/-
4 '>
Vf/
HARVARD COLLEGE
LIBRARY
VErllRI
GIFT OF THE
GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
us Doc 2.791
Committee on Un-American Activities
House
86th Congress
Table of Contents
(Since these hearings are consecutively paged
they are arranged by page number, instead of
alphabetically by title)
1. American National Exhibition, Moscow, ^fifd
July 1959
2. Communist Training Operations, pt.l "^IQ '
5. Testimony of Clinton Edward Jencks Ml'^^
^4-. Testimony of Arnold Johnson, Legislative
Director of the Communist Party, U.S.A.
5-7. Western Section of the Southern California
District of the Communist Party, pt.1-5
8. Issues Presented by Air Reserve Center
Training Manual
9-10. Communist Training Operations, pt. 2-5
11-12. Communist Activities Among Puerto Ricans in
New York City and Puerto Rico, pt.1-2
i^^'
i < ■'■ ■•
^i^i
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY
DErOSlTED BY THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
SEP 22 1959
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 22, 1959
(INCLUDING INDEX)
Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities
I
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
4442.'; WASHINGTON : 1959
k
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
United States House of Representatives
FRANCIS E, WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri DONALD L. JACKSON, California
CLYDE DOYLE, California GORDON H. SCHERER, Oliio
EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana WILLIAM E. MILLER, New York
WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan
RiCHAED Aeens, Staff Director
IT
CONTENTS
Page
Synopsis 1975
July 22, 1959: Testimony of—
Clinton Edward Jencks 1077
Index i
III
Public Law 601, 79th Congress
The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter
753, 2d session, which provides:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, * * *
PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Rule X
SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES
*******
18. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.
Rule XI
POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES
(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.
(A) Un-American activities.
(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit-
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent,
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa-
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and
(iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary
remedial legislation.
The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi-
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person
designated by any such chairman or member.
*******
Rule XII
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES
Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces-
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdic-
tion of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports
and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of
the Government.
RULES ADOPTED BY THE 86TH CONGRESS
House Resolution 7 January 7 1959
* 0 * If * * *
Rule X
STANDING COMMITTEES
1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress,
• **«***
(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.
****** *
Rule XI
powers and duties of committees
18. Committee on Un-American Activities.
(a) Un-American activities.
(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee,
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char-
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(2) tihe diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop-
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu-
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress
in any necessary remedial legislation.
The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi-
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person
designated by any such chairman or member.
* * * * * * He i|c
26. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary,
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that
purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by
the agencies in the executive branch of the Government.
VI
SYNOPSIS
Clinton Edward Jencks appeared in response to a subpena on
July 22, 1959, and testified that he resided in Albany, Cahf., and
that his occupation was a machinist. He further testified that he was
born in 1918; educated in the pubhc school system of Colorado
Springs, Colo., and that he was awarded a bachelor of arts degree in
1939 from the University of Colorado.
Mr. Jencks recounted the principal employments in which he had
engaged since the conclusion of his formal education. These included
employment as international representative for the International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. He refused to answer
whether or not he signed a non-Communist affidavit while he was
employed by the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, basing his refusal, among others, on the ground that his
answer might incriminate him.
There was read to Mr. Jencks the testimony given in October 1952,
by Kenneth Eckert in which Mr. Eckert, identified Clinton Jencks as a
Communist. Mr. Jencks in the instant hearings refused to state
whether Mr. Eckert was in error in his identification, basing his refusal
on the ground, among others, that his answer might incriminate him.
He, likewise, refused to answer whether he had ever been a member
of the Communist Party but denied present membership in the
Communist Party. He refused also to state under oath whether he has
information respecting Communists and Communist activities during
the period when he was engaged as international representative of the
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (until 1956)
on the ground that his answer might incriminate him.
Mr. Jencks related that in the fall of 1958, he applied to the Wood-
row Wilson National Fellowship Foundation of Princeton, New Jersey,
for a graduate fellowship, which was subsequently awarded to him,
to study at the University of California; that at no time did he
reveal to the persons representing the Foundation whether or not he
had ever been a member of the Communist Party. In applying for
the fellowship Mr. Jencks submitted a statement containing the
following language:
After serving as president of the amalgamated local unions
for five years I found myself charged with having falsely
signed the Taft-Hartley non-Communist affidavit, and in
1954 in El Paso, Tex., I was convicted. This came in an
atmosphere of great press hysteria following a long and bit-
ter strike against a major mining company. In June, 1957,
I won vindication and reversal of the conviction from the
United States Supreme Court, with the Department of
Justice subsequently asking dismissal of the case.
With reference to this statement the following testimony in the
instant hearings is significant:
Mr. Arens. Did you mean to convey the impression to the
people who were passing upon your application for this
I 1075
1076 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
fellowship that you had not falsely signed the non-Communist
affidavit?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I understand. You mean did I give him the
impression that I had not falsely signed the affidavit?
Mr. Arens. That is right, sir; that is the question.
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. That is the impression you meant to convey?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Was that a truthful impression?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Arens. In other words, were you telling the truth
when you conveyed the impression by this application that
you had not falsely signed a non-Communist affidavit?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I would dearly love to answer that
question if it did not mean that I would have to fear opening
up this whole thing, but under the circumstances
Mr. Arens. All we are asking you to do, Mr. Jencks, is to
tell the truth now.
Did you tell the truth when you conveyed the impression —
you said you conveyed the impression— did you tell the truth
to these professors when you conveyed the impression to them
that you had not signed the non-Communist affidavit falsely?
Mr. Jencks. I certainly told the professors the truth.
There is no question about that.
With regard to that, the other part of the question, where
you try to drag this whole case in by the tail, I refuse to
answer it.
Mr. Arens. We are not trjang to drag the whole case in
by the tail.
Mr. Jencks. I beg your pardon; you are.
Mr. Arens. We are trying to get the facts and the truth.
Mr. Jencks. No, you are not.
Mr. Arens. You told us a moment ago, did you not, sir,
that you meant to convey the impression to these professors
that you had not falsely signed the non-Communist affidavit?
Is that not the impression you meant to convey?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Was that the truth?
Mr. Jencks. Well, there, again, you are enough of an
attorney to understand that I must object and refuse to
answer that question on the grounds previously stated, all
of the grounds.
Mr. Arens. In other words, if you now told this Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities whether or not you had told
the truth when you filed this application with the professors,
you would be supplying information which might be used
against j^ou in a criminal proceeding; is that correct?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Yes, in addition to waiving what I conceive
to be the statute of limitations to open up this whole deal
to exploration, litigation again; yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1959
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee of the
Committee on Un-American Activities,
Washington, D.C.
executive session ^
A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met
in executive session, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m. in room 226, House
Office Building, Washington, D.C, Hon. Gordon H. Scherer presiding.
Committee members present: Representatives Gordon H. Scherer,
of Ohio, and August E. Johansen, of Michigan.
Staff members present: Richard Arens, staff director, and Frank
Bonora, investigator.
Mr. Scherer. The committee will be in order.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Jencks, will you remain standing while the chair-
man administers an oath to you, please?
Mr. Scherer. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr, Jencks. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, LAWRENCE SPEISER
Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and
occupation.
Mr. Jencks. My name is Clinton Edward Jencks. I reside at
1000 Talbot Avenue, Albany, Calif. My occupation is machinist.
Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mr. Jencks, in response to
a subpena which was served upon you by the Committee on Un-
American Activities?
Mr. Jencks. I am.
Mr. Arens. You are represented by counsel?
Mr. Jencks. I am.
Mr. Arens. Counsel, please identify yourself on this record.
Mr. Speiser. My name is Lawrence Speiser, associated with the
law firm of Haet, Dominguez, Speiser & Williams, located at 690
Market Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born, Mr. Jencks?
Mr. Jencks. I was born in Colorado Springs, Colo., on March 1,
1918.
Mr. Arens. And give us, if you please, sir, a word about your
formal education.
' Released by the committee and ordered to be printed.
1077
44425 — 59 2
1078 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr, Jencks. I was educated in the public school system of Colorado
Springs, Colo. I worked for and was awarded a bachelor of arts
degree in 1939 from the University of Colorado.
Mr. Arens. Did that complete your formal education?
Mr. Jencks. That is right, sir.
Mr. ScHERER. Did you say that was a bachelor of arts degree?
Mr. JexNCKS. That is right, sir.
Mr. ScHERER. And you said your present occupation is a machinist?
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
Mr. Arens. Then, if you will, kindly give us the principal employ-
ments which you have had since you completed your formal education.
Mr. Jencks. I have worked at a great number of jobs, ranging
from some white-collar work to
Mr. Arens. Maybe we will do it this way, and I don't mean to
interrupt you except it would be a httle helpful to us if we can proceed
in a chronological form.
You concluded your formal education in 1939?
Mr. Jencks. 1939.
Mr. Arens. Let's take it by the first few years. Where did you
work, say, the first three or four years, if you recall?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I went to work first as a junior accountant, and
as a pubhc relations representative, more in the clerical sense than
any other, handling customer complaints and the like.
Mr. Arens. In what State, please?
Mr. Jencks. That was in Missouri.
Mr. Arens. In what city?
Mr. Jencks. In St. Louis.
And I went into service from St. Louis as an aviation cadet and
was sent to Army Air Force Navigation School, graduated as a
navigator and assigned as an instructor in navigation at Monroe, La.
From there I was sent into combat in the Pacific, where I was
honored to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and six air
medals for my combat service. Subsequently I was rotated home
on the completion of my combat tour of duty, and ultimately released
and returned to civilian life about the end of 1945.
Mr. Arens. During your period of service in the Air Force, did you
know a man by the name of Robert E. Taylor?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, I did.
Mr. Arens. In what capacity did you know him?
Mr. Jencks. It has been a good many years ago, but to the best
of my recollection — I remember the first that I got acquainted with
him was on the transport as we were going overseas. I cannot
remember just what his assignment was.
Mr. Arens. Was your acquaintance solely and exclusively that of
one fellow in arms to another?
Mr. Jencks. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. You were released from the service what year, again,
please?
Mr. Jencks. I believe that it was about November of 1945, Decem-
ber, along in there, the latter part.
Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us what was your first principal employ-
ment after you were released from the armed services.
Mr. Jencks. I went to work in a smelter at Denver, Colo. I went
to work there as operator of their acid plant.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1079
Mr. Arens. About how long would you say you stayed in that
capacity?
Mr. Jencks. Some seven or eight months, I think.
Mr. Arens. Did you in the course of your employment there be-
come associated with the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter
Workers?
Mr. Jencks. That is right, sir. They had bargaining jurisdiction
for that particular plant.
Mr. Arens. After the expiration of the seven or eight months
that you were employed there, what happened?
Mr. Jencks. I was asked to take a job as business representative
for a group of local unions in southwestern New Mexico.
Air. Arens. Was that the International Union of Mine, Mill &
Smelter Workers?
Mr. Jencks. That is right, sir.
Mr. Arens. Who asked you to take that job? Do you recall?
Mr. Speiser. May I interrupt? I think Mr. Jencks may have
failed to recall that he worked for Continental Air.
Was that after your service?
Mr. Arens. Was that for a very brief period?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. In what capacity?
Mr. Jencks. Flight control.
Mr. Arens. All right, sir. Now we go back to 1945, where you
are, as I understand from what you just said, ready to represent the
union locals of the International Union of Mine, MiU & Smelter
Workers.
Mr. Jencks. Well, a correction on the date. This is 1947 nowj
Mr. Arens. How long did you hold that job?
Mr. Jencks. As a business representative?
Mr. Arens. Yes. Just roughly speaking.
Mr. Jencks. Roughly speaking, some three or four years.
Mr. Arens. That gets you up about 1950?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, and then I was appointed international repre-
sentative for the International Union of Mine, MiU & Smelter Workers.
Mr Arens. In 1950?
Mr. Jencks. Yes. There was some little bit of half-and-half
business involved there. When I first took on the job of business
representative, I was credentialed as an international representative
and authorized to, you know, take those actions, for instance, the
signing of contracts and agreements, so that it was not necessary to
send in an international representative from the outside, and then
along about 1950, when I was still credentialed as an international
representative, but half of my salary was paid by the local union and
half by the international, I can't give you the precise date on that.
Then I was finally full-time international representative for the
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers until the time of my resignation in
January of 1956.
Mr. Arens. Kindly, tell us who was your immediate superior when
you were international representative.
Mr. Jencks. Just to complete the thing, I then proceeded on the
trade that I still am presently following, that of machinist.
Mr. Arens. Are you in any capacity now with the International
Union of Mine, Miir& Smelter Workers?
1080 TESTIMONT OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Jencks. None whatsoever.
Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us who was your immediate superior in
your work as international representative of the Mine, Mill & Smelter
Workers Union?
Mr. Jencks. Well, there were several. I was working in District 2
the entire period of my service with the union, and during the period
of this time there were elections of various international union board
members. These members are elected by the rank and file.
Mr. Arens. Was Maurice Travis one of your superior officers?
Mr. Jencks. Well, he was an officer. He was not my superior.
He didn't direct my work.
Mr. Arens. What post did he hold?
Mr. Jencks. Well, he also held several posts during the period that
I served as international representative. Let's see — it seems to me
that at the outset he was assistant to the president, and subsequently
I believe he served a period as president of the international union,
and later as its secretary-treasurer.
Mr. Arens. What precipitated or caused your disassociation from
the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers?
Mr. Jencks. Well, there was a combination of many factors. I
had, quite frankly, for some time felt that I was burning the candle
at both ends. The life of an international representative, particularly
in the Southwest, is a difficult one. There are tremendous distances
from local union to local union. Many small local unions are involved
so that there are — well, I found myself out to meetings of local unions
very often. It took a lot of time away from my family. My children
were getting into their teens where this was felt more and more by
them. So this was one of the principal things. I felt that I couldn't
keep up with the pace in recognition of my family obligations.
Mr. Arens. Were there any other significant reasons?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, there were.
Mr. Scherer. This was in 1956?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, sir; that is correct.
The other significant reason was that in a discussion with the inter-
national union executive board, we felt that the shadow of accusation
and all of the publicity that the mining companies had made use of
made it a problem for the union as a whole to do the most effective
kind of a job it could for its membership.
We agreed that the best interests of the membership would be
served by my resigning from the position that I held.
Mr. Scherer. Could you be a little more specific about that, about
the shadow of — whatever the shadow was, that the mining companies
had created, and the like? Will you help us on that?
Mr. SpErsER. Mr. Arens, may I make a statement? I recognize
the rules of the committee with regard to addressing the committee
on the part of counsel.
Mr. Scherer. Why don't you explain it to your client and then
let him explain it. ITalk to him, advise him.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. WcU, as you are well aware, I am Jencks of the
Jencks case, and I have sat here and answered questions that have
ranged pretty far afield into the area of past employment.
My understanding was that I was summoned here because of the
fact that I had been awarded a fellowship. It would certainly be my
feeling that you are adequately identified
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1081
Mr. Arens. That is not the reason you were summoned here.
You were summoned here because we think you have information
which might be of use to the committee in the committee's jurisdiction.
Will you tell us what was this cloud you were talking about that
involved you which precipitated this resignation from the Interna-
tional Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers in 1956? The record is not
quite clear what that shadow was.
Mr. Jencks. The fact that I am Jencks of the Jencks case.
Mr. ScHERER. Was that subsequent to your trial that you resigned?
Mr. Jencks. That is correct.
Mr. ScHERER. Wlien was your trial terminated?
Mr. Jencks. I fail to understand the point of these questions. It
is all a matter of record.
Mr. ScHERER. Well, it isn't of record right now. I should know,
but I don't even remember the charge against you. What was the
charge against you? You raised the issue that you are Jencks of the
Jencks case.
Mr. Jencks. I didn't raise it. The counsel raised it.
Mr. ScHERER. He didn't ask about the Jencks case, sir. He said
nothing about the Jencks case. You said you were the Jencks in the
Jencks case, and that we know all about it, that it is on the public
record.
Frankly, I know what the Jencks case was about, but I don't
remember the charge against you, I don't remember the legal issue
involved in the Jencks case.
Is that the case where the prosecution was compelled to open the
files? What was the cb.arge? I don't even remember.
Mr. Jencks. This is not at all an accurate statement of the matter;
but then leave that go.
Mr. ScHPRER. What is not accurate?
Mr. Speiser. As far as the decision is concerned.
Mr. Scherer. Enlighten me, if I am wrong.
Mr. Speiser. Since this is a legal question, I would be glad to
speak on it.
Mr. Scherer. Let him tell me.
Mr. Jencks. I am not an attorney.
Mr. Scherer. Let me ask this question : First, what was the charge
against you in the Jencks case?
Mr. Jencks. Well, the charge against me in the Jencks case was
that I had falsely signed a Taft-Hartley affidavit which I was required
to do as a local union officer, and it was subsequently vindicated and
the conviction reversed and the Department of Justice dismissed the
entire matter.
Now it is clear. It has been adjudicated and I would object to any
questions of this committee that would attempt to dredge that up or
attempt to make it an issue here. I don't believe that it is pertinent
at all to any subject under any valid legislative purpose under inquiry
by this committee.
Mr. Scherer. My next question is : This is a case where you were
convicted by the jury, the circuit court of appeals affirmed the con-
viction, and then the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the
lower court conviction on the ground — if I am stating the proposition
wrongly, you correct me — on the ground that you were not given the
full files for inspection at the time of the trial. Wasn't it?
1082 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Jencks. You are quite mistaken, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ScHERER. Tell me, then.
Mr. Jencks. It was reversed because I was denied due process of
law.
Mr. Speiser. May I explain the specific holding, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Arens. Would you tell us, please, sir, in the Jencks case, which
you have brought up, what date was it that you signed the non-
Communist affidavit under the Taft-Hartley Act?
Mr. Jencks. I must object to the question on the basis that I don't
feel it has any pertinency to any matter under inquiry by this com-
mittee.
Mr. ScHERER. The Chair directs you to answer the question. Go
ahead and answer the question. Your objection has been noted.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I have been summoned here, some 3,000 miles from
my home, without any prior appraisal of the purpose or nature of
these hearings or what they are inquiring into, what the purpose is.
I have been liberal in answering certain and many questions, but
since the Chair directs me to answer with reference to this particular
matter, then I, of course, must state my objection.
Mr. Arens. You are reading now or going to read from a prepared
statement you have just taken from your coat pocket; is that correct?
Mr. Jencks. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Arens. Did you prepare that statement?
Mr. Jencks. In consultation with counsel; I did, sir.
The question propounded is objected to because it is not pertinent
to any valid legislative subject under inquiry, or to the announced
purpose of the hearings scheduled for today, nor, for that matter, is
my appearance at all pertinent to that purpose.
What little I understand of it from the newspaper, the question
infringes on my rights under the first amendment, which guarantees
my freedom of political beliefs and association. You certainly failed
to state what is the overriding necessity of the Government infringing
on these rights to inquire into my beliefs and in my past, merely
because I applied for a fellowship.
Mr. Scherer. As I remember your testimony, you said that you
were separated or you separated from the union as an employee
because you were Jencks of the Jencks case. That is the basis for
Mr. Arens' question, as I understand it. You said you separated
in 1956.
The question is: When did you sign the affidavit under the Taft-
Hartley law? Is that correct?
Mr. Arens. The record will reflect, I am certain, that the witness
said he separated himself from the International Union of Mine,
Mill & Smelter Workers because he was Jencks of the Jencks case,
and he was describing some of the elements of the Jencks case,
and I asked him when it was he had signed the non-Communist affi-
davit, which was the crux of the Jencks case. He has now declined
to answer it on the basis of something about his political beliefs.
Mr. Jencks. You see, the committee already has this information
right here in its files.
Mr. Scherer. Well, I don't have it. Although we have it in our
files, I want to know it. I don't remember it.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1083
Mr. Jencks. You can very well determine it. Your counsel can
provide it for you in a matter of minutes. Respectfully, Mr. Chair-
man, I have just — ■ —
Mr. ScHERER. I don't want to go to the trouble. I want to know
now.
Mr. Jencks. Mr. Chairman, appreciate my position, too, if you
please, sir •
Mr. ScHERER. You can't be put in jeopardy.
Mr. Jencks. I beg your pardon, sir?
Mr. Speiser. Certainly he can, Mr. Scherer. You know that.
Mr. Jencks. I have counsel here. Of course, in the last analysis,
as you well know, I will have to rely on him as the best judge of
that. But I ask you to appreciate my position in that for many
long years I went through a long struggle to vindicate myself. I
have started here to build myself a new life. Here you come with
information you already have, perfectly a matter of public record, and
in the files of the committee.
Mr, Scherer. If it is public record, why do you refuse to answer
it now?
Mr. Jencks. I will tell you, sir, the reason I refuse to answer it
now is on the grounds I have already stated, and further the fact that
you open up the whole question to possible litigation again. I don't
care to have that done. I can't afford to have that done.
Mr. Scherer. The committee cannot accept the grounds that you
gave for refusal to answer, so you are directed to answer Mr, Arens'
question.
Mr. Jencks. Let me state to you further objections.
In addition to the above, considering on this very point the
attention that has been given to me in the past by various Federal
agencies, it seems apparent to me that your sole purpose in calling
me to Washington must be to harass me, to subject me to publicity,
vague accusations and for the mere sake of exposure and for a fishing
expedition into my past.
I am a man of 41 who has a wife and two children, and I am trying
to complete my education, an endeavor which may have been already
ruined by this committee, and that is not a legislative purpose. The
purpose of this committee in calling this hearing is so vague and in-
definite that I don't know what questions are pertinent or proper
within the scope of this hearing, and I don't think anyone else does.
Therefore, to compel me to answer questions under such conditions
deprives me of due process of law guaranteed me by the fifth amend-
ment.
Mr. Scherer. Are you refusing to answer the question on the
ground that it might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. Jencks. I would state further that your calling me further
violates my rights under the due process clause of the fifth amend-
ment because you had absolutely no probable cause for believing that
I had any knowledge whatsoever that would be of assistance to the
committee as to any so-called— well, as to what? This committee
has still failed to state what they want of me, but that I had any infor-
mation at aU which the committee did not already have in their
possession.
1084 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
The committee called me for the pm'pose of putting me on trial
without any of the rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution under
the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution.
You have failed to give me notice of any charges. You have de-
prived me of the effective aid of counsel. You have denied my counsel
the right of cross-examination, and deprived me of the presumption of
innocence. You have placed me in double jeopardy, or you are
attempting to do so.
Mr. JoHANSEN. Do I understand you to say that this committee
has deprived you of the right to invoke the fifth amendment?
Mr. Jencks. I did not say that, sir; no.
Mr. JoHANSEN. What was the reference to the fifth amendment?
Mr. Speiser. The due process clause.
Mr. ScHERER. That is the thing that isn't clear, Mr. Johansen,
whether or not he is relying in his refusal to answer on the self-
incrimination provision of the fifth amendment.
The courts say that when it is not clear, we must ask him specifically
whether or not he is refusing to answer for that reason.
Let us get that clear. If you say that you are refusing to answer
on the ground that your answer might tend to incriminate you, all
right, we will recognize that. But from your statements, that isn't
clear.
Mr. Jencks. Would you like for me to read my objections again to
you so you will understand them?
Mr. ScHERER. No. I heard the objections. I am directing you to
answer. I say as far as the committee is concerned, it is not clear
whether you are relying on the self-incrimination provision of the fifth
amendment.
Therefore, I am asking if you are refusing to answer on that basis.
If he doesn't want to answer further, then let's move to the next
question.
Mr. Jencks. Very well, Mr. Chairman. In addition to all the
above grounds already cited, on advice of counsel I invoke the
privilege of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which holds
that I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Arens. Sir, would you tell us whether or not you did sign a
non-Communist affidavit while you were employed by the Interna-
tional Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers?
Mr. Jencks. Here is a many-parted question.
Mr. ScHERER. Now, counsel, that is contemptuous conduct.
Mr. Speiser. I am not being contemptuous of the committee. But
I am afraid, Mr. Scherer, that the executive session is a waste of time.
I am sorry that the committee's time has been wasted. I thought
perhaps something could have been accomplished.
Mr. Arens. Now, will you kindly answer the question?
Mr. Jencks. The question is impossible of answering. You asked
a midtipart question there. Do you want to separate it?
Mr. Arens. Did you sign a non-Communist affidavit when you
were employed by the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter
Workers?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I don't understand why the chairman permits
counsel to do this.
Mr. Arens. Because we feel it would be of keen interest to the
committee in developing factual information. We are going to give
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1085
you complete information in a little while after we ask a few more
questions.
Mr. Jencks. You have this information. You are not seeking
information now.
Mr. Arens. We haven't that information under oath as to whether
you did. Will you answer the question?
Mr. Jencks. Really. This is a serious committee, worldng for a
legislative purpose, isn't it?
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the witness be directed
to answer the question.
Mr. Scherer. The witness is directed to answer the question. If
you don't want to answer, you know how to refuse to answer it, if
you want to invoke your constitutional privilege.
Mr. Jencks. You know, it is not a question of constitutional privi-
lege, Mr. Chairman. It is a fact that this committee is supposed to
be seeking for information for legislation. You have it in your file.
Why sit here and try to badger me on a matter that you know very
well my family and I have suffered a great deal-
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, has the witness been ordered and
directed to answer the question?
Mr. Scherer. The witness has been ordered and directed to answer
the question.
Mr. Arens. We will proceed to the next question.
Counsel, you know your sole and exclusive right here is to advise
your client.
Mr. Speiser. I agree. But may Mr. Jencks have an opportunity
to respond to the question before you go on to the next one?
Mr. Scherer. Proceed.
Mr. Jencks. I refuse to answer on all of the grounds that I have
previously stated.
Does the Chair understand that I am including all of the groimds
that I previously cited?
Mr. Scherer. I understand that, which includes the invocation of
the fifth amendment, the only one I am interested in.
Mr. Jencks. I beg your pardon. I am very much interested in
the first and the rest.
Mr. Scherer. You said what you are interested in and I said what
I was interested in.
Mr. Jencks. I just wanted to be sure that it was clearly in the
record connected with these other matters. I would be happy to
cite them, if you prefer.
Mr. Arens. We would like to ask you about a matter not at all
related to the Jencks case
During the course of your employment in the International Union
of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, did you know a person by the
name of Kenneth Eckert?
Mr. Jencks. I must ask that the pertinency of this question be
given.
Mr. Arens. I will be glad to explain the pertinency to you, if you
please. The Committee on Un-American Activities has a mandate
from the Congress of the United States to develop factual information
for legislative purposes. Through the efforts of this committee, in
the course of the last several years, Congress has passed the Internal
Security Act of 1950, the Communist Control Act of 1954, numerous
44425—59 3
1086 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
provisions to the criminal code, numerous amendments to security
legislation.
Under the Legislative Reorganization Act, this committee has a
mandate to maintain a continuing surveillance over the adminis-
tration and operation of each of these several laws which are designed
to protect the security of this country.
In order for this committee to develop factual information we have
to find out about the activities of Communists, people who are, or in
the past have been, members of the Communist Party. Some few
years ago, a man by the name of Kenneth Eckert took an oath
before a congressional committee and I want to read to you some of
his testimony which pertains to yourself. We want to know a little
bit about Eckert.
We are going to ask you about him and about some of your ac-
tivities. Here is the testimony of Mr. Eckert while he was under
oath :
Mr. Speiser. May I have the time and date on that?
Mr. Arens. It was in October 1952.
Question: Do you know Clinton Jencks?
Mr. Eckert. Yes.
Question: Do you know Clinton Jencks as a Communist?
Mr. Eckert. Yes, I do.
Question: Have you attended Communist Party meetings with Clinton Jencks?
Mr. Eckert. Yes, I have.
Now, on the basis of that explanation and upon the basis of the
sworn testimony of Kenneth Eckert, who had no participation, no
part in any way in the so-called Jencks case, kindly answer the prin-
cipal question: Do you know a man, or did you know while you were
in the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, a man
bj^ the name of Kennetli Eckert?
Mr. Jencks. I think you are mistaken again, counsel, if you will
excuse me for correcting you. It is not a matter of fact that he
wasn't, as I think he testified
Mr. ScHERER. I didn't hear what the witness said. I couldn't
hear him.
Mr. Jencks. Well, he said that Eckert was not in any way con-
nected with the Jencks case.
Mr. ScHERER. Well, I don't care whether Eckert was connected or
was not connected with the Jencks case. The witness is directed to
answer the question.
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question on the grounds previously
stated.
Mr. Arens. Do you mean you refuse to answer?
Mr. Jencks. I said I object to the question on the grounds previ-
ously stated.
Mr. ScHERER. Objection to the question is not a refusal to answer.
Do you mean you refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated,
wliicli include the fifth amendment?
Mr. Jencks. If the
Mr. ScHERER. You can object to the question on the grounds of
pertinency and so forth and then we can direct you to answer. But
if you refuse to answer, it must be on the basis of some constitutional
privilege that you feel is appropriate that you invoke at the time.
Mr.llENCKS. That is right, and I cite to you that the question is not
pertinent, that it infringes on my rights under the first amendment,
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1087
that it furtluT violates my rights under the due process clause of the
fifth amendment.
Mr. ScHERER. Witness, we understand that, and you liave a perfect
right, if you are refusing to answer the question on the groimds of the
fifth amendment, to so state. But to object to the question because
of pertinency or any other i-eason that you might think of is not a
refusal to answer and is not an answer that we can accept.
Mr. Jencks. I understand that. I am stating to you my objec-
tions. What you do from there is your responsibility.
Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest he now be
directed and ordered to answer the question.
Mr. Scherer. You are again ordered and du'ected to answer the
outstanding question.
Mr. Jencks. Then I must object and refuse to answer the question
on all of the grounds that I have previously stated and, in particular,
because the question is not pertinent to any valid legislative subject
under inquiry; it infringes my rights under the first amendment, it
deprives me of my rights under the due process clause of the fifth
amendment, and on advice of counsel I rely on the privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. Arens. Was Eckert in error when he said that he knew you as
a Communist, as a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question on all the grounds previously
stated.
Mr. Scherer. I direct you to answer the question.
Mr. Jencks. I refuse to answer the question on all the grounds I
previouslj^ stated.
Mr. Scherer. Proceed.
Mr. Arens. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question on the grounds that I pre-
viously stated and, in particular, because the question is not perti-
nent to any valid legislative subject under inquiry. It infringes on
my rights under the first amendment of the Constitution, guarantee-
ing me freedom of poHtical belief, freedom of association, freedom to
learn. It deprives me of my rights under the due process clause of
the fifth amendment, and on advice of counsel I rely on the privilege
under the fifth amendment which holds that I cannot be compelled
to be a witness against myself.
Mr. Arens. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. I am not.
Mr. Arens. Have you been a member of the Communist Party at
any time in the course of the last five years?
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Mr. Chairman, as the committee can readily see, the
question asked by counsel again overlaps a matter already adjudicated.
I will answer in this way
Mr. Scherer. If it has been adjudicated, then how can you say —
well, if you say the matter has already been adjudicated, how can
you say you would be placing yourself in jeopardy? That is what
you said before.
Mr. Jencks. That is at the point of entering into a legal discussion.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Scherer. I direct the witness to answer the question.
1088 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Jencks. My counsel feels that there is a question of jeopardy,
and I must answer the question in this way : I am not now a member
of the Communist Party, nor was I at the time I was nominated for a
fellowship by the Woodrow WUson National Fellowship Foundation.
However, as to questions covering any prior period, I must object
on the following grounds
Mr. ScHERER. Are they the same reasons that you stated before?
Mr. Jencks. They are the same reasons, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ScHERER. And you refuse to answer for the same reasons that
you have previously stated?
Mr. Jencks. For all of the same reasons I have previously stated.
Mr. Scherer. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Arens. Are you now against the Communist Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Jencks. Would counsel explain to me what that question
means?
Mr, Arens. I think it is pretty obvious. The distinguished chair-
man of this committee is against the Communist Party. He is
devoting considerable effort and energy in developing factual infor-
mation to combat and resist the Communist Party, and as he acquhes
information about the Communist Party, he addresses the House of
Representatives, he works on reports of this committee to make availa-
ble to the American people facts about the Communist Party.
A person who is against the Communist Party is ready, willing, and
able, if he has information about the Communist Party, which is a
conspiracy, to serve his Government and to tell his Government what
he knows about the Communist Party.
I therefore ask you now, in view of the fact that you have said you
are not now a member of the Communist Party, if you are against
the Communist Party.
(Witness conferred with his counsel).
Mr. Jencks. I cannot see how such a question is pertinent at all.
Mr. Arens. I will give you an explanation right now as to the
pertinency. The Committee on Un-American Activities, in the course
of the last several months, has interrogated extensively former mem-
bers of the Communist Party who have broken from the Communist
Party.
It has extensively interrogated former Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion undercover agents in the Communist Party. They have re-
peatedly sworn before this committee that the Communist Party as a
formal entity is only one segment of the Communist operation, that
people who are Communists, hard-core, dedicated revolutionaries,
members of the Communist Party, frequently resign technical member-
ship in the formal entity known as the Communist Party in order to
avoid such things as the impact of the Taft-Hartley law, in order that
they may come before a committee and say, "I am not now a member
of the Communist Party," but that these same people are, for all
intents and purposes, actively engaged as Communists.
In other words, it is a tactic of people who are Communists in order
to dupe other people into thinking that they are not Communists, in
order to set a stage upon which they could perform Communist
activities. Communist infiltration. Communist propaganda. Com-
munist indoctrination, without having attached to them the actual
concept of a member of the Communist Party.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1089
With that explanation of pertinency, sir, I now ask you to please
answer the question.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Your explanation of pertinency is certainly very
unclear to me.
Mr. ScHERER. Well, it is very clear to the chamnan. You are
directed to answer the question.
Mr. Jencks. I am not a member of the Communist Party, and I
certainly don't fit into the category of people that you have described.
Mr. Arens. Are you now against the Communist Party?
Mr. ScHERER. Proceed to the next question.
Mr. Jencks. Well, wait a minute.
Mr. Arens. Do you presently have information respecting Com-
munist activities, persons who to your certain knowledge
Mr. Jencks. You ask me a question and then because I am taking
a minute to try to think of how I can answer it, you take off.
Mr. Scherer. Do you want to answer it? Go ahead.
Mr. Jencks. Of course I want to answer it.
Mr. Scherer. We have given you all kinds of tune to answer the
question.
Mr. Jencks. All kinds of time when you run tlu-ough a ramblmg
explanation like this? Just a minute. I am going to answer the
question, but I certainly have to
Mr. Scherer. You didn't indicate that you were going to answer.
You were directed to answer by the chairman three times.
Mr. Jencks. Certainly I have many differences with the Com-
munist Partv; many, many differences.
Mr. Scherer. I have many differences with the Repubhcan Party,
and I am a Republican.
Mr. Jencks. So do I.
Mr. Scherer. But I am not a Communist.
Mr. Jencks. Neither am I.
Mr, Scherer. I am still a Republican.
Mr. Arens. Now would you tell us whether or not you are now
ao-ainst the Communist Party, please, sir?
:Mr. Jencks. Well, if the Chair rules that my answer is not accept-
able to the committee, I will answer further.
!vlr. Scherer. I have dii'ected you to answer. This is the fourth
Mr. Jencks. Well, I have answered, but you are not satisfied with
my answer. , i • ^
Mr. Scherer. We are not satisfied with the explanation as to your
refusal to answer the question. • u i •
Mr. Johansen. Do I understand the witness' answer is that he is
against many of the things that the Communist Party stands for?
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
Mr. Arens. Do you presently have information respecting persons
who, to your certain knowledge, are or have been members of the
Communist Party in the last five years?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Jencks. No.
Mr, Arens. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Jencks. No. • t. ^ o
Mr. Arens. Have you resigned from the Commumst Party.'
1090 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Jencks. Well, I must decline to answer that question on the
grounds, all of the grounds, that I previously stated.
Mr. Arens. What are the things about the Communist Party that
you are against?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I think
Mr. Arens. I will withdraw that question for a moment. I will
ask you this: Did you resign technical membership in the Communist
Party but maintain yourself under Communist Party discipline?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question as being a compound question
and assuming facts that are certainly not estabhshed.
Mr. ScHERER. The witness is directed to answer the question. In
view of counsel's explanation, and I might say I have sat on this
committee and hstened to witness after witness who have at one time
been members of the Communist Party or who have been undercover
agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, tell us of the plan of
the party to have individuals resign technical membership.
That has been done tune and time again. We want to know
whether you are one of those. If not, so state. Maybe you are not.
Most likely you are not. But we don't laiow.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. WeU, I can certainly tell the chairman this : that I am
not under discipline, and I am not trying to be evasive. I am simply
trying, you know, to answer the questions and to protect my rights
as I understand them under our Constitution.
Mr. ScHERER. I might say you have not answered the question.
The Chair does not accept your answer. You are again directed to
answer the question.
Mr. Speiser. May we have the question again?
Mr. ScHERER. Repeat the question — -whether or not he resigned
technical membership in the Communist Party.
Mr. Arens. But maintained himself in the operation under Com-
munist discipline.
Mr. Jencks. No, that is — what a question. I am trying to divide
the question.
Mr. Scherer. Will you rephrase the question?
Mr. Jencks. Listen to the question when it comes back and see
how many parts there are to it. See how many tenses and ifs and
ands and buts. How any witness can try to disentangle all of this.
Do you want to repeat the question?
Mr. Scherer. I will ask you the question: Did you resign from the
Communist Party?
Mr. Arens. I asked him that.
Mr. Scherer. But he wants it in separate parts.
Mr. Arens. Have you resigned from the Communist Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to — I can see, in con-
sultation with counsel, that despite my objections of pertinency that
apparently the chairman overrules, that in order to avoid getting into
a complicated waiver problem, and for all of the reasons that I have
already stated — and perhaps I should at least restate them briefly, to
wit, that I do feel most definitely that this question is far afield from
the announced purpose of the hearing and, secondly, that the ques-
tion very definitely, I feel, does infringe upon my rights under the
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1091
first amendment, guaranteeing my right to political beliefs, association,
and learning; the failure of counsel in any way to state what is the
overriding necessity of the Government in infringing on these rights
to inquire into my belief; and in the light of the attention given to me
in the past by various Federal agencies, that this constitutes an
attempt to expose for the sake of exposure, which is certainly not a
valid legislative pm'pose.
Third, that the purpose of the committee in calling the hearing is
so vague and indefinite that I don't know what questions are perti-
nent or proper within the scope of the hearings, and I don't beheve
anybody else does; that you are calling me violates my rights under
the due process clause of the fifth amendment; that the committee
called me for the purpose of putting me on trial without any of the
rights guaranteed to me under the fifth and sixth amendments to the
Constitution, with no notice of charges or even explanations of what
the hearing was to be all about; and, finally, that on advice of counsel
I do invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment to the Constitution
which holds that I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself.
Mr. ScHERER. And you are refusing to answer for those reasons?
Mr. Jencks. I am refusing to answer for those reasons.
Mr. ScHERER. In addition to objecting to the question?
Mr. Jencks. In addition to objecting to the question.
Mr. ScHERER. I just broke down the question at his request.
Mr. Arens. Have you at any time been under Communist disci-
phne when you were not a formal member of the Communist Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. Arens. Do you presently have information which you can
supply your Government, via this committee, respecting the activities
of Communists, persons who, to your certain knowledge, are or have
been Communists in the com-se of your experience as an international
representative of the Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers Union?
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. ScHERER. Wait a minute. You say you do not have such
information? Do you understand the question fully?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. ScHERER. Repeat the question so that he understands it.
Mr. Arens. Do you have information respecting Communist
activities and respecting persons who were members of the Com-
m.unist Party while you were connected with the International Union
of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers?
Mr. ScHERER. Your answer to that was "no."
Mr. Speiser. I am not sure that it was the same question that was
asked.
Mr. ScHERER. It was exactly the same question. That is the
reason I wanted to give him the chance. It was obvious to me that
he might be committing perjury if he answered "no".
I wanted to give him the chance.
Mr. Speiser. I believe that was a different question than was
asked before.
Mr. Scherer. It was exactly the same question.
Mr. Arens. I meant to convey substantially the same question,
Mr. Speiser. Let us have the question.
Mr. Scherer. Read the first question, if he wants.
1092 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
(The pending question as heretofore recorded was read by the
reporter.)
Mr. ScHERER. That covers the period in which you were interna-
tional representative. Do you have such information you can give us?
It is in that period or during that period.
Mr. Arens. Up to, I beUeve, 1956.
Mr. Jencks. How is that pertinent? Is this supposed to be a
hearing
Mr. ScHERER. Wait a minute. I gave him the opportunity.
Proceed to the next question.
Mr. Si'EiSER. Would you give him an opportunity to answer?
Mr. ScHERER. You do not appreciate what the chairman is trying
to do.
Mr. Jencks. I do appreciate it, Mr. Chairman; I do very much.
Let me have an opportunity to consult with counsel.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question on the grounds previously
stated, and in particular because the question is not pertinent to any
valid legislative subject under inquiry, that it infringes on my rights
under the first amendment and that, on advice of counsel, I must
rely on my privilege under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Scherer. And you want to withdraw your "no" answer to
the question that you gave?
Mr. Jencks. I do, sir.-
Mr. Scherer. All right.
Mr. Arens. Do you honestly apprehend, sir, that if you would
supply to the Government of the United States, via this committee,
information which you have respecting Communists and Communist
activities of people while you were with the International Union of
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, you would be supplying information
which might be used against you in a criminal proceeding?
(The mtness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Considering my past unfortunate experience, I must
refuse to answer on the basis of the grounds previously stated.
Mr. Scherer. I believe you misunderstood Mr. Arens' question.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Scherer. He was merely testing your good faith in invoking
the fifth amendment. You said you refused to answer on the ground
that it might tend to incriminate you.
Now he merely asks you, do you really believe that if you did
answer that question it might lead to a crimmal prosecution against
you?
Mr. Jencks. Counsel keeps asking these multipart questions, and
sometimes I lose them.
Mr, Scherer. Your answer to that has to be "yes" if you are
properly invoking the fifth amendment.
Mr. Jencks. You are more experienced. You have heard these
?[uestions so often. You know their intent. But it is a little hard
or a neophyte to figure out.
Mr. Scherer. That is why I am trying to explain it.
Mr. Jencks. Fine. I appreciate that, sir. I appreciate it very
much.
Mr. Scherer. You merely say "yes, I am invoking the fifth
amendment in good faith."
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1093
Mr. Jencks. My answer is "yes."
Mr. Arens. When did you first hear or learn about the Woodrow
Wilson Foundation?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I first heard of it from The Daily Califor-
nian — I brought the clipping along just in case you might be in-
terested— which is the official daily newspaper there at Cal, the
University of California.
I am sorry. We get used to shorthand. The University of Cali-
fornia, called The Daily Californian, in its issue of October 29, 1958.
Mr. Arens. Would you just in your own words trace the chro-
nology of events in connection with yourself and the Woodrow Wil-
son Foundation from the time you first noticed that article in the
paper until you had your transactions with the Woodrow Wilson
Foundation and they terminated or were consummated?
Mr. Speiser. Mr. Chairman, may we submit this item in evidence?
You might want it photostated.
Mr. Arens. We will be glad to have it. Thank you. Counsel.
(Document marked "Jencks Exhibit No. 1," and retained in com-
mittee files.)
Will you proceed, in your own way, to trace the chronology of
events from the time you first saw the article telling about the Wood-
row Wilson Fellowships to be granted until your arrangements with
the organization were consummated?
Mr. Jencks. It is a strange question. The committee knows much
more about this than I do.
Mr. Scherer. No, that is not so. This member of the committee
does not.
Mr. Jencks. All right, you don't. So for your benefit I will be
glad to go ahead.
My daughter brought home this issue of The Daily Californian.
She is a student at the University of California. She pointed out the
article to me and suggested it might be something I would be in-
terested in, and I was interested.
I went up to the university and, with a copy of my University of
Colorado transcript, showing, you know, my position in the class, my
grades, the courses I had taken, and so forth, and consulted with a
professor in the Institute of Industrial Relations of the Department
of Business Administration at the university who, on examining my
academic record and discussing with me, decided to nominate me for
a fellowship award.
Mr. Arens. Would you hesitate right there?
Did you discuss with him such matters as to whether or not you
had ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. Proceed, if you please, sir.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Scherer. With whom did you say you had that first interview?
Mr. Jencks. I said with a professor at the university. I did not
name him by name.
Mr. Scherer. Who was that?
Mr. Jencks. Dr. Van Deusen Kennedy.
Mr. Scherer. What was his position?
Mr. Jencks. He is a professor in the Department of Business
Administration.
1094 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
At the university there-
Mr. Arens. May I interrupt you to ask you the date? We have
that here on the paper, but it would help us on the record.
What was the date of your first interview on this? Was it in 1958
or 1959?
Mr. Jencks. This is 1959, I think.
Mr. Arens. This article which you have displayed to the committee
was dated October 29, 1958.
Mr. Jencks. Is it? That is right. That is correct.
Mr. Arens. Was it in 1958, then, that you had the interview?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Johansen. In other words, shortly after you saw this?
Mr. Jencks. Shortly after I saw this.
As a matter of fact, within a couple of days after I saw this, because
the deadline was very close. It seems to me it was the 30th, or some-
thing like that, and this came out on the morning of the 29th.
I had been considering trying to get back into school. I have
family responsibilities, of course, and it is a little tough to do. So I
had earlier seen Dr. Kennedy because of my particular interest in the
Institute of Industrial Kelations,
Mr. Arens. Did you discuss with him your backgi'ound and your
life's work and the like?
Mr. Jencks. That is right. You know, the fact that I •
Mr. Arens. Did you feel that you were under any moral obligation
or under any obligation of any kind to discuss with him the issue of
whether or not you had ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. This question didn't arise.
Mr. Arens. Did you broach the subject to him?
Mr. Jencks. No, I didn't.
Mr. Arens. Why did you not broach that subject to him?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. It had no bearing on the question at all. He knew
that; you know, who I was
Mr, Arens. What do you mean?
Mr. Jencks. Well, he had there my academic record, my tran-
script.
Mr. ScHERER. You supplied him with that?
Mr. Jencks. Sure. The University of Colorado certified it. They
sent these certified things out. His sole basis for, you know, suggest-
ing anybody would be on the question of the excellence of their
academic record.
Mr. Arens. You don't think he would be at aU concerned to know
whether or not an applicant, an individual aside from yourself, had
ever been, or was then, a member of the Communist Party; is that
correct?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I can't look into his mind and describe what he
would be concerned with.
Mr. ScHERER. At the time you had this — ^let's get this straight.
Wliat was the name of the individual in the university with whom
you had this first discussion? Did you say Kennedy?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, Dr. Kennedy.
Mr. ScHERER. What is his position at the university?
Mr. Jencks. A professor in the Department of Business Admin-
istration.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1095
Mr. ScHERER, And that was prior to this other conversation with
this other professor you told us about?
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. Speiser. We are only talking about one person.
Mr. Jencks. We are talking about one and the same person, one
conversation.
Mr. ScHERER. Did Dr. Kennedy discuss with you your imphcation
in this litigation, which is commonly known now as the Jencks case?
Mr. Jencks. I told him about it; yes, sir.
Mr. ScHERER. Did he know about it?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, he was familiar with it.
Mr. Arens. Did you tell him you were vindicated?
Mr. Jencks. I don't know whether I used those words, or not. It
is certainly true.
Mr. Arens. Do you feel that you were vindicated?
Mr. Jencks. I do indeed, sir.
Mr. Arens. Do you feel that you were not a person who did falsely
sign a non-Communist affidavit while you were with the Mine, Mill &
Smelter Workers Union?
Mr. Jencks. I object and refuse to answer that question on aU of
the grounds previously stated.
Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, he be directed
to answer the question.
Mr. ScHERER. Well, he invoked the fifth amendment. He said
on all the grounds previously stated, which includes the fifth amend-
ment.
You tell me, Mr. Counsel, what the Jencks case decided. I will see
if I am wrong or not.
Mr. Arens. The Jencks case decided, in effect, that the Government
would be obligated to make available FBI files showing reports made
to the FBI by an undercover agent who had in the trial identified
Jencks as a person known by him to be a Communist.
The Government elected, rather than to make those files available,
not to proceed in the case.
Mr. ScHERER. You have stated it much better than I did, but I
thought that was what the Jencks case decided.
They are shaking their heads.
I do not want it on the record. If we interpret the Jencks case
wrongly, you explain what the Jencks case decided.
Mr. Speiser. You don't have to have this on the record.
Mr. ScHERER. Yes, I want it on the record.
Mr. Speiser, The Jencks case decided this: that if the Government
places witnesses on the stand in a criminal prosecution and those
witnesses state that the matters about which they testified they had
previously made written or oral reports to the FBI, or other law enforce-
ment agencies, that the defense then has the right to see those par-
ticular, only those particular reports in order to determine whether or
not their testimony on the stand was in any way different from their
testimony, the previous statements given, for the purpose of impeach-
ment only.
Mr. Scherer. So you would have the right to cross-examine with
that information?
Mr. Speiser. Right. AU I am suggesting
1096 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. ScHERER. All I am saying is that that is in accordance with
my understanding of what the Jencks case decided, although I did not
express it nearly as well as either you or Mr. Arens.
I understand that is exactly what Mr. Arens said the case decided.
I do not disagree with you that the Jencks case decided exactly what
you said it decided.
Mr. Arens. In other words, the Jencks case did not decide whether
or not Mr. Jencks was, or had ever been, a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. ScHERER. No. They reversed that on the failure of the Govern-
ment, the prosecution, to comply with a procedure which the Supreme
Court thought this man was entitled to.
Mr. Arens. When you were talking with the professor at the school
and soliciting his cooperation to procure this fellowship for you, did
you withhold any pertinent information from him respecting your
background and experience and activities?
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. Arens. Did you tell him whether or not you had ever been a
member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. Arens. Why did you not think that was a pertinent area of
inquiry or discussion?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I was in the position of simply answering his questions,
whatever questions he wanted to put to me, which I did.
Mr. Arens. What was the next event or occurrence in the chronol-
ogy of your procurement of this fellowship?
Mr. Jencks. Well, I was notified that I had been nominated and
was sent a paper to fill out on — I don't remember exactly. I think
the committee probably has a copy of that if they want to use it for
refreshing, if they want direct testimony instead of what they already
have in their files.
I think you already have it in your files.
Anyway, it was, you know, the thing that asks your name and
address and previous academic experience, with copies of your
transcript.
Mr. JoHANSEN. How soon after this one initial interview did that
occur?
Mr. Jencks. That was required — I don't remember the exact
date of filing that. I got that fairly soon, within, I would say, a
week or ten days of the time that I was nominated, and then I got
it back in, I think, within a day or two after that because the deadline
for filing these materials that they had requested was, if I am not
mistaken, the end of November.
Mr. ScHERER. From whom did you receive that application that
you are talking about?
Mr. Jencks. From the Woodrow Wilson Foundation chairman —
wait a minute. The Woodrow W^ilson National Foundation is divided
up into regions, and I got this from the regional ofhce of that
foundation.
Mr. vScherer. Where?
Mr. Jencks. In California.
Mr. ScHERER. In Berkeley?
Mr. Jencks. In Berkeley. Yes.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1097
Mr. ScHERER. You do not know who that was, do you? You
never had any contact with those individuals?
Mr. Jencks. Yos, I knew who that was.
Mr. ScHERER. Who was it?
Mr. Jencks. Prof. Travis Bogard.
Mr. ScHERER. Where is he a professor?
Mr. Jencks. Professor of Enghsh at the University of CaUfornia.
Mr. ScHERER. What is his position with the foundation, sir?
Mr. Jencks. Regional chairman for the northeastern California
region. They give numbers to it. I don't remember the numbers.
Mr. ScHERER. Had you known Professor Bogard prior to this time?
Mr. Jencks. No, siir.
Mr. ScHERER. You had never met him?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir.
Mr. ScHERER. You went to see him after you received this applica-
tion?
Mr. Jencks. No.
Mr. ScHERER. You had been advised that you received this
Mr. Jencks. I received this from him through the mail and re-
turned through the mail.
Mr. Arens. You are just speaking of the application, not the
fellowship, aren't you?
Mr. Jencks. I don't know whether they really called this an
application. They have a little bit different procedure than some of
the scholarship things. You have to be, for this program, nominated
by a professor, and then they send this request for information.
I don't want to quibble over words, whether you call it an applica-
tion or what, but anjrway, I filed the document.
Mr. ScHERER. Who nominated you? You just said some professor
nominated you. Who?
Mr. Jencks. That was the first man I talked about. Dr. Kennedy.
Mr. ScHERER. He is also at the University of California at Berkeley?
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
Mr. ScHERER. And did you know him prior to that time?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir. Well, I described that I had seen him pre-
viously to the time he nominated me in exploring the possibility of
entering the university. I had had, I think, one previous conference
with him before.
Mr. JoHANSEN. That was prior to hearing about this fellowship?
Mr. Jencks. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. Arens. Did you file a document applying for the fellowship?
Mr. Scherer. Just a second.
Have you ever learned how you were selected, how they picked you?
Did you ever learn that?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir; I don't know.
Mr. Scherer. You do not know how you were brought to their
attention?
Mr. Speiser. Excuse me. Let me just mention this because this
is important for your understanding.
Mr. Jencks was brought to the attention of the Woodrow Wilson
National Foundation by Dr. Kennedy sending a letter to them
nominating him for fellowship.
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
1098 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Speiser. The fact that the fellowships existed was brought to
the attention of Dr. Kennedy, he may have known it already, in this
Daily Californian newspaper story.
Mr. Jencks. Let me go back, Congressman, for just a moment.
The procedm-e was I showed my transcript, my academic standing,
my transcript
Mr. ScHERER. But that was after?
Mr. Jencks. No, it was before, before I was ever nominated.
Mr. ScHERER. Before you were nominated?
Mr. Jencks. Right. He examined that. Naturally nobody is going
to nominate a person, particularly for something like this, without
knowing their academic standing.
Mr. ScHERER. How did he find out about you?
Mr. Jencks. How did I come in contact with Professor Kennedy?
Oh, I told you. You see, I went up to the university, just blindly
seeking information as to how I might be able to carry on my educa-
tion. I went to the Department of Business Administration because
they have there an Institute of Industrial Relations, in which they deal
with all the questions of labor-management relations; they teach those
subjects.
Naturally, my undergraduate study having been economics and my
experience working in labor-management relations, this field was very
naturally of particular interest to me.
So I went to Dr. Kennedy because he was in that Department of
Industrial — rather, it is not a department; it is the Institute.
Mr. ScHERER. When you went to the university, you had no knowl-
edge, do I understand, that the Woodrow Wilson Foundation existed?
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
Mr. JoHANSEN. That is on the original visit to see about entering
the school in this area of education?
Mr. Jencks. That is right. You see, what I had done was when
I left — well, Dr. Kennedy's answer to me at that time was he could
not tell me very much without seeing what I had done in my under-
graduate work, whether I would even be acceptable.
As you well know, the University of California, like most of our
major universities, has pretty high standards and you have to have
grades that are well up there, I mean even beyond what is necessary
for graduation, or they won't admit you to graduate study. They
won't just take anybody.
So I left him with the understanding that I would come back with
my transcript when it came from the University of Colorado. So
when that came in I made an appointment with him, and then I
entered really — really, between the interval that I had made the
appointment and the time I went to keep the appointment, I got this
notice that I have handed to the committee, and took my transcript
up there, discussed it with him, and asked him whether he felt he
would be interested in nominating me.
Mr. Scherer. Then Kennedy was the one who brought this matter
to the attention of Bogard.
Mr. Jencks. That is right. He wrote a letter to Dr. Bogard.
Mr. Scherer. And Bogard nominated you?
Mr. Jencks. No. The nomination is by Dr. Kennedy.
Mr. Speiser. It is on a selection committee.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1099
Mr. Arens. Maybe we would be better off to resume the chronology,
did you at that point apply formally with a typewritten statement for
a Woodrow Wilson fellowship?
Mr. Jencks. Yes. I filled out the form they required.
Mr. Arens. Did you send in a typewritten statement?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. In the course of that typewritten statement, did you
say, among other things, the following:
After serving as president of the amalgamated local unions for five years
found myself charged with having falsely signed the Taft-Hartley non-Communist
affidavit, and in 1954 in El Paso, Tex., I was convicted. This came in an atmos-
phere of great press hysteria following a long and bitter strike against a major
mining company. In June, 1957, I won vindication and reversal of the conviction
from the United States Supreme Court, with the Department of Justice sub-
sequently asking dismissal of the case.
Did you make that statement in your application for the fellowship?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. What did you mean by the word "vindication"?
What impression did you mean to convey to the mind of the reader
of this application when you said "I won vindication"?
Mr. Jencks. My understanding is that the matter had been
dismissed and under what I understand to be our American concept
of justice the matter being dismissed I am presumed to be innocent
and this, to me, is what it meant.
Mr. Arens. Did you mean to convey the impression when you said
that you won vindication — this presumption of innocence that you
are talking about — that you had not falsely signed the Taft-Hartley
non-Communist affidavit? Is that the impression you meant to con-
vey to the person who was passing upon your appHcation for the
fellowship?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Speiser. Would j^ou read the question?
Mr. ScHERER. I think it is obvious that he meant that, do you not?
He just said, that as a result of these judicial procedures he was found
innocent.
Mr. Arens. I think that is the crux of this whole presentation here.
Mr. ScHERER. I think it is.
Mr. Arens. I will try it again.
Did you mean to convey the impression to the people who were
passing upon your application for this fellowship that you had not
falsely signed the non-Communist affidavit?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. I understand. You mean did I give him the impres-
sion that I had not falsely signed the affidavit?
Mr. Arens. That is right, sir; that is the question.
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. That is the impression you meant to convey?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Was that a truthful impression?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Arens. In other words, were you telling the truth when you
conveyed the impression by this application that you had not falsely
signed a non-Communist affidavit?
1100 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Mr. Jencks. Well, I would dearly love to answer that question if
it did not mean that I would have to fear opening up this whole thing,
but under the circumstances
Mr. Arens. All we are asking you to do Mr. Jencks, is to tell the
truth now.
Did you tell the truth when you conveyed the impression — you
said you conveyed the impression — did you tell the truth to these
professors when you conveyed the impression to them that you had
not signed the non-Communist affidavit falsely?
Mr, Jencks. I certainly told the professors the truth. There is
no question about that.
With regard to that, the other part of the question, where you try
to drag this whole case in by the tail, I refuse to answer it.
Mr. Arens. We are not trying to drag the whole case in by the tail.
Mr. Jencks. I beg your pardon; you are.
Mr. Arens. We are trying to get the facts and the truth.
Mr. Jencks. No, you are not.
Mr. Arens. You told us a moment ago, did you not, sir, that you
meant to convey the impression to these professors that you had not
falsely signed the non-Communist affidavit? Is that not the impres-
sion you meant to convey?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Was that the truth?
Mr. Jencks. Well, there, again, you are enough of an attorney to
understand that I must object and refuse to answer that question on
the grounds previously stated, all of the grounds.
Mr. Arens. In other words, if you now told this Committee on
Un-American Activities whether or not you had told the truth when
you filed this application with the professors, you would be supplying
information which might be used against you in a criminal proceed-
ing; is that correct?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Yes, in addition to waiving what I conceive to be the
statute of limitations to open up this whole deal to exploration, litiga-
tion again; yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. I think our record is clear now.
Mr. ScHERER. Yes, it is. He answered.
Mr. Arens. Now, sir, did you have interviews with anyone about
this application in the course of the proceedings for the fellowship?
Mr. Jencks. I did.
Mr. Arens. Just tell us in a word where and when those inter-
views took place.
Mr. Jencks. I can't give you the date,
Mr. Arens. Well, approximately, and where they were, a word
about them. We do not need the precise dates.
Mr. Jencks. Well, you have that information anyway.
Mr, Arens, We want it on our record from your lips, please, sir.
Mr. Jencks. Oh, from my lips.
Mr. Arens. While you are under oath.
Mr. Jencks. I thought there was a term in law that meant the
documents speak for themselves.
Mr. Arens. May I inquire, was this application you filed with the
professors under oath?
Mr. Jencks. No, this was written out and sent in to them.
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1101
Mr. Arens. Did you have some conferences then with the pro-
fessors or some group of people in anticipation of your fellowship?
Mr. Jencks. Yes.
Mr. Arens. Approximately where and when were those con-
ferences?
Mr. Jencks. My best recollection, as you say you are not interested
in the exact dates, I think was along about the 20th — the middle of
January. I don't remember the precise date, at the Clairmont Hotel.
There was a committee that the National Foundation has set up,
composed of university professors who interviewed all of these— —
Mr. Arens. About how many were there, please, sir?
Mr. Jencks. My goodness, they had thousands of applicants. Of
course, the}^ had divided up
Mr. Arens. I did not make my question clear. How many people
were on the board or panel that you talked to?
Mr. Jencks. I see. Well, there were four that were present all of
the time, and a fifth who, you know, was not present throughout the
entire thing.
Mr. Arens. Was there just one conference, or did you have more
than one conference?
Mr. Jencks. No, just the one conference.
Mr. Arens. And in this conference did this subject of whether or
not you had been or were a member of the Communist Party come
into the conversation or discussion?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. Did you feel that it was an issue that ought to have
been discussed?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. Ought to have been disclosed to the members of the
panel?
Mr. Jencks. No, sir.
Mr. Arens. Why not?
Mr. Jencks. This wasn't the issue. I was talking about— I went
in there on the basis of academic qualifications, wanting to continue
my education. This is what they were interested in.
Mr. Arens. Do you feel that they would have been interested,
aside from your own case, in determinmg whether of not a fellowship
should be granted to a person to teach in schools, to determine whether
or not that person was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Jencks. I object to the question. I don't see how possibly
counsel can ask me here to testify what their intentions or purposes
or what they might think.
Mr. Arens. You have already said you didn't think it was perti-
nent in your case. I was wondering if you thought that it would be
pertinent in any case.
Mr. ScHERER. He has answered the question. He does not know
what was in their mind.
Mr. Jencks. That is right.
Mr. Scherer. Who were the four professors, or five?
Mr. Jencks. I will have to refresh my recollection on that because
I don't have their names right at hand.
There was Sister Ciaire Madeleine, who is professor of English at
the College of Holy Names, which is in Oakland.
James Watkins the IV, professor of political science at Stanford.
1102 TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS
Carl Niemann, professor of chemistry at the Cahfornia Institute
of Technology, and then an additional one that I mentioned who
came in who was not present for all of it, but part of it, was the
regional chairman, Travis Bogard. He had two committees sitting
at one time and he had to alternate between them.
Mr. Arens. Did you solicit a letter of recommendation to this
committee that made the fellowship award from a friend of yours by
the name of Robert E. Taylor?
Mr. Jencks. Well, that is not quite in accord with the procedure,
if I may explain, Mr. Chairman. That might shorten the matter.
Mr. ScHERER. All right.
Mr. Jencks. The procedure is all I was asked to do — I was not
asked to solicit anything. I was asked to give references and then
the committee wrote to them and they got the material back.
Mr. Arens. Did you give Robert E. Taylor as a reference?
Mr. Jencks. Yes; I did.
Mr. Arens. Did you know of the letter he sent in to the board?
Mr, Jencks. No, sir; I never saw any of those.
Mr. Arens. Did you give any of the references information respect-
ing your background in the Communist Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Jencks. You are assuming something again.
Mr. Arens, Well, did you give any of the references information
as to whether or not you had ever been a member of the Communist
Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Air. Jencks. No.
Mr. Scherer. Who were the other references that he gave? Who
were the other references?
Mr. Arens. Who were they, Mr. Jencks?
Mr. Jencks. You will have to refresh me on that. You have the
information. I will recognize them.
Mr. Arens. I am not certain I have them all. Did you give a man
"by the name of John W. Churchill as a reference?
Mr. Jencks. Did you say John?
Mr. Arens. Excuse me, Jordan Churchill?
Mr. Jencks. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. Arens. I want the record to be clear on this one thing: Why
is it you did not discuss either with the committee or with your
references the issue as to whether or not you were then, or had ever
been, a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jencks. Well, no one asked me and I still don't feel it is perti-
nent.
Mr. Arens. You felt it was pertinent to tell the committee that
you were vindicated and tried to leave with them the impression that
you had not falsely signed the non-Communist affidavit; isn't that
correct?
Mr. Scherer. He has answered that, I think,
Mr. Arens. Yes, he has; that is right.
I cannot conceive of any other area of inquiry I would like to
explore with this witness, I think we have covered the items that
the staff had in mind.
Mr. Scherer. Mr. Johansen?
TESTIMONY OF CLINTON EDWARD JENCKS 1103
Mr. JoHANSEN. I have no questions.
Mr. ScHERER. I have no further questions.
Mr. JoHANSEN. I would Hko to make this one observation, Mr.
Chairman, and I think it is worth noting further in the record that
with respect to one question which was asked and one answer which
was given, the chairman took particular pains to give the witness an
opportunity to fully understand the implications of the question and
the answer, and an opportunity to revise the answer.
Mr. ScHERER. I did that because I did not think he understood.
Mr. JoHANSEN. I think it ought to stand as an indication of the
meticulous care with which this committee undertakes to recognize
and safeguard the rights of witnesses which we are, of course, rather
frequently accused of not doing.
Mr. ScHERER. If there are no further questions, the witness is
excused.
Mr. Speiser. One question: The witness had also been subpenaed
earlier to appear in San Francisco. Are we to assume that that
subpena is no longer in effect?
Mr. Arens. That is correct.
Mr. Speiser. Yes.
Mr. Scherer. That is a correct assumption.
Mr. Speiser. Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, at 3:50 p.m., Wednesday, July 22, 1959, the committee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)
INDEX
Individuals
Pafc'e
Bogard, Travis 1097, 1098, 1102
Churchill, Jordan 1102
Eckert, Kenneth 1075, 1085-1087
Jencks, Clinton Edward 1075, 1076, 1077-1103 (testimony)
Kennedy, Van Deusen 1093-1095, 1097, 1098
Niemann, Carl 1102
Sister Claire Madeline, 1101
Speiser, Lawrence 1 077
.Taylor, Robert E 1078, 1102
Travis, Maurice 1080
Watkins, James, (T.), IV 1101
Organizations
California Institute of Technology 1 102
College of the Holy Names 1101
Daily Calif ornian. The (newspaper) 1093, 1098
Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, International Union of 1075,
1079-1080, 1081, 1084
District 2 1080
Stanford University 1101
University of California 1075, 1093, 1097, 1098
Institute of Industrial Relations 1093, 1098
University of Colorado 1075, 1078, 1094, 1098
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation 1075,
1088, 1093, 1096, 1097, 1101
O
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05706 3149
T,U .ecu should be returned -
the Library on or beioi
"Tte'tTncurred by retaining it
beyond the specified tune^
Please return promptly.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11