(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 "Testimony of Clinton Edward Jencks. Hearing before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-sixth Congress, first session. July 22, 1959"

/- 



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 

* * 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.