Part 2 — SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1955

United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, Seattle, Wash.

PUBLIC HEARING

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a. m., in Room 402, County-City Building, Seattle, Wash., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) (appearance as noted) and Harold H. Velde.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel, and William A. Wheeler, staff investigator.

Mr. Velde. The subcommittee will be in order, and we will proceed, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to recall Mr. Eugene V. Dennett to the stand, please.

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE VICTOR DENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH A. MacDONALD—Resumed

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, will you come forward, please.

When your testimony was suspended yesterday we were inquiring into the activity of the Washington Commonwealth Federation. In the course of your testimony on that subject no mention was made of the Workers Alliance.

To what extent was the Workers Alliance affiliated with that organization?

Mr. Dennett. It was one of the principal affiliates in the early days, and it had regular representatives on the Washington Commonwealth Federation board. One of the most prominent of those was a person by the name of Harry C. Armstrong, who was better known as Army Armstrong. He later became a legislator, and I think he was at one time the head of the Workers Alliance.

Mr. Tavenner. At the time he was head of the Workers Alliance and active in the Washington Commonwealth Federation was he also a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. At first he was not. But the Workers Alliance, of course, was one of the organizations in which the Communist Party worked very actively, and ultimately Mr. Armstrong became a member of the Communist Party. I knew him when he was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he active in Communist Party affairs?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, he was quite active in the Communist Party affairs for a short time. He later had differences with the party over policy, and became too much of a Democrat to suit the Communists, and came to a parting of the ways with the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the names of any other individuals, active in the work of the Washington Commonwealth Federation or any of its component parts, who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party during that time?

Mr. Dennett. Well, my random recollection is a little bit too unreliable to go on. I think that I mentioned all of the principal ones yesterday with the exception of Mr. Armstrong, whom I have explained this morning.

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that the organizational work was being done by the Communist Party within the Washington Commonwealth Federation was there in existence in the State of Washington an organization known as the Washington Pension Union?

Mr. Dennett. That is correct, there was. That was a organization which came into existence principally because the Governor of the State had ordered some cuts in the pension, or the assistance to the old-age groups. It was prior to the organization of anything.

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to the organization of what?

Mr. Dennett. Of the union, of the Old-Age Pension Union.

It seems as though there was an attempt to cut on the relief, and some of the relief authorities thought that they could cut the benefits to the elderly people and there would be little protest for it. But Howard Costigan, being very alert to the political possibilities, spoke about it on the radio and, in response to that speaking, received many, many calls by telephone and by letter asking him to do something about it. He didn’t know what to do.

He came to the party of people and explained to us afterward that he was perplexed but he was going to call a mass meeting and ask these people to come and make their protests in public.

He did exactly that. The meeting was overwhelmingly successful; far more elderly people arrived than he expected. The hall was packed to overflowing, and he had to call more meetings to satisfy their desire to express their protest. During the course of that, Costigan, not knowing what else to do, suggested that they set up a permanent committee to continue their protest against this form of relief cut. The old-age people responded so vigorously that they themselves determined that they must have a union. And they chose the name of Old-Age Pension Union.

At first, I believe, Costigan was not an officer of it. As a matter of fact, he felt that he had more than he could carry handling the work of the Washington Commonwealth Federation. So he asked the party people to find him some help to see if he could carry on this extra work that needed to be done. And, through the efforts of Mr. Lowell Wakefield, they found a person by the name of William J. Pennock who was a very able man. And Bill Pennock assisted Costigan in all of his work when he was in the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Later when the time came to organize the Old-Age Pension Union, Pennock assisted Costigan in finding people to head up that organization.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder entered the hearing room and assumed the chair.)

Mr. Dennett. In the very beginning the original leaders who held the original titles of president and vice president of the Old-Age Pension Union were not members of the Communist Party. They were chosen by these old-age pension people, knowing them to be public-spirited persons, and I don’t know whether it is proper to identify those persons or not at this point.

Mr. Tavenner. No. The committee would not be interested in going into that phase of the matter.

You mentioned a person by the name of Lowell Wakefield. Will you tell the committee what you know of his activities?

Mr. Dennett. Lowell Wakefield was a member of the Communist Party. He did come from the East on his assignment by the central committee to work in this district. However, after he had worked here a comparatively short time he came into dispute with the succeeding leader who came, Mr. Morris Rappaport, and ultimately Mr. Wakefield left the Communist Party and I believe that he has had no connection with the Communist Party for a great many years.

Mr. Tavenner. The point you are making is that in its inception this union, the Old-Age Pension Union, was not of a Communist origin or of a Communist character.

Mr. Dennett. No; it was not. But the Communist Party recognized that the terrific response that Costigan received meant that here was a potential group of people capable of doing enormous amounts of political work.

Remember, please, their situation: They were retired; they had ceased working daily on a job. Therefore, they had the leisure time to do what they wanted to do in most instances or at least in many instances. The result was that some of these people could go out and peddle leaflets and knock on doors. They constituted an enormous political strength. And the Communist Party conceived the idea that these people certainly would be the most able people to carry on political programs if they could be won to support such a program.

So the Communist Party set about to do exactly that in the pension union.

Among those who were urged to go into the pension union to work vigorously was a person by the name of Thomas C. Rabbitt.

Tom Rabbitt became a very powerful and influential man in that organization. He did so very largely because he succeeded in being elected to the Washington State Legislature as a Democrat, and, in the State legislature as a State senator, was able to embarrass the governor and the administration on their promises to aid the elderly people on the pension program. His efforts were heralded as making a real—well, he was considered to be a real political leader because he had succeeded in a situation where it was vitally important.

My counsel reminds me that Mr. Rabbitt has been before this committee, and he appeared in your executive session last June.

Mr. Rabbitt found that there was an enormous amount of work to be done in that organization, and he had to call for help. And he built up a comparatively important machine with which he worked.

Mr. Tavenner. You have told us that the Communist Party, upon seeing the great potentialities in this new organization, decided to do something about it. Tell the committee just what it did and the methods it used to gain control of the Old-Age Pension Union.

Mr. Dennett. It concentrated first at the top levels of the organization. It wanted to get strong leadership there capable of carrying two important points: first, that they carry on a relentless struggle for better and more welfare assistance to the aged people so as to insure their loyalty and support among those members; they wanted, next, to be certain that a large body of people became ardent supporters and friends of the Soviet Union so that it would be possible to defend the political policies of the Communist Party in that respect and to give assistance to the Communist program in this area.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, as indicated by his testimony, the knowledge of this witness is very great concerning the scientific features of communism and how it operates in the Northwest.

Because of the limit of time, we have had to confine ourselves to the high spots. I will ask, if we are to conclude his testimony today, that Mr. Dennett confine his testimony chiefly to his own activities and circumstances surrounding them; otherwise we will be unable to complete what we had planned today.

Mr. Moulder. Yes. As you say, it is very important testimony. We are grateful to receive it. I believe any additional information which he might wish to submit could be submitted in writing to the committee at a later date. I mean after we have concluded our hearings.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we will have a great deal of work ahead of us in connection with documentary information which he has at hand, as well as to give this witness time to explain fully the implications of his statements today.

Mr. Moulder. It may be possible when the hearings are held in Los Angeles in June that additional hearings could be held here to complete the testimony of Mr. Dennett.

Mr. Tavenner. Certainly further consideration will have to be given to that.

I wanted to make this explanation principally so the committee would understand that I have asked the witness to confine his testimony today principally to his own activities. I did not want the committee to feel that the witness was attempting to relate what he had done alone as a matter of his own choice.

Mr. Dennett. Thank you.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett can be subpenaed to appear in California when hearings are held there; the subcommittee could resume hearings here at a later date if we feel it is necessary to secure his additional information.

Mr. Tavenner. Continuing with the subject of the old-age pension, were you active in it in your individual capacity?

Mr. Dennett. No; I was not. I spoke before it on a number of times on invitation of the leaders to indicate some labor support because I was representing the State CIO at that time.

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us briefly to what extent was the Communist Party successful in the accomplishment of the two purposes you stated the Communists had in interesting the leadership of the old-age pension unit.

Mr. Dennett. As I indicated at the outset, the first leaders of the pension union—president, vice president, and some of the other officers—were anti-Communist people. And it did not take too long before they came into conflict with those Communists who were trying to make certain that the organization carried out these purposes which I have indicated.

I believe that the first president of the organization left it very quickly. Later on another person took over as a president of the organization, who was a member of the Communist Party, and he remained a leader for quite a long time. Ultimately he got into conflict with the Communist Party, and the Communist Party did what we call a hatchet job on him.

Mr. Tavenner. Who was he?

Mr. Dennett. A man by the name of N. P. Atkinson. And Atkinson was expelled from the party. And when he was expelled from the party he was also pushed out of the pension union.

Mr. Tavenner. After Communist Party overtures to the leadership of the union was any effort made to capture the rank and file?

Mr. Dennett. Yes. There was a considerable effort made. A person by the name of William J. Pennock, whom I have mentioned before, who is now deceased—Pennock was a very successful figure in this work because he was such a tireless worker.

(Representative Harold H. Velde left the hearing room at this point.)

Mr. Dennett. He worked day after day, every day, and had a very pleasing personality and was a very successful man in convincing the ordinary person that the program and policies they were pursuing were the best for the organization. And I think it should be recognized that certainly those efforts of the organization to maintain a standard of decency and comfort for public assistance for the elderly people is something which should be recognized as proper. It is something which should not be condemned because the Communists were trying to use that as a basis for successfully planting its other ideas in the ranks of the organization. And I hope no one will condemn the elderly people for trying to improve their own economic position, which they were trying to do in the pension union.

Mr. Tavenner. How can organizations of this type, which have a very fine purpose in view, be able to accomplish their ends without permitting the Communist Party to take them over and subvert them to the purposes of the Communist Party?

What is the best defense? What defense can they have to the Communist Party which is trying to manipulate them in the manner you have described?

Mr. Dennett. My own experience leads me to the conclusion that the soundest defense and the soundest practice which can be pursued is that wherein we all insist upon the complete observance of the fundamental principles in the Constitution of the United States and the legal procedure of the court system in the United States, in which we first insist that all persons shall be considered to be innocent until proven guilty when charged with anything which appears to be a violation of either the Constitution of the United States or the principles of the organization that they belong to.

I say that advisedly because I have had a number of experiences, personal ones, where I have been treated as a guilty person until proven so—not in connection with Communist material either. And I observed with a great deal of interest last night’s television report of Mr. Harry Cain’s remarks on that very point.

Mr. Cain comes from the State of Washington. Some of us knew him rather well. And I might say that at one time he certainly impressed the people very strongly in this State because of this precise idea which he was expressing last night on TV.

And I cannot pass up the opportunity to remind all of us that it is a fundamental principle of our form of Government, of our democratic representation system, that we honor and dignify the individual as an individual for his own worth, and not completely subordinate this individual to the purpose of a mass and make him a faceless creature.

I think that each person is entitled to the individual dignity and the recognition of his right as an individual. And when he combines in an organization it is for the purpose of assisting in the further development of these human beings as creatures that are entitled to treatment as human beings.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Moulder. What is your next question, Mr. Tavenner?

Mr. Tavenner. Counsel is consulting the witness.

Mr. Dennett. Counsel is calling my attention to the nature of your question asking what steps can be recommended, and he is trying to bring me back to that point a little more directly, and I appreciate it. I hope you will bear with us on it.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me suggest this to you:

My question was not so much directed at what you mentioned as it is to this particular phase of the matter, that here is an organization which had very proper purposes: It apparently had no desire to be controlled or influenced by the Communist Party; but the Communist Party determined it was going to take it over.

Now my point is: How, from your experience in the party, could this group have successfully resisted being taken over by the Communist Party?

(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde returned to the hearing room.)

Mr. Dennett. I think there is no one single guaranty. I think it requires a number of changes in our behavior and in our attitude in the various democratic organizations. I mean by that democratic in form; I am not referring to a party as such.

In that respect, many people in the union to which I should belong have asked me many times how could they guarantee that some untoward thing would not occur in the organization. And it has been my recommendation to them that the only guarantee anyone has is that he participate fully in the life of his own organization and not delegate and not allow his own responsibilities to be passed on to somebody else.

If you leave it to George, let George do it, you wake up some time and find that George hasn’t done it the way you would have preferred to do it or the way you would have done it had you been there.

And it is my firm conviction that one of the most hazardous parts of our democratic process is the tendency of people to leave it to somebody else to take care of their own responsibility.

If a democracy is to work, if it is to be a democracy or continue to be a democracy, it is essential that each participant, each member be a participant. That is the best recommendation I can make.

Mr. Moulder. That is very true. In our investigations the committee has found many instances where the Communist Party leaders have been able to infiltrate into, say, a local union in the eastern section of this country because the membership did not attend the elections and did not vote and participate actively in the meetings. If there were other means of voting than to be personally present, that might be avoided.

Mr. Dennett. I favor referendum votes myself.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, the point you are making is: There is a very great responsibility on each individual in his own organization regardless of the organization.

Mr. Dennett. I would add to that, sir, if I may, please, that it is necessary that members do more than attend meetings. I mean they must have some adequate conception of the purpose of their organization.

Just like in the conduct of the affairs of the Government of the United States, I don’t think it is sufficient for persons to be elected as Congressmen and then just sit there. I think they have got to know what the Constitution of the United States provides, and I think they have to be the guardians to make certain that everybody abides by it, and that they abide by it themselves and insist that their own members abide by it.

I think that the question of a member just being a member of an organization and just being a card-carrying member is not sufficient. Likewise, it is not sufficient to have representatives of government just be present. Being present isn’t enough. They have to understand what they are there for. And pursue their purpose of representing their constituents.

I say that as a comparison because the two things are similar. There is an identity.

Our greatest democratic practice occurs in the organizations which are not directly associated with government as such.

Mr. Moulder. That applies, as you have said, to unions and organizations social or otherwise, as well as the general election of the United States where probably only 65 percent of the people go to the polls and vote.

Mr. Tavenner. A very simple way of expressing what you have said is that people should be informed.

Mr. Dennett. They must be informed.

And I am strictly opposed to secret negotiations, whether it occurs between employers and unions, whether it occurs between heads of organizations, or whether it occurs in international affairs. I think that the only safeguard that we have that the rights of the people will not be trespassed upon is when everything is out in the open.

I am willing to admit that until an agreement is arrived at, until a conclusion is reached, it may be necessary to conduct the negotiations or the conferences with a limited amount of access to public discussion. That may be so. I am not prepared to say that everything must be done in a goldfish bowl. But I am very insistent in my own conviction and in my own practices, at least for the past several years, that anything I do is going to be out in the open where the whole world can take a look at it. If they don’t like it they can say so. And if that is the way they feel about it, fine. I’ll step aside and retire. But if they do approve it, let them go ahead.

Mr. Moulder. When discussing the Washington Commonwealth Federation yesterday, did you give an estimate of 5,500 as being, in your opinion, the total Communist Party membership in the State of Washington or in this district?

Mr. Dennett. I said at that time there were approximately 5,500 members at one time in 1 year. I think it was 1938.

Mr. Moulder. Have you any knowledge or information, whether it be in the form of an opinion or from your experience, as to the total Communist Party membership in this area at the present time?

Mr. Dennett. No. I have no adequate idea about that. I think that it must be very small. Someone asked me the other day what I thought it was, and I said, “Well, I think the ranks of the Communist Party have been decimated by their own foolish behavior and by the change in public attitude. I think that has resulted in them being reduced to a mere handful, a shell of its former self.”

Mr. Moulder. Then you would tell us now that you have no knowledge or information of any communistic or Communist Party activity in Seattle at this time?

Mr. Dennett. No. We are coming to the point of my expulsion, which occurred 7, nearly 8 years ago. So my experience and knowledge would have to break at that point with respect to the Communist Party itself.

Mr. Velde. I presume you are familiar generally with the testimony Barbara Hartle gave here?

Mr. Dennett. I listened to it very carefully.

Mr. Velde. She brought Communist Party activities in this area up to date as nearly as anyone possibly could in her situation.

Would you appraise her testimony as being true as to general matters concerning Communist activities here?

Mr. Dennett. In all fairness to her and in all fairness to the persons that she mentioned, I would have to say that I think Barbara Hartle was her real self when she was here. She appeared to me to be exactly the same as the person I knew many years before. She was very deliberate and methodical. She always had been. And I think that she gave as accurate an account as she could possibly do. I marvel at the ability that she displayed in doing it, the names that she mentioned.

I have tried to explain to my personal friends—they have asked me about it; how could a person name so many people as she did? I can only say that Barbara was in a position where she had access to those records. It was part of her duty to handle records of the membership. Therefore, she would be required to know those things.

People have asked me, “Well, do you know the same people that she knew?” And I have had to answer, “I certainly knew most of those people.”

But I am not in a position where I could say that, of my own knowledge, I knew those persons as members of the Communist Party.

I knew practically all of those persons in some capacity or another, but in very few instances is it possible for me to say, of my own knowledge, that I knew such and such a person to be a member of the Communist Party.

And that was a very important distinction for me to make.

But I must say that it is my considered judgment that Barbara Hartle gave very valid and very accurate information.

Mr. Velde. I certainly thank you for that, Mr. Dennett. That was my impression, too. Not being in a position to know as much about it as either of you I did get the impression that she told a very valid story.

Mr. Dennett. I am sure she was accurate.

Mr. Velde. I appreciate your verification of her story as to the extent of the Communist Party in this area.

Another thing I would like to get cleared up before we go further, Mr. Counsel and Mr. Chairman, is a matter of your identification of Harry Lundeberg as having attended fraction meetings. I think you probably are as anxious to get that cleared up as we are. We know that Mr. Lundeberg has been a very faithful anti-Communist for a long time.

Would you like to make further comment on that?

Mr. Dennett. I didn’t expect that that would come up, and I was quite surprised at the furor it has created. I had no idea at the time that I mentioned this that it was of such importance or that such importance would be made of it.

I think perhaps it requires that I give you a little bit more detail of how I had such knowledge so that you may judge for yourselves as to the accuracy or validity of what I had to say.

Mr. Velde. Actually, of course, back in those days about which you were testifying there was nothing seriously wrong in the minds of most American people with attending fraction meetings of the Communist Party. So I agree with you. I don’t see any reason for all the furor. But I thought possibly you would like to clear it up.

Mr. Dennett. I certainly would, sir. Thank you for asking me.

The first I heard of the furor, a friend of mine called me on the phone last night and asked me if I had read the morning paper which carried the story of Mr. Lundeberg’s denial. I said I had not. So he read it to me, and he asked me what I had to say about it then. Some of my personal friends did. And I had to remind him, just as I just stated to you, that I had no idea it was going to have that much importance attached to it.

But let me give you the facts as it occurred.

You will recall in my testimony I mentioned going into the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, what was then the Ferry Boatmen’s Union. It was in 1936—Well, it was in 1935, the end of 1935 when the first strike occurred against an arbitration award.

At that time the Maritime Federation of the Pacific had been already organized. Mr. Lundeberg was the president of it. Their headquarters were here in Seattle. He had an office here in a building close to the Pioneer Square. I believe it is properly called Pioneer Place. Mr. Lundeberg held an office there as the president of the federation, and his first and able assistant was Mr. Ernest Fox whom I have mentioned before.

When I was elected a delegate to represent the crew of the ship that I was working on, to attend our first strike meeting, on my way to that meeting I stopped at the office of the president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific, Mr. Harry Lundeberg, and asked him what he thought of the situation that I found myself in; namely, elected as a delegate, representing an organization which I knew practically nothing about. And I asked him further what advice he would give me.

Mr. Lundeberg was very gracious to me, and advised me that the “tule” sailors—by which he referred to our Sound freight-boat men because he didn’t consider us to be genuine sailors at all because we didn’t get outside into deep water; we were always here in the rivers or the harbors, and he called us “tule” sailors.

And he said, “The first thing you have got to do is get rid of your finky leaders.”

And I asked him on what basis he made such a statement.

And he said, “You talk to Ernie. Ernie can tell you the whole story, and I will O. K. and vouch for it.”

So I asked Ernest Fox a little bit more about it. And Ernie explained to me that the maritime leaders at that time had a great hatred for the leaders of the then ferry boatmen’s union because those leaders of the ferry boatmen’s union had not gone along with the general strike plans in San Francisco in 1934. And Mr. Lundeberg was one of the principal supporters of those strike plans at that time.

As a result of Mr. Lundeberg’s attitude at that time, the Communist Party had the utmost confidence in his integrity and in his leadership. And Mr. Fox, Ernest Fox, informed me that Lundeberg had attended fraction meetings, taught fraction meetings where he had met with 1 or 2 party leaders to outline the policy and program to be followed.

Mr. Velde. When you say “party leaders” are you referring to the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. That is right; I am referring to Communist Party leaders.

But Mr. Fox also warned me at that time that he had a few misgivings about where Mr. Lundeberg was going because Mr. Lundeberg had already begun to show evidence that he was beginning to have differences with the party and that he was resisting attending any more fraction meetings at a very early date.

So it is quite true that Mr. Lundeberg was incensed. He didn’t like the Communist Party.

I simply mention in passing, at the outset, that he had been brought into a fraction meeting, and it was common knowledge.

Mr. Moulder. In other words, he had been brought into contact with the Communist Party leaders as a result of the work he was performing but not in the capacity of being a Communist himself? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Dennett. That is true. Even the most ardent anti-Communist can be drawn into Communist activities.

Mr. Moulder. Do you mean drawn into contact with Communists?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

My counsel cautions me to be certain that you understand I at no time accused Mr. Harry Lundeberg of being a Communist.

Mr. Velde. I think that is a matter of record. In fact, you have said everything favorable to Mr. Lundeberg’s record. But I suppose it might be presumed that if you and another Communist Party leader had a conference with Mr. Lundeberg some time that that would be a meeting such as you mentioned in your testimony yesterday, or could be considered a fraction meeting; could it not?

Mr. Dennett. No; that would not be regarded as a top fraction meeting. A top fraction meeting would be only a meeting where the leaders of an organization who were members of the Communist Party met either with themselves or with some official of the Communist Party. And in Mr. Lundeberg’s case——

Mr. Velde. Is that the type of meeting to which you referred when you said that you had general knowledge, or it was common knowledge that Mr. Lundeberg attended top fraction meetings?

Mr. Dennett. True.

Mr. Tavenner. My recollection of your testimony was that you made it clear Mr. Lundeberg was not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. I thought so; I meant to, certainly.

Mr. Tavenner. You meant to, and if there is any question about your testimony on that point I understand you now do make it clear that you did not intend, and that you did not characterize Mr. Lundeberg as a member of the Communist Party. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Dennett. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. And your only information about his attendance at a so-called fraction meeting was the information given to you by his assistant, Mr. Fox?

Mr. Dennett. And I might say, for verification, that the very line which Mr. Lundeberg had urged upon me to follow was exactly the line which the leaders of the Communist Party gave me at that time also; namely, attack your leaders, get rid of them.

Mr. Tavenner. We were discussing the activity of the Communist Party within the Old-Age Pension Union. Will you tell the committee, please, whether you can at this time recall the names of other persons active in that organization who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. My own knowledge doesn’t extend beyond the top leaders of that organization, which I have already mentioned.

Mr. Tavenner. That brings us to the period you described yesterday when the Washington Commonwealth Federation was being dissolved. My recollection is you indicated that it was dissolved at the instance of the Communist Party. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Dennett. It did that during the Second World War when I was in the military service. I only know of that from correspondence and what I read in the newspapers.

Mr. Tavenner. You also told us that the component parts of the Washington Commonwealth Federation began to pull away from that organization.

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for that?

Mr. Dennett. The main reason was the conflicting international policies.

You will recall that in that historical period there were rapid changes taking place.

Mr. Tavenner. I am trying to return to the point where we broke off testimony on that subject.

What became your activity in the field, in this general field upon the weakening of the federation as a result of the change in international problems you described yesterday?

Mr. Dennett. With the rise of the CIO following the split in the labor movement I was elected to be the secretary of the Seattle CIO Council, and subsequently became the executive secretary of the Washington State CIO Council.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us dates, please?

Mr. Dennett. In 1937 the American Federation of Labor started expelling from its ranks those unions which had advocated the industrial form of organization. I was in a union which did advocate the industrial form of organization, but we were not one of those that attracted primary interest. Therefore, they did not expel our union right away. They never did expel it in fact. However, since we were supporting the industrial form of organization, I advocated that our organization be among the first to swing to the CIO. That was the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific.

Subsequently, a referendum vote was held and the membership voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the American Federation of Labor and affiliate with the CIO.

Being one of the most regular representatives of the organization among outside affiliates, I was selected and elected by the members of these unions to represent what was first called the Seattle Unity Council, in 1937. In that year we had affiliated to that council both CIO and A. F. of L. organizations and unaffiliated organizations.

To make a long story short, I could say that my activities there were transferred to a larger field when I became the secretary of the State CIO council, which was founded in 1938. And history will confirm that the first convention of the CIO was also held that year in Atlantic City.

I was a delegate to that convention, and there I came in contact with the national leadership of the CIO unions, and with the national leaders in the CIO unions who were known to me as Communists.

Do you wish me to go into that now?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, briefly.

Mr. Dennett. One of the first instructions that I received in that matter was from a man by the name of Roy Hudson who was the national—well, he objected to being called the labor expert in the central committee of the Communist Party. However, he usually had the duty of following the assignments of the respective Communist members.

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment.

Mr. Chairman, you will probably recall that we had Roy Hudson as a witness in our California hearings in December of 1953, but he refused to give this committee any material information.

Mr. Dennett. Well, he gave me some instructions when I went to a national convention, and his instruction to me was very brief. He said, “Any time you need to settle a question and you are in doubt, just see Lee Pressman.”

Mr. Tavenner. Lee Pressman?

Mr. Dennett. Lee Pressman.

I did try to do that, but my experience with Lee Pressman was highly unsatisfactory, and I came back to one of the district bureau meetings and reported the unsatisfactory nature of my relations with him, and the district organizer instructed me to destroy the report which I had brought back.

I had brought back a somewhat detailed report of my unsatisfactory experiences with him, and the bureau listened with considerable astonishment at my impressions of how unsatisfactory this situation was. That was from the first convention. And after that, after they had instructed me to destroy the records, they also instructed me to not talk about it with anyone because they feared it might undermine the prestige of such an important person as Mr. Lee Pressman.

Mr. Velde. During what period of time did you know Mr. Pressman?

Mr. Dennett. That was in 1938.

Mr. Velde. At that time he was in the CIO. He had left the Government, as I understand it.

Mr. Dennett. He was the general counsel of the CIO, and was John L. Lewis’ righthand man.

Mr. Velde. I do not recall the date of Mr. Pressman’s testimony. Was it in 1949?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; in 1949 or early 1950 we had him as a witness before our committee and interrogated him on his connection with the CIO at that particular time.

Mr. Velde. Did you know Lee Pressman as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. I didn’t know that personally. I was just under the instruction—I asked Roy Hudson who I should see in the event I got crossed up and didn’t know what policy to pursue or anything, and he said, “See Lee Pressman. Do what he says.”

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which we should follow through. But, not knowing the character of the experience this witness had with Mr. Pressman, I believe it is a matter we should investigate fully before attempting to further examine the witness on the subject.

Mr. Moulder. Very well.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have documentary evidence of any character on that incident?

Mr. Dennett. I can’t be sure whether I have or not. I don’t recall all the things that I have in my files.

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed, please.

Mr. Dennett. Well, I came in contact with many other leaders in the national CIO. I used to have the habit of attending the national CIO executive board meetings whenever the convention was over. There had been an election of new officials at the close of the convention, and I was usually there in company with the president of the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, who became a member of the executive board. And he usually asked me to come along with him.

And it has always been my habit to take rather copious notes. As a matter of fact, most people screamed to high heaven because the notes I take are a little bit too full and too elaborate. I do that for my own benefit because I try not to rely solely on memory. I have found it very profitable in my own experience to have my full memoranda at hand when I am called upon to testify.

And in this testimony here I am testifying almost completely from memory, but I assure you that I have plenty of memoranda and data which cannot only substantiate what I have been testifying, but enrich it very, very much.

Mr. Tavenner. What further information can you give us as to the Communist Party membership of individuals in this new field in which you were engaged?

Mr. Dennett. Well, of course, one of our principal centers of interest was the International Woodworkers of America. And there, of course, it became my responsibility to become well acquainted with the top leadership in the International Woodworkers of America. And I think that many people have made the accusation but probably few people know of their own knowledge such as I do, that practically all of the top leaders were, with a few exceptions, members of the Communist Party. And that began with Mr. Harold J. Pritchett.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the last name?

Mr. Dennett. P-r-i-t-c-h-e-t-t.

Mr. Harold Pritchett was a very able and outstanding man from the lumber industry.

Mr. Tavenner. What was his official title?

Mr. Dennett. He was the president.

Mr. Tavenner. What is the period or the date?

Mr. Dennett. 1938.

He was a Canadian and was barred from reentry into the United States shortly afterward, and has been unable—he was at that time unable to continue his functions as president, and had to give up the office of president.

We were quite disappointed that that occurred. We tried every way we knew to insure that he could continue to serve in that capacity. However, we had to be satisfied with allowing another member who was a vice president to take his position. This was Mr. O. M. Orton, O-r-t-o-n, better known to us as Mickey Orton. He was the vice president who took over when Mr. Pritchett had to give up the office.

The office staff—I mean the girls who worked in the office were virtually cleared by the Communist Party before they secured their employment in the office. The girl who was in charge at that office—the name I knew her by——

Mr. Tavenner. You said virtually cleared?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean that the worker you have in mind must have been a member of the Communist Party? In other words, we do not want you to give us the name of a person unless you have evidence of actual Communist Party membership.

Mr. Dennett. I will not name anyone unless that person was a member of the Communist Party, according to my knowledge. Well, the girl who was looked upon as the office manager—I don’t recall the exact title she had—but her name was Gladys Field, F-i-e-l-d. And all the stenographers and bookkeepers who were employed by the organization had to meet her approval before they could be employed in that office. And her approval was based upon whether or not the person would be friendly or hostile to the Communist Party, as well as being, of course, efficient and able to do the job. She was an exceedingly efficient girl herself, and did a splendid job as an office manager. She would be a credit to any office so far as her office work is concerned, and she was a credit to that organization. She had as one of her able assistants a girl by the name of Helen Sobeleski. I am not sure that I can spell that. It is a Polish name.

Well along in that period Mr. Karley Larsen came into prominence in the Woodworkers.

Mr. Tavenner. To what union does this testimony relate concerning officials and employees?

Mr. Dennett. The International Woodworkers of America.

Another person I knew was Nat Honig, H-o-n-i-g.

Nat Honig was brought into the district by Morris Rappaport to become an agitprop director. I knew Mr. Honig quite well, and I sympathized with the task that he had. He didn’t last very long in that either. He soon found himself as editor of the Woodworkers’ paper, the International Woodworkers of America’s paper. And I had occasion to attempt to get him to carry out the party line, and I was amazed to find a man who was officially holding a position of district agitprop director while he was editor of that paper, and yet, when the May Day issue of that paper came out there wasn’t one single mention of the fact that May Day was the historical day to be commemorated for the 8-hour day in America and was heralded throughout the world as laborers’ day.

Mr. Honig explained it away, that he didn’t think it was appropriate to do it.

I went to Mr. Rappaport complaining, “What kind of a district agitprop is this man anyway?”

And Rappaport had quite a session with Honig, and shortly after that Mr. Honig began to have some disaffection from the party and the party policy, and I believe he appeared before the Canwell committee shortly afterward and gave voluminous testimony about the Communist Party. I have not read his testimony. I do not know how valid it is. I couldn’t confirm or deny what he said. I don’t know.

Mr. Velde. What was the approximate time?

Mr. Dennett. That was in that period 1939, I believe; 1939 or 1940 when that happened.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall any other individuals connected with the International Woodworkers of America who were members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. I have a little difficulty thinking of any others at the moment in that particular union.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee had before it at Albany, N. Y., in July 1953, a Canadian by the name of Patrick Walsh who was connected with that organization in the western part of Canada during one period of time and who later became very prominent in the Canadian seamen’s union strike in 1949.

Did you become acquainted with Patrick Walsh?

Mr. Dennett. No; I never knew him.

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand recessed for 5 minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were giving us the names of persons known to you to be members of the Communist Party within the field of labor at the time that you were a member of the CIO council.

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please?

Mr. Dennett. Well, of course, I think I mentioned Mr. Hugh DeLacy before. He was from the teachers union. And, of course, there was one of his associates, a man by the name of Harold Eby. They were the only ones that I knew directly in the Communist Party, in the teachers union, from the university.

There was another person by the name of Victor Hicks who was quite well known to me who was in the other teachers union. There were two teachers’ unions, locals here. One applied to the public schools, and one applied to the university. Victor Hicks was in the one that applied to the public schools, although I don’t believe he was a public-school teacher himself. But he had taught in one of those Government assistance programs. I forget which one it was. There was some kind of an educational program that was conducted in the depression days that Mr. Hicks was associated with, and he was the principal one. In fact, he was responsible for nominating me to the position of secretary of the council in the first CIO council in Seattle.

Of course, I knew Mr. Jess Fletcher in the Building Service Employees International Union, which was an A. F. of L. union, not one of the CIO unions.

In the Longshoremen’s Union6 I knew Mr. Burt Nelson, B-u-r-t N-e-l-s-o-n.

I knew these people as members of the Communist Party, and they were the leaders with whom I dealt most frequently in dealing with union affairs and with party affairs.

Mr. Moulder. When naming a person, if possible, identify him in some way so he will not be confused with any person who may have a similar name.

Mr. Dennett. Burt was a longshoreman. He worked as a longshoreman on the Seattle waterfront.

George Bailey was a longshoreman known to me first in Raymond, Wash. Later I knew him on the Seattle waterfront.

Mr. Tavenner. How does he spell his name?

Mr. Dennett. I believe it was B-a-i-l-e-y.

In the early days of the organization of the warehousemen’s local of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union the two principal officers of the organization were very well known to me as members of the Communist Party. However, they frequently did not comply with the party policy, and we had frequent difficulty trying to get them to comply with it. And I believe that they have both since left the Communist Party. I make that by way of statement to be certain that there is no misapprehension as to my knowledge about them. One was Mr. John Stevens, better known as Johnny. Another one was Adrian Lawrence, A-d-r-i-a-n L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e.

In the Marine Firemen’s Union,7 which was not in the CIO, but it was a waterfront union with which I was closely associated, was Mr. Walter Stack, S-t-a-c-k, who has previously been mentioned, and a person by the name of George Flood. Now I hope no one will mistake him for another individual who is very prominent as a lawyer. I am not speaking of the lawyer. It is not the lawyer at all, because he is a well known leader of the Republican Party, and I am sure that no one will confuse him.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. My counsel advises me that that George Flood is deceased. I was unaware of it.

The George Flood of whom I am speaking was a sort of hunchback fellow who was a marine fireman.

At an earlier period I knew a group of people in the Boeing union, the machinists union, who were known to me as members of the Communist Party. That came about when one of the organizers of the United Automobile Workers of America came into Seattle wanting to swing the affiliation from the machinists union to the United Automobile Workers. That national leader was a man by the name of Wyndham Mortimer, W-y-n-d-h-a-m M-o-r-t-i-m-e-r. He was an organizer. At that time he was stationed in California. He was quite anxious to bring about the change in affiliation of the Boeing workers because he knew that the employment at that plant would increase, and had hoped that, by winning that group of workers, they would add considerable prestige and strength to the United Automobile Workers aircraft division. He had been active in a big plant. I think it was the Lockheed plant in California at that time.

When he came here he conferred with two persons known to me very well, a man by the name of Hugo Lundquist, L-u-n-d-q-u-i-s-t, and Barney Bader, B-a-d-e-r. They were at that time the top leaders of the aeronautical workers union, and they became known to me through Mr. Mortimer as members of the Communist Party. And they completely disregarded my counsel which was that they were embarked on a foolhardy effort and that we disagreed with any attempt at jurisdictional rating. Our policy here was strictly opposed to it.

However, Mortimer was operating under authority of the top apparatus of the party, namely, the central committee in New York City. And he completely disregarded any advice or counsel which was offered by the district bureau or the district leaders of the Communist Party in this area.

It was our policy to not disturb the existing unions to change affiliation. To us that was ridiculous and had no point of value. Our concern was to not have our members upset or disturbed in those organizations.

Mr. Tavenner. It may be of importance for us to know the year in which this incident occurred.

Mr. Dennett. I would have to consult my records, but I can assure you I have records on that. I have extensive correspondence with Mr. Mortimer on that subject.

Mr. Tavenner. That will be satisfactory.

Mr. Velde. Is the Walter Stack, to whom you referred, the same Walter Stack who was convicted of violation of the Smith Act?

Mr. Bennett. I don’t know what his violation is, but I am sure he is the man who was very prominent in the marine firemen’s union over a great many years. He came from here when I knew him.

Mr. Velde. I feel certain that it is one and the same person. I noted in the newspaper the other day that his appeal was turned down by the United States circuit court of appeals.

Mr. Dennett. In the national conventions of the CIO, after my first experience, which was highly unsatisfactory, with Mr. Lee Pressman, I complained so bitterly when I came back to the district that the next convention I went to I was instructed before I left that I should work through Reid Robinson, who was president of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers of America at that time. Mr. Robinson proved to be a very cooperative man and readily discussed party affairs with me. That was in 1939.

Mr. Tavenner. You say you were given instructions to work through Robinson. Was that an instruction from your union as such, or was it an instruction from the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. That was from the Communist Party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. My counsel thinks that I have not sufficiently identified Mr. Lee Pressman. He was at the time I knew him general counsel of the CIO.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please.

Mr. Dennett. My relations with Mr. Reid Robinson were quite satisfactory except that at a little bit later date, when I was under sharp attack because of the growing split between left and right wings in the State CIO in this State, I tried to get Mr. Reid Robinson to come to this State to try to pacify the situation, and he was fearful of doing so for fear he would get into more complications than he could solve. So he deserted me when I needed help.

Earlier, of course, I knew Ferdinand Smith from the National Maritime Union of America. I believe he has been deported from the United States.

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct.

Mr. Dennett. It is the same person. I had known him over a period of several years.

I also came to know the president of the officeworkers union at that time. That was the United Office and Professional Workers of America, Mr. Lewis Merrill. He was known to me by that name then. I have heard from friends since then that that was an assumed name or something. At any rate, he is doing business in New York City under an entirely different name as of this date.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know that name?

Mr. Dennett. I do not know that name. I know a person who does, who lives in the city of Seattle, and who knows him. But I do not know him myself.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell his name, the name that he went by here?

Mr. Dennett. L-e-w-i-s M-e-r-r-i-l-l.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please?

Mr. Dennett. At a much earlier period—I am going back to try to pick up the loose threads that we left out when we should have mentioned them, but I was unable to connect all my thoughts consecutively at that time. In the organization of the Marine Workers Industrial Union Mr. Harry Jackson, whom I mentioned to you, was the chief leader of that effort here. But he had 2 or 3 very able assistants, one by the name of James Archer, A-r-c-h-e-r. Archer is the man to whom I delivered about $35 which was taken up as a collection when I was in the CCC camp when I came to Seattle on a visit from the camp. It was a collection from the men in the camp to assist the maritime strikers at that time, and Mr. Archer is the man to whom I delivered that money in the headquarters of the Marine Workers Industrial Union.

Another person who was very active in that work was a person by the name of Tommy Ray, R-a-y. Later I met Tommy Ray after I was expelled from the Communist Party. Tommy Ray at that time was a port agent for the National Maritime Union. And I tried to discuss with him the question of the disciplinary practices of the Communist Party, and Ray was so incensed about his own experience that he wouldn’t discuss it with me except to say, “Don’t talk to me about those so-and-sos. I don’t want to have anything further to do with them.” And that is about all I was able to obtain from him. But it was the same person, and I believe he is still an active person in the National Maritime Union. But he is bitterly anti-Communist today.

There was another person by the name of Tom Burns. I don’t know how we can make a distinction for him, because there are so many persons by that name except to say that he was a seaman. I learned later from Tommy Ray that Tom Burns became a licensed man, left the Communist Party long before, and has had nothing to do with it; that is, in recent years. Although he was a very able man way back in the period of 1932, 1933, and 1934 when he was very active in the organization of the Marine Workers Industrial Union, and had a great part in organizing the sailors on the waterfront in Seattle at that time.

I knew Tommy Burns’ wife quite well, a person by the name of—I knew her originally as Helmi Hutenen.

Mr. Tavenner. Spell it, please.

Mr. Dennett. I cannot be certain of the spelling of it, but, as near as I recall, it was H-u-t-e-n-e-n. There was double spelling in there that I am not certain of. Helmi was H-e-l-m-i.

There was a leader of the radio operators, marine radio operators, by the name of Thomas J. Van Erman. I observed in Mrs. Hartle’s testimony that she referred to a Mr. Van Orman. I am not referring to any Van Orman. I don’t know any Van Orman. The man I know was Van Erman, V-a-n E-r-m-a-n. And Mr. Van Erman that I knew worked on the Seattle waterfront as a radio operator and was, I believe he was the port agent of that organization.

Mr. Tavenner. Let the record show in describing these persons you knew and met, that you knew them as members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. That is correct.

I frequently made myself quite obnoxious to Mr. Van Erman because I was always asking him to be a little more militant and a little more positive in his work. And he was quite insistent that I was wrong, and we had a continuing friction over that point. However, we were great personal friends.

The Cannery Workers Union was a local affiliate of the United Cannery, Agricultural, and Packinghouse Workers of America. In the national leadership I knew a Mr. Donald Henderson, who was the president of that organization. I knew him very well, associated with him frequently at the convention, transacted a great deal of business with him concerning the cannery workers out here because we were having a great deal of difficulty over language problems. The cannery workers in that union were those who were sent to Alaska regularly each year to work in the salmon industry.

And in the local area I knew Mr. Conrad Espe. Mr. Con Espe was the local representative of that international union.

There was a member of that union who was the most promising Communist that we had, by the name of I. Hosue, H-o-s-u-e. He was a very able man. I have heard since from people who are somewhat acquainted with the facts that Mr. Hosue went into the military service, became an officer during the course of the war, and turned bitterly anti-Communist. And I understand that he gave testimony against certain other members of the organization in certain deportation hearings. I can only give you that much by way of identification. But that is the man I am speaking of.

Mr. Tavenner. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if the witness recalls any other names, that he give them to us at a later period, as we desire to proceed now with other witnesses.

Mr. Moulder. All right.

Mr. Tavenner. I want to recall this witness a little later in the day on other matters.

Mr. Moulder. At what time do you want Mr. Dennett back?

Mr. Tavenner. I believe that he should be back after lunch. I would say at 2 o’clock.

Mr. Moulder. Two o’clock.

Thank you, Mr. Dennett. At 2 o’clock you will be recalled.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Paul Delaney, please.

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Delaney. I do.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL WILLIAM DELANEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, RICHARD L. GEMSON

Mr. Wheeler. Will the witness state his full name, please.

Mr. Delaney. Paul William Delaney.

Mr. Wheeler. Will you spell the last name?

Mr. Delaney. D-e-l-a-n-e-y.

Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Delaney?

Mr. Moulder. May I ask, Mr. Delaney, are you represented by counsel?

Mr. Delaney. Yes; I am.

Mr. Moulder. Will counsel identify himself?

Mr. Gemson. R. L. Gemson. I am a practicing attorney here in Seattle.

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Delaney?

Mr. Delaney. I was born in 1903 in the State of Minnesota.

Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in Washington?

Mr. Delaney. 51 years.

Mr. Wheeler. Advise the committee of your educational background, please.

Mr. Delaney. I went to school in this State: through grammar school and high school; I attended the University of Washington 2 years. I didn’t graduate.

Mr. Wheeler. What 2 years was that?

Mr: Delaney. I think in the years 1923 and 1927.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your present occupation?

Mr. Delaney. I am an architect.

Mr. Wheeler. How long have you been so engaged?

Mr. Delaney. Well, I grew up in the construction business. I have been a licensed architect since 1950 or 1951. I can’t state accurately.

Mr. Wheeler. How were you employed prior to that?

Mr. Delaney. I came to Seattle in 1941. I worked at Sims Drake Puget Sound. It was a contracting firm here. I worked with a construction company after that who built defense housing. After that I worked, the last year of the war—in my recollection—at Boeing Aircraft Co.

Mr. Wheeler. When did your employment terminate with Boeing Aircraft?

Mr. Delaney. When the war was over.

Mr. Wheeler. In 1945?

Mr. Delaney. Yes.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you completed your employment background?

Mr. Delaney. Do you want me to bring it up to date?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

Mr. Delaney. As soon as the war was over I went to work as an architectural draftsman. I went then with an architect by the name of Collins. I think he left in 1950 or 1951, and I have been alone since then.

Mr. Wheeler. Did you ever know Barbara Hartle?

Mr. Delaney. May I confer with my attorney?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. On the advice of my counsel, I must invoke the fifth amendment, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

Mr. Moulder. As previously explained by the committee because your counsel advises you to take or invoke the fifth amendment that does not compel you to do so. If you prefer, you may state that you decline to answer the question on the grounds of the fifth amendment.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. Wheeler. Mrs. Hartle has advised the committee that you were a functionary of the Queen Anne section of the Communist Party during the years 1943-45. Is she correct in that statement?

Mr. Delaney. May I again confer?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. For reasons previously given, I decline to answer this question.

Mr. Wheeler. Our investigation has also developed information that you were chairman of the Hilltop Club of the Communist Party in the year 1948. Is that correct?

Mr. Velde. What was the name of the club?

Mr. Wheeler. Hilltop, H-i-l-l-t-o-p.

Mr. Delaney. Pardon me one moment.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. I decline to answer that question on the grounds previously stated.

Mr. Wheeler. Our investigation has also developed that in the year 1943 you were issued Communist Party book No. 28704. I doubt, if you recall the number of the book, but were you issued a Communist Party book in the year 1943 by the Communist Party?

Mr. Delaney. I decline to answer for the reasons previously given.

Mr. Wheeler. In the year 1945 were you issued Communist Party book No. 42131.

Mr. Delaney. I also decline to answer that for the reasons previously given.

Mr. Wheeler. In the year 1947 were you issued Communist Party book No. 55934 by the Communist Party?

Mr. Delaney. I decline to answer for the same reasons previously given.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today, Mr. Delaney?

Mr. Delaney. I must—I decline to answer that for the reasons previously given.

Mr. Wheeler. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?

Mr. Velde. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Delaney. I must—I mean I decline to answer that.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. For the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Velde. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Delaney, we have heard many arguments against persons coming before congressional investigative committees and making accusations or statements concerning other people, and that those people do not have the opportunity to clear themselves or make explanation of the charges made against them, such as Mrs. Hartle has testified concerning you and your activities.

This committee has very carefully in each instance given the person so mentioned an opportunity to come before the committee to deny, affirm, or explain the charges made. And that opportunity is being presented to you today by a subpena issued upon you for your appearance here.

In reply to the questions propounded to you, I understand you decline to answer because of the protection afforded you under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Is that right?

Mr. Delaney. That is correct.

Mr. Moulder. Do you wish to make any explanation, or to deny or affirm any of these statements or charges which were made by Mrs. Hartle concerning your communistic activities?

Mr. Delaney. May I confer with my counsel?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Delaney. My counsel instructs me to state that I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment—on the ground that it might tend to incriminate me.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. Moulder. Counsel, proceed with the next witness.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Jacob Bitterman.

Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this congressional committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Bitterman. Yes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF JACOB BITTERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH A. MacDONALD

Mr. Wheeler. Will the witness state his full name, please?

Mr. Bitterman. Jacob Bitterman.

Mr. Velde. How do you spell the last name?

Mr. Bitterman. B-i-t-t-e-r-m-a-n.

Mr. Wheeler. Will counsel identify himself for the record?

Mr. MacDonald. Kenneth A. MacDonald, attorney at law, in Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Bitterman?

Mr. Bitterman. I was born in Russia in 1904.

Mr. Wheeler. When did you enter the United States?

Mr. Bitterman. To the best of my knowledge, in 1906.

Mr. Wheeler. How did you acquire American citizenship?

Mr. Bitterman. Through my father’s papers.

Mr. Wheeler. When you became 21 years of age?

Mr. Bitterman. I was 12 when he became a citizen.

Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in Seattle or in the vicinity of Seattle?

Mr. Bitterman. I came to Seattle in 1923.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you lived here continuously since that time?

Mr. Bitterman. With the exception of 2 years, 1928 and 1929. That is, in the fall of 1928 to the fall of 1930 I lived in Aberdeen, Wash.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your educational background?

Mr. Bitterman. Well, I went to the third grade in country school.

Mr. Wheeler. What has your employment record been for the last 10 years?

Mr. Bitterman. Machinist.

Mr. Wheeler. In Seattle?

Mr. Bitterman. Yes. I have been a machinist ever since I have been in Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the International Association of Machinists?

Mr. Bitterman. Yes. I am a member of local 79.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you held any offices in local 79?

Mr. Bitterman. No, I haven’t.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Wheeler. During the time you lived in Seattle did you ever meet with, know, or have any conversations with Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. I will invoke the fifth amendment because it might incriminate me.

Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer that question?

Mr. Bitterman. I decline to answer.

Mr. Moulder. Do you decline on the grounds and on the reasons of the protection afforded to you by the provisions of the fifth amendment?

Mr. Bitterman. Yes.

Mr. Wheeler. I would like to refer to a document entitled “Investigation of Communist Activities in the Pacific Northwest, Part 3,” page 6173. It is the testimony of Barbara Hartle in June 1954. She is identifying members of the Communist Party, and I quote the following:

Jack Bitterman, then husband of Ruth Bitterman, was a member of this section in the machinists’ branch, and was for a time chairman of that branch.

Do you wish to make any comment on that testimony?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. I invoke the fifth amendment, on the same grounds previously stated.

Mr. Velde. Mr. Wheeler is not asking you to confirm or deny it, but asked merely if you wanted to make some comment on it. Why do you take the fifth amendment on that question?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds.

Mr. Wheeler. Were you chairman of the machinists’ branch of the Communist Party?

Mr. Bitterman. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds previously stated.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for asking further questions. The witness is invoking the fifth amendment.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?

Mr. Velde. I have no questions.

Mr. Moulder. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Bitterman. No.

Mr. Moulder. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. I will again invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Moulder. You say you are not now a member of the Communist Party. Were you a member of the Communist Party a year ago?

Mr. Bitterman. I will again invoke the fifth amendment for fear it might incriminate me.

Mr. Moulder. Were you a member of the Communist Party a month ago?

Mr. Bitterman. I will again invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds previously stated.

Mr. Moulder. Would you say a week ago?

Mr. Bitterman. I will again invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Moulder. How about yesterday?

Mr. Bitterman. The same answer.

Mr. Moulder. But you are not a member today?

Mr. Bitterman. I am not a member today.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

Mr. Velde. I would like to go a little further. Were you a member of the Communist Party an hour ago?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. No, I was not.

Mr. Velde. Were you a member of the Communist Party 5 hours ago?

Mr. Bitterman. No.

Mr. Velde. When did you leave the Communist Party?

Mr. Bitterman. As to that I invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Velde. Were you a member of the Communist Party at midnight last night?

Mr. Bitterman. No, I was not.

Mr. Velde. How about 11 o’clock last night?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Bitterman. I will invoke the fifth amendment to that question.

Mr. Velde. I think that is close enough, is it not, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. Moulder. Counsel, call the next witness.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. John Stenhouse.

Mr. Moulder. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this congressional subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?

Mr. Stenhouse. I do.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN STENHOUSE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JACK R. CLUCK

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name?

Mr. Stenhouse. John Stenhouse.

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel identify himself?

Mr. Cluck. Jack R. Cluck, C-l-u-c-k, 535 Central Building, Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Stenhouse?

Mr. Stenhouse. I was born in Chungking, China, on January 22, 1908.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your last name, please.

Mr. Stenhouse. S-t-e-n-h-o-u-s-e.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now an American citizen?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you naturalized?

Mr. Stenhouse. I was naturalized in Los Angeles on April 23, 1943.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you arrive in the United States?

Mr. Stenhouse. I am not quite certain, but it was either December of 1940 or January of 1941.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been in the United States continuously since that time?

Mr. Stenhouse. No. In June 1948 I went out to China, and returned to the United States either September or October of the same year.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your formal educational training has been.

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I went to a public school in England, and after completing my education in England I went back to China.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you go back to China?

Mr. Stenhouse. In 1928.

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you live in China from 1928 until you came to the United States?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I was in my father’s business in China. The name of the firm was MacKenzie & Co., and they had several branches in China. I spent some time in Shanghai. I then went to—

Mr. Tavenner. Will you fix the dates, please.

Mr. Stenhouse. It is pretty hard. But approximately 9 months in Shanghai. That would be in 1928.

I really don’t remember the month that I got to Shanghai, but I was there approximately 9 months.

Then I went to Tientsin, and I was there until the beginning of 1931, I think it was.

Mr. Velde. What kind of a company was MacKenzie & Co.?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, it was a British trading firm. We had—-

Mr. Velde. Import-export?

Mr. Stenhouse. And warehouses and shipping and that sort of activity. Then I went to Hankow. I was there until about 1934. I remember the date because we went home on leave at that time, and I got married that year. And then after leave I went back to Tientsin, and I was there until 1939 when we went home on leave again.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to your home in England?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes. Then I went back to China in the fall of 1939, just after war was declared, and I was in Tientsin until the end of—well, the end of 1940. During 1940 I was sent up on a mission by my company to Chungking and to Hong Kong. That lasted about 3 or 4 months, I think.

Mr. Tavenner. After your arrival in this country how did you become employed and where?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, before I left China I had made arrangements with a firm in Peiping to import and sell Chinese antiques. And he gave me the name of a man in Los Angeles with whom he had done business, and suggested that I call on him because he was in somewhat similar business. And when I got to Los Angeles I called on this gentleman and made arrangements to work out of his establishment.

Later on—I can’t remember the date—I went into partnership with him under the style of Alkow & Stenhouse, and we conducted an importing business of Chinese antiques and sort of handicraft items, and had a retail outlet on Wilshire Boulevard.

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you so engaged in business in Los Angeles?

Mr. Stenhouse. Until Pearl Harbor. And I decided then that——

Mr. Tavenner. From what date until Pearl Harbor?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, as soon as I got to Los Angeles, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. That date was what?

Mr. Stenhouse. I don’t remember the exact date, but it was sometime in January of 1941.

Mr. Tavenner. That is sufficient.

Will you proceed, please. You continued in that business until Pearl Harbor. How were you employed after Pearl Harbor?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the war was on. And, for one thing, I wanted to participate in the war. So I took a drafting course and then got a job with Shell Chemical in Dominguez, I think it was until the end of—I was there for 3 or 4 months, I think it was. I don’t remember the exact date now.

Mr. Velde. What was the name of the company?

Mr. Stenhouse. Shell Chemical.

Mr. Velde. Is that also known as Shell Development Co.?

Mr. Stenhouse. I don’t know. It may be a subsidiary. It was connected with the Shell Oil Co.

Then I got a job with Fruehauf Trailer Co., which was nearer home. And I was there until, I think, about June of 1943.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed a little more rapidly? What was your next employment?

Mr. Stenhouse. Then I went to Bendix Aviation in North Hollywood. The reason for the change was, or one of the reasons for the change was, it was much nearer home, and gasoline was a problem. Time and transportation time were problems. And I was at Bendix until about March 1945, when I had a hernia operation and was told to get out of that sort of work.

At about that time there were notices in the papers asking for people with some background in the Far East to assist in finishing off the war against Japan. So I applied for a number of jobs. One was with the Office of War Information, and another was with the Office of Strategic Services. I also applied for work with 2 or 3 American companies who were planning or had had affiliations in the Far East.

And then I got an appointment with the United States Department of Commerce as an economic analyst in the China Section of the Far Eastern Division.

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the first position you held under the United States Government?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. And when did you enter the employ of the United States Government?

Mr. Stenhouse. I think it was June 1945.

Mr. Tavenner. Did your duties require you to go to Washington?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in Washington?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I remained with the Government until November 1947, and——

Mr. Tavenner. Is that with the Commerce Department until 1947?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes.

Mr. Velde. Were you an economic analyst in the Far Eastern Division during your entire employment by the Government?

Mr. Stenhouse. No. About a year after I was there I was promoted to Chief of the China Section and, some time in there, as Acting Assistant Chief of the Division. And a little later, just before I left the Department, I was temporary Acting Chief of the Division while the Division Chief was away.

In 1947, November 1947, my employment there terminated, and again I was looking for a suitable occupation. And I applied many, many places. I applied with many American firms who were in business in the Far East or had business connections in the Far East. And I also applied for an appointment that I heard about with the United Nations.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive the appointment with the United Nations?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. When?

Mr. Stenhouse. I think it was about June of 1948. There was a period when I was living in Washington that I was not employed.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of your employment by the United Nations?

Mr. Stenhouse. I had a 3-month special appointment to go out to Shanghai to work on the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, which was a separate section of the United Nations. And the work was related to the rehabilitation of trade, with special reference to the development of interregional trade in the light of the changed situation after the war.

I wrote a report which was included in a document published by the United Nations.

At the end of the 3-month period I was appointed administrative assistant to the—I don’t know what his actual title was, but it was something like director of food and agriculture mission in China; a 3-month appointment again, and I worked in that capacity for about 3 months; I think until the end of September, when I was found to have some possibilities of tuberculosis. So I wanted to go back to the United States and get a thorough investigation of that, and I got a letter from the director of the mission there to the home office suggesting that I be given a permanent contract—not a permanent contract but a more long-range contract to go out under circumstances that would allow me to take my family out. However, on the way back from China I stopped here in Seattle and met some businessmen for whom I had done some work in my official capacity in the Department. They were pleased with the work I had done and they suggested that I join their firm in Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the approximate date of your return to the United States when you first became a resident of this community?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, my return to the United States was about September or October of 1948. I went back to Washington——

Mr. Tavenner. I understand that. But you told us about your return to the United States and stopping here in Seattle.

Mr. Stenhouse. You asked me when I first came here, and became a resident. There was a gap of a couple of months because I went back to Washington to pick up my family, and we actually came here to Seattle as residents in January of 1949.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you resided in Seattle since that date?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation?

Mr. Stenhouse. I am an insurance agent.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you read any of the testimony before this committee of General Willoughby who was G-2 on General MacArthur’s staff, which related to the development of communism in China?

Mr. Stenhouse. No.

Mr. Tavenner. General Willoughby documented considerable evidence before this committee regarding the activities of certain American citizens in China. My desire now is merely to ask you whether or not you observed any Communist Party activities on the part of American nationals in China?

Mr. Stenhouse. No.

Mr. Tavenner. And I refer particularly to the period 1928 and 1929 when you were in Shanghai.

Mr. Stenhouse. I didn’t know anything about it. I was a businessman.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time been affiliated with the Communist Party, and, if so, in what country or countries?

Mr. Stenhouse. During the war some 10 years ago I was a member of the Communist Party in this country.

Mr. Tavenner. In this country?

Mr. Stenhouse. And that is the only affiliation that I have had.

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you now about your own affiliation, or indicating that I believe you were affiliated with the Communist Party in China, but we are anxious to have any information you have regarding Communist Party activities in China.

Mr. Stenhouse. I haven’t any information, Mr. Tavenner. When I left China in 1940 I only had a very vague idea about what was going on there.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me put the question to you this way because it is a very broad subject.

General Willoughby testified before this committee that the form of organization of mass organizations in China from 1929 on was virtually identical with what we have found in this country since the early and middle thirties, that is, in working through mass organizations or front organizations, as we frequently call them in this country.

Did you observe any activity of that kind?

Mr. Stenhouse. No, and I wouldn’t have done it because I was living in the international concessions in watertight compartments where we associated, except in business, with Europeans and Americans. I am somewhat—what was going on in the interior of China and in Chinese politics I was somewhat abysmally ignorant of in those days.

Mr. Tavenner. It has been demonstrated that Americans, people from this country took an active part in some of that organizational work in China.

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I never did.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the fact that you were in an international section mean that you could not have had any knowledge of it?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I didn’t have any knowledge of it. I was involved in business until the Japanese threatened my business. I wasn’t concerned with politics.

Mr. Tavenner. I am not indicating I have any information that you were involved in it. I am merely asking what knowledge you had of it?

Mr. Stenhouse. I really have no knowledge.

Mr. Velde. I think we ought to make this clear: Are you referring to the period of time you were in China prior to 1940, and not about your trip the second time?

Mr. Stenhouse. That is correct.

Mr. Velde. Have you been back more than once since 1940 to China?

Mr. Stenhouse. No. Only once.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you say you became a member of the Communist Party while you were in Los Angeles?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the approximate date of your becoming a member?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, to the best of my recollection, it was in the latter part of 1943.

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you living at that time?

Mr. Stenhouse. In Horseshoe Canyon.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned to any particular group of the Communist Party when you first became a member?

Mr. Stenhouse. I don’t think it was a matter of assignment, to my knowledge. I was asked if I would like to attend some discussion group meetings and, to the best of my recollection, there were not more than 4 or 5 of them in Los Angeles.

Mr. Tavenner. Four or 5 what?

Mr. Stenhouse. Of these discussion group meetings.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean that you attended 4 or 5 of these discussion group meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not you were transferred from one such group to another?

Mr. Stenhouse. I am pretty certain I wasn’t. I am not aware of it. Somebody may have transferred me. But, as far as I know, I attended a group of discussion meetings somewhere, not too far from where we lived in North Hollywood. I don’t remember now whether it was in more than one home. It may have been in 1 or 2.

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons attended those meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. About 4 or 5.

Mr. Tavenner. Were they always the same persons or did the group vary as to its composition?

Mr. Stenhouse. It may have varied. I don’t remember for sure.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the business conducted at those meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, we discussed Communist and other literature and articles. We discussed the affairs that were concerning all of us at that time, of the war and the winning of the war—and it was just talk.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not Communist Party literature was made available for your purchase at the meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, it was.

Mr. Tavenner. And for your use?

Mr. Stenhouse. Yes, it was.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take part in the study group, in the study of the Communist Party literature yourself?

Mr. Stenhouse. Oh, I suppose I read what we were asked to read or was suggested we read, and made some attempt to discuss it at the next meeting.

I might add that the literature that was at those meetings was also on sale in some of the bookstores in Los Angeles. There was a Lincoln Book Store there which had Communist and other material for sale. I was in the bookstore 2 or 3 times. There was also at these meetings material that was not Communist, at least not published by the party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was the Lincoln Book Store known as a Communist book shop?

Mr. Stenhouse. It wasn’t known to me as such.

Mr. Tavenner. There has been evidence of that character presented to the committee.

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, I wouldn’t doubt it actually. But they sold things other than Communist Party literature. And it wasn’t under the table. It was right out in the open. Anybody from the street could walk in and pick it up and read it.

Mr. Tavenner. Who invited you to become a member of that group?

Mr. Stenhouse. I don’t know, sir. At that time I was very active in the United Auto Workers. I felt that the United Auto Workers was doing a fine job in increasing production for the war. Their no-strike pledge was very loyally kept, and there were people there who always attended meetings, who were always ready to try and get other people to come to the union meetings, who were ready to do jobs for the union in the way of promoting blood-bank drives, and so on, getting people to register to vote, and the sort of things that I was interested in. Some one of these people who I had some knowledge of their actions asked me if I would go to such a meeting, and I said I would.

Mr. Tavenner. Were the other members of this group of Communist Party persons employed in the same business in which you were employed?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, as far as I remember, there were possibly 2 or 3 of the group who were at the Bendix plant. I am not sure now. It is hard to differentiate.

Mr. Moulder. You say you were interested in the same things that they were interested in, that is, getting people interested in elections and going to the polls to vote.

Mr. Stenhouse. Sure.

Mr. Moulder. Do you recall whether or not at that time the Communist Party had candidates for whom you could cast a ballot?

Mr. Stenhouse. We weren’t interested in it. We were voting Democratic. I was a Democrat.

Mr. Moulder. The point I was trying to make, if you were interested in that party why did you join the Democratic Party? I don’t understand why you affiliated yourself with a party that had no candidates for whom you could vote.

Mr. Stenhouse. I didn’t deliberately go out to affiliate myself with it. Somebody who was interested in it also, as a Democrat—and these things that were part of the war effort—suggested that I go to one of these meetings. And he had become a person I had some respect for because of his apparent adherence to the things that the majority of the American people were doing at that time. I accepted the idea and went to the meetings.

Mr. Moulder. Were they Communist Party organization meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. I don’t understand you.

Mr. Moulder. Are you talking about Communist Party meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. No. I am talking about union meetings and how it came about that somebody invited me to go.

Mr. Moulder. I am referring to the Communist Party meetings.

Mr. Stenhouse. There were many meetings at that time, Mr. Chairman—union meetings; many union meetings I attended. I was very much impressed with the union.

Mr. Moulder. Were the union meetings you attended Communist Party meetings?

Mr. Stenhouse. I think we have got at cross purposes someway here.

I was trying to explain how it came about that somebody invited me to go to one of these discussion group meetings, and it was through the association with somebody whom I had some regard for in his union activity that I accepted an invitation.

Mr. Moulder. Was the discussion group meeting a Communist Party meeting or merely affiliated with the Communist Party?

Mr. Stenhouse. I am as confused as you are about that.

Mr. Moulder. Do you know whether you were a Communist at that time?

Mr. Stenhouse. Well, to be frank about it, I believe I signed a Communist Party card at some time.

I have a vague recollection of a card which had an American flag on it and some very patriotic phraseology about the war effort and the alliance between our country and the Soviet Union. It may have even had some words about the Communist Party on it. But it seemed to me entirely innocuous. In fact, again it appeared to be directed to the things I was interested in, in the war effort.

Mr. Moulder. Did you pay dues to the Communist Party after signing the Communist Party card?

Mr. Stenhouse. I believe there was some sort of dues structure, but I don’t remember now how it worked. There were these materials for sale at the meetings, and money changed hands. I don’t remember now how much of it was for books, how much of it was for dues.