 
Communists, if any, out of UE ? 

Mr. Fttzger\ld. I think that the UE. based on its record, will rid 
itself if it needs to be rid of anything, of any people who are working 
against the best interests of the United States. 

Mr. Arens. How about the Communists? Let us just assume that 
the Communists are not workino- in the interests of the country. Let's 
just assume that. Maybe we will differ as to whether thev are. How 
are we .Q-oinc: to get the Communists out of the UE ? Just tell us. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The UE is not going to adopt the tactics of the 
General Electric Co., and fire people from its membership on what we 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 263 

consider unsubstantiated evidence that is presented before some of 
these committees and people invoking their pnvileges under the Con- 
stitution. 

Mr. Arens. What evidence will you 

Senator Welker. Just a moment, Counsel. 

You have told us about this upstanding young man by the name of 
Nelson that you considered a loyal xVmerican. You felt that he was 
unjustly accused and therefore had to take the fifth amendment. As 
a result thereof, he was suspended for 90 days and unless he purged 
himself of that — in law we call it contempt — he would be fired. 
What ai'e we going to do ? What is the Congress of the United States 
going to do when they have two people raise their right hand to God 
and testify that the man is a Communist? It is a problem that I 
would like to be enlightened on, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. FnzcERAU). Well, again I would have to say to you this, that 
in the absence of a fellow like Nelson, committing any overt acts of 
any kind whatsoever, against the company, against the Government, 
or against his union, I think that we got to give a fellow like that the 
benefit of the doubt. I don't think that we should deprive him of his 
means of making a living. I don't think he should be fired for it. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think he sliould work in the defense plants? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Or 1 don't believe he should eventually be taken 
out and shot, either. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think he should work in defense plants? 

Senator Welker. Let me finish, Counsel, if you please. 

I think, and of course 1 know not so much about your union, but 
I think you would have been doing your duty if you had demanded 
or will demand that these witnesses who testified under oath, you say 
under the cloak of immunity of these roving congressional committees, 
to make that statement in public, where he doesn't have the immunity, 
and if the gentleman is not a member of the Connnunist Party, those 
who testified against liim certainly should be prosecuted criminally 
and civilly as well. Don't you think that would be the right approach, 
Mr. Fitzgerald ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it is my recollection, I do not remember the 
exact date — it is a couple of years ago — when one of the witnesses 
you had out there appeared on a radio program after he had named 
some people before a committee, and he said then that he could not 
nanie them over the radio because he would be liable, he would be 
subject to a suit for libel, and he didn't name them. 

Senator Welker. Who was that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it was Cvetic. 

Senator Welker. Cvetic? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. That is a recollection I have. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us what kind of evidence you would accept, and 
how we are going to get the Communists out of the UE? That is 
what I want to know. You have told us that our evidence and the 
evidence before these committees isn't sufficient to throw them out, and 
our bill here which would preclude them from being in unions isn't 
any good. You tell us how we are going to get the job done. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want to appear to be flippant, but you have 
asked that question so many times 

Mr. Arens. You haven't answered it yet. 



264 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. And we have kept repeating, you know, an answer 
to it. How are you going to get them out of the Senate of the United 
States? Have you passed any legislation yet saying that the Com- 
munist could not be elected Senator of the United States? 

Mr. Arens. As far as I know, there isn't any legislation of that 
kind. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Is there any under study, even ? 

Mr. Arens. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Then why single out trade-unions for this special 
treatment ? 

Mr. Arens. You tell us how we are going to get them out of the UE. 
Would you tell us that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I deny that it is a problem inside of the UE, and 
I am not certain that it is a problem inside of the United States Senate. 
But if you show us the way, if you show us the way, if you pass legis- 
lation saying that it is a crime to be a member of the Communist Party, 
if you pass legislation saying they cannot run for office in the United 
States, they cannot run for Congress. I can assure you, as a union 
we are law-abiding people. We have never violated the law and 
we do not intend to. 

Mr. Arens. You would help us, then, drive them out if we passed 
this legislation? You would help drive them out? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If it became proven that the Communist Party 
or anyone else was a party devoted to the overthrow of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, if it became illegal to be a Communist in 
this country, if it became illegal for them to hold public office, I as- 
sure you we would abide by the laws. 

Mr. Arens. Have j^ou studied these documents issued by the In- 
ternal Security Subcommittee quoting the statements of the Com- 
munists themselves which established in a reasonable mind that the 
Communist Party is dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of 
the United States by force and violence ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I haven't studied the documents. 

Mr. Arens. Assuming that the Communist Party is dedicated to 
the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, would you 
go along with this in the notion that people who are members of this 
conspiracy should not be in labor organizations, especially in de- 
fense plants ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't think I should. First, let me say this: 
There is the utmost security in defense plants in this country. We 
repeated to you on a couple of occasions this morning, that there is 
a regular screening system. Every one that works on secret work is 
screened and cleared for that work. 

Mr. Arens. Should Communists be screened out, do you think? 
If a man is just a Communist, we know he is a Communist, we have 
his Communist card right here, we will say, in our hand. Should 
we screen him out of a defense plant ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think in the defense plants throughout the 
country there have been many people screened out, including some 
who were alleged to be Communists. We have raised no objections 
to it, and we think that when it comes to something involving the 
vital security of the United States that the United States has a right 
to protect itself. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 265 

Mr. Arens. Let's be specific here. Should we screen out of de- 
fense plants people who are Communists ? If we don't know a thing 
about them except they are Communists, should we let them be in our 
defense plants ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me say this to you, in answer 

Mr. Arens. Cannot you just say yes or no ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If you want to answer the questions that you ask, 
again, go ahead. But will you permit me to answer in my own 
way 'I If you are not satisfied, then come back and hit me again. 

Mr. Arens. All right, we will try it again. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If as many people feel that a member of the Com- 
munist Party would endanger, if he worked on vital defense secrets, 
the security of the United States, I will say that the United States 
should be given the benefit of the doubt and he should be screened off 
that job. 

Mr, Arens. Do you think that the Communists are that kind of a. 
risk? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. AVell, I will tell you very frankly, and I can quote 
from testimony of the vice president of General Electric Co., and I 
think if you had any real understanding of the workings inside of 
a defense plant you would not be so frightened about this problem. 
They work, he said, on many, many component parts, no one of which 
gives away the secret of the final product. And he stated that it 
would be impossible, impossible for any one of them to have knowl- 
edge enough of the complete job to even know what its destination 
was eventually going to be. 

Mr. Arens. Well, he might. Now let's just see if you will go along 
with this on just one phase of the legislation. Would you be agreeable 
to legislation which would preclude from defense plants people who 
are Communists? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I would not be in favor of precluding people from 
making a living who happen to hold unpopular views at any given 
time. 

Mr. Arens. Well, tell us whether or not you would be in favor of 
precluding Communists from defense plants, just Communists. The 
legislation would say, in effect, no Communist shall work in a defense 
plant. Would you be in favor of that or not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, Well, I would say that in our defense plants — at 
present they are excluded from classified work. We have no objec- 
tions to that. 

Mr, Arens, Well, would you exclude 

Mr. Fitzgerald. We do not think anyone should be excluded from 
making an electric light bulb because of his political beliefs ; no. 

Mr. Arens, You say because of his political beliefs. Do you think 
that a Communist is one who just holds "political beliefs" or do you 
think he is part of a conspiracy ? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, I don't know, I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Well, if the Government on the basis 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Some people think 20 years of the new deal waa 
part of a treasonable conspiracy. I am not ready to believe that. 

Mr. Arens. You don't believe that the Communist organization is a 
conspiracy, is that correct? 

Mr, Fitzgerald, I don't 

Senator Welker, I do not think he said that. 



266 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't believe 

Senator Welker. I thought he said he did not know. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. I don't know, 

Mr. Arens. Well, assuming that you do not know, would you want 
to take a chance ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I wish you wouldn't ask me to assume so many 
things, because you might ask me if I assumed that you were a threat 
to the freedoms of the American people, should you be excluded as 
counsel for a committee. I don't want to answer questions that arci 
assumptions, "iffy" questions. 

Mr. Arens. You do not like assumptions, do you ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, sir ; I don't. 

Mr. Arens. Would you favor legislation which would throw out of 
UE, or any other labor organization, known Communists? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am afraid that if we accomplished that, then 
the General Electric Co. and the rest of industry in this company 
would not hire anything but Communists, because they would feel 
they wouldn't have any union representation. With my experience in 
my own organization, I see no threat inside of the organization to the 
security of the United States. 

Mr. Arens. Well, you do not even know whether the Communist 
Party is a conspiracy, so you could not see a threat on something that, 
you didn't know about. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, I don't know it, sir, and I am not going to 
take your word for it, either. 

Mr. Arens. I wonder if he could tell us 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think it is a sad reflection upon the people of the 
United States if we cannot battle out in the arena of ideas the issue 
of people holding unpopular beliefs. 

Senator Welker. Well, there are a lot of fine, precious American 
boys rotting in their graves today 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know. Mr. Nixon's brother was one of them. 

Senator Welker. Yes? And wlio fouglit communism. I cannot 
believe that Communists should be permitted to live and prosper when 
so many boys were injured and died in combating that influence. But 
I want to ask this question. Counsel, before we proceed further; I 
think these gentlemen can help me. 

You have related here, time and time again, the names of certain 
witnesses, apparently officers of Mr. Fitzgerald's union. What are 
their names? 

Mr. Arens. Do you mean those people that have been identified? 

Senator Welker. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. These people have been identified before our subcom- 
mittee who are now in UE as Communists by live witnesses. James 
Matles, who is director of organization ; Julius Emspak, wlio is secre- 
tary-treasurer. In our hearings in Cleveland a year or so ago, these 
people were identified by live witnesses as Communists : Jerome Jo- 
seph, Victor Adrian Pasche, Herbert S. Siens, Fred Gardner, Mrs. 
Marie Reed Haug, Fred Haug, Herbert Irving Hirschlierg, Paul J. 
Shepard, James Edward Marino. 

In our hearings which we had in Pittsburgh 

Senator Welker. For the purpose of my question, you had Emspak 
and who else? 

Mr. Arens. Matles. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 267 

Senator Welker. I would like to know this very simple fact. Mr. 
Nixon testified that these gentlemen had signed the non-Comnmnist 
oath not once but different times, an oath in which, if they violated 
that oath, they committed the crime of perjury. If they are Commu- 
nists I want to know why they haven't been prosecuted. 

Mr. Arens. The reason for it is very simple, and that is that in the 
non-Communist affidavit, what they do is the day before they sign 
it, they resign from the party. Then they sign it. The best illustra- 
tion of that is Morris Travis, who was with the mine, mill, and smel- 
ters' union. We have in our office right now a public statement he 
made saying in effect that he is a Communist, that he was a Commu- 
nist, that he continues to believe in the Communist principles and 
doctrines, and he is going to fight for them, he is going to go right on 
with it. He is formally resigning his membership in the Communist 
Party so that he can sign the affidavit, and he does it. That is what 
these fellows are doing. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There is no comparison to what you just stated as 
the comparison of Travis and the situation of Matles and Emspak. 
Matles and Emspak have never admitted membership in the Commu- 
nist Party. They never took any formal action of resigning from 
the Connnunist Party. They have signed these affidavits. We do not 
agi*ee with you, incidentally, that you can resign today and sign the 
affidavit tomorrow, and then become a member again the next day. 

Mr. Arens. I don't either. I think that is the wrong interpreta- 
tion, but that is what the Board has held. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am not going to take a chance on 5 years of my 
life on that kind of an interpretation of the law and feel secure. 

Senator Welker. Will you let me interrupt. It is a very interest- 
ing question. I would think that would be a question of fact for a 
jury to decide, and I cannot imagine a jury acquitting any one on such 
a crackpot idea as that. I believe the jury would look through that 
and convict. That is something I want counsel to pay attention to. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, both of them have 
appeared before grand juries that were investigating their affidavits. 
The grand jury saw fit not to prosecute. Mr. Nixon 

Senator Welker. Did they have the witnesses who testified against 
them that counsel said we had ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know what witnesses they had before the 
grand jury, other than I know that Matles and Emspak were before 
a grand jury. Mr. Emspak this morning read from a photostatic 
copy of the hearings in the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, 
and pointed out where the Assistant Attorney General of the United 
States said that they had processed the affidavits at least four times, 
and that the FBI reports contained a statement that was unusual in 
FBI reports, that there was no evidence of Communist Party mem- 
bership. 

Mr. Arens, By Matles and Emspak ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, sir. If you were paying attention this morn- 
ing you would have heard. In fact, if you wish to, we have a photo- 
static copy we can introduce for the record. 

Senator Welker. I can recall some testimony or statement made by 
even higher officials that a certain gentleman who had committed 
perjury, that was merely a red herring. So I am paying no atten- 
tion to that. But I want to say this to you, Mr. Fitzgerald, that I 



268 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

tliink that you haven't kept faith with your 300,000 members, when 
you permitted a willful lie, as you testified was a lie this morning, to 
be perpetrated upon your members by saying they were kicked out 
of a union because vou were Communist dominated. It would seem 
to me that if you properly represented those 300,000 people, you 
would have spent every dollar in your treasury to purge that name 
or that accusation against you, and I believe your union would have 
gone far ahead by virtue of that. That was the first time I had ever 
heard that. As I told you, I walked over and spoke to you about it, 
it was surprising and shocking to me, because actually the Senator 
from Idaho reads the newspapers but he had never read a denial of 
that fact. I am sorry to admit my ignorance on that, but many, many 
people believe, as I believe, that you were definitely purged from an- 
otlier major union because you were Communist dominated. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Senator, let me say this to you, that we 
have never had the feeling that the newspapers were interested in be- 
coming advocates of ours. 

Senator Welker. Well, they must have been advocates of the other 
side, then; is that correct'^ 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is true. 

Senator Welker. Why would that be ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I would say because the leading companies in our 
industry were trying to destroy our union. In fact, the General Elec- 
tric Co. made it possible for the CIO to have elections inside of our 
UE when the contract still had another year to go. They said that 
they bailed Carey out, that they took him off the hook, that he did 
not have a single membership card, but that they petitioned for the 
election. And they got more influence with the newspapers than we 
have. I can assure you of that. 

As for your other statements. Senator, and it was a pretty strong 
one, about me letting my membership down, I betrayed them 

Senator Welker. I do not mean you betrayed them. If I made 
that statement 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me say to you 

Senator Welker. Let me say I think you should have gone after 
that other union. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I am going to say as the head of my union I am 
going to use the money of that union and the energy of its people 
toward securing better wages and better working conditions for 
them. I am not going to use it to continue to stir up a sj^lit in the 
labor movement in this country. I think that we should be making 
every effort to get together rather than to be driven further apart, 
you see. And I end up on the basis that I am awfully glad that you 
haven't got a vote in our organization. My members apparently are 
satisfied with the way I have represented them. They have elected 
me every year in a convention since 194:1. And I am content to think 
that they think that I am doing the right thing. 

Senator Welker. I want to answer that, sir. I think you are argu- 
ing against your case, because "this morning, as I understood it, you 
testified with respect to certain unions attempting to raid your con- 
tracts, and by virtue of such publicity, that they willfully, apparently, 
got out, which was false, would that not be a great help, a great assist- 
ance to them, in raiding you, in keeping you from organizing other 
shops ? 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 269 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is true. But let me say this to you, Senator. 
We think that the people, the membership of the CIO, are good, 
honest trade unionists. We think that the assets of that organization 
belong to them. We are not interested in trying to embroil them in 
legal actions. Our quarrel is with the leadership of the CIO, with a 
few of them in particular. We think that we are perfectly able to 
protect ourselves and eventually vindicate ourselves from these 
charges against us in the open arena where we operate among our- 
selves without resorting to the courts. 

Senator Welker. In other words, you feel that it was just a few 
executives of the union you named that made these false charges 
against you? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not only do I feel it, but I know it, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The record is clear, is it not, that the record of the CIO 
convention reflects that — 

the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America has fallen into 
the control of a group devoted primarily to the principles of the Communist 
Party, and opposed to the constitution and democratic objectives of the CIO, 
and in particular to the following declaration in the preamble of the constitu- 
tion of the CIO. 

In the achievement of this task we turn to the people because we have faith 
in them ; and we oppose all those who would violate tliis American emphasis of 
respect for human dignity, all those who would use power to exploit the people in 
the interest of alien loyalties. 

It is true, is it not, that the CIO did find and did pass a resolution ex- 
pelling UE in accordance with the terms which I have just read? 

jMr. Fitzgerald. I would have to refresh my mind on that. 

Senator Welker. What are you reading from, counsel ? 

Mr. Arens. From a committee print of the Committee on Labor 
and Public Welfare, wdiich sets forth on page 50 thereof exhibit E 
which purports to be excerpts from proceedings of the 1949 conven- 
tion of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What date was that ? 

Mr. Arens. 1949. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It doesn't give the month of the convention? 

Mr. Arens. If it does, I don't readily see it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It was after we had withdrawn from the CIO. 

Senator Welker. You testified that you resigned — how many 
months was it, again? 

Mr, Fitzgerald. It was several months. 

Senator Welker. Eight months? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, not that long. 

Senator Welker. Four months ? 

]\Ir. Fitzgerald. Approximately. I testified this morning that we 
were in the CIO, that we had no conflict there. In fact, in 1947 I 
think President Murray came to our convention. He extolled the 
virtues of our organization, said it was a fine union, said that the 
officers of the union had given him the utmost cooperation and had 
supported CIO policies 100 percent. By 1948 we did not think Tru- 
man was the best man for the people of the United States. And the 
CIO happened to think that he was. And they said "You have to go 
along with us." 

Mr. Arens. Why would UE be concerned as a labor organization 
in political controversies any waj'^ ? 

43903^ — 54 18 



270 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If we weren't concerned, I can assure you these 
bills that are here before you would have much easier sledding. Of 
course the legislation, it means the life of our organizations. We have 
to be concerned with it. 

Mr. Arens. You spoke about the money you did not want to spend 
of the workers for other causes. Do you spend any money of the 
workers in contributions to Communist fronts ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we do not, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you spend any money of the workers in salaries for 
Communists ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No, we do not, sir. We only pay people for the 
work they do for our organization. 

Mr. Arens. Well, are there any Communists on the payroll of UE ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no knowledge of any on the payroll. 

Mr. Arens. There is no 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No personal knowledge. I don't know. There 
might be. I have no knowledge of it. No one has come to me and 
said that there are Communists. 

]\Ir. Arens. Well, do you know whether or not the editor of the 
Union News, Willard Bliss, the Union News published by local 508 
UE is a Communist ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no personal knowledge of it. He is not on 
our payroll. 

Mr. Arens. He is on the payroll of UE, is he not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. On the payroll of a local union in Erie, I believe, 
but not our payroll. 

Mr. Arens. If two witnesses before a congressional committee 
swear before God that they know he is a Communist because they 
served with him in the Communist Party, and if he then takes the 
stand and throws the fifth amendment at us, would that satisfy you 
that the man is a Communist ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No. I don't agree that because a person uses the 
fifth amendment when he is asked if he is a Communist, that tha*" 
makes him a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. How about two witnesses testifying that he is, under 
oath ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't attach the same credibility to those wit- 
nesses that you do. 

Mr. Arens. How many witnesses would it take before it would 
satisfy your mind that the man is a Communist ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know. I would rather take it if it was in 
open court where a person would have a right to cross-examine, where 
he would have a right to make them produce evidence. 

Mr. Arens. But you say you wouldn't want to outlaw the party, 
not to make it illegal to be a Communist. How would we get him 
into the court? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. If he committed any acts against the countr3^ 
You have had a lot of Communists in the courts lately. 

Mr. Arens. How about other acts besides espionage and sabotage? 
How about Communist propaganda ? Do you think that is in the in- 
terests of the country ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the American people are intelligent enough 
to, when they read things, when they listen, to come up with right 
decisions. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 271 

Mr. Arens. Do you think they are intelligent enough to know 
whether or not Willard Blias is a Comnmnist, who is the editor of the 
Union News? 

Mr. FiTZGEitALD. I think they would be. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think that there is such a thing as political sab- 
otage or political subversion? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't understand what you mean by that. 

Mr. Arens. Where the Communists would call upon all their mem- 
bers and all of the Conmninist fronts to protest a course of action or 
to advocate a course of action for the reason that it would serve the 
interests of the Soviet Union. Do you think there is such a thing as 
that? 

Mr, Fitzgerald. I haven't seen any evidence of it in this country. 
I am not too familiar with the workings of the Communist Party. I 
can assure you of that. 

Mr. Arens. If Alexander Stabor is a Communist, would you take 
steps to fire him from the union ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. What is his name? 

Mr. Arens. Alexander Stabor, a steward in local 506, UE. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have to confess to you that I don't even know 
the gentleman. 

Senator Welker. Counsel, you are asking some pretty — those are 
conclusions. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know Thomas Flanagan, one of the interna- 
tional representatives of the UE? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes ; he works for our organization. 

Mr. Arens. You know he was identified by three witnesses as a 
member of the Communist Party, under oath. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Were these the same witnesses ? 

Mr. Arens. Before the Internal Security Subcommittee. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Are they the same witnesses? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Senator Welker. Tell him the names of the witnesses. 

Mr. Arens. We would have to look them up. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I still^ 

Mr. Arens. You wouldn't believe those witnesses ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would not. I would have a feeling, 
you know, that they were part — none of them came about until after 
we had our difficulties with the CIO, and I just cannot but feel, you 
know, that this is a part of the smear job against this union, you see. 

Senator Welker. By CIO ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, I don't know. 

Senator Welker. You certainly do not accuse me of being a cocon- 
spirator of that. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I certainly would not. 

Senator Welker. I lost a little hide by a gentleman by the name of 
Carey a few weeks ago. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Let me tell you, for instance. A fellow named 
Harry Allen Sherman, I think, has been one of your witnesses. 

Senator Welker. Is that right? 
Mr. Arens. A Henry Sherman. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He was a lawyer in the Pittsburgh area. We had 
a local union, and it is pretty hard to keep tabs when you have so many 
local unions. It was a jukebox setup, not workers who build the 



272 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

jukeboxes, but the distributors that brought them around and put 
them into the various establishments throughout that area. Harry 
Allen Sherman, who had never worked inside of a shop at all, to our 
knowledge, happened to be the business agent of that local union. 
We didn't want that kind of a local union in our setup. We thought 
it was a racketeering setup. We expelled that local union from our 
union, kicked them out, and kicked Harry Allen Sherman out, too. 
Now you come back afterward 

Mr. Arens. He was head of the Anti-Communist League in Pitts- 
burgh ; wasn't he ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. He has been the head of so damn many things that 
I have had a hard time — all I know is that we kicked him out because 
we didn't want that kind of a local, and he appears later testifying 
against us. 

Mr, Arexs. He was head of the Anti-Communist League ; wasn't he ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Not at that time. 

Senator Welker. Did he become head of it after he was kicked out? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. It must have been after we kicked him out. 

Mr. Arens. Would you stand for any militant anti-Communists in 
your organization ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I can assure you, we have a hell of a lot of them, 
and we don't kick them out. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the writings of Lenin where he 
says: 

It is necessary to resort to all sorts of devices, maueuvers, and illegal methods, 
to evasion and snbterfnge, in order to penetrate into the trade unions, to remain 
in them and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs? 

Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I appeared last year or the year before last, I think, 
before the Kersten committee, and he started reading all kinds of pas- 
sages from Lenin, Marx, and everyone else, and I linally said don't 
read that stuff to me, there is a danger that you might indoctrinate me. 
I am not going to get into that business w^iere you read some of this 
stuff from a book that I haven't even seen and then you ask me for 
an answer. And I have no inclination to study it, and I don't see how 
I can give you an intelligent answer on those questions. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, I dealt quite at length today with 
respect to your testimony about the false accusations against you, and 
I think I told you, not on the record, the reason why I did that. There 
are many people in my State who work in the mines. It is very danger- 
ous work. I know many of them personally. The union that they 
belong to has also been charged. I have not heard any evidence, I have 
not gone into that. They were expelled from the CIO because they 
were Communist-dominated. I hope you appreciate the fact why I 
interrogated you on that matter. Whether these men are friends or 
enemies of mine, I think I owe a duty to those people who belong to 
that union to find out whether or not they were falsely accused, as you 
say your union was falsely accused. Do you agree with me on that, 
sir? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I think you ought to make every effort to ascertain 
the truth about these accusations. I think that the unfortunate thing- 
is that in the past few years too many people in Congress have just 
assumed that all of these stories were right, and much of it comes about 
from an internal squabble inside of the labor movement. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 273 

Now, I don't, for one minute, say you know, that there are no (Com- 
munists in any organization in the country or anything hke that. I 
don't make that assertion. But I do say that our enemies, and I put 
among those people inside of the CIO, particularly some of the leaders, 
and some of the major industries of this country, enemies of ours be- 
cause of the job that we have tried to do to maintain a democratic 
organization and fight in the interests of our people, have spread many 

malicious lies about us. r„ -, -, 

We are proud of the fact that while we have suffered some losses, 
and some severe losses on it, we still have one of the most powerful 
organizations in this country. 

Mr. Arens. Three hundred thousand members ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Approximately 300,000. 

Mr. Arens. What is your annual income from the membership ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know that offhand. I can send you that in- 
formation. It is filed. 

Mr. Arens. Eoughly what is it ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, we get a dollar per month per capita from 
the local unions. 

Mr. Arens. That is $300,000 a month that the national orgamzation 

takes in? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, approximately that, yes. It varies. There 
may be layoffs at a given time and it would go down. Business would 
pick up and it would go up. 

Mr. Arens. How much does the local, as a rule, the average local 
take in ? The national gets a dollar. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The union dues run anywhere from a dollar and a 
half to $3 a month. In our union the dues are paid to the local union, 
and then the local union pays us a portion of it, for which we give them 
services in return in helping them to negotiate and also in carrying on 
the organizational work of the union, getting new members into the 
organization. 

Senator Welker. Mr. Fitzgerald, before we conclude, I want to 
make this statement to you : I have heard it said by you and Mr. Nixon 
about these roving investigation committees and I am mindful of 
the fact that from your testimony you do not have much credence, 
faith, in them. But I want you to know this, the job that we have 
is not too pleasant, either. You have seen me work here for several 
hours. I have my own office work to do, and I ought to be on the floor 
of the Senate. But I want you further to know that never will I be 
a party to the false accusation of any human being, whether he be a 
Communist, a murderer, or anything else, and I further want you to 
know that I have been responsible, personally, for turning out of this 
door not one l)ut many, many, many persons that I knew to be members 
of the Communist Party. 

I have sent them home to relive a life and to save embarrassment to 
themselves and to their families. I am not seeking any publicity on 
this, because I should never state it to you. But you have related the 
many times that you have appeared before congressional commit- 
tees, and I sense in it a bit of hatred on your part. But there are hu- 
man beings in the Senate. As I told you this morning, if you will 
ever give me evidence of the fact that any man who has ever appeared 
before a committee that I am a member of, and has committed per- 



274 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

jury, I will join hands with you and go down to the district attorney 
and see that he gets exactly what he deserves, and that is punishment 
in the penitentiary. 

That, I believe, sir. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, I appreciate the heavy duties of a Sen- 
ator. In fact, one of the reasons why I fight so hard to keep legislation 
from being passed to outlaw unions is that if that should happen, I 
would probably be unemployed, and the only avenue that would b& 
open for me, then, w^ould be in the field of politics. 

Senator AVelker. Do not ever take it. I would rather be unem- 
ployed. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Knowing as I do the hard work of a Senator, and 
I know my own Congressman from Massachusetts works pretty hard — 
in fact we saw him at dinner last night, and he didn't get dinner un- 
til after 9 o'clock, I would hate like hell to be a candidate for one of 
those jobs. 

Mr. Arens. Could I ask a question on one little tie-up here. I un- 
derstand you to be a strong advocate of labor unity. I wonder if you 
could tell^TS about a meeting that you attended, or did you attend a 
meeting down in the New Yorker Hotel in New York City in October 
1951, with Bridges, Selly, and Flaxer, and some of the boys on labor 
unity ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I attended a meeting in the Hotel New Yorker 
with Selly and Bridges. 

Senator Welker. Do you mean Harry Bridges? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Harry Bridges. 

Mr. Arens. Selly of AC A? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And Bridges of the Longshoremens ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. At the particular time, the wage freeze law was 
still in existence. The only thing that was discussed at that meeting 
while I was there was the joint campaign of ourselves and anyone 
else that we could enlist in the campaign to bring an end to the wage 
freeze in this country. 

Mr. Arens. Who all was there ? Harry Bridges of the Longshore- 
men's Union was there ; was he ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. As I recollect it, yes. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat is Selly's first name, Joseph? Joseph Selly of 
the American Communications Association was there, was he not? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And was Abraham Flaxer there, of the United Public 
Workers ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald, As far as I can recollect, he was. I wouldn't be 
too sure. It was a long time ago. 

]Vfr. tVrens. Was Osman there of DPOWA? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Osman ? Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Was Emspak there? 

Senator Welker. Why do you not give him all the names at once? 

Mr. Arens. Was Emspak there? 

Senator Welker. Counsel, what does this meeting have to do with 
the bill before us ? 

Mr. Arens. Well, it is just pertinent to the subject brought up by 
the witness of labor unity. I just wanted the record to reflect that 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 275 

there was at least some semblance of labor unity by certain of the 
representatives of certain groups of organized labor at this meeting. 
Mr. Nixon. You wish to draw an invidious implication ? 
Mr, Akens. I think it pretty well points up its own conclusions. 
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am sure, and in fact we issued a release at the 
end of that meeting — we stated the purpose of the meeting. It was 
to bring about an end to the wage freeze. I recollect some Member 
of Congress, I don't know who it was, that went around the country 
with some kind of a tape recording and played it in a few cities 
throughout the country as evidence that there was something con- 
spiratorial about this meeting. As I recollect it, the recording 
sounded like a Donald Duck business. It was unintelligible. 
Mr. Arens. Did you hear the recording ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. No; but some people that did hear it told me 
about it, and they told me it was unintelligible. I can assure you that 
while I was at tliat meeting, and the meeting broke up, to the best of 
my knowledge as I was leaving, because everyone left the room, we 
met the newspaper reporters outside the door, we handed them a state- 
ment. The only thing we discussed was some way to break the wage 
freeze that was shackling the American working people. 
Mr. Arens. We have no further questions. 

Senator Welker. Do you gentlemen have anything else you desire 
to say ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. Nothing, other than to conclude by saying again to 
you that we hope that the committee gives very serious consideration 
to these proposals. We think that they are very dangerous to the 
trade-union movement of the country. We are confident that you will 
give it the consideration it deserves. And we Avant to thank you for 
giving us tlie opportunity to appear before you. I think we have had a 
fair hearing. 

Senator Welker. While I am not the chairman of the hearing, I 
am just a member of the committee, on behalf of the chairman and 
myself, I want to thank you and Mr. Nixon for appearing, and I hope 
that you have had a chance to testify as to everything that you want. 
We appreciate your coming here. There is no one that knows every- 
thing. If it were not for witnesses to tell us their opinions, we would 
be in hard straits. 

Thank you very much for appearing. 
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Senator. 
Mr. Arens. Mr. Don Mahon will be the next witness. 
Senator Welker. We will suspend for just a moment. 
(Brief recess.) 

Senator Welker. The committee will come to order. 
Mr. Mahon, will you stand, please, and be sworn ? 
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before the com- 
mittee wnll be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 
Mr. Mahon. I do. 



276 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

TESTIMONY OF DON MAHON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL 
INDEPENDENT UNION COUNCIL, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 
BROTHERHOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS 

Senator Welker. Would you state your name ? 

Mr. Ma HON. Don Mahon. 

Senator Welker. Your residence? 

Mr. Mahon. Des Moines, Iowa. 

Senator Welker. Your occupation ? 

Mr. Mahon. By trade I am a packinghouse refrigeration engineer, 
when not representing the union. 

Senator AVelker. What union is that? 

Mr. Mahon. I am president of the National Brotherhood of Pack- 
inghouse Workers, and executive secretary of the National Independ- 
ent Union Council. 

Senator Welker. How many members have you ? 

Mr. Mahon. We have between 8,000 and 10,000 members, and in 
the council we are not exactly definite as to the exact membership. It 
is more of a cooperative, but 300 unions who have indicated they 
represent over half a million people have adopted our program, that 
is, helped to sponsor our program. It is not as tightly knit an organ- 
ization. Senator, as the major federations; it is a little more like a co- 
operative, the council is. 

Senator Welker. You may proceed. 

Mr. Arens. How many independent unions are there in the United 
States ? 

Mr. Mahon. To our knowledge, in the United States there is be- 
tween 2,000 and 2,500. We have many times attempted to obtain this 
information, but it is not available from the Department of Labor, 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. They seem to know quite a bit about the 
cost of living, and everything else, but we have never been able to 
obtain that. We have tried to get them to fix us up a directory of 
unions as they do for the major federations, but we have not been suc- 
cessful yet. 

Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Mahon 
proceed at his own pace to speak extemporaneously, and that his own 
statement be incorporated into the record. 

Mr. Mahon. The National Independent Union Council was organ- 
ized to obtain a more adequate voice and proper recognition of the 
more than 2,000 independent unions in this country. The individual 
independent union was handicapped in obtaining recognition and 
equal treatment from the various governmental agencies. Alone we 
were at a considerable disadvantage to withstand the organizational 
challenges and political activity from the affiliated organizations of 
both labor and management. Therefore, we now cooperate with each 
other more closely in order to accomplish our objectives. 

Respecting the bills this subcommittee is considering we wish to state 
that our organization recognizes the dangerous threat of communism 
in this country. Our organization is wholeheartedly in support of the 
principle of eliminating Communist Party members, sympathizers, 
fellow travelers, and all others who front for them in this country. 
Eegardless of whether they are in the labor movement or any other 
phase of our social and economic life they must be eliminated. The 
problem of Communist infiltration of local independent unions has not 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 277 

been the cause of any alarm. The fact that the workers in the local 
shop or plant are usually well acquainted with their other fellow work- 
ers is probably the best insurance against Communist infiltration be- 
cause the average American worker is unalterably opposed to their 
ideology and tactics. However, the Communist controlled or influ- 
enced unions are always attempting to wipe out local independent 
unions because of the very facts mentioned above. They have found 
that it is not possible to penetrate local independent unions with the 
ease with which they have succeeded in penetrating some of the larger 
unions. The reason is that in a larger union the Communist members, 
or those who follow the Communist line, can easily shift into a new 
locality where they are unknown. They are usually accepted there 
locally because the national union endorsed them. Even if a local 
member should question their background and motives he would be 
held up to scorn and ridicule and probably penalized by the very same 
union officials who have endorsed the party advocate. Reluctance of 
most union members to question any official representative is under- 
standable since loyalty is naturally a basic principle with all union 
people. To help guard against Communist infiltration our proposal 
is that all representatives and officers of unions be required to sign 
non-Communist affidavits. That same be made public and given wide 
distribution. 

This would provide all members an opportunity to check on repre- 
sentatives, that are strangers to him, without fear of his union loyalty 
being questioned by anyone. 

We believe more publicity concerning Communists and their activi- 
ties is needed. When union representatives do pass on any informa- 
tion to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they never receive word 
back as to whether there was anything done about it or whether the 
evidence was of value. 

We believe that the name of every union officer who signs a non- 
Communist affidavit should be made available for public inspection. 
At present it is almost impossible for the representatives of independ- 
ent unions to ascertain if an outside organizer, sent in to raid their 
union, has signed a non-Communist affidavit. We believe this loop- 
hole should be closed if it is desired to effectively combat these sub- 
versives who have wormed their way into some unions. Certainly no 
honest union officer, or representative, could object to having it known 
that he has signed a non-Communist affidavit. 

The suggestions we make, and the past experiences we are citing, 
are for the purpose of calling to tlie attention of this committee the 
failure of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 
to accomplish what appears to be some of the objectives of the bills 
you are now considering. 

Our union, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, 
has been in a constant battle for a number of years with an organiza- 
tion that has been cited by the Un-American Activities Committee 
and alleged to be highly infested with Communists and sympathizers. 
We refer to the United Packinghouse Workers, CIO. It always has 
and is still using the services of the National Labor Relations Board. 

In our opinion they have evaded the intent of the law, or it has 
been improperly defined by the National Labor Relations Board. In 
fact, officers who were known Communists either withdrew from their 
official capacity or signed non-Communist affidavits, thus alleging that 



278 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

they were no longer Communists, in order to permit their union to be 
in compliance from a technical standpoint. 

We have called to the attention of the National Labor Relations 
Board the fact that these people were still active in union policy- 
making positions and that, therefore, the services of the Board should 
be denied to them. In fact, we have pointed this out to the National 
Labor Relations Board in case No. 18-RC-1570. We introduced 
evidence showing where a well-known Communist was still quite 
active in union policymaking affairs. 

This man wrote that he is not just a fair-weather Communist, 
but is there to stay. This statement, incidentally, was printed in the 
union's regular publication. This man was a regional director and 
an executive officer and a leader of the 1948 strike. 

At the time it became necessary for his union to get in compliance 
with the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, he 
dropped out as regional director, rather than sign a non- Communist 
affidavit. His right-hand assistant was placed in the position. In 
fact, they apparently traded positions. His activities continued and 
he was, as late as the last convention of the above-mentioned union, 
very active in convention activities. By sworn testimony of another 
member of their National Executive Committee, we confirmed the 
above in an NLRB hearing (case No. 18-RC-1570). We also cited 
the constitution of this organization, which gives full authority over 
the policy of the organization to its convention. 

Nevertheless, in spite of the above testimony and the union's con- 
stitution, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the organiza- 
tion was in compliance and refused to give consideration to the 
evidence. We even went so far as to appeal this decision to former 
NLRB Chairman Herzog. He told us personally that while we had 
come close we had not come close enough. Therefore, nothing was 
done and the union still continues to use the services of the Board. 
We have exhibits and statements which we believe clearly indicate 
the leanings of the above-mentioned union. 

In following their publications it is always interesting to note that 
while they are always higlily critical of most of the actions taken by 
our Senators and Congressmen, and other duly elected representatives 
of the American people, they seldom, if ever, make any uncomplimen- 
tary remarks about the Soviet regime. In fact, if statements in the 
publication are studied very closely there appears to be a vei-y definite 
parallel between the things they advocate and most of the things 
advocated by the Daily Worker. 

A good example in point is the negative position they took with 
respect to the Korean war, where American lives and resources were 
heavily engaged. Statements made by that organization, and which 
appeared publicly, are the best evidence. 

Because our organization has opposed these un-American activities, 
many attempts have been made to raise questions concerning the in- 
tegrity of our union and its officers in the minds of workers that we 
are trying to organize. The same tactics are used against us that 
are used against those Senators and Congressmen who sponsor and 
advocate bills such as those under discussion and investigation by this 
committee at the persent time. 

We have with us a good example of the type of propaganda these 
people are distributing for purposes of discrediting proposed amend- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 279 

iuents to eliminate Communists from the labor movement and from 
this country, 

I have here an exhibit which, if desired by this committee, we can 
have duplicated for your convenience. It is a method used to attack 
the Butler bill. In case Senator Butler has not seen it, I am certain 
he would be interested in this pamphlet. 

The success of any legislation, with respect to the elimination of 
Communists, depends entirely upon the spirit and authority of the 
agency set up to carry out its enforcement. 

Obviously, wide publicity of all the facts is the best way to expose 
the Communists, and their advocates or fellow travelers, who are 
trying to infiltrate the labor movement. 

We have found the National Labor Relations Board to be very 
reluctant to assist in any manner when we try to get available infor- 
mation concerning Communist-dominated unions. I would like to 
cite for your information, copies of correspondence through which 
we attempted to obtain the names of the officials and representatives 
of unions who had filed non-Communist affidavits. After consider- 
able time and effort was applied we did finally get the Associate Gen- 
eral Counsel of the Board in Washington to agree to give us this 
information under certain very specific circumstances. 

For the information of this committee we have attached hereto 
a copy of the letter outlining the requirements and procedure that 
must he followed. You will note that one of the big reasons given 
was that it would be an almost impossible task to keep a list up to 
date. However, it is common knowledge that this list must be and 
is kept up to date in order to maintain compliance. 

Therefore, why would it be difficult to make this information public 
is not apparent. We realize that the budget for the National Labor 
Relations Board has been cut drastically. We believe the Board needs 
more funds in order for them to carry out their job properly. How- 
ever, we must question whether or not the excuses given for not making 
public the names of those who have signed non-Communist affidavits 
is valid. 

After we did get some sort of agreement to obtain information by 
requesting same from the National Board we find that there is con- 
siderable resistance at the regional level when we do try to get this 
same type of information for local officers. 

Thus far, we have been unable to obtain any such information from, 
the National Labor Relations Board's regional office at Atlanta, Ga. 
Such tactics by the regional office discourages organizational activity 
against the Communist-dominated unions. 

In one particular case, the members of the local union had voted to 
disaffiliate from the parent organization due to its Communist-inspired 
policies and activities. The locals that pulled out set up a defense 
fujid and applied for affiliation with other labor organizations. Some 
decided to join with our union. We immediately started necessary 
action with the regional board. A resume of the facts in the case 
therein involved would give this committee and its counsel a clear 
understanding of why it is most difficult for unions to get out from 
under the domination of a union that they considered to be Commu- 
nist-controlled. Most of the roadblocks were set up against them by 
the procedures of the regional National Labor Relations Board or its 



280 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

regional representatives. Whether intentional or not the result was 
the same in this case. 

The contradictory attitude we encountered is well demonstrated by 
the fact that when our union first filed its petition the regional office 
refused to accept because they said we had no local in compliance. 
Regional board representatives took the position that this union we 
were organizing was a continuation of the previous union and there- 
fore it must be in compliance. In order to overcome this objection 
our members immediately held an election of local officers and the local 
was soon in compliance. We then filed our petition again. Following 
the filing of this petition, the regional director dismissed it on the 
grounds that the new local was not a continuation of the previous 
local. 

Therefore, we were not entitled to services of the Board. 

This was an exact reversal of the position taken previously. We 
cite this case because it clearly indicates the principle stated above. 
We trust that this subcommittee, after due consideration, will draft 
a bill that is enforceable and also create an agency capable of enforcing 
its provisions. 

Our organization will be pleased to cooperate with this committee 
and its counsel in any manner possible to work out a system whereby 
the rights and interests of organized labor and the individual union 
member can be protected, but at the same time set up safeguards to 
eliminate those who are a threat to our form of government. These 
safeguards should not be restricted to labor organizations alone. 

(The letters referred to follow :) 

National Independent Union Council. 

Washington, D. C, December 22, 195S. 
Mr. George J. Bott, 

General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Bott : Our orffanization is interested in obtaining tlie names and 
otlier identifying information contained on tlie nou-Communist affidavits on file 
with your Board and its various regional offices. 

Please advise us if it would be possible for us to obtain this information. 

We have made a similar request at the 10th regional office in Atlanta, Ga., 
but were denied. We understand that it has been the Board policy not to reveal 
thi.s information. However, we feel that it is not in the best interest of all con- 
cerned to keep this information secret. We are willing, of course, that any 
and all interested parties should be advised of those of our officers who have 
signed these affidavits. 

We believe that full publicity is the best method of making this part of the 
act most effective. 

We would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter and any sug- 
gestions you might have with respect to our obtaining same. 
Yours very sincerely, 

Don Mahon, Secretary. 

National Labor Relations Board, 
Washington, D. C, January 27, 195i. 
Mr. Don Mahon, 

Secretary, National Independent Union Council, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Mahon : This is in further reference to your letter of December 22, 
IG.'jS, concerning your desire to obtain certain information with respect to section 
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. You will 
recall that I advised you on January 11, 1954, that a report had been requested 
from our Atlanta office. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 281 

We understand that it was your desire to obtain a list of all persons who 
had filed non-Communist affidavits with our Atlanta office pursuant to section 
9 (h) of the act. Apparently it is also your desire to obtain this information 
on a national basis. 

It is the established policy of this agency that any person may be advised as 
to whether a local or international labor organization is considered to be in 
compliance with the filing requirements of the act. However, more detailed in- 
formation is released only to parties having an interest in the proceeding in- 
volved, llius, in any actual or potential proceeding in which one of your 
affiliates is involved, the regional director will, upon written application of the 
affiliate, release certain specific information concerning compliance with section 
9 (h) by other parties to the case. Requests for information concerning inter- 
national labor organizations should be addressed to the Affidavit Compliance 
Branch in Washington. This informatiim is also available upon written request, 
to any employee in the unit involved or to the employer. 

Inasmuch as we have over 200,000 affidavits filed each year, I am sure you 
will understand that to pursue your suggested policy would create a considerable 
administrative burden and result in a disruption of work both here and in 
our regional offices. This is particularly true since a list such as you request 
would need extensive daily revision in order to avoid being misleading to the 
jiossessoi". Accordingly, while we appreciate the reasons underlying your 
desire for this information, we must decline to grant your request, except when 
written application is made by an interested party in a specific situation. 
Very truly yours, 

WlIilAM O. MUKDOCK, 

Associate General Counsel. 

Mr. Mahon. I have, in the statement, tried to outline our position 
as clearly and as briefly as I could. In effect, we are in favor of the 
principle that we understand to be involved, which is to help to 
eliminate communists from the labor movement. The objection that 
w^e have that we note thus far is that we feel there is not sufficient 
provision made to carry this out or to set up an agency that will deal 
effectively with the problem. We base that on the experience that we 
have had with the agency set up, which was the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board, to carry out the Labor-Management Relations Act, as 
amended. 

In that case, the intent, as we understand it, was to eliminate Com- 
munists from this labor movement in this country. Obviously it 
didn't work or hasn't worked the way they administered it. The 
union which I represent as president has had a great deal of exper- 
ience. We have made our suggestions in accordance with the experi- 
ence. In my statement here I have referred specifically to the one 
tmion with which we have had considerable experience. That is the 
United Packinghouse Workers, CIO. 

They still use the services of the Board. They have been cited for 
a number of years as an organization that had a number of Com- 
munists in it, and that some of their high-ranking officers were Com- 
munists. I have covered that in my statement, and have explained 
to you the difficulty we have had in dealing with these people, and 
dealing with the Labor Board, trying to get the provisions of the law 
enforced as we understand them. 

The bills that you propose seem to have this same idea in mind. 
It is our opinion that they will have to be strengthened in order to 
jxccomplish that objective. It is our position that publicity is the 
best way of exposing these Communists and their fellow travelers, 
and the stooges they use. We believe that that could be done more 
effectively than it is. 

We have had occasion to try to find out from the National Labor 
Relations Board who the representatives were of unions that have 



282 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

tried to raid us and unions, especially, that we had heard cited as being- 
Communist dominated. It has been very difficult for us to get that 
information. I think you can understand how the ordinary, small 
union, mostly a local organization, is handicapped when outside or- 
ganizers are sent in. 

If the intent of Congress is to expose these people, then we think the 
record should be made available to the public, and especially to other 
union people, and the members who have to make a decision and who 
have the most at stake. We tried to get the information from the 
National Board down here. Finally they did agree that we could 
have it under certain very specific circumstances. We have attached 
letters here. But, when we tried to get this same information on a 
local basis, we find that it is not forthcoming, and it is more of a 
runaround. 

We also have copies of letters that I would like to submit for the 
record, where, after the Board told us in Washington we could get 
this information, they refer us back to the regional board, and w hen 
we get to the regional board it is the same kind of a runaround. 

Senator Welker. They will be made a part of the record at this 
point. 

(Letters referred to follow :) 

National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, 

Des Moines, Iowa, Fehrnary 19, 195.'f. 
Mr. John C. Getreu, 

Regioyial Director, Nntionnl Labor Relations Board, 
10th Region, Atlanta, Ga. 

Dear Mr. Getreu : "We have your letter of February 15. We are requesting: 
the names of officers and/or other official representatives of the United Pack- 
inghouse Workers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affidavits 
with your office and for your region. 

We desire this information because of our interest in cases Nos. 10-RC-261.'> 
and lO-RC-2617. As you know, these cases are before the Board. We have 
other potential cases ijending in other Swift's and Armour's plants in your area 
which certainly will affect this same labor organization. 

We trust that this will be the information you desire as requested in your 
letter. 

Your prompt forwarding of the names and addresses of the above-mentioned 
officers will be very greatly appreciated. 
Very truly yours, 

Don Mahon, President. 

National Labor Relations Boaiu), IOth Region, 

Atlanta, Ga., Fehrnary 15, ID',',. 
Don Mahon, 

President, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Worlcers, 
Des Moines, Iowa. 

Dear Mr. Mahon : This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 19.^4, iu 
which you request to be informed as to tlie names and related information con- 
cerning officers and other official representatives of the United Packinghouse 
Woi'kers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affidavits in this office. 

The agency's policies do not allow the furnishing of the requested information. 
Before names of officers, etc.. may be furnished, it is necessary that there be an 
actual or a potential proceeding before the Board, and the information would 
then be limited to the local union or unions affected by such proceeding. 

If desired, you are at liberty to appeal this denial of your request to the 
General Counsel in Washington, D. C. Any such appeal should give the reasons 
for your request. 

Very truly yours, 

John C. Getreu, Regional Director. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 283 

National Broi'Heiihood of Packinghouse Wokkers, 

DCS Moines, Iowa, Fchruary 11, 195Ii. 
Mr. John C. Getreu, 

Di/rector, 10th Region, National Labor Relations Board, 

Atlanta, Oa. 

Dear Mr. Getreu : Our union, the National Brotlierhood of Packingliouse 
AVorkers, is ijreseutl.v engaged in an organizational campaign among packing- 
house workers, food handlers, distributors, and processors and neighboring or 
related industries in your region. In some cases other unions will be involved. 

We are, therefore, interested in knowing the names and related information in 
your files concerning officers and other official representatives of the United 
Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affi- 
davits at the regional level in your area. 

Your kind attention and early reply with respect to this matter will be very 
gi*eatly appreciated. 

Yours very truly, 

Don Mahon, President. 

National Labor Relations Board, 10th Region, 

Atlanta, Ga., December 9, 1953. 
Mr. Don Mahon, 

Eieriitive Sccretnrji, National Independent Union Council, 

Washinf/ton, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Mahon : This is to confirm the information that was orally given 
to you on December 8 by Field Examiner A. C. Joy to the effect that your or- 
ganization may neither be furnished with a list of all persons who have filed 
with this office non-Communist affidavits pursuant to section 9 (h) of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Act nor permitted to examine such documents. 

This also constitutes confirmation of Mr. Joy's oral word to the effect that, 
if desired, such rulings may be appealed to the Board's General Counsel. Such 
apiieal, if filed, must give the reasons for your request. 
Very truly yours, 

John C. Getreu, Regional Director. 



Mr. Mahon. Our union and its officers have been discriminated 
against from the standpoint, we believe, of equal treatment by the 
National Labor Relations Board in the handling of cases. We have 
cited at various times cases where the facts were exactly or almost 
identical and the decision that comes out for us is exactly the opposite 
to what comes out when the union that we haA^e cited here as being 
mentioned as one of those that is Communist dominated by various 
Government agencies gets a different answer. We have cases pending 
right now where that is the situation. 

We believe that the agency that is set up to carry out any law that 
may be enacted by this committee should contain some more effective 
guaranties against this type of dual treatment. Section 7 of the 
existing Labor Relations Act guarantees employees the right to form, 
join, or assist unions of their own choosing. In order to make that 
part of the law effective, there must be provisions made to carry it 
out in the case of a local union. If that is not done, local unions will 
be eliminated; people will be unable to get representation in that 
manner if this agency that is set up to carry out the law isn't made 
more effective. We believe that the Senate realizes that situation. 
They have certainly realized it in the case of business. They have 
set up a special committee to look after the interests of small business 
who operate pretty much on a local basis. Certainly small unions 
should receive comparable consideration. 



284 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Arens. Would you mind this question, sir : What is the aggre- 
gate membership of these three-hundred-odd independent unions that 
are allied in this association that you have mentioned? 

Mr. Maiiox. The ones that have endorsed our program have indi- 
cated, from the information they have provided us Avith, that they 
represent something over 500,000 people. As I say, we have no way 
of checking that. Of course, we don't police those unions in the same 
manner that some of the major federations might police theirs, but 
they have indicated to us that they represent that number of people. 

Mr. Arens. What is the aggregate membership of the some 2,000 
independent unions in the United States, would you say? 

Mr. Mahox. We don't know, of course, for sure. But we have no 
way of knowing that. We tried to get that from the Department 
of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The nearest that we can 
come to that is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I think, 
some 49.8 million are gainfully employed in this country, the highest 
point of employment. And at that time, the claim of the CIO and the 
A. F. of L. was that they had something around 15 or 16 million 
together. 

As you can see, the remainder are in independent unions or un- 
organized. Of course, I am referring to nonagricultural workers. I 
have no way of knowing that. We have tried many times to get that 
information. The source of our information on the 2,000 unions, of 
course, is a mailing list that we have compiled. The majority of those 
unions, of course, are located a long way from Washington, and unless 
they have occasion to use the services of the NLRB or some agency 
such as that, it is pretty hard to kee]) track of them. 

However, during wage stabilization, as a result of some of the pro- 
tests we made down here of not being represented on that wage 
stabilization board, there was set up within the framework of the 
wage stabilization board an office for independent unions, which was 
sort of a half-way measure that they used to get around our request 
for equal consideration, and through that office there were handled 
cases involving something like, I believe, 2,300 or 2,400 different inde- 
pendent unions. 

The independent unions we refer to do not include the so-called 
Commie unions that have separated from the CIO. Neither do we 
claim to represent such organizations as the railroad brotherhoods 
or the mine workers or the large ones like that. They can speak for 
themselves and do. 

Our primary interest is with the smaller unions who ordinarily have 
one or more locals and usually their membership is in the hundreds 
and thousands, and not over a hundred thousand. 

I think most of them are under that. But those are the ones we 
primarily refer to. There is no source that I know of where that 
information can be obtained. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have information to supply the committee, Mr. 
Mahon, with respect to a Communist-controlled union ? 

Mr. Mahon. The information that I refer to is with respect to the 
treatment received by our union when we are engaged in controversies 
with the union, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, that 
has been cited as Communist controlled. It was cited by the House 
Un-American Activities Committee. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 285 

We have a copy of a resignation from one of their officials, a resig- 
nation from his office, before the signing of the non-Coimnunist affi- 
davits took place in order that their union might meet in compliance. 
Since that time, we established by sworn testimony of another of their 
executive officers in an NLRB hearing that this man was still active 
in their organization in that he was a delegate to the convention and 
active in the convention which, according to their constitution, is a 
policymaking body of that organization. That case that I refer to 
is NLRB 18-RC-1570. 

The document that I have here is a sample of the tactics used to 
discredit our organization or any organization, or any Senator or any 
Congressman, who sees fit to propose legislation to eliminate Com- 
munists from the labor movement. 

Mr. Arens. What is that document that you have, specifically? 

Mr, Mahon. This document that I have here is called the Blade, 
issued by District Council 3 of the United Packinghouse Workers of 
America, CIO. In bold headlines it declares on the outside that the 
"Butler Law Crushes Local, Other Locals Gear for Big Fight." In 
the article on page 4, it explains the alleged effects of the Butler bill 
which, according to this article, are very detrimental to organized 
labor and this union in particular. After going through this article 
and making these allegations, at the end they have a statement that 
says, "That is quite a story, isn't it i It is not true." 

Nevertheless, this paper was distributed through the mails to thou- 
sands of people, I believe — at least I know that it was received by 
some — and of course it had the effect of creating in the minds of those 
people, and many of them, of course, are people who we hope to 
organize into our union, the thought that this type of legislation was 
detrimental to labor and that we were in favor of it. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the docu- 
ment which Mr. Mahon is referring to be incorporated by reference 
in the record and filed with the committee. 

Senator Welker. It is so ordered. 

(The document referred to was filed with the committee.) 

Mr. Arens. Is there anything else that you wanted to bring to the 
attention of the committee, Mr. Mahon ? 

Mr. Mahon. I believe that most of our position is covered by our 
statement. 

Mr. Arens. And which the chairman has already ordered to be in- 
corporated into the record. 

Mr. Mahon. Yes. Our feeling is that the solution to this problem 
is greater publicity, and the making available of the information that 
the Government has concerning these subversives in the labor move- 
ment or any place else a matter of public record. 

Mr. Arens. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mahon, does your organization, both the packing- 
house organization, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Work- 
ers, and the National Independent Union Council, endorse the princi- 
ples involved in the three bills currently pending before the sub- 
committee ? 

Mr. Mahon. We certainly do, most wholeheartedly endorse the 
principle of the elimination of Communists from the American labor 

4390S— 54 19 



286 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

movement, and we don't believe that that limitation should be re- 
stricted to labor organizations alone. We think it should be applied 
equally to business concerns, to all other organizations in our society. 
We trust that this committee in drafting legislation will not put in a 
boomerang such as the signing of the non-Communist affidavit in the 
Taft-Hartley Act by only one party. 

Mr. Arens. So that our record is clear, do you endorse the princi- 
ples of this legislation ? 

Mr. Mahon. Yes, we do. 

Mr. Arens. Is there anything else, Mr. Mahon, that you wanted to 
bring to the attention of the committee? 

Mr. Mahon. I believe that the documents that 1 have introduced 
along with this statement are sufficient. 

Mr. Arexs. Well, the committee, then, thanks you for your testi- 
mony. We appreciate very much indeed your courtesy in appearing 
today and in waiting so long today, patiently, to appear. We have 
had two other witnesses with extensive testimony on this record today. 
We want to thank you for your kindness and courtesy and patience 
with the committee. 

Mr. Mahon. I appreciate that, and I will be pleased to cooperate 
in any way possible to give you further assistance. 

Senator Welker. The subcommittee will be in recess, subject to 
the call of the chairman. 

(Whereupon, at 4:57 the hearing was recessed, subject to the call 
of the chairman.) 



SUBVEESIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR 

ORGANIZATIONS 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Stjbcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

or THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, or the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to 
call, in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler 
(chairman of the task force) presiding. 

Present: Senators Butler, Hendrickson, and Eastland. 

Present also : Richard Arens, special counsel ; Frank Schoeder and 
Edward Duffy, professional staff members. 

Senator Butler. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Mr. Arens, will you call the first witness? 

Mr. Arens. The first witness, sir, will be Mr. Boulware. 

Will 3^ou kindly come forward ? 

Senator Butler. Will you hold up your right hand, please? In 
the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly swear that you will 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Boulware. I do. 

Senator Butler. The witness is sworn. Counsel. 

TESTIMONY OF LEMUEL E. BOULWAEE, VICE PRESIDENT, GENEEAL 
ELECTEIC CO., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM J. BAEEON, LABOE 
EELATIONS COUNSEL, GENEEAL ELECTEIC CO. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Boulware. INIy name is Lemuel R. Boulware. I am a resident 
of New York City. I am vice president of the General Electric Co, 
My associate is Mr. William J. Barron, who will also testify, our 
company's labor coimsel. 

Mr. Arens. Were you sworn? 

Mr. Barron. No, I was not. 

Senator Butler. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly 
promise and declare that the evidence you will give to this task 
force will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Barron. Yes, sir. 

287 



288 SUBVERSIVE I^iFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr, Arens. Mr. Barron, will you kindly identify yourself in like 
manner? 

Mr. Barron. My title is labor relations counsel. I am associated 
with Mr. Boulware. I serve Mr. Boulware's organization. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Boulware, you have a prepared statement which 
you have submitted to the committee? Is that correct? 

Mr, Boulware. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest at this point that the state- 
ment be incorporated into the record and Mr. Boulware proceed 
extemporaneously to cover his points. 

Senator Butler. It will be so ordered. 

(Mr. Boulware's prepared statement follows:) 

Statement of General Electric Co., Prepared for Presentation Before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

In order that you may understand more fully our subsequent comments on the 
legislation you are considering, we would like to discuss briefly the present situ- 
ation as we see it and the general principles which we think you should weigh in 
considering new legislation. This is the fifth time we have appeared before 
congressional committees to urge more adequate legislation on communism. 
Since our priority testimony in 1952, 1953, and 1954 is available to you, we shall 
attempt to minimize the amount of duplication, but we respectfully refer you 
to it. 

I. the security problem in general 

It is indisputable that government has the exclusive responsibility for estab- 
lishing and enforcing measures which will effectively remove any potential 
traitors or enemy agents from positions of power or influence wherever they are 
found in a position to damage the Nation's industrial security. 

No government can long neglect this responsibility without destroying public 
confidence and creating unrest and discord. The matter is so delicate and 
charged with so much emotion that it should be handled by the best available 
professionals carrying out clear policies of Congress. 

It is becoming more and more clear that security with respect to the problem 
of communism in industry may be said to have two separate but related aspects. 
The first aspect of the problem relates to Communists functioning as leaders of 
labor imions ; the second relates to the problem of individual subversives in 
industry. 

The problem of Communist-dominated unions 

For almost 20 years, the Federal law has compelled employers, as it still does, 
to recognize and bargain with any labor organization certified to it by the 
National Labor Relations Board. And the NLRB continues obliged to certify 
various unions which have been repeatedly accused of Communist domination 
before congressional committees. 

In the electrical industry alone, there are approximately 300 employers, includ- 
ing ourselves, who are under obligation of Federal law, in about 1,000 different 
plants, to recognize and deal exclusively with the United Electrical Workers. 
This is one of the unions which has been repeatedly accused by congressional 
committees of Communist domination, but no authoritative legal determination 
has been made of that fact. Consequently, the NLRB continues to certify UE 
as a union with which we and the 300 other employers must deal exclusively as 
representative of a claimed one-third of a million employees working at loca- 
tions vital to the economy and national defense. 

Although UE still gets all the special protections and exemptions provided by 
Federal law for loyal trade unions, its position before a congressional committee 
only last year was that Communists should be allowed to be elected to union 
oflSces. Before this committee last week, as before other congressional commit- 
tees, UE officers have claimed the fifth amendment's protection against self- 
incrimination in refusing to answer questions concerning their alleged Commu- 
nist aflSliations, 

In view of these facts and others, we and large portions of the public have long 
since come to believe the repeated and never disproved charges of UE's Com- 
munist leadership. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 289 

Despite the loug-known existence of Communist-dominated unions, the Gov- 
ernment has, for the most part, refrained from acting as forcefully with respect 
to them as it has with respect to other kinds of Communist organizations. For 
example, the Attorney General of the United States prepares and publishes lists 
of organizations which he determines are "totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or 
subversive." But, in preparing these lists, the names of no labor unions are 
listed. Likewise, no proceedings have been begun under the Internal Security 
Act of 1950 against any of the much-suspected. C^uunumist-doniinated unions. 
It appears that they are not subject to such act since it applies only to organiza- 
tions primarily operating for the purpose of aiding a foreign Communist gov- 
ernment or other Communist organization. 

It seems incredible that the United States Government should order even 
defense plant employers to bargain with unions so generally regarded as Com- 
munist dominated. In fact, it is so unbelievable that the average person may 
be occasionally led to wonder if employers are dealing with Communist unions 
in defiance of the law, rather than because of a compelling legal obligation. 

We believe the first duty of any security legislation is to see that the Govern- 
men shall : First, clear the air authoritatively and definitively as to who are, in 
fact. Communist union leaders ; and second, prohibit such union leaders from 
functioning in any way as the bargaining representatives of any employees. 

Until Congress effectively shoulders this responsibility, the amateurs, the volun- 
teers, and others — some of them for selfish purposes, but most with the very best 
of good will, but lacking the needed professional skill — will feel called on to 
continue and even increase their efforts to deal with the problem outside the law. 

For too long now it has apparently been considered too diflScult or politically 
dangerous to adopt legislation aimed at effectively and thoroughly eliminating 
Communists from union leadership. We believe that the vast body of loyal 
American union members will overwhelmingly support any fair legislation which 
will lielp them resolve this problem and really clean house. 

But in devising legislation, the duty of Government to expose and identify 
Communists should not be delegated or left to private citizens. 

An employer certainly should not have the right to decide that he will not 
recognize a union chosen by his employees because he believes that union is 
Communist dominated. Employees, the public, and the courts would suspect 
that such a power might be abused — deliberately or through wishful thinking — 
to get rid of effective union leaders. The basic principle of the Wagner and 
Taft-Hartley Acts is to guarantee that employees — and not employers — will 
choose the union to be bargained with. 

The same reasons should properly prevent union leaders from having the 
power to authoritatively decide when a rival union oflScial is a Communist. 
Internal union politics often get pretty bitter and the power to brand a rival 
as a Communist might likewise be abused — deliberately or through wishful 
thinking. 

The proMeiu of individual subversives 

We believe there is immediate and urgent need that Congress reexamine its 
policy with respect to individual subversives in industry. There is no policy now 
in effect which prevents subversives known to Government agencies from worlving 
on nonclassified or civilian work in plants whicli are doing defense work or which 
would he vital to the defense of the United States in the early stages of a war 
emergency. 

The security agencies of this country and defense contractors are enforcing 
no more than a limited security program — and. we believe, they are doing an ex- 
cellent job within that narrow program. That program is" designed onlv to 
protect secrets or classified information. It does not guard against sabotage. 

The Internal Security Act and Emergency Detention Act apparently contem- 
plate that there may well be subversives in vital industrial plants who will be 
removed therefrom only after declaration of war by Congress, invasion, or in- 
surrection in aid of a foreign enemy. 

Under the present limited security program, agencies of the Department 
of Defense work closely with defense contractoi-s in seeing to it that no em- 
ployee works on classified Government defense work if lie is considered a 
security risk in any sense of the word. The term "security risk," however, is 
not generally understood by the public or by employees. It includes, of course, 
any employee who is suspected of having serious past or present subversive -T'on- 
nections. In addition, however, the term also includes an employee who is 
thought not to be sufficiently reliable (for reasons not reflecting unfavorably 



290 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

upon his loyalty) to be trusted with access to classified information. Thus, a 
person may be deemed a "security risk" and barred from working; on "classified" 
defense jobs merely because he is an alien or in debt or mislit be subjected to 
subversive pressures because of having relatives behind the Iron Curtain. 

Under the present individual security pro.uram, Government agencies direct 
contractors to exclude from classified defense work all employees whom they 
find to be security risks, but the individual employer does not receive from the 
Government the evidence which supports its conclusion. The individual em- 
ployer, therefore, cannot establish whether the employee is regarded as a sub- 
versive or as a security risk for reasons not related to disloyalty. 

Defense contractors, like the General Electric Co., under such circumstances, 
comply with the security regulations by insuring that a designated security risk 
does not work upon, and does not have access to, classified Government informa- 
tion. But under this inadequate procedure, some employees, who are deemed 
by the Government to be subversives in the genuine sense of the word and are 
under Government surveillance as such, are permitted to remain in areas of that 
critical plant where they do not have access to classified work. 

We have long been dissatisfied with a security program which did not ad- 
vise us which of our employees the Government considered genuine subversives 
as opposed to those which it considered security risks in the less dangerous 
sense. I^pon the outbreak of the Korean war, we unsuccessfully attempted to 
have the Government provide us with the names of, and information concerning, 
any of our employees considered to be subversive. ^Ye could not get such in- 
formation and were advised that the entii-e security program was under study. 

We later recommended to the Government security agencies that, since we 
did not have access to the evidence in their files, they at least should determine 
and direct when an employee should be excluded from unclassified civilian work, 
as well as from classified military work. This recommendation also was 
rejected. 

Last year, as an interim measure, pending more adequate Government regu- 
lation, we adopted a policy we believed necessary to solve the problem at least in 
part. This policy calls for the ultimate discharge of any employee who invokes 
the fifth amendment in refusing to answer questions concerning Communist affili- 
ntions before a governmental authority. The policy provides for suspension for 
TsO days, with pay. during which time the employee may be cleared and reinstated 
by answering fully under oath all questions asked him by a governmental author- 
ity concerning espionage, saliotage. and the employee's Communist affiliations. 
He may also lie cleared, if he is able to secure a certification from a Government 
agency that there is no evidence indicating he is a substantial risk for employ- 
ment. 

In adopting this policy, we recognized that it was not a complete solution to 
the problem of possible subversives in our plants. However, we felt obligated 
to our employees, share owners and the public to utilize it until the Government 
adopts measui-es to adequately cope with the prolilem. 

Defense Department representatives who supervise the Government's security 
programs at our plants, and our own security officers can be proud that not a 
single 1 of 17 employees suspended under General Electric's policy had been 
given clearance or worked on a classified job. That security problems exist 
regardless of union affiliations is indicated by the following : 

Of the 17 suspended employees. 8 were UE members, 1 was a membei' of an 
AFL plumbers union. 1 was a member of an AFL draftsmen's union, 5 were 
lUE (CIO) members and 2 more were represented by lUE although apparently 
not members. 

There is no reason or justification for continuing the confusion which exists 
with respect to employees deemed to be security risks. There is no re.ison or 
justification for continuing a situation which, iiecause of the ambiguity of this 
term, makes it possible for genuine subversives, with the knowledge and consent 
of the United States Government, to continue in the employment of defense 
jilants and plants which would probably have to be converted overnight to 
defense work at the outset of a w.ir emergency. 

We believe genuine subversives should be barred from all work in a plant 
needed for national defense. At present, the policy of the Government is not 
to bar either subversives or the lesser kinds of security risks so long as they do 
not have access to classified work. We believe the current policy of merely 
having known subversives kept under FBI surveillance is fraught with great 
danger. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 291 

We think Congress must now determine wlietlier the present, limited kind of a 
security program is adequate and if not, what additional measures Government 
agencies and defense contractors will be empowered to adopt. 

Employers and defense contractors should not be authorized to embark pri- 
vately upon sweeping programs for judging the loyalty of employees. In the very 
nature of the problem, such action might compel them to make discharges based 
upon suspicions and rumors which the employer would be in no position to author- 
itatively evaluate or prove. 

Like the problem of Communist domination of unions, it seems indisputably 
the responsibility of Government to declare and cari-y out a policy necessary to 
remove subversives from any position where they may cause serious damage to 
the Nation's security. 

n. PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION 

Commtinist domination of unions 

As to Comminiist domination of unions, we believe that the principles neces- 
sary in any legislation are as follows : 

(1) There should be official Government investigation and identification of 
unions and union leaders alleged to be Communist dominated. This legislation 
should be directed against individuals and not against unions. Even in those 
imions believed to be clearly Communist dominated, 99 percent of the membership 
is loyal. The rank and file, therefore, should, under any legislation adopted, be 
given the opportunity and provided the incentive for purging the Communist 
leaders and replacing them with loyal union officials. 

(2) The legislation must establish sound criteria pursuant to which the appli- 
cable Government agency could determine whether a union is Communist domi- 
nated. This is by all means the most difficult part of the task. The criteria must 
be so established that it will lead with certainty to the conviction of the guilty 
and acquittal of the innocent. 

(3) While the greatest procedural protections sliould be afforded any accused 
individual or union, the law should legally prohibit a Communist labor leader or 
a Connnunist-dominated union from continuing to function as a representative of 
employees for collective bargaining. It will not be sufficient merely to withdraw 
the legal assistance now given such unions by Federal law. 

Individual security problem 

Again in this phase of the problem, the primary consideration is to guarantee 
fairness while insuring professional competence in determining whether a 
given individual is a genuine subversive so as to justify his exclusion from em- 
ployment in critical defense plants. 

We believe all employees in plants now doing defense work and other plants 
which would have to be inmiediately converted to defense work in time of war, 
should be subject to investigation by Government security agencies. If the Gov- 
ernment finds that they are the kind of subversives who would be seized and 
detained by the Attorney General under the present emergency detention law, the 
agency should direct their discharge. We see no justification for allowing such 
known subversives to continue to have access to plants which they could damage 
irreparably in the first few hours of a war emergency. 

III. OUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 

Communist domination of unions 

We continue to believe — as we have stated so often before — that there is need 
for a statute incorporating the principles, if not the precise language, embodied 
in the Goldwater-Rhodes bill, S. 1254. We have, however, the following sug- 
gestions to make with respect to it : 

(1) We recommend that section G be reexamined carefully — and with such 
assistance as you can secure from loyal trade-union officials or liieir attorneys. 
The purpose should be to insure that the criteria for ascertaining Communist 
domination will not mistakenly cover loyal persons or organizations — no matter 
how radical or distasteful their political and economic views may otherwise be. 

(2) Under paragraph 6 (a) (1), as now drafted, the Board would be author- 
ized to consider as significant membership in the Communist Party only if it was 
subseciuf'nt to .January 1, 1949. We think this date sould be moved back to 
January 1, 1947. We believe this, because it is so well known that many Com- 
munist leaders have apparently followed the technique of resigning formal 
membership in the Communist Party in order to file the Taft-Hartley non-Com- 



292 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

munist affidavits. These same leaders would therefore probably escape the 
provision of section 6(a) ( 1 ) as it now stands. 

Our reasons for recommending S. 1254, rather than S. 1606, briefly summarized, 
are as follows : 

(1) We think the Goldwater bill contains clear and deserved protection to 
unions and individuals against possible trumped up or flimsy charges of Com- 
munist domination l)y allowing charges to be brought only by the Attorney Gen- 
eral, rather than by private persons. We cannot be sure whether under S. 1606 
employers or rival unions would be free to prefer trumped up charges which 
would then permit the NLRB to conduct an election. We also think it is tech- 
nically necessary to provide, as does the Goldwater bill, that the NLRB's con- 
tract bar doctrine will not prevent conducting an election once the Attorney 
General has filed a charge. 

(2) The Goldwater bill in section 8 (b) contains a very advantageous provi- 
sion not found in Senator Butlers' bill. This is the provision which withdraws 
from a witness the right to refuse to testify on grounds of self-incrimination, 
but at the same time grants him immunity from prosecution concerning any 
matter about which he testifies. This is not a novel provision, for the same rule 
is now found in the National Labor Relations Act itself. However, armed with 
this procedural device, the Attorney General should be able to select many 
minor witnesses who at one time may have been Communist Party members and 
receive from them testimony about major officials as to whom it might other- 
wise be difliciilt to obtain evidence. 

(3) The Goldwater bill allows a union to reorganize or clean house, if it 
takes affirmative action required of it by the Control Board. It seems fair that, 
if rank-and-file employees are willing to get rid of Communist leaders, they 
should be given a chance and the incentive to do so. This provision would 
clearly show to employees and the public that the bill is not union busting, but 
is aimed only at disloyal individual leaders. 

(4) We do not believe that the Butler bill goes far enough in the penalties 
which it would impose. The only real penalty in the Butler bill is the withdrawal 
of the protections of the Labor-Management Relations Act from a Communist-led 
labor organization. 

You undoubtedly know that many unions found it possible to prosper after 1947 
without having access to the protections of the Labor-Management Relations Act. 
In our own company we and our employees suffered two rather long and costly 
strikes called by the UE during the time that union was refusing to file the non- 
Communist affidavit. The strikes were called by UE simply because we refused 
to recognize it without NLRB certifications, even though it apparently represented 
the majority of employees in each of the two plants struck. 

We therefore endorse the theory of S. 1254 that if a union is determined by the 
Board and the courts to be Communist dominated, and its members fail to oust 
the Communist leaders, that union should then be denied the privilege of exercis- 
ing legal benefits designed by Congress for the protection of bona fide trade unions. 
For example, such a Communist union should not be entitled to the protections of 
the Norris-LaGuardia anti-injunction statute or the special exemption from the 
antitrust laws afforded trade unions. In addition, such a Communist-dominated 
union should be specifically prohibited from soliciting, accepting, or receiving 
membership dues under the pretense that it is a bona fide labor organization. 

In addition to our recommendation of S. 1254, we believe there is substantial 
merit in the recent recommendation to your committee of Mr. Stone, president of 
American Cable & Radio Corp. However, we think there are minor amendments 
and additions which could he made to his proposal. With such minor changes, 
his proposal might do much to speedily clarify a large part of the present situa- 
tion during the time when hearings under the Goldwater bill were in progress 
to authoritatively, finally, and judicially settle the most difficult ones. 

One drawback to Mr. Stone's recommendation is that, like S. 1606, it would 
have no effect whatsoever upon a union wliich believed it was strongly enough 
entrenched to exist without access to the NLRB. The Goldwater bill is the only 
proposal which would reach such unions. 

As to unions which wanted to use the NLRB, we believe it unrealistic to require 
merely an affidavit that a union officer was not a Communist subsequent to June 
25, 19.50. For reasons above indicated in discussing the Goldwater bill, we believe 
the important date is January 1947 — -prior to the time the Communist leaders 
apparently went through the uniform motions of formally resigning from the 
Communist Party. 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 293 

We think it an unnecessarily expensive provision, under Mr. Stone's proposal, 
to require all unions to distribute to their members copies of aflBdavits filed. We 
think that in the majority of cases, where there is no hint of Conmmnist domina- 
tion, this might well be regarded as harassment. 

On the other hand, we suggest that, if you adopt an aflBdavit procedure of the 
kind recommended, you should consider requiring a provision to the effect that 
tlie party signing it waives his right to invoke the fifth amendment with respect 
to any matter connected with or pertinent to his answers, if he is subsequently 
interrogated on such matters by the National Labor Relations Board, a Federal 
grand jury, or other agency of the Federal Government. 

We think there may be some merit in using the affidavit approach recommended 
liy Mr. Stone for the short run and immediate problem while at the same time 
adopting S. 1254 to cover unions which would not seek NLRB assistance. If this 
is done, we feel that the problem of Communist-dominated unions which has 
plagued til is country for almost 20 years will be well on the road to solution 
within a year and would probably be completed within less than 2 or 3 years. 

Legislation concerning individual subversives 

Congress was obviously aware of the problem of individual subversives in pri- 
vate industry when it passed the Internal Security Act and Emergency Detention 
Act of 1950. However, we believe that our above discussion and any analysis of 
these laws establish that their provisions are inadequate to cope with the situa- 
tion. Senator McCarran's bill, S. 23, apparently recognizes this situation and is 
directed, in part, at remedying it, as well as dealing with the problem of Com- 
munist-dominated unions. 

For the reasons indicated below, we do not believe that S. 23 would be an 
adequate solution of the problem. 

The present Internal Security Act, to the extent it applies to the problem 
we are here discussing, provides that it is unlawful for a person to engage in 
employment in a defense facility, if he is a member of a Communist-action or- 
ganization against whom a final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board 
has been entered. It also provides that it is unlawful for any person, "in seeking, 
accepting, or holding employment in any defense facility," to conceal the fact 
that he is a member of a Communist-front organization, against whom, a final 
order of the Board has been entered. 

The inadequacy of such provisions should now be demonstrated by experience 
under tlie Taft-Hartley Act. The non-Communist afiidavits there have been 
largely rendered meaningless because the persons most suspected merely resign 
from formal membership in Communist organizations. As under the Taft- 
Hartley Act, the above provisions of the Internal Security Act speak about 
Communist organization membership in the present tense, and place no sig- 
nificance on sucli membership prior to the entry of a final order of the Control 
Board. Experience with tlie inadequacies of such approach under the Taft- 
Hartley Act should convince us of the inadequacies of this section of the Internal 
Security law. 

Subsection 2 (d) of S. 23 is apparently conceived with the idea that individual 
employers should be immunized from liability for discharging employees for the 
I'easons enumerated in that section ; that is, for discharging employees who are 
members of an organization listed by the Attorney General as subversive ; em- 
ployees who have actively concealed membership in such an organization ; or 
employees who refuse to tell a congressional committee whether they have know- 
ingly or willingly been a member of such organization. 

We do not think that this provision adds anything to the present law for the 
reason that it merely recites that '"nothing in this act or any other statute of the 
United States shall preclude an employer from discharging an employee for the 
above-stated reasons." As we have indicated above, General Electric already 
has a policy of suspending and then ultimately discharging employees who invoke 
the fifth amendment before a congressional committee concerning Communist 
affiliations. 

Actually, this provision does not state that it is congressional policy that 
employees who come within its terms should be discharged. It, therefore, seems 
objectionable in that it does not clearly indicate the policy of Congress and, 
in part, it seems to imply that Congress is delegating its responsibility in these 
matters to private parties. For reasons more fully expressed above, we believe 
that Congress should face its responsibility of clearly determining what the 
national policy is and then establish effective measures to enfoi'ce it. 

The task of determining who are subversives against whom the Nation's 
defense facilities need to be protected is a complex, difficult one which really 



294 SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 

needs to be placed in the hands of professional, unbiased, and impartial in- 
vestigative aseneies, with appropriate protections afforded by administrative and 
judicial review. We do not think that the interests of the country will be served 
b.v expecting or requiring that the .iob be done by private persons or employei*s 
who do not have either the professional competence, facilities, or investigative 
power possessed b.v Government — all of which are required for the making 
of sound and objective decisions in this area. 

We recomend that, as a matter of preparation and prevention — in advance of 
the time of actual danger — Congress should make it the responsibility of the 
Government security agencies to investigate and determine when "there is rea- 
sonable ground to believe" that employees in vital defense facilities "will engage 
in or probably will conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or 
sabotage." This is the test now in force for determining whether the Attorney 
General shall seek to arrest and detain employees upon the outbreak of war. 
We suspect, although we, of course, do not know, that the Attorney General prob- 
ably has a substantial list of persons who already fit this test. It is also quite 
conceivable that a number of such persons are now employed in critical defense 
facilities. The defense contractors in whose plants these persons are employed, 
however, are not informed or advised as to whether such employees are sub- 
versive in this sense. Even though such persons are now under FBI surveillance, 
the Government is taking too large a gamble that they could be apprehended on 
the outbreak of war before committing extensive sabotage. 

It is our opinion tliat it is unwise to knowingly permit seriously suspected 
subversives to remain in the employ of critical defense establishments until the 
outbreak of war. Yet this is what the Internal Security Act and the Emergency 
Detention Act apparently contemplate. Our recommendation is that instead of 
waiting iintil actual wartime to remove subversives from plants doing defense 
work or which would be immediately required for defense work, the Internal 
Security Act should provide a means for having them identified in peacetime 
by the Government, followed by directions that they be discharged from em- 
ployment in any such plants. Our suggestion, of course, contemplates that they 
would be afforded the right of administrative and judicial review and that the 
Government should provide compensation for those who, upon such review, are 
found to have been unjustly accused and suffered losses in earnings. 

Mr. BouLWARE. With your permission, I would like to read some of 
the first 10 pages. 

Senator Butler. You may proceed. 

Mr. BouLWARE. In order that you may understand more fully our 
subsequent comments on the legislation you are considering, we would 
like to discuss briefly the present situation as we see it and the general 
principles which we think you should weigh in considering new legis- 
lation. This is the fifth time we have appeared before congressional 
committees to urge more adequate legislation on communism. 

In fact, it is the seventh time, if you take my two appearances in 
1949 into consideration. 

Since our prior testimony in 1949, 1952, 1953, and 1954 is avail- 
able to you, we shall attempt to minimize the amount of duplication, 
but we respectfully refer you to it. 

It is indisputable that Government has the exclusive responsibility 
for establishing and enforcing measures which will effectively re- 
move any potential traitors or enemy agents from positions of power 
or influence wherever they are found in a position to damage the 
Nation's industrial security. 

It is becoming more and more clear that security with respect to the 
problem of communism in industry may be said to have two separate 
but related aspects. The first aspect of the problem relates to Com- 
munists functioning as leaders of labor unions; the second relates to 
the problems of individual subversives in industry. 

For almost 20 years the Federal law has compelled employers, as it 
still does, to recognize and bargain with any labor organization certi- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 295 

fied to it by the National Labor Kelations Board. And the NLKB con- 
tinues obliged to certify various unions which have been repeatedly 
accused of Communist domination before congressional committees. 

Senator Butler. At that point I don't want to interrupt your testi- 
mony, but I would like Mr. Barron or yourself, at some time before 
you leave here today, to touch on the right of labor to choose its own 
representatives. I would like to have an explanation of that from 
the standpoint of industry. The persons that we have had before us 
representing organized labor have insisted that all of the measures 
now pending before this committee would, in effect, deny labor the 
right to choose its own representatives. I would like to hear indus- 
try's point of view on that question. I do not want you to do it now, 
because I do not want to break into the orderly presentation of your 
thesis, but I would like you to cover that situation before you leave. 

Mr. BouLWARE. It is covered, I think, as we go along here. 

In the electrical industry alone, there are approximately 300 em- 
ployers, including ourselves, who are under obligation of Federal law, 
in about 1,000 different plants, to recognize and deal exclusively with 
the United Electrical Workers. This is one of the unions which has 
been re])eatedly accused by congressional committees of Communist 
domination, but no authoritatiA^e legal determination has been made 
of that fact. 

Although UE still gets all the s])ecial protections and exemj^tions 
provided by Federal law for loyal trade unions, its position before a 
congressional committe only last year was that Communists should 
be allowed to be elected to union offices. Before this committee last 
week, as before other congressional committees, UE officers have 
claimed the fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination in 
refusing to answer questions concerning their alleged Communist 
affiliations. 

In view of these facts, and others, as we have frequently stated 
before, we and large portions of the public have long since come to 
believe the repeated and never disproved charges of UE's Communist 
leadership. 

Despite the long-known existence of Communist-dominated unions, 
the Government has, for the most part, refrained from acting as force- 
fully with respect to them as it has with respect to other kinds of 
Communist organizations. 

It seems incredible that the United States Government should order 
even defense plant employers to bargain with unions so generally 
regarded as Communist dominated. In fact, it is so unbelievable that 
the average person, and quite understandably perhaps, may be occa- 
sionally led to wonder if employers are dealing with Communist 
unions in defiance of the law, rather than because of a compelling legal 
obligation. 

Mr. Arens. There is a question that I think would help clarify the 
situation here. Let me just ask this question : "\^'liy doesn't your com- 
pany fire people whom the security agencies have denied clearance 
for classified work ? 

Mr. BouLWARE. Because they will not tell us. For two reasons: 
First, they will not tell us whether the fellow is suspected of Com- 
munist connection; and, second, because the Government is obviously, 
the security agencies are obviously willing to permit those peonle to 
be in the plant in other than classified areas. So who are we, if the 



296 suB^^ERSIVE influence in certain labor organizations 

Government who is there in charge of the security and the agents are 
there in charge of it, as you Iniow, if the Government is there and will- 
ing to let them be there officially, we have no defense. 

If we go to arbitration, we have no way of proving that the fellow 
is an undesirable employee. 

Mr. Arens. May the record be clear on this, and let me pose still 
another (Question to you, on this point, sir: Don't the Government 
agencies, the intelligence ag-encies, tell you, that is, the General Elec- 
tric Co., one way or the other whom they regard as subversives or as 
security risks? 

Mr. BouLWARE. They don't tell us officially. They sometimes — a 
minor security agent and minor employees of ours will get friendly 
enough for them to kind of indicate that one of these fellows is kind 
of bad. But they are not permitted to do it officially. When we say 
to them, "AVill you put this on paper so we will have some evidence to 
show that this fellow is a bad fellow?" they are not permitted to do 
that under the regulations. 

We say, "All right, if we go fire them, and say you told us this," 
they will say, "No, you are not allowed to do that." 

So we have no support. We have to go in unsupported to claim that 
somebody is a bad person. 

Mr. Barron. May I amplify that? As we cover later in his testi- 
mony, too, the security agencies do of course put in writing the fact 
that the man is deemed security risk. But as we all know, the security 
risk has a two-pronged aspect: (1) He may be a subversive in the 
loyal sense; (2) he may be a security risk because he talks too much, 
he drinks too much, or he has other risky connections. They wnll tell 
us whether he is a security risk, but they don't go beyond that in terms 
of giving us official information. That is the problem we have. 

Mr. Arens. Does it throw you off your theme here? I still have 
another question on that, if I may, Mr. Boulware and Mr. Barron. 
It has been suggested, and some of the legislation currently pending 
before the task force provides, that an attempt to solve this problem 
could be to preclude the letting of contracts, defense contracts, in 
plants where Communist-dominated unions are certified. A^^lat is 
your appraisal of that on the basis of your experience ? Are there any 
loopholes there? 

Senator Butler. Mr. Boulware, before you answer that question, 
let me point out to you a specific instance of that situation. If my 
understanding is correct, Mr. Carey, the Secretary of the Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, has heretofore suggested that wherever you 
have known Communists in a defense plant, that you not deny the 
right to bargain to the union representing that plant, but that you 
pull the contract away from the employer. 

Mr. Boulware. We think that is kind of silly. 

Senator Buti^er. That is along the line of Mr, Arens' question. I 
just bring that to your attention so that when you answ^er the question 
you can answer all of the elements of the question. 

Mr, Boulware. What we are interested in here is to have your 
skilled plants that can make war goods or defense goods, what you 
want to do is to have them available. 

Senator Butler. I think jNIr. Carey suggested this : That the gov- 
ernment itself, through its defense agencies, if it determined that 
there were Communists in a defense plant, or that the union repre- 



SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 297 

senting that plant was Communist-dominated, that they would have 
a meeting at top level, and then withdraw the contract from that 
plant. Is that the idea of it? 

Mr. Arens. That is the essence of it, as I understand it. 

Senator Butler. In other words, he would do administratively 
what this legislation would do legislatively. 

Mr. BouLWARE. All you would do is please Russia. They would 
be happier over that suggestion. If they would infiltrate enough 
in a Government-sponsored union, you see, a Government-accredited 
union comes in, to have a Government-accredited place, in the kind 
of plants that you use for warwork, and then you get into war and 
you won't let that plant do any warwork. Nothing could please 
Russia so much. The thing you want to do is when you get into 
an emergency, you want to have those plants available and the 
position we take here is that you ought to get in there and clear 
those fellows out of plants not only that are doing current defense 
work and not only from just the classified area, but the whole area, 
and that you ought to go and do it beyond that, as we subsequently 
say in the plants that are most likely to be used in the early stages 
of war. Let's don't have a Pearl Harbor attack and then suddenly 
say, "Well, we have to clean out half our plants. We cannot use our 
most useful, our most technically competent plants." 

We ought to have those ready. Our position is that the Govern- 
ment ought to stop saying that it is all right for these people to be 
represented. 

Mr. Arens. Do you mean stop certification of a Communist- 
dominated union ? 

Mr. BouLWARE. Yes. We feel that they ought not to certify a 
Communist-dominated union. 

Furthermore, as we will say here later, they ought not to permit 
in a plant currently doing defense work, or in a plant likely to do 
it in the early stages of an emergency, you ought not to permit 
individual subversives in there. You ought to clean them out ahea