Find a Security Clearance Job!

Homeland Security

[107 Senate Committee Prints]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:83870.wais]
                                                         S. Prt. 107-84
                    EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE
                       PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
                        ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
                                VOLUME 2
                               __________
                         EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
                             FIRST SESSION
                                  1953
                        MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003
      Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
                                    _______
                       U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-870                         WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                     107th Congress, Second Session
               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
           Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
              Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                
                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii,             SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
            Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Kim Corthell, Minority Staff Director
                     Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
                      83rd Congress, First Session
                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine          HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho             HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland       STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
                   Francis D. Flanagan, Chief Counsel
                    Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                
                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas \1\
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington \1\
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri \1\
                       Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel
                  Francis P. Carr, Executive Director
                      Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk
                           assistant counsels
Robert F. Kennedy                                    Donald A. Surine
Thomas W. La Venia                                   Jerome S. Adlerman
Donald F. O'Donnell                                  C. George Anastos
Daniel G. Buckley
                             investigators
                           Robert J. McElroy
Herbert S. Hawkins                                   James N. Juliana
                   G. David Schine, Chief Consultant
               Karl H. W. Baarslag, Director of Research
               Carmine S. Bellino, Consulting Accountant
                   La Vern J. Duffy, Staff Assistant
----------
  \1\ The Democratic members were absent from the subcommittee from 
July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954.
                            C O N T E N T S
                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
                                Volume 2
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 23.......................................................   913
    Testimony of Mary M. Kaufman; Sol Auerbach (James S. Allen); 
      and William Marx Mandel.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 24.......................................................   945
    Testimony of Samuel Dashiell Hammett; Helen Goldfrank; Jerre 
      G. Mangione; and James Langston Hughes.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 25.......................................................   999
    Testimony of Mary Van Kleeck; and Edwin Seaver.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 31.......................................................  1015
    Testimony of Edward W. Barrett.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 1........................................................  1045
    Testimony of Dan Mabry Lacy
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 24.......................................................  1071
    Testimony of James A. Wechsler-published in 1953.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 28.......................................................  1073
    Testimony of Theodore Kaghan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  May 5..........................................................  1115
    Testimony of James A. Wechsler-published in 1953.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 5.  1117
    Testimony of Millen Brand.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 6.  1123
    Testimony of John L. Donovan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 13  1135
    Testimony of James Aronson; and Cedric Belfrage.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 19  1161
    Testimony of Julien Bryan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 1  1193
    Testimony of Richard O. Boyer; Rockwell Kent; Edwin B. 
      Burgum; Joseph Freeman; George Seldes; and Doxey Wilkerson.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 2  1217
    Testimony of Allan Chase.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 7  1223
    Testimony of Eslanda Goode Robeson; Arnaud d'Usseau; and Leo 
      Huberman.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 
  14.............................................................  1231
    Testimony of Harvey O'Connor.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 20........  1235
    Testimony of Naphtali Lewis.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 25........  1245
    Testimony of Helen B. Lewis; Naphtali Lewis; and Margaret 
      Webster.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 26........  1267
    Testimony of Aaron Copland.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 8........  1291
    Testimony of Rachel Davis DuBois; and Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19.......  1305
    Testimony of Clarence F. Hiskey.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19.......  1311
    Testimony of Harold C. Urey.
Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 20.........................  1321
Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 25.........................  1329
    Testimony of Charles S. Thomas; Louis W. Goodkind; Thruston 
      B. Morton; Kenneth R. Hansen; and Vice Admiral Walter S. 
      Delaney.
Austrian Incident, June 3........................................  1349
    Testimony of V. Frank Coe.
Austrian Incident, June 5........................................  1367
    Testimony of V. Frank Coe.
Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 17........  1373
    Testimony of Louis Bortz; and Herbert S. Hawkins.
Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 18........  1395
    Testimony of Louis Bortz.
Special Meeting, July 10.........................................  1399
Alleged Bribery of State Department Official, July 13............  1415
    Testimony of Juan Jose Martinez-Locayo.
Internal Revenue, July 31........................................  1431
    Testimony of T. Coleman Andrews.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 10..................  1439
    Testimony of Mary S. Markward; Edward M. Rothschild; Esther 
      Rothschild; and James B. Phillips.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 11..................  1473
    Testimony of Frederick Sillers; Gertrude Evans; and Charles 
      Gift.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 11..................  1497
    Testimony of Raymond Blattenberger; and Phillip L. Cole.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 12..................  1515
    Testimony of Ernest C. Mellor; and S. Preston Hipsley.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 13..................  1527
    Testimony of Irving Studenberg.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 13..................  1533
    Testimony of Gertrude Evans; and Charles Gift.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 14..................  1547
    Testimony of Howard Merold; Jack Zucker; Howard Koss; and 
      Isadore Kornfield.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 15..................  1563
    Testimony of Cleta Guess; James E. Duggan; and Adolphus 
      Nichols Spence.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 18..................  1573
    Testimony of Roy Hudson Wells, Jr.; and Phillip Fisher.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 19..................  1577
    Testimony of Joseph E. Francis; Samuel Bernstein; and Roscoe 
      Conkling Everhardt.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 21..................  1595
    Testimony of Florence Fowler Lyons.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 29..................  1603
    Testimony of Alfred L. Fleming; Carl J. Lundmark; Earl Cragg; 
      and Harry Falk.
Stockpiling and Metal Program, August 21.........................  1615
    Statement of Robert C. Miller.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, August 31....  1625
    Testimony of Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; and 
      Albert E. Feldman.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 1..  1651
    Testimony of Cpt. Donald Joseph Kotch; Stanley Garber; Jacob 
      W. Allen; Deton J. Brooks, Jr.; Col. Ralph M. Bauknight; 
      Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; Marvel Cooke; and 
      Paul Cavanna.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 2..  1695
    Testimony of Mary Columbo Palmiero; Col. Wallace W. Lindsay; 
      Col. Wendell G. Johnson; Maj. Harold N. Krau; Louis Francis 
      Budenz; Augustin Arrigo; and Muriel Silverberg.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 3..  1729
    Testimony of John Stewart Service; Donald Joseph Kotch; 
      Michael J. Lynch; and Jacob W. Allen.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 8..  1745
    Testimony of H. Donald Murray.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 9..  1777
    Testimony of Alexander Naimon; John Lautner; Esther Leenov 
      Ferguson.
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--The United States Information Service 
initially established a ``balanced presentation'' policy under 
which books by controversial authors, including Communists, 
would be stocked by its overseas libraries to reflect the 
diversity of opinion in the United States and to preserve the 
intellectual credibility of the collections. In 1952, the 
Truman administration judged several books by the novelist 
Howard Fast to be Communist propaganda and removed them from 
the shelves although his other works remained. In January 1953, 
the Eisenhower administration upheld the policy of balanced 
collections but set criteria for defining books that might be 
excluded.
    Between March and July 1953, the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations held extensive hearings, in both executive and 
public session, that focused on the U.S. Information Libraries 
worldwide. It examined the books that the libraries stocked, 
and called some of the authors--including Howard Fast--to 
testify. During the course of the investigation, chief counsel 
Roy Cohn, and chief consultant David Schine, embarked on a 
highly-publicized tour of the overseas libraries in major 
European capitals, from April 4 to 21. Simultaneously, the 
State Department ordered the removal of any books by Communist 
authors or Communist sympathizers from the Information 
Libraries' shelves. Hundreds of works of fiction and non-
fiction were discarded, and some were burned. In his 
commencement address at Dartmouth College on June 13, President 
Eisenhower told the students: ``Don't join the book burners. 
Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing 
evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your 
library and read every book as long as any document does not 
offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only 
censorship.''
    Mary M. Kaufman did not testify in public. Sol Auerbach 
(who wrote as James S. Allen) and William Marx Mandel appeared 
before the subcommittee in a televised public hearing on the 
following day. During the open session, the chairman ordered 
Mandel to identify publicly his current employer, information 
that the witness had provided in executive session with the 
request that it be kept confidential. Mandel complained that 
the subcommittee had ``arrogated itself the right to exact 
punishment, although it is not a court of law and deprives one 
of due process of law. That punishment has ranged from fines 
ranging from several thousand dollars in the case of people 
dismissed up to the fact that you, Senator McCarthy, murdered 
Raymond Kaplan by forcing him, driving him to the point where 
he jumped under a truck. . . .'']
                              ----------                              
                         MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                        Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:00 p.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart 
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Claude I. Bakewell, former representative 
from Missouri; Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief 
clerk.
    Mr. Cohn. Senator, this is William Z. Foster's attorney 
Mrs. Kaufman.
    Do you have any objection to being sworn, Mrs. Kaufman?
  STATEMENT OF MARY M. KAUFMAN, ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAM Z. FOSTER
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't see the necessity to be sworn simply 
to explain why he isn't here. The facts I state are matters of 
public record.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest this, Mr. Chairman. If this is 
to be testimony, I think she should be sworn. If you are 
willing to accept just a report from her as to why he is not 
here, I should think that would be acceptable without her being 
sworn.
    The Chairman. What are you prepared to present to us?
    Mrs. Kaufman. I simply wanted to advise the committee that 
Mr. Foster is presently confined to the southern district of 
New York under the terms of his bail, and because of that is 
unable to appear. Now, that is a matter of public record. When 
I reminded Mr. Cohn of the fact, he remembered that that was 
so.
    In addition, I wanted to advise the committee that Mr. 
Foster's health is such as not to permit him to appear before 
this committee, and I have a statement from his physician to 
that effect. The conclusion of the statement states that ``any 
sudden strain or emotional excitation may provoke easily a 
fatal cerebral or cardiac incident.'' And under these 
circumstances, I would request that he be excused.
    The Chairman. May I ask counsel, number one: I assume the 
first reason stated could be easily waived by the court.
    Mr. Cohn. No doubt about it.
    The Chairman. How about number two, the question of 
illness?
    Mr. Cohn. That has been raised by Mr. Foster for some time, 
I believe, since his original indictment in the summer of 1948. 
He was granted a severance. There was a reexamination at my 
request when I was in the Department of Justice a few months 
ago. I am not aware that that motion was ever decided. Was it?
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't believe the government took any 
action.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, we did. We made a motion for another 
physical examination, and I don't know whether there was ever a 
ruling on whether he was well enough to stand trial.
    Senator McClellan. The first issue raised determines. You 
do not have to pass upon the other.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, we can get that waived.
    Senator McClellan. I understand, but for the moment that 
would settle it.
    The Chairman. He is definitely not in contempt for not 
appearing today.
    Well, my thought is that he is not sufficiently important a 
witness for the hearing that we should go to the trouble of 
finding out whether he is in proper shape to appear or not. I 
think the court is going to determine that in connection with 
his criminal trial.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to suggest this: Could we get from 
Mr. Foster an affidavit answering the questions we want to put 
to him?
    The Chairman. I think that might be a good idea. There is 
no reason why he could not answer questions under oath.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't know. I would have to consult with 
him in order to find out what he can or can not do.
    The Chairman. You are a notary public yourself, are you?
    Mrs. Kaufman. No, I am not.
    The Chairman. Let us leave it this way, then. Counsel can 
prepare the interrogatories and submit them to the attorney, 
with the orders that Mr. Foster answer them, unless counsel can 
produce anything to indicate that that would adversely affect 
his health. If no, we will go into that.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the 
statement she brought from Mr. Foster and also from his 
physician be filed.
    Mrs. Kaufman. Yes, I would like to place that in the 
record, if I may.
    Senator McClellan. That does not have to go in the record.
    The Chairman. Those are merely accepted as exhibits.
    [A memorandum dated March 21, 1953, signed by Louis V. 
Finger, M.D., 1056 Fifth Avenue, New York 28, New York, was 
marked Kaufman Exhibit 1 and filed for the information of the 
committee.]
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much. And counsel 
will prepare interrogatories to be submitted to Mr. Foster, to 
be sent to you, and we will want you to have him answer those 
and have him swear to them before a notary, unless you can 
produce a doctor's certificate offering something that will 
prove that that will adversely affect his health. We do not 
want to kill off any of the witnesses.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I am sure of that, Senator.
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I am not in any position to state Mr. 
Foster's agreement as to the interrogatories, but nevertheless 
we can wait until we receive them to determine what action we 
will take.
    The Chairman. It will be the order, as I say, that unless 
you can produce some medical proof, either a doctor's affidavit 
or whatever occurs to you to convince the committee that that 
will adversely affect his health, the answers to the 
interrogatories will be provided.
    Senator Symington. I would suggest that you suggest to Mr. 
Foster that he try and answer the interrogatories to the best 
of his ability.
    Mrs. Kaufman. Will you note my address? I don't think you 
took it. It is 43 West 94th Street.
    The Chairman. Mr. Allen, will you stand and raise your 
right hand? Will you stand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do.
    The Chairman. Will you identify your counsel?
TESTIMONY OF SOL AUERBACH (JAMES S. ALLEN) (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
                     COUNSEL, JOSEPH FORER)
    Mr. Auerbach. My counsel is Mr. Joe Forer of Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that F-o-r-e-r?
    Mr. Auerbach. F-o-r-e-r.
    The Chairman. Mr. Allen, under the rules of the 
subcommittee, you are entitled to have a conference with your 
lawyer at any time you care to. If something comes up which you 
think is of such a nature that you want to have a place to 
discuss the matter with him confidentially, we will arrange 
either another room or some place where you can get some 
privacy. We do not allow the attorney to take part in the 
proceedings, other than to advise you. If the attorney thinks 
that a question is objectionable, he is free to tell you that, 
and fully advise you at any time during the proceedings.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Auerbach. My name is Sol Auerbach, A-u-e-r-b-a-c-h.
    Mr. Cohn. And you write under the name of James S. Allen; 
is that right?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address?
    Mr. Auerbach. 134 East Hudson Street, Long Beach, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you want to be called, Mr. Auerbach or 
Mr. Allen?
    Mr. Auerbach. Either way.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that, on the basis of my 
constitutional privilege.
    Senator Symington. You refuse to answer where you are 
employed on that basis?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are employed, are you not, Mr. Allen, at 
International Publishers, the official publishing house of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
ground.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the grounds that your 
answer might incriminate you?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is the reason, as it may be put. I 
prefer to say----
    Senator McClellan. How do you put it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that I have a constitutional 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to bear witness against 
myself and not to be a witness against myself.
    The Chairman. You have that privilege, as long as you 
honestly believe that if you truthfully answered a question it 
might tend to incriminate you. You do not have that privilege 
if you would incriminate yourself by perjury, you understand. 
It is only if you tell the committee that you honestly feel 
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you. Then you 
have the right to refuse to answer. You understand that?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I understand that.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Allen, let me ask you this: Where was 
the subpoena served on you? Just the street address?
    Mr. Auerbach. At Fourth Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. 381 Fourth Avenue?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the headquarters of the Communist party 
of the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. It is not the headquarters of the Communist 
party of the United States.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't get that.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is not the headquarters of the Communist 
party of the United States.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Is that the building in which are located 
offices or organizations officially connected with the 
Communist party of the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I will refuse to answer that question 
on the same grounds previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are the headquarters of the Communist party 
located?
    Mr. Auerbach. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. They moved recently, did they not? You might have 
read that in the public press if you do not know it some other 
way.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is more or less public knowledge, I 
think.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Allen, let me ask you this: Has the Communist 
party gone underground recently? Is the location of the present 
headquarters of the Communist party secret, as far as you know?
    Mr. Auerbach. As far as I know, it is no secret.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say you can't tell us where it is?
    Mr. Auerbach. I just don't happen to know where it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you visited the Communist party headquarters 
recently?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit Communist party headquarters?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refrain from answering that, on the 
same ground as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of a book called World 
Monopoly and Peace? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ James S. Allen, World Monopoly and Peace (New York: 
International Publishers, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Auerbach. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are the James S. Allen who wrote that 
book?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, that is a copy of the book.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it is a copy.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I notice that that book is published by 
International Publishers. Is that the official publishing house 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote that book, Mr. Allen, were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question, on the same 
grounds as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write that book?
    Mr. Auerbach. I wrote that book in '45, I believe, 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you wrote that book, did you favor 
the Soviet Union against the United States of America?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have always favored the United States of 
America.
    Mr. Cohn. If the United States of America were at war with 
the Soviet Union, would you fight for the United States against 
the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. If we were the victim of aggression, I would.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't ask you the circumstances. I said: If 
the United States declared a state of war against the Soviet 
Union, would you, as an American citizen, fight against the 
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that would depend on the 
circumstances of the war.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not asking about the circumstances of the 
war. I asked for a categorical answer. If the Congress of the 
United States declared war against the Soviet Union----
    Senator Jackson [continuing]. As provided for by the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. Would you fight for the United 
States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have been in the American army and fought 
in a war.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't understand my question. If the 
Congress of the United States declared war against the Soviet 
Union, would you fight for the United States? ``Yes'' or 
``no''?
    Mr. Auerbach. I cannot conceive of such a war.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness is 
getting very close to contempt of the committee.
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult with my attorney?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I think I have answered the question.
    The Chairman. I do not think you have answered.
    Mr. Auerbach. May I repeat my answer?
    Mr. Cohn. Why don't I repeat the question? It will make it 
simpler. The question is this: If the Congress of the United 
States, for any reason, as provided by the Constitution, were 
to declare war against the Soviet Union, would you fight 
against the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I answered that.
    Mr. Cohn. Can we have a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer? That is a 
very simple question.
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer yes or no, because it would 
depend on the circumstances of the war. There is not every war 
that one would support.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean as an American citizen you can conceive 
of a war declared by the official representatives of the 
Congress of the United States pursuant to the Constitution 
which you would not support?
    Mr. Auerbach. Which I may think to be an unjust war, not 
worthy of the support of a patriotic American. And I think I 
would have the privilege to be opposed to that war.
    The Chairman. Are there some circumstances under which you 
would join the military forces and fight against the Soviet 
Union if war were declared?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think if we were the victim of aggression 
by the Soviet Union or any other power, I would fight for the 
defense of the United States.
    Senator Symington. If the war, in your opinion, were 
unjustified on the part of the United States, would you accept 
money to be a spy for a foreign country that was fighting 
against the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not.
    Senator Symington. Would you be a spy, without money?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage against the 
United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I certainly have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a representative of the 
Communist International?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go to the Philippines for the Communist 
International in 1939?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer the question, on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip to the Philippines in 1939?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer, on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip financed by the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer, on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip to Mexico in the interest of 
the Communist International?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer is the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that trip financed by the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer remains the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you foreign editor of the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer that question, on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at this time a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not answer that question, on the same 
ground as previously stated.
    Senator Symington. If you are a member of the Communist 
party, why are you ashamed or afraid to say so?
    Mr. Auerbach. Because the purpose of the question is quite 
different. I am not saying that I am or am not a member. I am 
not saying I am or am not a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Are you saying you never were a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am refusing to answer that question, on the 
ground----
    Senator Symington. My point is that all we are trying to do 
is clarify who is for or against the United States. It would 
have been possible for you to be a member of the Communist 
party and then to have felt that was wrong and to have 
resigned. What the counsel asked was: Are you a member now? And 
you have refused to answer, which, of course makes us believe 
that you are a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Auerbach. You have no ground for believing that, on the 
basis of my answer.
    Senator Symington. Then why are you afraid or ashamed to 
answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not afraid or ashamed.
    Senator Symington. Then why do you not answer it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think it violates my constitutional right 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Why do you want to take refuge behind 
your constitutional rights unless you are ashamed or afraid of 
admitting membership?
    Mr. Auerbach. Because the purpose of these questions is 
something quite different.
    Senator Jackson. What purpose could this committee have but 
to properly obtain information with reference to your 
activities? You are not incriminating yourself if you say you 
are a member of the Communist party. There is nothing that I 
know of on the statute books that says that a member of the 
Communist party, per se, is in violation of the law. It is only 
if you conspire, together with others, to overthrow the 
government by force and violence. You could be a member of the 
Communist party, if I understand the laws of this country 
correctly, and testify here under oath and say you are a 
member, but that you do not agree to overthrow of the 
government by force and violence, and you would not incriminate 
yourself.
    The Chairman. I may say, Senator Jackson, that as I 
understand the law, merely being a member of the Communist 
party does not make you guilty of a crime unless it can be 
shown that you are aware of the objectives of the Communist 
party.
    Senator Jackson. And that you acquiesce in those 
objectives.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is acquiescence; it is 
knowledge.
    Senator Jackson. Well, you would have to know about them.
    The Chairman. And remaining a member after you know the 
objectives.
    So that he does have the right, I think, without any doubt.
    Senator Jackson. I agree that he has the right.
    Senator Symington. I agree that he has the right, but I do 
not see why, if he is a member of the Communist party, he is 
ashamed or afraid of admitting it.
    Senator Jackson. Shall we get an answer to the original 
question, about bearing arms?
    Mr. Cohn. We never have had a categorical answer to that.
    The Chairman. I think maybe he has answered that. He says 
he would himself decide what terms and conditions under which 
he would serve in the military forces, and while we may 
disagree with the answer, I think he has perhaps answered it. 
He says he can't answer it ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question?
    Do you believe in the overthrow of the United States 
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not.
    Senator McClellan. Do you belong to any organization, 
political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the 
government of the United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not. In my opinion, I do not belong to 
any such organization.
    Senator McClellan. In your opinion, you do not. Is that 
what you said?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. I am trying to understand it. Do you 
know that the Communist party does favor the overthrow of the 
United States government by violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. There seems to be quite a lot of difference 
on that question, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Do you know that it does?
    Mr. Auerbach. No. In my opinion they do not.
    Senator Jackson. You are familiar with the Supreme Court 
decision?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am.
    Senator Jackson. The last one, the Dennis case, in which 
the court so found?
    Mr. Auerbach. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of public 
opinion that does not agree with that, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Is it your opinion that the Communist 
party does not advocate the overthrow of the government of the 
United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You state that under oath?
    Mr. Auerbach. I state that under oath.
    Senator McClellan. On the contrary, do you not know, when I 
ask you to state that under oath, that it does advocate the 
overthrow of the United States government by force and 
violence? Do you not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I answered your question, Senator.
    Senator McClellan. I do not think you did.
    Mr. Auerbach. I gave you my opinion.
    Senator McClellan. You gave me your opinion. I ask you now 
if you do not know it. Not an opinion, but do you not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that they do not stand for violent 
overthrow of the government by force and violence.
    Senator McClellan. Then you mean to state by that answer 
that you do not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is not what I said, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Well, do you say you do know it, or do 
not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. According to my knowledge, they do not stand 
for the violent overthrow of the government.
    Senator McClellan. Then, according to your knowledge, they 
do not. Then you mean you do not know it. Is that what you are 
saying? I know it has got you a little worried, but I am asking 
you: Do you know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not worried, Senator. I am trying to 
understand your question.
    Senator McClellan. You do understand it. I asked you: Do 
you not know it? And you said you ``believe.'' I am asking you, 
contrary to what you say you believe, if you do not know it as 
a matter of fact that you have personal knowledge of.
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not know it.
    Senator McClellan. All right. You say you do not know it.
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not.
    Senator Jackson. And do you know whether in the past the 
Communist party has advocated the overthrow of the government 
by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not believe it has.
    Senator Jackson. That is your opinion?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion.
    Senator Jackson. And that is what you believe?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is what I believe.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Allen, I am interested in this. Do 
you believe that the Communist party is run from Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. My belief is that it is not run from Moscow.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe the Communist party in 
this country runs itself? Or is it run from Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe it runs itself.
    Senator Symington. It runs itself, without any control from 
Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe there is no control from Moscow.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe in the anti-Semitic 
purges that have recently developed in the countries behind the 
Iron Curtain? Do you approve of that?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't believe there are anti-Semitic 
purges.
    Senator Symington. You do not believe there are anti-
Semitic purges?
    Mr. Auerbach. No.
    Senator Symington. You think that is just propaganda on the 
part of the capitalistic press?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that it is misinformation about the 
situation, combined with propaganda, which is quite appropriate 
to the cold war from the viewpoint of those who would like to 
wage that war.
    Senator Symington. So if I follow you, you believe that 
these reports about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and its 
satellites are incorrect. Is that right?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe they are absolutely incorrect.
    Senator McCllelan. You said, now, that you do not believe 
that the Communist party in the United States is run by Moscow 
or controlled from Russia. Now I want to ask you the question. 
Do you not know that it is?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not know.
    Senator Jackson. In your opinion, is the Communist party in 
the United States under any orders from outside the United 
States?
    Mr. Auerbach. In my opinion, it is under no orders.
    Senator Jackson. Has it been in the past?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not believe it has.
    Senator Jackson. Has Jacques Duclos ever had any influence 
on operations of the Communist party of the United States.
    Mr. Auerbach. As far as I know, he has had no direct 
influence over it. I would like to make it clear that I am no 
authority on the question.
    Senator Jackson. Was Browder removed by totally an American 
action, or was he removed by reason of action taken by the 
Cominform in 1945? Can you answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that action was taken here.
    Senator Jackson. Did the Cominform or other similar 
apparatus of the International Communist Organization have 
anything to do with action taken here?
    Mr. Auerbach. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment at this 
point?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not clear what this committee is after. 
I know that this is a subcommittee for the investigation of 
government operations, and I assumed that when I received the 
subpoena it was in connection with such investigations.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to inquire the purpose of 
the question. I will inform you of the purpose.
    We are presently investigating the background of some of 
the individuals who have been doing work for the Voice of 
America information program. We find that your works have been 
used. We appropriate, oh, a huge amount of money. I think the 
budget this year calls for $100-million some-odd to fight 
communism throughout the world. So we are curious to know what 
Communist authors or members of the Communist party are being 
utilized in this fight, and the purpose of their being used. We 
must inquire into your background therefor.
    Senator Jackson. We want to inquire into the operation of 
the Communist party, your knowledge of it, here and abroad as 
it affects the program.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. Now, did you answer the question I put to 
you a moment ago?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I would like to make it clear that my 
answer to any of these questions is merely the opinion of an 
individual, and that for expert knowledge on the matter you 
would have to seek somewhere else.
    Senator Jackson. I understand you to say under oath that 
you have no knowledge of the workings of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I did not say that.
    Senator Jackson. Well, can you answer that question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Will you yield a minute there?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Senator Symington. You appear questioning, or irritated or 
resentful, at the questions that are asked you, and you want to 
make a statement. I feel irritated, questioning, and resentful 
to any American citizen who is asked up here questions with 
respect to the Communist party and either is ashamed or so 
afraid or so arrogant with respect to the right of the Congress 
that he does not answer those questions, does not want to 
answer them, on the grounds that it might violate his rights 
under the Fifth Amendment. I want to make very clear to you my 
position with respect to your testimony. And I do not think 
anybody is more anxious to have civil rights and civil 
liberties perpetuated under our system.
    Mr. Auerbach. Senator, may I comment on what you say?
    Senator Symington. You certainly can.
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not disrespectful of the Congress of the 
United States. I have no feeling of arrogance, in my attitude. 
In my opinion it seems quite clear that anticommunism has 
served as a cover for a struggle against and a suppression of 
civil liberties. That is my position. And therefore I don't 
want in any way to further such aims. Anticommunism has 
historically served that purpose abroad. It served it in 
Germany. It served it in Italy. It served it in Japan. And it 
is serving it here.
    Senator Jackson. And communism in Russia serves to promote 
civil liberties?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think they have aims of their own that are 
quite apart from the aims of----
    The Chairman. The question was: Do you think that the 
Communists are promoting the cause of civil liberties?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think they are. I think there are liberties 
in the Soviet Union which we don't enjoy here.
    Senator Jackson. Can you say what right--I am not talking 
now about what may be in some document--what right a citizen 
has in the Soviet Union to a trial by jury?
    Mr. Auerbach. He has quite a number of rights of trial that 
would be surprising to many Americans. There are courts, from 
the lowest branches of the judiciary to the very highest where 
a citizen has an opportunity to be heard by a jury of his peers 
and by judges chosen by himself.
    The Chairman. Do you think the judicial system in Communist 
Russia is superior to the judicial system in this country?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't think it is a question of superior or 
not. A judicial system meets certain needs.
    The Chairman. The question originally asked of you, Mr. 
Allen, was whether you felt that communism was serving the 
cause of promoting civil liberties, and then you went into the 
judicial system. My question now is: Do you think the judicial 
system in Russia is superior to that of this country in so far 
as the preservation of civil liberties is concerned?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that they are very much concerned 
with the preservation of civil liberties in their judicial 
system as well as under the Constitution.
    Senator Jackson. Hitler made some announcements, too, that 
they were concerned about them, but they did not have them.
    The Chairman. Would you fight, if you were called upon to 
fight, today, in the Korean War, on our side, if a draft board 
called you up?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am opposed to that war. I think it is an 
unjust war.
    Senator McClellan. On whose part is it unjust? On America's 
part? Or on that of Red China?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe that we had no business over 
there.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think that Red China has any 
business in there?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe we were there before Red China was 
there.
    Senator McClellan. That is right. What is your position as 
to Red China? Do you think she is fighting an unjust war?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think Red China is probably concerned with 
her security. If we had a foreign power down in Mexico or in 
Cuba, we would be very much concerned about it.
    Senator McClellan. Is there any position you can take that 
would at all criticize or condemn communism in the Soviet 
Union? Is there one single criticism you have of it? Can you 
think of one?
    Mr. Auerbach. There might be various criticisms of 
something.
    Senator McClellan. There might be, and if you can think of 
them, I would like to have you put it on the record right now.
    Mr. Auerbach. You would very much like to see that, 
Senator.
    Senator McClellan. Yes, I would like to see it, if you have 
any criticism at all; if you are a good American, as you say, 
and have any criticism of it, I would like you to place it on 
the record.
    Mr. Auerbach. But my concern is this country, not the 
Soviet Union. I am an American citizen, born in the United 
States and interested in this country.
    Senator McClellan. That is your words. But I might say to 
you your actions do not conform to your words.
    Mr. Auerbach. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am 
entitled to mine.
    The Chairman. I am going to order the witness to answer the 
question.
    Mr. Allen, you were asked whether you could think of any 
criticism of communism. Your works were being used, you see, by 
the information program to fight communism. So if you have any 
criticism of communism, Mr. McClellan wants to know what that 
criticism is. You are ordered to answer that question. If you 
have no criticism, you can tell us.
    Mr. Auerbach. You say to be used by the information 
program?
    The Chairman. You understand our government is paying for 
your works.
    Mr. Auerbach. I didn't know that.
    The Chairman. Well, let me tell you they are. They are 
distributing your books for the purpose of fighting communism. 
Now, in view of the fact that your works are being used to 
fight communism, I think Senator McClellan's question is very 
pertinent. His question is: Can you think of any criticism 
which you have of communism? If so, tell us what it is.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe any criticism that I might 
have of communism as a system of society would pertain to the 
speed of its development and how effectively it meets the 
requirements of a socialist and a Communist society. That is, 
in other words, that it wouldn't fall within the framework of 
the questioning, the line of questioning, that is being 
developed here.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have no criticism of the 
objectives of communism. You merely might criticize the speed 
with which they are arriving at the objectives?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am all for the objectives of socialism and 
communism, and I believe that is the form of society that we 
will come to, too.
    Senator McClellan. So you are an advocate of communism and 
you say this country is ultimately coming to communism. Is that 
correct? Is that not what you just said?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion as a student of history, 
that we will develop along that line.
    Senator McClellan. That is what I want. That is your 
opinion. You favor the Communist objectives, and you believe 
they are coming to America. Is that your statement?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that when the majority of the 
American people want it, they will get it, and nothing will 
stop them.
    Senator McClellan. That is not the question. The question 
was this: As I understood you, your answer was that you believe 
in the objectives of communism. Did you say that, or not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that the objectives of Communist 
society are just and proper for the world as a whole, and we 
will eventually obtain them.
    The Chairman. Then you would feel that one of your 
functions, as a loyal American, would be to promote the cause 
of communism?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't believe that that is a problem we 
face at the moment, and I don't believe that it is a realistic 
objective to hold forth at the moment. If a time should arise 
that socialism, as a first stage of communism, should become 
the order of the day, then it will be up to the American people 
to decide that.
    The Chairman. You apparently do not understand my question, 
or maybe you prefer not to answer it. You have told us that you 
favor the objectives of the Communist movement, and you think 
it is essentially just, et cetera. My question is then, this: 
Do you then feel, as a loyal American, that one of your tasks 
is to further the cause of communism, so that we may ultimately 
have a Communist society in the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think it is my duty as a loyal American to 
support what I believe is best for the people. And at the 
present moment, what is best for the people is that we have 
peace, that we protect our democratic rights. Those are the 
immediate objectives that stare us in the face right now.
    The Chairman. You understand, Mr. Allen, I am not trying to 
tell you what you should advocate. I am not trying to tell you 
that communism as you view it is right or wrong, that is, for 
the purposes of this examination I am not. You are entitled to 
think whatever you care to think. You are entitled to work for 
a socialistic state in this country, if you work for it without 
an attempt to overthrow this government by force and violence. 
I am merely trying to find out what you do advocate, you see.
    Now, do I understand that your feeling is that the 
Communist state is superior to our capitalistic form of 
government?
    Mr. Auerbach. If I may, I would like to answer you as a 
student of history and not as a political worker or as one who 
is directing his answer to what is politically feasible at this 
particular moment. As a student of history, it seems to me that 
all of society will develop in that direction. Whatever form it 
might take in this country, I don't know. I don't think anybody 
could tell you what form it would take.
    The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer that 
question.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my answer, sir.
    The Chairman. Will you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
    [The reporter read the pending question.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes. As I have explained, I think that a 
Communist state would be superior to a capitalist state.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Do you feel that 
communism as practiced in Russia today is superior to our form 
of government?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that communism as practiced in 
Russia today is superior to any previous form of government. 
Now, it may be that communism as it will be practiced here some 
time in the future may be superior to that.
    Senator Jackson. He has not answered the question.
    The Chairman. I will insist that you answer the question.
    Mr. Auerbach. As a form of society, I think it is 
superior--I am answering your question directly, Senator--I 
think it is superior, because of the fact that exploitation is 
no longer there, that the society is not run for profit, and 
that it does open the way to a form of society where everyone 
can give according to his ability and receive according to his 
need.
    Senator McClellan. Do you associate with that view an 
expression on slave labor camps in Russia?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that is the part of the cold war 
propaganda
    Senator Jackson. You do not believe it exists?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that they have penal camps, and 
that they have a form of prison reform which might include 
labor camps.
    Senator Jackson. Do you think the slave labor camps in the 
Soviet Union are examples relating to penal reform?
    Mr. Auerbach. From what I know, it seems to me that they 
are work camps where they attempt to rehabilitate prisoners, 
and so on.
    Senator Jackson. It is to rehabilitate them, to build them 
up, that these slave labor camps are maintained?
    Mr. Auerbach. According to my information on the subject.
    The Chairman. Were you acquainted with Reed Harris?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know the name at all.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Auerbach. Reed Harris? No. I don't know the name, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you read the newspapers lately about Mr. 
Reed Harris, who was connected with the information program?
    Mr. Auerbach. No.
    The Chairman. That name does not strike a bell?
    Mr. Auerbach. It doesn't strike any chord, no.
    The Chairman. Do you recall that you ever addressed a 
meeting at which Reed Harris was one of the speakers, and Mr. 
Donald Henderson was the other speaker?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't recall any such meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. November 25,1932, involving a Professor Leo 
Gallagher, who had been expelled from the faculty of the 
University of California.
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't recall any such meeting.
    The Chairman. Does that name ``Gallagher'' refresh your 
recollection?
    Mr. Auerbach. It does not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Donald Henderson?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refuse to answer that, on the ground 
of----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Oakley Johnson?
    Mr. Auerbach. The same answer there.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you deny that you, Henderson, Johnson, and 
Reed Harris addressed this meeting?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't deny it. I just don't recall such a 
meeting.
    Senator Symington. Recently a man died, Stalin. Do you 
think he was a great man?
    Mr. Auerbach. I certainly do. I think he was a great man.
    Senator Symington. Once he was supposed to have been asked 
how many people he had to kill in order to effect the Kulak 
revolution in Russia. And he answered, presumably: ``Ten 
million in four years. It was awful.'' Do you think there was 
anything in that question and answer?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know what authority you are quoting, 
Senator. It sounds to me like the kind of question and answer 
that someone would use who had some other purpose in mind.
    Senator Symington. Well, it was in Time magazine, and I 
read it, and I just wondered what you thought of it. You do 
think, in order to have a society like there is in Russia 
today, it is proper to starve or kill people to any great 
extent to get it? Do you think it is worth that much? Would you 
be in favor of the purges that have gone on in Russia in order 
to get what is in Russia?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, you are asking me something that is 
very difficult to answer.
    Senator Symington. I see that.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is very difficult.
    Senator Symington. But my impression was that you felt that 
in Russia today they had a better system than we have here. Do 
you think that the means that they went to to get that system, 
which involved the destruction of a great deal of property and 
a great many lives, was proper, under the man that you say you 
think was a very great man?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that a great deal of that has been 
exaggerated. But undoubtedly there was a great deal of violence 
connected with the revolution in Russia, as there is in any 
revolution.
    Senator Symington. And since the revolution? Would you say 
since the revolution?
    Mr. Auerbach. And undoubtedly there was some since the 
revolution, although I think that a great deal of that is 
exaggerated and used for propaganda purposes.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, if there is anything that 
is really adverse that comes out in the paper about the Soviet 
Union, you think for the most part that is pretty much 
propaganda?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I wouldn't put it that way at all. I 
think that a great deal of it is propaganda, and a great deal 
of it is a part of the so called psychological war of nerves.
    Senator Symington. Would you be willing to undertake a 
reasonable amount of purging in this country in order to get 
our system up to the standard of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not be willing to undertake anything 
of the kind.
    Senator Symington. So that you think it could be right over 
there and wrong over here; is that it?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe this country has a different 
future ahead of it, and that its development will take place on 
a basis of what is here, not what took place in the Soviet 
Union or anywhere else.
    Senator Jackson. You have stated, Mr. Allen, that when a 
majority of the people of the United States desire the 
Communist form of government, they will have it. Are you 
suggesting to the committee that that is the way communism 
comes into being in a given country?
    Mr. Auerbach. What I am suggesting is that I believe that 
communism--By the way, in order to have our terms straight, 
when I speak of communism, strictly speaking, that is not the 
form of society they have in the Soviet Union.
    Senator Jackson. I know. I will come to that in a minute.
    Mr. Auerbach. What they have there is a form of socialism. 
And when that was established, in 1917, as you know, it was the 
result of a revolution, and a rather violent revolution. Not 
that it was the will of the Russian Communists that it should 
take place that way.
    As you know, there were others that were interested in 
preventing that revolution.
    Senator Jackson. Can you name a country where a majority of 
the people have voted for communism, have voted it in?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that the majority of the people in 
old Russia wanted it, or they wouldn't have had it. It would 
have been impossible for them to obtain power.
    Senator Jackson. Can you name a country where the majority 
of the people voted in communism? You testified here earlier 
that when a majority of the American people wanted communism 
they would have it, and you have also testified that you are 
opposed to using force and violence to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Auerbach. That all depends on what you mean by ``voted 
in.'' Well, the actual process may not have been through the 
ballot; that is, a voting in.
    Senator Jackson. Well, how is it going to come into being?
    Mr. Auerbach. That depends on what the circumstances in the 
country are. I certainly am no soothsayer and don't know how 
things are going to happen here.
    Senator Jackson. Let us see if I can get your position 
straight, because I think this is important. Do you believe 
that the Communist society, as distinguished from the Soviet 
Union--You are talking about the communist society as an ideal 
objective. I assume that is it.
    Mr. Auerbach. The next stage of social development, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Do you say that that should come into 
existence in a given country through the normal democratic 
process? Or should it come into being through the use of force 
and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I would say that it can come into being 
through the normal democratic process. I don't see any reason 
why it can't.
    Senator Jackson. Has it ever so come into being in any 
country?
    Mr. Auerbach. Unless there is such opposition to it----
    Senator Jackson. Has it ever come into being in a country 
without force or violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That all depends. Now, China, of course, is 
not a socialist country.
    Senator Jackson. What is it?
    Mr. Auerbach. It is what is known as a people's democracy, 
and it is on the way to socialism.
    Senator Jackson. It is a people's democracy. Well, I would 
like for you, if you can, for the benefit of this committee, to 
give us one country where communism has come in by the means 
that you apparently advocate, namely, peaceful means.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, the Soviets took power largely by 
peaceful means.
    Senator Jackson. You are a student of history. That is why 
I ask you the question.
    Mr. Auerbach. It took part largely by peaceful means. The 
violence took place after the taking of power, largely.
    Senator Jackson. I take it that your testimony is that the 
present regime in Russia, and the previous regime, came into 
existence by reason of the utilization of peaceful means. I 
believe that is your testimony. Is that your testimony?
    Mr. Auerbach. In Russia, in general, yes. That is what took 
place.
    Senator Jackson. And you are a student of history.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I consider myself something of a 
student of history.
    Senator Jackson. And how did it come into being in 
Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, it came after a war, did it not?
    Senator Jackson. I say, did it come by democratic process?
    Mr. Auerbach. It came after a war, and the Czechoslovakian 
government was established by a democratic process.
    Senator Jackson. Which government are you talking about? 
The Communist government?
    Mr. Auerbach. The one that is in power now.
    Senator Jackson. And they have a democratic government in 
Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Auerbach. They have a people's form of democracy.
    Senator Jackson. And communism came into being in 
Czechoslovakia, or what you call a people's form of democracy, 
through peaceful, democratic means?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is what took place throughout eastern 
Europe.
    Senator Jackson. Will you answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. It came by peaceful means?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. And it took place in the Soviet Union the 
same way?
    Mr. Auerbach. Not in exactly the same form.
    Senator Jackson. By peaceful means, though?
    Mr. Auerbach. It came into power peacefully.
    Senator Jackson. You are a marvelous student of history.
    Senator McClellan. You said it came into power in Russia by 
peaceful means, and that the violence took place afterwards, I 
believe?
    Mr. Auerbach. The violence took place, and a counter-
revolution arose.
    Senator McClellan. The violence you refer to: Do you 
associate the purges with that?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I don't know what you mean by 
``purges,'' Senator.
    Senator Jackson. The Czar gave up peacefully?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, the Czar was out. You know, the Czar 
wasn't there when the Soviets took power.
    Senator Jackson. I am talking about the Czarist regime.
    Mr. Auerbach. He had already been executed.
    Senator Jackson. But that was a peaceful execution?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, he had been executed while the Kerensky 
government was in power.
    Senator Jackson. And how did they get rid of the Kerensky 
government?
    Mr. Auerbach. They were voted out by the congress of 
Soviets.
    Senator McClellan. They were voted out by bullets, were 
they not?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, they are the ones that brought bullets 
in, weren't they? They were the ones that organized the 
counter-revolutionary elements.
    Senator Jackson. You are familiar with the statement in 
Pravda recently, in which they announced that there is a 
Zionist plot in the Soviet Union. Do you go along with that 
statement?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know all the circumstances involved 
there, and I haven't followed that too closely. But I do know 
this, that over a long period of years the Communists in the 
Soviet Union have fought Zionism. And this is nothing new in 
their policy.
    Senator Jackson. And are you in favor of that?
    Mr. Auerbach. Zionism as a reactionary form of 
nationalism--it does have its dangerous aspects.
    Senator Jackson. You are opposed to Zionism as such?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am opposed to Zionism as a philosophy and a 
program, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever disagree with anything in Pravda 
that you read?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't read Pravda.
    The Chairman. You say you do not read Pravda?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't read Pravda.
    Mr. Cohn. You read translations of articles from Pravda 
don't you?
    Mr. Auerbach. Very occasionally. Those that are reported in 
the newspaper.
    The Chairman. When you were foreign editor of the Daily 
Worker, did you ever read translations of articles from Pravda?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult with my lawyer?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refuse to answer that question, 
Senator, on the grounds previously indicated.
    Senator McClellan. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
    I believe in the beginning of your testimony you refused to 
answer whether you were a Communist or not, on the ground that 
it might incriminate you.
    Mr. Auerbach. Substantially, yes.
    Senator McClellan. In view of the admissions you have made 
here with respect to your views, do you now insist that it 
might incriminate you if you answer that question?
    Mr. Auerbach. You mean if you were to ask me the question 
now?
    Senator McClellan. I will ask it again, and ask you whether 
you think it would incriminate you now, in view of the 
testimony you have already given.
    Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer would remain the same as 
previously.
    Senator McClellan. You refuse to answer on the ground that 
it might incriminate you?
    Mr. Auerbach. On the ground of my constitutional privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. Well, are you sincere in believing it 
might incriminate you if you answered truthfully?
    Mr. Auerbach. If I answered truthfully and sincerely.
    Senator McClellan. I ask you now: Are you of the opinion 
that it might incriminate you if you answered the question 
truthfully?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. It might tend to.
    The Chairman. That was not the question.
    Senator McClellan. No, I am asking you if you are sincere--
--
    Mr. Auerbach. I am sincere.
    Senator McClellan [continuing]. In making the statement 
that you are afraid it might incriminate you.
    Mr. Auerbach. That it might tend to incriminate me, yes.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think it would add any particular 
force to the testimony you have already given as to whether you 
are a Communist or not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't quite understand your question.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, do you not think you 
have already admitted in the record that you subscribe to all 
of the philosophy and the objectives of communism? Have you not 
already admitted it?
    Mr. Auerbach. What I have done, of course, is discuss my 
opinions and my beliefs.
    Senator McClellan. You have pointed out that there is a 
difference in your opinion----
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe it was Senator McCarthy who said I 
had a right to any opinion or belief.
    Senator McClellan. You have. I am not questioning that.
    What I am saying is: Is there any difference between the 
beliefs you have expressed, and communism? You say you do not 
want to answer whether you are a Communist or not. Can you 
point out any difference in the opinions you have expressed 
here as your beliefs, and what the Communist party stands for? 
Can you point out any?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Senator McClellan. I would like for the record to show a 
long consultation with counsel.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I have discussed my beliefs, stated my 
beliefs.
    Senator McClellan. I agree with you.
    Mr. Auerbach. But when a question of being a member or not 
being a member of the Communist party is raised, that is on 
another order. That is an organizational question.
    Senator McClellan. I am asking you now, in view of the 
beliefs that you have expressed here for the record, and on the 
record: Can you point out any difference between those beliefs 
and the beliefs of communism and what the Communist party 
stands for? Can you point out any difference? In all fairness 
to you, if there is some reason why you do not want to admit 
you are a Communist, can you point out any difference between 
what you have expressed here on the record and what communism 
stands for, and its objectives?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, we are getting to very fine points 
here. My answer would be, ``No.''
    Senator McClellan. I thank you very much.
    Mr. Auerbach. We are merely within the realm of belief, 
talking about opinions and beliefs.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you believe in the 
objectives and the things that the Communist party stands for?
    Mr. Auerbach. Its general objectives, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Of the Communist party, as we know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this: If the Communist party 
objectives could not be achieved in this country by peaceful 
means, would you favor achieving them by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is one of those ``iffy'' questions about 
the future that one never knows how it is going to turn out. I 
am not in favor of achieving it by force and violence, and I 
would like to see it achieved as peacefully as possible. I 
would certainly work for that.
    The Chairman. I think you can answer that question. As I 
say, we are interested in this, because you are one of the men 
whose books are being used to fight communism throughout the 
world, believe it or not.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is news to me. I would like to know how 
that happened.
    Senator Jackson. The chairman might have placed the witness 
in serious trouble, if the Communist party finds out he has 
been used to fight them. He will be up for disloyalty.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you are being used, 
and we are paying money to buy your books, to fight communism, 
I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. That is 
this: If you can not achieve a Communist society in this 
country by peaceful means, if it is found to be impossible, 
then would you favor using force to accomplish that objective?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would answer that question by saying I am 
not in favor of using force and violence to obtain that 
objective. As to the alternative you place, I am in no 
position, nor is anyone else in position to know.
    The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer that. I 
say: If you could not achieve a Communist society in this 
country by peaceful means, if you find that is impossible, then 
would you favor achieving it by force and violence? The only 
grounds upon which I would let you avoid answering that is if 
you say that the answer will tend to incriminate you.
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer the question, because I have 
no opinion on it. I haven't thought about it, and I haven't 
tried to determine an answer to that question. I just don't 
have any opinion.
    The Chairman. In other words, at this time you say you do 
not know whether you would favor using force and violence to 
establish a Communist society in this country, if it could not 
be done by peaceful means? You say you cannot answer that. You 
do not know.
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer it, because one does not know 
just what kind of circumstances would arise, how a question 
like that would arise. I have given it no thought and have no 
opinion on it.
    Senator McClellan. You are not willing to say under oath at 
this time that you would not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not willing to say under oath anything 
on the question, because I do not know.
    The Chairman. At Communist meetings, did you ever discuss 
the necessity of establishing a Communist society in America by 
using force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will have to claim my privilege on that, 
sir,
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone on the Daily Worker, 
ever, at any time, who was not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will have to claim my privilege on that 
one, too, sir.
    The Chairman. Your testimony under oath is that you do not 
know Reed Harris?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not recall him in any way.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you further 
identify Reed Harris, the position he now holds, where he went 
to school, and the meetings attended. Let us see if we cannot 
refresh his memory.
    The Chairman. Reed Harris, according to the testimony 
heretofore taken before this committee, attended Columbia 
University and was expelled or suspended. He had been editor of 
the Spectator. He appeared at a meeting at Columbia to defend 
Don Henderson, who was about to lose his contract as a teacher. 
Henderson, at that time, was identified as a Communist. He is 
the man who has been identified as having appeared on a 
platform with you, Oakley Johnson, Donald Henderson, to defend 
Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Leo Gallagher, a professor being expelled 
from the University of California because of Communist 
activities. He has been active in the WPA, the Writers Project, 
has worked under Alsberg, is now the deputy administrator of 
the International Information Administration. With that 
information, is it your testimony that you have no recollection 
now of ever having met him?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my testimony. I have no recollection 
of ever having met him, nor do I have a recollection of the 
meeting that you referred to.
    The Chairman. Did you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, I think I met him at one meeting. That 
is, I am not quite sure, but at a previous hearing that 
question was asked me, and I was shown a memorandum saying that 
such a meeting was held, at which he was present and I was 
present, and I assume that if there was such a memorandum--it 
was many years ago--it was so. I just didn't recollect having 
met him.
    The Chairman. What meeting was that? Where was it held?
    Mr. Auerbach. That was a meeting of the IPR.
    Mr. Chairman. And that was the only meeting you ever 
attended with Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, if he was there, and I assume he was.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you never received 
instructions, either directly or indirectly, to your knowledge, 
from Moscow, so far as Communist activities were concerned?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will claim my privilege on that.
    The Chairman. I think I have no further questions of this 
witness at this time.
    You will be requested, or perhaps I should say ordered, to 
appear tomorrow morning at 10:15 in this room. And that will be 
a public hearing. You will have the same rights as far as 
counsel is concerned as you have today.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you have another witness, Mr. Forer.
    Mr. Forer. Shall I bring him in?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Will, you raise your right hand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mandel. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please.
 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MARX MANDEL (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)
    Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that M-a-r-x?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Mandel. 545 West 164th Street, New York City.
    The Chairman. Is that the name you have always gone under?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer that question, under my 
privilege within the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, not 
to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. May I ask this question? Is that the name 
that you bore when you were, we will say, one year old? If you 
think it will incriminate you, you may refuse to answer.
    Mr. Mandel. I will stick to the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say if you tell us what 
your name was when you were a year old, it might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Well, it is quite obvious that carried up to 
the present day, it may lead to something which might tend to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Well, it is a broad privilege.
    Senator Jackson. Is this your true name, that you gave the 
committee?
    Mr. Mandel. That is my true name.
    Senator Jackson. Your true name. And what was your full 
name, again?
    Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel, M-a-n-d-e-l.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Have you written under 
pseudonyms?
    Mr. Mandel. I will have to give the same reply.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the ground that it 
might incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of Soviet Far East and Central 
Asia, Mr. Mandel \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ William Mandel, The Soviet Far East and Central Asia (New York, 
International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Mandel. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write that book?
    Mr. Mandel. Well, I think I wrote most of it in 1942, and I 
think some of the additional material came in 1943, '42-'43.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1942-
43?
    Mr. Mandel. I must refuse to answer that question, under my 
privilege within the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness 
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists who ever did engage 
in espionage or any related activity?
    Mr. Mandel. I don't understand ``related activity.''
    Mr. Cohn. I will withdraw that. Did you know of any 
Communists who have engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    The Chairman. The question is: Are you a member of the 
Communist party as of today?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage or any other 
illegal act against the United States?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Will you separate the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage against the 
United States?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever violated any law of the United 
States?
    The Chairman. I don't think that is a proper question.
    Senator Jackson. Beyond the scope of the committee.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mandel, have you ever been convicted of 
any crime?
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Mandel. Will you repeat the question, please?
    The Chairman. The question was: Were you ever convicted of 
a crime?
    Mr. Mandel. If disorderly conduct be regarded as such--I 
think it is a misdemeanor--the answer is ``yes.''
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with what? That is a matter of 
public record, I suppose. In connection with a demonstration or 
riot or something?
    Mr. Mandel. No, the answer is that I was selling a 
pamphlet, about twenty-odd years ago, or perhaps not that long 
ago.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the pamphlet?
    Mr. Mandel. The pamphlet was called ``The Truth about 
Father Coughlin.''
    The Chairman. And you were arrested at that time and 
convicted of disorderly conduct?
    Mr. Mandel. That is my recollection.
    The Chairman. And that is the only time that you were 
either arrested and convicted of any crime?
    Mr. Mandel. Other than traffic violations, or things of 
that kind. That is the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis F. Budenz.
    Mr. Mandel. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you fight for the United States against the 
Soviet Union in the event the United States Congress declared 
war against the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Under any circumstances?
    Mr. Mandel. If the United States Congress declared war, 
yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You would. Do you believe that our cause in Korea 
is a just cause?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you fight on the side of the United States 
and the United Nations in Korea?
    Mr. Mandel. Under the laws of the country, if required to, 
yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think the cause of the North Koreans 
and the Chinese Communists is a just cause in Korea?
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Mandel. The answer is ``yes.''
    The Chairman. It is a just cause?
    Mr. Mandel. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting. What did you say your 
occupation was at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. Let me preface my reply, and I will answer the 
question if you insist. My occupation at the present time has, 
as will be evident if you press me, no conceivable relation to 
any business before this committee. Therefore, to request 
this--and I will answer it if you press me--can only have the 
effect, if this is later made public, of causing me to lose my 
livelihood, something which I will make the most of, I state 
quite candidly.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that a threat?
    Mr. Mandel. That is not a threat. That is simply a 
statement.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you going to make the most of it?
    The Chairman. On the reason for calling you, or not, you 
said the question of your occupation would have nothing to do 
with what is before the committee. We are checking into the 
information program, which has been costing us, oh, $125 mill 
or $135 million a year. And we have been checking into the 
background, the activities, on some of the individuals who are 
being used in this fight against communism. That is the 
announced objective of the information program. And I think 
under the circumstances it is a pertinent question to ask you 
about your background, what you are doing today.
    I do not know what you are doing today, you see, until you 
answer the question.
    Mr. Mandel. I am a writer of medical advertising copy to 
the profession.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been doing that kind of work?
    Mr. Mandel. Oh, since shortly after the last time I was 
before a committee hearing here in Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing before that?
    Mr. Mandel. Before that I was in the furniture business for 
a year.
    Mr. Cohn. And what were you doing between then and the time 
you were before some other committee?
    Mr. Mandel. I have been before one previous committee. Let 
me see, now. I have been in this work for a year. I was in the 
furniture business for just about a year, I would imagine. And 
last prior to that, I was employed as a translator for the 
Stefansson Library at 14 St. Luke's Place, New York City.
    The Chairman. Is that Vilhjalmur Stefannson?
    Mr. Mandel. Vilhjalmur, yes.
    The Chairman. I would like to get your thought on this. You 
seem to think that we should not inquire as to your occupation 
as of today. If you have any valid grounds on which you want to 
urge that, we would be glad to hear them.
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. The advertising business is a very public 
relations-conscious business, and the firm by which I am 
employed has important concerns as its clients, and they are 
probably more public relations-conscious than is necessary. 
That is the situation in the industry. So that if it became 
public knowledge that someone employed by that firm had been 
before this committee, that, in itself, would probably--it is a 
guess; I think a sound guess--would probably be cause for my 
losing my employment.
    The Chairman. Well, now, I do not want to argue this point 
with you, but I would like to get the thought of the other 
senators on this.
    My thought is, Senator Jackson, that here you have a man 
who says, ``If I tell you the truth about whether I am a 
Communist today, that might incriminate me.'' It creates a 
strong inference, certainly, that he is a member of the 
Communist party. Otherwise, it could not very well incriminate 
him. His works are being used to fight communism. He is now 
writing advertising copy, material being read by the general 
public. I can't think of any reason why his occupation should 
not be known. Do you?
    Senator Jackson. Well, I think that the committee has a 
right, on the basis of asking the routine questions incident to 
an over-all investigation, to ask what a man is doing and where 
he lives. On that basis also, I think we have the right to ask.
    Might I say to the witness: I am sure you are realistic 
enough to know that when you come before a committee in open 
session it will be known in time whether you have answered, and 
maybe in a way that might confuse the public; it will be known 
that you have appeared, and it will be brought out through the 
press that you worked for such and such a company. And it would 
occur to me that in order to keep the record straight, you 
should simply state it. You are in that situation, and 
apparently that is the price you have to pay as a member of the 
Communist party.
    The Chairman. And as a country, we are apparently dedicated 
to the idea that communism is wrong, that it is set to destroy 
us, that it is a conspiracy, that it is a crime to be a member 
if you are aware of the conspiracy. Therefore, when a man comes 
before the committee and says, ``I will not tell whether I am a 
Communist or not,'' he, I believe, forfeits any right or any 
privilege or special protection by the committee. I think he 
should answer all the questions. Under the circumstances, the 
answer will stay in the record.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you give us the name and address of your 
business, and telephone number, at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. The only point I want to make before 
answering it is that I claim no privilege on this matter, and I 
simply want to point out that if the committee wishes to face 
the onus of causing loss of a job, not in any abstract sense--I 
don't think that concerns the committee at all--but in the 
practical sense of the impression that might be created upon 
the public, if that is the case, I will, since I am aware of no 
privilege on this matter, be happy to give you the information.
    The Chairman. May I say that I get the impression from what 
you said that you were threatening the committee. When you are 
outside the committee room, you can say anything you like about 
this committee, and if you are a member of the Communist party, 
as you indicate by your answer, you are dedicated, of course, 
to attacking this committee, regardless of whether you lose 
your job. I have been a subject of attacks by every Communist 
writer, every Communist in the country. None of them, as far as 
I know, have been supporting me or this committee. So that you 
are not impressing us at all by any threat to attack it. You 
will be just one of a long line, if you do answer the question.
    Mr. Mandel. The firm I am employed by is L. W. Frohlich, F-
r-o-h-l-i-c-h, and Company, and I don't know at the moment--
they are in three buildings. I suppose the legal address is 76 
East 52nd Street, New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of a firm did you say this was?
    Mr. Mandel. They advertise medical products to the 
profession solely. That is their business.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any connection with the government 
in any way, any government work?
    Mr. Mandel. None whatever, to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. I have no further questions of this witness, Mr. 
Chairman.
    You have told us you are the author of Soviet Far East and 
Central Asia?
    Mr. Mandel. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You decline to tell us whether or not you were a 
member of the Communist party at the time you wrote that book?
    Mr. Mandel. That is correct, for the reason stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anything in that book unfavorable to the 
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. I haven't read the book in quite a while.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us your best recollection on it?
    Mr. Mandel. As far as that book is concerned, I cannot say 
offhand. I can state that, as I stated to a committee last 
year, I am aware of injustices, errors, and more of them than I 
have described in things that I have written, and have no 
hesitation discussing them, and I simply don't know, frankly, 
whether in that work at that time I discussed that or not.
    Senator Jackson. Have you written anything unfavorable to 
the Soviet Union at any time?
    Mr. Mandel. In the first place, you would have to define 
the term. In short, if one describes the term ``favorable'' as 
meaning that everything that happens there is good and nothing 
that happens there is bad, then I would say that I certainly 
have written unfavorable things. I just don't recall. The book 
was written ten years ago, is on a specialized subject, and I 
just don't recall.
    Senator Jackson. What is your opinion of the anti-Semitism 
in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. Being a Jew, I have certain standards on the 
basis of which to judge that. I have never encountered an anti-
Semitic government in history that had a Jewish member of its 
cabinet.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the member of the Jewish Cabinet?
    Mr. Mandel. Kaganovich, K-a-g-a-n-o-v-i-c-h.
    The Chairman. What is his position?
    Mr. Mandel. He is one of the vice premiers, one of the 
members of the five inner cabinet under the present 
administration.
    Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Jackson's question was addressed 
to these purges. Do you approve of the anti-Semitic purges?
    Mr. Mandel. I think that is utter nonsense.
    Mr. Cohn. That is just counter-revolutionary propaganda?
    Mr. Mandel. It is not counter-revolutionary propaganda. It 
is nonsense. I went down and bought a copy of True, Soviet 
Labor party. I bought copies of Pravda at the library next to 
the main public library on 42nd Street. Four days after this 
thing happened, that comes over by air mail, when our post 
office doesn't stop it.
    And on the same front page of the same paper which 
presented the indictment of these physicians, there was an 
announcement of the meeting the previous evening of the 
committee of Judges for Stalin prize awards in the literature 
and science for this coming year.
    Among the eleven judges are two men who are well-known to 
be Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. And that is that?
    Mr. Mandel. And many similar things. If you want a lecture 
for an hour and a half, I would be glad to give it to you.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Aaron Berg, who is a very 
high functionary in the Soviet Union at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. He is a very prominent writer. I don't know 
that he has a function of any kind.
    The Chairman. Just one question. As I read the account of 
the trials in the Slansky and other cases, the news stories 
were to the effect that some of the individuals confessed to 
being Zionists. They were hung. That apparently was a major 
part of their alleged crime.
    Would you agree that it would be a crime to be a Zionist?
    Mr. Mandel. Their crimes under the indictment were military 
treason, economic treason, murder, and a fourth which I don't 
recall at the moment. You may have whatever opinion you care to 
about the confessions and the evidence. The fact is that they 
describe at great length the crimes which they committed. And 
it is a rather interesting fact to me that the New York Herald 
Tribune correspondent reported from Washington a couple of days 
later that informed anti-Communists in Washington apparently 
feel that these men were a little inept and stupid, and more 
able men will have to be gotten into that job next time.
    Senator Jackson. Well, let me ask you this: You do not 
think it is unusual that simultaneously, at least, leaders of 
the Communist party in the Soviet Union and the satellite areas 
of Jewish origin were all brought to trial at once?
    Mr. Mandel. The United States government is openly and 
publicly engaged in a program of espionage against the Soviet 
Union. In order to do this kind of thing, you have got to have 
people who are going to be able to get inside of those 
countries. Now, the State Department, which you gentlemen seem 
to have differences with, has pursued a policy of cutting off 
trade with those countries. Therefore you cannot possibly use a 
businessman as cover for that kind of operation. The other side 
has cut down the number of journalists which they admit in to a 
very small number. Therefore, it is very difficult to find more 
people like Oatis to do that kind of job. And so what you are 
left with is the possibility of using whoever can get in. Now, 
the allegedly anti-Semitic governments of the east European 
countries permitted only Jewish organizations, and particularly 
this Joint Distribution Committee, to function within their 
territories after World War II, despite the fact that there are 
similar Ukranian organizations.
    Pardon me just one moment.
    And apparently they did so on the grounds that the Jews had 
suffered special persecution. So that it would seem entirely 
logical to me that a government which is by open proclamation 
engaged in espionage in their countries as our government is 
would utilize whatever organization comes to hand that has 
access to those countries.
    Therefore, it is not at all surprising that certain people 
with that kind of connection were brought to trial.
    Senator Jackson. You said the Ukrainian organizations were 
not allowed to function.
    Mr. Mandel. To the best of my knowledge. Remember, I am 
speaking of foreign non-Soviet and east European organizations.
    Senator Jackson. What did you say about a Ukrainian 
organization?
    Mr. Mandel. I said Ukrainian organizations existing in the 
United States and Canada were not permitted to function on a 
parallel relief basis as the Joint Distribution Committee was.
    Senator Jackson. Well, the Ukrainians have never been very 
reliable so far as the Soviets are concerned.
    Mr. Mandel. That is a matter of opinion. I would say the 
record of World War II is that the overwhelming majority of the 
Ukrainians were entirely loyal. Hitler put up a puppet 
government which fell to pieces in a few weeks.
    Senator Jackson. When they are fighting for their home that 
is something else; but I am talking about reliable from an 
ideological standpoint.
    Mr. Mandel. My opinion, since it is a matter of opinion, is 
that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainians have been 
loyal to the Soviet Union during the vast bulk of this thirty-
five-year period.
    Senator Jackson. So you do not think it is unusual that 
Anna Pauker has been removed?
    Mr. Mandel. Anna Pauker's successor is a man named Simon 
Bugitch, who is also a Jew.
    Senator Jackson. You do not think that the Jewish leaders 
in the Czechoslovakian government, that were all purged at the 
same time, and the doctors in the Kremlin, provide any 
significant pattern? You think that is totally unrelated to any 
anti-Semitism within the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. The foreign minister of Czechoslovakia, who is 
here at the present time, is Jewish, and so forth, on down the 
line.
    Senator Jackson. I am glad you said that.
    Would you like to assure the committee that their tenure is 
going to be pretty certain for the future, so we can check on 
this?
    The Chairman. I am afraid he could not do that.
    Let me ask you this question: Do you think the Communist 
society is superior to our society in this country?
    Mr. Mandel. That would be an interesting question to 
debate. But there again, circumstances being what they are, and 
legislation being what it is, I am afraid that I would have to 
rely upon the Fifth Amendment and refuse to reply to that 
question.
    The Chairman. Let us rephrase the question. Do you think 
the present type of Communist government as it exists in Russia 
is superior to the present form of government as it exists in 
the United States of America?
    Mr. Mandel. That I am afraid is governed by exactly the 
same privilege, in view of legislation and prosecutions that 
have taken place, with which Mr. Cohn is quite familiar.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you.
    Mr. Mandel. So that I am afraid I am unable to answer that 
question.
    The Chairman. In other words, is it your answer that if you 
told us the truth in answer to that question, you think that 
that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. No, sir. I think that the Fifth Amendment has 
as its purpose to protect the innocent, and I think that the 
origin of the Fifth Amendment lies in the protection of 
political dissent.
    The Chairman. You will then be ordered to answer the 
question.
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    The Chairman. May I say to counsel that I do not want to 
interrupt the consultation, but----
    Mr. Forer. I think he misunderstood the preceding question, 
and his answer to that led to your direction. That is what I 
think is the situation.
    But I understand the chair's position.
    Mr. Mandel. What was the question prior to the last 
question?
    The Chairman. Maybe I should rephrase the question.
    The question originally asked was: Do you consider the 
present Communist government in Russia more desirable than the 
present government which we have in the United States?
    Mr. Mandel. And to that question I will reply that I refuse 
to answer under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
    The Chairman. Now my question to you is, do you feel that 
if you told the truth in answer to that question, your answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. Let me make this clear----
    The Chairman. First, just so you will understand us fully: 
You see, you are not entitled to claim privilege if you 
incriminate yourself by committing perjury. It is only when a 
truthful answer will incriminate you that you are entitled to 
claim privilege.
    Before we can determine whether you are entitled to claim 
privilege, we must know whether or not you honestly feel that a 
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
    That is the purpose of that question.
    Mr. Mandel. I would say that a truthful answer might tend 
to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Okay. Then you are entitled to the privilege.
    Mr. Mandel. Fine.
    The Chairman. We will excuse you until 10:15 tomorrow 
morning.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., a recess was taken until 10:30 
a.m., Tuesday, March 24, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--The literary witnesses on March 24, 1953 
included the former Pinkerton detective turned novelist, 
Dashiell Hammett (1894-1961), author of Red Harvest (1929), The 
Dain Curse (1929), The Maltese Falcon (1930), The Glass Key 
(1931), and The Thin Man (1934), which later appeared as motion 
pictures. Hammett had joined the Communist party in 1937, 
taught at the Jefferson School for Social Science, and was a 
trustee of the bail fund for the Civil Rights Congress. He was 
convicted of contempt of court for refusing to identify the 
contributors to the bail fund and served a prison term from 
July to December 1951.
    Under the pseudonym Helen Kay, Helen Colodny Goldfrank 
wrote such children's books as Insects (1939), Apple Pie for 
Lewis (1951), Snow Birthday (1955), Secrets of the Dolphin 
(1964), Apes (1970), and The First Teddy Bear (1985).
    Jerre Mangione (1909-1998) worked for Time magazine before 
becoming an editor for the Federal Writers' Project--the 
subject of his later book, The Dream and the Deal: The Federal 
Writers' Project, 1935-43 (1972). In 1943 he published Mount 
Allegro, an autobiographical account of his life as the son of 
Sicilian immigrants, which his publisher believed would sell 
better if issued as a work of fiction. Mount Allegro became a 
best seller and was reissued five times by different 
publishers. In later years, Mangione taught English at the 
University of Pennsylvania.
    A major writer in the Harlem Renaissance, Langston Hughes 
(1902-1967) published his first book of poetry, The Weary 
Blues, in 1926. During the 1930s he wrote for the New Masses 
and traveled to Russia to make a film about race relations in 
the United States, which was never produced. The author of 
plays, novels, short stories, film scripts, musicals, war 
correspondence and a regular newspaper column for the Chicago 
Defender, Hughes was best known for his poetry, and edited the 
anthologies The Poetry of the Negro, 1746-1949 (1949) and New 
Negro Poets, USA (1964).
    Dashiell Hammett, Helen Goldfrank and Langston Hughes 
testified at a public hearing on March 26, 1953. Jerre Mangione 
did not testify publicly.]
                              ----------                              
                        TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:00 p.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; and Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine, chief 
consultant; Daniel Buckley, assistant counsel; Henry Hawkins, 
investigator; and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Cohn. The first witness is Mr. Hammett, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Hammett, do you solemnly swear the 
testimony you are about to give us is the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hammett. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Be seated. Proceed, Mr. Cohn.
                 TESTIMONY OF DASHIELL HAMMETT
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hammett, will you give your full name, 
please?
    Mr. Hammett. Samuel Dashiell Hammett.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. Hammett. Writer.
    Mr. Cohn. You are an author?
    Mr. Hammett. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long have you followed that calling?
    Mr. Hammett. Since about 1922, roughly thirty years.
    Mr. Cohn. You know that a considerable number of your works 
are used in the State Department Information Program?
    Mr. Hammett. I did not know that until you told me on the 
phone.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think we have given you a good civil suit 
for royalties?
    Mr. Hammett. I doubt that, because thinking about it, the 
chances are the radio end that was sold is owned by the movie 
people.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the 
answer would tend to incriminate me, pleading my rights under 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1922?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the 
answer might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have written a number of books between 1922 
and the present time, have you not?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. About how many?
    Mr. Hammett. Five, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. Just five books?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes, and many short stories and stuff that has 
been reprinted in reprint books.
    Mr. Cohn. If I were to ask you as to each one of these 
books if you were a Communist party member at the time you 
wrote the book what would your answer be?
    Mr. Hammett. The same.
    Mr. Cohn. You would refuse on the ground you stated?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write a story which could be classed as 
other than a detective story?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Hammett. I have written quite a number of short stories 
that were not detective stories.
    Mr. Cohn. Any that deal with social problems?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't think so. Yes, I remember one, if you 
take it as a social problem. Some short stories have been in 
paper bound books that have been published in book form.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of those deal with social problems?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes. As a matter of fact, roughly one that I 
remember, a short story called ``Night Shade.''
    Mr. Cohn. ``Night Shade''?
    Mr. Hammett. ``Night Shade,'' which had to do with Negro-
white relations.
    Mr. Cohn. In what book is that published?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't know, because that was published in 
one of the reprints or collections of which a great many have 
been published. Practically all of the short stories have been 
published by either Mercury or Avon or Dell.
    Senator Mundt. Were they first all published in a magazine?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes, it was first published in a magazine that 
I think is now out of existence. I have forgotten what its name 
was. I could look it up.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote this short story, ``Night Shade,'' 
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground the answer 
may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that story in any way reflect the Communist 
line?
    Mr. Hammett. That is a difficult--on the word ``reflect'' I 
would say no, it didn't reflect it. It was against racism.
    Senator Mundt. Would you say that it resembled--whether it 
reflected or not--the Communist line with respect to race 
problems?
    Mr. Hammett. No, I couldn't pick out--I could answer that 
question, if you just put it, did it at all, but did it reflect 
that more than, say, other political parties, I would have to 
say no. I think the truth would be that it didn't reflect it 
consciously or solely.
    Mr. Cohn. Consciously or solely. Have you ever had any 
contact with the publications commission of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any members of the publications 
commission of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hammett. You would have to tell me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Alexander Trachtenberg?
    Mr. Hammett. I have to think about that. I think I decline 
to answer that on the ground that the answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis F. Budenz?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Alexander Bittelman?
    Mr. Hammett. I think, or my impression is, that he was in 
the West Street Jail at the same time I was there.
    Senator Mundt. Where--jail?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes. I did six months for the bail bond--five 
months, a month off for good behavior.
    Senator Mundt. Was that a contempt citation?
    Mr. Hammett. It was over the bail bond fund.
    Mr. Cohn. After the Communists jumped bail, the three 
trustees, including Mr. Hammett, were called in and refused to 
answer questions about the whereabouts of these fugitives, and 
they refused to produce books and records of the bail bond 
fund, and were sentenced to jail. That is a fairly accurate 
statement?
    Mr. Hammett. Fairly.
    Senator Mundt. Was Bittelman in the jail for the same 
reason?
    Mr. Hammett. What happened, the bail bond bail was revoked, 
and since there were a group of so-called Communists out on 
bail put up by the fund, until that was revoked, they were out 
until they raised bail from other sources.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you get royalties from the purchase of your 
books?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, if a copy of your book is bought, 
you get a royalty.
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the customary royalty?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't know. I think mine is 15 percent. 
Publishers' contracts run from 10 percent, and have provisions 
if there is a sale above a certain amount, it goes up. I think 
mine is a flat 15 percent, but I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed money to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the grounds the answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any other income other than that 
derived from your writings?
    Mr. Hammett. No. There have been times when I have. At the 
moment I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any moneys you have received as royalties 
from the sale of these books been contributed to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the 
answer might tend to incriminate me, pleading my rights under 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I think I have nothing more of Mr. Hammett, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. You might say for the record how generally 
the State Department has been buying these books and 
distributing them throughout information libraries overseas.
    Mr. Cohn. Very widely. We will have the exact figures by 
the morning, but I would say that the number of copies in use 
are in the hundreds.
    Senator Mundt. Any other questions? If not, you may step 
down.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hammett, we might want you in public session 
tomorrow morning, as I explained to you. Would you be here 
tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Hammett. I can be.
    Mr. Cohn. At 10:15 tomorrow morning, in this room. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Hammett. I am through now for the day?
    Mr. Cohn. You are through until 10:15 tomorrow morning.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to ask you one more question, 
Mr. Hammett. You answered the question as to whether or not you 
received a royalty from your books. I think you said earlier 
that some of your plays or short stories or books were placed 
in the motion pictures. Is that right?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Do you get a royalty from that, too?
    Mr. Hammett. No. I said that in connection with the radio. 
The motion picture as a rule, mine have all been, the four 
books sold to motion pictures have been sold outright. But 
there is, as I said, on the radio thing a provision--I think I 
would have to look at the contracts--but motion picture 
companies put in a provision that gives them the radio right 
also.
    Senator Mundt. Do I understand that the motion pictures pay 
you nothing for your work?
    Mr. Hammett. No. They buy the motion picture right. It 
varies with different companies, but the right for television 
is in dispute, because that had not come up then. But they took 
care of the radio.
    Senator Mundt. In other words, whenever they made a motion 
picture from the book or short stories, they made a contract 
that paid you outright for the motion picture rights?
    Mr. Hammett. That is right. The other they put in, because 
they had no intention of selling radio rights, because the 
thought of radio in those days as competing with motion 
pictures kept you from serializing on the radio at the same 
time.
    Senator Mundt. Will you stand, please, and be sworn. Raise 
your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are 
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
   TESTIMONY OF HELEN GOLDFRANK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                        CHARLES E. FORD)
    Senator Mundt. Give your name and address for the record, 
please.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank, Thornwood, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have counsel's name for the record?
    Mr. Ford. Charles E. Ford, 416 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. Your name is Helen Goldfrank?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe I must stand on my rights of 
special privilege as provided under the Fifth Amendment of the 
Constitution, and I can not answer that question as it may tend 
to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You decline to answer on the ground the answer 
might tend to incriminate you, and you exercise your privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. As to whether you have ever been known by another 
name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation--Is it Mrs. Goldfrank?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. My occupation is Mrs. Goldfrank.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any writing?
    Senator Mundt. I did not hear a word she said.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Housewife.
    Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on 
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth 
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of 
privileged communication between husband and wife.
    Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged 
communication?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were 
married to him.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your husband a member of the national 
committee of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must repeat that I regret that I must 
decline to answer your questions on the basis of personal 
privilege as the answer may tend to incriminate me and I seek 
the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and 
secondly, under the Constitution, the status of the family is a 
privileged communication, and under that I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Ford. May the record show she gave two grounds? You 
stated one.
    Senator Mundt. The record will show everything she says 
loudly enough to be heard, and nothing else.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry but my voice is not very loud.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Have you ever written any 
books?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again regretfully refuse to answer 
on the rights of special privilege under the Fifth Amendment to 
the Constitution that any answer I give you will tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard of a book called Apple Pie 
for Lewis? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Helen Kay, Apple Pie for Lewis (New York: Aladdin Books, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me under the 
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
    Senator McClellan. Have you honestly been telling the truth 
when you say you are afraid it will incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am honest in telling the truth.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not understand how it could incriminate you 
to say that you have heard of a certain book.
    Mr. Ford. May I address the committee on that? I believe 
our courts have ruled that if a witness after asserting the 
right is called upon to explain how the right would be 
affected, they are waiving the privilege.
    Senator Mundt. I believe the courts have also held that a 
witness is in contempt if there is no valid ground for 
incrimination.
    Mr. Ford. Only if the senators decide to cite him in your 
judgment.
    Senator Mundt. I think the witness should be apprized of 
that fact. If she invokes the right when it does not exist, she 
could be cited.
    Mr. Ford. I believe to save you time she realizes when she 
declines you all intend to say she should answer so that will 
cover the question.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is a matter of intention. The 
privilege can only be exercised if it is exercised in complete 
good faith with the sincere good belief that if an answer is 
given, it might result in incrimination.
    Mr. Ford. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony, Mrs. Goldfrank, that if you 
say you have heard of a book known as Apple Pie for Lewis, that 
that answer, if you answered truthfully, might tend to show you 
are guilty of a crime, it might tend to incriminate you. That 
is what the privilege is.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is my answer.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard of the book Gone With the Wind?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my lawyer. May I 
have the privilege of speaking with my lawyer?
    Mr. Schine. Certainly.
    [Witness consults with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That book has no relationship to me and is 
innocuous, and I have naturally heard of it.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony then that this book, Apple 
Pie for Lewis is not innocuous?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on the 
ground of possible self incrimination.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that this book of yours, Apple Pie 
for Lewis and another book of yours are being widely used by 
the State Department information program?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I cannot answer that on the basis of 
possible self incrimination.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment and my right of 
personal privilege that any answer I may give may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party at 
any time over the last twenty years?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again repeat, I respectfully decline 
to answer your question on my constitutional right under the 
Fifth Amendment that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party in 1951?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I respectfully decline to answer 
your question as my answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have told us you are a housewife. Do you have 
any outside source of income, any moneys other than those given 
you by your husband?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe two factors would be involved 
there. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis that any 
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me, and the second 
would be the privileged communication between husband and wife.
    Mr. Cohn. My question is whether or not you, forgetting 
about your husband, have earned any moneys other than those 
which your husband has given you. It does not involve your 
husband at all. The only question is, have you received any 
moneys other than those given you by your husband?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again----
    Mr. Cohn. I will tell you right now I will recommend to the 
chairman that there is no possible question of husband and wife 
privilege on that. We are addressing ourselves here to whether 
or not you received any other moneys.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question within my rights under the Fifth Amendment as any 
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan [presiding]. Does the chair understand 
that you think if you gave testimony as to your own personal 
income from sources other than through your husband that that 
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I can only answer in the same way, sir.
    Senator McClellan. I am asking you if you think that it 
would tend to incriminate you. That is what I am asking you. If 
you gave the committee information regarding your income, 
income that is independent from that of your husband, your own 
personal income, are you stating to the committee that you 
think that to give such testimony truthfully would tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer your 
question as I believe----
    Senator McClellan. You decline to answer whether you think 
it would tend to incriminate you, do you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. That is what I asked you and you decline 
to answer on constitutional grounds. I asked you if you think 
to give such testimony regarding yourself, independent of your 
husband, you think it would tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, I repeat that any answer--I 
must stand on special privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. You do not have that very well 
memorized. I am asking you if you think it would tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. You think it would tend to incriminate 
you to answer that question?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. To answer the question that you think it 
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. So then you are unwilling to tell the 
committee, are you, that you believe honestly that it would 
tend to incriminate you if you answered these questions?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe once again----
    Senator McClellan. I cannot understand you. I am sorry.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry, too, sir. Would you repeat your 
question?
    Senator McClellan. Do you tell the committee that you think 
that it would tend to incriminate you if you answered the 
question whether you honestly believe if you answered the 
question regarding your separate and independent income that 
that would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
    Mr. Schine. Where were you born?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. New York City.
    Mr. Schine. And where did you go to school?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Excuse me. May I consult with my attorney?
    Mr. Cohn. You may consult with counsel.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would stand on my right of special 
privilege and feel that answering that question would tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. You do not wish to tell the committee where you 
went to school?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. No.
    Mr. Schine. You feel honestly if you did it would tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
    Mr. Schine. In the school that you went to, did you ever 
hear the pledge of allegiance to the American flag?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. You did. Did that pledge of allegiance mean 
anything to you before you got involved in this trouble, or 
before you got mixed up?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again repeat that I cannot 
answer your question on the basis that it may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Are you now involved in espionage against the 
United States government?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I stand on my constitutional right of 
refusing to answer that question as that question may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Did you carry money from Moscow to Germany for 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again stand on my constitutional 
right of personal privilege and refuse to answer that question 
on the basis of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as the 
answer to that question may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Have you been in Moscow?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must refuse to answer your 
question as that answer to that question may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Do you regret that you are unable to tell the 
committee whether you are now or have ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I regret on the basis of special privilege 
that I cannot answer your questions within my rights under the 
Fifth Amendment as any answer to that question may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. You misunderstood the question. Do you regret 
that you cannot answer the question, are you now or have you 
ever been a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must stand on my rights of 
special privilege and refuse to answer that question because 
under the Fifth Amendment I have the right to plead that that 
answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Do you honestly believe in the overthrow by 
force and violence of the United States government?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as that 
question may tend to incriminate me under the rights of special 
privilege.
    Mr. Schine. I have no more questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Did you testify before a 
federal grand jury in New York recently?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as any 
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me and I stand on the 
special privilege of my rights under the Constitution.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the 
witness be considered in contempt of the committee for not 
answering. Not answering a question of that character is 
absurd.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask one other question. Are you an 
American citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am, and I am proud of it, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You are an American citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. You do not think that incriminates you, 
do you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, as an American citizen, sir, I 
stand on my right under the Constitution of special privilege--
--
    Senator McClellan. Is there anything in America that you 
are proud of except that constitutional right you invoke so 
freely and so insistently? Can you mention anything else you 
are proud of about America except this right that you claim to 
be invoking at this time? Do you think it will incriminate you 
to answer that?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my attorney.
    Senator McClellan. All right, consult him.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am proud of the entire Constitution of 
the United States, and on the basis of the Constitution I seek 
special privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of the 
Constitution of the United States, which you now say you are 
proud of?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again plead special privilege--
--
    Senator McClellan. If you are proud of it, why do you think 
it intimidates you, after you say you are proud of it, to say 
that you do not believe in the overthrow of it?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must plead special privilege
    Senator McClellan. You have said that you are proud of all 
of the Constitution of the United States. Do you now insist 
that it might incriminate you to answer the question whether 
you believe in the overthrow of that Constitution, which you 
now say you are proud of? Do you still insist that that might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think my answer to that question would 
tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever acted as a spy for a 
foreign country?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question.
    Senator Symington. On the ground it might incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen [presiding]. Mrs. Goldfrank, when you 
stated that you are a citizen, are you a native born citizen or 
a naturalized citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe in the first question, I was born 
in New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. You are then native born.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are how old, if that is not too 
personal?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am forty years old.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your answer?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Forty.
    Senator Dirksen. You are forty?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you have lived continuously in the 
United States, I suppose, except for any excursions you may 
have made abroad since that time?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. My residence has been in the United States.
    Senator Dirksen. What is your regular occupation, if you 
have any? Is it authoring works such as appear here before the 
committee, or do you have a profession, or are you associated 
with some company?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, I must plead the point, the wife's 
special privilege, and refuse to answer on the basis that any 
answer I may give you might tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Dirksen. I think for the purposes of the record I 
should advise you that I doubt very much whether you can take 
refuge in the Fifth Amendment on a question of that kind. I do 
not believe it involves your liberty at all.
    Mr. Ford. May I address the senator?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, I would be glad to hear you.
    Mr. Ford. I believe that question has appeared in many of 
the cases tried in our district court here, what is your 
occupation. I know of several. These grew out of the Kefauver 
committee hearings, and the question was asked, ``What is your 
occupation,'' and the people refused, and they were sustained 
in our court when they did refuse on the constitutional ground.
    Senator Dirksen. They did not have to divulge what their 
occupations were?
    Mr. Ford. That is right. The courts have held it is the 
next questions that they may lead to, and they may involve the 
question of income tax returns and things of that kind, because 
those questions are asked in the returns in the federal law. So 
I respectfully call that to your attention that they have ruled 
that. One was Fischetti case and the other was Guzik, in 
Chicago. There were several of them where that particular 
question was made the count of the indictment and passed upon.
    Senator Dirksen. I think we ought to make the record 
reasonably full here.
    Mr. Ford. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you associated with any school or 
college in New York in a teaching capacity or any other 
capacity?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must plead special privilege once again, 
Senator, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you authored many books or a few 
books or one book?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That question also is----
    Senator Dirksen. I am not asking what kind of books. I am 
asking you whether you have authored----
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I plead that the answer to that question 
may tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Dirksen. I have grave doubts about your answer but 
we will let it stand for the moment until we can determine 
that. Have you made any trips abroad?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must refuse to answer that question on my 
right----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Dirksen. Senator Symington.
    Senator Symington. I am not a lawyer. I do not think we are 
really talking to the witness. I think we are talking to the 
witness' counsel. I think the witness thinks this is all pretty 
much of a good joke. I respectfully again request, from my 
knowledge as an American citizen, that this witness be held in 
contempt of this committee.
    Senator Dirksen. Your question is very proper and should be 
considered very shortly after this hearing terminates in a 
strictly executive session.
    Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Goldfrank, were you ever associated with the 
Communist Internationale?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Mr. Cohn is your name?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer your 
question on the basis of personal privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that as a representative of the 
Communist Internationale you carried a sum of money from Moscow 
to the German Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the basis of personal privilege and within my 
rights under the Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn. Within the last year, have you been subpoenaed to 
testify before a federal grand jury in New York?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I must----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to ask 
her counsel how he advises her to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to ask the chair to direct her to 
answer the last question. There is no privilege whatsoever 
whether a witness was in fact subpoenaed to appear before a 
grand jury.
    Mr. Ford. I will be glad to answer Senator Symington.
    Senator Dirksen. The committee will be glad to hear 
counsel.
    Mr. Ford. That would cover the question, and I think the 
courts have held, with respect to identity. It is not only that 
particular question, Senator, that is involved, because our 
courts have held that if a witness does answer that question, 
then they are bound to go on and answer the other questions 
which would follow, which would be did you appear and what did 
you testify, which would be natural questions to flow from the 
key question. So I think our courts have held that you must 
assert the right to the main question because it is the 
subsequent questions that may involve her. That by itself would 
be different. For instance, I remember Senator Welker had a 
client of mine that was in this position before, and he said to 
the witness, ``I don't think that those questions about your 
sister and others here (the witness' name was Warring) would 
involve you,'' and Warring said, ``Senator, as I understand, if 
I answer that key question, I must go on,'' and Senator Welker 
said, ``Oh, yes, I intended to follow it up with questions 
until I hit,'' and may I use his expression ``pay dirt.'' So 
that is why it is applied to that particular one.
    Senator Symington. I think your explanation is clear.
    Mr. Ford. For my own information, I think Mr. Cohn was 
present when she did testify on two occasions. In fact, I think 
she answered questions at that time.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, accepting counsel's 
exposition of the law as just stated for the record, I asked 
the witness a few moments ago if there is anything she was 
proud of in the Constitution of the United States except the 
Fifth Amendment provision which she was invoking as a matter of 
special privilege in this hearing, and she answered, as the 
record will show, that she is proud of all of the Constitution 
of the United States.
    Having answered then, Mr. Chairman, I asked the witness the 
question if she believed in the overthrow of the Constitution 
of the United States, and she again invoked her special 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on the 
grounds that it might tend to incriminate her.
    Having answered that she is proud of all of the 
Constitution, Mr. Chairman, I believe she should now be 
required to answer the question whether she believes in the 
overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, and I most 
respectfully ask the chairman to order the witness to answer.
    Senator Dirksen. I think it is a very proper question which 
does not incriminate or put the witness in jeopardy, and I 
believe the question should be answered.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline, Senator, on the basis of 
special privilege.
    Senator Dirksen. I think the witness may step down. I would 
like to ask counsel one question, however.
    Mr. Ford. I would be glad to answer.
    Senator Dirksen. It is not meant to be an invidious 
question at all.
    Mr. Ford. Not at all.
    Senator Dirksen. And you can decline to answer if you like.
    Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
    Senator Dirksen. And we can strike it from the record if 
you like.
    Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
    Senator Dirksen. I am wondering if because of comparable 
situations we have had before, whether you have advised the 
witness in advance on certain basic things that are the key for 
an answer or no answer. Would you care to comment on that?
    Mr. Ford. Not at all. I consulted with this witness 
yesterday afternoon in my office. I have known this witness 
since she was a little girl. For myself I opened up Scott 
Field, at Belleville, Illinois, at eighteen as a flier in the 
first war. I am an Elk in good standing, and a Roman Catholic 
of which I am proud, and I love every part of this country and 
everything it does and says, and I am proud of the courts. 
However, that same country told me that when a client comes to 
me in my office, I should give them the best advice provided I 
do not violate any of our laws, and that I did, and I 
thoroughly explain to them what it was and what our courts have 
held, because as a business proposition some years ago I found 
it worthwhile to acquaint myself with this law as it was 
becoming quite invoked all over the United States.
    I have appeared in Chicago in front of the Kefauver 
committee, and I assure you that I merely gave this lady the 
advice which I would give to anyone, because it was 
conscientious and honest under our law.
    Senator Dirksen. Both the committee and the law recognize 
the responsibility of an attorney's advocate to client when he 
assumes that responsibility.
    Mr. Ford. In fact, Senator, I just came back from Hot 
Springs yesterday, and last year I think I had the privilege of 
laying beside you in the Majestic Hotel in the baths. You did 
not know who I was, but I recognized you.
    Senator Dirksen. We also recognize the confidential 
relationship between attorney and client.
    Mr. Ford. As far as myself or anything about me, I will 
answer any question anywhere or at any time.
    Senator Symington. I would like to ask you a question, and 
I am not a lawyer. If somebody comes to you whom you believe 
has been interested in a conspiracy or member of an 
organization conspiring to overthrow the United States, is it 
worth your while to advocate their interest?
    Mr. Ford. Is it worth my while?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Ford. I think my profession requires me to advocate 
their interest with certain limitations. First, that I in no 
way by word of mouth, suggestion or action become in any way 
part of that, that I keep myself completely detached, and by 
completely, I do not mean any quibble about it. If the question 
came up, if it was a close question, I must resolve in favor of 
my government and not myself. Yes, I have that positive 
philosophy, and I hope I die with it when the time comes.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you been sworn?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony 
you will give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mangione. I do.
  TESTIMONY OF JERRE G. MANGIONE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       JOSEPH A. FANELLI)
    Mr. Cohn. May we have the name of the counsel for the 
record?
    Mr. Fanelli. Joseph A. Fanelli. I am a member of the 
District of Columbia Bar, and I am maintaining offices at the 
Wyatt Building in Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you a native Washingtonian?
    Mr. Fanelli. No, sir, I am a native New Yorker, Senator, 
but I have been around here a long time.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it Mangione?
    Mr. Mangione. That is the correct pronunciation.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you give your full name to the 
reporter?
    Mr. Mangione. Jerre G. Mangione.
    Senator Dirksen. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Mangione. I reside in New York City at 36 East 65th 
Street, New York 21.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that your legal residence?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you always lived there?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I moved there last June from 
Philadelphia.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you born in Philadelphia?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I lived in Philadelphia for ten years, 
and before Philadelphia, I lived in Washington for five years--
I am going backwards now--and before Washington I lived in New 
York for about five years.
    Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal, how old are you 
now?
    Mr. Mangione. Forty-four years old.
    Senator Dirksen. So you were born in 1909.
    Mr. Mangione. That is correct, March 20.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mangione, are you the author of any books?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir, I am the author of three books----
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names?
    Mr. Mangione. Under my own name. The first one was Mount 
Allegro.\4\ Do you want the dates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Jerre Mangione, Mount Allegro (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Approximate dates.
    Mr. Mangione. Published January or February 1943.
    The second book, a novel called The Ship and the Flame, 
published 1948.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Jerre Mangione, The Ship and the Flame (New York: Current 
Books, 1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third book, called Reunion in Sicily, published in 
1950.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Jerre Mangione, Reunion in Sicily (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 
1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Are you aware of the fact 
that your books are being used by the State Department 
Information Program?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I am not. Let me add this comment. 
When my third book came out, Reunion in Sicily, which was 
published by Houghton, Mifflin of Boston, which has New York 
offices, I remember one day inquiring from the sales manager 
how the sales were going, and Mr. McKee said, ``Well, it is 
going pretty fair.'' The book, incidentally, had come out the 
week of the Korean War, so that kind of hurt the sales. He 
said, ``We just got an order this morning from the State 
Department.'' I said, ``How many copies,'' hoping he would say 
many, but he said, I think, six or ten, but I can't remember. 
This can be checked very easily.
    Mr. Cohn. Six or ten copies by the State Department?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. So you have had that much notice that they were 
being used.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know how the State Department used 
them. These books contain a great deal of information about 
Sicily after the war, and I should think that any group in the 
State Department that was interested in studying conditions in 
Italy would have wanted to refer to this book for information, 
certainly.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. I have never been a Communist, and I want to 
make that emphatic, either now or at any time or a hidden 
Communist, and I have never been under orders of the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Mangione. To the best of my knowledge I have never 
attended a Communist party meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any doubt about it?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I don't think I have any doubt about it, 
except I went to some meetings of the John Reed Club.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't that an official club of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Mangione. Not to my knowledge, no. It was a literary 
club. I found out much later that it was made up of a lot of 
people who had the reputation of being Communists. I went there 
as a young writer, sort of attracted by the glamor of hearing 
other writers talk, and the subjects when I was there were 
always literary. Proletariat literature was the great subject 
of the day. I don't know whether the senator recalls.
    Mr. Cohn. Has anybody ever stated in sworn testimony that 
you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. At a previous hearing. This is not 
exactly yes, so please let me explain it is a statement. At a 
subcommittee meeting in which I appeared as a witness last 
Friday, Senator Jenner's committee, presided over by Senator 
Welker--I think that is the right name--during the course of 
the meeting or of the interview, a man was brought in who 
claimed--a man I had never seen before--that I had attended 
fraction meetings in the offices of the New Masses, that he was 
a man who described himself as an old Communist who served from 
1920 to 1937, and also described himself----
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Mangione. Malkin, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. Maurice Malkin?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. He claimed that he went to one of these 
meetings where there were, he said, five or six people present, 
and he was working with the longshoremen at the time. I am 
repeating what he said. He noticed me at one of these meetings, 
and he said he asked the secretary there who was this fellow, 
and the secretary claimed that my name was Jerre Mangione, and 
that I was all right. First he said I was at three such 
meetings, and then he said I was at five such meetings, and he 
was asked what other people were present at the meetings. The 
only name I recognized was a fellow called Bill Gropper, who 
used to do political cartoons in the thirties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Gropper was a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I didn't. I had seen Gropper somewhere 
before.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you categorically deny Mr. Malkin's testimony?
    Mr. Mangione. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at the offices of the New Masses?
    Mr. Mangione. I probably was.
    Mr. Cohn. You say probably.
    Mr. Mangione. I must have been because I reviewed some 
books for them so I may have gone by.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it possible to have written for New Masses 
without ever having been a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I think so. Since I wrote for the New 
Masses, and I was not a Communist, I can say that. This is 
speculation, but I imagine if you go down the list of 
contributors you will find a lot of people who were not 
Communists who were writing for the New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. New Masses was a Communist publication.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know whether it was technically a 
Communist publication or not. It certainly followed the 
Communist party line.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote for it, did you follow the 
Communist party line?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. I wrote a review of Fontamara by 
Silone, which I think was an excellent book in the thirties, 
dealing with Italy.\7\ The review was published but then it 
turned out that Silone was persona non grata with the Communist 
party, and some of the people came around and said I ought to 
write a different kind of review and I said, ``That is 
nonsense; this is a book I like very much. I wrote the review 
and I stand by the review.'' I was expressing an opinion about 
the book. I was not a member of the party. I was not under its 
orders, and I didn't have to write what I was told.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Ignazio Silone, Fontamara (New York: H. Smith & R. Haas, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Dirksen. Does the New Masses pay for the reviews?
    Mr. Mangione. No, you just got the book.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not paid by New Masses?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I might add in connection with the Silone 
incident that at the time I was working in a publishing house 
as a publicity man, and reader and editorial man, and I thought 
so highly of Mr. Silone's book that after he published 
Fontamara, I was directly instrumental in seeing that his book 
of short stories, antifascist short stories, was published in 
this country.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the United States 
government?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Mr. Mangione. I worked for the United States government in 
several capacities. If you want I will go down the list 
chronologically. I was interviewed in New York by a man who was 
looking for an information writer for the Resettlement 
Administration. His name was Max Gilfond.
    Mr. Cohn. Why do you not tell us what jobs you held first?
    Mr. Mangione. I am sorry not to be more brief. Information 
writer for Resettlement Administration--I can't remember exact 
dates. These are the best of my recollection for about three 
months in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Mangione. In 1937, spring.
    Senator Dirksen. Was Dr. [Rexford] Tugwell then head of 
resettlement?
    Mr. Mangione. No, he had left. The other day one of the 
senators reminded me that it must have been Baldwin who was at 
the head.
    Senator Dirksen. C. B. Baldwin.
    Mr. Mangione. That is right, but I did not work for Mr. 
Baldwin. I worked for Gilfond.
    Then I worked for the Federal Writers Project.
    Mr. Cohn. During what period of time?
    Mr. Mangione. From 1937 to the time it ceased to be a 
federal project, the beginning of 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any people you thought were 
Communists connected with the Federal Workers Project?
    Mr. Mangione. There were people on the project who had the 
reputation of being Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Henry Osborne?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, he was my boss.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he have the reputation of being a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. No, he had the reputation of being an old 
radical.
    Senator Dirksen. The writers project was a division of the 
old WPA, as I recall it.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you work in Washington or New York?
    Mr. Mangione. I worked in Washington. I made frequent trips 
to New York. My work involved helping to get these books 
published so I talked to a lot of publishers and talked to 
sponsors and was sort of liaison man.
    Senator Dirksen. What was the general nature of the work? 
Was it assembling the historical directives they had in 
Washington, or theatricals and dramas and plays?
    Mr. Mangione. No. The writers project was then producing 
guide books, one for every state in the Union. These guide 
books consisted of the general essays on the various parts of 
the state, plus automobile tours and all kinds of tours. There 
was a book for each state in the Union, and also for some of 
the large cities.
    About that time it was decided that the Government Printing 
Office was not equipped to publish and distribute these books 
because they had no distribution facilities and it was very 
costly for them to print up the books and there were publishers 
who were willing and eager to publish these books free of 
charge or a royalty which would be paid back to the federal 
government.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, they did a lot of work besides 
guide books as I recall.
    Mr. Mangione. They did pamphlets. They did folklore 
studies. They got one out called ``American Stuff.''
    Senator Dirksen. I recall that when I was on the other end 
of the Capitol that someone had authored a book called, The 
Confessions of a Bellboy that developed considerable currency 
that was under the Federal Writers Project.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know that. That seems rather 
astonishing to me.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you know where John Reed is 
buried now?
    Mr. Mangione. I remember reading in the Columbia 
Encyclopedia yesterday that he is buried in the Kremlin.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the John Reed of which club you were a 
member.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I read this just yesterday in New York 
City.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know where he is buried in the Kremlin, 
or who he is buried next to?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I do not.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know now that there is or was any 
connection between the John Reed Club and the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. I have heard that there was.
    Mr. Schine. That there was?
    Mr. Mangione. I have heard since that there was.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard that there is a connection 
between the John Reed Club and the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. I heard that many years later.
    Mr. Schine. They never had any discussions to that effect 
when you were in the club?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. These meetings, incidentally, were 
public, most of them.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know at that time who John Reed was?
    Mr. Mangione. I just knew him as a man who wrote a book 
called Ten Days that Shook the World, which I still have not 
read.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know how he spent the latter part of his 
life, or did you know how he spent the latter part of his life?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Schine. You knew nothing about the man who the 
organization to which you belonged----
    Mr. Mangione. I never belonged to it. I said I went to some 
meetings of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you in fact belong to it?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were the meetings open to everybody?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody could walk in?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people were usually at the meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. Sometimes there would be forty people, 
sometimes there would be two hundred people, depending on who 
the star of the occasion was. The star of the occasion usually 
being some writer who just published a book and was willing to 
talk about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they advertise the meetings in the public 
press?
    Mr. Mangione. I don't remember. They probably did.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, did they ever discuss communism 
at those meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Mr. Schine. They never brought up the subject of the Soviet 
Union?
    Mr. Mangione. They must have discussed--first of all, I 
want to say that all this happened around 1932 or 1933. This is 
not 1952, so if I don't remember certain details, I hope you 
don't think it is bad faith, but simply because I can not 
remember accurately that far back. Sometimes I can't remember 
things even more recently.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have a recollection, Mr. Mangione, 
whether they solicited membership in the party at that meeting?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I never saw anyone solicited for any 
membership nor was I nor do I remember paying money to anybody.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, did you ever read the Communist 
Manifesto?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I did. I remember only one line about 
it.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever read the works of Lenin?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I never read the works of Lenin. I never 
read Marx. I tried to read it, but I couldn't go into it.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know who wrote the Communist Manifesto?
    Mr. Mangione. It was Marx, wasn't it?
    Mr. Schine. Do you recall the works of Marx ever being 
discussed at the John Reed meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. No. There was a lot of talk about Marxian 
attitudes toward literature, a proletariat literature. That was 
the great emphasis in the days in the thirties.
    Mr. Schine. Then they did talk about the theories of Karl 
Marx in those meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. They talked about proletariat literature and 
they said that was Marxian. I had, I suppose, then, I thought I 
had--as a young man I probably thought I understood things much 
better than I did. I think when one is young you are more sure 
of things, you are quicker to think that you understand. 
Anyway, I heard the words. Looking back, now, they must have 
meant very little, but they seemed to mean something.
    Mr. Schine. In those days, in the early thirties, when you 
were attending the John Reed meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. I went to about six meetings.
    Mr. Schine. Did you subscribe to the theories of Marx?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I did not subscribe to the theories of 
Marx. I was interested in the John Reed meetings for two 
reasons. One was because I was very anxious to be a writer, and 
in fact had started immediately--while in college, I started a 
literary magazine, a very literary magazine, which was not 
concerned with political matters at all. The issue that got 
some national publicity was devoted entirely to Stephen Crane, 
an early realistic American writer who lived in the early part 
of the century and went to Syracuse University. I happened to 
discover some correspondence he had which was quite a coup.
    Mr. Schine. Do you suspect now, Mr. Mangione, that there is 
something that is not good about the John Reed Society, that 
perhaps the John Reed Society is not dedicated to our form of 
government?
    Mr. Mangione. I suspect that, and if I had to do it all 
over again, I certainly would not go to meetings of the John 
Reed Club. I would not do several things I did in the thirties.
    Mr. Schine. May I ask you this, Mr. Mangione. When did you 
first meet Reed Harris?
    Mr. Mangione. Reed Harris, I met him in the writers 
project. He was some kind of administrative assistant.
    Mr. Schine. Which project?
    Mr. Mangione. The Federal Writers Project in Washington.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever persuade him to join some 
organization?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, no, never.
    Mr. Schine. Were you in the League of American Writers?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I was a member of that for a while until 
I decided that that was really a Communist front.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did it take you to decide that?
    Mr. Mangione. It took me about a year and a half.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join?
    Mr. Mangione. I don't remember the exact date, but it must 
have been around 1936 or 1937. I can't remember.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, are you familiar with Reed 
Harris' career?
    Mr. Mangione. Am I familiar with his what?
    Mr. Schine. Career?
    Mr. Mangione. I am only familiar with the fact that he was 
on the writers project at the time doing a lot of paper work.
    Mr. Schine. You knew of his ideas over the years?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. We never discussed them.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know any of his ideas in the early 
thirties?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I just had heard that he had written a 
book which had created quite a stir. I never read the book.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know anything about the book?
    Mr. Mangione. Only from what I read in the papers since his 
hearings.
    Mr. Schine. Based on your understanding of what he wrote in 
that book, if you were to pick a man to be the first or the 
second person in charge of the International Information 
Administration, which is supposed to depict the American way of 
life, and promote understanding of our ideas and counter 
Communist propaganda, would you select Reed Harris as that man?
    Mr. Mangione. I can't answer that yes or no. I would 
consider the fact that he wrote this book when he did, when he 
was young. I think people change. They undoubtedly do if they 
are any good. Whether they change for the better or worse 
depends on what kind of character they are. In the case of Reed 
Harris, I don't know whether he changed or not. I would be 
inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I would 
investigate the facts.
    Mr. Schine. You would probably want to have from him some 
tangible evidence that he had refuted his earlier beliefs, and 
that he felt that he had made mistakes?
    Mr. Mangione. A man may refute his earlier beliefs to his 
wife and mother, but sometimes he doesn't get the opportunity 
or there is no avenue to refute his earlier beliefs.
    Mr. Schine. Writing a book is a pretty good way of doing 
it.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, it is. Again I would say this. I know 
many, many writers, and I would say that I have found that many 
writers who wrote books--and I don't mean political books 
necessarily, say novels--when they were very young, are very 
embarrassed by them when they get older. I think that is 
natural. People change biologically and their mind changes.
    Senator Dirksen. Is writing your principal business now?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. That is, I make a living by copy 
writing. I write books on the side. I lead a double life in 
that sense.
    Senator Dirksen. What about pamphlets and short stories and 
essays; do you do some work in that field?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I am not a good short story writer. I did 
sell a short story to Esquire a couple of years ago, but they 
have not run it yet.
    Senator Dirksen. You were paid, but it was not printed?
    Mr. Mangione. It is very annoying. I write short stories so 
seldom I like to see them in print when I do write them.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you been given some idea of the basic 
purpose for the explorations of this committee?
    Mr. Mangione. I saw an editorial, ``McCarthy Targets 
Overseas Books.''
    Senator Dirksen. Did you get the nub of the purpose in 
which we are engaged just now?
    Mr. Mangione. I know you have been having Voice of America 
hearings, and now according to this story you are going to talk 
about books in overseas libraries. As I understand the United 
States Information Service, that is not connected with the 
Voice of America.
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Mangione. It is?
    Senator Dirksen. Let me brief you, because I think every 
witness is entitled to know basically what is at stake and it 
can be helpful to both the witness and to the committee.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. There is an overall International 
Information Administration, which carries on the propaganda 
program for the free ideas. That includes the motion pictures, 
the Voice of America, the library program, of which there are 
some 150 scattered around the world. They usually have a 
librarian there, and the people in that particular country can 
come in and freely run through the shelves and find what they 
want to read. The committee is of the opinion, and I think the 
opinion and conviction is well founded, that if we take 
taxpayers money and purchase books to be placed in those 
libraries, where they can reach people in an impressionable 
stage, and those books instead of selling the American idea and 
the free idea, sell exactly the opposite thing, it would 
certainly be a disservice to the people of the country, and 
could scarcely be justified as a sound investment of public 
funds.
    Mr. Mangione. I agree with you, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I am glad to hear you say that. We have 
had a number on the stand this morning, and there will be 
others, some of whom have known affiliations with the Communist 
party, as, for instance, Earl Browder who was here this 
morning. There can be little doubt as to his identity with the 
party scheme, although Mr. Browder even refused to identify his 
own books this morning. But those books have been in these 
libraries, and that looks like anything but a good deal for the 
American people, particularly when young men are slugging it 
out over in Korea in the interest of what we think of as the 
free American system.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. So the purpose of the exploration has 
been, first, find the books that have been acquired with public 
funds, and to see what kind of gospel those books sell and then 
to nail it down. Involved, of course, is the future of this 
whole information program. Shall it continue? Shall it continue 
in a different direction? Shall it continue under other 
auspices? All those are merely collateral questions that must 
be resolved later.
    The purpose in having you here was first to ascertain 
whether you were the author of books, whether those books were 
in these libraries, and what the general philosophic content of 
those books is.
    Mr. Mangione. Fine. I might say I agree with the general 
tenor of that certainly. I think if I may express an opinion 
that the danger in a query like this is that we might give 
people a broad ammunition that is anti-American. That is, we 
might give the impression that we are afraid of ideas. I hope 
we are not. I agree with you that a book that is out and out 
Communist, that does not have the interest of this country at 
heart, should not appear in these libraries. As for my own 
books, I am very happy about my books, sir. I have written 
three books and they have been generally praised very highly by 
most of the press. My books are expressions about my feeling 
about my country and my family and my love of God. These books, 
I think, do a service, and I will be glad to go over each book 
with you, if you wish, and tell you briefly what they consist 
of.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you think that it is in the 
best interests of the country for our committee to try and 
ascertain if the maximum constructive use has been made of 
taxpayers funds appropriated for an information program, and to 
try to find out and pin down responsibility if we find that the 
maximum constructive use has not been made?
    Mr. Mangione. That sounds like a very honest and legitimate 
purpose to me.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you think that our committee 
is representing the best interests of the American people if we 
seek to expose members of a conspiracy to overthrow our 
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Mangione. I think that depends on your tactics. For 
instance, the other day when I was presented by a man who is a 
false witness, I didn't feel very good about these tactics.
    Mr. Schine. You have witnessed our tactics here today.
    Mr. Mangione. And I think they have been very good.
    Mr. Cohn. You told us you were a member of the League of 
American Writers. Were you on the advisory board of a 
publication known as Direction? I think that was a publication 
of this writers project.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I had something to do with it. I think I 
did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you regard that as a Communist publication?
    Mr. Mangione. No, it was not a Communist publication.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever come to regard it as a Communist 
dominated publication at any time?
    Mr. Mangione. We can not be talking about the same 
publication because the one I have in mind only came out once.
    Mr. Cohn. There was only one issue?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Reed Harris on the board of that, too, do you 
know?
    Mr. Mangione. To the best of my recollection he was not, 
but I can't say for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that has been cited by the Un-
American Activities Committee as a Communist initiated and 
controlled publication?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a surprise to you?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. May I see this publication?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't have it here.
    Mr. Mangione. I would like to make sure we are talking 
about the same publication, because I was interested in little 
magazines of all kinds in those days. I wrote an article on it 
for the Literary Digest. I may be getting it confused with some 
other publication. But I would like to see it.
    Mr. Cohn. I am sorry, I do not have it available.
    Mr. Mangione. In that case I would withhold identifying it 
until I actually see it.
    Mr. Schine. Could you produce the one you are familiar with 
for us?
    Mr. Mangione. Which one is that?
    Mr. Cohn. Direction. Do you have a copy of that?
    Mr. Mangione. I just remember vaguely this. There were so 
many publications that the writers project had things to do 
with. There was, for instance, one called American Stuff. About 
that time there were other publications I got interested in 
putting out writer project issues or special sections. It seems 
to me that there was a magazine called Direction which did 
that. So actually it was not a Federal Writers Project 
publication. That is why I would like to see it because then I 
could remember exactly what it was. I could tell you about 
American Stuff, and you can find that in the library. I can 
tell you it was published by Viking Press. I remember that 
collection very well.
    Senator Dirksen. One other question, Mr. Mangione, and this 
is wholly speculative, and you can answer it or not, as you 
like. Do you not think it is a pretty fair assumption if, for 
instance, anybody in this country who had some identity with 
the Communist party or any of its fringes, was an author and 
his books showed up in a foreign library under American 
auspices, that Communists in those countries would be quick to 
ascertain the fact? Do you not believe that, as a matter of 
course, would be true?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I don't. May I explain why?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, please.
    Mr. Mangione. For one thing, in the thirties during this 
atmosphere that interested a lot of young so-called idealists 
who finally realized that they were being taken over, those 
people may have joined the Communist party and done a lot of 
things they regretted since, and they may be writing books that 
are very good books and that people should read, and that are a 
service to our country in terms of the propaganda and the 
feeling of friendliness we want to create with other countries, 
not with Communists in other countries, but with the general 
population. So I don't think it is fair to condemn a man who 
had left-wing associations in the thirties, and say that the 
books he writes in the forties or fifties are no good per se. I 
think each book must be read carefully. I think the reviews 
should be read, to see what the press thought of them, and a 
general opinion formed about each book. I think that is fair 
enough. Who is going to be the judge of all this, I don't know, 
except I think the literary editors of this country are pretty 
fair judges by and large. I think if you took a consensus, 
their opinion would be probably a good guide.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you qualify that answer some on the 
basis of the age of the author of the book?
    Mr. Mangione. The age of the author of the book?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    Mr. Mangione. It depends on how old he was.
    Senator Dirksen. Something that somebody did in his early 
twenties, let us say.
    Mr. Mangione. In his early twenties. Some people mature a 
little more quickly than others. Sometimes it takes a little 
while longer for a person to mature. Some people in their 
twenties are reckless and irresponsible, and then they do 
mature slowly, but surely. Other people are born mature.
    Senator Dirksen. But you would not make that answer, I 
suppose, in connection with books like those of Earl Browder 
that had a known objective, and that was----
    Mr. Mangione. I don't think Earl Browder----
    Mr. Fanelli. Let him finish.
    Mr. Mangione. I am sorry.
    Senator Dirksen. Books like that, that seek to hurl America 
along the Communist path, because that is the objective.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't consider that good American 
propaganda.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, one other question, Mr. Mangione. Do 
you regard this as a fair hearing on the basis of the 
responsibility the committee has to explore this, since it 
involves public funds and a public activity to persuade people 
behind the Iron Curtain and elsewhere of the merits of the free 
system?
    Mr. Mangione. I think it could be a little more full. That 
is, I can only judge of my own personal experience. You have 
not inquired about my books. I don't know whether you gentlemen 
have read them. You don't know how they were received, what the 
press thought of them, how pro-American they were, and so on. I 
think these are important considerations in terms of me.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you like to give us just a brief 
statement on that subject?
    Mr. Mangione. I would love to.
    Senator Dirksen. Very well.
    Mr. Mangione. First of all, because I got some inkling of 
the fact that you were interested in the books overseas, and 
because I remember the conversations I had with Mr. Mackey 
about the fact that the State Department had bought some copies 
of the book, I have taken the liberty of bringing along my last 
book, which is Reunion in Sicily and here it is.
    Mr. Fanelli. Could you spare a copy of that?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I can. I could give that to the 
committee with my compliments.
    Senator Dirksen. If we don't have a copy of that at the 
moment, we would be glad to have it.
    Mr. Mangione. First of all, I have a scrapbook here----
    Mr. Fanelli. Do not give the committee all of it, but just 
indicate its contents.
    Mr. Mangione. This is a scrapbook. I am not going into all 
of it. I just want to make the general statement that most of 
these reviews are extremely favorable and indicate a very pro-
American attitude. Some of the more politically minded 
reviewers indicate it is an anti-Communist book. Would you like 
to see the scrap book? It is my only copy.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you like to leave it here and have 
it returned to you?
    Mr. Mangione. It is my only copy, but if I could leave it 
here, and if you would indicate what you would like to have 
photostated, I could do that.
    Senator Dirksen. Suppose you take it back with you and we 
will rest it on these statements that you have made and then we 
may want some particular things and will contact you.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I would like to read into the record, if 
I may have the opportunity, a couple of paragraphs towards the 
end to sort of summarize the gist of the whole book and 
findings. It tried to be an objective book, as objective as I 
could make it. This is what it says:
    In retrospect, the spiritualness I found among the 
Sicilians was the most surprising feature of my sojourn. I had 
sailed from New York with reluctance and foreboding, certain 
that the Sicilians would be warped and embittered by their 
encounter with the war. My fears left me as soon as I set foot 
on the island. I felt myself in the presence of an ancient 
wisdom that transcended all defeat. There was dissension, but 
the general atmosphere was clear and stimulating. The hangdog 
look I saw during fascism was gone; so were the strutting 
patriots and the fake nationalism. There was life galore--
vibrant, warm and poignantly human.
    Yet, the infections of fascism were still noticeable. There 
were specters of dictatorship, from the right and the left, 
ready to thrive on poverty and confusion. There was liberty, 
but only some of the people realized what a precious thing it 
was; not all of them knew how to use it. There were those who 
chose to interpret it as freedom from responsibility. Others 
were ready to exchange it for the promises of would-be tyrants. 
It was going to take time, years of experience with liberty, 
before the majority could absorb what the older people had 
almost forgotten and the younger ones never knew; the meaning 
and value of the democratic process. But in the meantime, one 
could easily be optimistic, for their strong faith in life and 
their deep-rooted talent to survive its worst onslaughts were 
as promising and impressive as a Sicilian spring.
    I might add that both my parents were born in Sicily. I 
have hundreds of relatives there. I was able to make an 
accurate investigation. I reported my findings to Ambassador 
Dunn, because he was going down there, and I thought the 
information would be useful to him.
    I have gotten a little depressed since because of the 
forthcoming election in Italy. This is an election that is as 
important as the general Italian election that happened in 
1948. During that 1948 election, I made a short wave talk along 
with Mrs. John Cabot Lodge to the people of Italy urging them 
to vote the democratic ticket.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. John Davis Lodge.
    Mr. Mangione. John Davis Lodge. I have a photograph that 
appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is 1948. There is a 
photograph of Mrs. Lodge broadcasting and me and some countess 
here waiting to broadcast. This is described as a part of the 
anti-Communist message for voters in Italy. It simply describes 
that we are waiting our turn to speak. I think perhaps this 
ought to go in the record.
    I am concerned about this election very seriously. It is 
coming soon. I think next month. I wish this committee or some 
other committee could do something about that, because that is 
going to have an effect that is worldwide. If the Communists 
win, it will be very unfortunate because there are many people 
in Sicily, in Italy and I think in Europe, but I know Italy 
pretty well, who call themselves Communists, who do not know 
the meaning of communism but are going along with Communists, 
which is bad, because it represents power for the Communist 
Party.
    Senator Dirksen. Is Togliatti still the spiritual head?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. How about De Gaspari?
    Mr. Mangione. He has been strong up to this point. He was 
able to survive the last election, I think mainly because the 
Americans got busy and wrote to their Italian relatives, 
``Look, we don't want left wing parties in there, and it would 
be nice if you voted the right way.'' I think these letters had 
a tremendous influence. Nothing has been done, as far as I can 
make out, to get anyone in Italy excited about the outcome of 
this election.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you alarmed about the outcome in terms 
of Red strength at the polls everywhere in Italy or only in 
some areas like Milan and Turin?
    Mr. Mangione. Having been away from Italy for five years I 
don't know specifically the different areas. I do know Sicily 
very well. I had predicted that the Communists would win in 
Sicily. I had made my prediction known to the American 
consulate there, and they sort of pooh-poohed it. The 
Communists in Sicily did win their election. It was a 
parliamentary election. It was not too important fortunately 
but it was a symptom of what was to come.
    Senator Dirksen. It is a question for the voters there to 
decide.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, but the voters there have not had enough 
experience in democracy to know how to decide. The Italians 
have been kicked around so much, they have had twenty years of 
dictatorship included in that kicking around process, so their 
political judgment needs maturing. They are easily attracted by 
slogans and Communists are smart enough to use the slogans that 
answer their needs.
    Senator Dirksen. I have one other question, Mr. Mangione. 
Where did you do your college work?
    Mr. Mangione. Syracuse University. I graduated in 1931 with 
a bachelor of arts degree, English major.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever special assistant to the director 
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?
    Mr. Mangione. Let me correct that. I had the title of 
special assistant to the commissioner, and this was the period 
from 1942 to 1948 with the exception of a leave of absence for 
one year.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances?
    Mr. Mangione. Under three commissioners.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave?
    Mr. Mangione. I was hired to help publicize the 1940 alien 
registration program.
    Mr. Cohn. Was any loyalty question involved in your 
leaving?
    Mr. Mangione. No, not at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure of that?
    Mr. Mangione. Absolutely sure. In leaving what?
    Mr. Cohn. The immigration service.
    Mr. Mangione. There have never been any loyalty questions 
about leaving any service. I am sure of that because at that 
time when I left the immigration service in 1948, which I did 
because I just married a Philadelphia girl and the immigration 
service was coming back to Washington and I wanted to stay in 
Philadelphia and get in private industry, I got a job with N. 
W. Ayer and Son, and I learned the job of copy writing. At the 
time I left I was under attack by the Hearst press. The Hearst 
press wanted to make it appear that I was fired. Commissioner 
Watson Miller made a statement that I was leaving for personal 
reasons.
    Mr. Cohn. There should have been some loyalty 
investigation.
    Mr. Mangione. I was constantly investigated.
    Mr. Cohn. You concede that you were a member of certain 
organizations which turned out to be Communist friends, and you 
were in the League of American Writers, and you were in 
frequent attendance at the John Reed Club?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. How many times did you attend the meetings of the 
John Reed Club?
    Mr. Mangione. About five or six times.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a lot.
    Mr. Mangione. Over a two year period.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a lot. I think once is a lot.
    Mr. Mangione. I agree with you now. I do not think your 
summary was very accurate, Mr. Counsel.
    Senator Dirksen. I think in all candor, Mr. Mangione, it 
ought to be said you have been indeed a very refreshing 
witness. I do not believe you have tried to conceal anything 
from the committee.
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I have nothing to conceal. The 
reason I can speak honestly is because I speak with a clear 
conscience.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is 
within our province or not, but it appears that it might be 
constructive, since Mr. Mangione has written books on the 
subject and has thought about it a great deal, and is presently 
concerned about the election problem in Italy, if he has any 
ideas and would like to put them in writing and submit them to 
the Foreign Relations Committee, they would be very pleased to 
see them.
    Senator Dirksen. I am afraid, however, that is not the 
province of this committee. That would be a voluntary 
contribution which Mr. Mangione would have to make.
    Mr. Mangione. May I suggest if anyone knows anyone on that 
committee that they do read Reunion in Sicily. Although that 
was written of the period of 1947, I am sure the situation is 
the same in Sicily. That might be an indication of how the 
situation could best be met.
    Mr. Fanelli. Senator, is the witness excused?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. We will let you know if there is anything 
further.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, will you come forward, please? 
Will you stand and be sworn?
    Mr. Hughes. Do you put your hand on the book?
    Senator Dirksen. It is not necessary at this time.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Hughes. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LANGSTON HUGHES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, FRANK 
                           D. REEVES)
    Senator Dirksen. Will you identify yourself for the record, 
please?
    Mr. Reeves. My name is Frank D. Reeves.
    Senator Dirksen. You are here as counsel to Mr. Hughes?
    Mr. Reeves. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Reeves. In the District of Columbia, 1901 11th Street.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are an attorney at law, and a 
member of the District Bar?
    Mr. Reeves. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Has this always been your home?
    Mr. Reeves. For the last twenty years or more.
    Senator Dirksen. And you came originally from where?
    Mr. Reeves. I was originally born in Montreal, Canada.
    Senator Dirksen. So since that time you have been here?
    Mr. Reeves. Yes, and I was naturalized.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been a member of the 
District Bar?
    Mr. Reeves. Since 1943.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, will you state your name for 
the record?
    Mr. Hughes. James Langston Hughes.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you always use that name, James 
Langston Hughes?
    Mr. Hughes. In writing I use simply Langston Hughes, but 
friends know both names.
    Senator Dirksen. Where were you born?
    Mr. Hughes. Joplin, Missouri.
    Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal, how old are you 
now?
    Mr. Hughes. 51; I was born in 1902.
    Senator Dirksen. Is Missouri still your home?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, New York City is my home.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been residing in New 
York City?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say with any regularity for ten years, 
but I have been going in and out of New York for the last 
twenty-five.
    Senator Dirksen. I assume you travel and lecture?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do.
    Senator Dirksen. From coast to coast?
    Mr. Hughes. In fact, I first came to New York in 1921, but 
off and on I have not lived there.
    Senator Dirksen. You have a family?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. You are a single man?
    Mr. Hughes. I am.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you done college work at any time?
    Mr. Hughes. I did a year at Columbia, and I finished my 
college at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, and graduated in 
1929.
    Senator Dirksen. You hold a degree?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do. I have also an honorary degree.
    Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, have you had some kind 
of occupation or profession?
    Mr. Hughes. No, not with any regularity. I have been a 
lecturer, of course, all the forms of writing. I had one 
Hollywood job years ago.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you attached to the faculty of any 
school or any university?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not, but I was about to tell you 
that I have been a writer in residence at the University and at 
Chicago Laboratory School.
    Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, you do not pursue any 
other occupation?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. That is your occupation?
    Mr. Hughes. Not with any degree of regularity, no.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you ever worked for the government of 
the United States?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not so far as I know, unless you would 
consider--I don't think one would consider USO appearances 
during the war----
    Senator Dirksen. Did you appear for the USO?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. Or writing scripts, but those were unpaid.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you lecture for the USO?
    Mr. Hughes. I made a number of USO appearances, yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. In this country or abroad?
    Mr. Hughes. In this country.
    Senator Dirksen. And have you lectured abroad?
    Mr. Hughes. I have, but not under any government auspices.
    Senator Dirksen. No, I mean privately.
    Mr. Hughes. Privately I have. I would not say 
professionally really, but I have been asked to give speeches 
abroad, or have spoken or read my poems, usually my poems.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, with respect to your travels have you 
traveled recently in the last ten or fifteen years?
    Mr. Hughes. In the country?
    Senator Dirksen. Outside.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir. I have not been out of the country if 
my memory is correct since 1938 or 1939.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you care to tell us whether you have 
traveled to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hughes. I have, sir, yes.
    Senator Dirksen. For an extended period?
    Mr. Hughes. I was there for about a year.
    Senator Dirksen. Just there, or were you lecturing or 
writing?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, I went to make a movie, or to work on a 
movie, rather. I should not say make, myself. I went to work on 
a picture. The picture was not made, and I remained as a writer 
and journalist, and came back around the world.
    Senator Dirksen. That I assume was a Soviet-made movie.
    Mr. Hughes. It was to have been. It was not made.
    Senator Dirksen. As I recall, all movies in the Soviet 
Union are government products, really, are they not?
    Mr. Hughes. This was a disputed point at that time. But I 
would think so. At any rate, the film company was called 
Meschrabpom Film.
    Senator Dirksen. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry I can not tell you. I don't read 
Russian.
    Senator Dirksen. Your chief reputation lies in the fact 
that you were a poet. Would that be a correct statement?
    Mr. Hughes. I think in most people's minds that would be 
correct, although I have written many other kinds of things, 
yes, stories, and plays as well.
    Senator Dirksen. This will be a direct question, of course, 
but first I think I should explain to you the purpose of this 
hearing, because I believe witnesses are entitled to know.
    Mr. Hughes. I would appreciate it, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You see, last year Congress appropriated 
$86,000,000 against an original request of $160,000,000 for the 
purpose of propagandizing the free world, the free system, and 
I think you get the general idea of what I mean, the American 
system. In that $86,000,000, about $21,000,000 was allocated to 
the Voice of America. Some was allocated to the motion 
pictures. Some funds were used.
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I did not understand that.
    Senator Dirksen. Motion pictures and the Voice of America, 
did you get that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
    Senator Dirksen. And then some funds were used to purchase 
books to equip libraries in many sections of the world, the 
idea being, of course, that if people in those countries have 
access to American books, which allegedly delineate American 
objectives and American culture, that it would be useful in 
propagandizing our way of life and our system. The books of a 
number of authors have found their way into those libraries. 
They were purchased, of course. The question is whether or not 
they subserve the basic purpose we had in mind in the first 
instance when we appropriated money or whether they reveal a 
wholly contrary idea. There is some interest, of course, in 
your writings, because volumes of poems done by you have been 
acquired, and they have been placed in these libraries, 
ostensibly by the State Department, more particularly, I 
suppose I should say, by the International Information 
Administration. So we are exploring that matter, because it 
does involve the use of public funds to require that kind of 
literature, and the question is, is it an efficacious use of 
funds, does it go to the ideal that we assert, and can it 
logically be justified.
    So we have encountered quite a number of your works, and I 
would be less than frank with you, sir, if I did not say that 
there is a question in the minds of the committee, and in the 
minds of a good many people, concerning the general objective 
of some of those poems, whether they strike a Communist, rather 
than an anti-Communist note.
    So now at this point, I think probably Mr. Cohn, our 
counsel, has some questions he would like to ask.
    Mr. Hughes. Could I ask you, sir, which books of mine are 
in the libraries?
    Senator Dirksen. They are here, and I think we will 
probably refer to a number of them.
    Mr. Hughes. I see, because I could not quite know 
otherwise.
    Mr. Cohn. We will refer you from time to time to specific 
ones. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not. I presume by that you mean a 
Communist party member, do you not?
    Mr. Cohn. I mean a Communist.
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to know what you mean by your 
definition of communism.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. I have never been a believer in communism or a 
Communist party member.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in socialism?
    Mr. Hughes. My feeling, sir, is that I have believed in the 
entire philosophies of the left at one period in my life, 
including socialism, communism, Trotskyism. All isms have 
influenced me one way or another, and I can not answer to any 
specific ism, because I am not familiar with the details of 
them and have not read their literature.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you not being a little modest?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean to say you have no familiarity with 
communism?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I would not say that, sir. I would simply 
say that I do not have a complete familiarity with it. I have 
not read the Marxist volumes. I have not read beyond the 
introduction of the Communist Manifesto.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us see if we can get an answer to this: Have 
you ever believed in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would have to know what you mean by 
communism to answer that truthfully, and honestly, and 
according to the oath.
    Mr. Cohn. Interpret it as broadly as you want. Have you 
ever believed that there is a form of government better than 
the one under which this country operates today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never believed that?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That is your testimony under oath?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. And if witnesses said you did, they would be 
lying?
    Mr. Hughes. They would be lying, and as far as I know, I 
was never to a Communist meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Could it happen that you have been?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it could not.
    Mr. Cohn. You would know if you were at a Communist party 
meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at any meeting about which you have 
doubt now that it might have been a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. That is why I would like a definition of what 
you mean by communism, and also what you would call a Communist 
party meeting. As you know, one may go to a Baptist church and 
not be a Baptist.
    Mr. Cohn. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether or 
not you ever attended a Communist party meeting. I did not say 
if you were a Communist party member attending a Communist 
party meeting. So your analogy about a Baptist does not hold 
water. The only question now is: Have you ever attended a 
Communist party meeting.
    Mr. Hughes. As far as I know, not. That is the best I can 
say.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any meetings you now think might have 
been Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, there are not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a believer in socialism?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I would say no. If you mean 
socialism by the volumes that are written about socialism and 
what it actually means, I couldn't tell you. I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say no?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. You want to tell us you have never been a 
believer in anything except our form of government?
    Mr. Hughes. As far as government goes, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean, as far as government goes?
    Mr. Hughes. I mean to answer to your question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have some reservation about it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I have not. Would you repeat your question 
for me?
    Mr. Hughes. Let us do it this way. Did you write something 
called Scottsboro Limited? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Langston Hughes, Scottsboro Limited: Four Poems and a Play in 
Verse (New York: The Golden Stair Press, 1932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that follows the Communist party 
line very well?
    Mr. Hughes. It very well might have done so, although I am 
not sure I ever knew what the Communist party line was since it 
very often changed.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, when you wrote Scottsboro Limited, 
did you believe in what you were saying in that poem?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not entirely, because I was writing in 
characters.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony you were writing in 
character and what was said did not represent your beliefs?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir. You cannot say I don't believe, if I 
may clarify my feeling about creative writing, that when you 
make a character, a Klansman, for example, as I have in some of 
my poems, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Scottsboro Limited, specifically. Do 
you believe in the message carried by that work?
    Mr. Hughes. I believe that some people did believe in it at 
the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in it?
    Mr. Hughes. Did I?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you personally believe? You can answer that. 
Let me read you, ``Rise, workers and fight, audience, fight, 
fight, fight, fight, the curtain is a great red flag rising to 
the strains of the Internationale.'' That is pretty plain, is 
it not?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, indeed it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in that message when you wrote, 
it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not believe it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. It was contrary to your beliefs, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't think you can get a yes or no 
answer entirely to any literary question, so I give you----
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying, Mr. Hughes, because I think you have 
gone pretty far in some of these things, and I think you know 
pretty well what you did. When you wrote something called 
``Ballads of Lenin,'' did you believe that when you wrote it?
    Mr. Hughes. Believe what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Comrade Lenin of Russia speaks from marble:
    On guard with the workers forever--
    The world is our room!
    Mr. Hughes. That is a poem. One can not state one believes 
every word of a poem.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not know what one can say. I am asking you 
specifically do you believe in the message carried and conveyed 
in this poem?
    Mr. Hughes. It would demand a great deal of discussion. You 
can not say yes or no.
    Mr. Cohn. You can not say yes or no?
    Mr. Hughes. One can if one wants to confuse one's opinions.
    Mr. Cohn. You wrote it, Mr. Hughes, and we would like an 
answer. This is very important. Did you or didn't you?
    Mr. Hughes. May I confer with counsel, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. Would you ask me the question again, sir?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hughes. My feeling is that one can not give a yes or no 
answer to such a question, because the Bible, for example, 
means many things to different people. That poem would mean 
many things to different people.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you intend it to mean?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to read and study it and go back 
twenty years to tell you that.
    Mr. Cohn. Read it right now. Is it your testimony that you 
can not recall it?
    Mr. Hughes. I could not recite it to you, no, sir. I can 
not.
    That, sir, in my opinion is a poem symbolizing what I felt 
at that time Lenin as a symbol might mean to workers in various 
parts of the world. The Spanish Negro in the cane fields, the 
Chinese in Shanghai, and so on.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that what it meant to you at that time?
    Mr. Hughes. That is what it meant to me at that time.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let me ask, are you familiar 
with an organization known as the International Union of 
Revolutionary Writers?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. If I am not mistaken that was the 
international format to which the League of American Writers 
was affiliated.
    Senator Dirksen. That was a Soviet organization, I take it, 
was it not?
    Mr. Hughes. My understanding of it, sir, was that it was an 
international organization.
    Senator Dirksen. Did it have its headquarters in the Soviet 
Union?
    Mr. Hughes. That, sir, I am sorry I can't tell you. I don't 
know.
    Senator Dirksen. This goes back now to 1940, and I am not 
unmindful of course that one does not always have a pinpoint 
recollection of things that happened a long time ago. But in 
November 1940, you did recite one or more of your poems at the 
Hotel Vista de la Royal in Pasadena, California. Does that 
occur to you?
    Mr. Hughes. Could you tell me more about it?
    Senator Dirksen. It was known as an author's luncheon, and 
it was the Vista de la Royal Hotel in Pasadena, California. On 
the same program was one George Palmer Putnam.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I remember that. I was prevented from 
reading my poems there by a picket line thrown around the hotel 
by Amy Semple McPherson.
    Senator Dirksen. They referred to you as author of the poem 
and member of the American section of Moscow's International 
Union of Revolutionary Writers. I presume you were familiar 
with the hand bill advertising it and that it also carried one 
of your poems?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would be inclined to say perhaps that 
was the handbill put out by the picket line, rather than the 
sponsors of the luncheon.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that statement correct that you were a 
part of the American section of Moscow's International Union of 
Revolutionary Writers?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say with the word ``Moscow'' eliminated 
it would be correct. I was a member of the League of American 
Writers which was affiliated with the international.
    Senator Dirksen. Was that an organization that required 
dues of its members? Did you pay dues at all?
    Mr. Hughes. I do not believe so, sir. I had been at that 
period in my life very often a kind of honorary member or a 
member that they just had.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you fifty-three now?
    Mr. Hughes. I am fifty-one, sir. I was born in 1902.
    Senator Dirksen. Fifty-one?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. That was thirteen years ago, so you were 
38 years old, and that would doubtless be the age of 
discretion, certainly, would it not?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would say, sir, that I certainly was a 
member of the League of American Writers, but I have no 
recollection of paying any regular dues.
    Senator Dirksen. You know, Mr. Hughes, I was very curious 
when you asked, ``Do you put your hand on the book'' in taking 
the oath, and the reason for the curiosity was that poem that 
you wrote at that time, and that you read at that meeting in 
Pasadena, and its title is ``Goodbye, Christ''.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McCarthy inserted 
the entire text of ``Goodbye Christ'' in the record and added: ``As far 
as I know, this was not in any of the books purchased by the 
information program. This is merely included in the record on request, 
to show the type of thinking of Mr. Hughes at that time, the type of 
writings which were being purchased.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. There are misstatements in your statement. The 
poem was not written at that time. It was not read at that 
meeting, and I can't quite remember what the other was, but I 
think you have three wrong statements.
    Senator Dirksen. My statement may be an inaccuracy, but I 
have before me here the Saturday Evening Post for December 21, 
1940, and here is what it recites: ``Here is a photograph of a 
circular distributed here early in November.''
    Mr. Hughes. Distributed where?
    Senator Dirksen. In Pasadena. And in a box where it is 
boldly set out, and it is photographed, the first line is, 
``Attention Christians'' with two exclamation points. ``Be sure 
to attend the book and author luncheon at Vista de la Royal 
Hotel, Pasadena, California.'' Can you hear me?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I can hear you.
    Senator Dirksen. ``Friday, November 15, 1940, at 12:15 
promptly. Hear the distinguished young Negro poet, Langston 
Hughes, author of the following poem, and member of the 
American Section of Moscow's International Union of 
Revolutionary Writers,'' and the title is ``Goodbye, Christ.''
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. The reason I was curious about your asking 
for the book on which to hold your hand and may I say, sir, 
from my familiarity with the Negro people for a long time that 
they are innately a very devout and religious people--this is 
the first paragraph of the poem:
    Listen, Christ, you did all right in your day, I reckon
    But that day is gone now.
    They ghosted you up a swell story, too,
    And called it the Bible, but it is dead now.
    The popes and the preachers have made too much money from 
it. They have sold you to too many.
    Do you think that Book is dead?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not. That poem, like that 
handbill, is an ironical and satirical poem.
    Senator Dirksen. It was not so accepted, I fancy, by the 
American people.
    Mr. Hughes. It was accepted by a large portion of them and 
some ministers and bishops understood the poem and defended it.
    Senator Dirksen. I know many who accepted the words for 
what they seem to convey.
    Mr. Hughes. That is exactly what I meant to say in answer 
to the other gentleman's question, that poetry may mean many 
things to many people,
    Senator Dirksen. We will put all of it in the record, of 
course, but I will read you the third stanza.
    Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord of Jehovah,
    Beat it on away from here now
    Make way for a new guy with no religion at all,
    A real guy named Marx communism, Lenin Peasant, Stalin 
worker, me.
    How do you think the average reader would take that?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir; the average reader is very likely to take 
poetry, if they take it at all, and they usually don't take it 
at all, they are very likely often not to understand it, sir. I 
have found it very difficult myself to understand a great many 
poems that one had to study in school. If you will permit me, I 
will explain that poem to you from my viewpoint.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, when all is said and done a 
poem like this must necessarily speak for itself, because 
notwithstanding what may have been in your mind, what 
inhibitions, whether you crossed your fingers on some of those 
words when you wrote them, its impact on the thinking of the 
people is finally what counts.
    May I ask, do you write poetry merely for the amusement and 
the spiritual and emotional ecstacy that it develops, or do you 
write it for a purpose?
    Mr. Hughes. You write it out of your soul and you write it 
for your own individual feeling of expression.
    First, sir, it does not come from yourself in the first 
place. It comes from something beyond oneself, in my opinion.
    Senator Dirksen. You think this is a providential force?
    Mr. Hughes. There is something more than myself in the 
creation of everything that I do. I believe that is in every 
creation, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. So you have no objective in writing 
poetry. It is not a message that you seek to convey to 
somebody? You just sit down and the rather ethereal thoughts 
suddenly come upon you?
    Mr. Hughes. I have often written poetry in that way, and 
there are on occasions times when I have a message that I wish 
to express directly and that I want to get to people.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether this poem was 
reprinted in quantities and used as propaganda leaflets by the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it was not. It was reprinted in 
quantities as far as I know, and used as a propaganda leaflet 
by the organizations of Gerald L. K. Smith and the organization 
of extreme anti-Negro forces in our country, and I have 
attempted to recall that poem. I have denied permission for its 
publication over the years. I have explained the poem for 
twenty-two years, I believe, or twenty years, in my writings in 
the press, and my talks as being a satirical poem, which I 
think a great pity that anyone should think of the Christian 
religion in those terms, and great pity that sometimes we have 
permitted the church to be disgraced by people who have used it 
as a racketeering force. That poem is merely the story of 
racketeering in religion and misuse of religion as might have 
been seen through the eyes at that time of a young Soviet 
citizen who felt very cocky and said to the whole world, ``See 
what people do for religion. We don't do that.'' I write a 
character piece sometimes as in a play. I sometimes have in a 
play a villain. I do not believe in that villain myself.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think that any twelve-year-old boy 
could misunderstand that language, ``Goodbye Christ, beat it 
away from here now''?
    Mr. Hughes. You cannot take one line.
    Senator Dirksen. We will read all of it.
    Mr. Hughes. If you read the twelve-year-old the whole poem, 
I hope he would be shocked into thinking about the real things 
of religion, because with some of my poems that is what I have 
tried to do, to shock people into thinking and finding the real 
meaning themselves. Certainly I have written many religious 
poems, many poems about Christ, and prayers and my own feeling 
is not what I believe you seem to think that poem as meaning.
    Senator Dirksen. I do not want to be captious about it, and 
I want to be entirely fair, but it seems to me that this could 
mean only one thing to the person who read it.
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry. There is a thousand interpretations 
of Shakespeare's Sonata.
    Senator Dirksen. Was this ever set to music?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know Paul Robeson?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know him well?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not, not at this period in our 
lives.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know him well? You say ``not at this 
period of my life.'' Was there ever a period in your life when 
you knew Paul Robeson well?
    Mr. Hughes. Before he became famous when we were all young 
in Harlem, I knew him fairly well, and at that time he was 
quite unknown and so was I. Since his rise to fame, I have not 
seen him very often.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist when you knew him 
very well?
    Mr. Hughes. I would not be able to say if he ever was a 
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You still do not know he is a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. I still do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a little bit suspicious?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know what you mean by suspicious.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you are entitled to interpret your 
poems in any way you want to, and others will interpret your 
poems in the way they want to.
    Mr. Hughes. That is true.
    Mr. Schine. I also should say that you should be entitled 
to consider the seriousness of not telling the truth before 
this committee.
    Mr. Hughes. I certainly do, sir. The truth in matters of 
opinion is as Anatole France said, like the spokes of a wheel, 
and my opinions are my own, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you know many witnesses come before 
a committee, and they are not guilty of a crime, and then to 
avoid embarrassment or for reasons that they may not understand 
themselves, they do not tell the truth. They are entitled to 
refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination, but 
sometimes they do not take that privilege, and when they have 
left the room they are guilty of perjury. I think you should 
reconsider what you have said here today on matters of fact 
before you leave this room, because perjury is a very serious 
charge.
    Mr. Hughes. I am certainly aware of that, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You do not wish to change any of your 
testimony?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, is it not a fact now that this poem 
here did represent your views and it could only mean one thing, 
that the ``Ballads to Lenin'' did represent your views? You 
have told us that all of these things did, that you have been a 
consistent supporter of Communist movements and you have been a 
consistent and undeviating follower of the Communist party line 
up through and including recent times. Is that not a fact?
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Can you answer my question?
    Mr. Hughes. May I ask the chairman of the committee if it 
is possible to break that question down into specific and 
component parts?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely. I personally do not think it is 
necessary. You say you do not understand the question?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not say I do not understand the 
question. It is not a question. It is a series of questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us do it this way: Is it not a fact that you 
have been a consistent follower of the Communist line?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Tell me in one respect in which you have differed 
from the Communist line up through 1949.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Sir?
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I have forgotten your last 
question.
    Mr. Cohn. The last question was, tell us one respect in 
which you differed from the Communist line through the year 
1949.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't know what the Communist line was 
in 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know what it was when you came out and 
urged the election of the Communist party ticket in 1932?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I did not know what it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you come out and do it that way?
    Mr. Hughes. Just as a lot of people urged the election of 
the Democrats without knowing what the platform was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know what you were doing on February 7, 
1949, when you gave a statement to the Daily Worker defending 
the Communist leaders on trial and saying that the Negro people 
too are being tried?
    Mr. Hughes. Could I see that statement, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of something called the Chicago 
Defender?
    Mr. Hughes. I certainly have.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write in the Chicago Defender, ``If the 
12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will 
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes, and to 
concentration camps just for being colored.''
    Mr. Hughes. Could I see it?
    Mr. Cohn. My first question is did you say it?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you have said it? That is a pretty serious 
thing to say in 1949. Do you have to look at it to see if you 
said something in that substance?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to see it to see if it is in 
context.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not have the original. I will get the 
original for you.
    Mr. Hughes. Please do.
    Mr. Cohn. In the meantime I would like to know whether or 
not you can tell us whether you said it.
    Mr. Hughes. I do not know whether I said it or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in 1949, ``If the 12 Communists 
are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to 
jail simply for being Negroes, and to concentration camps just 
for being colored.'' Did you say that?
    Mr. Hughes. The----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I do not believe in any kind of literary 
work or writing you can take a thing out of context. Whatever 
the whole thing is, if I wrote it, of course I did write it.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let us get at it this way. 
Have you at any time contributed to the Chicago Defender?
    Mr. Hughes. I do a regular weekly column for it.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it likely that you did a column or 
article for the Defender in 1949?
    Mr. Hughes. I have been writing for the Defender for, I 
think, sir, about ten years.
    Senator Dirksen. So it is fair to assume that in 1949 which 
is within the last ten years, you probably did one or more 
articles for the Chicago Defender.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did more nearly fifty-two articles a 
year.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have in mind a reasonably clear 
picture of that period when the Communist leaders were on trial 
in New York? You remember generally, I think, do you not, that 
they were on trial?
    Mr. Hughes. I remember some of them were on trial according 
to the papers, yes.
    Senator Dirksen. If you know it no other way, you probably 
saw it in the newspapers, like I did, because I did not attend 
the trial, but there was every reason to believe from the press 
dispatches they were on trial. So you probably had an idea they 
were on trial. You probably had an idea they were on trial back 
in 1949.
    Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I can not say the date or time, but 
if you are correct, I would say yes.
    Senator Dirksen. That is four years ago.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Surely you would have a recollection as to 
whether or not you made some written comment in the course of 
your column on the Communist trial.
    Mr. Hughes. I very well may have, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you not be reasonably sure whether 
you had?
    Mr. Hughes. I would like to see the column, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You would have to see the column?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to see the column and the context, 
because if it is quoted from some other source, it very well 
may be misquoted.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us forget what that says. I want to know 
whether that was your belief.
    Mr. Hughes. I have forgotten now what you read.
    Mr. Cohn. What I asked was if the quote that appears in the 
Daily Worker from your article is a statement by you, ``If the 
12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will 
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes, and to 
concentration camps just for being colored.'' Did you believe 
that in February 1949?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, the entire article and the entire column--
--
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think 
you are fencing.
    Mr. Hughes. One can not take anything out of context.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think 
the chairman is very patient. I think you are being evasive and 
unresponsive when being confronted with things which you 
yourself wrote. I want to know, did you believe that statement 
in 1949.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. If that statement is from a column of mine, as 
I presume it probably is, I would say that I believed the 
entire context of the article in which it is included.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I would not necessarily believe that 
today.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you change your views?
    Mr. Hughes. It is impossible to say exactly when one 
changes one's views. One's views change gradually, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written any attack on communism?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't believe I have ever written anything 
you would consider an attack, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you pretty much familiar with the 
investigations of the un-American activities by congressional 
committees?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I am not, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have written on the subject, have you not?
    Mr. Hughes. I have written from what I have read in the 
newspapers.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I have written as other columnists do from 
what one reads in a newspaper.
    Mr. Cohn. You wrote something that is called, ``When One 
Sees Red.''
    Mr. Hughes. I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember that part called ``When One Sees 
Red''? I think it appeared first in the New Republic.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, you are wrong.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Hughes. It would have appeared first in the Chicago 
Defender.
    Mr. Cohn. You do recall the piece?
    Mr. Hughes. I recall the title. If you read a portion of 
the piece----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember writing this: ``Good morning, 
Revolution. You are the very best friend I ever had. We are 
going to pal around together from now on.''
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write this, ``Put one more `S' in the USA 
to make it Soviet. The USA when we take control will be the 
USSA then.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McClellan asked: 
``May I inquire of counsel if you are quoting from books or works of 
the author that are now in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. No; this one poem I quoted, `Put Another ``S'' in the USA 
to make it Soviet' is as far as we know not in any poems in the 
collection in the information centers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you kidding when you wrote those things? 
What did you mean by those?
    Mr. Hughes. Would you like me to give you an interpretation 
of that?
    Mr. Cohn. I would be most interested.
    Mr. Hughes. Very well. Will you permit me to give a full 
interpretation of it?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Hughes. All right, sir. To give a full interpretation 
of any piece of literary work one has to consider not only when 
and how it was written, but what brought it into being. The 
emotional and physical background that brought it into being. 
I, sir, was born in Joplin, Missouri. I was born a Negro. From 
my very earliest childhood memories, I have encountered very 
serious and very hurtful problems. One of my earliest childhood 
memories was going to the movies in Lawrence, Kansas, where we 
lived, and there was one motion picture theater, and I went 
every afternoon. It was a nickelodeon, and I had a nickel to 
go. One afternoon I put my nickel down and the woman pushed it 
back and she pointed to a sign. I was about seven years old.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not want to interrupt you. I do want to say 
this. I want to save time here. I want to concede very fully 
that you encounter oppression and denial of civil rights. Let 
us assume that, because I assume that will be the substance of 
what you are about to say. To save us time, what we are 
interested in determining for our purpose is this: Was the 
solution to which you turned that of the Soviet form of 
government?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, you said you would permit me to give a 
full explanation.
    Mr. Cohn. I was wondering if we could not save a little 
time because I want to concede the background which you wrote 
it from was the background you wanted to describe.
    Mr. Hughes. I would much rather preserve my reputation and 
freedom than to save time.
    Mr. Cohn. Take as long as you want.
    Mr. Hughes. The woman pushed my nickel back and pointed to 
a sign beside the box office, and the sign said something, in 
effect, ``Colored not admitted.'' It was my first revelation of 
the division between the American citizens. My playmates who 
were white and lived next door to me could go to that motion 
picture and I could not. I could never see a film in Lawrence 
again, and I lived there until I was twelve years old.
    When I went to school, in the first grade, my mother moved 
to Topeka for a time, and my mother worked for a lawyer, and 
she lived in the downtown area, and she got ready for school, 
being a working woman naturally she wanted to send me to the 
nearest school, and she did, and they would not let me go to 
the school. There were no Negro children there. My mother had 
to take days off from her work, had to appeal to her employer, 
had to go to the school board and finally after the school year 
had been open for some time she got me into the school.
    I had been there only a few days when the teacher made 
unpleasant and derogatory remarks about Negroes and 
specifically seemingly pointed at myself. Some of my 
schoolmates stoned me on the way home from school. One of my 
schoolmates (and there were no other Negro children in the 
school), a little white boy, protected me, and I have never in 
all my writing career or speech career as far as I know said 
anything to create a division among humans, or between whites 
or Negroes, because I have never forgotten this kid standing up 
for me against these other first graders who were throwing 
stones at me. I have always felt from that time on--I guess 
that was the basis of it--that there are white people in 
America who can be your friend, and will be your friend, and 
who do not believe in the kind of things that almost every 
Negro who has lived in our country has experienced.
    I do not want to take forever to tell you these things, but 
I must tell you that they have very deep emotional roots in 
one's childhood and one's beginnings, as I am sure any 
psychologist or teacher of English or student of poetry will 
say about any creative work. My father and my mother were not 
together. When I got old enough to learn why they were not 
together, again it was the same thing. My father as a young 
man, shortly after I was born, I understand, had studied law by 
correspondence. He applied for permission to take examination 
for the Bar in the state of Oklahoma where he lived, and they 
would not permit him. A Negro evidently could not take the 
examinations. You could not be a lawyer at that time in the 
state of Oklahoma. You know that has continued in a way right 
up to recent years, that we had to go all the way to the 
Supreme Court to get Negroes into the law school a few years 
ago to study law. Now you may study law and be a lawyer there.
    Those things affected my childhood very much and very 
deeply. I missed my father. I learned he had gone away to 
another country because of prejudice here. When I finally met 
my father at the age of seventeen, he said ``Never go back to 
the United States. Negroes are fools to live there.'' I didn't 
believe that. I loved the country I had grown up in. I was 
concerned with the problems and I came back here. My father 
wanted me to live in Mexico or Europe. I did not. I went here 
and went to college and my whole career has been built here.
    As I grew older, I went to high school in Cleveland. I went 
to a high school in a very poor neighborhood and we were very 
poor people. My friends and associates were very poor children 
and many of them were of European parentage or some of them had 
been brought here in steerage themselves from Europe, and many 
of these students in the Central High School in Cleveland--and 
this story is told, sir, parts of it, not as fully as I want to 
tell you some things, in my book, The Deep Sea, my 
autobiography \11\--in the Central High School, many of these 
pupils began to tell me about Eugene Debs, and about the new 
nation and the new republic. Some of them brought them to 
school. I became interested in whatever I could read that Debs 
had written or spoken about. I never read the theoretical books 
of socialism or communism or the Democratic or Republican party 
for that matter, and so my interest in whatever may be 
considered political has been non-theoretical, non-sectarian, 
and largely really emotional and born out of my own need to 
find some kind of way of thinking about this whole problem of 
myself, segregated, poor, colored, and how I can adjust to this 
whole problem of helping to build America when sometimes I can 
not even get into a school or a lecture or a concert or in the 
south go to the library and get a book out. So that has been a 
very large portion of the emotional background of my work, 
which I think is essential to one's understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Langston Hughes, The Big Sea (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 
1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When I was graduated from high school, I went to live with 
my father for a time in Mexico, and in my father I encountered 
the kind of bitterness, the kind of utter psychiatric, you 
might say, frustration that has been expressed in some Negro 
novels, not in those I have written myself, I don't believe. A 
man who was rabidly anti-American, anti-United States. I did 
not sympathize with that viewpoint on the part of my own 
father. My feeling was this is my country, I want to live here. 
I want to come back here I want to make my country as beautiful 
as I can, as wonderful a country as I can, because I love it 
myself. So I went back after a year in Mexico, and I went to 
Columbia.
    At Columbia University in New York City where I had never 
been before, but where I heard there was practically no 
prejudice, by that time wanting to be a writer and having 
published some papers in Negro magazines in this country, I 
applied for a position on the staff of the Spectator newspaper, 
I think that they had at the time, and I think they still do. 
Our freshman counselor told us the various things that freshmen 
could apply for and do on the Columbia campus, and I wanted to 
do some kind of writing, and I went to the newspaper office. I 
was the only Negro young man or woman in the group. I can not 
help but think that it was due to colored prejudice that of all 
the kinds of assignments, and there were various assignments, 
sports, theater, classroom activities, debating, of all the 
various assignments they could pick out to assign me to cover 
was society news. They very well knew I could not go to dances 
and parties, being colored, and therefore I could bring no 
news, and after a short period, I was counted out of the 
Spectator group at my college.
    When I went into the dormitory my first day there, I had a 
reservation for a room. It had been paid for in the dormitory--
the correct portion was paid for--it was Fardley Hall. I was 
not given the room. They could not find the reservation. I had 
to take all of that day and a large portion of the next one to 
get into the dormitory. I was told later I was the first to 
achieve that. In other words simple little things like getting 
a room in a university in our country, one has to devote 
extraordinary methods even to this day in our country in some 
parts.
    I am thinking of the early 1920's. I did not stay at 
Columbia longer than a year due in part to the various kinds of 
little racial prejudices that I encountered.
    Senator Dirksen. I think, Mr. Hughes, that would be 
adequate emotional background.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, that would not explain it all, how I 
arrive at the point that Mr. Cohn, I believe, has asked me 
about.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you make it briefer, please?
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think we need more background to 
tell what you meant by USSA?
    Mr. Hughes. I think you do, sir. Because a critical work 
goes out of a very deep background, it does not come in a 
moment. I am perfectly willing to come back and give it to you 
later, if you are tired.
    Mr. Cohn. No, we will sit here as long as you want to go 
on. But you are missing the point completely. What we want to 
determine is whether or not you meant those words when you said 
them.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, whether or not I meant them depends on 
what they came from and out of.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you desire to make the United States Soviet, 
put one more ``S'' in the USA to make it Soviet. ``The USA, 
when we take control, will be the USSA.''
    Mr. Hughes. When I left Columbia, I had no money. I had 
$13.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you mean those words when you spoke them? We 
know the background. I want to know now, did you mean the words 
when you spoke them? I am not saying you should not have meant 
them. I am asking you----
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, and you gave me the permission to 
give the background.
    Senator Dirksen. That answers the question.
    Mr. Hughes. I did not say ``Yes'' to your question. I said 
you gave me the chance to give you the background to the point.
    Senator Dirksen. We have had enough background.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us whether or not you meant those 
words?
    Mr. Hughes. What words, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. ``Put one more `S' in the USA to make it Soviet. 
The USA, when we take control, will be USSA then.''
    Mr. Hughes. Will you read me the whole poem?
    Mr. Cohn. I do not have the whole poem. Do you claim these 
words are out of context?
    Mr. Hughes. It is a portion of a poem.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you claim that these words distort the 
meaning?
    Mr. Hughes. That is a portion of a poem and a bar of music 
out of context does not give you the idea of the whole thing.
    Mr. Cohn. At any time in your life did you desire to make 
the United States of America Soviet?
    Mr. Hughes. Not by violent means, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. By any means.
    Mr. Hughes. By the power of the ballot, I thought it might 
be a possibility at one time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you want to do it? Did you desire that by the 
ballot, not by violent means? Would you give us a yes or no 
answer to that?
    Mr. Hughes, you say you have changed your views. You say 
you no longer feel the way you did in 1949 when you made that 
statement in defense of the Communist leaders, and said the 
things we read you. Will you give us some evidence of that and 
be frank with this committee?
    Mr. Hughes. Evidence of what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Will you be frank with this committee and give us 
some straightforward answers? Did you ever in your life desire 
the Soviet form of government over here? That is a very simple 
question, Mr. Hughes, for a man who wrote the things you did, 
and we have just started.
    Mr. Hughes. You asked me about the poem, and I would like 
to hear it all.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to know right now whether you ever 
desired the Soviet form of government in this country, and I 
would like it answered.
    Mr. Hughes. Would you permit me to think about it?
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me? Mr. Hughes, you have belonged to a 
list of Communist organizations a mile long. You have urged the 
election to public office of official candidates of the 
Communist party. You have signed statements to the effect that 
the purge trials in the Soviet Union were justified and sound 
and democratic. You have signed statements denying that the 
Soviet Union is totalitarian. You have defended the current 
leaders of the Communist party. You have written poems which 
are an invitation to revolution. You have called for the 
setting up of a Soviet government in this country. You have 
been named in statements before us as a Communist, and a member 
of the Communist party.
    Mr. Hughes, you can surely tell us simply whether or not 
you ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. The answer is yes. I think if you were a little 
more candid with some of these things, we would get along a 
little better, because I think I know enough about the subject 
so I am not going to sit here for six days and be kidded along. 
I will be very much impressed if you would give us a lot of 
straightforward answers. It would save us a lot of time. I know 
you do not want to waste it any more than we do. We know every 
man is entitled to his views and opinions. We are trying to 
find out which of these works should be used in the State 
Department in its information program.
    In the course of finding that out, we want to know whether 
you ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country. 
I believe you have said just a minute ago your answer to that 
is yes, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. I did desire it, and would desire----
    Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. That is what we want. I 
believe your statement before was that you desired it, but not 
by violent means, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. That would be correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you mean when you said ``Good morning, 
Revolution, you are the very best friend I ever had. We are 
going to pal around together from now on.''
    Does not revolution imply violent means?
    Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily, sir. I think it means a change 
like the industrial revolution.
    Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. When you used the word 
``revolution'' you were using it in a very broad sense, and 
meaning a change, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you stop desiring the Soviet form of 
government for this country? When did you come to the 
conclusion that was not the solution.
    Mr. Hughes. As I grew older, at that point I think I was 
about twenty years old, possibly, I began to see not only an 
increasing awareness of the seriousness of our racial situation 
in America on the part of many people----
    Mr. Cohn. Could you fix a time for us?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Could you fix an approximate time? You cannot 
tell the exact date, or maybe not even the exact year, but can 
you fix the approximate time when you changed your view?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. When I began to see social progress 
accelerating itself more rapidly, Supreme Court decisions, 
FEPC.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say certainly about the early 1940s and 
from that point on.
    Mr. Cohn. What were your views in 1949 when you said, ``If 
the 12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will 
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes and to 
concentration camps just for being colored.'' You have told us 
you do not feel that way today. When did you change that 
particular view?
    Mr. Hughes. You asked two questions. sir. That view point I 
think grew out of what I had read about Germany, how they began 
with the Communists, and they went on to Jews, and they went on 
to Negroes, and we had Hitlerism, and that has been a general 
feeling on the part of some people.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you changed, that view. When did you 
change that view. This was February 1949. You say you do not 
feel that way today.
    Mr. Hughes. The view that Negroes may be sent to jail if 
Communists are?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. As a consequence of the conviction of the 
Communist party leaders. In other words, a chain set off by the 
conviction of the Communist party leaders.
    Mr. Hughes. Well, it has not happened as yet, and therefore 
my hope is and my belief is that we can keep it from happening.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, this is very important now that we 
have had witnesses down here under oath: Are you sure that you 
were never a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting? 
I ask this again because perjury is a very serious crime.
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever knowingly participated in any 
Communist party activities?
    Mr. Hughes. Just a moment, please.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. Could you be specific about the activity?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I asked you a question. I would like an answer. 
Could we have the question read?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge in any activities that were 
exclusively and solely and wholly Communist party activities, 
no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this before we leave this point. 
During that period of time, say up to the 1940s when you 
thought the Soviet form of government was desirable, until you 
came to change your views, you say, because you saw progress 
was being made under our form of government, do you think it is 
a wise thing for the State Department Information Program, 
trying to carry a true picture of the American way of life, to 
use your early writings, such as this ``Ballad to Lenin'' and 
the Scottsboro thing, and the curtain in the form of the red 
flag, and the singing of the Internationale, to use that in the 
information centers of foreign countries, and put on the 
shelves for people, who expect to get a view of American life, 
to read today?
    Mr. Hughes. I doubt very much, sir, they are there.
    Mr. Cohn. I am telling you for a fact they are there. Do 
you think it is a good thing to have them there?
    Mr. Hughes. I would think, sir, that it would be a good 
thing for anyone to know all about the literature of any 
country written in all forms so they can really judge it.
    Mr. Cohn. You changed the views you expressed then. Are you 
particularly proud of the views you expressed then?
    Mr. Hughes. The word ``proud'' disturbs me because one 
cannot go back and change anything one has done in the past.
    Mr. Cohn. I think one can admit one was wrong.
    Mr. Hughes. One can admit one was wrong. One can say ``I 
think differently now.''
    Mr. Cohn. Saying as you do that you think differently now, 
and have been candid about that, do you think that those of 
your works which should be used are those representing this 
period prior to your change of views? Do you think that is 
helpful to this country?
    Mr. Hughes. The works which you have named, sir, are not 
very representative of my literary career.
    Mr. Cohn. Without fencing, do you think if you were going 
to make a selection of works to give a true picture of American 
way of life, would you place in there the Scottsboro thing and 
this poem, ``Ballad to Lenin''?
    Mr. Hughes. If I were a librarian doing it, I would place 
in there----
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about a librarian. This is not 
done by librarians. This is done under a specific program of 
the State Department to give people in foreign countries a true 
view as to the American way of life, and the objectives we seek 
to achieve in this country.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They certainly should have a view of 
the objectives we seek racially, and therefore they should know 
something about the----
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, we are not talking on the same plane 
at all. Certainly they might have a view as to what we seek 
racially and all that. But the question is, should they have 
poems which call for the Soviet form of government, poems which 
idealize Lenin, a poem which calls for everybody to get up and 
sing the Internationale?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I think they should, because it 
indicates freedom of press in our country, which is a thing we 
are proud of.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not think you understand it at all. Those 
are not in there to indicate freedom of the press in our 
country. Those are in there because people in those countries 
depend on what is given to them for an accurate picture of the 
objectives which this country seeks to achieve in its fight 
against Communists.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. You want them to know we have freedom of 
the press.
    Mr. Cohn. No. These poems are not in there to illustrate 
the fact we have freedom of press. They are put in there as 
part of a program to show the objectives of this country, and 
to show our beliefs in the fight against communism. Do you 
think something which calls for an espousal of the Soviet form 
of government aids us in fighting communism? Think before you 
answer that question, Mr. Hughes.
    Mr. Hughes. I have answered your first question, have I 
not? The other one has been answered, yes, indicating freedom 
of press. My answer would be yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You think it is a good thing.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, to show we have a very wide range of 
opinion in our country, yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. We have an awful lot of your writings we want to 
go over. Just let me ask you about this one thing here. You are 
concerned about minority rights in this country, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. You are concerned about the rights of Jews as 
well as the rights of Negroes?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write a poem called ``Hard Luck''? ``When 
hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing for you to 
do, When hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing to 
do, Gather up your fine clothes and sell them to the Jew.'' Did 
you write that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that is respectful of the rights of 
the minority known as the Jews?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect?
    Mr. Hughes. Because in common parlance among a certain 
poorer class of Negroes--at least when that poem was written--
on a Monday morning when they were broke and had to pawn 
something, it was a part of the slang with no disrespect meant 
on their part certainly, to say, ``I will take my coat to Uncle 
or my clock to the Jew,'' and the racial connotation was not 
disrespectful there.
    Mr. Cohn. As much concern as you have on the rights of 
Negroes, do you think this is a good poem to have in foreign 
information centers?
    Mr. Hughes. I think the title of the book is bad. I think 
the poem is a good poem to have anywhere.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Langston Hughes, Fine Clothes to the Jews (New York: Alfred A. 
Knopf, 1927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. How about the poem, ``Goodbye to Christ,'' that 
is a good poem to have anywhere?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, from my interpretation.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the book, ``Put One ``S'' in USA?'' Do 
you think that is a good book against communism?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, because I think people would see it is 
absurd.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not think you are a Communist today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you stop being a Soviet believer?
    Mr. Reeves. That is like the question, ``When did you stop 
beating your wife?''
    Mr. Cohn. Do you want to testify?
    Mr. Reeves. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the rules of the committee, the witness can 
consult with you, but you are not here to testify, because if 
you were, you would have to be sworn and give testimony. Mr. 
Hughes is free to consult with you--and the chairman can 
correct me if I am wrong--the rule of the committee is that the 
witness is free to consult with you any time he wishes, but you 
are not here to give testimony.
    Mr. Reeves. May I ask a question of the chairman?
    Mr. Cohn. Certainly.
    Mr. Reeves. My only concern was that the rapid fire process 
of these questions frequently does not even permit of an 
answer, and that particular question, as a lawyer, is of the 
type that in a rapid fire of questioning--as I said, I am 
interested in protecting the rights of my client--it may very 
well be he might not have the opportunity in that series to 
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. If the questions are given too rapidly, I 
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he turn to his counsel and his 
counsel can advise him, and the witness can tell us that I am 
going too fast, and ``I did not understand the question'' and 
we will stop. But I do not think counsel ought to testify.
    Mr. Hughes. May I say if we agree on the principle of 
communism as meaning the Communist party, I will answer once 
and for all I have never been a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist without having 
formally joined the party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think it is possible to desire the Soviet 
form of government in this country and not be a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you make the distinction?
    Mr. Hughes. That requires of course a definition of 
Communist, and my definition of it is the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. I am saying disregard the formal membership in 
the Communist party. I am talking about a change in our form of 
government, and a substitution of the form of government that 
is in the Soviet Union, the Soviet form of government.
    Mr. Hughes. Your question was how can one believe that and 
not be a Communist, and we have to agree upon what you mean by 
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You have said it is possible. Now, you tell me 
what a Communist means to you.
    Mr. Hughes. A Communist means to me a member of the 
Communist party who accepts the discipline of the Communist 
party and follows the various changes of party line.
    Mr. Cohn. Good. Now, you take my definition of a Communist 
as one who is a believer in communism, a believer in the Soviet 
form of government, and tell me whether or not you have ever 
been a Communist.
    Mr. Hughes. A believer in the Soviet form of government?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Hughes. For the Soviets or for whom?
    Mr. Cohn. A believer in the Soviet form of government for 
everybody.
    Mr. Hughes. From my point it doesn't matter what the form 
of government is if the rights of the minorities and the poor 
people are respected, and if they have a chance to advance 
equally--
    Mr. Cohn. What I want to know is this: You have conceded 
here that you desired the Soviet form of government in this 
country.
    Mr. Hughes. Not desire, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That you have desired the Soviet form of 
government.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that not your testimony here?
    Mr. Hughes. In the past, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you said up to the early 1940s. I want to 
know how it is possible to desire the Soviet form of government 
and not believe in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. One can desire a Christian world and not be a 
Baptist or Catholic.
    Mr. Cohn. You were a non-Communist who nevertheless desired 
the Soviet form of government for this country?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect did you not believe in communism 
during that period that you desired a Soviet form of government 
for this country?
    Mr. Hughes. In several respects, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Hughes. I will again answer your question, if I may 
have the time to answer it, in my own way.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you might just outline to us briefly 
point by point the points of difference between you and 
communism at the period of time when you wanted a Soviet 
government in the United States.
    Mr. Hughes. Again I repeat, sir, that communism to me did 
not mean the rule book or Manifesto or the laws of the Soviet 
Union, which I have never read, and my knowledge of it 
certainly came possibly from very shallow sources, largely from 
reading magazines and newspapers. My disagreement with what I 
read about them, which is in force now, too, and has been since 
I began to think about it at all seriously, maybe twelve or 
more years ago, or fifteen years ago, or even longer than that, 
to tell the truth, has been first that the literary artist or 
an artist of any kind cannot accept outside discipline in 
regard to his work or outside force or suggestions and my 
understanding was that Communist party writers accepted the 
dictates of the party in regard to their work.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the Soviet form of government, is not that 
true? You will agree that as to the Soviet form of government 
as it existed in the Soviet Union at the time you wrote this, 
the Communist party was certainly in control?
    Mr. Hughes. The Communist party was in control and that is 
one point I would disagree with the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, when you desired the Soviet form 
of government in this country, you desired it with certain 
modifications?
    Mr. Hughes. With many modifications.
    Mr. Cohn. You express that in any place in writing?
    Mr. Hughes. I have not finished your question.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to know whether you have expressed that in 
writing.
    Mr. Hughes. You said in different ways.
    Mr. Cohn. You have given the first way. Have you expressed 
in writing any place your disagreement with the Soviet form of 
government as to that one point which you just made?
    Mr. Hughes. Of that I can not be sure. I have certainly 
expressed it verbally.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom?
    Mr. Hughes. Ivy Litvinov.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom?
    Mr. Hughes. To Mrs. Litvinov in Russia. We had a lot of 
arguments.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not think the Litvinovs are available. To 
anybody in the United States?
    Mr. Hughes. My relatives who heard me talk on the subject.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not written anything on it?
    Mr. Hughes. I may have. I would have to search and see.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you go to point two?
    Mr. Hughes. You do not desire me to answer other points 
where I disagree?
    Mr. Cohn. I have just asked you that.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. I gathered from shortly after I returned 
from the Soviet Union and therefore was a bit more interested 
in what the actual programs for the Negro in America of the 
Communist party was that they had a program for the self 
determination of the Black Belt. As nearly as I could ever 
understand it, it meant a separate Negro state or states. I did 
not agree with that, and have in all my writing, as far as I 
know, if you take it in its entire context and each piece as a 
whole, urged and suggested the complete unification of the 
Negro people with all the other people in America. So I never 
went along with that program.
    Mr. Cohn. Point three.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. I am getting up to it.
    Mr. Cohn. Very well.
    Mr. Hughes. I don't suppose this is part of the Communist 
party program, but the Communist party press, that is, the 
Masses and the more literary portions of the press that I read 
rather intensively at one time in my life, had a way of 
attacking Negro leadership, and also a way at one period of 
attacking the church in general, both Negro and white, and I 
did not and have never gone along with those attacks on Negro 
leaders of prominence, and I have never myself repeated them or 
taken part in them, and I have opposed them at times, and have 
written very favorably myself about people under attack 
sometimes by the party press.
    Mr. Cohn. While they were under attack?
    Mr. Hughes. While they were under attack. I have also 
written any number of poems and articles expressing sympathy 
and interest and encouragement to religious groups and to 
religion in general with which many people more left than 
myself have disagreed with, and asked me, ``Why do you write 
about the church, and write poems, `At the Feet of Jesus,' sung 
by Marian Anderson, at the time they were antireligious.''
    Mr. Cohn. Would you call this poem, ``Goodbye Christ'' a 
sympathetic dealing with religion?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would. I could site other poems but I 
think that is sufficient to show you that I could not over a 
long period of years, and never agree with some of the presumed 
main points of what I understand to have been Communist party 
programs.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that a reasonable person reading 
this poem, ``Goodbye Christ'' would not share your 
interpretation of it?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, a poem may be interpreted in many ways and 
many people have not understood that poem, and many people have 
chosen not to understand it deliberately to sell it to foment 
race discord and hatred.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, I think it is only fair to 
reemphasize to you the danger that you face if you do not tell 
the truth to this committee, and to ask you to reconsider as to 
whether you wish to change any of your testimony here. Do you 
wish to change it?
    Mr. Hughes. No. sir, I do not. I have never been a member 
of the Communist party, and I wish so to state under oath.
    Mr. Schine. I am not just talking about that testimony. I 
am talking about your entire testimony before this committee.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. The truth of the matter is, sir, that the 
rapidity with which I have been questioned, I don't fully 
recollect everything that I might have said here. If a complete 
review of the testimony were given me, it might be possible 
that I would want to change or correct some.
    Mr. Schine. Let me ask you a question. Will you give the 
committee at this time the names of some Communist party member 
whom you know?
    Mr. Hughes. I do not know anyone to be a member of the 
Communist party, sir. I have never seen anyone's party card.
    Mr. Schine. You have never talked with anyone who is a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. I wouldn't say that. I say I do not know who is 
a Communist party----
    Mr. Schine. You are quite sure of that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am quite sure of that, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think Mrs. Litvinov is a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. I rather think she was not from what they said 
about her in Moscow.
    Mr. Schine. What about Mr. Litvinov?
    Mr. Hughes. I think perhaps he was.
    Mr. Schine. Did you talk with him?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I did not. I never met him.
    Mr. Schine. You were in Russia?
    Mr. Hughes. I was in Russia.
    Mr. Schine. And you do not think that you talked to any 
members of the Communist party while you were in Russia?
    Mr. Hughes. I would certainly think I must have, but I do 
not ask people even in Russia whether they are.
    Mr. Schine. Do you not think it is important when you are 
asked a question concerning your conversations with Communist 
party members that you try to be accurate?
    Mr. Hughes. I am trying to be as accurate as I know how, 
sir. May I consult with counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Certainly.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, I think we will suspend for 
the evening, and could you oblige by returning at 10:15 on 
Thursday morning? The hearing will be an open public hearing.
    Mr. Hughes. Would you tell me, sir, about expenses?
    Senator Dirksen. About expenses?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They are covered by the committee 
while I am here?
    Senator Dirksen. Under the rule the transportation is paid 
and there is an allowance of $9 a day while you are here.
    Mr. Hughes. From whom do I get it here?
    Senator Dirksen. From the Treasury.
    The committee will be in recess until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.
    [Thereupon at 5:10 p.m., a recess was taken until 
Wednesday, March 25, 1953, at 2:00 p.m.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Mary Van Kleeck (1883-1972) was a 
prominent sociologist and prolific author. A graduate of Smith 
College with a law degree from St. Lawrence University, she was 
director of industrial studies at the Russell Sage Foundation 
from 1909 until her retirement in 1948. She was not called to 
testify in public session.
    Author and editor Edwin Seaver (1900-1987) returned to 
testify in public on March 26, 1953. In his memoir, So Far So 
Good (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Company, 1986), Seaver 
identified himself as a ``fellow traveler'' during the 1930s. 
He had written book reviews for the Daily Worker and the New 
Masses, and had briefly edited Soviet Russia Today, but had 
never joined the Communist party. He drifted away from radical 
politics when he was offered a better paying job with the Book-
of the-Month Club. However, he was forced to resign that 
position in 1947, when his name was identified with groups on 
the attorney general's list of subversive organizations. He 
then joined the publishing house of Little, Brown. Fearful that 
he would lose that job as well if he testified in public, 
Seaver asked that his employer not be identified. At the 
televised public hearing, he was asked if he would have his 
book, The Company, which he wrote in 1929, in an American 
library overseas. Seaver said no. ``All I wanted was to make my 
getaway without mentioning Little, Brown, or any other names,'' 
he later wrote. ``I consoled myself with the thought that I 
wasn't implicating anyone, I wasn't betraying anyone, I wasn't 
harming anybody but myself, and I could live with that.'' 
Although he kept his job, Seaver was accused of having been a 
``cooperative witness'' who had ``repudiated'' his own book. 
``I said such talk was nonsense, that if they had read the book 
they must have seen there was nothing to repudiate. But no 
matter how much I rejected the imputation of my holier-than-
thou friends, or how small I chose to think my fault was, I 
felt the fault was there, that it has been motivated by ignoble 
fear, and I have suffered in the recognition of this.'']
                              ----------                              
                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 5:30 p.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson, presiding.
    Present: Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Will you rise and be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
   TESTIMONY OF MARY VAN KLEECK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                       LEONARD B. BOUDIN)
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mary Van Kleeck, K-l-e-e-c-k, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. For the record, Mr. Chairman, the counsel is 
Leonard B. Boudin of New York.
    Mr. Boudin. Could I know the senator's name?
    Senator Jackson. Senator Jackson of Washington.
    Mr. Boudin. Thank you.
    Senator Jackson. You understand you have the right to 
confer with the witness, and the witness has the right to 
confer with counsel. Counsel is not permitted to testify. But, 
of course, you have the right to advise your client of her 
constitutional rights and any other matter that relate to your 
assignment as her attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Miss Van Kleeck, you are the author of a 
book called Rulers of America?\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Anna Rochester, Rulers of America: A Study of Finance Capital 
(New York, International Publishers, 1936). Rochester's name later 
appeared on a list of prospective witnesses, but she did not testify. 
See ``McCarthy issues call for 10 authors,'' Baltimore Sun, June 28, 
1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Miss Van Kleeck. No. I never wrote a book like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written any books?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have written quite a number of books 
published by Russell Sage Foundation, almost all of them, and 
one by a commercial publisher.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever write one published by International 
Publishers?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. You are sure of that?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Unless it is without my knowledge that it 
was published.
    Mr. Cohn. You say they were published by Russell Sage 
Foundation?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Russell Sage Foundation published my 
studies of labor relations, and Covici-Friede published one 
book of mine in 1936. They all dealt with labor relations.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when was the last book that you wrote?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The last was 1944, under the title 
Technology and Livelihood, a study of the impact of technology 
on productivity and living standards in the United States 
published by Russell Sage Foundation.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a Communist?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a party member?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been pro-Communist?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I must know what the 
definition of communism is.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe I can clarify that for you. Have you ever 
been a believer in socialism? I think that is clear.
    Senator Jackson. You mean with reference to the books used 
in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. I might say that a number of the books written by 
this lady are in use in the State Department now, books dealing 
with technology and labor problems, and so on and so forth.
    Senator Jackson. The question that concerned me was whether 
she had a belief in democratic socialism or Marxism, advocating 
force and violence.
    Mr. Cohn. She has already said she was not a Communist and 
not a Communist party member.
    I was now interested to know whether she preferred 
socialism to our present form of government.
    Senator Jackson. Why do you not just state your beliefs? I 
do not see that it is going to do any harm.
    Miss Van Kleeck, May I do the following. I want to state 
that my studies are studies of specific situations; nothing to 
do with political economic systems. They are studies of the 
coal miners in this country, a study of the company union, the 
Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. My work with the Russell Sage 
Foundation was entirely limited to the United States. There is 
nothing in my books about socialism. I am not a Socialist. I 
have never been a member of the Socialist party.
    Senator Jackson. And you are not now and never have been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Miss Van Kleeck. True. I have never been a member of the 
Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever advocated the aims of the 
Communist party as we know it, which involve, as you know, the 
overthrow of the government by force and violence?
    Miss Van Kleeck. As we know the definition given by Mr. 
Budenz, decidedly not.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, one of the aims of communism, of course, is 
the substitution of socialism for our form of government, and I 
would like to know if you ever have believed in that.
    Have you ever believed in the substitution of socialism for 
our form of government?
    [Mr. Boudin confers with Miss Van Kleeck.]
    Mr. Cohn. We will withdraw the question.
    Senator Jackson. We may want to ask you about that later.
    Mr. Cohn. I cannot ask anything more, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you: Have you belonged to any 
Communist front organizations, so listed by the attorney 
general? I mean, you are an intelligent lady. You would know 
whether you were in any Communist front organizations, and I 
want to be fair with you. It may be that you may have been in 
an organization that was not a Communist front at the time you 
joined, and it may later have become one. Can you tell the 
committee just exactly what your membership has been with 
reference to any such organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. You see, what one means by Communist front 
organization----
    Senator Jackson. Listed by the attorney general of the 
United States.
    Miss Van Kleeck. Anything on the attorney general's list?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I belonged to the National Council on 
American-Soviet Friendship. I do not now belong to it.
    Senator Jackson. When did you join?
    Miss Van Kleeck. That is not a membership organization. I 
became a member of the board of directors.
    Mr. Cohn. You are on the board of directors?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I have said I am no longer on the 
board of directors. I was on the board of directors of the 
National Council.
    Senator Jackson. When did you get affiliated with that 
organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I can't remember the date. I am sorry.
    Senator Jackson. Can you tell the year, about?
    Miss Van Kleeck. But it is in a recent period, in a very 
recent period. I think probably since the war; I think 1945. 
There is a special legal situation of that National Council 
before the Supreme Court, which I do not wish to go into 
technically, but which has a bearing on whether that is a 
subversive organization from the point of view of the attorney 
general. And I think that is important, because it affected my 
relationship to it.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you: Could you supply to the 
committee in an affidavit form a statement as to when you 
joined and became affiliated with--what is the name of it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The National Council on American-Soviet 
Friendship.
    Senator Jackson. And if you are no longer a member of or 
affiliated with that organization, state when you left, and 
why, and what you did while you were a member of it.
    Miss Van Kleeck. Certainly.
    The objection is to calling it a Communist front 
organization. You see, any organization, if I may informally 
say this--any organization I ever joined, I joined on specific 
issues growing out of my own research. I am a sociologist. I 
have been so for forty-eight years, intensively studying 
industrial relations, labor relations, for the Russell Sage 
Foundation, until 1948, when I retired.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you withdraw from the National Council 
for American-Soviet Friendship? What year?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I thought I was just told that I might put 
this in an affidavit. It was in the course of the last summer, 
I should say.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of it after----
    Miss Van Kleeck. My membership had nothing to do with the 
question; only with my own program, that I didn't wish to 
continue that activity.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the fact that it was listed by the 
attorney general as a Communist front did not influence you in 
resigning? Maybe I did not understand you.
    Senator Jackson. Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I suppose it is right. Yes. I said there 
was a Supreme Court decision on this subject, which decidedly 
influences one, because the Supreme Court did not confirm. 
There was a case before the Supreme Court on appeal from the 
court of appeals. I can't give you the technicality. I am not a 
lawyer, anyway. But it very decidedly influenced anyone 
connected with the National Council, that the listing by the 
attorney general had not been justified. And therefore, you can 
see my hesitation in answering the question that way.
    Mr. Cohn. That was not directed at the merits of the case 
involving the National Council. That was directed at the 
procedure followed by the attorney general in all cases.
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, specifically the National Council.
    Mr. Cohn. But it did not pass on the merits of whether the 
National Council was or was not Communist.
    Miss Van Kleeck. It handed back to the lower court for 
passing on the substantive question, but it would naturally 
affect those of us who believed that there was no basis for 
listing it on the attorney general's list.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are there any other organizations listed by 
the attorney general----
    Miss Van Kleeck. That I belong to? I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never belonged to any? Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Now, I want to say this. I don't know that 
I know the attorney general's whole list. I have belonged to 
organizations, many of them, in my life, in a long career. I 
would rather say I do not recall any at this moment, excepting 
one or two others, possibly, that were listed. But I think this 
is so inexact on my part.
    Senator Jackson. Well, just be truthful.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am. I am completely truthful.
    Senator Jackson. Just tell what you know, about any 
affiliation you might have had. Possibly a list can be 
obtained, and you could go over it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Elizabeth Gurley Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Yes. Certainly. Anyone in labor relations 
would know her.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Miss Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. That is a hard question, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Well, approximately. Recently?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Not very recently, I believe.
    Senator Jackson. In the last year?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to her going on trial for conspiracy to 
teach and advocate overthrow of the government?
    Miss Van Kleeck. When you use the word ``seen,'' I think I 
saw her in the distance at a meeting. I have not talked with 
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.
    Mr. Cohn. What meeting was that?
    Miss Van Kleeck. It may have been one of the meetings in 
New York.
    Senator Jackson. What kind of a meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I really do not remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, do you customarily attend meetings at which 
a member of the national committee of the Communist party is 
present?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Certainly not customarily. I am not a 
member of the Communist party. I do not customarily attend 
meetings--
    Senator Jackson. Well, have you attended Communist 
meetings, although you are not a member?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The meeting--it is general public meetings 
I have attended. I don't think I have ever in my life attended 
a meeting of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. You never attended a closed meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, nor an open meeting organized by the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. At what general public meeting did you see 
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in the last year? That would interest me 
very much.
    Senator Jackson. Would that be a meeting to raise funds for 
the defense of witnesses?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am trying to be exact. I think I 
probably saw her in the distance at a meeting under the 
auspices of the Committee to Defend Smith Act Victims, which 
was a general meeting organized by a general committee.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that committee was Communist dominated, 
wasn't it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Not that I know of.
    Senator Jackson. Well, who was on the committee?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am not a member of the committee.
    Senator Jackson. I understand, but----
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't know the membership of the 
committee.
    Senator Jackson. I mean, you have had a lot of experience 
in your forty-eight years as a sociologist and writer, and can 
you not pretty much tell when something is framed up by the 
Communists as a meeting, although it is not called a Communist 
meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I don't consider that a 
meeting of this kind was framed up by the Communists. There are 
very many people interested in this trial procedure, and I am 
very sure that there are persons who have been connected--I am 
not a member of that Committee to Defend Smith Act Victims. I 
don't know their membership. But they called a meeting, and I 
attended the meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you given any money to that committee?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
defense of the Communist leaders?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I never have.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to any 
Communist front organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Again I ask you: What is a Communist front 
organization?
    Mr. Cohn. An organization listed by the attorney general of 
the United States as such.
    Miss Van Kleeck. The National Council on American-Soviet 
Friendship. I have contributed occasionally five dollars.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the only one?
    Miss Van Kleeck. As far as I know.
    Senator Jackson. Might I suggest to the lady and her 
counsel that you go over the list? You have a copy of the list, 
I presume?
    Mr. Boudin. In New York.
    Senator Jackson. Well, we will supply you with a copy of 
the list, so that she can refresh her recollection and go over 
it and file in connection with the affidavit that we requested 
on the National Council on Soviet Friendship thing on this as 
well. We will request that you also in that affidavit list any 
other organization that you have belonged to that appears on 
the attorney general's list. State when you joined, when you 
left, if you left, what contributions you made to it, what 
participation, if any, you took in the particular organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Betty Gannett?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never met either one of them?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't think I have ever met either of 
them. I have never seen Betty Gannett.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever seen Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I think I have seen her.
    Mr. Cohn. Where would you have seen Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty with 
things I simply can't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Claudia Jones is also one of the top leaders of 
the Communist party of the United States?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Of course. I know that.
    Mr. Cohn. Being a Communist, it might make quite an 
impression on you to be at a meeting with one of the top 
Communist functionaries, would it not?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Why, no.
    [Mr. Boudin confers with Miss Van Kleeck.]
    Miss Van Kleeck. Exactly. I was not in a meeting with them. 
It was not that kind of thing. I said that I thought I had seen 
her at a meeting. Specifically, I think it was one of the 
election meetings in New York before the elections in 1948. 
When there was a meeting of the Women's Congress, as I remember 
it, called together, a great many women's organizations, 
preparatory to the campaign that was going on in New York, the 
Wallace campaign, the Progressive party, the Henry Wallace 
Progressive party campaign. And, as I remember it, that was the 
only time I ever saw Claudia Jones. She is a rather striking-
looking person, and I remember her. But not because I was 
impressed at being with a Communist party functionary, because 
her being a Communist party functionary had nothing to do with 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been at any meeting at which was 
also present any top leader of the Communist party other than 
Claudia Jones and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I just don't know the import of that 
question. We live in the city of New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, madam.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I naturally go to a great many meetings. 
Yes, of course I have been at meetings. I have never been at a 
meeting of the Communist party, organized by the Communist 
party, which is the way you put it, with implications for me.
    Senator Jackson. Are you sure you are saying----
    Miss Van Kleeck. Therefore I am uncertain of the drift of 
your questions. I want to be cooperative. I want to help the 
committee in the field of its investigations. I am a social 
scientist. I am not accustomed to this discussion of 
individuals.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I am sorry you are not accustomed to it, 
madam. To make it a little plainer, might I state that we have 
received information from individuals that you are a member of 
the Communist party? I assume you deny that. Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. You have heard my denial.
    Mr. Cohn. And if anyone says you are or have been a member 
of the Communist party, according to you that person is not 
telling the truth?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have sworn I was not a member.
    Mr. Cohn. So we have that issue to determine, as to who is 
telling the truth about this, and I think if there is any 
association or attendance at meetings at which were present top 
Communist leaders of the party, that would be important along 
these lines. I might ask you this: Are you a believer in our 
form of government today?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Emphatically. I am an American with a long 
family background going back to the early days, and my whole 
work is devoted to the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. My question was: You are a believer in the 
capitalist form of government?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Is the United States essentially and 
forever capitalist? It has changed its form of organization 
through the years. I am a believer in political democracy, 
which is the essence of the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Now, as I understand it, you do not 
believe in any system which would involve the advocacy or 
overthrow of this government by force or by violence?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I do not believe in force and violence. I 
am not sure that I repudiate the revolution which established 
the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you repudiate the revolution which established 
the Soviet Union?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have nothing to do or say with the 
revolution which established the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you not ever studied that? Haven't you in 
the course of your studies, come across it or studied anything 
about it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. It is a perfectly irrelevant question to 
say, because I am not a Soviet citizen. I am devoted to the 
United States of America. Naturally, any studies I have made of 
the Soviet Union have been made--and I have studied social-
economic planning in the Soviet Union--have been made with a 
view to seeing our whole situation. I approach these questions 
as a sociologist who recognizes the tremendous impact of 
technological change and development on political and social 
structure.
    And so when you ask me a specific question, capitalism is 
not the same today as it was fifty years ago. Capitalism 
changes. Technology changes. I am a sociologist in my approach. 
I want the general welfare and the declaration of human rights, 
which is basic in American life. We don't know what the 
economic forms may be in the future.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe in Marxism?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am not a--I know very little about 
Marxism.
    Mr. Cohn. Madam, the question is: Do you believe in 
Marxism?
    Miss Van Kleeck. May I tell you that I am secretary of the 
board of directors of the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. I 
can't be so trivial as to talk about whether I believe in 
Marxism. I believe in study of social sciences, and I am 
tremendously interested always in the new developments which 
call for training lawyers in sociological developments.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have taken part in that.
    Senator Jackson. You understand when we refer to Marxism, 
it involves the dictatorship of the proletariat and the basic 
doctrine of Marxism. That is what he is referring to.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I believe that the United States of 
America is not facing today any revolutionary change. My belief 
is that whatever changes are necessary--and we have been 
working on this subject of monopoly since 1890-something, when 
we passed our control bills on monopoly. I believe that 
whatever changes are necessary in the United States will and 
can be made under our constitution by the will of the people. 
If you ask me specifically what that change is going to be----
    Senator Jackson. Madam, you have a right to believe in 
anything you want, as long as the means that you advocate to 
achieve that end is lawful. I think that is the law of this 
land. And the point that I am interested in is whether you are 
a member of any subversive organization that would deny the 
right of the people to make any change by lawful means.
    Miss Van Kleeck. The complete contrary. I am an America 
citizen, believing that we have within our political form of 
government, the right, if we can preserve our civil liberties, 
and if we can preserve the freedom of the social sciences, 
which are terribly jeopardized today.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you just one other question. If 
this country declared war on the Soviet Union through the means 
provided by the constitution, namely, the Congress of the 
United States, would you cooperate with your government, as a 
citizen, in carrying out the resolution and the will of the 
Congress of the United States?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Completely. I want to make a further 
announcement, that when we were involved in war, the First 
World War, I was immediately called to Washington to take 
charge of the women in industry service of the ordnance 
department. I was a member of the War Labor Policies Board. And 
I was the first director of the Women's Bureau, which had 
relationship to the work of women in government arsenals in the 
munitions plants, and I gave everything that was in me to 
maintain the productivity of women's work during the war, with 
many contacts with the arsenals, with all the officials in the 
ordnance department offices.
    And the answer that I gave then would be the answer I would 
give under any circumstances. I would wish to strengthen the 
social-economic structure of our own government.
    Senator Jackson. Well, as I understand, it, your testimony 
is that if we were involved in war with the Soviet Union, you 
would loyally, as an American citizen, support your government 
in that endeavor?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I would support my government in that 
endeavor. I would work in advance to prevent war.
    Senator Jackson. Well, that is everybody's right.
    Mr. Cohn. No matter how the war arose; in other words, as 
long as the Congress declared war?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am an American citizen, and as such I 
would serve in whatever function I could, because I would be 
serving the American people in their daily life under any 
circumstances.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that our cause in Korea today is a 
just cause?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I believe that our course in Korea today 
could have been very much wiser from the beginning, if the 
social-economic approach had been followed from 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. I have heard enough, as far as I am concerned. I 
would like this witness to remain under subpoena, Mr. Chairman, 
because we have an issue of fact to determine between her, and 
other witnesses.
    Senator Jackson. Very well.
    Mr. Cohn. Would, you stand and be sworn?
    Senator Jackson. Will you raise your right hand? Do you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Seaver. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name, please.
                   TESTIMONY OF EDWIN SEAVER
    Mr. Seaver. Edwin Seaver, S-e-a-v-e-r.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation, Mr. Seaver?
    Mr. Seaver. Right now, I am in advertising. I am a writer.
    Mr. Cohn. With what company?
    Mr. Seaver. Little, Brown and Company.
    Mr. Cohn. And are you an author of any books?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, a number of books?
    Mr. Seaver. Under my own name, only two. I mean novels.
    Then I edited several books besides that.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what other names have you written?
    Mr. Seaver. No other names.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you have helped edit.
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I edited a book of stories by various 
writers called Cross Section.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Cross Section: A collection of New American Writing (New York: 
L.B. Fischer, 1944-1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names of your two books?
    Mr. Seaver. My first book was called The Company, and the 
second book was called Between the Hammer and the Anvil.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Edwin Seaver, The Company (New York: Macmillan, 1930), and 
Between the Hammer and the Anvil (New York, J. Messner, 1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Between the Hammer and the Anvil. Now, have you 
ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Seaver. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any organization listed 
as subversive by the attorney general?
    Mr. Seaver. To the best of my knowledge, I have not 
belonged to any such organization since the listing.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, no. I mean, have you ever belonged to such an 
organization?
    You see, the listing is not meant to determine the date 
that an organization is Communist. In other words, if the 
attorney general listed it on October 2nd, 1943, that doesn't 
mean it became Communist on that date. He may have listed it 
because of its past activities.
    Mr. Seaver. There was the League of American Writers, the 
Congress Against War and Fascism.
    Mr. Cohn. Did, you belong to that?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you not know that was a Communist-dominated 
organization?
    Mr. Seaver. I certainly did not know it at the time. I 
certainly did not. Because most of the fellows I knew were on 
it, all sorts of writers, of every kind.
    Senator Jackson. When did you join it?
    Mr. Seaver. I joined it at the beginning. I was one of the 
group that thought it was a wonderful group for writers to 
organize against war and fascism.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave it?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, frankly, it just petered out for me. I 
just didn't go on with it.
    Mr. Cohn. No other organizations like that?
    Mr. Seaver. No, no other organization I belonged to, except 
this so called Peace Conference at the Waldorf some years ago.
    Senator Jackson. American Peace Mobilization?
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the recent conference, do you not?
    Mr. Seaver. It was 1947 or 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. We are not talking about the Emergency Peace 
Organization. You are talking about the Waldorf Astoria Peace 
Conference?
    Mr. Seaver. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. That was the thing with Ehrenburg, the 
Soviet writer, headed by Shaffly of Harvard.
    Mr. Seaver. But I didn't organize it. I was one of those 
who thought it would be a good thing to have it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know that was Communist inspired?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I didn't. Because if you look at the list 
of people who signed that thing, how could you say that?
    How could I say it, I mean.
    Mr. Cohn. I looked at it carefully.
    Mr. Seaver. Now you are looking at it with after thought.
    Mr. Cohn. No, I looked at it then.
    Senator Jackson. After you got into the thing, were you not 
convinced, as a writer, or as an intelligent man----
    Mr. Seaver. I didn't think it had much to do with writing.
    Senator Jackson. Did you not think it was Communist 
dominated, after you saw the whole thing?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I thought the whole thing was politically 
motivated, that it didn't have to do with writers dealing with 
writers' problems.
    Senator Jackson. What do you mean by ``politically 
motivated''?
    Mr. Seaver. I mean whoever it was the Russian writer got up 
and made a specific speech about Russia, and that sort of 
thing, and I wasn't there to hear about the glories of Russia. 
I wanted to hear about Russian literature.
    Senator Jackson. I mean as an intelligent citizen, were you 
not convinced that this was a Commie pitch?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I was, Senator. And it was the last such 
thing I ever attended.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that was the last such thing you ever 
attended?
    Mr. Seaver. To the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr Seaver. No,
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Seaver. No. Now, I have to qualify that. Because I 
wouldn't know if a thing were a Communist meeting. I never went 
to a meeting that was supposed to be.
    Senator Jackson. Knowing it was a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Looking back, can you think of any meetings which 
you attended which you now think were Communist meetings?
    Mr. Seaver. There was one meeting, and I honestly can't 
tell you where it was held or what the damn thing was, because 
I didn't know, when I went there. But when I went there, and I 
heard people talking about economics and economic policy three 
hours at a time, I remembered it was a nice spring day, and I 
left.
    Senator Jackson. Who was the sponsor of the meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. I was never told.
    Senator Jackson. Was it a public meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. It seemed to be. It was a big hall and I 
remember Earl Browder was making a long speech summarizing the 
whole economic----
    Mr. Cohn. You knew he was a pretty well known Communist?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, of course. He ran for office. I couldn't 
help knowing it.
    Mr. Cohn. That didn't sort of make you think it might be a 
Communist affiliated meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. Now, wait a minute. I didn't say 
I didn't think it was a Communist meeting. I said the only 
meeting I ever attended that I knew was a Communist meeting----
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, I thought you said originally you never 
knowingly attended a Communist meeting.
    Mr, Seaver. Wait a minute. When I got there and saw what it 
was, I knew it was a Communist meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do then?
    Mr. Seaver. I walked out of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You walked out?
    Mr. Seaver. Very quickly.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hear Browder? You just said you listened 
to some long speech by Browder.
    Mr. Seaver. It was a long speech summarizing, I guess, the 
economic condition of the country.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do? Did you walk out quickly, or did 
you listen to Browder for a long time?
    Mr. Seaver. I didn't listen to Browder for a long time, 
because I can't listen to long speeches of that sort. That is 
not my makeup.
    Senator Jackson. Counsel has asked you if you have been a 
member of the Communist party. I will put this question to you: 
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Seaver. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in communism?
    Mr. Seaver. I think in that period of the thirties, for 
three or four years, I would certainly consider myself a fellow 
traveler.
    Senator Jackson. A fellow traveler during the thirties?
    Mr. Seaver. That is what I call myself, looking back.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position during the Hitler-
Stalin Pact? Did you think it was a good----
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I would say before that I already knew 
that I didn't want any part of it. That was the business of the 
Finnish war.
    Senator Jackson. The which?
    Mr. Seaver. The Finnish war.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position on that? Did you 
think the Russians were right?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, of course not. Why should an aggressor 
nation be right?
    Senator Jackson. Well, then, you were in favor of, or 
opposed to, the Hitler-Stalin Pact?
    Mr. Seaver. I was opposed to it, because it just brought 
war that much quicker.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever make any public statement on 
it?
    Mr. Seaver. No.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever write anything on it?
    Mr. Seaver. No. I had stopped writing on any of those 
things by that time, on any of them.
    Mr. Cohn. The thing that troubles me is the thing that you 
turn up at this Waldorf Peace Conference in 1948.
    Mr. Seaver. Well, look. Is it wrong for a man to want to 
work for peace if he thinks there could be peace? I just want 
to finish this. It was the last time. Because I saw very 
clearly that what all these things are, are orientations toward 
trying to push this policy of one country against another. And 
that is the end of it for me.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write your books?
    Mr. Seaver. The first one was written in 1929, published in 
1930.
    Mr. Cohn. Which one was that?
    Mr. Seaver. The Company. The second one was--I would say I 
started it about 1934, in a period of great depression for me. 
I was out of a job.
    Mr. Cohn. That was The Hammer and the Anvil?
    Mr. Seaver. That was published in 1938.
    Senator Jackson. You started writing it in 1938?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes. It might have been a little earlier or a 
little later.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote that book, you would still be in 
that period when you would call yourself a sympathizer?
    Mr. Seaver. I think so, yes,
    Mr. Cohn. That is pretty well reflected in the book, is it 
not?
    Mr. Seaver. I would say so.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. You have broken. In other 
words, you have changed your views, and you have seen, as I 
think you tried to tell us pretty frankly here, the depression, 
and you were pretty badly misled, and you certainly now, am I 
correct in stating, are a firm believer in this country?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I would put it more than that. I am a 
firm believer that the Communist way of life is not for us.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. And you now are big enough to say that you 
were mistaken back many years ago when you believed otherwise.
    Mr. Seaver. Can I say this: Can I say that I was idealistic 
and a little fuzzy-minded, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to get to this. Having been straight-
forward enough to say that, you know what this is about, I 
imagine. We are investigating the information program of the 
State Department, finding out they have got a lot of books that 
have seeped in there. Their objective is not just to put in any 
book, by the way, but to put in those books which will give to 
the people throughout the world a true picture of the American 
objectives in the year 1953 and will aid us in the fight 
against communism. Now, if you were to make a selection of 
books, would you pick these books from your early period?
    Mr. Seaver. I think The Company would be all right.
    Mr. Cohn. How about The Hammer and the Anvil?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I would not. Because it reflects a good 
deal of my own subjective feeling at the time. First of all, I 
don't think it is a very good book.
    Senator Jackson. Well, you wrote the book during a time 
when you now say you were fuzzy, idealistic, and if you had it 
to do over again you would not do it. Is that not about it?
    Mr. Seaver. I couldn't possibly do it.
    Mr. Cohn. How about The Company? Are you sure about that? 
Wouldn't you call that pretty much of a borderline case?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. I was a very young man then. 
These sketches that I was writing appeared in many magazines.
    Mr. Cohn. I know. But still, in 1953----
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know whether it could be or not. It 
wasn't reviewed that way.
    Mr. Cohn. No, but in the year 1953, is that a book that you 
would stick in there?
    Senator Jackson. What is The Company about?
    Mr. Seaver. The Company is about white collar workers.
    Mr. Cohn. I looked at that.
    Mr. Seaver. That is pretty much of a literary work.
    Mr. Cohn. But it is pretty much full of this other stuff.
    Senator Jackson. When was that written?
    Mr. Seaver. In 1929. I think you are drawing the line 
rather fine.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you are trying to be frank, and I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Seaver. I wouldn't put it in, because I don't think 
that is proper in the current situation.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, sticking by your views at the time and even 
though they are not reflected as much as in The Hammer and the 
Anvil, and I agree with you on that, still, in all frankness, 
would you put The Company in there today?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. I can think of many better books 
to put in.
    Senator Jackson. What is The Company about?
    Mr. Seaver. It is a series of white collar sketches, clerks 
working in a big corporation and feeling their own personal 
lives weren't being expressed.
    Senator Jackson. It was applied to the white collar worker 
in America?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, that is putting a big name on it. Because 
I was a young guy then just writing.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you edit this book of stories?
    Mr. Seaver. You mean Cross Section?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Seaver. That was '44, '46, '47, '48.
    Mr. Cohn. And that you would say is okay?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, now, listen. I did not write the stories 
and didn't know who the people were who were writing them. It 
is like these books now, these pocket books, the New American 
Library, and so forth, where a lot of young writers send you 
their stuff, and you judge it by its quality and I wouldn't say 
none of it doesn't come under what you are talking about. I 
would think maybe some of it does.
    Mr. Cohn. In all candor, that is not a book you would stick 
in there either, would you?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I wouldn't.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been frank, and I appreciate it.
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I am a writer.
    Senator Jackson. What are you doing now?
    Mr. Seaver. I am advertising manager for Little, Brown. The 
last few years earned me more money than all the books I ever 
wrote. I ghosted Carole Landis's Four Jills in a Jeep.
    Senator Jackson. I take it you do not go along with Soviet 
foreign policy and their anti-Semitic attacks?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, first of all, I am a Jew.
    Senator Jackson. You have a right to be anything you want. 
We are all Americans.
    Mr. Seaver. I would hardly go along with that.
    Senator Jackson. I am glad to hear you say that, because we 
had one witness before this committee the other day who was 
Jewish and who would not believe his own people. And I say that 
anyone who is of that kind of background is a pretty sad 
individual.
    Mr. Seaver. I think I am what they call a bourgeois 
internationalist Zionist.
    Senator Jackson. Well, he said a Zionist was a capitalistic 
stooge engaged in spying, a member of a capitalistic stooge 
organization of the United States, I think, in effect, spying 
on the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. We want to ask you to come back tomorrow morning, 
Mr. Seaver, if it is agreeable.
    [Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m. a recess was taken to the call of 
the chair.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Edward W. Barrett (1910-1989) served as 
overseas director of the Office of War Information during World 
War II, editorial director of Newsweek magazine after the war, 
and assistant secretary of state for public affairs from 1950 
to 1952. In the latter capacity, he supervised and signed the 
press releases that the State Department issued to rebut 
Senator McCarthy's accusations about subversion and lax 
security within the department. In a Senate speech on June 2, 
1950, McCarthy described the State Department's White Paper on 
China as having been ``supervised by Edward Barrett, Mr. 
Acheson's publicity chief. He was Mr. Lattimore's superior when 
both worked in the Office of War Information.'' The senator 
went on to charge: ``We cannot afford the luxury of high-paid 
phonies peddling propaganda to protect the reputations of men 
who have proven themselves unworthy of the confidence of the 
American people.''
    On March 27, 1953, Barrett testified during a public 
hearing of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Overseas 
Information Programs, chaired by Senator Bourke B. 
Hickenlooper. He identified his occupation at the time as a 
consultant in news, television, and public relations. In his 
opening statement to the Hickenlooper subcommittee, Barrett 
said: ``As the President has said, we cannot hope to win the 
cold war against Communist imperialism unless we win the minds 
of men. This means mastering the techniques of honest 
international persuasion. It does not mean, as you know, going 
hogwild, misconstruing propaganda as a substitute for action. 
It does not mean letting childish headline hunters frighten us 
into such shrill and strident techniques as to antagonize at 
the outset those abroad whom we seek to win over. . . . Mr. 
Chairman, the Voice of America and the international 
information program have important shortcomings. I know, 
because they were among the operations for which I was 
responsible for a couple of years. When the full facts are 
known, I believe it will develop that there is little basis for 
most of the recently headlined and well-rehearsed allegations 
made elsewhere by a handpicked group of disgruntled and 
frightened little men.'' As a result of these remarks, Barrett 
was called to testify in executive session of the permanent 
subcommittee on investigations. The subcommittee did not call 
him back to testify in public. Barrett later became dean of the 
Columbia School of Journalism, where he founded the Columbia 
Journalism Review.]
                              ----------                              
                        TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:45 p.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Donald Surine, 
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; John S. Leahy, 
Jr., special assistant to the under secretary of state for 
administration.
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order.
    Mr. Barrett, in this matter before the subcommittee for 
hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Barrett. I do.
                 TESTIMONY OF EDWARD W. BARRETT
    The Chairman. Mr. Barrett, I know you have appeared before 
the Hickenlooper committee, and normally we do not duplicate 
witnesses or the work they are doing, but you made some 
statements over there which indicated that you might be helpful 
to this committee.
    We have been calling witnesses in regard to the Voice of 
America. I notice you referred to the disgruntled employees, if 
I may get the exact language. I have a list of the witnesses we 
have called up, and I wish you would tell me which ones you 
consider disgruntled, and it might be of some assistance to us 
in evaluating the testimony if we know which of those employees 
are disgruntled. Will you tell us who you had in mind?
    Mr. Barrett. Do you want another copy of that statement, by 
the way? Is this on the record, senator?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Barrett. There is a record kept?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    You made some statements before the Hickenlooper committee 
which I think might be of some assistance to us if you can give 
us some further detailed evidence on this matter. For example, 
one of the things that the committee must determine is which of 
the witnesses are telling the truth. We want to get a complete 
picture of the witness and evaluate his testimony.
    I note you made the statement: ``It was a hand-picked group 
of disgruntled and frightened little men who testified.''
    Could you tell us which ones you are referring to? That is 
on page two.
    Mr. Barrett. Could I say in general this, sir, that that is 
my opinion, shared by many newspapers, including the New York 
Times who editorialized to that effect, and I am quite sure 
there are a number of others. It is an impression that is based 
in large part on the public hearings and particularly on the 
televised hearings and the amount of time given to individuals 
who seemed to me to fit into that category.
    The Chairman. Well, just to give us a general statement, 
general information, does not help us at all, but if you know 
of any particular disgruntled or frightened little men who 
testified, that would help us.
    Mr. Barrett. I think Miss Nancy Lenkeith, and I do not have 
the list here, was given a great deal of time on the television 
showing and fitted into that category, a discharged employee. I 
think that Mr. McKesson, on whose testimony a very large amount 
of the charges about the transmitter program was based, was an 
employee who is now out of the Voice after having had 
differences.
    The Chairman. Did you feel he was testifying as he did 
because he was a disgruntled former employee?
    Mr. Barrett. I felt that that was a factor in it, Senator.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that the new head 
of the Voice has canceled the two stations in accordance with 
the recommendations of Mr. McKesson, as a result of the 
hearings?
    Mr. Barrett. I am aware of the fact that those stations 
have been suspended, and I am aware of the fact that there are 
still differences between engineers on those points as to 
whether those are good locations or not. I am aware of the 
fact, sir----
    The Chairman. Between what engineers? I think we should 
identify it. What was your job in the State Department?
    Mr. Barrett. My last job in public life, sir, was assistant 
secretary of state for public affairs.
    The Chairman. When were you so employed?
    Mr. Barrett. I started in January of 1950. I started on 
February 15 approximately, 1950, and ended my service 
approximately February 20 of 1952.
    I should add for your benefit that the duties encompassed a 
great many things over and beyond the Voice of America. It was 
that, and in fact the entire information program made up only a 
part of my duties, so mine was a broad supervisory function.
    The Chairman. You had considerable to do with the 
information program?
    Mr. Barrett. I did, sir. I had responsibility for that 
along with other things in a supervisory capacity.
    The Chairman. We have had testimony here that of the 
authors used at least seventy-five were members of the 
Communist party, and a number of the authors appeared before 
the committee and refused to tell whether they were Communists 
as of the date they appeared, and others said they were not 
Communists as of the date they appeared and refused to tell 
whether they were Communists when they wrote the books. I would 
like to ask you this question: Number one, were you aware of 
the fact that the works of Communist authors were being 
purchased?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I was not aware that the books of 
Communist authors were being purchased. I felt we had 
considerable safeguards in that regard, because the libraries 
were continually being inspected and inspected in detail. For 
example, a committee of three from the American Book Publishers 
Council, I believe it was, was appointed to go around the world 
to inspect them.
    The Chairman. Who were those three people?
    Mr. Barrett. The three book publishers? It was headed by 
Mr. Robert Crowell, president of Thomas Y. Crowell.
    Senator Mundt. Of Crowell Publishing Company?
    Mr. Barrett. Thomas Y. Crowell Publishing Company.
    The other names I do not at this moment recall.
    The Chairman. Could you get those names for us?
    Mr. Barrett. One other was Mr. Chester Kerr of Yale 
University Press, and the third was an eminent librarian whose 
name I do not remember at this time. A correction--I am not 
sure that that was appointed by the publishers council but it 
was appointed by my office with the advice of the publishers 
council.
    The Chairman. What instructions were they given? Were they 
given instructions to remove the books?
    Mr. Barrett. To go around and inspect the libraries; they 
were given general instructions to inspect the libraries and to 
go over the shelves and see how they were being handled; and 
also all libraries, or most libraries, around the world were 
inspected by a group of investigators from the House 
Appropriations Committee, who made a five-month inspection in 
1951 or early 1952 I believe.
    The Chairman. Some of the senators will have to leave 
fairly soon, and there are a number of questions I would like 
to get to before they leave.
    Mr. Barrett. I wonder if I could get back to one point you 
raised before, because I did not get to finish the answer?
    The Chairman. You certainly may.
    Mr. Barrett. That was on the matter of the transmitters. 
Before I left, I had numerous studies made of those 
transmitters, one by Dr. Wilson Compton, and that was before 
February of 1952. I did get one report that I think is germane, 
indicating the character of the people who were originally 
consulted and worked on the location of these transmitters 
during my term of office. This was by Mr. Wiesner, of 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and if I could read the 
first paragraph, I will be glad to give you the whole thing for 
the record.
    This is from Mr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Associate Director, 
Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology. It is dated December 26, 1951. It is addressed to 
Mr. Raymond Kaplan:
      Dear Ray: Since our recent conversation, Dr. Bettencourt 
and I have once more reviewed our recommendations to place the 
Baker station in the Northwest. As you know, our decisions were 
based on the study of the RCA signal corps, and the CRPL, the 
Central Radio Propagation Laboratories of the U.S. Bureau of 
Standards. We did not introduce any data into the review. We 
believed that the original recommendation that the Baker 
station should be placed in Seattle is still sound.
    I call that to your attention just to show you that as of 
that date at any rate----
    Mr. Cohn. We have that entire report in the record.
    The Chairman. Mr. Barrett, will you get back to this 
question: Did I understand your statement to be that you did 
not know that those Communist works were being purchased?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not yet know, sir, that any Communist 
works were purchased during that time. I received many 
complaints about many parts of the program and always made it a 
point to have an investigation made.
    The Chairman. You say as of this moment you do not know 
that any Communist works were purchased while you were in this 
job?
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct.
    The Chairman. From your testimony evaluating the type of 
witnesses who appeared before the committee, I assume that you 
are aware of the testimony that was taken here, and you would 
not go before a committee and evaluate our work and describe 
our witnesses unless you followed the testimony.
    Mr. Barrett. I am aware of a great deal of the testimony 
and I am aware of what was printed in the press and most of 
what was carried on the television.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that this staff has 
checked with the State Department and verified that works of 
well-known Communists or individuals who refused to testify as 
to whether they were Communists or not, that those works have 
been purchased? Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not happen to be aware of that.
    The Chairman. Well, let me ask you this: Had you known that 
Communists' works were being purchased for use by the 
information program, would you have approved of that?
    Mr. Barrett. Not for any use on the open shelves available 
to the general public abroad.
    The Chairman. That is what I am speaking of, for use on 
open shelves.
    Mr. Barrett. You understand that I would advocate having 
them on restricted shelves for use of the staff and for use of 
well-known anti-Communists in the towns concerned.
    The Chairman. Do you know who was responsible for selecting 
the books while you were in the State Department?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not. There was a very elaborate 
system set up as I recall. I believe, and this is memory--I am 
almost certain of it--the American Library Association 
participated, and so on, at my request. After a little flare up 
on an entirely different subject in the summer of 1951, I asked 
a special committee be set up under the auspices of the U.S. 
Advisory Commission on International Education, or Educational 
Exchange, to review all of the books and all of the magazines 
going into the libraries and the general policies being 
followed in that connection. That report was not completed 
until I was out of office.
    The Chairman. You refer to the ``well-rehearsed 
allegations.'' Will you explain what you mean by that? You 
said, ``and well-rehearsed allegations made elsewhere by a 
handpicked group of disgruntled and frightened little men.''
    Mr. Barrett. I would say, sir, that my impression has been 
that the testimony was well-rehearsed; and I remember, for 
example, one case when you turned to Mr. Cohn, and you said, 
``Mr. Cohn, you have been through this witness's testimony 
three times. I wonder if you can get the right answers.''
    Mr. Cohn. Three times. Mr. Barrett, would you think it 
would be proper for us to put a witness on the stand without 
talking to the witness first to find out whether or not the 
witness had any information to give the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. No, Mr. Cohn, I would not, nor would I think 
it well to put a witness on the stand, frankly, to make 
allegations against an individual without talking to the 
individual against whom the allegations have been made.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any individual against whom 
allegations have been made who was asked to be heard by this 
committee who has not been given the right to appear?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not. I am aware of the fact that there 
are individuals in Germany, for example, about whose record I 
know almost nothing, who have not yet appeared.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, for instance?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir, and I know that Kaghan was the name 
of one, and I know that there were witnesses who were subject 
to televised allegations that were not heard publicly until 
very, very much later, and, very frankly, gentlemen, I feel 
that that is unfair.
    The Chairman. You have been in this work a long time, so 
maybe you can be of some benefit to the committee. Let us take 
Kaghan for example. Do you think it would be unfair to show 
that a man had been writing following the Communist party line 
and is now in a high position in Germany and that he flunked 
his security test? Do you think that we should keep that--and a 
signer of a Communist party petition--would you say that we 
should not expose that fact, that that would be unfair to him? 
Or would it be unfair to the people if we failed to expose it?
    Mr. Barrett. I would not think, if those conditions are 
true, that you should decline to bring out that information; 
you have a duty and a responsibility to bring out any such 
information, if you have such information as that. I do think 
that in fairness to a witness under the American principles of 
fair-play that the gentleman should have a chance to testify in 
his own behalf regardless of what the record may show.
    The Chairman. Do you know of anyone who has not been given 
that chance?
    Mr. Barrett. I repeat, Senator, that I am not aware that 
any steps have been taken toward that.
    The Chairman. You have a perfect right to shout against 
high heaven, and we did not bring you in to criticize you for 
having screamed against the committee, but you indicated here 
that you had information which we do not have, and we would 
like to get it, and you referred to a handpicked group of 
disgruntled and frightened little men. We ask you to name them. 
And of the witnesses that have been called, you say Nancy 
Lenkeith you think was one of the handpicked persons, and you 
think McKesson was the other.
    Mr. Barrett. Disgruntled.
    The Chairman. McKesson, whose advice has now been followed 
by Mr. Johnson. If you are merely criticizing the committee 
because they are exposing your activities that occurred in the 
past, then we have no interest in examining you further. If you 
have information for us, as you indicated you did, that you can 
tell us about a well-rehearsed witness or well-rehearsed 
allegations, if you know that our staff is rehearsing the 
witnesses, handpicking them, that is a pretty serious charge, 
you see. I do not hardly think that a man doing as high a job 
as you did in the State Department would make that statement 
unless he had some information to back it up.
    Now, if you know who handpicked the people, we would like 
to know it. You are testifying as an expert on this, and you 
should know that we have offered the State Department the right 
to have any witness they cared to have called in. I do not want 
to waste any more time at all on this; and if you were just 
making the usual screaming and shouting against the committee, 
and if you have no evidence of well-rehearsed allegations, and 
the only two disgruntled people you can name are Miss Lenkeith 
and this very, very respectable and outstanding engineer, Mr. 
McKesson, let me say that I do not think that you impress the 
committee. At least you do not impress me with your statement 
that McKesson was a disgruntled employee. McKesson has 
impressed me as an outstanding engineer and a very high quality 
individual. If you know of any other disgruntled person who 
testified, we would be glad to have you tell us about them.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, may I speak to that?
    The Chairman. You may speak to that.
    Mr. Barrett. May I have a few moments?
    The Chairman. With as much length as you care to.
    Mr. Barrett. All right. Thank you.
    The Chairman. May I say you might want to cover this while 
you are talking, that there are some who might think that you 
were the disgruntled individual, you see, no longer holding 
this job and your activities have been exposed, and now you can 
speak as long as you like, with that interruption.
    Mr. Barrett. Let me say, in the first place, senator, that 
I genuinely feel it is unfair to say that my activities have 
been exposed. That the program had faults under my supervision, 
I have no doubt. Every large organization has faults. But no 
complaint of any substance whatever came to my attention 
without my having that investigated, and investigated whenever 
possible by an organization outside of what is now the IAA.
    For example, when a complaint came that there was 
mismanagement in the Radio Facilities Branch, I asked the 
chairman of the National Association of Broadcasters to appoint 
a committee of three to make a report, and that report is now a 
matter of record.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the chairman of that?
    Mr. Barrett. Justin Miller.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he appoint Mr. Hughes as one of them?
    Senator Symington. I think we should let the witness talk.
    Mr. Barrett. That report is now in the record and can be 
found in the record of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
the spring of 1951.
    When complaints of other nature came to my attention, many 
of them did, from many channels, I always had them 
investigated. There were security complaints, or if I had any 
security suspicions myself, I had them investigated by the 
office under Mr. Don Nicholson, formerly with the FBI, and Mr. 
Peurifoy's office. I feel that the record shows fully that 
those transmitters were located--and they were only planned 
during my period--but they were located according to the best 
advice obtainable, and I think the record will show that.
    I would like to see the committee subpoena all of the 
records and all of the correspondence on these transmitters, 
because I think----
    The Chairman. It has been done.
    Mr. Barrett. And I would like to see all of the committee 
members examine it, because I think that it shows very 
conclusively that every effort was made to get the best advice 
on them.
    Now, about disgruntled witnesses, sir, I expressed an 
opinion much as the New York Times and other organizations have 
expressed, and I said disgruntled or frightened witnesses. I 
did not mean only two. I was interrupted by you, Mr. Chairman, 
at the point where I finished naming them, the two.
    The Chairman. You may proceed.
    Mr. Barrett. If you want names, I would prefer not going 
into personalities, but if you want them----
    The Chairman. It is a pretty serious general statement, and 
I think you should give us names.
    Mr. Barrett. I think Mr. Thompson is a disgruntled witness. 
Mr. Thompson had been demoted in the organization. I think that 
Mr. Virgil Fulling was a disgruntled witness, because Mr. 
Fulling had been in the organization for a long time and had 
been passed over many times to my knowledge, and so on. I 
think, incidentally, that he gave very extreme testimony that 
can be refuted if the record is looked at with regard to such 
things as whether the word ``anti-Communist'' had ever been 
used to his knowledge.
    I believe it will be found, and I suggest the witness look 
at the scripts of two days before, to see if the word was not 
used fourteen times in scripts of that particular desk, on two 
days before this incident was supposed to have occurred.
    I think you have had many frightened witnesses, sir, and I 
came in here today as a frightened witness myself, I suppose, 
but people do not relish appearing before this committee. I 
think Dr. Wilson Compton must have been frightened because he 
had looked fully into these transmitters, and he had made an 
investigation of many weeks of the transmitters before he took 
office in the IAA.
    I gathered from his published testimony before this 
committee that he felt those transmitters were mis-located, 
canceled, and so on, and he went before the Hickenlooper 
committee some days later and, as I recall, subject to check, 
he testified that he felt those transmitters were right and 
that they should go ahead. He had canceled them not because of 
the alleged sabotage and things of that sort.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt you as you list these names? 
You list him as one of the ``handpicked group of disgruntled 
and frightened little men?''
    Mr. Barrett. I would not pick him as handpicked.
    The Chairman. You would not say he was a frightened little 
man, would you?
    Mr. Barrett. I would say there was some evidence of fear in 
that, by virtue of the fact that his testimony given before the 
Hickenlooper committee subsequently indicated that he felt that 
the transmitters were still okay and that they should be 
proceeded again.
    The Chairman. Was it your thought we should not have called 
Mr. Compton because he was frightened?
    Mr. Barrett. No. I was glad to see you call him, and I only 
regret, senator, that in connection with Mr. McKesson's 
testimony you did not call some of the large number of people 
who had originally participated in the siting of those 
transmitters.
    The Chairman. We had some sixty-seven or seventy witnesses 
appear before the committee, and you have named four of them 
that you thought were disgruntled. Did you have any others in 
mind?
    Mr. Barrett. A great deal of time has been given to those 
four.
    The Chairman. May I say this, Mr. Barrett: If you are 
merely making a general statement, and that statement has been 
made by other people, a general criticism of the committee, and 
if you did not have information yourself of what you considered 
well-rehearsed testimony or disgruntled people, I am not going 
to try to badger you for names. The reason you are called here, 
some of those over on the Hickenlooper committee felt that if 
you knew of this, and this was called to my attention by a 
member of that committee, that if you knew of something like 
this, we should hear about it. I know that the other members of 
the committee would like to know if my staff has been 
rehearsing witnesses.
    Mr. Barrett. I suggest you ask your staff that.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any rehearsing? You made a 
serious charge, you see, against my staff, and if you do not 
know of any rehearsing, it is all right.
    Mr. Barrett. I regret to say that you made that charge when 
you turned to Mr. Cohn in one case and said, ``Now you have 
been through this witness's testimony three times; let me see, 
will you see if you can get her to give the right answers.''
    The Chairman. Who was that?
    Mr. Barrett. Miss Lenkeith; and I just happened to be 
watching you on television, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You think what you have just said is in context, 
Mr. Barrett?
    Mr. Barrett. I think you should consult the record on it, 
because I will not say that my memory is infallible on that, 
and I think it would be well to check the record.
    The Chairman. Is that the only indication you have of any 
rehearsal of the witnesses?
    Mr. Barrett. The fact that was visible on television, you 
had a sheet in front of you that looked like questions and 
answers to me from the way you worked from them.
    The Chairman. That would mean rehearsal? If I had questions 
and answers in front of me, you think that that would mean that 
I had rehearsed the witness or the staff had rehearsed the 
witness?
    Mr. Barrett. It would imply it to me.
    The Chairman. It would imply that?
    Mr. Barrett. I would have to say that in fairness.
    The Chairman. You cannot tell us now who is responsible for 
putting, or who has been responsible for putting the works of 
Communist authors on the shelves?
    Mr. Barrett. Just a moment. Do you want to leave this thing 
on which you asked me to make a statement of disgruntled and so 
on?
    The Chairman. I thought that you had finished giving us a 
list of these people. If you have some more disgruntled people 
in mind, let us have them.
    Mr. Barrett. You spoke of Mr. McKesson, and I do not care 
to indulge in names before this committee, sir, but I think it 
would be well for the committee to look into Mr. McKesson's own 
background as thoroughly as they have looked into the 
background of some of these other witnesses.
    The Chairman. Now just a second. You intimate that you know 
something of his background of uncomplimentary nature. That is 
your intimation. Do you know anything now about his background 
that would interest the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. I know nothing that I can state as a fact, of 
first-hand knowledge, sir, but there is enough talk around and 
enough reports around.
    The Chairman. What kind of talk? I would like to know so 
that we can check on it. I think we have looked into his 
background as far as his employment record is concerned, and it 
is rather outstanding. Now, if there is some talk around I 
would like to know what it is. You see, when you come here and 
say look into so-and-so's background, that means to me that you 
know something of his background that is bad.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, you have looked into the background--
I believe when a witness comes up with the kind of testimony 
McKesson has, his background should be looked into fully.
    I would like----
    The Chairman. Will you tell us what those reports were that 
you heard?
    Mr. Barrett. I would prefer not to, sir.
    The Chairman. I frankly do not care what you prefer. This 
is a very important matter, and it involves what has been 
referred to as sabotage of the information program. Mr. 
McKesson is one of the witnesses upon whom we have relied 
rather heavily, and he is making a study now, and we have 
checked his background with RCA. He was a commander in the 
navy, and we have checked his record in the navy, and we find 
nothing of a derogatory nature whatsoever in his background.
    Now, if you have heard reports, we would like to know what 
they are and who you heard them from.
    Mr. Barrett. I should like to suggest, Senator, that I do 
not care to indulge in hearsay, but when I was in a responsible 
position, I always did have hearsay thoroughly investigated.
    The Chairman. Well, we would like to get the hearsay, the 
reports you heard.
    Senator McClellan. Let me ask you a question, please, sir. 
What I am trying to determine now, so that I will know how to 
judge this interrogation, are you telling the committee that 
there is something, in your judgment, in the background or the 
record of Mr. McKesson that if disclosed would reflect upon him 
and discredit the testimony he has given the committee or 
calculated to discredit his testimony to any degree?
    Mr. Barrett. I think that it might bear upon the question 
as to whether he is a disgruntled employee or disgruntled 
person.
    Senator McClellan. Does it go beyond this, that he is just 
disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I think it bears upon whether he is a 
disgruntled person.
    Senator McClellan. Only that? It does not go into any 
deeper phase than that, other than just he is unhappy about 
something connected with his work?
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct, and he has a reputation for 
being disgruntled in previous organizations.
    Senator McClellan. Well, I just wanted to see what the 
extent of your charge was.
    The Chairman. When you talk about the rumors, you did not 
want to put on the record here, you are talking about rumors of 
his being disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, many rumors and reports, that is right
    The Chairman. And nothing except rumors of his being 
disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. That is right. I would like to say in 
connection with Mr. McKesson that without discrediting Mr. 
McKesson, I think that there are signs in the testimony Mr. 
McKesson was a very sincere man, even though he was unhappy 
over what he thought was bad treatment at the Voice of America, 
perhaps. But I think to get a really balanced picture, as I am 
sure, Mr. Chairman, you want to do, that it would be wise to 
subpoena the gentleman like those from the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology and other organizations, who 
participated originally in the selection of these sites. I 
think in order to get a balanced picture of that, it is 
necessary to do that.
    Senator Mundt. It sounds like a good suggestion. Can you 
give us the names of those, but we have been trying to find 
some witnesses who would have a balance in this thing.
    We had a list, and the list did not stand up very well, and 
you might know more about who to call than he did.
    Mr. Barrett. I know the people who worked on this whole 
problem when I was in office, sir, and I believe some of those 
names are on the piece of paper that I put out here a short 
time ago.
    The Chairman. On your speech, you mean?
    Mr. Barrett. No, not on my speech. It is on this report.
    Senator Symington. Could I make a few observations?
    Senator Mundt. I would like to get these names while we are 
on this subject, if we can.
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Morris Pierce.
    Senator Mundt. Would you identify him?
    Mr. Barrett. Well, here are the names. You will find them 
in this document.
    Senator Mundt. Let us put the document in the record and 
that will take care of the matter.
    The Chairman. I may say for the benefit of the other 
senators, that Morris Pierce is one of the individuals 
originally suggested by Mr. Crosby, and we asked the State 
Department to check into his testimony and see if it differed 
with the testimony theretofore taken, and if they wanted him 
called; and they notified us that they did not care to have Mr. 
Pierce called.
    Senator Mundt. What apparently happened, Mr. Barrett, from 
the evidence before this committee, is that some of the people 
who seemingly originally suggested Baker East and Baker West--
--
    Mr. Barrett. After rather thorough study.
    Senator Mundt. They changed their minds.
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct; it may be correct.
    Senator Mundt. At least when Mr. Crosby suggested the 
names, I gave them to Mr. Cohn, and he contacted them, and they 
either said, ``There is no reason to call us; we now agree it 
was a mistake,'' or for some other reason the State Department 
said there was no use to ask them to appear.
    Mr. Barrett. Nonetheless, sir, I have the impression that 
very serious charges have been made before this committee to 
the effect that there was sabotage in the location of 
transmitters. Now, if these gentlemen participated in the 
selection of those sites on the basis of information obtained 
from RCA----
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean by ``these gentlemen,'' so that 
we can get it clear?
    Mr. Barrett. The gentlemen whose names appeared in some of 
these documents.
    The Chairman. You have a number of names. Do you want to 
check the ones?
    Senator Mundt. Read the ones into the record that you think 
would be good witnesses, because I would like to get down to 
the iron bottom facts on this Baker East and Baker West.
    Mr. Barrett. The men who were involved were Dr. D. K. 
Bailey, the propagation expert of the Bureau of Standards; Dr. 
J. B. Wiesner, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
Mr. A. D. Ring; Mr. Morris Pierce; and then broader studies 
that encompass this, encompass the entire Ring plan, were made 
by Dr. E. M. Purcell, the Nobel Prize winner from Harvard and 
Dr. W. W. Salisbury, director of research of the Collins Radio 
Company; and Dr. L. V. Birdner, formerly of the Carnegie 
Institution and now president of Associated Universities 
Incorporated, Patchogue, New York, and he has a connection, I 
believe, as supervisor with the Brookhaven operation.
    Those gentlemen originally participated in this.
    Mr. Cohn. This is in the Ring program but not Baker West?
    Mr. Barrett. Including Baker West.
    Mr. Cohn. You say they approved Baker West in Seattle?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not know, but they gave me an endorsement 
of the Ring Plan as a whole.
    Mr. Cohn. But without pressing that point, they might have 
endorsed the idea of having a station?
    Mr. Barrett. This was more than an idea, because at that 
time the thing was mapped.
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying to get from you--I agree with you--
did they want the particular West Coast transmitter to be 
located in Seattle rather than in California? Is that your 
statement as to what they said?
    Mr. Barrett. I cannot say on that in detail, but I do know 
that I asked them to study the entire program for me, and I 
also asked Dr. Wilson Compton to spend several weeks before he 
took office, consulting with engineers and let me know whether 
the entire Ring Plan, including Baker East and Baker West, was 
correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that finish your list of names on that?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, except to say, sir, that if you had asked 
me if I wanted to testify today, I would probably have said, 
``No, thank you.'' If you had requested me to, I would have 
done so. I think that you will not find many people of this 
stature that are eager to come down and testify, and most will 
beg off today if they are consulted.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you: You said that if you were 
asked whether you wanted to come, you would perhaps say ``no.'' 
Do you feel that you have been mistreated or brow-beaten by the 
staff of the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not.
    Senator Mundt. As I understand it, Mr. Barrett, the last 
three names that you have listed were people who were for the 
Ring plan per se, including Baker West, but may not have 
decided whether Baker West should be in Seattle or California; 
but the first names were names which felt that the Baker West 
was at the right place; is that correct?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes. I am not sure that the last group of 
names specifically were investigated, and I am not sure that 
they did not decide about the precise location. I do know that 
they reviewed the program.
    Senator Mundt. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if there are names 
on that list that we have not contacted, we contact them, 
because all of us are interested in having projection stations 
at the proper places.
    Mr. Barrett. This might be of interest to the committee 
too, and it is a statement prepared by Dr. Wiesner, at my 
request, at a time when there were criticisms of the Radio 
Facilities Branch, and I asked this group to give me their best 
appraisal of the facilities branch and the personnel involved. 
There is a list of names in here, and they did that along with 
the other projects.
    The Chairman. We will mark that as an exhibit. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to say a couple of things here, if 
I may. First of all, as to Dr. Compton being frightened and 
then evidence of the fact he changed his testimony before the 
Hickenlooper committee and then came out and said he thinks it 
was all right to leave those two things where they are.
    Dr. Compton's words when he learned of our disclosures 
concerning the Baker Wert contract were that, ``It was 
fantastic,'' as I recall; and the minute the facts came out and 
were developed, he ordered it canceled because he regarded it 
as one of the most outrageous contracts he had ever seen.
    Mr. Barrett. Are you talking of location?
    Mr. Cohn. I am talking first of all as to contracts.
    Mr. Barrett. When I spoke of Dr. Compton, I was speaking of 
locations.
    Mr. Cohn. He regarded Baker West as still located in the 
proper place? That would be quite a surprising statement to me, 
and I looked at the Hickenlooper record, and I do not remember 
seeing that.
    Mr. Barrett. I would like to re-check the record as to 
precise words, but the impression given was that he thought we 
should go right ahead with those projects.
    Senator Symington. I would just try to be constructive 
about this situation with you. You were running a big program 
and you were trying to do a job quickly. Many a good plant has 
a poor department in it. I agree with you entirely about Miss 
Lenkeith; she did not impress me at all. But I think that you 
ought to know--and you should not be in this work if you do not 
try to be fair--that this fellow Harris, Reed Harris, gave us 
five names to check like you are doing now, and three of those 
five, to the best of my memory, agreed that the place the 
station was was wrong. That is number one I want to comment on.
    Now, secondly, about McKesson. It happens that I disagreed 
with the chairman and the staff about the ability of one of 
these engineers that they thought was pretty hot. Perhaps I was 
wrong. I studied a little engineering, but McKesson rather 
impressed me, and I did not know about his record--I checked 
his record in RCA personally, and I thought that based on what 
he said, that he was right, and a fellow named Herrick was 
wrong. I just want to present these from this standpoint.
    Herrick's record, incidentally, was checked, and he was 
found to have no engineering background at all from the stand 
point of education. I think that that is a fair statement.
    Another thing is that I have no idea, and have formed no 
conclusions, and I have not been convinced there was any 
conspiracy in this thing. Do not misunderstand me. But I do 
think that you went a little strong on us here from the 
standpoint of this is a full committee and not just one man. We 
wired three fellows, and we got wires, and we took them up to 
the chairman who demanded that they be heard, and they had not 
been heard. Two out of those three said they did not want to be 
heard, after they had wired and demanded to be heard, and I 
just want to give you some of this stuff as I remember it.
    Now, one thing that I submit for your consideration, you 
used the words ``disgruntled and frightened.'' Well, if I say 
anything here, counsel, that is wrong, I want you to correct 
me, and I want you to be sure that Mr. Barrett gets the 
information properly, because I certainly want to be accurate. 
Perhaps the thing that worried me the most was that I was in 
New York one time, and I went up to the chairman's place to 
tell him that I could not participate in a hearing the next 
day, and he had a fellow in the State Department who was 
certainly not disgruntled, and he was certainly not frightened, 
and he had a very high job in the State Department 
organization. I started counting the number of times that he 
said, ``Senator, if you will look into this thing''--I do not 
think it is fair to use his name--``if you will look into this 
thing, you will find out that this is bigger than the Hiss 
case.'' I would say he said that in my presence not less than 
half a dozen times. He had just recently been promoted in the 
State Department.
    Now, I have great respect for you and the work that you 
did, but in trying to arrive at a decision on this Voice of 
America, my impression is that it has been pretty inefficiently 
managed, based on the witnesses. They have not been disgruntled 
and have not been frightened; you are just getting started, and 
I do not blame anybody for that. Some of them may have been 
disgruntled, and some of them may have been frightened, but a 
lot of them were not disgruntled or frightened, and it worried 
me a little bit that you embrace this whole thing, from this 
angle, because I think it is only fair to say that a lot of the 
criticism has come from State Department.
    As to whether these people had an axe to grind, frankly, I 
do not think that that was true about some of them, and I 
wanted you to know that.
    Mr. Barrett. I appreciate your speaking so frankly, and I 
would like to say, for your benefit and the benefit of the rest 
of the committee, that I have a great deal of respect for most 
of the members of this committee.
    Mr. Cohn. May I submit this record of Dr. Lenkeith's 
testimony. I find no statement here about what he stated took 
place; maybe he can find it.
    The Chairman. I called Mr. Barrett here principally for two 
reasons; one was to see if he could tell us who picked the 
Communist books while he was to a great extent in charge of the 
program, and whether he knew about their being selected and 
whether he approved of that. The other was upon the suggestion 
of some of the members of the Hickenlooper committee, when he 
said we had handpicked and well-rehearsed a group of 
disgruntled and frightened little men.
    I think that you should know that as of now the record only 
shows the names of four of those disgruntled people that you 
named, and we have had a total of some seventy-two witnesses. 
That may be a repetition of some, because some were called 
several different times; but considerable over fifty witnesses 
were called.
    Now, you do not designate them in your statement. If you 
know of any more than four, good; and if you do not, that is 
all right.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, of those who were given national 
television exhibition, it seems to me, and as I say, to 
newspapers and others, it seems to be fairly evident that they 
were.
    Mr. Cohn. Was McKesson on television?
    Mr. Barrett. I have forgotten.
    Mr. Cohn. I am quite sure he was not.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: You were in the 
department, and if someone from the opposition paper had made 
the statement, you would pay no attention to it. But you were 
in the department and many of these individuals who were 
concerned, I assume, were known to you. Therefore, I assume 
that you would be in a position to tell us which individuals 
out of the some seventy or the number called, which ones you 
consider disgruntled. Do you know?
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, you had two witnesses on there, Mr. 
Dooher, and the chief of the Hebrew Desk Dr. Glazer.
    The Chairman. Would you call them disgruntled little men?
    Mr. Barrett. I would rather speak a little more precisely 
on that.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Barrett. According to the testimony that appeared on 
television, they were having certain of their operations cut 
down. The department said, I believe, it was done on budgetary 
grounds. Any executive in a government agency who is having his 
division cut down can be assumed to be disgruntled.
    I have been in a situation somewhat like yours. I used to 
have these cases coming to me many times, with violent protests 
from this or that language desk because the budget for that 
desk was being cut. I tried my best to have every one 
investigated, and investigated well by individuals who----
    The Chairman. Just so you will not be unfair to Mr. Dooher, 
are you aware he is a foreign service officer and his job does 
not depend upon the Hebrew Desk, and he was requested, and he 
has been promoted a number of times in the last year, and it 
would appear to be anything but disgruntled on the basis of his 
record.
    He said himself he was promoted so often and so rapidly in 
the State Department he began to wonder what was wrong.
    Mr. Barrett. I believe, Senator, he used the charming line 
that he was ``gruntled,'' did he not?
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Mr. Barrett. Actually, Senator, I am glad you brought that 
out, because I do not mean that he was a person who had been 
demoted, but it was my experience in government work that 
anyone whose budget was being cut for some or all of his 
operations became at least temporarily a disgruntled person.
    The Chairman. You have given us the names of six.
    Senator Mundt. I want that for committee guidance. Suppose 
he was disgruntled, and I presume that you are right when a 
man's budget is cut down. But we get a tremendous number of 
witnesses before all of our committees to whom that has 
happened, and does that make all of their testimony suspect?
    Mr. Barrett. A tremendous number of witnesses----
    Senator Mundt. Witnesses who come in, who are disgruntled 
because they have not got a promotion or because their 
department has not expanded or it has been cut down. Would you 
suggest that their testimony is all suspect?
    Mr. Barrett. Oh, not all of it, no.
    Senator Mundt. It would seem to me we have got to rely on 
their innate ability, and Mr. Dooher is a good honest public 
servant, and I do not believe that because of the fact that he 
was disgruntled he would misrepresent the case. It might open 
his mouth to talk a little.
    Mr. Barrett. If I could answer Senator Symington's rather 
long question
    The Chairman. Before you go into that, do you list Dooher 
and Glasser as disgruntled little men? I am trying to get a 
list of these.
    Mr. Barrett. I would say in their case that they were 
unhappy men in the lower and medium echelons of the Voice of 
America.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to think that they 
were not telling us the truth?
    Mr. Barrett. I think that they were doubtless victims of 
prejudice when, as I recall it, they indicated----
    The Chairman. Senator Symington has to leave and perhaps 
you should answer his question.
    Mr. Barrett. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you 
said and the spirit in which you said it. If my words have 
sometimes been appearing a little strong, you must remember 
that I was sincerely wrapped up in this work for two years, and 
I believed very, very deeply that we have got to make this 
operation strong, and it is the only way it can be done. It is 
an indispensable part of overcoming these Communist gangsters, 
that I believe that great harm can be done in things of this 
sort unless it is handled----
    The Chairman. Do you think harm has been done?
    Mr. Barrett [continued]. On balance, yes.
    The Chairman. You think harm has been done?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, and I would be glad to spell that out, 
but I would be glad to spell out a suggestion, if I may.
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Barrett. Regarding Reed Harris and the names that he 
gave you, I can only say this, that I gave you these names in a 
spirit of these being names that I know reviewed this plan on 
my behalf at the time when I was in office. These are names, in 
one case there, who specifically went over this Baker project, 
and based their information on the propagation studies of the 
Bureau of Standards, and the RCA, and I believe the Army Signal 
Corps, and came up with a recommendation that Seattle was the 
best site; and when questions were raised about it in 1951, 
they reviewed again the MIT group and came up then with a 
finding that it was the best site; and that is all available in 
the correspondence and very voluminous correspondence that was 
in existence when I was in office.
    As to what has happened since then, I do not know. I do 
know that that was a case there. Seattle was pinpointed as the 
place.
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave and I would like 
to ask you a question.
    Mr. Barrett. May I continue with Mr. Symington's question? 
I have not intended to be, I repeat, unfair to the committee 
and all of that. I repeat that I feel very strongly about this, 
the disgruntled and frightened men. It is an impression that I 
can probably buttress with other names if I went over a 
complete list, and I think that in all sincerity I must say 
that a committee like this is trying to get to the facts, and I 
am sure that you are, and that you should certainly call as 
witnesses the committees which Congress itself set up, and the 
80th Congress by the way set up, to serve as watchdogs on 
behalf of the Congress.
    I think you are familiar with the membership of one that 
included people like Philip Reed, Mark May, head of the 
Institute of Human Relations, and Mr. Cannon, former head of 
the ASNE, American Society of Newspaper Editors, and Justin 
Miller of the National Association of Broadcasters.
    They have been studying this program, with particular 
reference to its impact abroad. They have been doing that for 
five years and doing a very, very conscientious job. I think 
their general findings have been false here and false there and 
needed improvements there; but there has been consistent 
improvement in the program.
    The Chairman. Could I ask you a few more questions?
    Senator Symington. Will you excuse me?
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave very shortly. Do 
you think it was improper for this committee to expose the fact 
that Communist writers have their works on libraries throughout 
the world, purchased by the United States? Do you think we 
should have kept that a secret?
    Mr. Barrett. Do you want an honest reply? I do not think, 
and I know you want an honest reply, I do not think that it was 
unfair to expose the existence----
    The Chairman. Will you try not to give me a long lecture 
because I have to leave. Do you think it was unfair or 
improper? You can answer that yes or no.
    Mr. Barrett. I will have to qualify it. I would say no, but 
I do consider it unfair, sir, to put Earl Browder on the stand 
for a protracted hearing without informing the public of the 
number of his books in existence or without finding out whether 
any of them were actually purchased. And I doubt seriously if 
any were purchased.
    The Chairman. Do you mean that if the books were used and 
not purchased, that it would be all right to have them?
    Mr. Barrett. No; to have them at all, they would have to be 
on restricted shelves for various specific use.
    The Chairman. For your information, a check was made by the 
State Department and it was determined that Browder's books 
were being used and it was all made a matter of public record.
    Mr. Barrett. Was it determined how many?
    The Chairman. They told us they could not tell us how many.
    Mr. Barrett. Was it determined whether they were open 
shelves?
    Mr. Cohn. On open shelves; I am relying on what the State 
Department tells us.
    Mr. Barrett. Very clearly there is no business having Earl 
Browder's books on an open shelf.
    The Chairman. Let us get to the next point. Did you feel it 
was improper to expose the mislocation of Baker West?
    Do you think that that should not have been done?
    Mr. Barrett. I will have to reword that one, sir.
    The Chairman. All right. You may.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not convinced yet that Baker West was 
mislocated. I just do not know. I know that the original 
location was based on the best advice I knew how to get, and I 
do think that if there were charges it was mislocated, then all 
of the best technicians who participated in the original 
location should be called and heard even though some of them 
may not want to be heard.
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave, and I have 
nothing further to ask. If you have any further questions, will 
you proceed.
    Senator Mundt. Would you not feel that it served the public 
interest to bring this controversy about Baker East and Baker 
West to the point where it has now arrived, which is to stop 
the contracts and stop the construction until Dr. Johnson and 
his staff have an opportunity to try to assay and to evaluate 
this very confusing welter of evidence that we have had?
    Mr. Barrett. I think certainly that Dr. Johnson should have 
an opportunity to evaluate any confusing welter of evidence or 
of testimony. I think it was unfortunate, sir, that charges of 
sabotage, which to my knowledge have not been proved by any 
means, were added at that time, and I think that it would have 
been preferable for a committee with a great responsibility 
that this one has to have sought out people who originally 
recommended this, before airing one side of the case.
    Senator Mundt. That was really done. If an error was made 
there, it was the error in behalf of Mr. Crosby who spoke for 
the State Department, in submitting us names who, as I recall, 
and as Senator Symington said, either agreed at this time with 
the findings of those who said the location was bad, or who 
gave reasons why they didn't want to testify and said they 
could not testify on the other side.
    So that we did make an honest and conscientious effort to 
bring into focus this other evidence. As a matter of fact, the 
committee never did go so far as to arrive at conclusions on 
it. We got into the picture of suspending operations at the 
time when the testimony of the State Department was it was 
costing us $1,000 a day to maintain the whole thing in the 
status of suspended animation, which we said was ridiculous. 
They even said they were spending $5,000 a year guarding a 
piece of land out there. We said that is a waste of public 
funds.
    Mr. Barrett. I think that where there is an allegation as 
serious as sabotage, it would be well to summon the men 
responsible for recommending the decision.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to say this, you see Mr. Barrett, the 
trouble is you closed the door the day you walked out of the 
State Department and as of the time you left there is no doubt 
that Dr. Wiesner and people at MIT thought Baker was properly 
located. But if you had followed the transcript of the hearings 
here you would find a memorandum of July 7, 1952, I do not know 
if you have looked at it or not, from General Stone to Dr. 
Compton, which sets forth the fact that Dr. Wiesner at MIT and 
every one else concerned has after mature consideration changed 
his mind about it and felt he was wrong, regardless of whether 
he had been right originally, that it was mislocated, and that 
there should be a prompt change in location from Seattle, 
Washington to some point in southern California.
    Now, after that recommendation was made, General Stoner 
wrote a memorandum saying yes, they make this recommendation 
and I can't criticize it because nobody disagrees with them. 
But if we do make the change there will be a congressional 
investigation and we will have trouble getting funds from now 
on, and so on and so forth, so we had better go ahead even 
though it means we are going to have to worry about output 
efficiency up at this place and we are going to be constantly 
watched on that score from now on, and what we are doing is 
``more than a calculated risk.''
    Now that happened after you left the department, and so the 
record clearly indicates that Dr. Wiesner came in and said, 
``Gentlemen, if I said this originally I was wrong.'' This is 
on July 7, 1952, and it is now mislocated and he was joined in 
that, by RCA and by Mr. James Welden, and by everybody else 
concerned in the thing, and that was that. In spite of those 
recommendations, they went ahead until this committee began its 
hearings and as soon as it did the next day they suspended 
this, and Mr. Reed Harris, himself, who I certainly don't think 
can be called friendly to the committee, testified in open 
session before us, that in his opinion on the basis of all of 
this that Baker West was clearly mislocated and should not be 
constructed in its present site.
    We have looked high and wide to find somebody who--Senator 
Mundt has been asking about it--who will come in here and tell 
us that it is in the right place, and we have found absolutely 
nobody.
    Mr. Barrett. I believe if you will call that list of five 
witnesses that Dr. Compton told me were originally given to 
you, and not just invite them but subpoena them, you will find 
that there is at least a serious question as to whether it 
should be moved south or north.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, as to that list of witnesses, do you say 
that Dr. Wiesner has been untruthful when he has talked to the 
staff?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I would not say that of any of them, but I 
would say this, sir, that engineers can indulge in a great many 
``and/ors,'' and ``on the one hand'' and ``on the other hand.'' 
And I would think that this committee has almost an obligation 
to hear that kind of testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. You know Dr. Wiesner is quoted in the memorandum 
by General Stoner to Dr. Compton as saying he had agreed he had 
been wrong originally and that this finding should be changed.
    Mr. Barrett. I would imagine having dealt with engineers as 
much as I have that you should read the full letter of Dr. 
Wiesner.
    Mr. Cohn. It was not a letter, it was an opinion expressed 
in an oral conference. It was a unanimous opinion, and I might 
say this to you, that this committee has since had the benefit 
of the report from the chief of propagation division of the 
Bureau of Standards worked on by his entire staff, which shows 
that it is mislocated to the point that 90 percent of the time 
on certain hours, key hours, 90 percent of the days, it will 
require fifty times as much power if they go ahead at Seattle 
rather than move to a more southerly location. So we have not 
been able to get anybody who is going to tell us that there is 
any serious question about it.
    Mr. Barrett. You know what the basic problem there is. The 
basic problem is this: according to all of the best digests of 
engineering information I have been able to get and some of the 
key people I have talked to out of curiosity of late. The 
northerly location in Seattle will give you a stronger signal 
at peak periods when you do not have certain types of 
interference.
    Mr. Cohn. Which is almost never.
    Mr. Barrett. Which is about 95 percent of the time, I have 
been told.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting because it is directly 
against what anybody has said at any time, including the 
original time when they recommended it to be located in 
Seattle. So I would be very much interested to know who is the 
authority for that statement. That would really be 
enlightening.
    Mr. Barrett. I don't have authority to quote the gentleman 
at this time. I don't feel free to do so. This is purely an 
advisory opinion, and I think however that you will find some 
substance to that if these five gentlemen are called. Let us 
say anyway----
    Mr. Cohn. I assume you want to be fair about this, Mr. 
Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Let us say 50 percent of the time. If it is 
further south, you will get more consistent projection of the 
signal but you will not have as loud a signal or as strong a 
signal during the optimum periods. So it gets down to a 
question of that sort. That seems to be the reason that the 
engineers can quarrel over it a great deal.
    The point I am trying to make, Mr. Cohn, is that I don't 
think that that kind of difference, and I don't think that that 
fact that engineers have differed in the past or may have 
changed their minds, would necessarily mean sabotage.
    Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Mundt has pointed out there has 
been no conclusion arrived at by the committee. All that is 
quite clear, is, and I don't say it would not be a reasonable 
thing for somebody to at least look into, after the consistent 
opinions expressed. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. 
Pratt, the telecommunications adviser to President Eisenhower, 
before this committee?
    Mr. Barrett. I have not had access to the transcript.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pratt testified that he has been dealing with 
the engineering department of the Voice of America, and IIA 
over a period of time, in his capacity as telecommunications 
officer. And he was appointed by President Truman and after 
examination he was reappointed by President Eisenhower, and he 
is one of the top men in the field and he has complete 
responsibility to the president for all telecommunications 
problems.
    Now, Mr. Pratt said in over a period of years in the course 
of a pattern of dealing with the engineering department at the 
Voice, and IIA, he found I think his words were ``Gross 
incompetence throughout.''
    Now that is pretty serious and you wouldn't call him a 
disgruntled employee, would you?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I would not, but I have got right here, a 
statement signed by Mr. Wiesner and concurred in by Dr. Purcell 
and Dr. Burgman and Dr. Salisbury, in which they make 
statements to the contrary, and saying that there is evidence 
of a great deal of competence in it and that the ring plan is 
an ambitious step boldly conceived and in our opinion basically 
sound, and that they were amazed ``to find that Mr. Herrick was 
not a graduate engineer because we found him to be well trained 
technically, able to participate actively in any discussion and 
quick to grasp the point of any new idea. In addition to his 
technical competence, he has a number of other characteristics 
that make him an excellent chief engineer for this division.''
    All I am saying is that I asked these gentlemen to give me 
their best opinions at that time, and they had been making a 
profound study of the whole Ring plan.
    Mr. Cohn. Without getting into the argumentative stage, an 
awful lot has happened and people have changed their minds and 
the opinion of Mr. Herrick is so changed he has been demoted 
and he was removed from his position up there, and at Senator 
Symington's suggestion the committee conducted an investigation 
and found that he took one year of pre-engineering and flunked 
out and flunked I think every engineering course that he took. 
Furthermore, that is one test and another test is as a 
practical result the testimony before the committee has been 
that he ran the department with considerable competence, and 
the State Department has removed him from his position.
    Dr. Wiesner of course has a $600,000 contract as a result 
of Mr. Herrick's intervention, and with Mr. Herrick's 
department. Of course, Dr. Wiesner is the man who made a 
mistake in an original selection of Baker West, which he has 
now conceded was a mistake, conceded on July 7, 1952.
    Now, all of this happened since you left there and what 
concerns me very much is the fact that in spite of all of those 
things, you made that statement before the Hickenlooper 
committee and you make those statements in here today and I 
know you want to be fair about this. As Senator McCarthy said, 
you're in the position of someone, you are not a newspaper who 
doesn't know all of the facts, you are in the position of a man 
who has great responsibility for all of this, and when you say 
something I assume it comes with authority.
    Now you made very serious allegations, and I do not take 
anything personally after this long in the game, although I 
will say I never had anybody say such about anybody who held 
public office that high who was insulting in an unwarranted way 
as what you said.
    Mr. Barrett. May I speak to that for just a moment?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Barrett. There was one statement about allegations made 
elsewhere about a handpicked group of disgruntled and 
frightened little men. That was the one statement in which I 
clearly had in mind the hearings before this committee.
    Now, there are other statements that have been so 
interpreted, and unfairly so interpreted, and for example, ``a 
real fight against Communist imperialism does not mean going 
hog wild, misconstruing propaganda as a substitute for 
action.''
    Now, I have never thought that this committee was guilty of 
that. ``It does not mean letting childish headline-hunters 
frighten us into such shrill and strident techniques as to 
antagonize at the outset those we seek to win over.''
    In that case I will be honest with you, I had some of the 
hearings of this committee in mind. I also had, however, many 
others, who say the Voice should be more vigorously anti-
Communist. The Voice is already being criticized for being too 
violently and shrilly strident in some areas.
    Mr. Cohn. You think I am being over sensitive about the use 
of the word childish, that was not an allusion to my age.
    Mr. Barrett. I think you are being over sensitive.
    Mr. Cohn. It is used sixteen times in the statement.
    Mr. Barrett. I think in fact in one place I had some of the 
youngsters who within the Voice of America think that any 
effort by an ambassador overseas to tone down the output of the 
Voice of America, believe it to be more effective if it 
indulges in less name calling. I had in mind the young radio 
desk officers who often feel that way.
    Senator Mundt. I am going to turn this over to Senator 
McClellan because I have an office appointment. I want to ask 
two final questions. One being whether you would agree with the 
position that this committee has now taken in so far as Baker 
East and Baker West is concerned, as being explored by the new 
director of the Voice of America, who has access to all of this 
testimony and all of the facts, that that is the place where 
the decision should be made, since this unconscionable $1000 a 
day suspension has been stopped and they have definitely 
terminated it to take another look at it.
    Mr. Barrett. I think it should be studied in this way, on 
the basis of all possible information.
    Senator Mundt. I don't think it would give us any help to 
bring in reputable engineers to make them admit, which 
apparently they would have to do, that their original statement 
was wrong. They would say if they still think so that would be 
one thing, but they are entitled to make a mistake, and we 
didn't want to subpoena them over their objections to make them 
admit that they were wrong. If you think that we should do 
that, and to make it seem fair, we could do that but I wanted 
your counsel on that. We thought the better place for them to 
testify would be before Dr. Johnson's committees.
    Mr. Barrett. Perhaps at this late date, perhaps you are 
right. I believe it was unfortunate that there was a 
connotation of sabotage, which was not a conclusion of the 
committee, I believe, but it was allowed to stand.
    Senator Mundt. Now, the other question, do you have in mind 
any witnesses or have any people who might come to you, up in 
the Voice of America, or down here because of your long contact 
with the department, that you feel who should be called who 
have not been called, and who can shed any additional light on 
any aspect of this hearing?
    Mr. Barrett. I would personally think it would be to the 
committee's advantage, in reaching its overall conclusion to at 
least talk with, and not call as formal open session witnesses, 
members of these advisory commissions because they have been 
watching this program on behalf of the Congress for a long, 
long time.
    Senator Mundt. I might say for your information we did 
correspond with them.
    Mr. Cohn. With every one of them.
    Senator Mundt. About the decision which the Department of 
State used to use certain kinds of Communist publications 
abroad, and we asked them if that was correct, because the 
State Department had said they got it from them, and I do not 
know how many of them answered, but I do know I got about two 
letters back, each one of which said it was confidential and we 
don't want to appear, but we did make that decision but we 
don't want to get up there and testify about it. So it was not 
very helpful.
    Mr. Cohn. Some said they were misquoted; seven said that.
    Mr. Barrett. In that case, just because two of them happen 
to have spoken to me, I think that some of the letters went to 
the wrong commission, and there are two commissions. Senator 
Mundt knows this, a lot of the letters went to the commission 
on International Information.
    Mr. Cohn. You are now talking to us because we have been 
talking to too many members of the commissions instead of not 
enough.
    Senator Mundt. If you have any suggestions, and it could 
well be that someone would say, ``Look, nobody has called me 
and I think that I ought to be heard,'' and if there are such 
names and you can give them to us, I am sure that we will be 
glad to call them because we want to get at the facts 
ultimately. As far as I know, every member of this committee 
has said they want to see the Voice continued. Some have said 
it with more enthusiasm and some with less, but I have heard 
none of them say that they think it should be scrapped.
    We want to wind it up on a constructive note and to make 
the best possible kind of suggestions and if you have witnesses 
that you believe do come in and say, ``well, now, the line of 
testimony you got on this phase or that phase is bad, and let 
us get it right.'' We would like to bring them into the 
committee room, except as I say on the engineering thing, which 
is too technical for us to decide anyhow, and it seems to me 
there we serve no good purpose in continuing discussion of 
electronics which none of us understands.
    Mr. Barrett. Now, apropos of that, in the same Hickenlooper 
statement, despite all we have heard today, the majority of 
that statement was supposed to be on the constructive side, and 
it was, I believe. It was based on the benefit of hindsight, 
saying, ``I hoped my own hindsight would assist the foresight 
of others.'' I can say as far as constructive suggestions are 
concerned, those contained in the last four pages of the 
statement may be worthy of the committee's attention. I 
probably should not volunteer a statement, Senator Mundt, but 
there is one thing that I would like to say because I feel it 
very strongly as an American citizen. I feel that a great deal 
of care should be exercised by a committee of this sort in the 
open discussion of arrangements with other governments. I 
regret to say that I think harm has been done in dealing with 
pretty sensitive operations going on abroad in an open hearing 
sort of way.
    Now, I grant you that the American people have a right to 
know what is going on. I am one who has long advocated publicly 
that there be a continuing committee to investigate this field. 
So I am certainly not adverse to investigations. But I do think 
that it is essential to handle with great care matters of 
policy and operations that are carried on in other countries.
    May I go off the record for just a moment?
    [Off the record.]
    Senator Mundt. You have referred and a lot of other people 
have referred in criticizing this committee, to these very 
hearings, and I am not as allergic to the criticisms as some of 
the other members of the committee, and Senator Symington who 
is new in the legislative game. Having served on the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities, I know what criticism is. 
So it couldn't bother me.
    But on the very thing I think it should be understood that 
this committee has no control over what is televised other than 
that we can bar a television if we want to, but it isn't a 
question of our inviting them to say this is the day the TV 
will show and this is not. We have set up the rule temporarily 
on a trial basis. We should not be the judge of different media 
of communication, that is our decision, and if the hearings are 
open to the press and to photographers and to the radio, it is 
also open to the TV people if they want to avail themselves of 
it without using a lot of lights and sounds and noises to 
disrupt the committee, so it is not quite fair to say that we 
televise one witness greatly and then not the other fellow. It 
is the TV people who decide that, and that is a judgment made 
by them and not us. I think that that should be in the record 
because I think it is generally misunderstood. We said that 
early in the game, did we not, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. Absolutely.
    Senator Mundt. They decide if Stassen comes it is a good 
show and so they put it on and if somebody else comes they 
don't put it on, and when Browder comes they think it is a good 
show.
    Mr. Barrett. Because you and Senator McClellan are 
interested in a strong Voice of America, I can only say on that 
that on those days when you know that you are going to have 
television on, I wish that you would put a witness----
    Senator Mundt. We do not know. We schedule the witnesses.
    Mr. Surine. At the specific request of Mr. Harris, the 
television people stayed out an extra hour just to accommodate 
Mr. Harris.
    Mr. Barrett. They may have in Washington but they didn't in 
New York.
    Senator Mundt. At his request, and so we asked the TV in 
the room, ``Will you go on for another hour?'' and they said 
yes.
    Mr. Cohn. I am very glad you said that for the record, 
because the fact is that we have absolutely no control and we 
don't know on Monday, they didn't know they were going to 
televise the thing until an hour before and they were going to 
do UN and that was canceled and the last minute they came in 
here.
    Senator Mundt. If we decided this was to be an open hearing 
with you, the TV might decide to come in. They put their 
machine up and it is still a decision which is tentative on our 
part whether we should admit television or not, and many other 
committees are dealing with that. We think we will give it a 
trial and it may or may not be good public policy.
    Mr. Cohn. Before Senator Mundt goes, I think this is clear, 
and you say you want a good Voice of America and a strong one, 
and I think we all do. Now, you don't think and you are not 
suggesting are you, that there should not be an investigation 
on that when not only false but very grave faults come to the 
attention of the committee, and do you feel----
    Mr. Barrett. I do not think if very grave faults came to 
the attention of the committee, it should refrain from going 
into those fully. I do think that it should use discretion in 
what it makes public, and what it makes not public.
    Mr. Cohn. We have been trying to use the greatest 
discretion we can.
    Mr. Barrett. I would like to see less of it public from the 
nation's standpoint, that is all.
    I personally think that a committee that covers as wide a 
field as this will have difficulty doing the continuing job 
that needs to be done in this field, and that is why I have 
personally advocated a joint committee with a continuing 
charter to study this whole complex and extremely intricate 
field.
    Mr. Cohn. A lot of this has been going on, you say there 
are constant committees going around visiting just to correct 
the situation, and apparently no one found out about this and 
we found out about it. That is about the book situation.
    Mr. Barrett. Are you fully convinced that the books are on 
the open shelves of many libraries?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Barrett, there is no doubt about it, unless 
the State Department's whole system is just phony from top to 
bottom. Our lists, there is a file located in the Library of 
Congress of what they call the master file which is made up as 
a result of slips being sent over from the State Department 
after receiving information from the field that such and such a 
book has been placed on our open shelves. Now if that whole 
file is out the window, I suppose that is one thing. But if the 
file is accurate, as we have been told by the State Department 
it is, or if there is any accuracy to it, there is not one or 
two, but there are thousands of books by Communists on the open 
shelves of the State Department libraries. I might say there is 
no element of doubt here because we have actual witnesses, some 
of whom have testified that within the last three weeks have 
seen these books on open shelves and information centers, and 
so I can say to you that there is no doubt whatsoever.
    Mr. Barrett. Are these books by Communists or Communist 
books?
    Mr. Cohn. Books by Communists and Communist books.
    Mr. Barrett. Books by Communists are a good deal harder to 
detect, like Dashiell Hammett.
    Mr. Cohn. These are books calling for the overthrow of the 
United States government, and books published by International 
Publishers, the official publishing house of the Communist 
party, and books containing from cover to cover a number of 
them, the Communist party line, written by present-day members 
of the Communist party.
    Senator McClellan. The only surviving member of the 
committee is about to depart, and before doing so I just want 
to ask you one or two questions for the record, and then I 
should like to make a little comment to the witness off the 
record. I may preface my question with this statement:
    Obviously, and apparently and admittedly, some of your 
testimony before the other committee was definitely intended as 
criticism of the actions of this committee in the investigation 
of the Voice of America. Was it your purpose in making that 
criticism, which you had a right to make, whatever your 
purpose, to be constructive or was it simply for the purpose of 
affecting adversely the work of this committee in conducting 
this investigation?
    Mr. Barrett. Senator McClellan, my purpose and I can say in 
all honesty, was constructive. I believe that if we are going 
to carry on a program of this sort in a field in which we 
Americans are relatively inexperienced, just learning our way, 
that it is necessary for us as a people to refrain from certain 
things, and to refrain from over-estimating the value of 
propaganda, falsely thinking it can be used as I said as a 
substitute for action. I think it is important, knowing the 
difficulty of recruiting good personnel I think it is important 
to refrain from demoralizing an organization through criticism 
of a one-sided nature, perhaps. I think that it is necessary to 
do a great many of these things in here if we are going to 
conduct an intelligent propaganda program. That is a reason, 
sir, that I advocate a continuing congressional committee with 
an investigating staff that can look into this thing, not just 
for two months, but permanently.
    Senator McClellan. Well, I accept a number of things in 
your prepared statement before the other committee as being 
definitely intended as constructive suggestions or testimony 
that you thought would be helpful in this matter. Certain 
sentences or statements in your prepared statement to the 
committee about which you have already been interrogated, 
clearly imply, I think, that it was intended not to be so 
constructive as it was to be destructive of the influence and 
prestige of the committee. That is a reason I asked you that.
    For all purposes, I want to be as fair as I know how, and I 
do not doubt that sometimes, and maybe more times than I 
realize as a member of the committee, that some criticism of 
the committee and of individual members of it may be justified. 
I am not shielding anyone or trying to defend anyone that may 
have transgressed at some stage in a proceeding. But I thought 
it was a little bit, if I may say it this way, a little bit 
severe to go before another committee and almost preface your 
testimony or open your testimony with a definite criticism of 
this committee which appeared to be for destructive effect 
rather than for constructive purpose.
    Mr. Barrett. Well, sir, I understand your point, and I 
appreciate it, and perhaps if I had had a little longer time to 
prepare the statement I would have been more careful to word it 
more tactfully. The deadline for it was backed up on me very 
suddenly at the last minute. I was asked to appear before I 
thought I was going.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you volunteer as a witness?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I was requested to appear. But let me say 
this, sir, that I have seen this group and the Voice of America 
and I twisted the arms of a certain number of good people to 
get them on the group. They needed first-rate people, that is 
one of the difficulties, and I have seen them, a few of them 
happen to be friends, virtually ashamed of the fact that they 
are working in the Voice of America due to the headlines 
growing out of this inquiry. That has made me feel along with 
some of the other facts that I have mentioned that the net 
effect has been more harm than good.
    Senator McClellan. Then you think that the work of the 
committee to date has done more harm than good? In other words, 
it has not produced more constructive results than it has done 
harm.
    Mr. Barrett. That is my sincere belief and no doubt some of 
you will disagree with me.
    Senator McClellan. I am not trying to disagree, and I am 
only trying to get the record clear.
    Mr. Barrett. Let me say that the publicity growing out of 
some of the committee's activities has on balance done more 
harm than good. I think that that is a fairer way to put it.
    Senator McClellan. You have a perfect right to evaluate the 
work of the committee.
    Mr. Barrett. I did so only because you asked me.
    Senator McClellan. I did ask you, because you have 
testified before another committee in which apparently you 
evaluated it. Your testimony was given wide publicity, and has 
caused some comments to be made and I want to say that I am not 
now criticizing you for having given the testimony. I am trying 
to get a record here whereby I can better evaluate the 
testimony that you gave.
    Now, you have even in that testimony, repeated today, you 
testified regarding people who were disgruntled. I wonder if 
anyone could assume or there could be any possible implications 
that because you formerly occupied the position that you did, 
that one would be equally as justified in assuming that you are 
momentarily unhappy, we will use that word, instead of 
disgruntled, because an investigation of this agency is in 
progress by a committee.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not now with the agency and I have not 
been for more than a year, as you know. I feel very strongly 
that the agency must be as strong as possible and therefore I 
am unhappy when I think damage is being done to the agency, the 
net effect through inquiries, but the net effect of which I 
happen to think has done more harm than good.
    Senator McClellan. The only reason I am mentioning this and 
putting this into the record, is simply because no matter what 
the committee does, if it brings witnesses in here who are in 
the service, or in the agency to testify in any degree critical 
of anything that goes on, then the first thing we hear is that 
they are disgruntled or unhappy people because their 
suggestions were not adopted or because they did not get a 
promotion or because they have since left the agency. So all of 
these things, if they are to be evaluated and weighed in 
connection with the testimony, and no credence is ever given to 
good faith of witnesses who appear, who may have some position 
or have had some position, then the whole investigation is 
useless.
    You have to, I think, take each individual witness as he 
testifies, with his background and with his demeanor on the 
stand, and weigh it in the light of all of the circumstances.
    So I can agree as to one witness whose name has already 
been mentioned. I did not get the impression necessarily that 
the woman was disgruntled, but I certainly didn't give great 
weight to her testimony. But some of the others whom you 
mentioned, I thought were very sincere people and were trying 
to be helpful to the committee.
    I have one other point I wanted to mention and to get your 
views on this: This question of television has given me 
considerable concern. I cannot make up my mind definitely 
whether these hearings or hearings of this nature should be 
televised. That is first because I can appreciate that the 
lights and those things sometimes give the witness some sense 
of uneasiness, or lack of being calm and so forth. At the same 
time the hearings are public. Are not the rest of the people of 
the nation who are citizens entitled to see if they can, and be 
present at least by television, to witness the proceedings just 
as much so as those who are permitted to come into the 
committee room and witness in person?
    Now, that gives me concern. I don't know which is the right 
answer. What is your view regarding it.
    Mr. Barrett. I can only give a partial view. I do not have 
the overall answer. I should say it is important that when a 
witness is called who is denouncing another individual that it 
is important that some way be found to give the other denounced 
individual an opportunity to answer as promptly as possible, 
and also on television.
    Senator McClellan. I think that that is correct. And I do 
not know of anyone who would object to that. The question is if 
they are not immediately available and of course you just 
cannot have them all here at the same time.
    Mr. Barrett. Scheduling is difficult, and all of that, but 
I think great injustice is being done in that way.
    Senator McClellan. I think that there is a great problem 
involved here, and I do not know how to solve it. I have been 
giving it a good deal of consideration. I may ask you this, 
too: Do you not agree that the committee could do better work 
so far as the committee's tasks are concerned, and the Congress 
itself, if all of the testimony should be taken in executive 
hearings?
    Mr. Barrett. I would think so, very definitely.
    Senator McClellan. I think so, too, but if you undertake to 
do that then you are having star chamber proceedings, and you 
are denying it from the American public.
    Mr. Barrett. In a field as delicate as this, I would think 
so.
    Senator McClellan. You see the problem we have. I would 
like to find the right answer, but I am unable to do so as of 
now.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Barrett, you have had a high position of 
responsibility in the State Department, in the past, and I 
presume that you feel that at no time any individual should 
make any charge unless he is careful to prepare the facts, 
would you agree with that opinion?
    Mr. Barrett. What is that?
    Mr. Surine. That no individual of responsibility should 
make any charge or statement without being fully prepared with 
his facts carefully.
    Mr. Barrett. He should not make a factual statement without 
being in possession of the facts.
    Mr. Surine. Do you agree with that or not?
    Mr. Barrett. I agree he should not make a factual statement 
without knowing the facts.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we had worked 
very closely with General Smith in connection with certain 
matters in connection with this hearing?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I did not.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we worked in 
connection with these books from an official list given by the 
State Department, to us, books currently being used?
    Did you know that?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, I do know that.
    Mr. Surine. Did you know that the books were on the open 
shelves?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I did not know that.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not sure yet.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we had 
contacted many, if not all, of the engineers that you suggested 
as well as Mr. Harris, and did you know that?
    Mr. Barrett. I knew that the staff had done so, but I 
didn't know the committee had done so.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to your testimony the other day, or prior 
to today, you have made no effort to read the public printed 
hearings that we have had before this committee, is that right?
    Mr. Barrett. I have not had access to them.
    Mr. Surine. You have open access to it.
    Another thing: Prior to today did you make an effort to 
contact any staff member of this committee to straighten 
yourself out on certain facts before you testified before the 
Hickenlooper committee? That is prior to today or any other 
day.
    Mr. Barrett. Did I make any effort to do what?
    Mr. Surine. To contact any staff member of this committee 
to get your facts straight.
    Mr. Barrett. No. Now wait just a minute.
    Senator McClellan. Let the witness finish his answer, I 
believe in letting the witness answer the question.
    Mr. Barrett. No, because there were no facts that I felt 
that I needed from the members of the staff.
    Mr. Surine. Now, several of your answers you have stated 
for instance on disgruntled employees, you furnished 
information which was merely your opinion, or your belief or 
hearsay. Do you as a man of responsibility not having 
acquainted yourself with the facts, feel that it was 
responsible to have made such charges?
    Mr. Barrett. I am sorry, but I have acquainted myself with 
facts by reading every bit of newspaper copy and watching all 
of the television shows that I could on it.
    Mr. Surine. Now, one other question. What was the nature of 
your circumstances of hiring David Cushman Coyle?
    Mr. Barrett. Exactly as stated.
    Mr. Surine. I will withdraw the question.
    Mr. Barrett. I put out a statement on that which I will be 
glad to make available to you.
    Senator McClellan. That gets into another field and I have 
to leave at this point.
    We will recess at this time.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to 
reconvene at the call of the chairman.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--In an open session during the morning of 
April 1, 1953, the subcommittee heard from Freda Utley (1898-
1978), a former Communist party member then writing for the 
anti-Communist periodical, The Freeman. She had published an 
article, ``Facing Both Ways in Germany'' in The Freeman, 
(December 15, 1952) critiquing the books stocked by American 
libraries in Germany. In her testimony, Utley noted that the 
original Four-Power occupation agreement in Germany had 
prohibited sending anti-Soviet and anti-Communist books to 
Germany, and that therefore none of the U.S. libraries had a 
specific category on communism in their collections. She then 
analyzed the catalogs for books by those she identified as 
Communists or Communist sympathizers. Utley testified again in 
public on May 5, 1953.
    Dan Mabry Lacy (1914-2001), who had headed the Information 
Center Service program during the Truman administration, from 
1951-1953, testified in closed session that afternoon, to 
explain the libraries' policies for including books in their 
collections. He was not called to testify at a public hearing.]
                              ----------                              
                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:45 p.m. in room 155 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine, chief 
consultant; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; John D. Leahy, deputy 
assistant to the under secretary of state.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lacy, would you raise your right hand? In 
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Lacy. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lacy, give us your full name.
        TESTIMONY OF DAN MABRY LACY, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL, FORMER
       ADMINISTRATOR, INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION IN CHARGE
                 OF INFORMATION CENTER SERVICE
    Mr. Lacy. Dan Mabry, M-a-b-r-y, Lacy, L-a-c-y.
    Mr. Cohn. And where are you employed now?
    Mr. Lacy. I am managing director of the American Book 
Publishers Council.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you have been with the government; is that 
right, Mr. Lacy?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, since January 1936, until March of this 
year.
    Mr. Cohn. January 1936, until March of this year. Could you 
tell us what positions you held?
    Mr. Lacy. From January 1936 until December '41, I worked 
for WPA and as assistant state supervisor and then state 
supervisor and regional supervisor and assistant national 
director of the Historical Record Survey.
    From December '41, until June '42, I was executive 
secretary of the Committee on Conservation of Cultural 
Resources, which was set up by the National Resources Planning 
Board.
    From June '42 until July '47, I was with the National 
Archives as assistant to the executive officer and later 
assistant to the archivist, and later director of operations.
    From July '47 until September 1951, I was with the Library 
of Congress as assistant director of its processing department, 
and later deputy chief assistant librarian. I was on loan from 
them----
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. Who was librarian, when you were 
deputy chief assistant?
    Mr. Lacy. Luther Evans. He has been librarian since 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. You were up to the point where I think you said 
in 1951 you were deputy chief assistant librarian of Congress.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You served in the Library of Congress first under 
Mr. McLeish and than under Dr. Evans?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, to a pro forma sense I was there under 
McLeish. I was actually serving as executive secretary of the 
Interdepartmental Committee on Cultural Resources, which was a 
committee of the National Resources Planning Board, but the 
Library of Congress paid my salary for six months. I never was 
in the agency.
    Mr. Cohn. Now we are up to 1951, and would you tell Senator 
McClellan what you did from 1951 until you left?
    Mr. Lacy. From September 1951 through January of this year, 
I was on loan from the Library of Congress to the State 
Department as director of the Information Center Service to the 
State Department, which has charge of the Washington 
backstopping of the overseas libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. Then during that period of time, you were the 
head of these information centers. Is that right?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. I was head of the immediate service that 
backstops them.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, as head of it, of course, you 
were only the head of one of five subdivisions of the 
International Information Administration?
    Mr. Lacy. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You have the Voice of America, which is a 
broadcasting subdivision, INS, the press and the movies, then 
the Educational Exchange Service, which handles exchanges of 
students and so on, and then you have the Information Center 
Service, which sets up the libraries that this committee has 
been investigating.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it procures material for them and develops 
operating policy. The library in each country is under the 
ambassador and the deputy for field programs.
    Mr. Cohn. What interests us is your function as head of 
these information centers, which contain these libraries.
    Now, Mr. Lacy, am I correct in assuming that you have 
followed to some extent the hearings of the committee during 
the last two weeks?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And the fact that there has been a disclosure 
that books by Communist authors are on the open shelves of 
various of these information centers?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I think what Senator McClellan and the other 
members of the committee would be very much interested in, and 
I know Senator McClellan particularly, to who is responsible 
for the fact that books by Communists were purchased and 
allowed, and, assuming the initial purchase was made, who was 
responsible for allowing them to continue on the open shelves 
of these Information Centers, and why.
    Mr. Lacy. I think I could answer that most clearly and 
probably with the least amount of doubling back for later 
explanations if I could take about five minutes to go over the 
general setup.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest you take your time to answer, 
and answer thoroughly, giving such background as you think 
pertinent.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, there are presently, unless the number 
has changed since I left the department, a number of months 
ago, 199 of these libraries. Now, of this number, forty-nine 
are in Germany, and were established by the army.
    Mr. Cohn. When were they established by the army?
    Mr. Lacy. In various dates. Well, as a matter of fact, I am 
not technically accurate in saying all forty-nine were 
established by the army. But on various dates from 1945 and '46 
on up until the State Department took over the administration 
of the information program in Germany. And the department 
itself has opened a few since then in what were formerly the 
French and British zones of occupation. The army had only the 
American zone. Most of them were established about '47 and '48.
    Another batch of twenty-three are in Japan, established and 
operated by the occupation there, and taken over by the State 
Department in April of this past year.
    Another several were in Korea, and they were originally 
established by the army there. Four or five in Latin America 
had been established by the coordinator of inter-American 
affairs in the war period.
    Most of the rest had originally been established by OWI, 
during the war years. Of the total 199, perhaps twenty or 
thirty were originally established by the State Department. I 
don't have exact figures before me, and the twenty or thirty 
may be off by as many as ten or fifteen, but that is the order 
of magnitude.
    Now, all of those libraries inherited, when the State 
Department took them over, the collections of books that they 
had in them at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Such as the army may have already stocked them 
with?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. Now, in the case of these German libraries, 
and I should add also Austrian, when they were first started, 
the initial book stock that was put in them was to a very 
considerable degree the collections of books that the army had 
had for recreational reading for American troops overseas, and 
were not selected for this sort of purpose really. The troops 
were being pulled out of most of them where these libraries 
were being closed up and in a rather indiscriminate fashion 
they turned them over to the libraries they had in Germany. So 
that there was a large group of inherited collections.
    Now, to those, additions have been made in several 
different ways. The State Department itself, regularly, since 
it started administering this program, taking over the OWI part 
of this program, in 1946, and the other elements from the army 
at various later dates, has regularly sent out a monthly packet 
of books selected here in Washington and sent to all or to all 
in a given geographical area in the libraries overseas.
    This, during the period from the early period, was the way 
in which most of the books, probably, were added--by these 
packets selected here and sent out.
    But in addition to that, throughout the whole period, every 
individual librarian has had a budget against which he could 
order books from Washington. Now, when he ordered those, those 
orders would come in and be reviewed by a geographic desk 
officer for that area, and by a bibliographer, and if they both 
approved it, the book would be bought. I should have added that 
the book packet each month was picked up by a committee of 
several members of the staff, who might be different in any two 
months.
    Also, each post had a so-called general operating expense 
allotment, from which they were able to buy materials locally 
out of local book stores, and to that case they did not have to 
get any Washington approval. Largely what they bought in that 
case was locally published translations of American books that 
had appeared in the local languages and were available in the 
local book stores. But sometimes they would buy an ordinary 
American edition of a book that was available in a book store 
there if they wanted to save the several weeks or months it 
would take to order them from Washington.
    In addition, private American citizens who might be living 
in these areas and might have personal libraries of their own, 
might, when they left town, just stop by and say, ``Look here. 
Here are some books of mine I would be glad to give to the 
library.'' And the local librarian might reject or accept them 
at his discretion.
    Similarly, the Foreign Service Officer attached to the post 
might do the same thing when he was attached to another post 
and did not want to pack all of the books away to his library. 
And organizations and frequently corporations that publish 
house organs for their employees will frequently send them to 
all the libraries overseas also. So that they got books into 
the collections through all of this wide variety of ways.
    Now, I would like to say one further thing, if I may, sir, 
which will, I think probably save explanation and answers to 
future questions, about the state of our records, of what is in 
the libraries overseas.
    Since the State Department started operating this program, 
in '46, there is available to the department a complete record 
of all the books that were selected here and sent out in book 
packets. From about April 1947, there is a complete record on 
slips of all of the books that were bought here, either at the 
initiative of the department or at the request of the field. 
But those records on slips in the department do not cover 
materials acquired in all of these other ways, the ones that 
were already in the libraries when the department took them 
over, the ones that might have been bought locally, and all of 
that sort of thing.
    Now, a considerable handicap in administering the program 
was our ignorance of what else besides what we had bought here 
might be in the libraries, or indeed what the State Department 
might have bought in the first year it operated it, except for 
the book packet.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask this question? I do not want 
to interrupt you, but at that point may I ask whether, at any 
time since 1946 or '47, the date you gave there--when the State 
Department took this over--there has been any screening of 
those books, any inventory of them or screening of them to 
determine whether objectionable material was being made 
available to those libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. That was the point I was just coming to, Senator, 
if I may go on along that line.
    Senator McClellan. All right.
    Mr. Lacy. Just as I came with the project and with the 
service in the State Department to September 1947, or a few 
weeks before that--it was nothing that I initiated--they had 
for the first time started on a comprehensive effort to build 
up a complete catalogue of everything that was in all of the 
libraries overseas, and they requested every library to send, 
in whatever physical form it might be possible----
    Senator Symington. Who is ``they''?
    Mr. Lacy. The State Department, my predecessor.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
    Mr. Lacy. Lawrence S. Morris.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is he now?
    Mr. Lacy. Unless he has changed in the last few weeks, he 
is cultural affairs officer to the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
    Senator Symington. May I just interrupt a second?
    When you say ``they,'' you say you mean the State 
Department. Where was he then?
    Mr. Lacy. The then title of the job was the chief of the 
Division of Overseas Information Centers, but it was the same 
job I subsequently occupied with a different title.
    Senator Symington. Was his headquarters in Washington?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. And he is now in Paris?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. When did he leave here and go to Paris?
    Mr. Lacy. In September of 1951.
    Senator Symington. How long had he been on the job when you 
took over, roughly?
    Mr. Lacy. About a year or eighteen months, I believe, sir.
    Senator Symington. What did he do before then?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, he had been an employee in that division, 
but not its chief, for some months before that.
    He had worked in OWI during the war, and so on.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is Mr. Morris's predecessor?
    Mr. Lacy. Karl Sauer, S-a-u-e-r.
    Senator Symington. And where is he now?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't know. I have the impression he is in 
California, but I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You were talking about Mr. Morris?
    Mr. Lacy. Correct. Mr. Morris is the one that is in Paris.
    Senator Symington. What does he do in Paris now?
    Mr. Lacy. He is the cultural affairs officer in the 
American Embassy there. That means that he would have charge, 
the general oversight, as a matter of fact, of all the 
libraries in Paris, as part of that job, but also all the 
exchange of students and professors and cultural affairs 
generally to France.
    Senator Symington. Was his going from Washington to Paris a 
demotion, or a transfer?
    Mr. Lacy. On the whole, I would say a promotion, sir.
    Senator Symington. A promotion?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it didn't make any great difference in 
grade or salary. I think by and large it would be considered a 
more desirable job. It is about at the same grade.
    Well, sir, I was about to say Mr. Morris had initiated the 
preparation of this union catalogue, listing all the holdings 
of all the libraries overseas, from whatever source derived. 
This was a very sizable undertaking and as a matter of fact the 
catalogue, though nearly complete, is not yet finally 
completed, because the funds we have had to work with in doing 
it have been very limited, and a very small staff has been 
employed. The Library of Congress has been actually doing the 
work under contract to the State Department.
    Now, that catalogue, when it is finally finished, and it is 
nearly finished now, will give us the first reasonably complete 
record of materials that have, at some time, been in the 
libraries. This is this catalogue, incidentally, that the 
committee staff has been working with.
    This catalogue is subject, itself, to some limitations. It 
is somewhat non-current. Not everything has been put in it. 
Books that have been worn out or lost or removed by the local 
librarians have not been--the corresponding cards have not been 
removed from the catalogue here, so that the presence of a card 
there shows that a book has been in the library and presumably 
is still there but not necessarily.
    The librarians are instructed to report quarterly all the 
books that have been worn out or removed, but in practice none 
of them found the time to do the substantial amount of work 
involved.
    Mr. Cohn. Outside of the compilation of this catalogue what 
steps have been taken, what even elementary steps, to see 
whether or not this collection has been infiltrated with 
books----
    Mr. Lacy. The only systematic check has been in connection 
with the information centers in Germany, where the collections 
were on the whole in the worst shape and were most 
miscellaneously received.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say that was the fault of the army. In 
other words, they made the collections?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, fault? I doubt if I would have done any 
better if I had been doing it at that time under those 
circumstances. I do not mean to be critical of the army. But I 
mean it was an inherited situation, that they had had to throw 
in very hurriedly and with great difficulty.
    We sent a member of our staff over who spent several weeks 
screening materials out of the collection.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Lacy. That was before I came with the staff. It was, my 
impression is, in the summer of 1950, but it may have been in 
the spring of '51.
    Mr. Cohn. You see, we had testimony this morning, Mr. Lacy, 
from Freda Utley, who had just returned from Germany in the 
last six weeks, and she gave a rather disturbing picture of the 
libraries over there.
    Mr. Lacy. I have seen Miss Utley's article.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, she said there were books by Ilya Ehrenburg, 
one of the top propagandists of the Soviet Union, still in 1952 
listed in the catalogue for the information centers over 
there.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Ilya Ehrenburg, The Tempering of Russia (New York: Alfred A. 
Knopf, 1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Symington. Listed in the catalogue?
    Mr. Cohn. Listed in the catalogue, actually listed.
    Senator McClellan. I believe she said she did not actually 
see the book.
    Mr. Cohn. No, she said she saw the listing in the 1952 
catalogue.
    I forgot which one of the information centers that was.
    Mr. Leahy. That was issued by the center.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. And just to give you a picture, here, she 
named the Communist party members whose books they were 
stocking, William Mandell, I recall, and Howard Fast, and some 
others, particularly Mandell. Then she said in the China 
section, for instance, there were almost no books which were 
anti-Communist, and there was a slew of literature by the pro-
Chinese Communist school; in other words, Agnes Smedley, a 
Communist, Anna Louise Strong, a Communist, Owen Lattimore, who 
has been found by the Senate Judiciary Committee to have been a 
conscious, articulate tool of the Soviet conspiracy. This was 
as of two months ago. I was wondering how they missed that in 
that screening.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, I do not know what the actual facts in 
the situation are. Karl Baarslag of the American Legion, who I 
understand was to have testified this morning, too, happened to 
come into my office about a day after I first saw Miss Utley's 
article. I think probably it had been out for two or three 
weeks before I saw it. He had himself made a check in Germany, 
which he had been led to make by seeing an advance copy, I 
think, of Miss Utley's article, and he told me that while he 
was himself not pleased by all of the stuff he found he had 
come to the conclusion that her statement, or at least the 
implications or inferences from then, and those made by 
Westbrook Pegler about the same time were unfounded, or only 
partially founded.
    I am not trying to say Mr. Baarslag said he liked or 
approved of the stuff, but he said in his opinion it was not 
nearly as bad as they had depicted.
    Senator Symington. May I ask this question? You are in the 
middle of a narrative, telling us about the job. How close are 
you to being finished?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I think about one minute would finish up 
what I had to say.
    Further than that, I have taken action from time to time on 
individual titles that had come to my attention. I did not 
attempt, while I was in the State Department, to make any 
exhaustive, systematic, down-through-the-catalogue check on 
this point, partly because I knew I was going to be there only 
twelve or fourteen months, and because there were some 
tremendously difficult jobs of getting materials out that I 
wanted to got done; partly because the spot checks I made here 
and there on individual titles didn't lead me to believe that 
the situation was one that was serious or difficult.
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to ask you this, now. You see, we 
went into this thing cold, and we were just told where this 
catalogue was located, where this file was located, Mr. Schine, 
Mr. Buckley, and a couple of others went over there and within 
a matter of three or four hours discovered the fact that books 
by Earl Browder, William Z. Foster, and so on and so forth, 
were listed.
    Why should not at least things that elementary have been 
picked up?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the State Department tells me--I have been 
away from there, of course, during all of this time, and I 
haven't made any personal checks.
    When I found out I was going to testify, I did ask them----
    Mr. Cohn. I might ask you this: You agree those books 
shouldn't be there?
    Mr. Lacy. I agree completely with respect to Mr. Browder 
and Mr. Foster.
    The Chairman. The thing I should like to know, and it 
should not be too difficult: Some of you in charge of this 
program should be able to tell us who, what individual, John 
Jones or Pete Smith, got these Communist books. Who screened 
then? What person?
    Mr. Lacy. I think that could be answered, Senator, only 
with respect to a particular copy of the particular book, since 
if you count all of them----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: During the period, we 
will say, of September 1952, was there not some individual or 
individuals responsible for the purchase or the acquisition of 
books?
    Mr. Lacy. There were a great many people who shared this 
responsibility, sir.
    The Chairman. And does each individual library have the 
right to acquire books by gift or purchase?
    Mr. Lacy. It has the right to accept books by gift. It has 
a very limited budget, not one that our office----
    The Chairman. Then let us say the Library of Congress 
bought or obtained on a gift twenty, thirty, or forty Communist 
books. Was that action ever screened or supervised by anyone 
back here in Washington?
    Mr. Lacy. It would have been very unlikely to have come to 
any specific attention here, except over a period of a good 
many months. The presumption would be that the librarian in 
Paris would be perfectly competent to deal with it.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean somebody could donate books by William 
Z. Foster and nobody would check with you, with your division 
in Washington?
    The Chairman. I have this question in mind: Let us take the 
book of Earl Browder. We know it is in the several libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. There are three different books.
    The Chairman. And how many volumes all told?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know. I would say five or six, all told.
    The Chairman. I wonder if it is not possible to find out 
from the purchase orders or from any other papers, who got that 
book, who was responsible for getting Earl Browder's book and 
putting it in a certain library?
    Mr. Lacy. I was told, sir, that no copy of Browder's book 
was ever bought by the department. There were, I believe, four, 
but your statement that there were five may be correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's take four.
    Mr. Lacy. I am just doing it out of recollection here.
    They were discovered in the union catalogue.
    Senator Symington. In the union catalogue?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir. This is the one that was started being 
prepared a year and a half ago.
    Senator Symington. Where were the four Browder books?
    Mr. Lacy. One in London, I believe, sir, one in 
Johannesburg, I believe. There was a Spanish translation of one 
of his books in one of the libraries in Latin America, which 
the people at State told me today they had a report had been 
removed in the summer of '52, but the card hadn't yet been 
killed in the catalogue here. And there were one or two other 
locations, I remember.
    The Chairman. I was going to ask if there was some way of 
finding out who was responsible for placing those books in 
those four different libraries.
    Mr. Lacy. If the book is still present in one of the 
libraries, which would be questionable, since the cards that 
brought them in were probably filled out in the field two years 
ago, and I am sure as soon as any American member of the staff 
noticed the book there or anybody borrowed it and called it to 
his attention, he would remove it, but if the book is still 
physically there, there would probably be a date stamp on it, 
indicating the date when it was acquired by the library.
    You could find out from that who was the librarian at the 
time. It would be a fairly difficult problem to find.
    Senator Symington. Who would be the one that put the book 
in? Could the book just be brought in and put in voluntarily, 
given, you might say? Could a Communist in Johannesburg bring 
an Earl Browder book in, and would it be accepted by the 
library and the American setup?
    Mr. Lacy. That would be conceivable. In Johannesburg we 
have never had funds to have a professional American librarian. 
We haven't had at many of these libraries. That could happen.
    Senator Symington. You say, then, the State Department did 
not buy the books in question?
    Mr. Lacy. So I am told, sir.
    Senator Symington. Then what other ways could they get it? 
They could get it by gift, you said.
    Mr. Lacy. They could have had it in an OWI library that the 
State Department took over.
    Mr. Cohn. I wonder if we could find out who told that to 
Mr. Lacy, that the State Department did not buy those books. I 
will tell you why I want to know.
    Whoever knew they didn't buy it might be in a position to 
give us some more information.
    Mr. Lacy. Oh, I stopped by the department after you called 
me yesterday. I stopped by the department yesterday.
    Mr. Cohn. I was just wondering if there is someone over 
there who could tell us something. If someone knows enough 
about it to be able to tell you with reference to the specific 
Browder book, ``We did not buy it. That was a gift''--I think 
that person might be in a position to give us some information.
    Mr. Lacy. Perhaps I should have been more precise. We 
didn't buy it from April 1947 on. It is conceivable it might 
have been bought in '46, because they didn't have as good 
records then.
    The Chairman. Let us stop right there. You mean from April 
'47 on you could tell who purchased each book?
    Mr. Lacy. You can tell that the book is purchased. I don't 
think you can tell which employee--Well, it might be possible, 
through a fairly elaborate piecing together of the operations 
memorandum from the field requesting the book and other sorts 
of operating files, whose initials were on it. I don't think 
the actual D88-12, so called, which is the actual order form, 
shows any initials of who purchased it.
    The Chairman. When Louis Budenz testified, he said he 
thought it was as a result of a Communist in that program that 
those books were purchased. Therefore, it would be very 
important, if you have a record of the purchases, to run it 
down, would it not, to find out who is purchasing the books of 
well-known Communists? I can understand anyone going out and 
purchasing the book of an undercover Communist. You do not know 
all of them. But men like Foster, Browder, Agnes Smedley, that 
whole list.
    Mr. Cohn. And Aronberg.
    Mr. Lacy. May I make a statement here, sir, that I think 
really bears on this question? That is that the checks that 
they have made at the department indicate almost no purchases 
of, so to speak, Communist books by publicly known Communist 
authors. That is not to say no books are in the files. I am not 
challenging the findings of the committee on this.
    For example, what I have been told as the basis of their 
checks is that they find no record of any Browder book having 
been bought by the department, though some copies were found, I 
think four or five, in the libraries. They found no record of 
any Foster book having been either bought or having been in the 
libraries. I don't know, how the discrepancy exists on that.
    The Chairman. You say ``they'' found no record. Who over 
there told you this? Who gave you the information?
    Mr. Lacy. The particular person I was talking to is Mr. 
Simpson, who is the division chief under Mr. Humphrey, who 
deals directly with the libraries concerned.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Simpson. Do you know his first name?
    Mr. Lacy. Thomas W.
    The Chairman. When was Mr. Lacy there?
    Mr. Cohn. He was in charge of these information centers 
until January of this year.
    Mr. Lacy. If I might run down through two or three more of 
those, the only ones of his books that were bought in any 
quantity, more than one or two copies, were the Maltese Falcon 
and the Glass Key, both of which were bought in the fall of 
1948.
    The Chairman. Now, let me ask you this: If this man Simpson 
is making this survey to find out how many books there were, 
when they were bought, has he attempted to find out who bought 
them?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, Senator, who bought them--there is never 
any one person who buys one of these books.
    Mr. Cohn. But there is for this reason, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Somebody finally signs the order for the 
book, or some group of people. The book does not materialize 
out of thin air.
    What I am trying to get is this, and we seem to have 
tremendous difficulty in running it down. When you say, ``We 
found that Dashiell Hammett's Maltese Falcon was purchased on 
such and such a date in '48,'' if they can discover that, and 
the exact date it was purchased, can they or can they not find 
out who purchased it?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, they would know that was bought in a 
fiction book packet, so-called. This was three years before I 
came into the department, and I was told there was a 
considerable request in the field for a representative 
collection of American novels of various types. They wanted to 
include a few detective stories. Probably the two best-known 
American stories, detective stories, abroad are his Glass Key 
and Maltese Falcon. I have read them both. They have no 
discernible, to me, Communist content.
    The Chairman. Will you stick to the question?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, I was wandering.
    This was picked by a committee, who got up this book 
packet.
    The Chairman. Pardon me for interrupting you, but I am 
trying to get down to the bottom of this if I can. You say they 
can find out the name of the individual or the committee that 
picked, for example, Earl Browder's book or any other of those 
books.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, not Browder's. That was not picked here in 
the department, sir, according to the records.
    The Chairman. Can they find out who purchased the other 
books?
    Mr. Lacy. In terms of things that came in from the army, it 
would be extremely difficult. There would be no one record that 
would show it.
    I should have said, in finishing the answer to Senator 
McCarthy's question, that the things that went into a book 
packet to go to all libraries overseas were picked here, and 
those two novels, The Glass Key and The Maltese Falcon, of 
Dashiell Hammett's, were in that category. You could properly 
hold the chief of the service at the time, I think, responsible 
for that, in the sense that the committee submitted the list of 
books to go out in the packet to him, and though he didn't go 
back and read every book he read the list and approved it. He 
normally did not see the individual orders that came from the 
field on some one book.
    Now, the actual purchase orders that we have kept--or I say 
``we,'' I mean the State Department now--my impression is, 
though it has been months since I have actually looked at any 
of them, that they show the initials of any of the clerical 
people who did the typewriting and the clerical work on it. The 
authority for purchasing could probably be dug up for each 
individual title, but not out of any neat file filed by author. 
It would probably be to a post chronological file that would 
list all the operational memoranda that had come in from Paris 
or Johannesburg that month requesting books. And by running 
through that chronological file, if you know the month the book 
had been bought, you could probably, from the initials there, 
see who had audited it from the field, and probably the two or 
three people over whose desk it had passed. I am afraid I am 
making this seem very complicated, but I am afraid the fact is 
that it is complicated.
    Senator McClellan. I think the implication or understanding 
I get from your testimony is that apparently there is no 
central authority.
    Mr. Lacy. No one person approves every single book.
    Senator McClellan. No one individual that you can hold 
responsible. It is a diversified responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I would certainly expect, sir, to have been 
held responsible myself, at least in a general sense, for books 
that were purchased during the time I was there. That doesn't 
mean I would have bought every one of them if I had acted on 
every one, say more than I would have broken a window like my 
five year old kid did, but: he is my kid, and he is under my 
discipline, and I am responsible.
    Senator McClellan. Well, what I am trying to emphasize, I 
may say, is that in an operation of this magnitude requests are 
made, they come in, and they are perhaps not adequately 
screened, and it is difficult to say, especially in these 
cases, where the library itself in the field may have bought a 
few books or may have accepted donations. There is no central 
responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, no one person physically could screen 
all of the, say, two or three hundred thousand requests to 
purchase or not to purchase that ultimately resulted in buying 
the 130,000 or 250,000 books.
    Senator McClellan. They never will be able to control those 
things or adequately screen them unless there is some central 
authority that all of these requests have to pass through and 
get approval of. Why has there not been established such a 
central authority, so that we could make certain?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, there is, sir, in the sense that the chief 
of the division is. Now, no one person could physically, in 
eight hours a days, fifty weeks a year, see every request that 
comes in that has to be distributed among a number of people.
    Senator McClellan. I can appreciate that. No president of 
the United States can perform all of the duties that are 
imposed upon the president. But he does establish, and we have 
established for him, certain agencies that are responsible to 
him for doing certain jobs, performing certain functions of 
government.
    Now, this thread has run throughout this whole picture. To 
me there has never been that firm, definite, centralized or 
localized responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I appreciate there has been, sir, so far as 
books purchased in Washington have been concerned. The title of 
the job has changed from time to time, but under the chief 
there has always been one person who, at the libraries, has 
this particular responsibility, and under him there has always 
been a bibliographic section. But I think sir, that actually 
there has been less than the testimony indicated thus far 
before the committee would suggest, less than that testimony 
would suggest, of inadequate screening to our actual purchases.
    I pointed out the records that have been reported to me 
indicate, as I said earlier, no book by Foster and no book by 
Browder purchased; of Hammett only these two detective stories, 
purchased over four years ago, that have been American classic 
detective stories. They have been made into movies and sold in 
hundreds of thousands of copies in this country before Hammett 
had ever become widely known publicly as a Communist.
    Of the books by Mr. Stern, the only one bought in large 
quantities was one published jointly by the New York Academy of 
Medicine, the Medical Association of the State of New York, and 
the Commonwealth Fund, which was a survey of health services, 
state, local, and federal, and came out under eminently 
respectable auspices at a time when he was not publicly known 
as a Communist.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Bernhard J. Stern, American Medical Practice in the 
Perspectives of a Century (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Only three copies I believe of the book of Mr. Allen were 
bought, none within the last four or five years. Only one copy 
of a book by Mr. Mandell was bought, and that, I believe, in 
1946.
    In the case of Mr. Seaver, the only one of his books bought 
in any quantity was a rather standard anthology of American 
humor, of selections from Mark Twain and Washington Irving, and 
so on, that was widely and generally reviewed, at a time when 
Mr. Seaver was not known as a Communist.
    I am told that no copy of any of Mr. Lattimore's books has 
been bought since his indictment, and that the only one bought 
in any considerable number was his Pivot of Asia, which is the 
only more or less standard American scholarly work on Mongolia.
    Of Mr. Rosinger's books, none were ever bought in large 
quantities, and the general understanding in the scholarly 
field is that Rosinger left the party some time ago, even 
though he has refused to testify; and the only one bought in 
recent years has been the one called State of Asia, which he 
didn't write but edited, which was published by an eminently 
respectable publisher, and which I read myself, and at least 
detected no Communist leaning in it. This was not written by 
Rosinger. He contributed one or two essays to it.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Lawrence K. Rosinger, The State of Asia: A Contemporary Survey 
(New York: Knopf, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now, when that is compared with a figure on the other side 
of the fence, the American Legion got up two lists at different 
times totaling some 190 books which they recommended as reading 
on the subject of communism.
    Now, of those books, over 19,000 have been bought by the 
department, or nearly 19,000. 18,500 have been bought by the 
department and put in the libraries overseas. And we have had 
special editions printed of some of them and have given nearly 
40,000 copies of them away. We have subsidized the export 
through commercial channels of 120,000 copies. And we have 
published over 30 of them in translation, in a total of 115 
languages. And well over a million copies of these books on the 
American Legion's anti-Communist reading list have actually 
been published by us in local languages and distributed 
overseas.
    Now, when this is compared with the one copy of this and 
the one copy of that and the three copies of the other to 1946, 
I think you see, sir, that there has been an overwhelming 
concentration on specifically anti-Communist sentiment.
    Senator McClellan. I think the list recommended for 
distribution by the American Legion is very commendable.
    Mr. Lacy. But this adds up to thousands of copies.
    Senator McClellan. And you make that comparison with some 
three or four books here, the authors of which have been 
mentioned, when actually the testimony is that there are a good 
many of such books and authors.
    Mr. Lacy. I have no question that there are a good many 
books written by authors who are members of the Communist 
party, purchased at a time when they were not widely known as 
members of the party, or when the books seemed quite remote 
from their party affiliation. The standing directives of the 
department at the time I came in and subsequently had not 
required any check on the author himself when he was not 
publicly known, and when nothing in the book itself suggested 
it.
    Now, as I have said, in the case of this man Stern, the 
book itself was a straightforward survey of medical services, 
published by the New York Academy of Medicine.
    Mr. Cohn. Which Stern was this?
    Mr. Lacy. Benjamin. The one bought in large quantities.
    Mr. Cohn. Bernhard Stern?
    Mr. Lacy. Bernhard Stern, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Understanding the Russians? \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Bernhard Stern and Samuel Smith, Understanding the Russians: A 
Study of Soviet Life and Culture (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Lacy. One copy of that has been bought.
    Mr. Cohn. Why should that have been bought?
    Mr. Lacy. God knows. It was bought in 1948. I have no idea. 
I am not personally familiar with the book.
    My guess would be that the normal thing would be that 
probably some librarian in the field sees a reasonably 
favorable review of it in the New York Times book review 
section or something like that and orders it, and it comes in 
here, somebody looks at it, finds it has a reasonably favorable 
review, and it is approved, without any very close check.
    Now, in getting two million volumes into those libraries 
overseas, this means that two million decisions were made. It 
really means many more million were made, because there were 
many decisions made not to put books there by thousands of 
people in hundreds of agencies over the years.
    I really feel it is surprising that so few objectionable 
books went through. Something like Hammett's Maltese Falcon----
    Senator McClellan. There has been an order, and I will rely 
on the staff to state just what that order is, of recent date, 
regarding the removal of certain books and publications from 
these libraries.
    Just what is that order?
    Mr. Schine. In substance, Senator, it orders the 
information center libraries to remove from the shelves books 
carrying the Communist party line, or by Communist party 
members, which have been placed there in entirety without 
explanation, and which have served the Communist party rather 
than the United States.
    Senator McClellan. The point I was wanting to make was that 
during the tenure of your service in the capacity of director 
of the Information Center Services, did a sufficient number of 
instances come to your attention regarding books of this 
character, carrying this objectionable material, to warrant you 
in considering issuing an order similar to that recently 
issued?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the general policy that we were following, 
sir, was not very different from what I just stated, with this 
exception: that where the book itself was irrelevant to 
political considerations, when it was something like a 
detective story, let us say, we did not feel that it was 
necessary to assess the author's own politics. No, sir. Here 
were the cases that came to my attention, of works that seemed 
to me positively and specifically objectionable while I was 
there. Now, let me say that those come to my attention more or 
less in the normal course of business. I didn't make a 
systematic effort to go through the whole collections.
    There was a biography of Paul Robeson by a woman by the 
name of Evelyn Graham, which was sent in by someone who had 
found it in an American library in, I believe, Oslo, but I am 
not certain of the city.\20\ It came in through the security 
division of the State Department. The security division made a 
check of the sort the committee has been speaking of to try to 
determine who had been responsible for its purchase. It was 
found that it was bought in 1946, in about twenty copies. They 
were able to assure themselves that one of a group of employees 
of four or five probably was involved. That is, it was done in 
that section. All of them had impeccable records, I was told by 
the security division. Only one still was employed there, I 
believe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Shirley Graham Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Citizen of the World 
(New York: J. Messner, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The book had been very favorably reviewed at the time it 
was issued, and the security division concluded there was no 
reason to suppose that there had been any deliberate 
malfeasance.
    I examined the book. It was a juvenile teenage biography of 
Paul Robeson. One chapter of it was peculiarly objectionable 
because in recounting Robeson's conversion to communism, it 
simply lifted an article that Robeson wrote or had had written 
for him some years before and parroting the Communist line in 
that one chapter. I have no reason to suppose that the author 
did this on purpose. I suspect she just didn't know much about 
what she was doing and was writing fast and used the nearest 
source. I directed that that be removed from all the libraries. 
I did similarly with an anthology of recent American literature 
from 1914 to 1939, because it included the work of several 
Communist poets, and not merely included them but included them 
in notes that suggested that the most vital writing being done 
in the U.S. was being done by a Communist. This was a book that 
had been remanded after copies were no longer selling, after it 
had been replaced by another edition, and a number of copies 
had been bought at five or ten cents a copy. That was killed 
before it was actually available. And there were one or two 
other specific cases.
    Senator McClellan. Let us get right down to something 
concrete. In view of your past experience in this service, and 
what has come to light thus far in the course of these 
hearings, that part of it at least with which you are familiar, 
what suggestions or recommendations would you make as to how we 
may in the future avoid the placing in the libraries of books 
that are objectionable and that follow the Communist party 
line? What would you recommend be done? How can this situation 
be corrected and prevented from recurring?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't know, Senator, that there has been any 
effective showing that books bearing the Communist party line 
have been being currently, that is, in the last two or three 
years, acquired for the libraries.
    Senator McClellan. No, the testimony is before the 
committee that a number of them are still catalogued.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, I think there are two questions. What 
ought to be done about removing those now present, and about 
the current acquisition.
    Senator McClellan. An order has already been issued now to 
remove them. But I am trying to see now how we can tighten up 
the administrative forces in the agency so as to prevent a 
recurrence of these things.
    Mr. Lacy. I think, sir, that they are tight enough. Well, I 
don't think any possible system can guarantee that nothing will 
ever go wrong, to this or to any other system.
    But I don't think there has been any testimony that 
suggested that the current purchasing of the department--and I 
don't mean to say in my period there, but in the time over the 
last three years or so--has been such as to sustain the 
Communist party line, except in very isolated or special cases.
    Senator McClellan. I can very well see that Communists who 
were interested in promulgating their propaganda, and so forth, 
would very willingly, probably, contribute to the libraries 
books of that nature. It would not be necessary to purchase 
them. How can we guard against that occurring?
    Mr. Lacy. I think the circular that has now been issued 
will unquestionably make the librarians in the field tend to 
fall over backwards, and I suspect that they have been doing 
this for some time anyway since people became more conscious of 
this issue, to look gift horses in the mouth. If the objective 
is to go beyond that and say that we must erect measures to 
make sure that no Communist's book, even a covert Communist's 
book, shall be purchased, even though the book itself may not 
be perceptibly related to the Communist line, you pose, as 
Senator McCarthy indicated a while ago, a much more difficult 
problem. There are eleven to twelve thousand books published 
each year in this country, of which perhaps about a thousand 
would come up for some sort of decision, and in addition 
several thousand requests would come up at any given time for 
books published in previous years.
    Now, to attempt to screen all of those authors concerned in 
cases when the book itself has nothing to suggest, like one of 
the Dashiell Hammett who-dunnits, that the author was a 
Communist and where the author is not notoriously one, is an 
extremely difficult job. You can, of course, run a check 
through, say, the House Committee on Un-American Affairs files 
and through other agency files, and pick up all the derogatory 
information that is there. This means that a very high 
proportion of authors will have one or more accusations against 
them of this sort.
    As Secretary Dulles said the other day in connection with 
Mr. Bohlen's nomination, he understood there was derogatory 
information in Secretary Dulles' own files. If one took the 
flat rule, ``Look, we won't ever enter an area of doubt, and if 
any accusation has been made about anybody his book doesn't go 
to the library,'' then you eliminate a very high percentage of 
all the materials, which you work with.
    Senator McClellan. Why could we not do this: Why could 
there not be established a centralized committee to pass on all 
books before they are placed in those libraries? In other 
words, from time to time they could consider books, those that 
were requested and those that are not, and give us approvals, 
saying, ``Here is an approved list. These books may be accepted 
and placed in a library.'' And other books not included in that 
list from time to time would have to be screened. And get that 
central committee or authority to give its approval before a 
book could be accepted and put on the shelf.
    Mr. Lacy. Did you mean, sir, a committee of the department, 
or a committee of outside officers?
    Senator McClellan. Within the department you could 
establish it, so that the responsibility would actually be 
somewhere.
    Mr. Lacy. Essentially, this was what we had proposed to put 
into effect just before these hearings opened, and I understand 
the department has bought substantially no books since the 
hearing started, until it could get its position clarified.
    What I had proposed to do at that time was to let a 
committee operate in the staff that would probably come out 
with fifty to a hundred books a month in advance of 
publication, working from the daily proofs, that would be clear 
in terms of utility and suitability for the program for 
purchase by any library that wanted it.
    We were going to print cards for each of these and send 
those cards out air mail in advance of publication to any 
library. Then any library that wanted to buy one of these could 
just stamp its name and write one of the copies and mail that 
to our office in New York for clearance.
    Senator McClellan. That is something along the line.
    Mr. Lacy. Then any other one they wanted that was not in 
that list would come through the department for clearance 
there.
    Senator McClellan. And have to be cleared.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. And we had set up a review and appraisal 
unit in the bibliographic section to prepare those cards. I 
think the first batch of copy for the cards had just been sent 
down to the Library of Congress, which was going to print the 
cards for us in the printing office there. That was suspended 
because of the hearing here. But it is very similar to what you 
propose. I don't think an outside committee will work. You 
can't find anybody with the requisite competencies, who can 
devote the time.
    Senator McClellan. I was suggesting machinery within the 
agency itself.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, it seems to me there 
could be an approved list, of maybe a thousand, or I do not 
know how many, but books which we know from reputation are 
books that are in keeping with our philosophy of life and 
government, that might be made available or be approved for use 
in those libraries. At the same time, there could be also 
issued a list of books that are disapproved. Then you would 
have the area of books, of literature, that had not been passed 
upon. And in that area, certainly, the requesting authority, if 
it is a library in Germany or somewhere else, before acquiring 
that book, or if it does acquire it by gift, before making it 
available to the public, could see to it that it should be 
submitted to this authority and that clearance is obtained. 
Some system needs to be developed and put into effect.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, what had been proposed to go into effect, 
as I said, just as the committee hearings started, and which 
led to a sort of suspension of the plans until the whole 
situation could be reviewed by the new administration, was very 
similar to that, sir, except that it didn't include provision 
for drawing up a negative list of harmful books, on the 
assumption that they wouldn't consider buying a book in the 
first place unless there was some evidence that it was 
positively useful.
    Senator McClellan. Well, the negative list was just a 
suggestion. I do not know whether the time should be spent on 
that or not. But certainly this is a program that has great 
potentiality for good, and if misused, if poorly administered, 
if carelessly administered, can possibly produce equally as 
much harm as good.
    Mr. Lacy. This whole problem, sir, depends a good deal on 
whether, in applying any of these criteria, you are speaking 
specifically of actual Communists. If so, removing every book 
in the collections by any person who actually was a Communist 
would remove a relatively small total number, and it certainly 
wouldn't do any harm.
    The problem that I think tends to come up is this: People 
who have been told in effect, ``My God, you are fired if you 
ever let a book by a Communist get into the collections,'' then 
start saying, ``Well, I will play it safe, and this whole area, 
of a broad group of people, I won't put in.''
    This would lead to this sort of thing. To take an example, 
out of the air, probably the most widely reviewed, most widely 
talked about poetry issued last year was a collected volume of 
poems of Mr. McLeish. Mr. McLeish is very widely and favorably 
known abroad.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Lacy. By intellectuals.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, are we trying to reach intellectuals, or 
are we trying to reach the bulk of the people?
    Mr. Lacy. With the libraries, when you have one small 
library of twelve thousand volumes serving a country of thirty, 
forty, or fifty million people, which can't physically deal 
with more than a few thousand a week and where the language is 
essentially a foreign language----
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't Mr. McLeish have somewhat leftist views?
    Mr. Lacy. I doubt if his political reputation is very 
widely known, certainly not as widely known as his reputation 
as a poet.
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't the wide discussion of his leftist views 
in this country seep abroad through news dispatches and the 
fact that he has been a public figure, a figure of public 
controversy? Isn't that just as likely to get abroad?
    Mr. Lacy. I think not, sir, because the coverage of much 
news in foreign newspapers is incredibly poor. You may get two 
or three inches in a foreign paper about American political 
developments, whereas among people whose interest is in 
intellectual fields, they will probably have read his books.
    Senator McClellan. Are we maintaining these libraries 
primarily for the intellectuals of other countries?
    Mr. Lacy. ``Intellectuals'' may be a bad choice of words, 
sir. It seems to me the primary audience that they need to 
reach are primarily two kinds of people. One kind of people 
through whom information derives from the libraries is likely 
to be disseminated to the people at large----
    Senator McClellan. Like lecturers?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, and radio commentators, authors, and so 
forth. The other people are people who make decisions or who 
influence decisions. I don't mean to say that ordinarily you 
can expect a British or French cabinet officer to use our 
library in Paris, but there is a daily loan truck service 
between the American library to London and the various ministry 
libraries in the British ministries, and their information 
about the United States is largely derived from being able to 
borrow those books.
    One of these libraries is on the average about the size of 
the Bethesda Public Library out here, or one of the very 
smallest branches of the D.C. Public Library. There are eight 
in all of India. There are seven in all of France. These are 
obviously not instruments which could hope to have a mass 
impact directly on the whole population. They have to reach 
their result through these relatively selected groups.
    Senator McClellan. What I am trying to do is to evaluate 
the whole program so far as maintaining the libraries is 
concerned.
    Mr. Lacy. That is the group I think we want to reach, sir, 
through all of our means. It would just be fantastic if we 
tried to reach every single individual in these countries.
    Senator McClellan. I understand, but I am asking these 
questions so as to evaluate the entire program of maintaining 
the libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. We can only reach intellectuals, if they alone 
are impressed with Archibald McLeish----
    Senator McClellan. Well, the point I am trying to get at is 
just how much we are actually spending.
    Mr. Cohn. I think it is about $4 million a year.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, about $5 million to the Information Center 
Service, of which about a million and a quarter goes to 
purchase books for the collections of these libraries. That is 
not the total cost of the libraries, however. There are 
salaries for the employees.
    Mr. Cohn. What would you estimate as the total cost of the 
libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. Four to five million, on a guess. But that is a 
very rough guess, because lighting is paid for out of the 
Foreign Buildings authorization, and the general guess is that 
a book cost estimate would be about a quarter of the total 
project.
    Senator McClellan. It is not a question of how much the 
books cost. It is a question of how much we are paying for the 
service. Now, what is the value of the service to us in this 
warfare, in this cold war, this ideological warfare? That is 
the thing that I am trying to weigh for the moment, whether we 
are getting value received, whether this expenditure can be 
justified.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the libraries, sir, are used by about a 
hundred thousand people a day worldwide. This is a fairly 
select group basically. I mean, it is by and large a good deal 
higher level group than the run of the mill population, and 
would have some influence.
    Senator McClellan. We can very well appreciate that many of 
the masses, of course, will never be interested in reading any 
book.
    Mr. Lacy. The people who get there, rather than getting a 
five-minute, let us say, radio broadcast, or something, 
normally got a continuous exposure, so to speak. They may 
borrow a book, which they read for several hours, and get a 
fairly concentrated dose of attention.
    This means, all told, let's say, close to 35 million people 
a year will have used the libraries. They will have had a 
pretty intensive amount of use of them, as opposed to the 
quicker business of just reading a news dispatch.
    It is by far the cheapest of the five operations. I am 
prejudiced, of course. I could quote two outside sources.
    When Senator Fulbright was making his investigation as 
chairman of the subcommittee Senator Hickenlooper is now 
chairman of, he asked every ambassador or chief of mission to 
report his estimate of the relative value of the various types 
of operations being carried on. He split it down into the five 
media services, because each of the ten or eleven kinds of 
activities were listed.
    Mr. Cohn. I suppose the libraries come out first.
    Mr. Lacy. No, second.
    Mr. Cohn. How did the Voice of America rate?
    Mr. Lacy. Last. Incidentally, Mr. Cohn, I think probably 
those returns are classified and perhaps the specific stuff 
should be struck from the public record.
    Mr. Schine. You were responsible for the library program; 
right?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, from September '51 through January of this 
year.
    Mr. Schine. Now, this program was designed to fight 
communism, wasn't it?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it was designed to support the foreign 
policy objectives of the United States, and that, of course, is 
one of the principal ones. It has other things to do, too.
    Mr. Schine. Who did you discuss the implementation of this 
program with? Which of your superiors did you outline the plans 
for the library program with?
    Mr. Lacy. For the first few months after I was there, from 
September until about January, my superior officer was Dr. 
Johnstone. I was out of the country about five weeks of those 
ten weeks, and I saw relatively little----
    Mr. Shine. In other words, Dr. Johnstone helped you to 
decide how you were going to operate?
    Mr. Lacy. To a very slight degree.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you were completely 
responsible?
    Mr. Lacy. I have relatively little detailed supervision. I 
was given wide freedom, yes.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you can be given credit for all 
the virtues and can be blamed for any of the mistakes.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. You were responsible for the objectives? Or 
were you responsible for the interpretation of the objectives?
    Mr. Lacy. I was not, of course, responsible for the 
objectives of American policy. As to how the library service 
carried out its part----
    Mr. Schine. I am not talking about procedures, now. I am 
talking about the implementation of the objectives or the 
interpretation. Whom did you discuss policy with?
    Mr. Lacy. Reed Harris, Dr. Compton.
    Mr. Cohn. Bradley Connors?
    Mr. Lacy. Not much. Connors was primarily interested in the 
fast media, the day to day.
    Mr. Schine. Who interpreted the directives for which the 
IIA was responsible? You, or Reed Harris, or both of you put 
together?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't think it can ever be put in any----
    Mr. Schine. Well, you had to have a clear-cut conception of 
the objectives. Right? Therefore, you had to interpret the 
objectives to order to implement them.
    Mr. Lacy. I am not sure that we mean the same thing by all 
of the words there, but yes.
    Mr. Schine. Now, what about the procedures for carrying out 
those objectives that you interpreted? Who was responsible for 
the procedures?
    Mr. Lacy. I developed most of them to be used in 
consultation with the staff. They were generally approved at a 
higher level.
    Mr. Schine. Who approved the procedures which you 
developed?
    Mr. Lacy. They would normally go through the assistant 
administrator for administration, Mr. Kimball.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Kimball approved the procedures which you 
developed for implementing the objectives. Right?
    Mr. Lacy. They would go through his office. They would 
normally get final approval by Dr. Compton. But almost always 
they would be approved substantially as I recommended them.
    Mr. Schine. I want to ask you one more question about the 
libraries. What percentage of the books in the libraries, 
were--and I say ``were,'' because you are not there any more--
were while you were there in the local place where the library 
was?
    Mr. Lacy. That would vary very widely, from almost none in 
Burma or Siam, up to, say, 20 or 25 percent in Spanish or 
French or Italian using countries.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, the greatest percentage of 
local language books was 25 percent, and the rest would be in 
English, I imagine.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. What we would do would be to use all of the 
books that related to the United States and its international 
objectives that were available in the local language, and that 
we felt were useful, and we would put the rest of them out----
    Mr. Schine. In other words, if a person wanted to go into a 
library and read either for pleasure or education, he either 
had to speak English or have an interpreter with him to read 75 
percent or more of the books that were in the library?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. Well, if he wanted an Italian book, he would 
normally go to an Italian library, not to ours. If there were 
an Italian translation of an American book available, we would 
have it in ours. But, of course, the question is not ``Do we 
refuse to use the local language?'' We used every bit of it 
that was available that was useful.
    Mr. Schine. Of course, on a psychological warfare level, 
usually, in order to get to the minds of men, you make it easy 
for them, don't you?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. So it would probably, in your opinion, have 
been better if the books could be in that language?
    Mr. Lacy. We spent an equal sum to that we used on the 
libraries in subsidizing translations, and so on, of our books 
we wanted to use in the program.
    As I indicated, of the books on this American Legion list 
alone, we published well over a million copies, or subsequent 
to the publication well over a million copies.
    Mr. Schine. I have one final question, sir, and this deals 
with personnel. Since this is a program designed to carry out 
the American foreign policy objective of trying to counter 
Communist propaganda, and I use your language as to the 
objectives, who was the expert on the tactics, the strategy, 
the party line, the history of communism? Who specifically was 
there to recognize the Communist party line and prevent it from 
being kept on the shelves of the overseas libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. Do you mean within the information administration 
as a whole?
    Mr. Cohn. Within your program.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the chief of our Planning and Evaluation 
Branch would be, I suppose, more nearly than any other one 
person the one that had the duties that corresponded to that.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mr. Lacy. Arthur Vogel, V-o-g-e-l. And he was in that 
position the last six or eight months I was there.
    Mr. Schine. And he is your expert on communism, and he is 
supposed to be the one to recognize the party line and keep it 
off the shelves?
    Mr. Lacy. That is not exactly what I would say. He was, the 
last six months I was there, my general assistant for policy 
and evaluation and planning operations, including this sort of 
thing. None of the media services except to some extent the 
Voice, which had to operate with a certain measure of autonomy, 
because it was in New York, and because it had to be able to 
move within an hour, was encouraged to build up a strong staff 
of ideological experts. We did not want half a dozen groups of 
experts on the Communist party line around. We would actually 
rely on Mr. Connors' staff.
    Mr. Schine. You have no method within your division, within 
your immediate division, for ascertaining whether a book was 
Communist party line, and you depended on Mr. Connors' staff to 
do that for you?
    Mr. Lacy. Not in the sense that Mr. Connors' staff was 
expected to read books and evaluate them. Our normal 
bibliographic section was supposed to do that. All sorts of 
aids were available in spotting the Communist party line, such 
as the Division of Research on Eastern European Affairs, which 
puts out analyses of Russian propaganda developments. And those 
were available to our staff.
    The Chairman. Were you aware of the fact that the 
information program was obtaining these books by Communist 
authors?
    Mr. Lacy. I was aware of the possibility that a book in 
itself thought to be unobjectionable might well be obtained by 
a Communist author. That is, I recognized that we didn't have a 
systematic procedure that was endeavoring to uncover every 
potential.
    The Chairman. Was there any program sent out to the various 
libraries and those that were purchasing the books and 
obtaining them, not to obtain books by Communist authors?
    Mr. Lacy. There was not one in those, terms, sir. The whole 
tone and implication and meaning of all of the various 
directives was: You don't use a book unless it serves some 
specific and positive purpose; those terms, rather then the 
negative terms.
    The Chairman. So that, I do not want to misstate your 
position at all, but was it your position that it was up to the 
purchasing agent or committee, call it what you may, to buy 
books on the basis of what they contained, and that you had no 
concern with whether or not they were written by Communist 
authors?
    Mr. Lacy. This is close to it, sir. If I could state it in 
my own words, I would say it would be very simple, that there 
was no point spending the taxpayers' money for a book unless it 
served our useful purpose in our total activity, and if it did 
serve such a useful purpose, that was the criterion we went on.
    Now, if the author were notoriously a Communist, this 
would, of course, establish a prima facie presumption that the 
book was adverse to our purposes, and one that would very 
rarely be overcome.
    The Chairman. By hindsight, now that you say you had no 
experts on communism in your Division, in view of the fact that 
you had no experts there, then you had no one who could detect 
the Communist line, I assume.
    Mr. Lacy. I wouldn't move from one to the other, sir. I 
think that to recognize the Communist line in a book doesn't 
always require an advanced state of expertise as a student of 
contemporary Russian ideology. The more you know, the more 
specifically and better you can do it, of course.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Would you favor today 
the banning of all books by Communist authors in the 
Information Program Libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. I would have no objection to it, sir, if it were 
easily or operationally feasible to determine who are Communist 
authors. I can conceive that there would be grave difficulties 
in trying to avoid that question by removing everybody about 
whom any criticism that suggested that he might possibly be a 
Communist had been lodged. If you confined it to people--well, 
let me say, for example: We have specifically damned the use of 
any publication issued by any organization on the attorney 
general's list of subversive organizations. There we had an 
objective, clear and plain.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Lacy. Oh, before I came on the staff. I don't know how 
long before. But that had been a long standing policy, I 
suppose from the time the attorney general's list was set up.
    If there were a similar list of people specifically 
identified as Communist, I would go about it differently.
    The Chairman. Forgetting for the time being the difficulty 
of knowing who is a Communist and who is not, and I know it is 
impossible for you or anyone else to have the names of all of 
the underground Communists of the country, so forgetting for 
the time being the difficulty, do you think that the books of 
Communists should not be used?
    Mr. Lacy. Certainly no book in any way supporting a 
Communist position should be used, sir, and I would say that 
only in extremely rare positions and cases would a book by a 
Communist who practiced as such not be one that supported the 
Communist position. If we wanted to be philosophical about it, 
I suppose we could think of rare cases that would be 
exceptions, but they would be so few as to be negligible, I 
think.
    The Chairman. Another element, of course, to be considered 
is whether you have dignified such works.
    Mr. Lacy. That is one reason, sir. For that reason we have 
never used Paul Robeson's recordings in the department 
overseas, although there is nothing political to his singing a 
song. But it was disadvantageous to give him the prestige 
involved in that.
    The Chairman. Could you give us any suggestions as to how 
we can find out who has been the individual who has been 
responsible for getting all those Communist books into this 
program?
    Mr. Lacy. I am sure you would find, Senator, that there 
isn't any individual, in the sense that Mr. Budenz supposed as 
a probability the other day. I think that actually, when you go 
down case by case, at least among the witnesses who have 
testified before the committee thus far, in almost every case 
those books that were bought were either ones that did not 
themselves suggest any Communist content, or they were bought 
at a time when the people were not publicly known to be 
Communist, or both, and the occasional exceptions to this were 
so scattered as to place and date as not to suggest any pattern 
of a particular type.
    Mr. Cohn. We had the testimony of Miss Utley this morning, 
for instance. She said: ``I looked at every single book in the 
section on China and the Far East, and there was nothing, 
absolutely nothing, with the anti-Communist approach, and 
everything they had there was of the Lattimore school.''
    Now, you have this. Mr. Rosinger, who testified before our 
committee and claimed the privilege as to whether he was a 
party member, has dozens and dozens of these books spread all 
over the key centers, the information centers, throughout the 
east and China and Singapore and all that. Now, this man, 
Rosinger, testified over a year ago in the public session 
before the McCarran committee and refused to answer as to 
whether he was a Communist party member, and so did a slew of 
other authors, and hundreds of them are on the shelves.
    Mr. Lacy. Dozens, in the case of Rosinger's case.
    Mr. Cohn. I would say to the case of Rosinger, Agnes 
Smedley, Owen Lattimore, Phillip Jaffe, and so on and so forth, 
thousands. Now, how can that be? In Lattimore's case, Ordeal by 
Slander was purchased. It was only written in 1950. Now, who 
could conceivably think that that book was going to give a true 
picture of American life and our fight against communism?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I don't think anybody would. There were two 
copies of that purchased.
    Mr. Cohn. Johannesburg, South Africa.
    Mr. Lacy. No, sir, I think in that case it was New Delhi 
and Calcutta. My guess on what happened on that--and this is 
only a guess; I don' t know it to be a fact--would be that an 
Indian acquaintance or friend of Lattimore's well known in 
India came into the embassy and said, ``I understand my friend 
Mr. Lattimore has been in serious difficulties to the States 
and that he has published a book. Could you let me see a 
copy?'' And my guess would be that their guess was that they 
would do more harm by refusing to let him see it than 
otherwise. I do not know, but that would be my guess.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it possible to check on that? That is a 
very recent purchase.
    Mr. Lacy. We could check on that.
    Mr. Cohn. And I think this Mr. Simpson you mentioned might 
be the key to this. Because he was able to tell you that a book 
was not purchased, was a gift, and all that.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, he was just reporting to me findings made 
from working in the files.
    Mr. Cohn. But you see, this is not as isolated book. This 
is a real pattern. The books go into the the thousands, to the 
point, as I say, on this China and Far Eastern situation, where 
there is nothing but the Communist side. That is as of February 
of this year.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, Brain Washing in Red China--we had a 
special edition of that printed for our special use in ten 
thousand copies for our giving away all over the world.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any of that gotten to Germany?
    Mr. Lacy. I am sure they have copies of the book in the 
information centers. They were not widely distributed to 
individuals to Germany, because it is in English and we are 
primarily concerned with India and Burma in that case.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Utley testified this morning that that book 
is not in any of the information centers in America.
    Mr. Lacy. My guess would be that she is mistaken.
    Mr. Cohn. She had the catalogues.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I only know, as I say, what Karl Baarslag 
told me. He had been there, and he told me what he saw.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, did you read Mr. Baarslag's article?
    Mr. Lacy. No, I had written him a long letter about the 
thing, which got held up in the correspondence review section 
in the secretary's office because I had used two ``since's'' in 
the same sentence, and he didn't get it until the day after 
that article was written, and I got a very nice note from him 
saying he had not read that when he wrote his article, and that 
he and I were not, in our thinking, very far apart. I would be 
glad to show you a copy of that.
    Mr. Cohn. I think that is all we have of Mr. Lacy.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lacy. Sorry to keep you so 
long.
    [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed to the 
call of the chair.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
                              ----------                              
                         FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1953
    [Editor's note.--The Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations heard testimony from the editor of the New York 
Post, James A. Weschler, in executive session on April 24, 
1953. The subcommittee published this hearing in 1953.
    In his book, The Age of Suspicion (New York: Random House, 
1953), Weschler explained that he told reporters gathered 
outside the closed hearing room the substance of his testimony 
and that he would ask that a transcript of the hearings be made 
public. He also asked that the American Society of Newspaper 
Editors study the transcript, ``since it seemed clear that I 
had been questioned, not as the author of some undesignated 
book found in some library overseas, but as the editor of a 
newspaper that had been fighting Joe McCarthy.''
    The chairman responded to his request with a telegram: 
``Shall be glad to recommend that your testimony be made public 
in accordance with your request. Assume they will have no 
objection. Procedure has been to allow witnesses to correct 
record for errors before making public, if witness desires to 
do so. Customary procedure is to withhold making executive 
testimony public until witness has completed his testimony. 
Will you therefore please immediately furnish the list of 
people known to you to be active in the Communist Movement 
while you were an officer in the Young Communist League and 
subsequently thereto, as ordered by this committee. You may 
also furnish any additional exhibits, as you indicated was your 
desire.''
    Wechsler telegraphed in reply: ``I shall submit the list 
because I do not propose to let you distort or obscure the 
clear-cut issue of freedom of the press involved in this 
proceeding.
    ``I have always responded freely to questions asked of me 
by authorized government agencies and I shall not permit you at 
this late date to create any impression to the contrary.
    ``You are obviously trying to use a Senate committee to 
silence newspaper criticism of your activities . . . 
nevertheless, so that the record may be perfectly clear, I have 
answered all your questions and intend to continue to do so 
until the Senate itself acts to curb your abuse of your 
investigative functions.
    ``When I submit the list I shall make appropriate comment 
with regard to the limited time period more than fifteen years 
ago in which I had personal knowledge of individual Communist 
membership and the injustice that may be done to individuals 
who, like myself, long ago severed their affiliations with 
communism and have subsequently been active opponents of all 
forms of totalitarianism.
    ``I will ask your committee at that time to decide whether 
the inclusion of such a list in the record is proper or 
desirable. But I will allow nothing to stand in the way of the 
publication of a transcript which will reveal beyond the 
dispute the invasion of press freedom that you have undertaken. 
. . .
    ``Once the transcript has been released it will be for the 
public, the press and the Senate to decide whether this fishing 
expedition directed at a newspaper and its editor has any 
relevance to a hearing ostensibly called because a book I wrote 
reportedly appeared on the shelves of an Information Service 
library somewhere overseas.''
    To this, the chairman replied: ``Received your wire in 
which you still take the position that your Communist 
activities are immune from investigation because you are an 
editor. You are advised that there is no privileged position 
insofar as our investigation is concerned. You requested that 
the record be made public. The committee has authorized me to 
make it public. I understand from your wire that you now want 
to check the record before it is made public. I shall be glad 
to extend this courtesy to you. You may contact Mr. Cohn, chief 
counsel, and arrange a time to inspect the record and make such 
corrections as you desire.''
    James Wechsler then returned for a second meeting with the 
subcommittee in executive session on May 5, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Theodore Kaghan (1912-1989) served from 
1950 to 1953 as deputy director of public affairs for the 
United States High Commission in Germany. From April 4-21, 
1953, during the congressional recess, chief counsel Roy Cohn 
and consultant David Schine had conducted a highly publicized 
tour of the overseas libraries in Paris, Bonn, Berlin, 
Frankfort, Munich, Vienna, Belgrade, Athens, Rome, and London.
    In an article on ``The McCarthyization of Theodore 
Kaghan,'' The Reporter, 9 (July 21, 1953), Kaghan wrote that 
when he first learned that his name had been mentioned in 
testimony before the subcommittee as a security risk, he had 
taken the matter lightly: ``I knew that I had been cleared for 
loyalty and security, and I waited for the Department of State 
to send me some kind of instructions, advice, or information,'' 
but the State Department said nothing, and he learned that his 
case was ``under review.'' Cohn and Schine met with Kaghan in 
Bonn, and afterwards Cohn told the press that Kaghan had such 
strong inclinations towards communism that he had telephoned 
Senator McCarthy to recommend calling him before the 
subcommittee. Kaghan replied with a statement to the press in 
which he labeled Cohn and Schine as ``junketeering gumshoes.'' 
He returned to Washington to testify in executive session on 
April 28 and in public on April 29 and May 5, 1953.
    After the hearings, the State Department requested Kaghan's 
resignation, although the department subsequently cleared him 
of allegations of Communist sympathies. He became a United 
Nations correspondent and foreign affairs columnist for New 
York Post.]
                              ----------                              
                        TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11 a.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L. 
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David A. Surine, 
assistant counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury, State Department 
liaison with the Senate; Frances Knight, assistant deputy 
administrator, State Department.
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand? In 
this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do.
    TESTIMONY OF THEODORE KAGHAN, (ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY J. 
                          KELLERMANN)
    The Chairman. Mr. Henry Kellermann is here. He is the 
public affairs supervisor of the Bureau of German Affairs is 
that right?
    Mr. Kellermann. That is right, called supervisor.
    The Chairman. And you would like to sit in this morning if 
the committee has no objection?
    Mr. Kellermann. If I may, Senator.
    The Chairman. I do not think we have any objection, do we?
    Senator Dirksen. No.
    Senator Symington. No.
    The Chairman. You may stay.
    Your name is Theodore Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is right, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What is your title?
    Mr. Kaghan. Acting deputy director, Office of Public 
Affairs.
    The Chairman. And who is the director?
    Mr. Kaghan. Alfred Boerner, B-o-e-r-n-e-r.
    The Chairman. You are acting director. Where is Mr. 
Boerner?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Boerner is in Germany. I am acting deputy 
director.
    The Chairman. And you at times act as deputy to Mr. 
Boerner?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who was your predecessor? Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. Mr. Burkhardt, I think, was the last 
deputy. Mr. Boerner was deputy director before I was.
    The Chairman. What was Mr. Lewis' job?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Lewis was chief of the radio branch, if you 
mean Mr. Charles Lewis.
    The Chairman. Yes. Can you tell us the official reason for 
his having left?
    Mr. Kaghan. He told me he wanted to go back into private 
life.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Was your wife ever a member?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to any Communist 
organizations such as the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not the Young Communists League. I did 
not belong to any organization that I knew to be a Communist 
organization.
    The Chairman. Did you ever sign a Communist petition?
    Mr. Kaghan. I signed a Communist nominating petition.
    The Chairman. And the man whose petition you signed was a 
Communist, was he?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, he was. I assume he was. He was running on 
the Communist party ticket.
    The Chairman. And you say at that time you were yourself 
not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. What years did you sign a petition or 
petitions?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it was in the late thirties, possibly 
'39.
    Senator Dirksen. May I ask at this point, are you on duty 
in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Or here?
    Mr. Kaghan. In Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that your regular place of duty?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I was curious when you said deputy 
director of the Office of Public Affairs.
    Mr. Kaghan. In Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. Can you clarify that just a little?
    Mr. Kaghan. Of the High Commission in Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. I see. So you are associated with HICOG in 
Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. HICOG; yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And how did you get your appointment?
    Mr. Kaghan. I came to Germany from the position I held in 
Austria. I was asked to come to Germany by the then director of 
public affairs.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were transferred then on your own 
request from Austria to Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was transferred partly on my own and I assume 
by negotiations which must have taken place on a higher level.
    Senator Dirksen. And how were you appointed in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was transferred to Austria from the Office of 
War Information in New York, transferred to Austria in 1945.
    Senator Dirksen. And how was that transfer made? Was that 
by direct appointment through somebody here?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know whether it would be called a 
direct appointment. It was a transfer, an administrative 
transfer, about the details of which I wouldn't know.
    Senator Dirksen. Let me just get this straight now. Were 
you in OWI when Elmer Davis was the administrator?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Did this happen at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure whether he was still the 
administrator.
    Senator Dirksen. What year was that?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1945.
    Senator Dirksen. You left New York and went to Austria on a 
transfer basis in 1945?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were probably on duty at Munich?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; in Salzburg and then in Vienna.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were how long in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. To 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. Five years?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, not quite.
    Senator Dirksen. Then you were transferred----
    Mr. Kaghan. Then I was transferred to Frankfort.
    Senator Dirksen. You asked for the assignment to Frankfort?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Who was the high commissioner at that 
time?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. McCloy.
    Senator Dirksen. So it had to be done at his request or on 
the part of somebody in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And who was in charge of the office in 
Austria when you were there?
    Mr. Kaghan. Ralph Nicholson.
    Senator Dirksen. Was that also the Office of Public 
Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was the director of the Office of Public 
Affairs.
    The Chairman. Will you hand the petition to the witness?
    Mr. Kaghan, will you examine that document handed to you 
and tell us whether that is your signature?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, it is.
    The Chairman. Who were you rooming with at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. A man named--310 West 47th Street--Ben Irwin, I 
believe. Ben Irwin, I believe, was living with me at that time.
    The Chairman. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think he was. I have no definite proof that I 
would be willing to use in a court of law, but I assume that he 
was.
    The Chairman. You think he was at the time you were rooming 
with him?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. How long did you live with him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't tell you exactly, sir. I don't 
remember. I think it was less than a year. It may have been a 
year or so.
    The Chairman. And as far as you know, he is still a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know Israel Amter? \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Israel Amter (1881-1954), the Communist party candidate for 
governor of New York in 1932 and 1942 and for the U.S. House of 
Representatives at large from New York in 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Would you care to explain to us why, if you 
were not a member of the party itself, you would sign a 
nominating petition for a man you knew to be a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. My recollection of this matter is not too 
clear.
    I recall vaguely that Amter was being kept off the ballot 
by political maneuvering and it was my opinion that although I 
did not believe in communism as a political philosophy, that a 
man had a right to be on the American ballot to be voted 
against and I did not vote for Mr. Amter, but I thought he had 
a right to be on the ballot.
    The Chairman. What maneuvering was keeping him off? I 
understand that just by getting a sufficient number of names he 
would go on the ballot.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; that is the point of the petition, 
but I do not recall what the facts were about keeping him off 
the ballot. I merely remember that I was indignant that an 
American couldn't get on the ballot even though he was a 
Communist, because I didn't understand communism at that time.
    The Chairman. We do not find any news stories about that 
time in regard to any maneuvering to keep him off. I understand 
that all he needed were the signatures of a certain number of 
people and he would get on; is that not correct? This party or 
any other party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume that was so and I wouldn't doubt that 
there may not have been anything that kept him off the ballot. 
It was my impression at that time that there was.
    The Chairman. What is this maneuvering that you are talking 
about?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was my impression that there was some reason 
they wanted to keep him off the ballot. I may have been 
listening to people who wanted my signature. I couldn't swear 
that there was anything. I assumed there was.
    The Chairman. Did you support this Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I signed the petition. I did nothing further 
about him that I can recall.
    The Chairman. Did you support him at the election?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not vote for him. I did not support him 
at the election.
    The Chairman. In this petition, you say, ``I intend to 
support him at the ensuing election.'' That is what your 
affidavit says. Do you claim now that is false?
    Senator McClellan. I would like to know the time of this.
    The Chairman. 1939. For your benefit, Senator, this is 
Theodore Kaghan who is deputy acting director of public affairs 
of HICOG. He has testified that he lived with a man he knew to 
be a Communist for about a year. That is about the extent of 
his testimony so far, plus the fact that he signed this 
petition.
    Senator McClellan. That is sufficient, Mr. Chairman. I just 
wanted to get the time. It probably is already in the record, 
but I wanted to get the time of this.
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't see where it says I would support 
him.
    The Chairman. I will read it:
    I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly 
qualified voter of the borough for which a nomination for 
councilman is hereby made, and have registered as a voter 
within the said borough within the past eighteen months; that 
my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature 
hereto and that I intend to support at the ensuing election, 
and I do hereby nominate the following-named person as a 
candidate of the Communist Party for nomination for councilman 
to be voted for at the election to be held on the 7th day of 
November, 1939.
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall supporting him.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Kaghan, how old were you at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. Twenty-seven, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. At the time you signed that petition had 
the character and the nature of the Communist movement occurred 
to you, that it was a destructive force?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I had no fear of the Communist party 
as a political force in America at all. I didn't realize it was 
a menace until sometime later.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, you have done considerable 
writing, have you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have done some writing, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you say your writing follows the 
Communist line or not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would not say so, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you say it does not follow the line?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I would not say that either, sir.
    The Chairman. You would neither say it follows the line or 
does not follow the line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say neither.
    The Chairman. Do you think it follows the Communist party 
line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say that the Communist party would 
probably have approved of some of the things I wrote and 
probably disapproved of some of the things I wrote.
    The Chairman. What are some of the things you wrote that 
they would approve of; do you know?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that they approved of a play that 
I wrote.
    The Chairman. How many plays of yours have they taken some 
part in having published or advertised?
    Mr. Kaghan. I couldn't say, sir. I don't recall beyond that 
one. There may have been another one, but I don't recall the 
name of it.
    The Chairman. You do not recall the name of your plays?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. You do not recall the names of the plays that 
you wrote?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote several one-act plays, sir, which I do 
not recall the names of.
    The Chairman. And you say the Communists approved of one. 
You do not know which one they approved?
    Mr. Kaghan. I know they approved of the play called Hello, 
Franco.
    The Chairman. Let me read from one of your plays, if I may, 
and see if you recognize it.
    Now, Gordon wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't been a 
Negro worker. There was no reason for his being shot, except 
that the top didn't think his life was worth anything. It was 
purely a case of race discrimination of the worst type, equal 
to the lynching business going on in the South. The Communist 
Party is fighting militantly against that and the mass funeral 
demonstration is a protest against the discrimination, the 
rising tide of fascism, because such acts on the part of 
officials is only an indication of the brute force of fascism. 
The Communist Party wants to unite all workers in a struggle 
for their rights against the decadent system of capitalism.
    Do you recognize that as your work?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recognize it, but if you say it is in 
the play, I assume it is in the play.
    The Chairman. Just hand it to the witness, please, Ruth.
    Before looking at that, would you say that follows the 
Communist party line right down to the last comma?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say it follows the party line at that 
time, yes.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Were you a member 
of the Communist party at that time? Were you a member of the 
Communist party when you wrote that?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think I was, sir. I'm not sure that it was an 
outright solicitation to come and join the party, but I know I 
was being worked on.
    The Chairman. You said you roomed with a man you knew to be 
a member of the Communist party. Would you name some of your 
other friends, if you had any other friends, who were also 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall any that I knew that I knew were 
members of the Communist party except that one, who is pretty 
clearly a Communist.
    The Chairman. You say you did not have any other friends 
whom you knew as members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are there any others that you suspected were 
members?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, because it was difficult to say in 
those days who was and who wasn't because a lot of people who 
were not talked a lot of stuff that the Communists would be 
talking.
    The Chairman. What is the name of this play that has been 
handed to you?
    Mr. Kaghan. Unfinished Picture.
    The Chairman. And you wrote that, did you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote Unfinished Picture, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What year did you write that?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1935.
    The Chairman. Would you say that that was approved by the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't say so.
    The Chairman. You think they would disapprove of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know what they would have done. Maybe 
they did approve it. Maybe they didn't.
    The Chairman. Will you say it does follow the Communist 
line?
    Mr. Kaghan. The play does not, sir.
    The Chairman. The play does not?
    Mr. Kaghan. As I recall it.
    The Chairman. Would you hand that back to me?
    Were any of your plays produced by the New Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; Hello, Franco, was produced by the 
New Theater League.
    The Chairman. Did you recognize the New Theater League as a 
Communist-controlled organization or not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't recognize it then, but I feel that it 
is or was, feel now that it was.
    The Chairman. You know now that it was Communist controlled 
at the time they produced your play?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it was. I think now that it was.
    The Chairman. Do you claim that play did or did not follow 
the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. The play was probably along the same lines, 
yes.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Kaghan. The Communist party agreed with the play, yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you admit that play did 
follow the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. I say the play probably was approved 
by the Communists. It was not written along a Communist line 
with communism in mind.
    The Chairman. You feel that it did follow the Communist 
line either accidentally or otherwise?
    Mr. Kaghan. I prefer to stick it to what I said, sir, if I 
may, that it was agreeable to the Communists.
    The Chairman. Well, I do not want to ask you questions that 
will be impossible for you to answer, but I do think you can 
answer the question as to whether or not you feel that play 
followed the Communist line. I am not asking you at this time 
whether you were conscious of that at the time you wrote it or 
not. The question is: Do you feel that play did follow the 
Communist party line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it did.
    The Chairman. Did anyone help you to write it?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's possible that Irwin did have something to 
do with some of the rewrite or polishing. He helped me in plays 
and dramatics and he probably did.
    The Chairman. Did he help you with any of your other plays?
    Mr. Kaghan. He did not help me with that play that you have 
there, since it was written in college.
    The Chairman. Who helped you with this play?
    Mr. Kaghan. Which, sir?
    The Chairman. This one that we were just looking at, 
Unfinished Picture.
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote that myself. I write all my plays 
myself as far as I can remember. In writing a play, one talks 
to all sorts of people. Some people suggest things. Unless the 
play is a collaboration job, it is the play of the author.
    The Chairman. Let me read some lines from another of your 
plays, if I may. See if you recognize these lines:
    Communists are people too. They have their individual 
personalities like everybody else. They don't start raving and 
ranting at the drop of a hat. They have been taught to see what 
the blinders are which the capitalist press puts on its 
readers. Our papers tell the naked truth. We don't fool 
ourselves. We don't fool others. We don't fool others and we 
don't fool ourselves.
    When you say ``Our papers . . . we don't fool others,'' 
whom were you referring to?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir. I don't recall who is 
speaking in that play, what the lines were, or what the reason 
was.
    The Chairman. These are words you put in the mouth of one 
of your actors. You say ``Our papers tell the naked truth.'' 
That means the Communist papers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know, sir. I haven't read the play 
lately.
    The Chairman. We will refer you to the play and see if you 
can help us out. I am going to hand this play to you and refer 
you to page thirty-seven.
    Mr. Kaghan. It seems to be a character in the play saying 
that. I don't know who the character was and I don't recall the 
details of the play except that the play was an argument, as I 
recall it, for some way out of the depression, and it was about 
a family in which one of the children was for communism and one 
was against communism, and I do not believe that the play as a 
whole resolved itself in favor of communism because I didn't 
believe in communism.
    The Chairman. For the benefit of the senators present, may 
I say that the staff has read the entire play, gone over it 
carefully, and they report that it is strictly the Communist 
party line and Communist propaganda from beginning to end.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, there might be a 
difference of opinion about it. It is a matter that is on file 
here, is it not, where it could be inspected?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. In this case, I thought for the 
senators who do not have a chance to read it, we would let them 
know the staff has reviewed the play and let them know their 
analysis of it.
    Mr. Kaghan. May I say that play was written at the 
University of Michigan, and I received the Avery Hopwood award 
on the basis of judgment by three impartial judges, and I don't 
know whether any of them were Communists, but I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Who were the three judges?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall, sir. They always had three 
judges. I don't know who they were.
    Senator Symington. From what you say, might it be possible 
that you had one person in the play arguing against communism, 
and one person in the play arguing for communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; I think it must be very likely.
    Senator Symington. Does the staff feel that way about it or 
not?
    Mr. Cohn. It follows the Communist line from top to bottom.
    The Chairman. Let me read the last two lines, if I may. 
Here is the conclusion:
    Yes, go and lie down in my room. Smell the dust and ashes. 
Julius, why don't you start burning the whole mess now, you and 
your Reds. Why do you leave me to look at the wreckage? Why 
don't you burn it? What are you writing pop for?
    The other character:
    There is not enough wreckage yet, my child. We have to 
wait.
    Mr. Kaghan, under the administration of the present 
Information Service of HICOG, did you put out a history a short 
time ago distributed in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not, sir. The Office of Public Affairs 
had something to do with a history. They did not put it out.
    The Chairman. Were you acting deputy director when it was 
put out?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I had nothing to do with that.
    The Chairman. What was your job at the time this----
    Mr. Kaghan. That started, sir, before I came to Germany. It 
was well under way, I believe, when I came to Germany.
    The Chairman. What is the name of the history?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe you must be referring to the 
Synchronaptesche Weltgeschuchte, which is a synchro-optical 
world history. Am I correct, sir?
    The Chairman. That is the history of what?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it is the history of the world, and 
it's not a history; it's a synchro-optical scoreboard, as far 
as I can see.
    The Chairman. Who wrote that history?
    Mr. Kaghan. Somebody named Peters put it together.
    The Chairman. Was Peters a well-known Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know now that he was a Communist or 
not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not, sir.
    The Chairman. Who published it?
    Mr. Kaghan. A private German publisher. I don't recall the 
name.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether the publisher was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not. I had nothing to do with that book 
and I might say if I had seen it----
    The Chairman. You said you did not know whether Peters was 
a Communist; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. You do not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know. Some people say he is and some 
people say he isn't.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to believe that he is?
    Mr. Kaghan. Our security people in Germany--I assume this 
does not get into the public prints--our security people in 
Germany said that he was and one of our press officers repeated 
that and I understand that Peters is contesting that and making 
quite a fuss about the fact that he isn't and has said that he 
is going to sue.
    The Chairman. Just so there is no misapprehension, we are 
making you no promise as to whether this evidence will be made 
public or not. You will be asked certain questions, and answer 
them. I noted your statement that you assume this will not get 
into the public press. The committee will give you no guarantee 
as to what will be done with this.
    Mr. Kaghan. Can give me no guarantee?
    The Chairman. No guarantee whatsoever; just so you 
understand that.
    Has the book been withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it has. We don't own the book. As far 
as I can recall, the Office of Public Affairs got some copies 
of the book and did not distribute it or recall those that had 
been distributed.
    The Chairman. How much did you--by you, I mean the Office 
of Public Affairs--pay toward the publishing of this book?
    Mr. Kaghan. As I recall, it was something like $50,000, in 
terms of paper.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? The 
Office of Public Affairs paid out $50,000 on the publication of 
this book or the purchase of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. They contributed paper to a certain amount.
    Senator McClellan. In value?
    Mr. Kaghan. In value.
    Senator McClellan. You mean that is the American taxpayers' 
money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think it's taxpayers' money. I don't 
know the technique of it. It was counterpart funds.
    Senator McClellan. Is not that the equivalent of taxpayer 
money? Those funds that are made available to us are made 
available on the basis of taxpayers' money that we spend.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir. Some people say they are and some 
people say they are not.
    Senator McClellan. I do not care what anybody says. There 
would not be any counterpart fund if there were not any 
American taxpayers' dollars. Were we spending money for this 
book? I am not passing on the book. I do not know yet.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. It was either taxpayers' money or 
counterpart funds that were available for our expenditures?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. So we are out around $50,000 in value?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the 
publication of that book and the distribution of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know it was being distributed?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. The first I heard of it was when I saw 
a copy of it.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Some months ago.
    The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have it withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was not acting deputy, now that I 
think of it, because, when I first saw the book, I was in the 
information division and I looked at it and made some 
uncomplimentary remarks about it. I did not read it. I just 
looked at it.
    The Chairman. How long have you been acting deputy?
    Mr. Kaghan. Four or five months.
    The Chairman. Four or five months?
    Mr. Kaghan. Was it about four or five months?
    Mr. Kellermann. I think that is correct, yes,
    The Chairman. When was the book withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know the exact date, sir.
    The Chairman. Roughly about how many months ago? Was it 
about a month ago?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, it was more than that. It was three or four 
months ago. The exact date is available, I am sure, in the 
Department of State.
    The Chairman. But you say you were not responsible for 
having it withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was consulted. I was in meetings where the 
matter was discussed and I thought it was not a very good book 
to have out.
    The Chairman. It was withdrawn on grounds it was written by 
a Communist author, was it not? That was the reason it was 
withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure that that was the reason. I think 
it was withdrawn because there were things in it which were 
what we thought to be a Marxian interpretation of history.
    The Chairman. In other words, you withdrew it because you 
thought it followed the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. We would do it because some people read it and 
discovered it followed Marxian concepts of history. I haven't 
read it enough to know whether it follows the Communist line.
    The Chairman. You seem to distinguish between the Marxian 
concept of history and the Communist line. I do not quite 
follow your distinction.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, socialism, I assume--I have always 
assumed is a brand of Marxism.
    The Chairman. Who was responsible in the Office of Public 
Affairs for the expenditure of $50,000 on this book?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know the details, sir. There was a 
report written on it, which I am sure is available in the 
Department of State.
    The Chairman. You do not know?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have no knowledge?
    Mr. Kaghan. Have no knowledge of that.
    Senator Dirksen. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. How large is this Office of Public 
Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. At the present moment, there are almost 
thirteen hundred people in it, Americans, and about twenty-five 
hundred Germans.
    Senator Dirksen. Are they all located at Frankfurt?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; the headquarters is in Bonn. They are 
located all over Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. And your headquarters is where?
    Mr. Kaghan. In Bonn, in Mehlen at Bonn, German capital.
    Senator Dirksen. I wanted to ask what are the general 
duties and functions of this Office of Public Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. To further American foreign policy, to make the 
German people understand and follow American principles and 
leadership in international matters, and to build up the 
support, confidence, and trust in the United States.
    Senator Dirksen. And how do you go about those objectives?
    Mr. Kaghan. We do it with the press, radio, film, whatever 
mass, media we can, whatever influence we can bring to bear on 
individuals in opinion forming areas--German congressman and 
senators, and publishers, and school teachers, and whoever we 
think can influence the general public, and keep Germany 
solidly on our side.
    Senator Dirksen. That includes writing articles for 
newspapers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not write articles for newspapers, but it 
includes publishing a newspaper. We publish an American-owned, 
government-owned daily newspaper in Germany in the German 
language which many Germans think is the best newspaper in 
Germany, and it carries editorials and news material furthering 
American foreign policy and combating the Soviets and 
communism.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it a throw-away, or is it done on 
subscription?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is not, sir. It is a daily newspaper with 
about 200,000 circulation, which sells for 15 Pfennigs, and it 
does not get thrown away at all.
    The Chairman. Is that Die Neue Zeitung?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's Die Neue Zeitung. It's published in 
Frankfurt and Berlin.
    The Chairman. What does that cost per year?
    Mr. Kaghan. It has cost us about $3 million a year. I'm 
sorry to say I am not prepared for budgetary matters. I didn't 
bone up on that at all.
    The Chairman. Do you know under what authority that is 
being done? I do not recall that Congress ever giving the 
Office of Public Affairs the right to spend $3 million a year 
in the newspapers.
    Mr. Kaghan. General Eisenhower started the Die Neue 
Zeitung. As far as I know, there was a message from him 
announcing its beginning which appeared in the first issue 
under the military government.
    The Chairman. You say Eisenhower started it. That was 
during the occupation when their were no other German papers 
and it was felt necessary to publish it and this is a 
continuation after all the German newspapers have been running?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't get the question.
    The Chairman. I say you gave Eisenhower as the authority 
for starting it. I am talking about the authority for running 
that after there are other German newspapers adequately 
supplying the German people. General Eisenhower I understand 
ordered this paper opened up when there were no other 
newspapers in Germany.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, there were other newspapers in 
Germany.
    The Chairman. There were?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How many?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know. There were a few other 
newspapers.
    Senator Mundt. That is published or edited by Mike Fodor in 
Berlin, is it not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to say I have seen several 
copies of the paper. I know Mr. Fodor very well and I think the 
paper is doing a very commendable job in Berlin.
    Mr. Kaghan. I wish to say that that paper is directly under 
my supervision and has been as long as I have been in Germany.
    Senator Mundt. The paper is to be made available to East 
Germans who slipped through the lines and picked up and there 
is a considerable number of every edition that goes back behind 
the Iron Curtain through Berlin to be made available to them, 
and they also run on the building a sort of flicker 
announcement such as they have at Times Square and it was from 
that flicker announcement that the East Germans first learned 
that Stalin had died and that Gottwald died.
    Senator McLellan. I believe you said it cost about $3 
million a year?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe that was the figure last year and the 
year before.
    Senator McLellan. In round numbers?
    Mr. Kaghan. In round figures.
    Senator McLellan. How much of that is recouped by the sale 
of the paper? In other words, how much a deficit is there?
    Mr. Kaghan. There is an income from circulation and 
advertising which does not equal that amount, but I can't give 
you the figures. I do not have those figures. There is a 
considerable amount of money returned.
    Senator McLellan. But there is a deficit in the cost of it 
that has to be made up out of tax funds or counterfunds?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. We were told by the editor of the paper, Mr. Hans 
Wallenberg--is that his name?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. That the total cost of the paper is 
slightly over $4 million a year, that there is a return of a 
little over $1 million a year, which does not go back to the 
State Department appropriation, but which goes to the general 
fund, so that the net loss to the taxpayers a year is close to 
$3 million a year.
    Senator McLellan. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get 
something in the record to indicate the loss.
    Mr. Kaghan. I question the word ``loss'' sir, to the United 
States. It is considered to be one of the most prominent, 
competent, and strongest anti-Soviet newspapers in Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. Are not you yourself planning to cut down from a 
daily to a weekly because you realize it is no longer needed as 
a daily paper in Germany because there are hundreds of other 
newspapers which are anti-Communist and saying the same things?
    Mr. Kaghan. We are considering that, yes. It is still what 
I said it was, but it could be in my opinion effective as a 
weekly and that is being considered, but not approved. It has 
not been agreed to and plans for its future are still being 
worked out. My point is to save the paper.
    The Chairman. Does the Office of Public Affairs also 
operate swimming pools?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. In Berlin?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. I have never been in touch with any 
material which would indicate we ran swimming pools.
    The Chairman. Would you know if they did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I would be likely to know if we did. It is 
possible that I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. It is possible you might not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Possible I might not know.
    The Chairman. Do you operate a rabies vaccination center?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir?
    The Chairman. Do you operate a rabies vaccination center?
    Mr. Kaghan. I doubt that we operate it openly, sir, if 
there is such a thing.
    The Chairman. You doubt that we operate it openly?
    Mr. Kaghan. Doubt the Public Affairs operates anything like 
that. They may have contributed to something like that for 
anti-Soviet purposes in Berlin. I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. You contributed money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you contribute money to the building of 
swimming pools?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe HICOG contributed something to the 
building of that Berlin swimming pool. I am not sure that it 
was Public Affairs.
    The Chairman. You are not sure?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. It may have been HICOG as a whole.
    The Chairman. Do you know Joe Barnes?\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Joseph Barnes (1907-1970) was foreign correspondent and 
foreign editor of the New York Herald Tribune, deputy director of 
Atlantic Operations of the OWI, editor of the New York Star, and editor 
at Simon and Schuster. In 1948 he assisted General Eisenhower with the 
preparation of his book, Crusade in Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I know Joe Barnes.
    The Chairman. Quite well?
    Mr. Kaghan. I used to know Joe Barnes fairly well. He was 
not an intimate friend.
    The Chairman. Did he ever hire you?
    Mr. Kaghan. He may have had something to do with my being 
hired on the Herald Tribune back in 1935 or '36.
    The Chairman. Did you know he was a Communist then?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know.
    The Chairman. Do you know he is one now?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. Do you know it has been testified by a great 
number of witnesses that he was an active member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I haven't read the testimony, sir. I have been 
out of the country and I haven't followed those things as 
closely as other people. It is not known to me.
    The Chairman. When do you say he might have had something 
to do with your being hired?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was on the paper, I think, when I got there. 
I am not positive of that, but I think he was.
    The Chairman. What year did you get there?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think 1936.
    The Chairman. How long did you stay?
    Mr. Kaghan. Off and on til 1942.
    The Chairman. You were on the foreign desk when Joe Barnes 
was foreign editor of the Herald Tribune, were you?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think he was, but he was not my direct 
supervisor.
    The Chairman. He was not your direct supervisor?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You worked in the same office?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; if you can consider the editorial 
floor was one great big open office with parts blocked off, he 
was not in the part where I was.
    The Chairman. Do I understand your statement to be that at 
the time you roomed with this man whom you said you knew was a 
Communist you did not think communism was a threat? Is that it?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. When did you first think that communism might 
be a threat?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that. I don't know that there is a 
specific time before my real personal contact with communism 
and the Red Army and the Soviets, which was in Austria.
    The Chairman. In other words, that is the first time that 
you began to feel that communism----
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, that was not the first time. That was 
when I was confirmed in my suspicions and these suspicions had 
been growing for a long time. I don't know how far back they 
went, but I am sure they went back at least to '39 because I 
was already sneering at people who were trying to explain the 
Nazi-Soviet pact.
    The Chairman. Your job over in Germany is to fight 
communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is part of the job. My job is to build a 
position of strength for the United States in Europe so that 
communism can be fought.
    The Chairman. You say you have working under your 
supervision how many people?
    Mr. Kaghan. There is only one American directly under my 
supervision. The rest of the Office of Public Affairs is under 
the supervision of the director. I more or less assist the 
director.
    The Chairman. When you were acting director, how many had 
you under your supervision?
    Mr. Kaghan. Oh, there would be about 240; around 240, I 
think is the figure. I am not sure of the number of slots that 
are not filled at this point. Those are details that I am not 
prepared to answer. It is close to 250 Americans and about 2500 
Germans.
    The Chairman. In other words, about 2,750 under your 
supervision?
    Mr. Kaghan. If that is the figure.
    The Chairman. Has it ever come to your attention that you 
had a Communist lecturing the German people?
    Mr. Kaghan. I heard just before I left that there was a 
question about some lecturer, whose name I don't recall, who 
lectured in Munich, which, in fact, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine 
apparently came upon. That was the first I heard of it and I 
don't know much more about it than that.
    The Chairman. It has been brought to your attention that 
the information program had a Communist lecturing the people?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not in those terms, not that he was a 
Communist.
    The Chairman. Have you heard the content of any of his 
lectures?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard him lecture the people 
that Malenkov is a peace-loving man and if war came, it would 
be our fault?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that he is said to have made some 
remark about Malenkov, something along the line he was for 
peace. That's as much as I heard about what he said.
    The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have his lectures 
discontinued then?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was not referred to me. It was referred to 
Mr. Boerner and I believe he did take such steps.
    The Chairman. Do you know for a fact that this man has been 
lecturing since?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you check on that? Did you not interest 
yourself?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not. I interested myself in the fact that 
Mr. Boerner was handling that matter and was in direct touch 
with the public affairs office in Munich and when I was 
preparing to come over here, they were talking about 
discontinuing the man's lectures.
    The Chairman. They were talking about discontinuing him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I overheard one-half of one part of the phone 
conversation in which Mr. Boerner said, ``Get rid of him,'' or 
words to that effect.
    The Chairman. Do you think a serious mistake has been made 
if he gave some lectures since your department discovered he 
was lecturing the people that Malenkov was peace loving and 
that Russian educational system should be adopted in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that he said that.
    The Chairman. Would you say a serious mistake was made if 
he were kept on?
    Mr. Kaghan. If a man is giving lectures favoring the Soviet 
Union, he certainly should not be kept on.
    The Chairman. As acting deputy director, I assume you took 
some interest in this when you heard that this man was 
lecturing along the Communist line. My question now is: Do you 
think it is a mistake to have kept that lecturer on?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is a mistake to keep a Communist or 
Communist-inclined person. I do not know the facts of this 
case.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, would you say that your own plays 
would have been of some value in achieving your purpose over in 
Germany so that the people could have read them?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so now, no, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, do you think these would have 
been very bad plays for the people over there to read?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think so.
    The Chairman. You say you changed since then.
    Mr. Kaghan. I think so. I think those would be bad plays. I 
haven't read them, but I assume they would be bad plays.
    The Chairman. Have any charges been filed against you under 
the security regulations or under the loyalty security program?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know what the technical phraseology 
would be for charges filed. Am I permitted to talk about 
security matters?
    The Chairman. You are permitted to answer that question.
    Senator Symington. I suggest that if the witness feels that 
he might be violating security, he be allowed to talk to the 
committee off the record.
    The Chairman. We have a representative of the security 
division of the State Department here if there is anything 
wrong. If there is anything in the record that would violate 
our security, we can certainly delete it.
    Senator Symington. You are going to have a franker witness 
if he feels that there is no chance of what he says being put 
in the paper than you are going to have if he feels what he 
says is going to be put in the record.
    The Chairman. Mr. Symington, I think this witness is under 
oath and I think he should be required to answer the questions. 
If the security representative of the State Department feels 
that the material should be deleted, I think we should delete 
it.
    Would you answer that question, please?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir. Would you repeat the question, sir?
    The Chairman. The question was: Have letters of charges 
been served on you under the loyalty security program since 
this committee brought some of your activities to light?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not since.
    The Chairman. Not since. When were letters of charges 
served upon you at any time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I received an interrogatory in 1950. I think it 
was asking questions about my past, which I filled out and 
returned through channels to Washington.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator McClellan.
    Senator McClellan. Is that routine? Has that been largely 
routine on all employees?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I don't think that all employees get 
an interrogatory. I think they get one when there is something 
to ask of a serious nature.
    Senator McClellan. I did not know whether it was a routine 
check that was made, or whether it was something peculiar or 
special in your case.
    Mr. Kaghan. To my knowledge, it was peculiar to my case.
    The Chairman. Had you applied for a job with the Voice of 
America?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am unwilling to say, sir, that I specifically 
applied. There was discussion and correspondence about my 
working for the Voice. I recall getting a letter asking if I 
would be interested in taking over the Austrian desk of the 
Voice in exchange for sending the head of the Austrian desk of 
the Voice to Austria to take over the newspaper, and as far as 
I can recall, I said I was not interested in that kind of a 
job.
    They may have asked me about other jobs, but I don't 
remember specifically applying for a job in the Voice.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether a security check was made 
on you to determine whether you would qualify for the job with 
the Voice under Public Law 402?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would not know, sir, that any specific check 
has been made for the Voice itself.
    The Chairman. Had you heard that you did not pass that 
security clearance?
    Mr. Kaghan. I heard it through reading the newspapers in 
Germany.
    The Chairman. When did you first hear that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume it would be the day after the hearing 
where Mr. Thompson made the allegation.
    The Chairman. That is the first time you had any reason to 
believe that you had flunked the security clearance?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was the first time I had heard a specific 
statement saying that I had applied for a job in the Voice and 
that I flunked a security test.
    The Chairman. Had you before that any information at all to 
indicate that you did not favorably pass the security test?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. You had no information of any kind?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Dirksen. How would that appear in the newspaper, in 
what form?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was a report of a hearing, sir, of this 
committee in which Mr. Thompson stated that I had applied for a 
job at the Voice and had been turned down for security reasons.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, the first you had 
knowledge of it was the news story reporting the hearing in New 
York City at which Mr. Thompson testified?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right. I heard about it from the 
Associated Press in Germany.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, I am a bit puzzled about one 
thing. You have a record here of having signed the Communist 
petition, having lived with a member of the Communist party, 
having written plays which you say were acceptable by the 
Communists and produced by a Communist front. Then you were 
hired to head the information program to fight communism in 
Germany. I wonder just what you did between 1939 when you say 
you began to realize the dangers of communism and the time that 
you got this very, very important job heading up the entire 
information program in HICOG. What did you do to convince the 
people who hired you that you were a real fighting anti-
Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think the people who hired me were as 
much concerned about my being a real fighting anti-Communist as 
they were in my being a loyal American who was competent to do 
a certain type of job.
    I worked on the foreign desk of the Tribune. I went to the 
Office of War Information at their request in 1942. Mr. Edward 
Barrett hired me.
    The Chairman. Let me put it this way then: Do you know of 
anything you did between 1939 and the time you got this job 
heading up the information program to indicate to the people 
who hired you that you were anti-Communist? Let us leave out 
the fighting part.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. I did not go along with any Communist 
activities that I know of and I believe it was known, and in 
Austria I ran a newspaper which was very strongly anti-
Communist. In 1946 in Austria, I was asking for more leeway to 
expose the Russians. I did that in Austria when the American 
policy there was to take it easy because General Clark had 
difficulties of a bigger nature than I understood, and I worked 
through Austria getting a reputation for being an anti-
Communist fighter, which the chancellor of Austria has just 
commented upon in a letter to me, if I may read a paragraph, in 
which he states:
    Through your various activities here in Austria where we 
had to, and still have to, withstand strong Communist pressure, 
you placed yourself very clearly in line with the Austrian 
Federal Government. I remember clearly how you courageously and 
with disregard of personal danger faithfully took the side of 
the Austrian Government during the October revolution when the 
Communists in Austria wanted to seize power by force. 
Therefore, I really can't believe it Mr. Kaghan, that people 
are seriously going to jump on you, and I just had to tell you 
this as an old friend because I know you so well as a democrat 
and as an anti-Communist.
    Senator McClellan. What is the date?
    Mr. Kaghan. 15 April, but I received it last week.
    Senator McClellan. Figl?
    Mr. Kaghan. Chancellor Figl.
    Senator McClellan. In the publication of that paper do you 
have editorial clippings that would establish clearly the 
policy that you pursued in the paper?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I have not had time to collect them, but 
they certainly exist in the State Department. I have a column 
here in 1946 which does that, but there are dozens and dozens 
of editorials. I did not write one every day, but I wrote many 
and it was not editorials alone. Not all people read 
editorials. More people read news. It was the handling of news 
which the chancellor commented on here, ``It was in your 
handling of news.''
    Senator McClellan. That is one aspect of it. I think you 
might have further evidence with respect to your own editorials 
which express your views that possibly had been used.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, I have editorials like that. They can 
be clipped from the State Department, and I will be glad to get 
them and have them transmitted. I do not have them with me. 
There must be dozens of them.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell the FBI or any government 
agency about this Communist that you were rooming with? Did you 
ever tell them that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think I said specifically he was. I 
think I told them that I thought he probably was. I would not 
make a specific statement that he was because I might have to 
prove it in court some day.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to the FBI or did you tell 
them when they were investigating you? Did you ever voluntarily 
go to the bureau and say, ``Here is a man who is a Communist?''
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The only information you gave them was when 
they were investigating your activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. In living with this Communist for a year I 
assume you must have gotten to know some other Communists.
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume I did, but not know so well that I 
would know who they were.
    The Chairman. In other words, you cannot remember the names 
of any others?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Not a single one?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, I remember the name of a girl he was 
going to marry. I don't know whether he did or not. She 
probably was in the same sense that he was. I don't remember 
her name.
    The Chairman. It seems to follow a pattern, Mr. Kaghan, 
pretty much. It is pretty much the same pattern. You cannot 
remember a single name of any Communist except the one that the 
FBI had already exposed.
    Mr. Kaghan. In '30s Communists didn't stick out as 
Communists. There were a lot of people who were very left and 
very pink and they were not members of the Communist party, and 
those who were didn't identify themselves, and I ran into a lot 
of them because I didn't appreciate the danger communism was at 
that time, didn't understand them.
    The Chairman. Did you recognize communism as a danger at 
all?
    Mr. Kaghan. In the '30s I recognized it as a philosophy 
that could not be of any importance in the United States.
    The Chairman. When you say you intend to support a 
Communist candidate and you signed a petition to that effect 
did you really intend to support him at that time?
    Senator Mundt. What year was that?
    The Chairman. 1939.
    Mr. Kagan. I'm not sure I did. I do not recall supporting 
him.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you intended to support 
him when you certified that you were going to support him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall how determined I was to support 
him. I only recall that I thought he ought to be on the ballot 
to carry out American principles.
    The Chairman. However you thought communism was a danger?
    Mr. Kaghan. I thought communism was un-American.
    The Chairman. However, you certified you would support a 
Communist; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. To get on the ballot.
    The Chairman. You did not say you will support him to get 
on the ballot. You say: ``I intend to support him at the 
ensuing election.''
    My question is: Is that a correct statement, or were you 
making a false statement at the time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't believe I was making a false statement, 
but it says, ``I intend to support'' and maybe I did intend to 
support him at that time. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. If you intended to support him how do we 
reconcile the fact that you say you did think communism was a 
danger at that time and un-American?
    Mr. Kaghan. Because as far as I knew about it, it was a 
philosophy, a political philosophy, which couldn't possibly get 
anywhere in America because it had no appeal to Americans and 
there was no reason for communism in America.
    Senator Mundt. What was it that impelled you to support him 
at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. The fact that I thought a man who had 
principles like that and ideals like that ought to be on the 
ballot to be voted against as well as for.
    Senator Mundt. As I understand the chairman, you signed an 
obligation to support him at the polls, not to get him on the 
ticket.
    Mr. Kaghan. It says ``I intended to support him.''
    Senator Mundt. I wonder what impelled you to intend to 
support him.
    Mr. Kaghan. I probably overlooked the ``intend to support'' 
in the interest of getting the man on the ballot.
    Senator Mundt. Was he a friend of yours?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know him, sir.
    Senator McClellan. I would just like to make this comment 
for you to elaborate on if you care to. I have listened very 
attentively to your testimony, and I want to commend you for 
being very frank and, apparently, sincere in everything you 
have said, and that is the only conflict that arises in my 
mind, that here you are declaring an intent to support a 
Communist candidate and at the same time say that that 
philosophy was not needed in America and had no appeal to 
America and you did not regard it as of any great importance. 
Yet you were initiating or helping to initiate an action to 
place a Communist on the ballot. That seems a little 
inconsistent to me. Elaborate on that any way you can.
    Mr. Kaghan. I agree with you. I assume that probably I 
signed that petition like one signs petitions. You don't read 
all the print that goes with it when you are told that they 
need five thousand or whatever it was signatures to get a man 
on the ballot and ``Will you sign?'' and I signed. I mean, to 
get a man on the ballot.
    Senator McClellan. You mean you probably at the time did 
not recognize the full significance and import of the printed 
petition?
    Mr. Kaghan. I probably did not, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You are not clear about that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was thinking, as far as I can recall, of the 
man's right to be on an American ballot.
    Senator Mundt. Let me get to the question that the chairman 
asked a little earlier, about which I am somewhat curious: If 
you had signed that petition before you were employed by the 
government, and if you had written plays--I was not here for 
the full testimony; I may be wrong--that the Communists 
approved of before you signed that petition, before you got 
your government job, and if you had been rooming with a 
Communist prior to that time, what was it that transpired 
between the time that these incidents took place and the time 
that you went to work for the government, which would have 
convinced your future employer, number one, that you were not a 
Communist, and, number two, that you would be the type of 
fellow that would be fighting against Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, I was working on foreign news during the 
war--I don't have any dates straight, but I think the Finnish 
War was involved there. During the time that I was working on 
the foreign desk of the Tribune was a lot of war news, 
naturally, but it was after the Soviets had fixed it for the 
Nazis to make the war, and I couldn't possibly have trusted 
them in any way, and I am sure that I made myself clear to 
anybody I may have talked to about it.
    Senator Mundt. Did you write any by-line or stories for the 
Tribune about that time that would indicate it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, that was not my job. My job was to 
edit what other people wrote.
    Senator Mundt. How did you first come in contact with a 
government job?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know who told me. Somebody in the 
newspaper--I don't know who it was--told me. Word got around 
that the government was looking for foreign news editors to get 
into the Office of War Information, and I went over and talked 
to Edward Barrett, who later became assistant secretary of 
state, and it was he who persuaded me to take the job.
    Senator Mundt. Was he then with OWI?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was with OWI.
    Senator Mundt. And he was the man who brought you? He was 
the man who brought you in?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was the man who brought me in.
    Senator Mundt. And did you work with OWI through to the end 
of the war?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I worked with OWI through to the end of 
the war, and then I went overseas.
    Senator Mundt. To Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. To Austria.
    Senator Mundt. What were the circumstances by which you 
went from OWI to Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was an administrative transfer. I went from 
OWI into what would be considered the field, except when I got 
over there it became the Information Services Branch, which was 
part of what I think was the Psychological Warfare Branch that 
came up from Africa and Italy, and occupied Austria, and when I 
went over there I went on an occupation mission which very soon 
became, clearly, a mission against the Soviets and against 
communism, because it became clear in very short time that 
these people had different ideas than we had about post-war 
Europe.
    Senator Mundt. Your job in Austria was to edit this paper 
which has been referred to in the letter by the chancellor?
    Mr. Kaghan. One of my jobs in Austria was to edit the 
paper. I also had responsibility for all newspaper operation 
news agencies, pictures, magazines, pamphlets, leaflets and at 
one time radio.
    Senator Mundt. When did you go to work for what is now 
known as IEA or the International Educational and Exchange 
Administration?
    Mr. Kaghan. I never did go to work for them myself. I was 
carried along, and whatever changes occurred occurred back here 
in Washington while I was abroad. The OWI sent me abroad, but 
when I got there it was not OWI; it was Information Services 
Branch of the U.S. Army, and I stayed with the army until I 
went to Germany. When I got to Germany I was in the high 
commissioner's office, and the high commissioner was--I don't 
know when he was IEA. The information operation became IEA only 
recently. I worked in Austria under Lt. General Geoffrey Keyes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to any Communist meeting?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think I did. I don't know which ones were 
Communist and which ones were not, but I went to meetings which 
I feel now were probably Communist.
    The Chairman. You actually know that you went to a very 
sizeable number of Communist meetings, do you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't say sizeable. I was not much of a 
meeting-goer. I went to several meetings.
    The Chairman. You held some in your home, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Not to your knowledge?
    Mr. Kaghan. No.
    The Chairman. You had meetings in your home, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall having political meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. What about the Communist you were living with?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall having political meetings 
there, although he may have had people in there which could be 
construed as a meeting.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether this Communist roommate 
had Communist friends in there and had a meeting in your home 
or in that home shared by the both of you?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is likely. I do not recall any specific 
meeting.
    The Chairman. You recall that there were meetings, do you 
not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall that there were such things as 
meetings.
    The Chairman. There were a group of Communists in that 
place?
    Mr. Kaghan. There was company, sir. He had people in. 
Whether they were Communists or not I couldn't say. I assume 
some of them probably were.
    The Chairman. How many meetings did you go to outside of 
your home that you now recognize as Communist meetings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I couldn't say, sir. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. More than a dozen?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so. It's possible, but I don't 
think so because I didn't like to go to meetings.
    The Chairman. Would you say around a dozen?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't like to make any specific figure. I 
went to several meetings in my time.
    The Chairman. Did you go to less than a half dozen? Or is 
it your testimony that you do not know whether it was more or 
less than twelve?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is my testimony that I went to a number of 
meetings which I believe were Communist meetings now.
    The Chairman. Did you know that they were Communist 
meetings then?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know in every case that they were. I'm 
not sure which ones were and which ones weren't.
    The Chairman. However, you know that some of them were 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I knew that some of them could have been 
Communist meetings. I don't recall clearly whether they were 
ever publicly or openly identified as Communist meetings. It 
wasn't significant.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, you say you did not like to go to 
meetings, so it must have been an unusual meeting that got you 
to go there. Therefore, I assume when you went to a meeting you 
knew who was meeting and what was the purpose.
    Mr. Kaghan. Not always.
    The Chairman. Sometimes. How would you happen to go?
    Mr. Kaghan. There would be a meeting for a specific 
political purpose which I would be asked to go to. If I was 
interested in the subject or if I was interested in the speaker 
I might go. I don't recall which ones those would be. I was a 
sucker in those days.
    Senator Mundt. What were some of these announced political 
purposes, Mr. Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't recall that, but in most cases I 
think they were short-range objectives of the Communists, if 
they were Communist meetings. The short-range objectives are 
the objectives which the Communists always put in front of you, 
whatever they were doing, and if I happened to be interested in 
something----
    Senator Mundt. You cannot remember any of the topics 
discussed?
    Mr. Kaghan. I cannot remember. I can remember only one 
meeting that the topic was something that I can recall, and 
that was the Soviet-Nazi pact, and I cannot recall where it was 
except this was in New York.
    The Chairman. You cannot recall where it was?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you recall where any of these meetings 
were held?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Not a single meeting?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Even though you went to the meetings you do 
not know the name of a single person who attended them?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, this fellow Irwin usually, often was with 
me.
    The Chairman. In other words, as of now, the only Communist 
that you can identify is the one who has been well known as a 
Communist. You cannot give us the name of any other Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Of all the people who attended these meetings 
you cannot name one Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. They were not identified as Communists, itself.
    The Chairman. Can you give us the name of anyone who came 
into your home, or your friend's home?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I do not recall anybody. Those days are 
pretty dim in my memory. I don't remember the names. If I heard 
some names I might recall that I met them at that time.
    The Chairman. What was the name of this woman whom you said 
was a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I said there was a woman that he married or may 
have married that I thought might have been a Communist as he.
    The Chairman. Do you know her name?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall her name.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Colonel Lawrence Ladue?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall Colonel Ladue.
    The Chairman. You worked under him?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. You know that he gave a report on your 
activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    The Chairman. You worked under him for how long?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure. It was in Austria.
    The Chairman. 1946?
    Mr. Kaghan. It would have been 1946.
    The Chairman. This is the time during which you say you 
were running this paper and fighting communism; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. Right.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Colonel Ladue reported 
that you insisted on publishing articles from TASS and you 
insisted on printing news from the United States concerning 
rapes and lynchings, and that you were very friendly with the 
Russians and wanted to accept an invitation to visit Russia, 
and Ladue refused to allow you? Do you remember if he issued 
such a report?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    The Chairman. Did you insist on printing dispatches from 
TASS?
    Mr. Kaghan. I insisted on having the liberty to print 
dispatches from TASS.
    The Chairman. In other words, you insisted on printing them 
and using your own judgment on what to print?
    Mr. Kaghan. Just my own judgment.
    Senator Mundt. What was your purpose in that?
    Mr. Kaghan. In order to use their own material to expose 
them, where I thought I could use it for that purpose.
    Senator Mundt. Do you very frequently find TASS publishing 
things that are detrimental to communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. If printed in conjunction with something else 
it can be very detrimental. It is a technique which we are now 
using, using their own words and their own statements written 
at another time, in juxtaposition, which exposes them as being 
liars, and I thought we could do some of that if I had the 
liberty to use their material. I remember there was some kind 
of an argument about using TASS at all, and I wanted the 
freedom to use it when I could use it against them.
    The Chairman. You wanted the right to use their dispatches 
in toto without making any comment on them? You were not going 
to use them editorially?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was going to use them in news, depending upon 
how they could be played. I wouldn't write an editorial into a 
news story, no, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were going to write the 
TASS dispatch?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Copy it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was going to take the TASS dispatch 
which I thought might prove a point on our side and use it.
    The Chairman. By using it you were going to----
    Mr. Kaghan. Reprint part of the dispatch. Now, in printing 
a news story you can cut it off. If it's too long you cut it, 
or I can rewrite it and give the gist of the TASS dispatch and 
credit TASS with it and say that is what it says and here is 
another story which tells something entirely different, an 
entirely different story.
    The Chairman. Did you insist to Ladue that you had the 
right to print stories of rapes and lynches in the United 
States?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall insisting on rapes and 
lynchings. I would believe that that would be part of a 
discussion on how to run a newspaper.
    The Chairman. Do you remember that you did on occasion 
insist on running stories of lynches and rapes in the United 
States?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not remember it, sir, but I am pretty sure 
that I insisted on the right to use my judgment on how to play 
stories which might be used by the Communist press in Vienna 
and printed their way, and I thought it would be better to give 
the straight facts our way on certain occasions. That would not 
be often, but if something happened over here that reflected on 
the credit of the United States I wanted the right to print the 
story in the American way and not just leave it to the 
Communists to print it their way.
    The Chairman. Did Colonel Ladue take the position that you 
were too friendly to the Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to me he didn't.
    The Chairman. He never did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not that I can recall. He may have concerned 
himself with it. He may have said something about that subject, 
but I was not too friendly with the Communists, so I don't 
imagine----
    The Chairman. Do you not know that that was his position, 
that he let it be known that he felt you were too friendly with 
the Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall that he said that. He may have 
said that on some occasion. We had to work with Soviets and I'm 
not sure he said I was friendly with the Communists or Soviets. 
We had to work in a city surrounded and filled with the Soviet 
army and Communists. It was Red Vienna.
    The Chairman. You just got through telling us that you were 
insistent that you be allowed to get tougher with the 
Communists than you were allowed to do. Now, Ladue is the man 
you would insist to if you did any insisting; is that correct? 
Do you follow me, sir?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, but it wouldn't always have been Ladue. He 
was not there all the time. I think Ladue came after Colonel 
Grogan. I believe it was Colonel Grogan, General Clark's public 
relations man. It could have been that I had the same argument 
with Colonel Grogan or with General Clark on how to handle 
propaganda, whether to use the enemy's stuff against them or 
not. There was always some fear that using the enemy's stuff at 
any time was dangerous, and naturally it always is.
    The Chairman. Were you invited to visit Russia?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall that I was.
    The Chairman. You do not recall that you were?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. If you had been you would remember that, 
would you not? It is no small event in your life to be invited 
to visit Russia at a time very few Americans were allowed in 
there? If you were invited you would remember, would you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. If I had a formal invitation to visit Russia I 
think I would remember it, but I do not recall any such formal 
invitation was given to me. There may have been some 
conversations between me and one of the Russian officers that 
we had to work with in the Allied Council or in the press 
field. I am not sure. I don't deny that I received such an 
invitation. I say I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Do you recall having sent a memorandum to 
Ladue? Do you recall having sent a memorandum to him to the 
effect that you had received an invitation and you wanted to 
accept it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Do you say now you did not send such a 
memorandum?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not say so. It is possible that I sent 
such a memorandum if I received such a memorandum. The first 
thing I think I would do would be to tell my superior officer.
    The Chairman. However, you do not recall now asking 
permission from Ladue to visit Russia in 1946?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that it may or may not have 
occurred, but you do not remember it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not remember it.
    The Chairman. You cannot swear it did not happen?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I would not say it did not happen. It 
was not unlikely. The Russians were also engaged in 
psychological warfare.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Abraham Lincoln 
Brigade?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am not sure that I did. I would not say that 
I did or didn't. I was sympathetic with the Abraham Lincoln 
Brigade. I'm not sure that I belonged to it.
    The Chairman. You know it has been designated as a 
Communist front?
    Mr. Kaghan. I know that now.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the New 
Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. They produced my plays and I was in and out of 
there very much.
    The Chairman. You wrote for them, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think I did.
    The Chairman. Did you know it was a Communist-controlled 
organization?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know it was a Communist-controlled 
organization. I thought it was very far to the left, and that 
there were Communists in it, and Irwin was in charge of it, so 
it was pretty much under Communist influence I thought.
    The Chairman. In other words, at the time you were writing 
for it you knew it was very far to the left and you knew that a 
Communist was in charge of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you agree with the philosophy expressed 
by the New Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall what their philosophy was. I 
know that they helped produce plays of social protest. I think 
that was the phrase in those days, and I was writing plays of 
social protest because they were very dramatic.
    The Chairman. Did the plays that you wrote represent your 
thinking?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not necessarily. They represented my dramatic 
interpretation of events at the time. I would not deny that 
there was some of my thinking in the plays, but I can't say, 
not recalling specifically the full text of any play, that it 
represented my thinking all the way through or its final 
conclusion. It depended on the dramatic situation that 
developed.
    Senator Mundt. Have you written any plays on the other side 
of the coin opposing or exposing communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I think I have done better than that in 
fighting communism. I have been over in Europe doing it where 
it's a very serious, imminent and present danger and threat in 
the physical form of the Red Army. I haven't written any plays 
for a long time and I have not had occasion to use that theme.
    The Chairman. Have you kept Communist books on the shelves 
of the information library, HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. We have taken off all the books they have 
ordered removed, ordered by the State Department.
    The Chairman. Prior to the order that came out recently 
after this committee started to work, had you been maintaining 
works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. There were books on the bookshelves that yes, 
Howard Fast, I believe, was on the bookshelves, some of the 
bookshelves.
    The Chairman. And is it true that there are a number of the 
works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that it's true.
    The Chairman. Were you not ever curious to know what kind 
of books you were putting out in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume the man in charge of the library was 
taking care of American interests and seeing to it that the 
wrong kind of books did not get on as well as he could. I did 
not read the books. I didn't have a catalog and I didn't have 
responsibility until recently for anything in the book field. I 
didn't have a listing of the books.
    The Chairman. Did you take any interest in that at all?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I took an interest in it.
    The Chairman. Were you ever curious to know whether you had 
Communist works on the bookshelves? Did it ever enter your 
mind?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, it never occurred to me that that was a 
problem.
    The Chairman. And the man in charge of bookshelves was 
working under you when you were acting director?
    Mr. Kaghan. When I am acting director.
    The Chairman. And do you think that it was right or wrong 
to keep the works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think in general it's wrong.
    The Chairman. In general you say it is wrong?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. All the books that I know of, books like 
Howard Fast's about America, I think that's wrong to have on 
the bookshelves.
    The Chairman. Are you going to take steps if you return to 
your job to discipline the man responsible for that?
    Mr. Kaghan. That would be the duty of the director.
    The Chairman. Are you going to recommend that he be 
disciplined? Are you going to recommend that he be disciplined 
or removed?
    Mr. Kaghan. I should have to consult the State Department 
before I would take action on that. It's a matter which 
involves more than myself.
    The Chairman. What is your position? Do you think that the 
individual responsible for putting Communist books on our 
shelves over there should be called to give an account for 
that?
    Mr. Kaghan. If there is any person who is putting Communist 
books on our shelves I think he should be called to account.
    The Chairman. You just got through saying there were these 
books on your shelves. Someone put them there.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, but I'm not sure it was the man in 
Germany.
    The Chairman. Whoever it is, you think he should be called 
to account?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think an explanation would be useful.
    The Chairman. An explanation?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think there can be any satisfactory 
explanation to putting Communist books on your shelves over 
there?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my opinion, no, but other people might think 
so.
    The Chairman. However, in your opinion, it is improper?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's improper.
    The Chairman. And you think it should not have been done?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it should not have been done.
    The Chairman. Do you think that those Communist books were 
placed on the shelves as a result of incompetence, or 
deliberately to sabotage our efforts to fight Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say it would not be easy to ascertain. 
I don't know why they would be there. I would have to talk to 
the persons involved and the persons responsible directly for 
listing and putting and buying those books. I don't know.
    The Chairman. If you had the right to discharge the man who 
purchased those Communist books, books by known Communist 
authors and placed them on our shelves, would you fire him?
    Mr. Kaghan. If they were known Communist authors, yes.
    The Chairman. Who over in your department is in charge of 
the library?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my department it's a man named Dunlap.
    The Chairman. How long has he been in charge?
    Mr. Kaghan. He's been in charge of the American houses, 
which include the libraries, for, I think, less than two years.
    The Chairman. Who is responsible for the publication of the 
history book by Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am not sure that I can place the 
responsibility on that, sir. There has been a lot of reporting 
on that, and I am not sure they have nailed down which specific 
person or persons is directly responsible.
    The Chairman. Has there been an attempt in your department 
to nail down specific person or persons?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, there has been, and we are working on it 
in Germany, and have been as soon as we discovered it.
    The Chairman. You say that the Communist books are being 
taken off the bookshelves now. How many books have been taken 
off the shelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not have the figures, sir. The directions 
or instructions to take books off the shelves come from the 
department, and they are carried out by the man who has charge 
of the books, and I think it may be a dozen by now or something 
like that.
    The Chairman. A dozen different books, or dozen different 
authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. Dozen different authors, I think.
    The Chairman. You do not know how many books?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you taken off the shelves the works of 
any authors who were not called before this committee?
    Mr. Kaghan. I could not answer that offhand, sir. I would 
have to look at the record.
    The Chairman. Were you not concerned?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know who was called in front of this 
committee.
    The Chairman. Did you get any report from your people since 
Mr. Dulles ordered those Communist books taken off the shelves 
as to how many volumes were to be taken off the shelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. Whatever instructions we got to take books off 
the shelves we followed out immediately. How many there were I 
couldn't say right at this moment.
    The Chairman. What was the instruction? Did it name the 
authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. It named the authors who should be removed, and 
they were removed.
    The Chairman. Did you not have a blanket instruction to 
remove the works of all known Communist authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. At one time I think there was some general 
instruction, the famous ``Et Cetera'' instruction. I don't 
recall the specific wording of that. But we required 
clarification of just what was meant.
    The Chairman. Do you know Pauline Royce?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Gladys Ruth Green?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Just one other question. Your testimony today 
is that you do consider it improper to have the works of 
Communist authors in our libraries, and if you had the power to 
fire the individual responsible for putting them there, you 
would do that; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: there has been some 
discussion about the necessity of having the public affairs 
officers read Communist books to be able to follow the 
Communist line and that sort of thing, and I do not think 
anyone on this committee would question the wisdom of that. I 
assume if you want to fight Communists you must know what they 
are saying. Let us have it clear now that the books in the 
libraries were available for the general public and were not 
there merely for the Public Affairs Office; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. I assume we both agree that there should be 
no ban against the officials in charge of the library or 
officers over there having any Communist books that they felt 
necessary in order to acquaint themselves with what the 
Communists were doing; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn has some questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I was born Theodore Cohen.
    Mr. Cohn. How is that spelled?
    Mr. Kaghan. C-o-h-e-n.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your name legally changed?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was legally changed in the state of New 
York.
    Mr. Cohn. In what year?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever been known by any names other 
than those of Cohen and Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. In college I used a middle name, Theodore Kane 
Cohen.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever use the name Kane?
    Mr. Kaghan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Kane your middle name?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was a name I put in as my middle name.
    Mr. Cohn. You just put it in?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you born with a middle name?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, I was not. I may have used the name Kane 
when I was trying to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon?
    Mr. Kaghan. I may have used the name Kane when I was trying 
to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. You were trying to avoid being known as Jewish? 
When?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my youth I had some foolish notions and 
there were probably inhibitions involved and I may have used 
that.
    Senator Mundt. Did you ever publish any books or plays 
under a pseudonym?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not understand what you wanted to avoid or 
why you wanted to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Kaghan. Because I was a foolish young man.
    Mr. Cohn. How old were you then?
    Mr. Kaghan. Oh, I was probably in college. I was in my 
early twenties. If I went out with girls whom I didn't want 
them to know I was Jewish I might have done that.
    Senator Mundt. At what age were you when you changed your 
name legally?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was thirty, and it was done legally, but I 
had been using that name consistently since 1935, when I was 
twenty-three.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you to look at this 
Communist petition, and ask you if you know the person who 
signed as a witness.
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't make out the name.
    Mr. Cohn. The first name is Gene, apparently, G-e-n-e.
    Mr. Kaghan. It could be O'Shea, or it seems to be O' 
something, but I don't know what it is.
    Senator Mundt. Could Gene have been the first name of Mr. 
Irwin's girlfriend?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so, doesn't sound familiar.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, I note that the press quoted you 
as referring to our investigators as gumshoeing junketeers; is 
that a correct description? First, let me ask you were you 
correctly quoted by the papers when they said that you referred 
to our two investigators as junketeering gumshoes?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Do you think that is a correct description?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, it's a phrase which I described them 
rather dramatically, and I used it because I thought they were 
going about a very serious business in a very superficial way.
    The Chairman. You said they uncovered this Communist 
lecturer. Do you think that was a pretty good service? You had 
a lecturer over there preaching the Communist line and the two 
gumshoeing junketeers uncovered this Communist lecturer. Do you 
not think that might be worthwhile, that the trip was 
worthwhile for that reason, if for nothing else?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't know that the lecturer was a 
Communist. I didn't say he was. I heard there was somebody who 
lectured that might be considered Communist by somebody.
    Senator Mundt. Assuming for the sake of the question, 
without going into the merits of it, that he was, would you 
then say that the trip was worthwhile?
    Mr. Kaghan. If the two young men had discovered a Communist 
lecturing in the American houses, I am not sure the way they 
were conducting the trip it would have paid off either if they 
found only one Communist. I think eventually if he was a 
Communist he would have been found out anyway.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, he was found out by somebody from your 
department, and after he was found out he gave nine more 
lectures. Do you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    Mr. Cohn. So, apparently, the finding out was not enough. 
How many Communists do you say should have been found out in 
order to make the trip worthwhile?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's a question that is almost impossible to 
answer. You can't go by the volume. If you found a hundred 
Communists they might not be as valuable as one other Communist 
that you didn't find. It depends on where the guy is and what 
he is up to.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you done anything about finding Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. That isn't my business, to find Communists. We 
assume our people are security cleared, and I depend on our 
security people for that.
    The Chairman. I am very curious to know what the two 
investigators did that you condemned over there and what you 
felt was wrong.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, in the first place, they came to Germany 
and avoided seeing me until late in the afternoon, and a little 
bit before they left. My name had been kicked around in 
hearings and I expected to have a chance to talk to them. I 
expected to brief them on public affairs and what we are doing, 
and they avoided me, and when they finally did see me it was 
fine, I appreciated that, and then they went up to Berlin and 
they made a statement to the press that I had Communistic 
tendencies, which I couldn't let go by without a statement. In 
addition to that, they were carrying out what I consider a 
serious piece of business in Europe which takes a little bit 
different technique in some cases than it does here. They came 
over there and by their activities I think reflected discredit 
on this committee and the Senate.
    The Chairman. Tell us what the activities were. So far you 
said they saw you late in the afternoon instead of the morning. 
Number two, you said they went to Berlin and said you had 
Communistic tendencies.
    I may say that, from the evidence before us, considering 
the plays that you wrote, the fact that you had books by 
Communist authors on your bookshelves, did nothing about it 
until the new State Department forced you to get them out, the 
fact that you lived with a Communist and attended Communist 
meetings, might justify almost anyone saying you had Communist 
tendencies, so that, so far, I do not think you have convinced 
us that they have done anything too wrong. You said they had 
other activities. What were the other activities that brought 
this discredit to the men?
    Mr. Kaghan. In saying that I had Communistic tendencies. I 
don't quarrel with their right to say that if they thought I 
had them. I don't think they should have said it in the city of 
Berlin where the Communist menace is a serious thing. I do not 
think they should have said it to the press before they were 
pretty sure about it. The over-all situation they created was 
one of giving the Germans a chance to jump on the United States 
and on this committee and on the Senate for doing things which 
the Germans really did not understand, and we hadn't a chance 
to explain, and here they were raising an issue in Germany 
which had been a domestic matter largely, and brought it into 
not just the German press but the entire European press.
    The Chairman. Just to get the time sequence straight, did 
you not call them names first publicly, calling them gumshoeing 
junketeers before they said you had Communistic tendencies?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I did not. I called them after they 
said I had Communist tendencies, and had told the press in 
Berlin that.
    The Chairman. Had you made no statement about them at all?
    Mr. Kaghan. I had made no public statements about them at 
all.
    The Chairman. Had you or anyone in your department, to your 
knowledge, helped write the stories covering their trip to 
Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge and I doubt very much if 
anyone would because material that was printed about them was 
not doing the United States any good.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Kaghan, let's see if we can get some of 
the facts here.
    Number one, for your information, no one ever said anything 
about your having Communist tendencies. The only thing that was 
ever said was a reference to the public testimony in public 
record of this committee up to the time prior to your trip to 
Europe. Not one word was said beyond the contents of that 
public record. There was a specific reference to what that 
public record demonstrated in the form of three documents: this 
petition, which was in evidence in public session; and, two, of 
your plays and the fact that one of them has been produced by 
the New Theater League and referred to in the Daily Worker on a 
specific day.
    Nothing was said beyond that and if you had taken the 
trouble to be in touch with us or inquire from Mr. [John] 
Slocum, you would have found that to be the fact.
    The second thing is you say you are offended because we 
didn't see you until the afternoon and ask you about public 
affairs. The first point is Mr. Boerner who is the public 
affairs officer, had made an arrangement to see us and meet 
with us in great length and discuss the Office of Public 
Affairs and I think it was our option to talk to him rather 
than with you.
    The second point is when we did see you was it not a fact 
that the very first question I asked you you refused to answer? 
I asked you whether or not you had signed this Communist party 
petition and you said you wouldn't tell us.
    Mr. Kaghan. I answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Eventually you did, after I reminded you of the 
directive of Mr. Dulles saying you were required to answer.
    Mr. Kaghan. Then I answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you answer the question when I asked you to 
name Communists that you knew?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not think it was wise to name Communists 
in an open session like that when there were people around who 
had no immunity and you had no immunity, and I said I was 
prepared to name them right here. May I correct you on another 
point? I do not believe you could have made any arrangements to 
see Mr. Boerner at the time you saw the press at three o'clock 
because we hadn't been able to find Mr. Boerner.
    Mr. Cohn. We had been able to find Mr. Boerner before we 
left the United States so I don't think that you are quite 
accurate in that.
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Boerner's wife couldn't find him.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion. 
Mr. Boerner went to the Hotel Royal in San Remo for his 
vacation. We planned it well in advance and the day before we 
left the United States people from the department had been in 
touch with Mr. Boerner and he was going to meet us at one of 
two places. The time was not fixed, but we knew we were going 
to see him as we did. Is it not a fact that attacks not on us, 
but on Senator McCarthy, on Secretary Dulles, and President 
Eisenhower, and on the United States, appeared well in advance 
of our visit in papers financed by HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. Would you repeat that?
    Mr. Cohn. Would you repeat it to him please, Mr. Reporter?
    [The record was then read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Kaghan. Criticism of the United States and the 
secretary of state and of the senator could very well have 
appeared in all kinds of papers at one time or another in 
advance of your visit.
    Mr. Cohn. You say could very well have. Don't you ever read 
of any attacks----
    Mr. Kaghan. There is always criticism of the United States. 
There is always criticism of personalities and policies of 
people. The implication that there was any connection between 
the German press to whom we had given assistance and attacks on 
the senator or on the government is not true.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think it is a wise policy on the one hand 
to have the taxpayers of the United States lose $3 million a 
year on one paper--by the way, that is many, many times the 
entire amount of money spent for a whole information bureau in 
some of the key areas in the world where the Communist movement 
is much stronger than in Germany. Do you think it is wise to 
publish a newspaper at the loss of $3 million a year and, on 
top of that, to finance some other papers and to have the end 
result some vicious attacks in some of these ninety-six papers, 
some twelve of them anyway, on President Eisenhower, Secretary 
Dulles, and the United States of America as a whole?
    Do you think that is good policy?
    Mr. Kaghan. That isn't the policy, Mr. Cohn. We have been 
trying to bring up a proper western press and a press which 
will be free of Communist threat and Communist influence and 
not the influence and Nazi control and we do not dictate to 
them what they should say. Some of them criticize Senator 
McCarthy and some other papers criticize Senator McCarthy and 
they have a right to do so and if we try to stop them, they 
would think we were----
    The Chairman. I am not concerned with the criticism of 
McCarthy. I am somewhat concerned that you are subsidizing 
papers that make it attacks upon the secretary of state and our 
president. They are the representatives of the American people. 
As far as attack on McCarthy is concerned, I have no concern 
with that at all.
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not agree. I don't believe it was 
subsidizing the press in the strictest sense of the word. We 
have arranged for a revolving fund in which they can borrow 
money to make themselves free of left and right wing control.
    The fact that they criticize the United States in 
individual cases I think is not as dangerous as if the entire 
German press were opposed to the United States or were under 
the direct influence of the Soviets or Communists.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a question about the two 
papers, Mr. Kaghan, that are published entirely with the United 
States funds, the one in Frankfurt and the one in Berlin.
    Do they engage in the policy of criticizing the secretary 
of state or the United States senator or the president?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, they do not. They avoid that sort of 
thing. They try their best and do a wonderful job of explaining 
what the policy of the United States is as expressed by the 
secretary and president.
    Senator Mundt. So these articles which appeared in the 
press supported by the revolving fund do not appear in the 
papers supported by the United States fund?
    Mr. Kaghan. They do not.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask the staff if they refute that.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Die Neue Zeitung?
    Senator Mundt. I think that's the name.
    Mr. Cohn. No, we did not find any attacks in the paper that 
was wholly paid for by the United States rather than partly 
financed. There were hundreds of attacks in these other papers, 
some of them strictly vicious.
    Mr. Kaghan. If you will check into that revolving press 
fund you will find that it's been a very successful effort to 
solidify the German press and get it independent of political 
influences which would make it dangerous to the United States, 
and at the present moment, Germany is going further and further 
toward our side.
    We still haven't got Germany on our side. They still 
haven't signed these contracts and even when they do we have to 
have the German people with us, and halfway through Germany are 
the Russians, and we have to keep going at them and the 
newspapers are one of our weapons.
    The Chairman. Do you know Hans Wallenberg?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard that he was a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have not.
    The Chairman. You have not heard that he is a member of the 
Communist party or ever was? Have you ever heard he followed 
the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that there has been derogatory 
information about Hans Wallenberg. I don't know specifically 
what it was, but I have heard there was.
    The Chairman. Has he to your knowledge been accused by 
anti-Communists of following the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. What other names has Wallenberg been known 
as?
    Mr. Kaghan. To my knowledge, I only know him by Hans 
Wallenberg.
    The Chairman. You say to your knowledge he was never 
accused of being a member of the Communist party. You have 
never heard that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Never heard that.
    The Chairman. Never heard anyone accuse him of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you standing on the word ``member''? You have 
been told there was derogatory information to the effect that 
he has been connected with the Communist movement.
    Mr. Kaghan. I have been told that there was derogatory 
information about him which was of a political nature.
    Mr. Cohn. Involving Communists. I am going to suggest there 
are people who say they told you this.
    Mr. Kaghan. You may, but whether it was Communist or 
whether it was left winger or not----
    Mr. Cohn. You know he wasn't a Nazi. That is what I am 
trying to get at.
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't say I remember specific words.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the information contain left wing activities 
or Nazi activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. Left activities.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this. By the way, before we 
leave this last point, you say that none of the people 
connected with your office supplied any of this information to 
the German press; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. Which information?
    Mr. Cohn. Information concerning our trip.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, if the press called up and wanted to know 
where you were, I assume Slocum might have told them.
    Mr. Cohn. As a matter of fact, you had somebody tailing us 
twenty-four hours a day and sending in reports.
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Who did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Office of the high commissioner had a man 
attached to you who was your escort.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know what he was. He kept saying he was 
merely going on the same conveyance because he had to meet 
Congressmen, Congressman Corbett or somebody. I walked in on 
him when he was phoning and he was reading a list of the 
witnesses we had interviewed, what we had for lunch, how much 
the check was, and a lot of other things, and I do not know 
that those items, mostly inaccurate--by the way, some of the 
actual questions we had asked some of the witnesses involving 
security in the HICOG offices. In the German press. Now, they 
must have come from someplace.
    Mr. Kaghan. They did not come from my office. I do not know 
where they came from and I did not assign the escort officer to 
you. He was not responsible to me.
    Mr. Cohn. You were worried about the influence on the 
United States and all that. You read that article in the 
Abenpost, did you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. You did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, and I regretted the appearance of that 
article.
    Mr. Cohn. The article contained that information, a good 
part of it lies, and, first of all, I am asking you this: What 
was done when you saw in that article a list of questions we 
had asked the witnesses? The State Department asked us to see 
certain witnesses. We saw them in confidence in the office of 
one of the high officials of HICOG, and then we pick up a 
newspaper and find a list of questions we asked.
    Mr. Kaghan. What could be done to a German newspaper that 
had these?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, this is one of our financed papers, first 
of all, but the second point is this: What was done about this 
official who apparently had given this information to the 
newspapers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know which official gave it and it was 
not out of my office.
    Mr. Cohn. They printed his name, one named Frank Milk.
    Mr. Kaghan. He's not an official of mine.
    Mr. Cohn. He is connected with MSA under this information 
program.
    Mr. Kaghan. He's not in the information program.
    Mr. Cohn. It is not under him?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's under him, yes.
    The Chairman. Who assigned this man to follow Mr. Cohn and 
Mr. Schine?
    Mr. Kaghan. A man was assigned to escort them.
    The Chairman. Use any term you want. Who assigned him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume it was Mr. [Glenn] Wolfe. I'm not 
sure.
    The Chairman. Who is he?
    Mr. Kaghan. Executive director of HICOG.
    The Chairman. He was an officer in HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that he was reporting on the 
activities of Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not. He never called me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Slocum?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not this man called Mr. 
Slocum? You are under oath.
    Mr. Kaghan. I know that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that he was calling Mr. Slocum?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know whether he called Slocum. Slocum 
was the press officer and had to handle this program and had to 
keep up with where you were and had to know what was going on 
in order to answer questions in the press. We were trying to 
help this situation along, not make it worse.
    The Chairman. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Cohn had 
told this escort that they wanted no part of him and that he 
trailed----
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I did not know that they told him 
that.
    The Chairman. You did not know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know that.
    The Chairman. Did you know that Mr. Slocum was getting 
reports from him as to where they ate and what time, and whom 
they had lunch with? Did you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wasn't aware of it, but I'm not surprised.
    Senator Mundt. You say you knew Mr. Slocum was getting 
reports?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. It was his business to know whether or 
what the congressional visitors were doing or senatorial 
investigators were doing, where they were, so that answers from 
the press could be taken care of. The trouble arose from the 
press conference, not from us. The American press started this.
    Senator Mundt. What did Mr. Slocum do with the information 
he got? What would he do with it?
    Mr. Kaghan. If the Associated Press wanted to know where 
they could get a hold of Mr. Cohn at any specific time, it 
would be up to Mr. Slocum's office to inform them and if they 
wanted to interview him in one city or another in Germany it 
would be up to Mr. Slocum to tell them which city they were to 
send somebody.
    The Chairman. You mean that you are entitled to spend money 
to keep track of congressional investigators so you can tell 
the press where they are? Is that part of your function?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't put it that way, sir.
    The Chairman. You just said that his job was to be able to 
tell the press where Cohn was.
    Mr. Kaghan. To give answers to the press' questions?
    The Chairman. If we send fifty people to Europe 
investigating, do you say it is your job to be able to tell the 
press any time where they are and what they are doing?
    Mr. Kaghan. The high commissioner's office is supposed to 
be able to supply the press with as much information as 
possible so they may do their work and report back to the 
American public what is being done in Germany and who is 
visiting there.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, if we send investigators out in 
the United States, the State Department does not send or put a 
tail on them so they can tell the press where they are.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. If we send a man down into Mexico, as far as 
I know, the State Department does not put a tail on them.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, and I assume they don't give press 
conferences at every stop.
    The Chairman. You mean because they give a press conference 
you felt that you were entitled to pay travel expenses for a 
man to tail them through Germany and report to Mr. Slocum; is 
that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, that is not correct.
    The Chairman. Then on what theory did you feel it was 
proper or one of your subordinates, to take this man and pay 
his traveling expenses--you are paying his salary, too--to tail 
two investigators and pay for long distance phone calls 
reporting to Mr. Slocum where they were and what they were 
doing? On what theory, do you justify that expenditure?
    Mr. Kaghan. I cannot justify it because it is not my 
business. He didn't work for me. I didn't put him on the job 
and I didn't ask him to call and he didn't report to me.
    The Chairman. You were Slocum's superior officer?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, and he stayed right in his office and 
didn't go anywhere.
    The Chairman. You knew that he was having this man tail 
these two men?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, he did not work for Slocum either. He 
worked for Mr. Wolfe.
    The Chairman. Did they know that this fellow was tailing 
these investigators?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was assuming that he was an escort 
officer.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Slocum have discussions with you on 
the reports he got from this tail?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, he certainly had discussions with me. He 
is always telling me what he is doing or what is going on in 
Germany.
    The Chairman. He told you about this man phoning in the 
reports?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not specifically. He at one time or 
maybe three or four times could have said [Bill] Montecone, the 
escort, told me. I didn't pay any particular attention to 
whether he heard they had a press conference there.
    The Chairman. Do you know that Slocum was getting telephone 
reports on the trip that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine were making? 
Did you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I knew that he got a report or two. I don't 
know that he was being reported to.
    The Chairman. Do you think that it was a proper expenditure 
to pay the expense of this man to follow these two young men 
and report on what they were doing? Do you think that was a 
proper expenditure of your Public Affairs Office?
    Mr. Kaghan. The Public Affairs Offices did not spend any 
money on this man who went with them as escort officer and if 
anybody had sent anybody to follow them and report on them I 
would think that would be unjustified and uncalled for, but the 
man went as an escort officer, as is normal with VIP's who come 
to Germany.
    The Chairman. You just said it was necessary so you could 
report to the AP where they were. You do not think that is 
correct, do you? You do not think the expenses are justified so 
you could tell the AP where Cohn was?
    Mr. Kaghan. I had nothing to do with the expense. The man 
didn't work for me. I didn't send anybody to follow them or be 
with them.
    The Chairman. Do you think it would be a proper expenditure 
by HICOG to pay this man's expenses to follow Cohn and Schine 
through Europe and report by long distance phone to Slocum what 
they were doing? Would that be a proper expenditure?
    Mr. Kaghan. If anybody followed them to report on what they 
were doing, it would not be a proper expenditure in my office.
    The Chairman. I have nothing further.
    Mr. Cohn. Just one or two things. When you were in Vienna--
this is December of 1947--we have some information concerning 
the conversion of five thousand shillings by you. Do you recall 
that incident? Could you clear that up for us?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I recall some incident about it. There was 
a conversion that went on in Austria. There were all sorts of 
problems connected with it. I am not familiar with the details.
    The Chairman. Did you make any profits from that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't make any profit from any of my years 
in Germany and my bank account will show it, or in Austria.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your relation with this conversion of 
these five thousand shillings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know exactly what my relationship was 
officially. The newspaper must have had a bank account which 
must have been involved in the conversion. Possibly that is 
what you are talking about, and I had something to do with that 
bank account.
    Mr. Cohn. This involved you personally. I will tell you 
exactly what I am talking about. It was an investigation of 
possible payroll padding in March of 1949 by the provost 
marshal. In the course of that, you were interviewed and 
evidence had been developed that you had converted five 
thousand shillings through fellow employees in December of 
1947? Do you recall that?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, I do not recall the details of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not recall the question by somebody in the 
provost marshal's office?
    Mr. Kaghan. Vaguely, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you recall about that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not a word that the provost marshal asked me or 
any of his agents asked me, and I don't recall that it was 
specifically me or there was something I knew about or was 
supposed to know about.
    Mr. Cohn. It was supposed to be specifically you, but you 
say you do not recall?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever contribute any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give Ben Irwin any money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I may have loaned him money.
    The Chairman. I believe you said that you told Mr. Cohn 
that you would not name the Communists you knew over in 
Germany, but you would do it before this committee. Will you 
name those Communists now?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have named Ben Irwin as the person I thought 
was a Communist.
    The Chairman. That is the only one you know?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is the only one I feel pretty sure was a 
Communist and I do not recall the names of others who were.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists working for HICOG 
in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You do not know of any?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know of any Communists working for 
HICOG.
    The Chairman. None that you suspect of being Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any that you suspect of being sympathetic to 
communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. None whatsoever?
    Mr. Kaghan. None whatsoever. If I knew of any sympathetic 
to communism that were working for me I would fire them.
    The Chairman. If you knew any who felt the way you did in 
1939, would you fire them?
    Mr. Kaghan. In 1939?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. You would fire them?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. If he didn't know any more about communism 
than that, I would fire him.
    The Chairman. We will adjourn until 10:30 in the morning at 
which time we will have a public session.
    You may have counsel in case you care to have counsel with 
you. If you have counsel, you are entitled to advise with 
counsel at any time you care to and discuss any matter with him 
at any time you want to. If a matter comes up where you think 
you need a confidential conference with counsel any time during 
the hearing, we will try and provide a room to which you can go 
and have such a conference. It is just up to yourself whether 
you want counsel or not. We do not let counsel take any part in 
the proceedings.
    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., Tuesday, April 28, 1953, the 
executive session was concluded.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
                              ----------                              
                          TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1953
    [Editor's note.--James A. Wechsler returned to testify in 
executive session a second time on May 5, 1953. Ten days later 
the transcripts of both the April 24 and May 5 sessions were 
made public, and the subcommittee published them later that 
year.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Poet, novelist and editor Millen Brand 
(1906-1980) testified again in public session on May 6, 1953.]
                              ----------                              
                          TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:30 p.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri; Senator Henry M. 
Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Howard Rushmore, 
research director; \23\ Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Howard Rushmore (1914-1958) served as the subcommittee's 
director of research from April 1 to July 12, 1953. The former film 
critic for the Daily Worker fell out with the Communist party in 1939 
over its criticism of his review of Gone With the Wind. Rushmore became 
a feature writer for William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal-
American. He testified before the House Un-American Activities 
Committee about the Communist leanings of prominent Hollywood actors 
and writers, and before the permanent subcommittee on March 5, 1953, 
about Reed Harris. Rushmore quit the subcommittee following a dispute 
with Roy Cohn and afterwards publicly criticized Cohn and Senator 
McCarthy. He became editor of the magazine Confidential, but later 
testified against the magazine in court. The New York Daily News dubbed 
him a ``turncoat of many colors.'' Roy Cohn observed that Rushmore had 
``a mental quirk which resulted in his trying to hurt everyone he had 
ever worked for.'' In 1958, Rushmore shot and killed his wife and 
himself in a New York City taxi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this 
matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Brand. I do.
                   TESTIMONY OF MILLEN BRAND
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brand, your full name is Millen, M-i-l-l-e-n, 
Brand, B-r-a-n-d?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your present business affiliation?
    Mr. Brand. With Crown Publishers.
    Mr. Cohn. Crown Publishers in New York?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a very large publishing firm, is it not?
    Mr. Brand. Fairly large.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been with 
them?
    Mr. Brand. About a year.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been with them for about one year. Mr. 
Brand, are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brand, are you the author of some books?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    The Chairman. May I ask a question? Are you a member of the 
Communist party as of today?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You understand, Mr. Brand, that this 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment is not a privilege that can 
be lightly taken, it can only be taken if you honestly feel 
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you? 
Therefore, I will ask you do you honestly feel if you were to 
tell the committee whether or not you are a Communist today, 
tell them the truth, that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question. I 
understand you do not have counsel here, so I will try and go 
over this again.
    A witness cannot be forced to testify against himself. The 
only right you have to refuse to answer this particular 
instance that we are talking about, is that if you honestly 
feel that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate yourself. 
If you feel that you would incriminate yourself for perjury, 
you cannot refuse to answer.
    The committee must decide in each instance whether you have 
the right to refuse to answer. Before we can determine that, I 
ask you the simple question of whether or not you feel that a 
truthful answer to the question of whether or not you are today 
a Communist might tend to incriminate you. If you honestly feel 
that it would tend to incriminate you and you tell us that, 
then you are entitled to refuse to answer. If you do not, we 
would order you to answer the other question. Do you 
understand?
    Mr. Brand. You mean I would be in contempt if I refuse to 
answer?
    The Chairman. If you refuse to answer whether you 
truthfully feel, that you honestly feel, that the truthful 
answer would tend to incriminate you, then I would order you to 
answer.
    Mr. Brand. I have to ask you for fairness on this because I 
am unfamiliar with this.
    The Chairman. It is a question I have asked other 
witnesses, and I have taken the same position with them. I may 
say this, that if at this point or at any other point in the 
proceedings you feel that you need the advice of counsel, we 
will be glad to let you obtain a lawyer who can advise you on 
that. We do not want to take advantage of anyone at any of 
these hearings.
    Senator Symington. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Do you feel that you are a good 
American?
    Mr. Brand. You see, I am at a complete loss here because I 
don't know what questions are permissible and what are not.
    Senator Symington. How old are you?
    Mr. Brand. I see what you mean.
    Senator Symington. If you see what I mean, you are not at a 
complete loss, are you?
    Mr. Brand. Naturally I can say how old I am.
    Senator Symington. What is your age?
    Mr. Brand. Forty-seven.
    Senator Symington. At forty-seven you ought to know whether 
or not you believe you are a good American, should you not?
    Mr. Brand. There is a question involved here. I suppose 
actually I should say I am, but there is a question that I do 
not know the area where you----
    Senator Symington. Why do you not say? If you feel you are 
a good American, why do you not say you are a good American, 
and if you feel you are not, why do you not say you are not?
    Mr. Brand. I do feel I am a good American.
    Senator Symington. You do feel you are a good American?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Then if you do you would not want to 
belong to any organization that is committed to destroy the 
United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Brand. Well, I would like to say again that you are 
probably very experienced in framing these questions----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Brand, you are looking at the 
greenest senator that ever hit Washington. I am not even a 
lawyer. Just from the standpoint of common sense, I am 
wondering why if you felt you were a good American you would be 
ashamed to tell the chairman of the committee, why you would be 
ashamed to say you once had been a Communist.
    Let me ask you one more question. Do you think you could be 
a Communist as of today and still be a good American with the 
condition of the world as it is?
    Mr. Brand. I think I should refuse to answer that.
    Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I am going back to the other question. The 
original question was are you a Communist as of today. You 
refused to answer that on the ground that the answer might tend 
to incriminate you. In order to determine whether you are 
entitled to that privilege, I asked you the question whether 
you felt that a truthful answer to that question of whether or 
not you are a Communist as of today might tend to incriminate 
you.
    You have been ordered to answer that question. If you 
refuse, I will ask the committee to hold you in contempt. If 
you want the advice of counsel, we will give you a recess and 
let you get counsel, sufficient time to get a lawyer from 
wherever you want to get him.
    Mr. Brand. You mean I will still be able to come back this 
afternoon?
    The Chairman. If you can get a lawyer here in town, 
certainly. We will adjourn and give you time to come back this 
afternoon.
    Mr. Brand. I don't even know the name of a lawyer, and I 
hadn't thought it would be necessary. I will take your word for 
this.
    The Chairman. I may say that if I were your lawyer 
representing you, I would advise you that you must answer 
whether you think a truthful answer would tend to incriminate 
you.
    Mr. Brand. Then I will say yes.
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the author of some books, are you not?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Name them.
    Mr. Brand. Outward Room.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Millen Brand, The Outward Room (New York, Simon and Schuster, 
1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. Between 1933 and 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. The Heroes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Millen Brand, The Heroes (New York : Simon and Schuster, 
1939.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. Approximately a year later.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. Albert Sears.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Millen Brand, Albert Sears: A Novel (New York : Simon and 
Schuster, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. You really mean when published?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Brand. That was published in 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a Communist at the time you wrote any of 
those books?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse as to all three?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in consultation with any of the members 
of the Communist party concerning any of those three books?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Brand, have you ever written any book 
reviews?
    Mr. Brand. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever write any for the New York Times?
    Mr. Brand. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write one for the New York Times which 
appeared December 22, 1946?
    Mr. Brand. I don't recall having written one.
    Mr. Cohn. For what publications have you written book 
reviews?
    Mr. Brand. Saturday Review of Literature.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote book reviews for the Saturday 
Review of Literature, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. What else besides Saturday Review of Literature?
    Mr. Brand. New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. New Masses. What else?
    Mr. Brand. I don't recall any others.
    The Chairman. Mr. Brand, I am not going to try to advise 
you here, but this committee knows that there has been a period 
of time during which unless you were either a member of the 
Communist party or your writings were friendly to it, you had 
great difficulty getting a favorable review in many of the 
leading publications whose reviews determine to a great extent 
how many books would be sold.
    I can see how some authors who were in financial straits 
might have gone through the motions of being friendly to the 
Communist party in order to get their works sold. You are going 
on a public hearing tomorrow. This is the first time you have 
testified. You can do yourself, I think, a great deal of damage 
or a great deal of good by deciding whether or not you want to 
come in and very frankly tell the committee whether you were a 
member of the party, why you became a member, if you are still 
a member why you remain in it.
    I personally have respect for the Communists who have 
enough guts to stand up and say, ``Sure, I am a Communist, and 
here's why I am a Communist.'' It is not a criminal offense to 
be a member of the Communist party unless you are a wilful and 
knowing member, knowing that its object is to destroy the 
United States government by force and violence.
    So that unless you are part of that conspiracy to overthrow 
the government by force and violence, a frank and honest answer 
cannot hurt you. You have to decide what you want to do, but 
you have a very important decision to make here between now and 
tomorrow. For your own benefit I think you should think it over 
carefully.
    Do you agree, Senator?
    Senator Symington. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that 
the witness see a lawyer and come in tomorrow.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever engage in Communist espionage with a 
man named Arthur Adams?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this----
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer whether you engaged in 
espionage with Arthur Adams on the ground that if you told the 
truth that might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brand. I think probably I should see counsel because 
this is----
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Brand. I hardly know my way around here.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Brand, the way that you are acting 
makes me feel personally that you are ashamed of being a 
Communist and that you do not know how to express it because 
you are afraid it might hurt you. Now if I am wrong in that, 
you at least are leaving the implication with the committee 
that you are a Communist.
    As the chairman pointed out, it is not illegal and why do 
you not say so and get it over with so that we can find out the 
rest of the questions that they want to ask with respect to the 
inquiry?
    Mr. Brand. You see, I don't agree in not wanting to answer 
these questions that I am admitting these things that you say 
seem.
    Senator Symington. Why do you not agree?
    Mr. Brand. It is just a conviction of mine.
    Senator Symington. What is the conviction?
    Mr. Brand. I just expressed them.
    Senator Symington. Say it again.
    Mr. Brand. My conviction is that it doesn't establish the 
fact that I am guilty of these things because I refuse to 
answer questions about them.
    Senator Symington. What is the reason that you refuse to 
answer?
    Mr. Brand. The main thing is that I would like to keep my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. He has indicated he wants to see a lawyer and 
I think he should be allowed to do so.
    Mr. Cohn. One question, Mr. Chairman. Is your Communist 
party number 79353?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You would prefer getting a lawyer?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    The Chairman. You may do that, and we will hear you in 
public session, tomorrow morning at ten o'clock in room 318.
    Mr. Cohn. What are some of the books that have been 
published by your firm since you have been with it?
    The Chairman. I think in view of the fact that he has 
indicated he wants counsel, I do not think he should be asked 
any more questions.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the committee proceeded to other 
business.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--John L. Donovan (1910-1976) did not 
testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              
                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 1:45 p.m. in room 428 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Also present: Francis Flanagan, general counsel; Donald 
Surine, assistant counsel; Howard Rushmore, research director; 
Robert Morris, counsel, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
    Senator McCarthy. In this matter now in hearing before the 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Donovan. I do.
    Senator McCarthy. Give your name and address for the 
record.
    Mr. Donovan. John L. Donovan, 3439 7th Avenue, Los Angeles, 
18, California.
                  TESTIMONY OF JOHN L. DONOVAN
    Mr. Morris. Mr. Donovan, were you born in New York?
    Mr. Donovan. I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Morris. And in your early days you lived in New York 
City?
    Mr. Donovan. I lived in New York City between 1924 and 1925 
and between 1928 and 1933.
    Mr. Morris. Did you go to Columbia University?
    Mr. Donovan. I attended Columbia University and was 
graduated from there.
    Mr. Morris. What degree did you obtain?
    Mr. Donovan. Bachelor of arts in 1931, master of arts 1932, 
in June, and I attended for an additional year, until June 
1933.
    Mr. Morris. While you were at Columbia University and while 
you were in New York, were you a member of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Donovan. I was not.
    Mr. Morris. Were you a member of the Communist party at 
that time?
    Mr. Donovan. I was not.
    Mr. Morris. Did you know James Wechsler in that period of 
time?
    Mr. Donovan. I did.
    Mr. Morris. Did you know him to be a member of the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Donovan. I did not.
    Mr. Morris. Did you meet him under any circumstances which 
would warrant his concluding that you were a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. Not to my recollection, although through close 
relationships among persons he may have gathered I was a 
member.
    Mr. Morris. You did join the Communist party sometime 
subsequent to your stay in Columbia?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Senator McCarthy. I think you should tell him that Mr. 
Wechsler submitted his name as a member of the party.
    Mr. Morris. That is why I was asking those questions, Mr. 
Chairman. Now, Mr. Donovan, did you join the Communist party 
when you were in Washington?
    Mr. Donovan. I joined the Communist party when I was in 
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Morris. Who induced you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. I went to a person named Eleanor Nelson, who 
was a member of the government employees' local union in the 
Department of Labor to ask her advice about certain union 
problems. I was president of the local union of government 
employees myself. She asked me why I did not joint the 
Communist party, and I did join.
    Mr. Morris. Were you assigned to any unit at that time?
    Mr. Donovan. Not immediately.
    Mr. Morris. Did you subsequently come to belong to a unit?
    Mr. Donovan. I did subsequently.
    Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances of your 
being made a part of a particular unit of the Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. I joined the Communist party in very late 1935 
to the best of my recollection. I was told by Miss Nelson that 
I would be notified by someone what to do. I was living at that 
time in a house in Washington with four individuals, one of 
whom was Victor Perlo, a mathematician I had known at Columbia, 
and had understood to be a Communist, although without specific 
legal knowledge, and three individuals whom I understood 
definitely not to be Communists, and whose names I am putting 
in the record with the full feeling that they were not then, 
and to the best of my knowledge have never since been 
Communists. The names are Sigmund Timberg, Bruno Schachner and 
Aaron Muravchik. All of these were young attorneys whom I had 
known at Columbia in the undergraduate school. I had known them 
as not being Communists.
    Mr. Morris. You put that in the record, Mr. Donovan----
    Mr. Donovan. I put it to explain my participation in the 
Communist party cell because I want it known where I lived and 
with whom at this particular time.
    For some weeks after being told by Miss Nelson that I would 
be invited to a meeting, nothing happened. One night around 
April of 1934, I was approached by Victor Perlo in the house 
where I lived, and told I should attend with him a Communist 
party meeting. I want to say at this time that I was quite 
drunk, very drunk, but nevertheless got up and went with him 
somewhere and met in a meeting with several people, none of 
whom--and I regret very sincerely--I remember at the present 
time, nor have I any recollection of the general business of 
the meeting, except as it seems to have affected me.
    I was then president of a local union of the AFL government 
employees union, and had been active in taking up problems of 
overtime and minor grievances of one kind or another, which 
were blown up in the Washington, D.C., newspapers as major 
incidents because of newspaper tendencies. There was some 
discussion at this meeting regarding the possible promotion of 
individuals present, including me, within government 
employment. The question as it affected me was that I had been 
active in the government employees union, and should withdraw 
as rapidly as possible from that activity and drop out of the 
union, in order that I might be available for advancement and 
pushing up the ladder in government employment.
    Mr. Morris. That is in line with Communist technique?
    Mr. Donovan. In line with the Communist policy. That is my 
recollection of the meeting.
    I left there and returned to my drinking for the evening. 
That is all I remember about it, Senator.
    Mr. Morris. Did you become the head of a unit in the NRA?
    Mr. Donovan. I subsequently became the head of the unit of 
Communist party members who were members of the local union, 
Lodge No. 91 of the American Federation of Government Employees 
at the NRA.
    Mr. Morris. And you were the head of the Communist cell in 
that unit?
    Mr. Donovan. I was.
    Mr. Morris. Who were the Communists in that unit?
    Mr. Donovan. The Communists in the unit originally were 
Henry Rhine, Jessica Buck, and one minor clerk-typist or file 
clerk whose name I don't remember. It has not returned to me. 
That was at the beginning.
    At subsequent times, as my employment in the NRA went 
forward--I am getting ahead of the thing to which I will return 
in a moment if you please--it is my recollection that Arthur 
Stein was a member of the union, a girl named Rose Clinton was 
a member of the union, and there may have been in and out one 
or two other persons whom I do not recollect, that is, whose 
names I do not recollect, but I do vaguely remember one or two 
other persons.
    Mr. Morris. Did you meet with any other units?
    Mr. Donovan. I was discharged from the NRA in June of 1934, 
if I remember correctly on June 18, 1934, by General Hugh 
Johnson, the administrator of the National Recovery 
Administration. The discharge was the conclusion of the 
handling of a minor internal employee grievance concerning a 
stencil cutter, I believe, in the stenographic pool who had 
lost her job under what appeared to the local union to be 
unfair circumstances.
    In handling the case, General Johnson stated to me 
personally that a job would be obtained for the individual in 
another government agency, and it was my feeling that this 
would straighten the whole thing out. But after three or four 
weeks no job had been obtained and nothing seemed to be 
happening, so I led a committee which waited in General 
Johnson's anteroom at a time when there was apparently a great 
deal of tension in the air, of which I was not aware, and I was 
fired the evening of the same day that that committee went into 
the office.
    It became something of a publicity because during the 
summer of 1934, terminating on August 10, 1934, in my 
reinstatement in the NRA after a hearing before the National 
Labor Relations Board.
    Coincidentally with this incident at the conclusion of 
which I was fired, there was before the NRA a decision on the 
cotton garment code, in which Sidney Hillman, a member of the 
NEA Labor Advisory Board was advocating a 10 percent increase 
in hourly wage rates, and a 10 percent decrease in maximum 
weekly hours. Assigned to prepare economic material for a brief 
for Mr. Hillman had been A. G. Silverman, the chief 
statistician of the NRA, and I gather this from subsequent 
reports--it is not of my own immediate knowledge--apparently in 
entering the discussions with the officials of the NRA and 
representatives of the cotton garment industry, Hillman took 
the brief before him for the first time, and it proved 
something entirely different from what he had intended to 
prove. Rather than proving a case for an increase in wage rates 
and a decrease in hours, it showed the degree of non-compliance 
with the then minimum and maximum effected.
    Hillman blew his top and talked to Dr. Gustav Peck who was 
the executive director, I believe, of the NRA. Peck, if I 
recollect this correctly, was supposed to have taken on Hillman 
and a Brannigan took place, a very violent argument took place, 
during the course of which Silverman was either forced to 
resign or fired.
    At any rate, he was off the payroll, which made him off the 
payroll at approximately the same day or a day or two after I 
had been discharged by General Johnson.
    Within the next seven days Silverman approached me with the 
proposal that we link his termination and my termination----
    Mr. Morris. Was Silverman to your knowledge a Communist?
    Mr. Donovan. He was not at that time to my knowledge a 
Communist, although shortly thereafter it came to my knowledge 
that he was. He put some pressure upon me. I argued just as 
vehemently that we had a union case which had some possibility 
of successful conclusion, but that there was no possibility 
were we to join up a controversy between a major figure in the 
American Federation of Labor, namely, Sidney Hillman, and the 
chief statistician of the NRA over a question of applicability 
or competency with what was a straight employee grievance, and 
a subsequent discharge of a union officer.
    I do not know how many days, it might have been a week or 
two, that this argument between Hillman and a few friends of 
Hillman in the NRA and me individually took place. Usually 
these arguments took place at the newspaper club because I was 
not working, and that is where I spent my days, drinking when I 
had money.
    Within the next ten days or two weeks after my discharge, I 
was called to a meeting where I met a number of individuals who 
worked within the NRA, and whom I knew to be employees of the 
NRA, but whom I had not known until that time as Communists. I 
don't know who told me to come to the meeting.
    At the meeting as I remember, and I remember pretty 
accurately on this--to begin the meeting was he lived in the 
apartment of Bob Coe. I do not know the address or the relative 
location--present were H. E. Silverman, Bob Coe, Henry Collins, 
Henry Rhine, myself, and an individual who represented the 
Communist party from outside. He was obviously the guy in 
charge. In fact, it was said that he represented Harold Ware, 
who was out of town doing something. He was known as John 
Herman. The chap was probably six feet one or six feet one and 
a half tall, rangy, American type, an educated accent, a 
moustache on the auburn side, and hair while not balding, not 
too thick or too clustered hair. I don't remember the color of 
his eyes.
    Mr. Morris. Do you know whether that was John Herman's 
right name or not?
    Mr. Donovan. I do not, and I assume that was not his 
correct name. The other things I remember about Herman is that 
Herman apparently was a writer and the estranged husband or 
boyfriend of another writer named Tess Schlinger. I do not know 
how I gather this. This is a definite recollection, however. 
Probably in the gossip after the meeting was over about who 
this guy was.
    The subject matter of the meeting was to persuade me to 
link the Silverman termination with the union case of which I 
was the apex. This I vigorously refused to do, using all of the 
arguments as to how things are handled practically in unions, 
and why this should not be done, and would complicate 
needlessly and get into a long drawn out fight that had nothing 
to do with the immediate issue.
    Herman was something of a theoretician and asked me if I 
espoused the theory of tailism, which I did not know much 
about. I did not know whether I did or not, but I knew what I 
knew.
    The meeting wound up without me having agreed or without 
having any decision to compel me having been set down. But here 
were a bunch of guys that had not been active in the union, 
except for Rhine, here were some new people that I had not 
known as Communists previously who obviously knew nothing about 
union, and to me they were presuming to tell me how to run my 
business, and I didn't like it.
    Thereafter within a short period of time, possibly a week 
or so, another meeting was called to which I went, and I don't 
know where it was. I am not sure whose house it was. I seem to 
recollect it was Nathaniel Weyl's apartment, but quite possibly 
it was not. It was a garret apartment, a full top floor. I 
remember this distinctly because the bed at one side, and a 
number of chairs scattered around, and scatter rugs on the 
floor. It was the middle of summer, extremely hot, and the 
meeting lasted endlessly. In fact, it lasted as I remember 
until nearly four o'clock in the morning.
    At one part as I got tired I lay on the floor and looked up 
at the ceiling where the peak of the roof came together and I 
remember the tie strips across there.
    Present at the meeting according to my recollection both of 
whom I am sure were Harold Ware, John Herman, Eleanor Nelson, 
Henry Rhine, Jessica Buck, Bob Coe, Victor Perlo, H. E. 
Silverman, Henry Collins, and although I am not sure of this, I 
seem to remember Nathaniel Weyl. I could be wrong.
    I was drinking in those days and this is nearly twenty 
years go. I don't want to state positively what I don't 
recollect positively.
    There were two subjects for discussion in the six-hour 
meeting. One was bringing the Silverman case into a joint issue 
within the union which I debated with all I knew. The strongest 
person for joining the case was Bob Coe. Silverman did not take 
too strong a part. Bob Coe took something with a part. From 
time to time Herman came in with various arguments which seemed 
irrelevant and from time to time Ware said we should do it 
anyhow.
    The upshot of it was, however, that the meeting there 
decided against bringing the Silverman termination into the 
union fight at that time.
    However, there was a second issue on which the argument 
lasted even longer. A number of the people, prominently Coe and 
Silverman, insisted that the fight being conducted by the union 
should be made more militant and that a meeting of the union 
should be called and a decision of the union made for the union 
members to go out and picket the Commerce building.
    Of course, this appeared to me to be incredible as a 
position, because win or lose, the case was going along all 
right, and being conducted as I felt, then--I would have done 
it differently now--a union case should be handled.
    They insisted upon it. I explained at great length here are 
125 people out of about 3,000, innocent, honest, hardworking 
people who probably had been out of jobs for a long time, and 
they needed jobs. They simply would never be able, even if they 
got a union meeting vote, to go out and picket, more than 
themselves and possibly five or six or seven suckers to go out 
there and picket, and that they would all be canned from the 
government, and they would look like a bunch of idiots.
    This went on, and it would just about be decided, and then 
it would resume, and the argument would be gone over and over 
again, until four o'clock in the morning when it was finally 
decided that I was under instructions and the rest were to help 
me to persuade the union to take this action.
    I walked down the stairs, I remember it very vividly, with 
Harold Ware up the street toward a traveled thoroughfare to get 
a taxicab home. On the way walking up the street I said to 
Ware, ``Those guys don't know anything. They don't understand 
these things. But surely you must understand that they are 
wrong, that this is wrong, that this is crazy.'' We didn't 
agree or disagree.
    I left him when I took a cab one way and he stood there 
waiting for another, and the subject never came up again of the 
Silverman case, or people coming out to picket on the picket 
line. It never came up in the union. Moreover, all of these 
people except Henry Rhine and Jessica Buck dropped out of 
activity in connection with the Donovan case until the very 
last day when the hearing was being held in the NRA--or rather 
before the National Labor Relations Board--at which time I 
remember Silverman in the audience, and I remember Bob Coe, 
jumping up at one point and interrupting Dr. Gustav Peck's 
testimony to contradict him at one point.
    That is my last connection within the Communist party, 
although I continued to work in the NRA, I continued to drink 
at the newspaper club or at cocktail bars, or around at 
cocktail parties raising money for this or that, but these 
people, along with a great many other people in the district--
this was my last organizational connection, shall I say, with 
any of these individuals, except Eleanor Nelson, Henry Rhine 
and Jessica Buck. The others dropped. As a matter of fact, 
Senator, they began gradually to walk away and avoid and 
conspicuously get me out of their hair from this time forward.
    Mr. Morris. You did not leave the Communist party at that 
time?
    Mr. Donovan. I did not.
    Mr. Morris. You do not know any more secret Communists than 
you have told us about?
    Mr. Donovan. I do not know any more secret Communists. I 
know people whose names have come forward in the various 
investigations. I have known of reputations, but to know them 
in terms of having been there and knowing definitely, I don't.
    Mr. Morris. You stayed on with the Communist party for a 
while?
    Mr. Donovan. I stayed on with the AFL unions within which 
the Communists penetrated in a number of agencies and where 
they had definite influence in several of the local unions.
    Mr. Morris. How long did you stay there?
    Mr. Donovan. I stayed there from the summer of 1934. 
Incidentally, right after this meeting which I described in the 
attic apartment, I was invited, I forget by whom, to a meeting 
of a different kind of cell, namely, a cell within the 
government employees union, and that process was the rest of my 
organizational connection in Washington.
    Mr. Morris. You were invited to this other meeting?
    Mr. Donovan. I was invited to a different meeting.
    Mr. Morris. Did you go?
    Mr. Donovan. I did.
    Mr. Morris. Who was there?
    Mr. Donovan. If I remember correctly, and I do remember the 
individuals I should state correctly, a man named Blumberg from 
Baltimore, Maryland, who was the key person in charge for the 
Communist party from the outside. Eleanor Nelson from the Labor 
Department who was the key person in charge in Washington. 
There was myself and a gray-haired woman with glasses, rather 
pretty middle-aged face, on the thin spinsterish side, whose 
name I do not recollect. She was a member of the National 
Federation of Federal Employees. I can't for the life of me 
recollect her name. She was there, and in this particular cell 
for only a few more meetings, and then dropped out for whatever 
reason I don't know. I don't know where she went or what she 
did. She was a government employee and a member of the National 
Federation of Federal Employees.
    Mr. Morris. Were you in these other meetings that she 
attended and then dropped out?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I was at two or three such meetings 
during the summer.
    Mr. Morris. Have you ever met Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. No.
    Mr. Morris. Did you ever attend a secret meeting of the 
Communist party with Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. To my knowledge, I never knew him to the best 
of my knowledge. I recognized his name as a new name in my 
cognizance.
    Senator McCarthy. This fellow John Herman, he would not 
have been Alger Hiss, would he?
    Mr. Donovan. No. I had seen Hiss's picture repeatedly and 
he would not have been.
    Mr. Surine. You now recall another person who was at his 
meeting with Al Blumberg, is that correct?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Surine. What was her name?
    Mr. Donovan. That was Al Blumberg's wife, as I understood 
it, named Dorothy Rose. She was a rather slight, thinly pretty 
brunette woman with black or very dark brown hair who usually 
sat in an outer room or on the edge of the meeting, not taking 
an active part, but apparently waiting for her husband to get 
through with the meeting.
    Mr. Surine. In connection with all of these meetings which 
you have described, they were officially called Communist 
meetings. There was no one there except Communists? That was 
your understanding?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Surine. They were actual members of the party?
    Mr. Donovan. These were official Communist meetings and 
according to my understanding they were definitely Communist 
party meetings, and all of the people who were there were to my 
understanding members of the Communist party.
    Mr. Surine. In connection with Eleanor Nelson, have you had 
occasion to either follow her career or her activities after 
you knew her personally in the Communist party movement?
    Mr. Donovan. I knew that subsequent to my leaving 
Washington in March or April of 1936, that in 1937 there was 
established a CIO United Federal Workers Union of which she 
became the secretary treasurer, and when I returned to 
Washington looking for a job in the autumn of 1937, I saw 
Eleanor Nelson several times and spoke to her several times.
    Mr. Surine. At the time when you did see her, were you 
still a member of the Communist party or considered yourself to 
be a member?
    Mr. Donovan. I had stopped paying dues, and I was in bad 
standing in a fight with various people in the Communist party. 
She talked to me, but I was not invited to any meetings or to 
any official gatherings.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know who she later married?
    Mr. Donovan. No, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Morris. You know she was married to Paul Porter?
    Mr. Donovan. I knew she had been married to Paul Porter. I 
think she had been divorced or estranged before I met her.
    Mr. Morris. You knew her marriage to Paul Porter was not a 
happy one?
    Mr. Donovan. I heard this. I did not know of it to my own 
knowledge.
    Mr. Surine. While you were active in that period in the 
Communist party meetings here in Washington, were there any 
statements made officially at these meetings or by any of the 
other Communists concerning whether or not they had sources in 
Washington newspapers?
    Mr. Donovan. No, I don't recollect any such.
    Mr. Morris. I would like to have the record show when you 
broke off with the Communist party. I know it was an indefinite 
time, but I would like to get your best recollection.
    Mr. Donovan. My best recollection is in the spring of 1937 
or the winter of 1938.
    Mr. Morris. And you have been organizing against the 
Communists since that time?
    Mr. Donovan. I have been organizing against the Communists, 
although I have been in contact with Communists in Washington, 
and the South, down until June of 1939, at which time I helped 
throw all the Communists that I could think up and dream up or 
suspected out of the Workers Alliance in a local branch of the 
Workers Alliance in Atlanta, Georgia.
    After that in September 1939, I got drunk and went out with 
Harry Scott, who was the key Communist in Atlanta to his house, 
and began to upbraid him and beat him up a little bit with my 
fists. In connection with this he called the police, and I took 
a duck around the corner while the sirens were there, and when 
I thought it was time to come out, I came out, but my shirt had 
been torn in the scuffle and the police picked me up, and I had 
a half pint of gin in my pocket so they booked me, I think, as 
drunk and disorderly.
    I got a lawyer there, Joe Jacobs, who had me bailed out in 
the morning. I appeared in the court in the morning, and Scott 
was there to press charges. I asked for a postponement which I 
got for three weeks. I went down at the time I was supposed to 
appear on the instructions of Jacobs, the attorney.
    Scott was there apparently to press charges, but on 
instructions from Jacobs I went over and whispered to the clerk 
that I would like to have it dismissed and the clerk whispered 
to the judge on the bench, and the judge, when the case was 
called on the calendar, said, ``Case dismissed,'' and Scott 
looked perplexed, and I have not seen him since.
    Mr. Surine. During the period of 1934 to 1937, when you 
state that you finally broke definitely with the party, did you 
ever receive any official instructions from a Communist party 
member, either to take some form of action or to do something?
    Mr. Donovan. I received official instructions from Eleanor 
Nelson in connection with a meeting which was held over the 
case in which I was involved when I was fired. I received 
instructions to mention the name of a committee they had going, 
a joint committee for unity of government employee unions. This 
incidentally was the connection of this gray haired woman with 
these meetings. I remember now. I received an instruction in 
the meeting to be sure to give credit to this joint committee 
in a sort of victory meeting which occurred after I was 
reinstated.
    Apparently I gave credit to the union and to the 
international union, and E. Claude Babcock, and everybody else, 
but psychologically I slipped on this joint committee and got 
hell about it.
    At the next meeting, Blumberg said, ``What do you mean not 
carrying out instructions.'' I can not remember definitely 
instructions to do this or that.
    Mr. Surine. I was wondering particularly the years 1936 and 
1937, whether or not you still were receiving any kind of 
suggestions or instructions from persons whom you knew to be 
Communists, and who were passing on to you these suggestions as 
Communists or these instructions.
    Mr. Donovan. The last instructions I got from Donald 
Henderson when I went to Colorado for Henderson.
    Mr. Surine. In what year was that?
    Mr. Donovan. Henderson made an arrangement with me to go 
there in the late spring of 1936. I finally got there, driven 
out there by him, in early August 1936. I had three 
instructions; one, to build a confederation of agricultural 
workers, AFL federal unions, in the mountain states.
    Mr. Surine. Is that what they call the Yucca Pow Wow?
    Mr. Donovan. No, this was the conference of the AFL 
agricultural workers set up as a semi-voluntary organization 
under the Colorado State Federation of Labor and a general 
authorization for establishing such things.
    The second instruction was to get out a newspaper in 
Spanish for these agricultural workers unions and to set up a 
format similar to Henderson's organizer paper.
    The third instruction I got from Henderson was to keep away 
from the Allender family who were the titular heads of the 
official open Communist party in Denver.
    Mr. Surine. Did you follow those instructions?
    Mr. Donovan. I followed along with the state federation in 
setting up the confederation of AFL unions. I got out three or 
five issues of the paper. It was quite a job. I had two years 
of Spanish about eighteen years before in high school, so what 
I did mainly was to take up the paper and it would take eight 
or nine days to get out four pages with my knowledge of 
Spanish. I did largely keep away from Allender. Occasionally he 
would pop over with ``Let's do this.''
    The last thing that he came over specifically for was to 
get delegates elected to the AFL convention in the fall of 
1936. After that I was a maverick, apparently an uncontrollable 
item and apparently they didn't care too much about it. I was 
largely in disagreement.
    I met my present wife in Colorado, and she was an organizer 
for the Denver Trades and Labor Assembly, and we made common 
cause, and see to it that the Communist party program did not 
go forward.
    Mr. Surine. While you were in Denver and in occasional 
contact with Allender and these others, were you in contact 
with other Communists out there whom you now can identify as 
being Communists?
    Mr. Donovan. I remember the Allender family as being a 
Communist family there. Probably all of the members were not. 
But one of them, Bill, went to Spain. A second one was one of 
the key officers of the Workers Alliance. A third was a young 
kid who ran errands for his brother, who was a district 
organizer of the Communist party. I don't know about all the 
rest of them. I cannot identify any of these people in terms of 
having been in official Communist party meetings with the 
exception of Allender, who acted officially as the district 
organizer.
    Mr. Morris. You say you have never attended a meeting with 
Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Morris. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting with 
Lee Pressman?
    Mr. Donovan. I never have attended a Communist party 
meeting with Lee Pressman.
    Mr. Morris. With Nathan Witt?
    Mr. Donovan. I never have attended a Communist party 
meeting with Nathan Witt.
    Mr. Morris, With Nathaniel Weyl?
    Mr. Donovan. I seem to remember having attended Communist 
meetings with Nathaniel Weyl, namely, this meeting in the loft. 
But other than that I do not recollect.
    Mr. Morris. You knew he was a Communist?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I knew he was a Communist.
    Mr. Morris. And you met him from time to time?
    Mr. Donovan. I met him while he was at Columbia in the 
spring of 1933, and he made no bones about being a Communist. 
In fact, I met Eleanor Nelson through Nathaniel Weyl.
    Mr. Morris. How many occasions altogether did you meet 
Nathaniel Weyl in Washington?
    Mr. Donovan. Probably fifty occasions at bars or in the 
newspaper club, or around.
    Mr. Morris. But you have only one recollection at a 
Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Donovan. Where I seem to remember he was there.
    Mr. Morris. Mr. Donovan, have you made disclosures to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation of all the facts you are 
putting in our record?
    Mr. Donovan. I have to the best of my recollection. I wish 
to say, however, for the record that I was interviewed by the 
FBI on three or four occasions in Los Angeles, and at that time 
I lied to the FBI about my Communist party membership and about 
certain relationships with individuals. I regret the lie. I am 
very sorry for it. I want to state for the record that my 
reasons for lying were that I hesitated to embarrass the 
persons and organizations with whom I am now associated on the 
West Coast, including certain conservative branches of the 
American Federation of Labor, the one union by which I am 
employed. I hesitated to embarrass my wife and other friends. 
Most particularly I hesitated to embarrass my brother, who is a 
rather conservative member of Congress. Other than that, I had 
certain resistance. My father was in the labor movement. I have 
been in the labor movement off and on a long time, and I had an 
emotional resistance against bearing tales. I am, however, glad 
that I am finally getting this lie off my shoulders.
    Mr. Rushmore. You say, Mr. Donovan, that you have been 
active in fighting Communists in the AFL in Los Angeles. Would 
this statement of yours be supported by such well known 
opponents of communism as Roy Brewer, Howard Costigan and 
others?
    Mr. Donovan. I think this statement would be supported by 
virtually every important leader of the American Federation of 
Labor in Los Angeles. I can not know about all. I believe 
Costigan would support this statement. I think and hope that 
Roy Brewer would support this statement. Among others there 
were letters on record from Abe Muir, who was general executive 
board member of the Carpenters Brotherhood in California about 
work which I did in switching plants from the Communist 
dominated Furniture Workers Union over to the Carpenters. There 
are other items of record of this sort, and records which I can 
obtain from 1937 forward. That is within the labor movement.
    In the general community I am sure that any number of 
substantial and respectable government employees and people in 
political life, including U.S. judges, and people from both the 
Democratic and Republican parties would testify to my 
reputation as being a person opposed to communism.
    The same thing is true of substantial and reputable anti-
Communist religious leaders in the community. There are 
undoubtedly, however, individuals who may feel because of 
suspicions tracing from my past membership in the Communist 
party, who may feel I may still have some Communist in me.
    [Thereupon at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed subject 
to call.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--In October, 1948, James Aronson (1915-
1988) and Cedric Belfrage (1904-1990) launched the National 
Guardian, a weekly paper that Aronson described as ``non-
Communist leftist.'' Earlier testimony by Elizabeth Bentley, 
confirmed by the Venona intercepts, had revealed that Belfrage 
made contact with Soviet espionage agents during World War II. 
In 1947 the FBI questioned Belfrage, who admitted to having 
provided confidential information to the Soviets but denied 
that he had been a Communist.
    When Aronson and Belfrage were subpoenaed to testify before 
the subcommittee in 1953, the National Guardian declared it ``a 
move to persecute and if possible intimidate the editors of an 
independent news-weekly, which has opposed the policies of war, 
repression and plunder of the Eisenhower Administration and the 
pervious bi-partisan administration of President Truman.'' In 
his book, The Press and the Cold War (Boston: Beacon Press, 
1970), Aronson wrote that ``we were not Communists, but . . . 
we felt it was our right--our duty--to remain silent before a 
committee of Congress which we felt had no authority to inquire 
into our beliefs and associations.'' He described the National 
Guardian as ``an independent and independently-owned newsweekly 
which took strong issue with basic governmental policy, foreign 
and domestic,'' and he denied that it adhered to an 
``international Communist conspiracy.'' Aronson and Belfrage 
explained that they invoked their Fifth rather than First 
Amendment rights at the advice of their attorney. ``Our lawyer 
had reasoned in a four-hour argument that if we invoked the 
First we would almost surely be cited for contempt, be 
convicted, and, in the existing climate, go to prison. He said 
the National Guardian would suffer and perhaps even be forced 
to suspend publication if its two chief editors were jailed.''
    Following their testimony at a public hearings on May 14, 
1953, Cedric Belfrage was arrested on a deportation warrant and 
held on Ellis Island until he was released on bond on June 10. 
He was ordered deported on December 9, 1954. After losing his 
appeal, he was again arrested in May 1955 and deported to Great 
Britain in August 1955. After Belfrage's deportation, James 
Aronson continued to publish the National Guardian until 1967, 
when he resigned in a policy dispute with ``New Left'' members 
of the staff. They changed the paper's name to the Guardian.]
                              ----------                              
                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:25 p.m. in room 457 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart 
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Howard Rushmore, 
research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Counsel, who is your first witness?
    Mr. Cohn. First, Mr. Chairman, we can have Mr. James 
Aronson.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that it is an executive 
session, we will ask everyone except the witness and his 
counsel to leave the room.
    May I say, sir, I am sorry we do not have a room for you to 
wait in, but there is a great shortage of rooms, so we will 
just have to ask you to wait outside.
    Would you stand and raise your right hand, Mr. Aronson?
    In this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Aronson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we get counsel's name for the record, please?
    Mr. Dambroff. Yes, Nathan Dambroff, D-a-m-b-r-o-f-f.
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that the 
committee has received unanimous consent of the Senate to sit 
today for this hearing.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Aronson, were you ever with the United States 
government in Germany?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES ARONSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, NATHAN 
                           DAMBROFF)
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. And from what year to what year?
    The Chairman. May I interrupt, before you start?
    I did not read it myself, but one of the senators said that 
either you or the other witness or both of you objected to 
being called on such short notice.
    If you find that you are asked a question which requires 
more time for an adequate answer, we will give you whatever 
time you need to prepare your answer.
    Mr. Aronson. Thank you.
    Mr. Dambroff. Fair enough.
    The Chairman. And I think this is your first appearance 
here. We have the rule that your witness can consult with you 
at anytime he cares to, at any time during the questioning. If 
you want to have a private conference with him, while we do not 
have another room, this is a large room, and you may have 
complete security and secrecy. You can go back to a corner of 
the room and discuss the matter at any time.
    We do not, however, allow counsel to have any part in the 
proceedings except to advise his client.
    Mr. Dambroff. Can I refer any questions to you myself?
    The Chairman. Any questions you want to have asked, either 
Mr. Cohn or myself will be glad to ask them for you.
    Mr. Dambroff. Or can I raise a point with you directly?
    The Chairman. Well, we have not allowed that in the past. 
In other words, objections----
    Mr. Dambroff. No, not objections, really, but an 
explanation which might be helpful.
    The Chairman. I would suggest that we do this. It would be 
better, if you want to raise a point, to discuss it with your 
client, and let him raise it.
    Mr. Dambroff. I will just refer it to you, for you to rule 
on it.
    The Chairman. We do not have any great formality. We try to 
accommodate the witnesses as well as we can, and the attorneys.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Aronson, I didn't get those years.
    Mr. Aronson. You asked when I was in Germany for the 
government. I was in Germany, I would say, from the end of July 
1945 until about the middle of March 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was that your first government service?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And by whom were you employed? The military 
government?
    Mr. Aronson. I was employed by the Office of War 
Information.
    Mr. Cohn. By OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. And I think you know the procedure. When 
you go overseas, you go under army supervision and discipline.
    Mr. Cohn. Right.
    Mr. Aronson. And I believe in Germany we were employed by 
the War Department. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. But your hiring was by OWI, and then, 
since things were under military control, you were subject to 
their rules and regulations?
    Mr. Aronson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you leave government service in the 
middle of 1946, after you left Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, shortly after my return.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were in Germany, from July 1945 until 
about the middle of 1946, exactly what position did you hold in 
OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. My title was press control officer.
    Mr. Cohn. Press control officer?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, in that capacity, did you have anything to 
do with the licensing of newspapers in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. I had no direct work in the licensing, 
but I was in a position where I made certain recommendations in 
regard to licensing.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom did you make those recommendations?
    Mr. Aronson. To my superior.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was that?
    Mr. Aronson. At that time it was Luther Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Luther Conant?
    Mr. Aronson. C-o-n-a-n-t.
    Mr. Cohn. That is not Dr. Conant?
    Mr. Aronson. No, that is not Dr. Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Any relation?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. And you would make recommendations concerning the 
licensing of newspapers. Is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, at that point, several newspapers had 
been licensed, you see, and I was sent out on field trips to 
give reports on prospective licensees or people who had been 
selected as licensees, to give a report back to my immediate 
superior.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. In other words, you were the press 
control officer, and OWI, military government, was then in the 
process of deciding which people were suitable to receive 
licenses to go into the newspaper business?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And that was your job.
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this. During that time were 
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you now a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. While you were in Germany as press control 
officer, were you in contact with any members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't quite understand that question. Do you 
mean members of the American Communist party, or the German 
Communist party?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I mean members of the Communist party be it 
American or German.
    I will withdraw that question and put it this way: Were you 
in contact with any Communists while you were in Germany at 
this period of time?
    Mr. Aronson. May I consult counsel on that?
    The Chairman. Surely. At any time, feel perfectly free to 
consult.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. Well, to the best of my recollection, I had no 
contact with American Communists or with German Communists, 
except that in an official capacity, for example when I visited 
newspapers which had been licensed which had German Communists 
as members of the license board, or perhaps--and this is 
something which is conjecture--whether applicants for licenses 
for German newspapers were Communist and I came into contact 
with them in an official capacity.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any of them that were Communists 
or that you believed to be Communists?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, there were a few who had already been 
licensed in the German press. I think I can give you the names 
of two on the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you do that?
    Mr. Aronson. There was Arno Rudert, A-r-n-o R-u-d-e-r-t, 
and Emil Carlebach, E-m-i-l C-a-r-l-e-b-a-c-h.
    Now these people had been selected along with, I believe, 
two Social Democrats and a Catholic Centrist, and a non-party 
person, as the license board of the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Are those two still there, do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe Rudert is still there as one of the 
co-publishers of the paper.
    Mr. Cohn. And he is a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. He was at the time.
    Mr. Cohn. He was a Communist at the time.
    Mr. Aronson. He was known as a Communist at the time.
    The Chairman. I missed something that you said there, Mr. 
Aronson. You said that two Communists and two Social Democrats, 
and a Catholic Rightist, I believe----
    Mr. Aronson. Catholic Centrist. I think the Center party 
was the Catholic party.
    The Chairman. They were selected for what task, did you 
say?
    Mr. Aronson. As a board of licensees. In other words, they 
were the people who were granted permission to publish a 
newspaper in the German language, under a license issued by 
American military government.
    The Chairman. I see. Who is in charge of the American 
military government there? I should know.
    Mr. Aronson. Well, the information control chief was 
Brigadier General Robert A. McClure.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the high commissioner, then? Do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, there was General Eisenhower, to begin, 
and then General Clay. I believe he was the successor.
    The Chairman. Were you there when McCloy was high 
commissioner?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. We can check those dates.
    Mr. Aronson. I believe he became high commissioner after I 
was returned to this country.
    Now, there was one other known Communist who was a member 
of the license board of the newspaper in Heidelberg. That was 
the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r Z-e-i-t-u-n-g. 
His name was Agricola, A-g-r-i-c-o-l-a. And the other two 
members of that board were the man who is now the president of 
the German Republic, Theodore Heuss, H-e-u-s-s, and the third 
person was, I believe, a member of the Social Democratic party.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, with the licensing of how many newspapers 
were you connected, Mr. Aronson? With the licensing of about 
how many newspapers?
    Mr. Dambroff. Excuse me one moment, please.
    [Mr. Dambroff confers with Mr. Aronson.]
    Mr. Aronson. I should make it clear that I had nothing to 
do with the licensing of the boards of either of these two 
newspapers, and directly I had nothing to do actually with the 
licensing of any newspapers in a capacity where I had any 
decision.
    Senator Symington [presiding]. Counsel, will you continue?
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what we would be interested in is this: How 
did you happen to get with OWI, Mr. Aronson? Did you apply, did 
they ask you to come, or what?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I believe it happened this way. There 
was an acquaintance of mine named Bennett Ellington, who, I 
believe, had served--I am not sure, but I think--with the 
Office of Strategic Services, who had been in Italy and had 
come back. He called me up, and we had lunch together and he 
asked what I was doing, and I told him. And he asked whether I 
would be interested in going to Germany. He said they were 
looking for people who had a reasonable command of the German 
language, and who were working newspaper men. I said I would.
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. What newspaper were you with at that 
time?
    Mr. Aronson. At that time I was with the New York Post.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party then?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. You were with the Post from when to 
when?
    Mr. Aronson. From 1940 to 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Go ahead. I interrupted you.
    Mr. Aronson. And I applied for the position. I believe the 
man whom I applied to was Mr. James Clark. And I was hired. I 
went through a preliminary training course in New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any security check on you, do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe there was. I received a security 
card.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you received your security card, were 
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question also, 
on grounds of strong principle, under the----
    Mr. Cohn. On the grounds of what?
    Mr. Aronson. Strong principle, under the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know about the strong principle.
    Senator Symington. In other words, if you did not have 
strong principle, you would admit you were a Communist? Is that 
right?
    Mr Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question also 
Senator, on the same grounds.
    Senator Symington. Could I ask one more, Roy?
    If you did not have strong principles, you would say you 
were not a member of the Communist party? That is the way I 
would prefer to put the question.
    Mr. Aronson. I must give the same answer.
    Senator Symington. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say you took a training course in OWI? 
Is that right? And when did you go with OWI, exactly?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe it was late spring of that same 
year, 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Late spring of '45. After you finished your 
training course, you went over to Germany. Is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. To England, for two weeks. I waited for orders 
from Germany, and went into Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you told us with the licensing of 
how many papers you were connected when you were in Germany.
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I wasn't actively connected with the 
licensing of any newspapers. My function was more that of 
survey and report officer. I was attached to headquarters.
    Mr. Cohn. On how many newspapers did you make reports as to 
whether or not they should be licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. I would say about four.
    Mr. Cohn. About four newspapers. Were any of those four 
licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were all of them licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names of those newspapers?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, there was the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, 
which I have given you.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Aronson. The Wiesbadener Kurier, W-i-e-s-b-a-d-e-n-e-r 
K-u-r-i-e-r.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Aronson. The Tagges Spieger, T-a-g-g-e-s S-p-i-e-g-e-r. 
And let me see, Oh, yes. The Hessische Nachrichten, H-e-s-s-i-
s-c-h-e N-a-c-h-r-i-c-h-t-e-n, in the city of Kassel.
    Mr. Cohn. Very good. Now, are all four of those papers 
still being printed? Do you know that, just for our 
information?
    Mr. Aronson. I could not say.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the Tagges Spieger? Is that being 
printed, do you know, in the western sector of Berlin, or in 
the eastern sector?
    Mr. Aronson. To the best of my knowledge, it is.
    Mr. Cohn. In which sector?
    Mr. Aronson. In the western zone, western Berlin.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any Communists connected with any of 
these four newspapers?
    Mr. Aronson. There was, as I told you, one Communist 
connected with the----
    Mr. Cohn. That is Agricola?
    Mr. Aronson. That is it--with the Heidelberg paper.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. I think there was one connected with the 
Hessische Nachrichten. I think that is all.
    Senator Symington. How did you know that he was a 
Communist? Did you hire him as a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I didn't hire them, Senator. But the way 
people were given licenses was whether they fell within the 
directives which were given us by General Eisenhower at the 
time, that is, over his signature and his orders.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, who was in actual charge of the program?
    Mr. Aronson. General McClure.
    Mr. Cohn. General Robert McClure; is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. And the condition was that applicants for 
license must have had a record of anti-Nazi activities, must 
have had no connection with the Nazi press, and must have had a 
record of no political activity, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. What if they were Communists?
    Mr. Aronson. There was nothing in the directives that 
prevented Communists from being licensed.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you think it was a good policy to license a 
Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. We were following the directives.
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left it open. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left it open. It did not 
have any restriction.
    Mr. Aronson. That is right. There was no restriction in the 
directives. And the purpose was a rather new experiment in 
German newspapers, which was to license supra-party papers. Up 
to that point, the German press was a party press, and the 
directives and the purpose of the plan was to engage people of 
several political parties to form a board of licensees.
    Mr. Cohn. In certain cases, you thought it was all right to 
have Communists among them. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel before I 
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to answer that question. Are you 
ready?
    Senator Symington. Yes. Go ahead.
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to answer it this way, that my 
personal opinion did not enter into the question. I had no part 
in policy-making nor in the formation of the directives, and my 
job was to follow out the directives. There was nothing in the 
directives which--well, I would say I was following out the 
directives, and let it go at that.
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left the question of 
communism open. In other words, there was no restriction, as 
there was in the case of Nazi background?
    Mr. Aronson. There was simply no question about it at the 
time.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. It didn't arise. The directive didn't 
say, ``Go ahead and license Communists,'' and it didn't say, 
``Don't license Communists.'' In other words, it was a matter 
of discretion. There was no restriction against it and there 
was no direction to do it. You were one of the people doing 
this. You didn't have the final say. I want to know what your 
opinion was.
    Mr. Aronson. I had no part in the licensing.
    Mr. Cohn. You made recommendations, didn't you? You went 
out and made surveys and checks, the way I might go out and 
make an investigation and come back and make a report? And 
certainly you had some part in it. You didn't have the final 
say, but you had a part in it. I think that is a fair 
statement. You made surveys on these four newspapers, and you 
made recommendations. You had a part in it. I want to know what 
your thinking was at that time.
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. That is your privilege.
    Senator Symington. Could I just interrupt? I would like to 
ask you a couple of questions, if I may.
    Do you think you are a good American?
    Mr. Aronson. I do, sir.
    Senator Symington. Well, if you were a good American, you 
would not be a member of any organization which was committed 
to the overthrow of the United States form of government by 
force and violence, would you?
    Mr. Aronson. No, sir, I would not.
    Senator Symington. In other words, if you had been a member 
of the Communist party--this is not a question but a 
statement--as I see it, if you had been a member of the 
Communist party, which many other Americans have been, and have 
seen the wrong, and then have left it, you could still be a 
good American. But based on what is going on to the world 
today, it is my thought that you could not be a good American 
and at the same time still be a member of the Communist party.
    I respect people who have had the courage to come here, or 
at any time in their life left the Communist party because they 
felt it was wrong.
    But why, if you are a good American, you should be afraid 
to say that you had once been a member of the Communist party I 
do not understand.
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, 
Senator, on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Well, to me that simply means that you 
are still a member of the Communist party. Is that correct?
    Mr. Aronson. I must also refuse to answer that question 
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Aronson, did you make a speech at a 
Communist rally recently on the question of your part in 
licensing newspapers in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you read an account in the Daily Worker of 
such a speech, from the last few weeks?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question also.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you in that speech brag about the fact that 
you had placed these newspapers in what you called democratic 
hands, and that this committee and the State Department is now 
trying to make the reactionary?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know a man by the name of Cedric 
Belfrage in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have access to any classified 
information of any kind?
    Mr. Aronson. May I consult counsel on that?
    Mr. Cohn. Certainly.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I believe I did, as part of my job.
    Mr. Cohn. What was my last question?
    Mr. Aronson. Your question was: did I have access to 
classified information.
    Mr. Cohn. I am sorry. You did have access to classified 
information?
    Mr. Aronson. As part of my job, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever communicate that classified 
information to any unauthorized person?
    Mr. Aronson. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. What was Belfrage's job in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. He was also a press control officer.
    Mr. Cohn. He was a press control officer. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he hold equal rank with you?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how many press control officers were there?
    Mr. Aronson. That I don't know, either. There were several.
    Mr. Cohn. Several. Three, or four, or four or five?
    Mr. Aronson. More than that. There must have been fifteen 
or twenty.
    Mr. Cohn. Fifteen or twenty. He was one.
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your salary at this time?
    Mr. Aronson. I really don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us an approximation as best you can.
    Mr. Aronson. I would say something like $5,000 a year, or 
$4400 to $5100.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. 
Belfrage? Did you have contact with him in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I had contact with him, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you and he ever discuss the fact that you 
would try to get some of these newspapers in the hands of 
Communists, you and Belfrage?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel on that.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. The answer is no.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Aronson. We did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss communism with him at all?
    Mr. Aronson. I discussed my work with him.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Did you discuss communism?
    Mr. Aronson. I refuse to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you did discuss your work with him?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. And you refuse to answer whether or not you 
discussed communism with him. Did he know you were a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. Resignation.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it a requested resignation?
    Mr. Aronson. It was not.
    Mr. Cohn. You just decided to----
    Mr. Aronson. To go back to my newspaper career.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of Russell Nixon 
in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I did not know him in Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him any place?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I have met Mr. Nixon since Germany, and I know 
him as an official of the United Electrical Workers.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know what position Mr. Nixon held in 
Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You know he was there, do you not?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe I know he was there, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us any idea of what he did there?
    Mr. Aronson. No, I cannot.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no idea about that. Is Mr. Nixon a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I have no information on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer is that you don't know?
    Mr. Aronson. I say I have no information on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, do you know whether or not he is?
    Mr. Aronson. I certainly have no way of knowing.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I don't know whether you have no way of 
knowing. If you were a member, and he was a member, maybe you 
went to meetings together. The question is: Do you know whether 
or not he is a member of the party?
    Mr. Aronson. I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed communism with Mr. Nixon?
    Mr. Aronson. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed the Communist party with 
him?
    Mr. Aronson. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know James Matles?
    Mr. Aronson. I may have met him once.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Emspak?
    Mr. Aronson. I may also have met him once, perhaps just to 
shake hands, and that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Owen Lattimore in OWI or any place 
else?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know Owen Lattimore.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you voluntarily resigned from the 
department, or OWI. That was part of the State Department?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe it became State Department, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you submitted your resignation to the 
department in the middle of '46. What did you do after that?
    Mr. Aronson. I went back to work for the New York Post.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, you went back to work for the New York Post.
    Mr. Aronson. I was on leave of absence.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was editor of the New York Post when you went 
back there? Do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. Ted O. Thackery.
    Mr. Cohn. When did Mr. Thackery leave?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I left the Post before Mr. Thackey did.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, you left before he did. Now, when you went 
back to the New York Post, were you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Now, you left the New York Post when?
    Mr. Aronson. In the fall of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. And where did you go then?
    Mr. Aronson. To the New York Times.
    Senator Symington. I wish you would tell these people on 
this committee whether or not you are a Communist now. I do not 
see why you will not, if you think you are a good American.
    Mr. Aronson. Is that in the form of a question, Senator?
    Senator Symington. No. I am just giving you my opinion. I 
would not think that anybody who felt he was a good American, 
based on things that are going on in the world, would want to 
come down here and say that he would not be glad to say he was 
not a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Aronson. I respect your opinion, Senator.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say you went to the New York Times in 
what year?
    Mr. Aronson. In the fall of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were with the New York Times, were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long were you with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I was with the New York Times from 1946, the 
fall of '46, until the spring of 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I wrote for the News of the Week in Review on 
the Sunday Times.
    Mr. Cohn. And during that period from '46 to '48, when you 
were with the News of the Week in Review, were you a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question also on 
the same grounds.
    The Chairman. May I ask you this question also. I assume 
you will refuse to answer. You have a right to.
    At the time you were writing for various papers, were you 
under orders of the Communist party as to how you should slant 
your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is no.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get any instructions from the 
Communist party as to your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is also no.
    The Chairman. Were there ever any suggestions as to how you 
should treat the news in regard to certain matters, certain 
individuals, with any members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is also no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss your work with any member of 
the Communist party when you were with the Post or Times?
    The Chairman. Your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I did not get the answer to the last question.
    Did you discuss your writings with any member of the 
Communist party when you were with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss it with any member of the 
Communist party when you were with the New York Post?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer, on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. When you were writing for any newspapers, did 
any member of the Communist party ever advise with you or 
discuss your writings, how you should write, how you should 
treat the news, certain people or subjects?
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know any men who are now Communists 
who are in any news media, that is, newspapers, radio, 
television?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists who are now 
working on either of those two papers you are working for, the 
Post or the Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that, on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. And I assume if I asked you about the papers 
individually, your answer would be the same?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, it would be.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after you left the Times in '48?
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I continued to be a newspaper man, but I 
must decline to answer that question on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you continued to be a newspaper 
man, but you won't tell us with what publication you were 
connected, exercising your Fifth Amendment privilege?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you connected with the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Aronson. I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been connected with the National 
Guardian?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today connected with the National 
Guardian?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, also 
on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. And you won't tell us whether or not you are a 
member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Aronson. I decline to answer that question also.
    The Chairman. Roy, just for the record, I think you should 
describe the National Guardian.
    Mr. Cohn. I think the National Guardian has been described 
in testimony before the committee as a magazine under Communist 
control following the Communist line and having on its staff a 
considerable number of members of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Where is it published?
    Mr. Cohn. New York, Senator. It is a national magazine. It 
is published in New York.
    I think, for the benefit of Senator McCarthy and Senator 
Jackson, I will ask you this question again.
    Did you, within the last few weeks, make a speech at a 
Communist rally stating that you had been the one who had 
helped set up German newspapers following what you described as 
the democratic line, and that the State Department and this 
committee are now trying to make these papers reactionary?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. Well, did you make that statement, without 
reference to where it was said.
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer the question, on the 
some grounds, Senator.
    Senator Jackson. You were on the OWI payroll in 1945 and 
1946?
    Mr. Aronson. Part of '45 and part of '46.
    Senator Jackson. Was that the only government service you 
had?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Part of '45? When in '45?
    Mr. Aronson. From the late spring of '45--well, I was in 
Germany in July of '45. I was on the OWI payroll, I would say, 
from about May of '45 until the end of March, '46.
    Senator Jackson. That is the only federal employment you 
had?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Do you recall signing an affidavit in 
connection with your employment that you were not a member of 
any organization advocating the overthrow of the government by 
force?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment, Senator.
    Senator Jackson. Did you sign such an affidavit?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more of this gentleman.
    The Chairman. Just one or two other questions.
    Did you ever have a security or loyalty hearing when you 
got your job with the State Department?
    Mr. Cohn. After you got the job?
    The Chairman. Before or after.
    Mr. Aronson. There was no hearing. I received security 
clearance, and I received a security card before I went 
overseas.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when you 
received that security clearance?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked by anyone as to whether 
you were a member of the Communist party in connection with 
obtaining that security clearance?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Jackson, I just asked the 
witness whether he had ever been asked by anyone whether he was 
a member of the Communist party in connection with his 
obtaining a security clearance. He has declined to answer. I do 
not think he has any constitutional right there.
    Mr. Cohn. Generally speaking, offhand, I can see where he 
would have a right. In other words, if he signed an affidavit 
denying that he was a member of the Communist party, and he was 
a member of the Communist party, he might be guilty of filing a 
false statement under the jurisdiction of a government agency, 
and might be guilty of a crime, and he might be within his 
right in so answering the question.
    However, apparently the only affidavit he signed for 
government employment was in 1945, and that would be barred by 
the statute of limitations.
    Senator Jackson. But Congress could remove that.
    The Chairman. I have just asked him if anyone ever asked 
him. That is just checking on the type of security regulations 
they had, and I think he should be ordered to answer that.
    Senator Jackson. I think he ought to be ordered to answer 
it. The question can be passed on later, but we might as well 
make the record now. Because I do not see that that would tend 
to incriminate him. The witness, as I understand the Fifth 
Amendment, can raise the privilege even though the tendency to 
incriminate is very slight. But I do not think that the 
question that was put goes to the truth of whether he was or 
was not a Communist. It goes to the question whether a question 
was asked, just the act of the asking of the question.
    The Chairman. And the purpose, I may say, is just to check 
on the type of security regulations the State Department had at 
that time. I am curious to know whether they cared whether he 
was a Communist or not. I will have to order you to answer.
    Mr. Aronson. I have no recollection that I was asked that 
specific question.
    The Chairman. As far as you can recollect, when you were 
hired, nobody displayed any interest as to whether you were a 
member of the Communist party or not?
    Mr. Aronson. I have no such recollection.
    Senator Jackson. Do you recall whether there was anything 
in the questionnaire that you may have filled out?
    Do you recall whether the question was written or oral, or 
both?
    The Chairman. He said he did not recall any question being 
asked at all.
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct. I have no recollection of any 
such question being asked of me.
    Senator Jackson. Either written or oral?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Thank you very much.
    We will ask you to return at ten o'clock tomorrow to room 
318. And you understand you will have the same right in so far 
as counsel is concerned in public session as in executive 
session.
    Is the other man your client also?
    Will you ask him to come in?
    Will you raise your right hand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Belfrage. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your name is?
   TESTIMONY OF CEDRIC BELFRAGE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        NATHAN DAMBROFF)
    Mr. Belfrage. Cedric Belfrage.
    Mr. Cohn. B-e-l-f-r-a-g-e?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Belfrage, have you ever been employed by the 
United States government?
    Mr. Belfrage. Employed by the United States government?
    Mr. Cohn. Is that such a difficult question?
    Mr. Dambroff. It is.
    Mr. Belfrage. It is rather a difficult question to answer 
directly to.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe I can amplify it a little bit.
    Were you a press control officer in Germany at any time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom were you employed?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was directly employed by the Ministry in 
London.
    Mr. Cohn. And what was your connection with the United 
States government?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was under American army officers. I was in 
SHAEF, which was Anglo-American.
    Mr. Cohn. Who employed you?
    Mr. Belfrage. The Ministry of Information.
    Mr. Cohn. The Ministry of Information in London?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a British citizen?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a British citizen now?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And how long have you been in this country?
    Mr. Belfrage. I came here first in 1926.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. And how long did you reside here?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I have resided here as an immigrant, in 
the status of an immigrant, since 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever applied for citizenship?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. And what happened to your application?
    Mr. Belfrage. What happened to it?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I was unable to complete it at the time 
when I was permitted to complete it or would have been able to 
complete it, because I was then working for the British 
government, so it was impossible.
    Mr. Cohn. So it lapsed?
    Mr. Belfrage. It lapsed, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever reapply?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I did not. I asked to reapply. I am 
sorry. I asked to complete the original application, since I 
had been overseas functioning in the war, and I was told that I 
couldn't do so.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you told that?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Since that time, have you filed any new 
application for citizenship?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. And under what circumstances are you resident in 
this country now?
    Mr. Belfrage. As a resident alien, as a British immigrant.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I am sorry. I feel that any answer I might 
give to that would be used only to crucify myself and other 
innocent persons, and I have to refuse to answer, under the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer, if that is the 
ground on which you are refusing.
    Mr. Dambroff. He has mentioned the Fifth Amendment, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. You can only refuse to answer if you feel 
that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you. Let me 
ask you this question. Do you feel that a truthful answer as to 
whether or not you were a member of the Communist party today 
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Belfrage. I must refuse to answer that, on the grounds 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that.
    Mr. Dambroff. He said he refused under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. The chairman's question is as to whether he is 
exercising his privilege in good faith.
    Mr. Dambroff. Yes, of course he is.
    The Chairman. I have asked you the question whether you 
feel that a truthful answer to the question whether you were a 
member of the Communist party would tend to incriminate you. 
And for counsel's benefit, let me say this. Some witnesses 
refuse to answer on the grounds that perjury would tend to 
incriminate them. They are not permitted to so refuse, on that 
basis. I have asked the witness the preliminary question as to 
whether he feels that a truthful answer to the question of 
whether he is a member of the Communist party today would tend 
to incriminate him.
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Then you have the right.
    How long have you been in the country now?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I think I just answered that question, 
Mr. McCarthy. I came here first in 1926, and I have been back 
and forth a great deal. But I have been residing here since 
1937.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been here steadily since what period of 
time?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, the last time I came back in 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been here from 1945 to 1953, as a 
resident alien?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was also a resident alien before the war.
    Mr. Cohn. But during the last eight years you have been a 
resident alien in the United States?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. During that period of time, have you been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I again must refuse to answer that, on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any immigration proceedings ever been 
brought to seek your deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. They have not.
    Senator Jackson. I want to get his residence. You came over 
in 1926 the first time?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right, sir.
    Senator Jackson. And how long were you here then?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I went back and forth a lot. I was a 
freelance writer.
    Senator Jackson. A freelance writer?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. You went back and forth to where?
    Mr. Belfrage. To England.
    Senator Jackson. To England?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Who were you writing for?
    Mr. Belfrage. Various publications about the movies. I was 
a movie expert.
    Senator Jackson. A movie critic?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, at that time. Originally I was writing 
for fan magazines.
    Senator Jackson. How long did that continue?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was writing for fan magazines and similar 
publications until 1930.
    Senator Jackson. Then what happened?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1930, I was employed by Samuel Goldwyn to 
go back to England as his representative, publicity 
representative.
    Senator Jackson. How long were you in England then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I continued with Mr. Goldwyn until 1931, for 
one year, and then I was employed by the London Daily and 
Sunday Express as a movie critic.
    Senator Jackson. How long did you stay on in that capacity?
    Mr. Belfrage. In that capacity I was there until 1936.
    Senator Jackson. Until 1936. And then you came back to the 
United States?
    Mr. Belfrage. Then I came back to the United States.
    Senator Jackson. And you stayed in the United States from 
1936 for how long?
    Mr. Belfrage. I have been here ever since, except that I 
have made two trips, I think, or three trips, possibly, back to 
England.
    Senator Jackson. Have you been any place besides England?
    Mr. Belfrage. In my life?
    Senator Jackson. No, I meant since you came to the United 
States originally in 1926.
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, sir. I have been to quite a number of 
countries. I have been to practically every country in the 
world.
    Senator Jackson. You were in the Soviet Union at what time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was there in 1936.
    Senator Jackson. In '36. When were you there after that?
    Mr. Belfrage. I haven't been there since.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you there in '36?
    Mr. Belfrage. About three or four weeks.
    Senator Jackson. In what capacity?
    Mr. Belfrage. I went there on a vacation. I also wrote some 
articles.
    Senator Jackson. Whom did you write the articles for?
    Mr. Belfrage. The News Chronicle in London.
    Senator Jackson. The News Chronicle. Anyone else?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall writing for anyone else.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written for the Daily Mail?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall ever writing for them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written for the Daily Mirror in 
London?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall it.
    Mr. Cohn. The Manchester Guardian?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. I never have.
    Senator Jackson. When you entered the United States, or re-
entered, on various occasions, you were required to fill out 
certain application forms, or not application forms but certain 
matters relating to immigration?
    Mr. Belfrage. I presume so, yes. It is a normal procedure.
    Senator Jackson. You did. And do you recall questions with 
reference to whether you believed in anarchy, communism or 
advocated the overthrow of the government by force and 
violence?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. You are relying on the Fifth Amendment in 
answer to that question?
    Mr. Belfrage: That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how long were you in Germany as a press 
control officer?
    Mr. Belfrage. About eight months.
    Mr. Cohn. And when was that? '45-'46?
    Mr. Belfrage. January '45 until, I think, the end of 
September or maybe the beginning of October.
    Mr. Cohn. And who was your immediate superior?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, there was rather a complicated chain of 
command. The man in charge of the Press Control Division of the 
whole outfit was Luther Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he an American?
    Mr. Belfrage. An American, yes; an American civilian.
    Well, no, I wasn't, really, because I was attached to a 
specific command. This thing varied. I was in various 
situations. But I was attached to a specific command under 
Colonel John B. Stanley.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he an American?
    Mr. Belfrage. An American colonel, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was General McClure in overall charge?
    Mr. Belfrage. He was in charge of the whole thing.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time. When you were a press control 
officer, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, sir, on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. What were your duties as press control 
officer, very briefly?
    Mr. Belfrage. To explore the ground with regard to the 
setting up of new newspapers, since all the old ones were being 
abolished, and working under the army directive to make 
recommendations with regard to possibilities of plants which 
were available.
    Mr. Cohn. And licensing?
    Mr. Belfrage. And in regard to licensing.
    The Chairman. Was one of your functions to attempt to get 
newspapers sympathetic to the Communist cause?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. That was not one of my functions.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attempt to do that?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not influenced one way or the other?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not in any way.
    The Chairman. Did you try to get newspapers that were anti-
Communist and pro-American?
    Mr. Belfrage. There was no question of their being pro-
American.
    The Chairman. Did you try to get newspapers in the set-up 
that were anti-Communist and pro-American?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was trying to get newspapers that were as 
near as possible to the American ideal of a newspaper, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you trying to get newspapers that were 
anti-Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. That was not in the directive.
    The Chairman. I do not care what was in the directive.
    Mr. Belfrage. I did not, because if I had it would have 
been against my orders.
    The Chairman. The directive was signed by whom?
    Mr. Belfrage. General Eisenhower.
    The Chairman. And you say there was nothing in that 
concerning communism?
    Mr. Belfrage. Nothing whatever.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it tell you to license papers that were 
Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not that I recall. This matter was discussed 
at some meetings I was at.
    Senator Jackson. Did anyone talk to you or did you have any 
conversations with anyone who tried to influence your decisions 
in recommending a Communist paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Senator Jackson. You did not discuss the subject?
    Mr. Belfrage. We were not allowed to set up any kind of 
party papers of any sort, either Communist, Social Democratic 
Centrist, or anything else.
    Senator Jackson. I do not mean in a formal sense, but 
covertly or otherwise.
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Senator Jackson. You had no conversations with anyone?
    Mr. Belfrage. With regard to?
    Senator Jackson. With regard to setting up, say, a certain 
newspaper which would have as its masthead and title anything 
but ``Communist,'' but would in fact be a Communist paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. I had no such conversations.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know James Aronson?
    Mr. Belfrage. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him over in Germany?
    Mr. Belfrage. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a member of the Communist party then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, sir, on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss with him the possibility of 
putting any of these papers in the hands of Communists?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. You mean in the exclusive hands of 
Communists?
    Mr. Cohn. We are not talking about going about this as an 
open matter. As Senator Jackson explained, we are not talking 
about that. We are discussing this, and I think you can follow 
it from the standpoint of what the duty of a Communist would 
be, assuming you were a Communist at that period of time, 
namely, without openly disclosing what you were doing, trying 
to get as many papers as you could in the hands of people who 
would be sympathetic with the Communist cause. I want to know 
whether or not you ever discussed that with Mr. Aronson.
    Mr. Belfrage. I would like to discuss that with counsel, if 
I may.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir, I never had any such discussion, Mr. 
Cohn. I never had any such discussions with Mr. Aronson, and I 
didn't in fact work with Mr. Aronson on the selections of any 
editors. We went on one field trip together.
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with which paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. That was in Bremen. He came along with me, 
because he had just arrived, and I was the most experienced 
person in the field, and he was sent by his superior.
    Mr. Cohn. Concerning how many papers did you make 
recommendations during your eight months there?
    Mr. Belfrage. About four or five, I would say.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us their names?
    Mr. Belfrage. The Aachener Nachrichten, A-a-c-h-e-n-e-r N-
a-c-h-r-i-c-h-t-e-n, is the first.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that?
    Mr. Belfrage. In Aachen. That was before the end of the 
war. It was while the war was going on.
    The second one was the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any Communists on the Frankfurter 
Rundschau when you recommended its licensing?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What were their names?
    Mr. Belfrage. Arno Rudert, A-r-n-o R-u-d-e-r-t, Emil 
Carlebach, C-a-r-l-e-b-a-c-h, and I believe, but I am not quite 
sure--No, I think those were the only ones.
    Mr. Cohn. Are either of those still with those papers?
    Mr. Belfrage. Rudert is still the editor.
    Mr. Cohn. He is still the editor. Did you have anything to 
do with this revolving fund established, that you might have 
read about in Germany, for the purpose of financing some German 
newspapers?
    Mr. Belfrage. I never heard of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were we giving any financial assistance to any of 
these newspapers at the time you were there?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. We were merely saying which could go into 
existence and which could not?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right. There was no need to, because 
only one was licensed in each town, and it had to be a broad, 
non-party paper for everybody, and everybody read it 
immediately.
    Mr. Cohn. You said you talked about looking at plants. I 
don't remember whether it was you or Mr. Aronson who talked 
about looking at plants.
    Why was that any of your business?
    Mr. Belfrage. It wasn't my major business. There was a 
printing expert there.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about you personally. In other 
words, if our only job was to license papers and decide which 
should be in existence and which shouldn't----
    Mr. Belfrage. The first thing was to decide whether they 
should be published, and where, because there was much 
destruction.
    Mr. Cohn. We gave then no money?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I don't recall any money being given to 
them.
    Mr. Cohn. They would need some money to buy equipment. You 
don't recall anything about that?
    Mr. Belfrage. They were given it. Take, for example, in 
Frankfurt. The only building that was possible to use for the 
purpose was part of a building that had formerly been the 
Frankfurter Zeitung--no, another Frankfurter paper. The 
Frankfurter Zeitung was demolished.
    Mr. Cohn. You gave us two, the Frankfurter Rundschau and 
the Aachener Nachrichten. What were the others?
    Mr. Belfrage. There was one in Bremen. I forget the name of 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. And the fourth?
    Mr. Belfrage. And Kassel.
    Mr. Cohn. Kassel. Would that be the Hessische Nachrichten?
    Mr. Belfrage. I am afraid I can't remember if that was the 
name of it or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Kassel in the British zone?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not at the time I was there, no. I didn't do 
any work in the British zone.
    Mr. Cohn. And you left in about September of '45; is that 
right?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you resign, or what?
    Mr. Belfrage I was requested to leave by General 
Eisenhower, for the reason that I was the last lone Englishman 
left in the American zone.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he personally request you to leave?
    Mr. Belfrage. I had a telegram signed by him.
    Mr. Cohn. You keep saying ``by General Eisenhower.'' I 
think that carries the implication that he spoke to you.
    Mr. Belfrage. No. I had a telegram signed by him.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know General Eisenhower?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. It was probably somebody fifty steps down the 
line.
    The Chairman. What did the telegram say?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was to this effect, that in view of the 
fact that all the functions in the American zone were now being 
put in the hands of Americans, I was requested to leave by a 
certain date.
    Mr. Cohn. Was this merely a routine thing?
    Mr. Belfrage. I guess so. I don't think that there was 
any--I don't know of any comparable case. I was the only non-
American in that particular outfit that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you happen to be there?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, because I was the first person to go in 
on this work.
    Mr. Cohn. Who sent you in originally?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I went to Paris. I went to Paris 
shortly after the troops arrived in Paris. And I was there for 
a number of months doing very little.
    Mr. Cohn. Who sent you to Paris?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I was under orders from SHAEF. I was 
attached to the Press Control Division. It was then called the 
Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF, and then it was later 
called the Information Control Division. And I was sent to 
Paris, and I waited there for a long time, and then I was sent 
into Aachen. I was with the first team of about five people 
that went into Aachen to start the first paper.
    Mr. Cohn. You were hired originally by the British Ministry 
of Information?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who there hired you, by the way?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, I can remember who it actually was. It 
was a man called Herbert. He was a newspaper man.
    Mr. Cohn. With what paper? Do you know?
    Mr. Belfrage. He was with the News Chronicle. He had been 
with the News Chronicle. I think he went back to it after the 
way.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. I have no means of knowing what he was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he know you were a Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. He didn't know anything about me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ask? Did anybody ever ask?
    Mr. Belfrage. Nobody ever asked those questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Has anyone in any governmental capacity ever 
asked you that question?
    Mr. Belfrage. Anyone in any governmental capacity? I don't 
recall it.
    Senator Jackson. When you filed your application for 
citizenship in 1937,was any such question asked then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't think so. I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. Would you say that a man could be loyal to 
America and at the same time loyal to the Communist teachings?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, Senator, on the grounds 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I am not sure if you were asked this question 
before or not.
    Do you believe it would be well to overthrow the government 
of the United States by force and violence if communism could 
not be imposed on this country by peaceful means?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. Mr. McCarthy, I will have to decline to 
answer that question, on the ground of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Do you belong to an 
organization which advocates the overthrow of the British form 
of government and the establishment of a Communist form of 
government in Britain by force and violence?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. I must decline to answer, again, Mr. 
McCarthy, on the ground of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, did you know Mr. Lattimore?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. I don't think I ever met him, sir.
    Senator Jackson. What is your present employment?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer that on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment, sir,
    Senator Jackson. What did you do after you came back in '45 
from SHAEF?
    Mr. Belfrage. The first thing I did: I wrote a book about 
the whole experience in Germany under a Guggenheim Fellowship.
    Senator Jackson. What was the name of the book?
    Mr. Belfrage. It wasn't published.
    Senator Jackson. It was not published? Why was it not 
published?
    Mr. Belfrage. Because my publisher in England--it was 
written for a publisher in England--went out of business just 
before he got to the point. He was a new publisher who formed 
after the war, and he went out of business.
    Senator Jackson. You did not try to have it published here?
    Mr. Belfrage. I did.
    Senator Jackson. What was it about?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was an account of the work we did, a full 
account.
    Senator Jackson. Then what did you do?
    Mr. Belfrage. After that I wrote another book called Abide 
With Me.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Cedric Belfrage, Abide With Me (New York: W. Sloane 
Associates, 1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Jackson. Abide With Me?
    Mr. Belfrage. Right.
    Senator Jackson. Where was that published?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was published by Sloane Associates in New 
York. It was a novel.
    Senator Jackson. When was that?
    Mr. Belfrage. About '47.
    Senator Jackson. Then what did you do after that?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Senator Jackson. After you wrote the novel.
    Mr. Belfrage. I have to decline to answer that, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. And from that time up to now, you decline 
to answer as to your employment, on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Have you had any query from the 
immigration authorities?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, about, I would say, three or four years 
ago, I was asked to go down to the immigration headquarters.
    Senator Jackson. And they asked you some questions?
    Mr. Belfrage. They asked me some questions.
    Senator Jackson. What did they ask you?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, in effect they asked me if I would 
answer certain types of questions, and I said I wouldn't.
    Senator Jackson. You refused to?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Did they ask you whether you were a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. They didn't ask me any specific questions.
    Mr. Cohn. They just asked you if you were asked certain 
questions, would you answer?
    Mr. Belfrage. They said they wanted to investigate me. I 
said, ``What do you want to investigate?''
    He said, ``Your associations and your writings.'' I think 
that was the wording they used. And I said that I would not 
answer questions on those things.
    Senator Jackson. They did not put any specific questions to 
you?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. They indicated that they might, but they 
never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, they agreed to abide by your decision 
that you should not be asked those questions, apparently.
    Mr. Belfrage. That was all that happened on the occasion 
when I went there.
    Senator Jackson. When was that?
    Mr. Belfrage. It would be around 1949 or '50. '49, I would 
think. It might have been 1950.
    The Chairman. Who asked you the questions down there?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall his name, Mr. McCarthy.
    The Chairman. Was it a man, or a lady?
    Mr. Belfrage. A man.
    The Chairman. Did they indicate any interest in any 
Communist activities you might have had?
    Mr. Belfrage. They didn't indicate at all.
    The Chairman. Well, you said that they were interested in 
your associations and your writings. Was there any indication 
as to what associations they were concerned with?
    Mr. Belfrage. No indication whatever.
    The Chairman. Did they ask you whether or not you would 
tell them whether you had been a member of the Communist party, 
if they asked you that question?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    The Chairman. And when you told them you would not answer 
the questions for them, what happened then? Did they pat you on 
the back?
    Mr. Belfrage. They were quite friendly, and said I would 
probably hear from them again. But I did not.
    The Chairman. I would say you probably will hear from them.
    Senator Jackson. You are aware of the fact that an alien 
who is a member of the Communist party or advocates or believes 
in the overthrow of the government by force and violence, among 
other things, is subject to deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. Obviously, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Do you believe you are subject to 
deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. If you were drafted into the British Army or 
into the United States Army, would you be willing to fight 
against the Communist aggressors at this time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that the system of government in 
Russia today is superior to the system in Britain?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. If you were given a draft call at the 
present time, or to the future, as long as you are here, would 
you turn it down and refuse to serve? I believe you have a 
right as an alien to elect whether or not you will accept or 
not. What would you do, under the circumstances, if you 
received notice of a call?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. You mean you would be incriminated, you 
will incriminate yourself, if you say whether you would or 
would not subject yourself to the draft.
    The Chairman. I do not have any further questions of the 
witness, I don't believe.
    Mr. Belfrage, you will be ordered to return at ten o'clock 
in the morning to room 318. And you will have the same rights 
of counsel in public session as you have had in the private 
session.
    I may say that we will ask an immigration officer to be 
present at tomorrow's hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to 
reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, May 14, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Film maker Julien Hequembourgh Bryan 
(1899-1974), after graduating from Princeton and attending the 
Union Theological Seminary, traveled widely taking 16mm film 
that he sold to motion picture companies. In the 1930s, he 
conducted extensive lecture tours, during which he showed film 
footage he had shot in Russia in 1932. He was in Warsaw in 1939 
when Germany invaded, an experience recorded in his book Siege 
(New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1940), and film, Warsaw: 1939. In 
1940, the Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, 
headed by Nelson Rockefeller, hired him to make films on Latin 
America. The State Department then contracted with Bryan to do 
similar films about other lands. His work came to the attention 
of David and Ella Mills, whose Davella Mills Foundation granted 
him $300,000 to underwrite a non-profit film company. Bryan's 
International Film Foundation specialized in ethnographic 
films, including Peoples of the Soviet Union, which he produced 
in 1946 and revised in 1952. Later in the 1960s, his company 
made numerous films on Africa, Israel, Japan and the Pacific 
Islands. The subcommittee did not call Bryan to testify in 
public session.]
                              ----------                              
                         TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a.m. in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, 
chief consultant; Henry Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk.
    The Chairman. Who is your first witness?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Julien Bryan, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Julien Bryan?
    Mr. Bryan. I am Julien Bryan, and this is my attorney, 
Edward Watts.
    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand?
    Do you solemnly swear, in this matter now in hearing before 
the committee, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Bryan. I do.
    The Chairman. That is your counsel with you?
 TESTIMONY OF JULIEN BRYAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, EDWARD 
                         E. WATTS, JR.)
    Mr. Bryan. That is my counsel, Mr. Watts.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't get the name.
    Mr. Bryan. Edward E. Watts, Jr.
    The Chairman. Mr. Watts, the rule adopted by the committee 
is that you can consult with your client at any time you care 
to. If at any time you feel you want a conference with him, we 
will try to arrange a private room for you to have your 
conference. You may feel perfectly free to talk to him at any 
time. We do not, however, allow counsel to take any part in the 
proceedings other than to freely advise his client.
    Mr. Watts. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Surely.
    Mr. Watts. I believe up to last week, Mr. Bryan has never 
testified in a Senate or congressional hearing, and up to now, 
I have never attended one in any capacity. And now in one week, 
he is being a witness for the second time, and we are a little 
disturbed and confused by it all. I wondered if I could ask 
what is the purpose of his testimony?
    The Chairman. We would be glad to answer that.
    Mr. Watts. And whether any public use is to be made of it, 
and also, if a transcript is made, whether we would have an 
opportunity to look at it to correct any inadvertent errors, or 
perhaps to offer to supplement anything that we weren't 
prepared to answer at this time. That is a big question, with a 
lot of pieces.
    The Chairman. Number one, the reason he is here is because 
we are investigating all phases of the information program. I 
understand he has had a great deal to do with the motion 
picture phase of it. And counsel has many questions to ask on 
that.
    The next question is as to whether any public use will be 
made of the material taken today. Most likely, Mr. Bryan will 
be called for public session, I don't know. Whether the 
transcript will be made public or not is a matter for the 
committee to decide later. At this time I have no idea what his 
testimony will be.
    The investigators and counsel seem to think he is an 
important witness. For that reason, he is here.
    You will be allowed to examine the transcript and correct 
any typographical errors and such like. Whether the witness 
will be allowed to change answers to questions in substance is 
a matter that the committee would have to decide. In other 
words, to make myself clear, and I am not intimating that this 
witness will do that, but let us say the witness comes in and 
freely perjures himself in the first half of the hearing, and 
in the second half he is caught up on his questions, and he 
knows that he is caught. In a case like that, normally, he 
would not be permitted to go back and change those first 
answers. I am not indicating that this witness would, you 
understand.
    This is Senator Symington, and Senator McClellan and 
Senator Potter.
    Mr. Counsel?
    Mr. Bryan. May I ask who you are?
    Mr. Cohn. My name is Cohn. I am the counsel. I called you 
on the telephone and asked you to come down.
    Mr. Bryan, you have done considerable work for the State 
Department, have you not?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. How many films have you produced for the State 
Department?
    Mr. Bryan. I have made roughly twenty-three for the 
coordinator of inter-American affairs, which was pre-State 
Department, and blended into this; and I think something like 
fourteen or fifteen for the State Department.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the last film you made for the State 
Department?
    Mr. Bryan. It is a film that is called Bennington Story.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you have any existing contracts with any 
government agency at the moment?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. With what agency?
    Mr. Bryan. With Point Four.
    Mr. Cohn. TCA?
    Mr. Bryan. TCA. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is the extent of the contractual 
commitment there?
    Mr. Bryan. You mean in terms of films, or money? Or what is 
your question?
    Mr. Cohn. Give us both.
    Mr. Bryan. There are four films, one each on Jordan, 
Israel, and Iran, and then one overall picture for American 
use, a 27-minute film on the three countries.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the amount involved? How much do they pay 
you, gross, for the four?
    Mr. Bryan. $40,000. It is important in these things, I 
think, Mr. Counsel, to mention the reels, the quantity. There 
are two reels each of the three Middle East films for use in 
that area. That makes a total of nine reels, for $40,000.
    Mr. Cohn. Nine reels for $40,000. Now, could you give us an 
approximation as to how much money you have been paid, gross, 
by the United States government over a period of years for 
production of these films? I understand it can't be an exact 
estimate in any sense.
    Mr. Bryan. I think that would be difficult, but I would say 
something around approximately $300,000 over a period of twelve 
years.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? Who is the man with the 
machine?
    Mr. Bryan. May I explain, Mr. Counsel? The young man is Mr. 
Alexander who has been my personal operator on and off for 
twenty years in the showing of pictures. If there is any 
occasion to show films here, he is here. I think he is good.
    He was a captain in the army in the last war.
    The Chairman. That is okay. I just wanted to inquire about 
that.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say approximately $300,000?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say over the twelve-year period it was 
something in that neighborhood.
    Mr. Cohn. And you just completed a film for the State 
Department, and you are under contract to do three films for 
TCA at the moment.
    Mr. Bryan. Those films are about finished. As a matter of 
fact, the three TCA films for abroad have been delivered 
abroad, where they will complete the soundtrack in their own 
language. They are for local use. The American version film 
will be finished within two or three days. The work is 
completed. I mean, there are no new contracts. Is that your 
point?
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to get the contractual status.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. I have never been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been a follower of the Communist line, 
have you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say not.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say not.
    Mr. Cohn. You gave that testimony under oath.
    Senator Symington. The witness is under oath, is he not? 
There is no use in insulting him on that.
    Mr. Cohn. I merely asked him a question. I didn't think it 
was an insult.
    Mr. Bryan. I would like to make a very simple answer on 
that. I do not think I have followed the Communist line.
    Years ago I went to Russia. I took pictures over there. 
This may be discussed later. But I do not think that I have 
followed the Communist party line.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any organization listed 
by the attorney general as subversive?
    Mr. Bryan. I belonged some twenty years ago to the 
American-Russian Institute. I was a subscriber to a magazine 
called Soviet Russia Today. I believe the subscription to that 
was $5 a year or some such amount as that, and that, like 
subscribing, say, to the National Geographic, made me a member.
    At the moment I can think, sir--I haven't memorized the 
list of the attorney general, I can think of no other group 
like that.
    Mr. Cohn. I will see if I can refresh your recollection.
    First of all, were you on the National Committee of the 
National Convention of Friends of the Soviet Union in 1933?
    Mr. Bryan. I was not, and my name has been listed for many 
years. It was first printed in The Red Network by Elizabeth 
Dilling.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Elizabeth Dilling, The Red Network; A ``Who's Who'' and 
Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots (Kenilworth, Ill.: privately 
printed by the author, 1934-1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Bryan. To my knowledge I was never on this national 
committee or ever notified of it, but it has been on the record 
a long time.
    MF. Cohn. Did you sue her for libel, or did you ask her for 
a retraction?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I did not. May I explain?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think that means too much one way or the 
other.
    Mr. Bryan. May I only say that I never met her. But when 
this was printed, in 1933 or '34, Mr. Chairman, when I was 
lecturing in California, at Redlands University, and it was 
printed in the local press, then I went down and we had a long 
meeting with the local paper and the people who printed this, 
in which this and other statements which were false were 
printed about me at that time. I did not sue Elizabeth Dilling.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all right.
    The Chairman. May I say that while the question is proper I 
do not think the fact that you do not sue someone who may say 
something that is untrue can be used as any indication that the 
article was true. There have been a thousand people that I have 
not sued that have said things I think are completely untrue.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been connected with this 
organization, the Friends of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I recall no connection of any kind, except 
because of this paper that was mentioned--your question may 
come later--the picture; I think at one time they bought 
certain of my photographs, which in the meantime, Mr. Counsel, 
I was selling to the New York Times and to any other agency 
that would buy them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the 
magazine known as New Masses, which is a Communist magazine?
    Mr. Bryan. I have had no connection with the New Masses, to 
my knowledge, in any way, except in one period; and between '33 
and '36 or '37, my lecture bureau was asked if I would lecture 
at Washington Irving High School in New York on a fee basis, a 
small fee. The lecture bureau was accepting any lecturers at 
that time, from Catholic organizations, from universities, from 
YWCA's. This is my trade, earning my living by lectures. I 
accepted at that time. That was the extent of my connection 
with the New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you told us. This lecture was under 
the sponsorship of the New Masses, this particular lecture?
    Mr. Bryan. That is my understanding, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know at that time that was a strictly 100 
percent owned and controlled Communist organization?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I didn't. This was seventeen years ago, '36 
or '37, and maybe it was my error, sir, in not investigating at 
that time, but if I lectured before a Catholic group or before 
another group, a university----
    Senator Symington. What did you lecture about?
    Mr. Bryan. At that time I was lecturing, sir, with 
photographs of the Soviet Union. I had made several trips over 
there at that time.
    Senator Symington. Did you go into any political or 
ideological aspect in your lectures?
    Mr. Bryan. In my own opinion, not. I lectured as I am doing 
today, all throughout America. And I was lecturing at that time 
also on Japan and China, as honestly and fairly as I know. I 
may have made mistakes, but these were my convictions and I had 
no control by the Communist party, either of the Soviet Union 
or of this country. I was not going to them for advice. I was 
speaking and answering questions which I received. I may have 
been wrong at times, but this was my conviction.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you say anything at all critical of the 
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I certainly did.
    Mr. Cohn, not only in this lecture but in many lectures at 
that time, it was not only what I said, but I showed, I 
believe, an honest picture of the Soviet Union. I showed, for 
example, that Russian farmers at that time working under very 
real obstacles, with mud, with tractors broken down. I showed 
pictures of Kulaks who had been arrested or were about to be. I 
spoke German, for example, in those years, and I still speak 
it, to the Kulaks. And that was the beginning, as early as 
that, when I learned that there were some pretty dirty things 
going on over there.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you point out any of those things when 
you lectured under the sponsorship of the New Masses?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not recall verbatim the text of seventeen 
years ago, but in every lecture that I gave at that time, I 
described it with pictures. May I say there was no chance at 
any time of getting certain things like pictures of the GPU 
prison camps. I knew that when I went there. But I got as many 
pictures as I could to give a complete picture of conditions in 
the Soviet Union.
    Senator Potter. Did I understand you to say that you spoke 
there under the auspices of some lecture bureau?
    Mr. Bryan. There is a lecture bureau; the old gentleman has 
since died.
    Shall I go on?
    His name is William B. Feegens. He has since died. For 
fifteen years he was my lecture manager. People in Washington 
must be familiar with a lecture manager. He made these 
bookings. Perhaps there were bookings I didn't entirely agree 
with. But unless there was some very pronounced objection, I 
took it, and I gave my story. And I would say during those 
years I lectured as I do today before a very wide variety of 
cultural groups, including Roman Catholic seminaries, which, if 
they wanted this type of thing--and they somehow believed that 
what I had was authentic and good--I spoke for them. They gave 
me my fee, I always answered questions afterwards, with very 
few exceptions. I have even showed pictures similar to this at 
Fordham University in recent years.
    Senator Potter. How many lectures did you give for the New 
Masses?
    Mr. Bryan. I gave one, and that was booked by Mr. Feegens.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, you spent considerable time in 
the Soviet Union, and I think as this testimony goes on, you 
will find you had considerable connection with activities 
concerning the Soviet Union, due to your trips there and your 
lectures and the movies you have made about the Soviet Union, 
and communism. Now, can you conceive of a Communist owned and 
controlled organization sponsoring a lecturer who would say 
something on the public platform critical of the Soviet Union? 
And if you can, I would like to know of any such instance.
    Mr. Bryan. I think I can, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, would you tell us about that?
    Mr. Bryan. The best example is our American press there 
today. They are allowed in for good reasons, apparently.
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. Maybe I can save a little time here.
    I meant a lecturer paid for and sponsored by a Communist 
owned and controlled organization in the United States. Did you 
ever hear of such an organization? I am not talking about the 
status of the American press in a foreign nation. I mean did 
you ever hear of a 100 percent Communist organization, an arm 
of the Communist party in the United States, putting on the 
lecture platform under its sponsorship a lecturer who was 
critical of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Watts. May I speak to my client a minute?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [Mr. Watts confers with Mr. Bryan.]
    Mr. Bryan. I think the answer is very simple. The New 
Masses asked me once. I did it once.
    Senator Symington. I am getting a little involved here.
    You were working for a living. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right, sir.
    Senator Symington. And you made up moving pictures?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. And you offered yourself for sale on a 
proper, normal, capitalistic basis of wanting to make a 
lecture. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. I think that is correct.
    Senator Symington. All right. Then you have an agent, and 
he books you at various places.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. In some places they were leaning more 
toward one country, in some places toward another?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator Symington. And in this particular case, you made 
one lecture before the New Masses when you presented one 
picture you had taken in Russia?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. I just wanted to be sure I understood 
it.
    The Chairman. May I say for the benefit of the witness. The 
reason you are called in executive session is because if these 
questions were asked of you in a public session before the 
senators have a chance to examine and determine where they 
think the truth lies, it would create an impression that we 
thought you were Communistically inclined. That is the reason 
you are called in executive session.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
    The Chairman. The fact that those questions are being asked 
does not mean that the senators have any feeling one way or the 
other on it. You are merely here and asked to give answers to 
questions.
    Mr. Bryan. May I go further and say that I want to answer 
any question you bring up? To my knowledge there is nothing 
that I have to hide, and I should like to be very frank with 
you all.
    The Chairman. I may say it is counsel's task to vigorously 
examine any witness, and the mere fact that he asks you a 
question carries no intimation at all.
    Okay, Mr. Counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. So we have now this lecture under the sponsorship 
of the New Masses. The next thing is this: Did you in your 
experience ever hear of the Daily Worker favorably reviewing a 
series of films about the Soviet Union which were critical of 
the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. Actually, Mr. Counsel, I never did. And some 
years later I was pointed out two or three paragraphs, after, 
may I say, fifteen years, which reviewed something in the Daily 
Worker.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't take the Daily Worker, and I am not 
actually, either then or now, daily familiar with it. So if 
there were some reviews or comments which were either favorable 
or unfavorable, I did not see them at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. I have here a documentation, and I have copies of 
the Daily Worker. I think they reviewed not one but four or 
five of the films you made in the Soviet Union--or I have 
three, rather. I thought there were four or five. Each one was 
given what we might call a rave notice by the Daily Worker.
    Senator Potter. When was that done?
    Mr. Cohn. That was up through 1947, Senator Potter.
    Now, would you agree that those films certainly could not 
have been critical of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I have not seen, Mr. Counsel, the review, and 
therefore what they said I honestly don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us take the film People of the USSR. Do you 
regard that film as critical of the Soviet Union? That is being 
shown through 1952. It is being shown right up to the present 
time.
    Mr. Bryan. That is being shown today. I have that picture 
here,
    Mr. Cohn. Except where it has been banned in various 
places.
    Mr. Bryan. I have the picture here. May I throw some light 
on this picture?
    Mr. Cohn. I would like an answer.
    Mr. Bryan. What would you like?
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to know first whether you regard 
that picture as in any wise critical of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Bryan. I think I need to explain the status of the 
picture. May I take a moment to do that?
    Mr. Cohn. Why, surely.
    Mr. Bryan. Good. This picture is largely composed--this is 
a picture with a sound track on it--it is largely composed of 
material which was shot in the Soviet Union from 1933 to 1937. 
This is what we call ``library'' footage. After the war, in 
1945, at the time we were coming to the end of the war, and in 
a period of at least normal, to most of us, friendly relations 
with the Soviet Union, this film was edited. We believed then, 
maybe wrongly, that, having been friendly with the Soviet Union 
during the war, some sort of reasonable peace could be worked 
out.
    Senator Potter. This was when the co-existence policy was 
in effect?
    Mr. Bryan. This was in August 1945, when we began it, at 
just about the time, August and September, of the atomic bomb 
and the surrender of the Japanese. Therefore, with the state of 
mind of the country, of our own State Department, of our own 
government, of most members, I believe, of Congress, we were 
hopeful, because of our being allies with Russia and England 
during the war, that something on a friendly basis for world 
peace could be worked out.
    The film was edited, and the text issued at that time.
    A year and a half ago, since this film had rather broadcast 
use in this country, and we were proud of it, we arranged to 
issue a new release through McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. 
They have what they call text film. They liked the film, the 
officials there did. They did not press us to revise it.
    I felt myself, because of the greatly changed climate, the 
actions of Russia in the last few years, if this film were to 
be used in 1952 and '53, it warranted a new edition.
    So in the last eighteen months, we have made that new 
edition. I have brought it here today, and if you like at a 
later time we can show you the old edition. But I believe that 
this film today--I have the text of it here.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the new edition?
    Mr. Bryan. The new edition.
    Mr. Cohn. When was this made?
    Mr. Bryan. Between a year and eighteen months ago. The 
picture was not changed. It is the narration which has been 
changed.
    The Chairman. For the information of the senators, so that 
you will have a better picture of why the witness was brought 
here, and for the information of the witness also, we contacted 
the State Department some time ago, when we learned that there 
was to be a $240,000 contract given to the International Film 
Foundation.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the director of that?
    Mr. Bryan. I am the executive director.
    The Chairman. And we have been informed by the security 
division of the State Department that after a check of the 
background of Mr. Bryan, they have canceled out the contract on 
the ground that they felt he was not a good security risk, and 
his background is such that he should not be producing films 
for the department.
    I may say if this record is made public, I wish you would 
check with me first and get the permission of Mr. Ford, who 
gave us the information, to have that made public.
    I thought the senators would want to know that.
    Mr. Cohn. There is further information along that line, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Did you apply for an appointment with HICOG at any time?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In any capacity?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, the files of the Department of State 
indicate that Mr. Bryan was to be employed as a consultant with 
HICOG in April of 1951.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. I didn't apply. I was approached by State. 
I didn't apply.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you were approached. You knew you were 
under consideration for the position?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And as of April 12, 1951, Mr. Bryan was rejected 
for security reasons by the Department of State. That is 
reflected in a letter from the State Department to David 
Wilkin, W-i-l-k-i-n, an Official of HICOG. That letter I 
understand, is available, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bryan. This is all news to me, the story of the 
cancellation of the contract. I canceled the contract. That has 
been offered to me, and I, after many months had been in 
process, contracted to go and set up school for the training of 
young men in Indonesia, in which we were to employ eight young 
Americans to go out there, who were skilled in the motion 
picture industry. The Indonesian government and our government 
officials over a period of fifteen months approached me on this 
thing. Apparently there were some twenty of us considered, and 
I was asked to go, of the twenty. I have been over recently, in 
October, November, and December, in the Middle East, on the 
Point Four job. They cabled me, our government and the 
Indonesian government. I received a cable from my office saying 
that both the Point Four officials and the Indonesian 
government demanded that I come back immediately--this was 
during the month of November '52--if I were to get this 
contract.
    I mean, is this fair? This is the approach that the 
officials of Point Four of State Department and the Indonesian 
government took. Mr. Watts is my counsel. He was present. They 
said unless I hurried back I would not be given the contract. 
Mr. Watts and three of my staff, four of them all together, 
came down and spent all day here with the Point Four officials 
and with the officials of the Indonesian government to iron out 
certain points in the contract. The contract was offered me and 
was finally turned down by me because of financial reasons.
    The Chairman. When was the contract offered you?
    Mr. Bryan. It was in tentative offering for two or three 
months, Mr. Chairman, and was finally offered me definitely in 
early January.
    The Chairman. Early in January of this year?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    The Chairman. I think, then, to have the record complete I 
should read into the record the letter from the Department of 
State, dated January 21, 1953, if the senators will bear with 
me.
    My Dear Senator McCarthy: Your letter of December 30, 1952, 
addressed to the Secretary of State has been referred to me for reply.
    As Administrator of the Technical Cooperation Administration, I am 
glad to transmit the following information.
    The proposed contract referred to in your letter between the 
Republic of Indonesia and the International Film Foundation has not 
been signed. It is part of a project set up originally by the Mutual 
Security Agency in response to a request from the Indonesian government 
for technical administration and rehabilitation and development of film 
and radio communications for educational purposes in support of 
Indonesia's economic development program. The project became the 
responsibility of TCA on July 1, 1952, and the United States program of 
technical cooperation in Indonesia was transferred from Indonesia to 
the Technical Cooperation Administration. TCA is not a signatory to the 
contract. The contracting parties are to be the Indonesian government 
and the International Film Foundation.
    However, since the contract is part of a joint program, and U. S. 
funds are involved, TCA is responsible for advising the parties on 
technical financial and legal aspects of the contract.
    The contract calls for a U. S. contribution of approximately 
$240,000, under TCA authority, to make grants to countries 
participating in the technical cooperation program. The contribution of 
the Indonesian government is estimated at slightly more than this 
amount in the form of counterpart funds, housing, per diem, travel in 
Indonesia, and laboratory and studio construction costs.
    When we have completed an examination of the information developed 
on Mr. Julien Bryan and the International Film Foundation, TCA will 
make a recommendation to the Indonesian government as to whether or not 
the contract should be signed.
            Sincerely yours,
                                             Glen R. Adams,
                                                Administrator, TCA.
    I may say that subsequently to that we received information 
from the State Department that you were recommended against, 
after they had completed the examination which they refer to in 
this letter, on security grounds. This is dated January 21. It 
seems to be in direct conflict with your statement that you 
were offered the contract before that and could have had the 
contract before that time.
    Mr. Bryan. I will stand by my statement. The only thing at 
the end, in early January, was the question of certain figures. 
I had made a bid, Mr. Chairman, on this, along with others, and 
they had accepted my bid for roughly $200,000, plus some 
additional things that came later. Anyway, it was accepted. Mr. 
Watts, if you need him, could testify to that, because he was 
here, and I was not. I was in Europe.
    But the general thing at the end, in the last discussion, 
had to do, in a joint round table conversation with me, with my 
accountant or controller, and six of the officials of the TCA, 
in which we were trying to decide on the exact amount of 
overhead which would be allowed to me and my foundation for 
this very difficult work abroad.
    The final discussion--it was offered, and the final turning 
down by me was that they cut, frankly, something like $20,000 
off of the original amount which several months before we had 
agreed on.
    I talked to Mr. Watts, who is not only my attorney but is 
president of our foundation, and I talked to our bankers in New 
York, and they definitely advised against accepting such a 
contract, which was too risky for us. They felt the margin was 
too small.
    The Chairman. Did the security department of the State 
Department turn down any of your films? In other words, ban 
them? Did the State Department ban any of your films?
    Mr. Bryan. I am little puzzled. Do you mean any of the 
films I have made for it?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I have never heard of such a thing. May I say I 
have just come from the Middle East and Turkey, Egypt, 
Yugoslavia, and to my great pride as an American citizen, my 
films made long ago for the State Department are being used 
very widely, and in between thirty and forty languages.
    The Chairman. The question was: Do you know whether or not 
they ever turned down one of your films because they claimed it 
was procommunist?
    Mr. Bryan. I know of no such films of any that I made for 
the government. There was a discussion on one film, which our 
foundation made some years ago, on racial prejudice, called 
Boundary Lines, and there was some question within the 
department of whether that would be useful in certain 
countries. To my knowledge, it was never turned down, and to my 
knowledge, it is still being used. This was not a film made for 
the State Department.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say 
something here. I do not quite know where we are going on this, 
and I do not want to be premature with respect to the counsel's 
questions. But at one time while our relationship with Russia 
was very friendly, we had an organization that came over here, 
and every businessman in America knew about it, called AMTORG. 
And they set up an office in New York. And the long and short 
of it was that they had a lot of money and they wanted to do 
business with the United States.
    Now, this man says he is not a Communist, he never has been 
a Communist, and he has no Communist leanings. Suppose the 
General Electric Company builds a dam and the vice president in 
charge of sales, or a salesman, went over there, associated 
with Communists, dined with Russians, had his picture taken and 
put in the paper, wrote letters saying that he thought Russia 
was a wonderful country, and so on and so forth, in an effort 
to get this business for the General Electric Corporation. I 
mention it to you because I know they did a great deal of this 
type and character of work.
    I think there are some of the things that the State 
Department has done in the past that are similar to what 
perhaps some other people do. Therefore, whether or not he has 
been accepted or rejected by security in 1951 is something I 
think, based on testimony here--incidentally, I have never seen 
this man before--you would be skeptical of if it went the other 
way. I know I went down to AMTORG as a business man trying to 
get business from AMTORG. This was before they were fighting on 
our side, and so forth. If they said, ``We would like you to go 
to the Soviet,'' everybody in those days was anxious to do 
business with Russia. Unless there is some tie-in with the 
Communist party, I do not see what there is in this.
    The Chairman. May I say that we cannot determine whether 
there is a tie-in until we finish the examination. I know 
nothing about this man. I have never seen him before. We have 
the information that he has been turned down in 1953 on 
security grounds. I would be curious to know why. We have the 
information that some of his films have been found 
unsatisfactory. I saw one of his films, entitled Bennington 
College, one that is being distributed throughout the world. I 
could find nothing pro-Communist in the film. If you will 
pardon me, Mr. Bryan, I found it completely insipid. I do not 
think it would educate anyone in the world about America. It 
was one of those things you would look at for two minutes, and 
you could not help saying, ``My God, are we paying money for 
this?'' Nothing of a pro-Communist nature; just completely 
valueless. And you see, as well as examining into any possible 
pro-Communist background, I am just curious to know about that.
    Senator Symington. I think if the guy bought it, it was a 
good film from his standpoint, even though it might have been a 
poor one from yours or mine.
    The Chairman. So we are interested in how much is paid for 
those films and why, for example, they distributed a film like 
Bennington College. I may say I have asked the staff to examine 
all the films made by this firm.
    Let me ask you one question before counsel proceeds: Is 
your foundation tax-exempt?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
    The Chairman. It pays no taxes whatsoever?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't think it does. As to social security we 
began without that, and my understanding is that we now pay. 
But as far as the corporation is concerned, we are a tax-exempt 
corporation.
    Senator Symington. May I ask you a question there?
    What is your return? What do you get?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, that is rather interesting. I get 
officially $22,500 a year. This year I have gotten nothing, and 
I have loaned the foundation $2,000. Last year I got almost my 
full salary. The year before I got $6,000.
    Senator Symington. What was your full salary?
    Mr. Bryan. The full salary when the foundation began, eight 
years ago, was $20,000. This was determined by the board of 
trustees of my foundation and the board of trustees of Davella 
Mills, which is the foundation which gave us this grant.
    Senator Symington. Just as a matter of interest, what is 
your net return after taxes on your $22,000 salary?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say something like $15,000. This was 
determined--may I say one thing, Mr. Chairman--this was 
determined some years ago, in 1945, by the board of trustees of 
both of them, and my salary was set at $20,000.
    That was the way it was based. Mr. Watts--and you could use 
him if you wish to--could verify or check this. It was based 
largely on what my earnings had been in my lectures and as a 
private individual.
    The Chairman. I am not criticizing what you got. I am just 
curious to know about the tax exempt feature. How many other 
officers of the corporation draw a salary?
    How many other people in the corporation draw a salary?
    Mr. Bryan. None.
    The Chairman. In other words, you are the only person. 
Except your salaried employees?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right. And may I say: This is a little 
foundation. If we have a hard year this year--I am not 
apologizing to anybody; I believe in what I am doing. I believe 
it is one of the most American things I can do, to make these 
films to show all over the world to create better 
understanding. This year I not only have gotten zero since 
January, but I am in $2,000 that I have loaned the foundation. 
I don't apologize for that. I want this work that I am 
interested in to continue.
    Senator Symington. I suggest you answer questions, rather 
than giving talks.
    Mr. Bryan. Okay. Sorry.
    Senator Symington. May I ask: Who was on the foundation 
besides yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. I think an important thing is this little 
booklet here. This is all listed.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, I know you are trying to answer in 
detail. You may take as much time as you care to, but you are 
giving lectures instead of answering. Senator Symington asked 
you who is on the foundation besides yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Edward Watts, who is my attorney and is here 
today----
    I had better just read them.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Owen Lattimore still on your education 
committee?
    Mr. Bryan. We had, eight years ago, an advisory council. 
That advisory council was abolished about eighteen months to 
two years ago. Mr. Lattimore was originally on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he on it at the time of its abolition 
eighteen months ago?
    Mr. Bryan. The advisory council, of about twenty people, 
had never met.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe you didn't understand my question.
    Was Mr. Lattimore a member of the advisory council at the 
time it was abolished?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all I wanted to ask you.
    Mr. Bryan. May I ask you, Mr, Symington. Do you want the 
others, quickly?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. Besides Mr. Watts and I, Paul Braisted, Thurston 
Davies, William Halstead, Ruddick Lawrence, Hazard Reeves, 
Thomas C. Roberts, Lorimer Slocum, and Theodore C. Speers.
    The Chairman. Where does Mr. Slocum work?
    Mr. Bryan. Young and Rubicum. He is one of the vice 
presidents.
    The Chairman. I am a bit curious, in view of the fact that 
we are checking into this matter of tax free foundations over 
in the Appropriations Committee. I would like to ask you a 
couple of questions on that, which really have nothing to do 
with the films you produced.
    How much attorneys' fees do you pay a year out of this 
foundation? In other words, what does Mr. Watts draw?
    Mr. Bryan. I am not sure of what the entire amount has 
been. He has mostly volunteered his services, Mr. Chairman, for 
me. In probably six or seven years, we may have paid $2500.
    The Chairman. Have any of the members of your family been 
on the payroll of the foundation?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    The Chairman. Any relatives at all?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to quote from the Daily Worker of 
May 15, 1947; referring to a review of a one-reel film of yours 
entitled ``Religion in Russia,'' by David Platt, the official 
reviewer of the Daily Worker.
    Julien Bryan took these pictures on one of his recent trips 
to the Soviets. Bryan introduces the film to the audience.
    He apparently had been present at a meeting at which you 
presided and introduced the film. ``He,'' meaning you,
says he had no trouble penetrating into the Iron Curtain. The 
Soviet authorities gave him permission to shoot wherever and 
whatever he pleased. He reports that some 8,000 churches are 
open in the USSR. Later a Roman Catholic priest in Moscow is 
heard saying, ``The Soviet authorities have done remarkably 
well to uphold religious worship.'' Those who prate so loudly 
about the lack of religious freedom in the USSR owe it to their 
conscience, if they have one, to see these uncensored pictures.
    That is the Daily Worker of May 15, 1947.
    Mr. Bryan. I am a little confused by this. This, whatever 
you have just stated, is a statement on a sound track of a 
Catholic priest in Moscow?
    Mr. Cohn. That is right. It is a film you took.
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take it. This is part of a Pathe News 
thing, and you are either misreading, or the statement is 
incorrect. This was made by Pathe News, a one-reel release.
    Senator Symington. I do not think you should say the 
counsel is misreading anything.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take the pictures, or not?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take the pictures of the Catholic 
priest. I was there under UNRRA for three months.
    The Chairman. Did you show the picture?
    Mr. Bryan. I took the pictures, Mr. Chairman, of the first 
part of this description.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, the Daily Worker refers to a 
certain film. The question is: Were you showing that film?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I didn't show it. I made this for Pathe 
News.
    Mr. Cohn. Right.
    Mr. Bryan. May I explain?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Bryan. I made the first part of it, and the Pathe News 
people decided to add some material they had obtained of an 
actual synchronized voice tract of a Catholic priest in Moscow, 
who, frankly, I have never met and have never seen. They added 
that to some material, let us say, six or seven minutes, which 
I took of the Russian churches.
    Now, it needs this explanation, if you will allow me one 
second. The point is that what I said now and in my lectures 
all over America I still say today, that Stalin changed the 
whole policy at that time, during the war, and allowed the 
churches which had been closed to be reopened. He did it 
because of public relations. He was losing his people.
    The Chairman. Can I get back to this question? The Daily 
Worker says you were showing a certain film. Question: Were you 
showing that film? Regardless of whether you took it or Pathe 
took it, regardless of who dubbed in the priest's voice, did 
you show that film?
    Mr. Bryan. This Pathe release obviously I didn't show. This 
was released by them to the theater.
    The Chairman. Never mind about ``obviously'' you did not. 
Did you, or did you not?
    Mr. Bryan. It is not as simple as that.
    Senator Symington. Go ahead. Take your time and answer the 
question.
    Mr. Bryan. I want to take my time, because this is very 
important to me and to my integrity.
    Senator Symington. Forget your integrity; answer the 
question of the chairman, will you?
    Mr. Bryan. I took two things over there. I took pictures on 
the condition of Russian churches today. I took a small amount 
of footage which was released by Pathe.
    Mr. Watts. May I interrupt just a second?
    [Mr. Watts confers with Mr. Bryan.]
    Senator Potter. The witness is prepared to answer the 
question now.
    The Chairman. You were explaining whether or not you had 
shown this film.
    Mr. Bryan. I may have shown this one-reel Pathe News 
newsreel once or twice, but this had a sound track on it. And, 
Mr. Chairman, I don't lecture with a film with a sound track on 
it. That was made for the theater, period.
    The Daily Worker's review there I had never seen, and I did 
not know about that.
    The Chairman. We are asking you a very simple question. We 
are not accusing you of anything. The Daily Worker says you 
showed a film extolling the complete religious freedom in 
Russia. You say there was the voice of a priest dubbed into 
that film by somebody else. I merely ask you the simple 
question: Is it true that you showed that film? And who paid 
you for it?
    The first question is. Did you show this film as described 
by the Daily Worker?
    Senator Symington. With the sound track that the Daily 
Worker reports.
    Mr. Bryan. I might have once or twice, privately, but never 
for a lecture. This was made by Pathe News, so I had no control 
over this.
    Senator Symington. You made the pictures, and they made the 
sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as I recall, they called me in and dubbed 
in my voice at that time, and then they released this picture. 
But I do not think the review in the Daily Worker which is read 
here is honest or accurate. Because all over America at that 
time, today and then, I was lecturing on how these people still 
were fighting for religious freedom in spite of Stalin and the 
Kremlin.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bryan, maybe this will help clarify it a 
little more. I am reading from the Daily Worker of Monday, 
February 10, 1947, the same column. It says:
    Julien Bryan, documentary film producer mentioned above--
    It refers to the fact above that at some meeting a picture 
of yours called People of the U.S.S.R. was shown. Did you make 
such a picture?
    Mr. Bryan. This is the picture which we have discussed, and 
of which we have the revised version here.
    Mr. Cohn. And that picture, you will agree, has been banned 
in certain school systems throughout the country as Communist 
propaganda.
    Mr. Bryan. I think that it has. It has been banned.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that the education officials were 
right, or wrong, in banning this as Communist propaganda?
    Mr. Bryan. I think they were wrong.
    The Chairman. Has the information program used that film 
since it has been banned by the schools?
    Mr. Bryan. May I say as far as I know the State Department 
has no connection with these films on the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to 
insert in the record an article from the Chicago Sunday 
Tribune, dated March 23, 1952, entitled ``Parents Object and 
Red Movie is Impounded.''
    The Chairman. Very well.
    [The material referred to is as follows.]
    Parents Object and Red Movie is Impounded
    Twin Falls, Idaho, March 22 (Special)--School authorities 
said here today that a film, ``Peoples of the USSR,'' obtained 
from Washington State College for the elementary school audio-
visual program, has been impounded after a single showing 
because of complaints that it contains Communist propaganda.
    Arthur Kleinkopf, Curriculum Director for the Twin Falls 
schools, said the film will be sent to the Senate Internal 
Security Committee in Washington for an investigation into its 
source and into responsibility for propaganda statements in an 
accompanying sound track.
    Kleinkopf said this film was shown Tuesday to fourth, 
fifth, and sixth grade students in the Washington school here. 
He said Virgil Allen, principal of this school, reported to him 
that the film was objectionable and that he canceled further 
showings.
Board Studies Film
    He said the decision to impound the film for congressional 
investigation was made yesterday after a special showing before 
the School Board and the National Affairs Committee of the 
local Chamber of Commerce.
    Claude Detweller, a local businessman, said the Chamber of 
Commerce became interested when parents of children who had 
seen the film reported their children came home with high 
praise for Russia.
    ``Boy, things are sure nice in Russia,'' one youngster told 
his parents, telling about the film.
    ``We could have peace if we could just get together,'' said 
another pupil who had seen the movie, ``Russia Wants Peace.''
    Detweller said the scenes depicted in the film were not in 
themselves necessarily objectionable but were made so by the 
commentary. He said children in a playground in a Russian 
industrial city were described as having been born in Detroit 
and brought to Russia by their parents in a search of 
happiness.
Court Scene Described
    Another scene showed a court trial in which a man unable to 
get along with his neighbors was fined one half of six months' 
pay by Russian judges. This was explained as evidence that 
Russia permits no-racial intolerance.
    ``We want Congress to find out if this commentary was 
supplied when the film was produced in 1946 or if it was 
recently dubbed in,'' Detweller said.
    Dr. W.A. Pearl, Acting President of Washington State 
College, was reached by local school authorities in Seattle, 
where he is attending a convention. He said he would order 
rescreening of all films in the library, which is maintained 
jointly by the college with the University of Washington and 
the Central Washington College of Education.
Film Made in Russia
    Glen Jones, Director of the Washington State College's 
Community Service Department, which issues films from the 
library to schools in Washington and Idaho, said in Pullman, 
Washington, he is certain there has been no substitution of 
comment or any other tampering with the film's sound track.
    He said the film was made in Russia in 1946 by Julien 
Bryan, an American producer of documentary films, and was 
released to the college by the International Film Foundation. 
He said he understood this is an organization formed to 
distribute Bryan's documentaries.
    ``This is one of 76 films booked by the Twin Falls schools 
from our library for showing between mid-February and mid-May'' 
he said. ``It has been a popular film and we have had no 
previous complaints about it.'' Our records show the film was 
issued previously to Twin Falls in September 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. Now I am reading from the Daily Worker of 
February 10, 1947:
    Julien Bryan, documentary film producer mentioned above, is 
now in the Soviet Union making a new series of 16 mm films for 
distribution in this country. Bryan, who is Executive Director 
of the International Film Foundation, recently cabled his New 
York office that he spent several weeks in Minsk ``making 
pictures of the rebuilding of hospitals, schools, orphanages 
and factories from the utter devastation of Minsk.'' The 
producer praised the cooperation he had received from Soviet 
authorities. ``We photographed freely on the streets and 
bridges and had no police interference, no civilian 
questioning, and no hostility; only friendliness.''
    Is that an accurate quote?
    Mr. Bryan. I presume it is. May I ask the date of that?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, surely. I read it before. Monday, February 
10, 1947.
    Now, my next question is this: Are people from your company 
frequently in communication with the film critic of the Daily 
Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't know, Mr. Counsel, that they have ever 
been.
    Mr. Cohn. I was just wondering how the film critic of the 
Daily Worker could get the text of a cable you sent your 
office, and say, ``Bryan, who is now in Russia, recently cabled 
his New York office,'' and then set forth the text of the 
cable. Obviously they must have obtained it. I was wondering 
who in the foundation had communicated the text of your cable 
referring to the great cooperation you were receiving in the 
Soviet Union, to the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Bryan. I would have no idea, and this is the first time 
I have heard of this.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you like to see it?
    Mr. Bryan. I would.
    Senator Potter. When did you visit the Soviet Union, that 
that had reference to?
    Mr. Bryan. I think it is very important to have why I was 
there.
    Senator Potter. When were you there?
    Mr. Bryan. I was there in December '46 through part of 
February of '47. Three months I was there, under the auspices 
of officials of UNRRA and working closely with the officials of 
our State Department here. I mean, my trip was not mysterious. 
They knew I was going, and they held me up as I applied for my 
visa. I was turned down abruptly early in 1946, and it was only 
some months later, through the auspices of UNRRA, that I was 
able, as a reporter of motion pictures----
    Senator Potter. You were turned down abruptly by whom?
    Mr. Bryan. By the Soviet embassy in Washington.
    The Chairman. When was this?
    Mr. Bryan. This was in the summer of 1946, in May, June, 
July--in that period.
    Senator Potter. Then you went over later as a 
representative of UNRRA?
    Mr. Bryan. I went over later, first into Italy, with our 
foundation crew. We made some films there. Then into 
Czechoslovakia, which at that time was a free country and was 
not under the Communist auspices. Finally, I went in December, 
around the first of December 1946, to Poland. And this was in 
the period immediately following the war.
    The Chairman. May I ask if this is a correct statement, in 
the Daily Worker: ``He,'' referring to you says ``that he had 
no trouble penetrating the Iron Curtain. The Soviet authorities 
gave him permission to shoot wherever and whatever he 
pleased.''
    Did they let you take pictures?
    Mr. Bryan. No, that is not true. May I take one minute, Mr. 
Chairman? Because this is crucial, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that is not an accurate quote from the 
cable? You see, they put this in quotations.
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know about the cable. I mean, I don't 
recall word for word from the cable.
    Senator Potter. You recall sending a cable, do you? You 
recall sending a cable back?
    Mr. Bryan. I recall sending a cable to my office, possibly 
to Mr. Watts, or at least to my office, saying things were 
going very well and we were getting good pictures.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know who gave that to the Daily 
Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you allowed by the Soviet authorities to 
shoot wherever and whatever you pleased?
    Mr. Bryan. We were not.
    The Chairman. If this was a correct quotation from the 
film, using your voice, this indicates that you said you were 
in the film. Now, do you have a copy of that film yet.
    Mr. Bryan. I haven't a copy. I am sure we could get it.
    The Pathe film, you mean?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have no copy with me.
    The Chairman. If you follow me, Mr. Bryan, if you come back 
in 1947, and they are showing a film of this authority, who is 
over in Russia, and he says: ``I was able to travel freely 
throughout Russia, and I could take pictures of whatever I 
wanted to take,'' if that was not true, it would be rather 
improper to circulate that film.
    Now, this voice of the priest that was dubbed in. You did 
not see that priest, and you did not take that picture?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    The Chairman. So you do not know whether that was a phony, 
or true?
    Mr. Bryan. I was assured by the people at Pathe, who had 
this material, that it was true, and he was an actual Roman 
Catholic priest who was stationed there.
    The Chairman. Do you have any way of knowing, except that 
someone told you it was true?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have no way.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were in Russia. You took 
the pictures.
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take these pictures they are talking 
about, of the priest.
    The Chairman. I am talking about the rest of the film. You 
were in Russia, and you took a picture of Russian churches.
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. Your voice was used in the sound track.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. When it was finally shown, it contained the 
voice of some alleged Catholic priest whom you had never seen, 
whom you had not photographed, but they told you somebody else 
took the picture of him. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Did they tell you who took the picture?
    Mr. Bryan. I presume they did, sir. I think they said it 
was a Paramount photographer.
    The Chairman. You are quoted here as saying there are eight 
thousand churches open in Russia. Did you know that to be a 
fact? Or is this an incorrect quotation of what you said on the 
sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as what is on the sound track, I think we 
ought to get it on the record. I do not know today the exact 
words.
    The Chairman. Do you know there were eight thousand 
churches open in 1947?
    Mr. Bryan. No, but I would think that would be fairly near 
correct.
    The Chairman. Well, you are quoted as saying it. Where 
would you get your information?
    Mr. Bryan. It would simply be an estimate, a very crude 
estimate.
    The Chairman. You see, the reason I question you on this: 
In 1947, that is what the Communists were trying to tell us, 
that there were complete religious freedom in Russia, that 
there was no racial discrimination.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    The Chairman. And it is rather unusual to find a man over 
in Russia at that particular time, when most Americans were 
excluded, saying he could freely take pictures. It is rather 
unusual when you take these pictures of churches, to find that 
someone dubs in the voice of some alleged priest saying, ``We 
have complete religious freedom.'' The normal person would say, 
``Here is some excellent Communist propaganda.'' Is that not 
correct? I am not accusing you of trying to propagandize, but 
taking that whole product approved by the Daily Worker, it 
would certainly look like good Communist propaganda, would it 
not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would think it would.
    The Chairman. Can you get us that film?
    Mr. Bryan. I can get the film.
    The Chairman. Good. I think that should be done.
    Pardon me, Mr. Counsel. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bryan, you have told us here this morning 
that the only time you lectured----
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? I think Senator Potter and 
Senator McClellan and the other senators may want to see the 
film that was banned by the schools.
    Mr. Bryan. We have the film here.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question? This particular 
film we have been talking about, as I understand it, is 
actually in two parts, although it is probably shown in one 
film.
    Part of it you took, without knowing that Pathe would be 
interested in at all, as I understand.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. It was taken by you in the course of 
your own private operations?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. Later, Pathe wanted to use that film 
that you had taken. They made some arrangements with you, I 
guess, to get the film?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. Then they had you supply your voice, and 
make a talking film out of it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. Then they added to that another film 
that they had acquired from another source with regard to the 
Catholic priest and what he said?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct,
    Senator McClellan. So you had nothing to do whatsoever with 
that, that part as to the Catholic priest?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. They purchased from you or secured from 
you that film that you had taken for your own private use, and 
then added this other to it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. And you are not responsible for whatever 
they added to it or what use they may have made of it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    May I modify that, sir?
    If I had had great doubt when I saw this, that this was a 
forgery or a phony, I would have told the Pathe people. But I 
had no such doubt. They told me that this was taken by 
reputable people, and there seemed to be no doubt that this was 
an authentic priest.
    Senator McClellan. Then you did see the rest of the film?
    Mr. Bryan. I saw it.
    Senator McClellan. As made up completely for use?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. And heard the voice of the priest?
    Mr. Bryan. I obviously had no final control over Pathe 
News, but I didn't object to it. It seemed reasonable to me at 
the time.
    Senator Potter. Do I understand that you took these 
pictures and prepared an oration during the fall of 1946 and 
early 1947?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Potter. That was when the Soviet Union was still 
our ally. Is that true, or not?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, to my knowledge, yes. I don't think we 
would have been permitted in unless this was in the so called 
friendly period. It may have been in the beginning. They were 
preparing some bitter criticism.
    Senator Potter. But in other words, you were not 
endeavoring in your film or in your narration to be critical of 
the Soviet Union. Is that true?
    Mr. Bryan. Not one way or the other. I wanted to give a 
factual statement of the thing. But we were in no mood at that 
time--we were still being allies and more or less friendly, and 
there was no mood of, let's say, violent denunciation, either 
in me or in the country.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, you told us here this morning 
that you only lectured once under the auspices of the New 
Masses, and they didn't hire you again, and that that lecture 
took place at a public high school, the Washington Irving high 
school. I want to suggest to you that that testimony was not 
accurate. I want to ask you whether or not you want to 
reconsider it.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Counsel, that is all I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you delivered a lecture 
under the auspices of the New Masses, reported in the Daily 
Worker of May 6, 1937 and that this lecture took place at the 
New School for Social Research on Sunday night, May 9th?
    Julien Bryan in person presents ``Russia Reborn,'' 10,000 
feet of new motion pictures of the Soviet Union as it is now. 
Last public appearance in New York this season. Auspices: New 
Masses. Seats on sale at New Masses, Chelsea Book Shop, and 
Workers Book Shop.
    Of course, the Chelsea Book Shop and the Workers Book Shop 
were the two official book shops of the Communist party of the 
United States.
    I would like to show you this and see whether or not that 
refreshes your recollection.
    Mr. Bryan. My recollection is that during this whole period 
of, say, '33 to '37, there was one lecture for the New Masses, 
and that there was another under the auspices of the Friends of 
the Soviet Union.
    My guess would be conceivably that in a five-year period 
there might have been three such bookings by leftist groups 
like New Masses or the Friends of Soviet Russia Today.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you conceive of the New Masses booking you a 
lecture and selling tickets at the official book shops of the 
Communist party, if they had any doubts about your attitude 
toward the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I never went into that particularly, any more 
than I questioned the Catholic seminaries. I spoke before a 
wide variety of groups at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. I think we got the point. Now, Mr. Bryan, did you 
conduct guided tours to the Soviet Union in behalf of an 
organization called Open Road, which has been listed as a 
Communist front?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You know that has been listed as a Communist 
front?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the first you hear of that?
    Mr. Bryan. It is the first I have heard of Open Road at 
all--
    Mr. Cohn. Well, don't say it is the first time you have 
heard of it. You conducted guided tours under their auspices 
didn't you?
    Mr. Bryan. We are confusing the question. The first I heard 
of them being a Communist front? Was that your question?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I conducted tours for the Open Road.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say this is the first time it has been 
suggested to you that the Open Road is officially listed as a 
Communist front?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, I assume, being as they actually were 
conducting tours to the Soviet Union, that they would be, but I 
have never seen it.
    Mr. Cohn. I am reading again from the Daily Worker, of May 
1, 1937. Your name is there, together with the names of Anna 
Louise Strong, Joseph Lash, Julia Dorn, John Kingsbury, Dr. 
Joshua Kunitz, and Robert Magidoff.
    Can you suggest one person there with the exception of 
yourself who was not a well-known member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Counsel, I would not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe the witness would care to examine this.
    Mr. Bryan. I know the names of most of those people. But 
for me to say that they are well-known members of the Communist 
party--I have no such evidence.
    The Chairman. Will you look at the list now and tell us 
whether you knew then that any of those people were well-known 
Communists; whether you know now?
    Mr. Bryan. I have known of these people, certainly, but I 
have no direct evidence.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know any of these people personally?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you know?
    Mr. Bryan. I have known--I haven't seen for many years Anna 
Louise Strong. But when I was on this Open Road tour----
    The Chairman. Will you try and answer the question?
    Counsel asked you who, of this group, you know.
    Mr. Bryan. Anna Louise Strong; Kunitz I had met, but I 
wouldn't say I knew him.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you meet Kunitz?
    Mr. Bryan. I think I met him on one of the tours seventeen 
years ago in Moscow.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. Who else?
    Mr. Bryan. Kingsbury I knew in the same way. Lash I never 
recall meeting. Julia Dorn I remember vaguely.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony that you had no idea that 
Kunitz and Anna Louise Strong were Communists, to take two of 
them?
    Mr. Bryan. No. I would say as far as Anna Louise Strong was 
concerned, I had certainly seen her name for many years in the 
press, and I had read her books.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, at the time you were associated 
with her, sponsoring these tours, did you then think she was a 
Communist, or not?
    [Mr. Bryan confers with Mr. Watts.]
    Mr. Bryan. I was not associated with her, Mr. Chairman.
    I had my own group. I took these people. And I may have, as 
I said, met her and other leaders like this at times in Moscow. 
As to whether she was a party member, I did not know.
    The Chairman. We did not ask you whether she was a party 
member. Did you think she was a member of the party at that 
time?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not think so at that time.
    The Chairman. For your information, every one of those 
persons listed with you as sponsoring those tours has been 
identified, most of them a number of times, as Communists, and 
some of them as espionage agents.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes?
    The Chairman. You say you had no reason to believe at that 
time that any of them were Communists?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. That is what I said.
    The Chairman. Did you know Magidoff?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I knew Magidoff.
    The Chairman. We just asked you to read from the list and 
tell us those you knew. You did not mention Magidoff.
    Mr. Bryan. I am sorry. Magidoff was the first one. I think 
that completes it.
    The Chairman. How well did you know Magidoff?
    Mr. Bryan. I saw him a number of times in this country, I 
think back as early as '35, or something like that. Then I 
didn't see him for many years. Then in '47, he was one of our 
correspondents there.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Bryan. I have never attended a Communist meeting to my 
knowledge in this country. I have attended, obviously, in the 
Soviet Union, if I attended any meeting, I suppose, but in this 
country I have not, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, we have this fact, Mr. Bryan. Of course, 
this Open Road has been officially listed as a Communist front 
organization, and you were one of the few people who were 
conducting tours to the Soviet Union for this Communist front 
organization, and everyone of those people conducting those 
tours whose names were read have been identified either as 
Communists or espionage agents.
    My next question is: Did you ever have any connection with 
an organization known as Intourist?
    Mr. Bryan. I had the connection with Intourist in the terms 
that I led a group for Open Road. Open Road was an American 
travel bureau.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Did you ever have any 
connection with Intourist?
    Mr. Bryan. My connection was through Open Road.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know at the time you were connected with 
Intourist that that was a 100 percent Communist front 
organization, controlled by the Communist party?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not know it or think of it at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, did you, during the Hitler-Stalin 
pact, intercede in behalf of Hans Eisler, and protest the fact 
that he was not given a visa to enter the United States?
    Mr. Bryan. The answer is ``yes,'' I did.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Hans Eisler?
    Mr. Bryan. I never met him.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you happen to intercede in his behalf?
    Mr. Bryan. I was asked to by friends.
    Mr. Cohn. Which friends?
    Mr. Bryan. Can we come back to this a minute? I know the 
chap's name very well, and I am not holding back on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely. You mean you just can't recall it?
    Mr. Bryan. Just for a second. But I mean, I am not----
    Mr. Cohn. I understand that, surely.
    Now, I don't quite understand. Here is this man, Hans 
Eisler, and I think his record is very well known by this time.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were one of two people who interceded 
with the American ambassador in Mexico and protested the fact 
that he had not been granted a visa to enter the United States. 
You now tell us you did not even know him. What explanation can 
you give us for that?
    Mr. Bryan. The explanation is that I was called up or 
written to, called up I think, by this friend. I was told that 
this was a remarkable foreign--either German or Austrian, 
whatever his nationality is--musician or composer, and that he 
was being done a great injustice by not being admitted. I 
confess to being naive about the thing. I trusted this friend. 
I assumed that this was an honorable case of a person desiring 
legitimately admission to this country.
    Senator Potter. Was your friend a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you recall his name now?
    Mr. Bryan. Would you give me just a second? This doesn't 
happen to me very much. I will give this to you in a second.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you want me to keep on asking you questions?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. And it will occur to me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever taken any photographs for a 
publication known as Soviet Russia Today? You told us you 
subscribed to it.
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have never taken any photographs for them. 
When I came back from one of these trips, I sold some 
photographs to them, as I did to the New York Times and other 
American magazines.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you sold them some photographs. Did you 
ever sell any photographs to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. Not to my knowledge. I am absolutely sure I 
never did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give them any free?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you examine this? Mr. Bryan, do you know 
Clarence Hathaway, one of the top leaders of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Bryan. I may have met Hathaway once, some twenty years 
ago. I, to my recollection, have never seen him since.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever spoken on the same platform with 
Clarence Hathaway?
    Mr. Bryan. I did once, in 1933, to my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that at a meeting entitled, ``A Call to 
Action''?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall the title. It was a group of 
farmers, forty or fifty different farm groups, coming from all 
over America.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that Clarence Hathaway was head of 
the New York bureau of the Communist party at that time? Was he 
not publicly introduced as such?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Would that have made an impression on you?
    Mr. Bryan. I think it would, if I had know that, yes.
    Mr Cohn. But you say you don't recall that.
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you familiar with the testimony of Walter S. 
Steele concerning you before the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I am familiar with it.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you read that testimony?
    Mr. Bryan. I have read the testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Steele said, in essence, that your 
organization has rendered great service to the Communist 
propaganda in this movement; that it has made a number of pro-
Soviet films which have been shown, as we have seen here, under 
the auspices of the New Masses and Soviet Russia Today, and 
various other arms of the Communist party. What comment do you 
have to make on Mr. Steele's testimony?
    Mr. Bryan. I think Mr. Steele, testifying as to the meeting 
of the farmers, of, actually, 1933, twenty years ago, is not 
too accurate. I showed my films there of the Russian farmers, 
as I have already described to the committee and I believe I 
showed them honestly and fairly, showing that there were 
Russian farmers, and some of them were Russian-Americans from 
Pennsylvania who had gone back, and who were struggling on a 
collective farm. I showed the mud, the difficulty of the work, 
and I also showed the hard work which they were doing. This was 
twenty years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, of course, The American Legion has 
protested against this film, Peoples of the Soviet Union, has 
it not?
    Mr. Bryan. Where was the protest?
    Mr. Cohn. I am asking you whether or not it has.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. I am a member of the Legion. It has 
protested to my knowledge in Peoria.
    Mr. Cohn. That is one place. What happened after its 
protest?
    Mr. Bryan. I think the thing, as far as I know, from the 
librarian there--I volunteered. I went back several times to 
Peoria to meet with the members of the Legion and the 
librarian. My most recent advice is that this new edition of 
the film is now back on the shelves of the library and being 
used.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you brought the new edition here. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. As you told us, you remade the film in recent 
months?
    Mr. Bryan. We have not changed one single picture.
    Mr. Cohn. You remade the sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you responsible for the original sound 
track?
    Mr. Bryan. I was; which was made in 1945, in the period 
just after the war.
    The Chairman. I think, Mr. Counsel, that if we are going to 
see the film, we should see the original film.
    Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about it. We are not interested 
in what they have done since.
    The Chairman. We will ask you to produce the original film 
here, not the remade one.
    Mr. Cohn. And I think we would also be interested in this 
film Boundary Lines, if you would bring that.
    Mr. Bryan. I would be very glad to do that.
    The Chairman. Have either of these films been distributed 
under the sponsorship of the information program?
    Mr. Cohn. Boundary Lines, I am sure has been used by the 
government.
    Do you know about that?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. The government, Mr. Chairman, did not have 
this film made. We made it. Then several copies of this film 
were purchased, to my knowledge, by the information program, 
and were used abroad.
    The Chairman. How soon can we get a copy of that? Do you 
have a copy of it?
    Mr. Bryan. My office is in New York.
    The Chairman. Do you have copies in New York?
    Mr. Bryan. Oh, certainly. We have copies here of this new 
version, if you wish to see it.
    The Chairman. I am surprised you did not bring along both 
versions. Why waste time and money to bring a man with the 
corrected version here?
    Mr. Bryan. I am sorry if I did wrong. The one which is now 
circulating in schools and colleges, which the army is using, 
is the new version.
    The Chairman. The army is using this one now?
    Mr. Bryan. The army is using this.
    Senator Potter. I think we ought to see both.
    Mr. Cohn. I have read a text of the sound track of the 
first one.
    Mr. Bryan. We have the film here.
    Senator Potter. We could see one and read the script of the 
other.
    The Chairman. Did the army buy the old one?
    Mr. Bryan. The army purchased, as far as I know, the old 
one.
    The Chairman. So they used the old one and the new one?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as I know, they have used both, sir, yes.
    The Chairman. We will ask that you produce the old one 
also. I think we should see both the old and the new. How long 
does this film take?
    Mr. Bryan. The film is thirty-three minutes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any of your films been used by the Institute 
of Pacific Relations?
    Mr. Bryan. None of my films have been used by them, to my 
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you have loaned your films 
to them for use in their activities?
    Mr. Bryan. I have no knowledge of it. I do not mean they 
never could have, but I have had no close contact with them.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Marguerite N. Stewart, Mrs. Maxwell 
S. Stewart?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I know Mrs. Stewart.
    Mr. Cohn. You know her rather well, do you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I wouldn't say very well, but I have seen her 
here and there over twenty years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not she is a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether Mr. Stewart is a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Bryan. I know Mr. Stewart.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether Mr. Stewart invoked the Fifth 
Amendment privilege when called before the McCarran committee?
    Mr. Bryan. I have not heard that said.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that in 1946 you loaned film for 
the use of the Institute of Pacific Relations and that you gave 
the films to them without charge?
    Mr. Bryan. To the Institute of Pacific Relations?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I have no recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I have copies here of an exchange 
of letters between Miss Rene Gutman of the America Council of 
the Institute of Pacific Relations and Marguerite N. Stewart, 
secretary of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations. Miss Gutman writes--I will ask that they both be 
received--to Mrs. Stewart and says that the Institute of 
Pacific Relations is desirous of obtaining the film Peoples of 
the Soviet Union.
    A reply was received from Mrs. Stewart, which begins as 
follows:
Dear Rene:
    I have already arranged for the loan of the film without 
charge by Julien Bryan . . .''
and so on and so forth. Does that refresh your recollection?
    Mr. Bryan. No, it doesn't. I have no recollection of the 
IPR at all. It is quite possible that Mrs. Stewart telephoned 
at that time and wanted the loan, but it made no impression.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. In other words, you might not have known 
for what purpose she wanted it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And you tell us you did not know that she was a 
member of the Communist party at that time?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You did re-do this film, Peoples of the Soviet 
Union. Do you agree that the original sound track certainly 
conveyed the impression of being pro-Russian propaganda?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say definitely this, sir, that the 
original version today, in 1953, would paint too rosy a 
picture. I believe that when we did it in '45, and at the 
period at the very end of the war, when Russia was our ally, I 
felt that it was all right, and we consulted with many 
educators and people at that time.
    A year ago, when I talked to our publishers and 
distributors, McGraw-Hill, and they were taking over all of our 
films on many countries--we were not limited just to Russia, 
but Japan and South America and China and Italy and so on--they 
did not feel it was necessary to make a new version of the 
sound track. They were satisfied, and so were many of our 
customers. I myself felt--At my own expense of around $3100, I 
remade this track. I am very glad we did. I think it is a more 
accurate film today, eight years later, since we did this 
revision.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Bryan. I have met Owen Lattimore two or three times in 
my life.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed any of your films on 
China with him?
    Mr. Bryan. I think not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed any of your films with 
Mr. Lattimore?
    Mr. Bryan. Not really. I had one discussion with him, when 
I invited him, some eight years ago, to our advisory council.
    Mr. Cohn. Who recommended him to you?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall, actually, at this time. I talked 
to people in New York. We wanted someone on it who was one of 
the best experts on the Far East.
    The Chairman. May I ask: Up until what time has the armed 
services been using the old version of the film?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Maybe Mr. Bryan can 
tell us.
    Mr. Bryan. To be completely frank, we would have to do a 
check on that. I wouldn't know how many copies they had of the 
old version.
    Mr. Cohn. When is the last you heard?
    Mr. Bryan. I got a letter, from the Denver office around 
January 1st, and they were requesting still photographs and 
other materials. And I have not only given them, Mr. Chairman, 
copies of Peoples of the Soviet Union. May I say I have made 
repeated trips to CIA here in the last eight years at my own 
expense.
    The Chairman. You are getting away from the question. The 
question is: Do you know how recently the army has used this 
old version of the film?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know. All I know is that they have both 
versions.
    The Chairman. They have used them up through January of 
this year. You know that.
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. And that is the old version?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. But you do not know how many posts they have 
been showing this film at?
    Mr. Bryan. I would think a limited number. I don't know how 
much.
    The Chairman. What other films of yours have they shown? 
What other films of yours has the army been using?
    Mr. Bryan. I know of no other films at the moment. I know 
that they have invited me, sir----
    The Chairman. How about the one on China?
    Mr. Bryan. The films on China--there are three or four of 
them.
    The Chairman. Has the army been using them?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any government agency been using them?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. I do not think we should put you to the 
expense of bringing a man down with a projector to show those 
films. The State Department will provide a projector, will they 
not?
    Mr. Cohn. They will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. So as to cut down the expense to you. I do 
not want to bring you down here again with a lawyer. I know 
that costs money. If you would prefer, you can just send the 
films down.
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather not. I am an author. These are my 
things. I would rather have you question me and do anything you 
like about them.
    The Chairman. In other words, you would rather bring them 
yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather do as we are doing today, if that 
is satisfactory to you.
    The Chairman. You understand, we cannot stand the expense 
of having your man with the projector. If you want to do that 
yourself, you may. Otherwise you can merely bring the film, and 
we can produce the projector.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have that Eisler name for us?
    Mr. Bryan. Let me describe him and tell you where he lives. 
He lives outside of Wilmington today, I think in Arden.
    Mr. Cohn. Scott Nearing?
    Mr. Bryan. No. Some of you will know, certainly. His first 
name is Don. Does that help?
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a business man?
    Mr. Bryan. He was originally for many years a teacher. He 
taught in some school outside of Boston.
    The Chairman. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Bryan. I haven't seen him much in the last fifteen 
years. I met him once, in 1930, Mr. Chairman, on a boat, on one 
of these tours going into Finland and Sweden. We had this 
conducted tour type of thing.
    The Chairman. Anything further, Mr. Counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, a question?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Mr. Bryan. I have here two things. One is the film, which I 
would like to show, if we have time, the new edition. The other 
is that I have recently been in Turkey, and there is a picture, 
of only ten minutes, of some of the work-of-art films being 
shown, some of the films I have made on American democracy, 
which are being shown extensively abroad.
    I just ask if there is time to show one of those.
    The Chairman. Would it inconvenience you too much if we 
kept you over until this afternoon?
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather do that. We are here, and it is 
much better as long as we are here, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Just to obviate the necessity of your running 
down here again, could you call anyone in your office?
    They could perhaps ship those films down, put them on air 
express.
    Mr. Bryan. May I say this: Everything that I know of should 
be in the congressional library. Now, if our relations are good 
with the library, can we immediately ask for those?
    Mr. Cohn. You might contact Mr. Grenoble at the State 
Department. You know him, do you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I know Grenoble. Sure.
    Mr. Cohn. He could probably give us Boundary Lines.
    How long a film is Boundary Lines?
    Mr. Bryan. Ten minutes.
    Senator Potter. There will be a lot of voting on the floor 
this afternoon. Would there be any reason why we could not show 
this in the Old Supreme Court room over there?
    The Chairman. Perhaps so. We have direct current here.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Having been wired for electricity in the 1890s, the U.S. 
Capitol Building continued to operate on direct rather than alternating 
current until 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Bryan. Apparently our operator is pretty able, and he 
is all fixed for that. Would you like it over at the Supreme 
Court?
    Senator Potter. It would be a lot handier for us.
    The Chairman. Could you arrange for the old Supreme Court 
chambers?
    Mr. Bryan. Can it be completely dark?
    The Chairman. Yes. There are no windows.
    I would like to see the old version, the new version, the 
film Boundary Lines, and, if you can get it, the Pathe one.
    Mr. Bryan. That is the one that is tough. Who shall we ask 
for help on this? Grenoble?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, Grenoble would be the one.
    The Chairman. I am principally interested in the old and 
the new version of this film.
    All right. That will be at three o'clock.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to 
reconvene at 3:00 p.m., in the old Supreme Court room, the 
Capitol.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Senator McCarthy opened the public hearing 
on July 1, 1953, by explaining that it was calling more authors 
whose works had been used in the U.S. information libraries to 
``perhaps clarify some of the confusion in regard to what the 
objectives of the information program are, and also to give the 
American people a better picture of the type of authors whose 
works were being used to fight communism allegedly.'' That 
morning, the subcommittee had heard testimony from five authors 
in executive session. It excused Joseph Freeman and George 
Seldes from public testimony. Richard Boyer, Edwin Burgum, and 
Rockwell Kent testified at the public hearing that immediately 
followed the executive session; while Doxey Wilkerson testified 
in public the following day and again on September 8, 1953.
    Richard O. Boyer (1903-1973) formerly a newspaper reporter 
for the New York Herald Tribune and foreign correspondent for 
the New York tabloid PM, had published twenty-four biographical 
profiles in the New Yorker magazine between 1931 and 1950. One 
of these profiles of National Maritime Union leader James 
Curran he expanded into a book, The Dark Ship. Before various 
congressional committees, Boyer persistently invoked the Fifth 
Amendment. In his obituary, the New York Times noted that he 
had privately admitted to membership in the Communist party 
from the 1930s until 1956.
    Rockwell Kent (1882-1971), the landscape painter, wood 
engraver and lithographer, was also a writer, lecturer, and 
political activist. In 1948 he ran unsuccessfully for Congress 
on the American Labor party ticket. As a result of the 
publicity from his televised appearance before the 
subcommittee, the trustees of a museum in Rockland, Maine, to 
which he had planned to donate his unsold paintings and prints, 
rejected the collection in August 1953. Having fallen into 
disfavor in the United States for both his politics and anti-
modernist artistic style, Kent eventually donated his artwork 
to the Soviet Union.
    Edwin B. Burgum (1894-1979), president of the College 
Teachers Union from 1936 to 1938, was a literary critic and 
associate professor of English at New York University. He was 
called to testify before the Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee on October 13, 1952, and invoked the Fifth 
Amendment when questioned about Communist affiliation. 
Suspended immediately from NYU, he was removed from the faculty 
in March 1953.
    Joseph Freeman (1897-1965) a muckraking journalist turned 
literary critic, poet and novelist, had served as European 
correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, publicity director for 
the American Civil Liberties Union, and New York correspondent 
for the Soviet news service TASS, during the 1920s. He became 
an editor of two radical magazines, The Liberator and The New 
Masses, experiences which he described in an autobiography, An 
American Testament; A Narrative of Rebels and Romantics (New 
York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936). Communist critics denounced 
that book as ``romantic'' and branded Freeman ``an enemy of the 
people.'' Freeman further distanced himself from the Communist 
party at the time of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and later 
described himself to the House Un-American Activities Committee 
as a ``man out of politics.''
    George Seldes (1890-1995), as a foreign correspondent for 
the Chicago Tribune during the 1920s, had been expelled from 
both the Soviet Union and Italy for writings critical of the 
Communist and Fascist regimes. He also covered the Spanish 
Civil War for the New York Post, and published a newsletter, In 
Fact. One of his many books was Witch Hunt: The Technique and 
Profits of Redbaiting (New York: Modern Age Books, 1940).
    Doxey Wilkerson (1905-1993) an African American with a 
doctorate from New York University, had taught at Virginia 
State College, Howard University and Bishop College and was 
faculty and curriculum director for the Jefferson School of 
Social Science. He served for a dozen years on the national 
committee of the U.S. Communist party, edited the People's 
Voice in Harlem and wrote a column for the Daily Worker, before 
resigning from the party in 1957. From 1963 to 1973 he chaired 
the Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction at 
Yeshiva University.]
                              ----------                              
                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 9:30 a.m. in room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Henry 
M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Dr. J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy 
M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl 
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF RICHARD O. BOYER
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, 
please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Boyer. I do.
    The Chairman. Let me ask the counsel--you know the rights 
counsel has. Your client can consult with you anytime he cares 
to, and you can advise him as freely as you care to. We have a 
rule that counsel cannot take part in the proceedings itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name is Richard O. Boyer?
    Mr. Boyer. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What publications do you write for?
    Mr. Boyer. Well, I just write----
    Mr. Cohn. What publications have published your articles in 
the last two or three years?
    Mr. Boyer. The New Yorker published my articles.
    Mr. Cohn. When did one of your articles last appear in 
that?
    Mr. Boyer. I would say about 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Boyer. Masses and Mainstream and the Daily Worker. That 
is about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of a book called The Dark 
Ship? \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Richard O. Boyer, The Dark Ship (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Boyer. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that published?
    Mr. Boyer. I think it was published in 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time this book was published were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Boyer. I will assert my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Boyer. I will repeat that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever consulted with Communist leaders 
concerning your writings?
    Mr. Boyer. No, absolutely not. I don't consult with anybody 
except myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever shown any of your writings, before 
they were published, to Communists?
    Mr. Boyer. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you show parts of your book The Dark Ship to 
Communists?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not. It appeared in the New Yorker in 
the first place. I have never shown any of my writings.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not members of the 
Communist party are bound by their membership to attempt to put 
forth the Communist party line?
    Mr. Boyer. I'd like to consult with my attorney.
    The Chairman. You can refuse to answer that if you care to.
    Mr. Boyer. Well, I have tried to indicate in my previous 
answers to questions that have been asked me about my writings 
that I have always written according to my own deepest 
convictions and always intend to, and I don't know if that is 
responsive to your question or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Boyer, do you know Josh Lawrence?
    Mr. Boyer. I think I will assert my privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know where Mr. Lawrence is today?
    Mr. Boyer. I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Blackie Meyers?
    Mr. Boyer. I will assert my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment on all questions of identity.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Blackie Meyers and/or 
Josh Lawrence ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Boyer. Well, the only thing I could say to that would 
be my profound conviction they never did. I have no personal 
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Blackie Meyers a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Boyer. I, on such a question, will assert my privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In this book, The Dark Ship, didn't you give very 
high praise to Joseph Curran, president of the National 
Maritime Union?
    Mr. Boyer. I think the book is the best evidence on that 
and I am not trying to fence with you on this, but the 
appraisal of Curran is quite a mixed thing. There is praise and 
criticism in there.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your opinion of Mr. Curran today the same as 
it was when you wrote the articles?
    Mr. Boyer. Again I would have to have the book and the 
quotations to make an accurate appraisal because the estimation 
is quite a mixment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the United States 
government in any way?
    Mr. Boyer. I was in the Merchant Marines briefly during the 
war.
    Mr. Cohn. Other than that?
    Mr. Boyer. No.
    The Chairman. Will you report over to room 318 at 10:20. 
That gives you half an hour.
                   TESTIMONY OF ROCKWELL KENT
    The Chairman. Mr. Kent, will you raise your right hand and 
be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Kent. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name is Rockwell Kent?
    Mr. Kent. It is.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the artist?
    Mr. Kent. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kent, are you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kent. I am going to avail myself of the privilege of 
the Fifth Amendment and, if you please, not answer that 
question.
    The Chairman. You can assert your privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Kent. I take it as my right.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kent, the State Department information 
program is using in libraries overseas a great many of your 
works and publications. I want to ask you a few questions about 
them.
    Do you receive any remuneration or compensation for that?
    Mr. Kent. It is different for different books. If you will 
name the books I will tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, the American Artists Group, Rockwellkentiana, 
Wilderness, World Famous Paintings, etc.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Rockwell Kent, Rockwellkentiana: Few Words and Many Pictures 
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1933); World Famous Paintings (New York: 
Wise & Company, 1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kent. They are all out of print.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, when they were active?
    Mr. Kent. Oh, yes. I received the author's royalties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of those royalties to the 
Communist party at any time?
    You can confer with counsel.
    The Chairman. Counsel, before the witness answers, I wish 
you would explain to him that he can only refuse to answer if 
he honestly feels an honest answer might tend to incriminate 
him.
    Mr. Kent. I will answer that question, ``No.''
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever given any money to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kent. That is a very interesting question and I want to 
answer it. The answer will be at some length. It could be 
``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. We don't have too much time so could you give it 
as brief as possible.
    Mr. Kent. I gave it as a matter of being so damned mad at 
something that happened that I thought, ``Where can I give that 
money that the people the money came from hated most?'' I 
looked it up in the New York telephone directory and gave it to 
the Communist party. I took a check for $800.00, which was the 
full rent on my house in the country and endorsed it and sent 
it to the Communist party. That is all I ever contributed.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed money to any 
organization listed by the attorney general as subversive, such 
as the IWO, etc.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ International Workers Order, Incorporated, which New York 
State dissolved in 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kent. I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you contributed any monies received from 
your works as royalties or anything like that?
    Mr. Kent. That is a difficult question. I earn my living at 
different things.
    Mr. Cohn. Would this be a fair statement? The money you 
earned from royalties and other things you didn't keep 
separate, but out of the general fund you did make some 
contributions to some organizations listed by the attorney 
general.
    Mr. Kent. I had rather have you put it to ``causes.''
    The Chairman. I am curious about this other answer you 
started to give. You said you were so damned mad. I am curious 
to know what you were mad about.
    Mr. Kent. I think you will like it. I love my home and I 
have never in my life rented a home with my things in it. I 
would not rent the place I love to anyone. I was in Greenland. 
I was there for a year and a half, and through a 
misunderstanding my wife--not my present wife--rented the 
house. I didn't know about it until I was on my way back from 
Greenland. I came back too soon. She was in Arizona. She had 
rented the house to Martha Blaine, who used to be a Washington 
columnist and a friend of Arthur Krock. I wrote her a polite 
letter and told her about the renting and stated, ``I beg you 
to be my guest for the summer. I cannot accept money for my 
home.'' She wrote me the most insulting letter I have ever 
gotten in my life. I took the two checks that were still left 
and sent those to the Communist party. They were $200.00 
apiece. I made out my own check for the other two months and 
sent that to the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1933?
    The Chairman. Before your client answers may I suggest that 
you instruct your client he can only refuse to answer if he 
feels and honestly feels, that a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate him.
    Mr. Ryan. I have discussed that with him.
    Mr. Kent. Or might lead to a chain of questioning that 
would tend to be incriminating. It might be a link.
    The Chairman. If you think it could in any way tend to 
incriminate you, you are entitled to refuse to answer. If you 
think the following answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Kent. Senator, if I might say this, I think I know the 
origin of this provision under the Fifth Amendment, and I think 
it is applied for protection of the innocent as well as a 
shield for the guilty. I do in this case invoke that privilege.
    The Chairman. You may invoke it, but we interpret the right 
if you feel a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you----
    Mr. Kent. If the committee would choose to interpret it 
that way----
    The Chairman. Mr. Kent, would you report at 10:20 at room 
318.
                  TESTIMONY OF EDWIN B. BURGUM
    The Chairman. Mr. Burgum, will you raise your right hand 
and be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Burgum. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Burgum. Edwin Berry Burgum.
    Mr. Cohn. B-u-r-g-u-m?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Burgum. I am a literary critic.
    Mr. Cohn. For what publisher?
    Mr. Burgum. Freelance.
    Mr. Cohn. What publications publish your articles?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, in the past there have been a great many.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you name some of them?
    Mr. Burgum. The Virginia Quarterly Review; the Antioch 
Review; the Kenyon Review; Rocky Mountain Review; the Suwannee 
Review; Science and Society. Those are the chief ones.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever do any work on a newspaper reviewing 
books?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes, I reviewed about a year for the New York 
Times.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that?
    Mr. Burgum. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at the 
time you were reviewing books for the New York Times?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the First Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Burgum. Personally, I would like to invoke the First, 
but I know your committee doesn't recognize that, so I will 
also invoke the Fifth on the ground that I don't wish to be a 
witness against myself.
    The Chairman. On the ground you feel a truthful answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Burgum. No, as I follow the interpretation of the Fifth 
Amendment, in my understanding, established by the decision of 
the Supreme Court and by tradition and reaffirmed by 
authorities on constitutional law such as Osman Franco, and 
that is that the use of the Fifth Amendment applies to the 
innocent and the guilty alike and that there is no assumption 
of either when a person invokes the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. May I say that unless you feel a truthful 
answer would tend to incriminate you, you are ordered to answer 
the question.
    Mr. Burgum. I think in these times any answer, and I would 
certainly make a truthful answer, would tend to incriminate me. 
The word ``incriminate'' has been defined by the courts, that 
is to say broadly, and not in its proper definition and 
implication of guilt.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Burgum, have you done any teaching?
    Mr. Burgum. Oh, yes. I have been a teacher most of my life.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you teach at 
New York University?
    Mr. Burgum. Twenty-eight years.
    Mr. Cohn. When were your teaching activities there 
terminated?
    Mr. Burgum. I think the accurate date is 30th of March of 
this year.
    Mr. Cohn. Until March of this year?
    Mr. Burgum. I think it is the 30th of March.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Burgum. I have already invoked the Fifth Amendment on 
that question as well as the First.
    Mr. Cohn. While teaching at New York University did you 
attend any Communist meetings with other members of the 
faculty?
    Mr. Burgum. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. While teaching there did you attempt to 
indoctrinate students into the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I can assure you my relations with my students 
were always correct. In fact, I leaned over backwards. I 
neither recruited them into the Communist party or any other 
organization.
    The Chairman. The question was, I think, did you ever 
attempt to get them to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I did not attempt to get them to join the 
Communist party or any other organization.
    The Chairman. Did you teach them what you considered the 
Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Burgum. Certainly not. My field was in fiction and 
aesthetics and I followed in all my teachings very rigid 
principles that nothing should enter the course that was not 
stated in the announcement of the course in the catalog and 
that was not germane to the contents of the course.
    The Chairman. It has been testified by a former member of 
the Communist party, a teacher, that a member of the party is 
under Communist discipline and has the instructions and has the 
duty to attempt to indoctrinate his students with the Communist 
philosophy at all times. Would you agree with that or disagree 
with that?
    Mr. Burgum. I am not in a position to pass upon the truth 
of that statement at all. I think it is a very common opinion.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with members of the 
Communist party the question of whether or not teachers had a 
duty to teach the Communist, if you call it philosophy, to 
their students?
    Mr. Burgum. No, I have never discussed it with any member 
of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment, if you 
please.
    The Chairman. Was that question ever discussed at any 
Communist meetings to your knowledge. I am not asking you to 
admit anything, but to your knowledge, at any Communist 
meetings was that discussed?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, I, of course, heard of the Rapp-Coudert 
committee many years ago and am aware of the statement to this 
effect made in the course of that report.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Did you ever hear that 
discussed in any Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Burgum. I invoke the Fifth Amendment for that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of The Novel and the World's 
Dilemma?\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Edwin Berry Burgum, The Novel and the World's Dilemma (New 
York: Oxford University Press, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Does this book follow the Communist line in any 
respect?
    Mr. Burgum. I would say, in my opinion, the question is not 
germane. In writing the book I followed principles of literary 
criticism.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the book follow the Communist line?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, my own principles of literary criticism 
are such that it is inconceivable that anything well-written 
could be said to follow the Communist line.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you devote a great majority of space to 
authors that are Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's take Richard Wright. You devote more 
space----
    Mr. Burgum. I beg to differ. There is one article of length 
on Richard Wright's Native Son. There is a somewhat shorter 
article on some of his short stories.
    Mr. Cohn. How many other authors out of the nineteen have 
more than one?
    Mr. Burgum. Proust, I have two. On Wolfe, I have two. They 
are certainly not Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Wright was a Communist?
    Mr. Burgum. At the time I wrote the articles I knew only 
what any well-informed citizen knows, that he had the 
reputation of being a Communist.
    The Chairman. You mean you did not get any information 
through Communist channels--you didn't hear about it at a 
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never met Richard Wright and the answer 
that I gave is based entirely upon my own observation.
    The Chairman. I would like to have you answer the question. 
You did not hear that he was a Communist from any other 
Communists. You did not get any information to that effect at 
any Communist meetings. Is that correct?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, it is correct that I didn't. I would 
like, however, to make my answer a part of the whole attitude 
that I had in literary criticism and that is that the one 
discussed, the author, was on the basis of what he has written. 
It is true that an author's political opinions sometimes have 
certain effects on what he has written and a critic may feel 
that that effect in some cases is a significant one with the 
quality of literature and in other cases it may be of no 
particular significance at all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to an organization which 
advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States 
by force and violence.
    Mr. Burgum. I never belonged to any organization which, to 
my knowledge, advocated the overthrow of the government of the 
United States by force and violence.
    The Chairman. Do you know the Communist party advocates its 
overthrow?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment on 
that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any royalties you 
received from your writings to the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you receive royalties from the sale of this 
book?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of them to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment on that 
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you agree that you have praise for Hegelian 
and Marxist dialectics and condemnation for everything else 
along those lines?
    Mr. Burgum. No, I wouldn't. I doubt if you will find 
Hegel's name in the index, and as I remember when I made up the 
index myself the word Marx occurs in the text only once.
    Mr. Cohn. You are quite wrong about Hegel. I read the book 
myself last night and I found a number of references to Hegel.
    Mr. Burgum. Hegel is in the index.
    The Chairman. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. Reed Harris?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. Richard Wright?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. You have never met him?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever consult with any Communists in 
connection with any of your writings?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never consulted with any Communists in 
connection with my writings.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever shown your manuscripts to any 
Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never shown my manuscripts to any 
Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. On page 67 of the book you are talking about 
Thomas Mann and I quote: ``Such a philosophy is dialectic, to 
be sure, but it is not the dynamic progressive dialectic of 
either Marx or Hegel.'' Wouldn't you say that is support of the 
question I asked you above?
    Mr. Burgum. It is a question of definition. I don't recall 
the context of the answer but it is a question of definition, 
and it is true that there are two forms of dialectics in the 
history of philosophy. One is the dialectic that goes back to 
Socrates and Plato and the other dialectic of Hegel and Marx. 
Hegel and Marx share this dialectical conception that the 
movement of history is a progressive one, whereas the dialectic 
of Plato and Socrates was associated with a statistical 
conception of the universe and, therefore, was couched in the 
terms, what we now call Aristotelian logic.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you consider Marxism forward and progressive?
    Mr. Burgum. I didn't make any statement to that effect. I 
simply said----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you or do you not?
    Mr. Burgum. I would claim the Fifth Amendment on that 
question.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think it might 
incriminate you to answer that?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, in the present association, certainly, 
where these things can scarcely be discussed with philosophical 
calm.
    The Chairman. Under our present criminal laws?
    Mr. Burgum. I am not in a position to act as the authority 
on our present criminal laws and I would like, therefore, to 
invoke the Fifth Amendment on that question.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to.
    Mr. Cohn. This book was published in 1947. Is that right?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at that 
time?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment again, if you 
please.
    Mr. Cohn. How old are you now?
    Mr. Burgum. Fifty-nine. I was born in 1894.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Burgum. I got my AB degree at Dartmouth in 1915; I got 
my AM in history at Harvard in 1917; and then after teaching 
four years at the University of Pittsburgh, I got a Ph.D. four 
years later at the University of Illinois.
    Mr. Cohn. When you entered Dartmouth as a freshman, were 
you a Communist?
    Mr. Burgum. I should like to invoke the Fifth Amendment 
about that question, if you please.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know William Remington?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    Mr. Cohn. During the time you attended Harvard, were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I should like to invoke the Fifth Amendment on 
that.
    The Chairman. Did you pay dues to the Communist party while 
you were at Harvard?
    Mr. Burgum. Fifth Amendment, if you please.
    The Chairman. Do you know any professors at Dartmouth who 
were Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. How about Harvard?
    Mr. Burgum. The same, if you please.
    The Chairman. It is now 10:20. I wonder if we could ask you 
gentlemen to be over in room 318 at 10:25.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH FREEMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH 
                           SHARFSIN)
    [Senator Karl E. Mundt, Acting Chairman]
    Senator Mundt. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, 
please?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Freeman. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Will the counsel give his name, please?
    Mr. Sharfsin. Joseph Sharfsin, 1342 Lincoln Liberty 
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Freeman, you are Joseph Freeman, the author. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Freeman. That, is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you wrote a book around 1936, did you not?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was that called?
    Mr. Freeman. An American Testament.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Joseph Freeman, An American Testament; A Narrative of Rebels 
and Romantics (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. And did you write a book in 1943, Never Call 
Retreat? \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Joseph Freeman, Never Call Retreat (New York: Farrar & 
Rinehart, 1943).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1936 when you wrote An American Testament, 
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Freeman. I was not a card-carrying member of the 
Communist party but I called myself a Communist in that I was 
editor of the New Masses. I want to answer this question as 
fully as I can. You see I came into the Communist movement the 
literary way, therefore, my relation with the party was a 
peculiar relationship.
    Can I amplify this? It may save you many questions.
    While I was still at college and had no political 
activities up to that point--I had made one political speech, 
campaigned for Woodrow Wilson, but the Liberator, the new name 
for the magazine called----
    Senator Symington. What university did you attend?
    Mr. Freeman. Columbia University.
    The point is that I used to read this magazine and they 
were sympathetic to the Russian Revolution, although not 
Communistic in that sense, but primarily a literary magazine. 
They published my poetry and they invited me to join the 
magazine. I joined the magazine as editor and about six months 
later it was taken over by the Communist party. I remained 
editor and they said they would like me to join the party.
    Senator Jackson. The Communists took over the Liberator?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes. About 1922, at the time of Lincoln's 
death.
    I said, ``Yes.'' I took out a card but I never attended a 
unit meeting, never paid dues and my membership lapsed in 1922.
    Senator Jackson. When did it lapse?
    Mr. Freeman. I suppose in 1922. I just never showed up to 
party meetings although I still wrote for the magazine. The 
magazine was later taken to Chicago where Earl Browder became 
editor. In 1926 we started--the writers and artists--the New 
Masses and I went back as one of the editors. I called myself a 
Communist. I stopped being a Communist in 1939. I wrote 
Communist articles and made speeches.
    Mr. Cohn. This book you wrote in 1936, do you agree that it 
reflects the Communist line?
    Mr. Freeman. I thought it did, but the Communists did not. 
This book was attacked by the Communists. They objected to the 
whole thing.
    Senator Jackson. They considered you a deviationist?
    Mr. Freeman. They said it was anti-working class, a fraud, 
no-good. They announced in print that I had not been a party 
member for many years.
    Mr. Cohn. In spite of that fact you remained a Communist 
until 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. No, the attack came in 1939. The book appeared 
in 1936 and it was accepted. It was praised by the dailies--the 
New York Times, Herald Tribune. By dailies I mean this book got 
generally good reviews. It was accepted more as a social and 
literary history of the United States. In 1939 there was an 
English edition gotten out. In 1939 the Communists attacked the 
London Daily Worker for having praised the book in 1936. This 
is very complicated.
    Senator Symington. Are you a Communist now?
    Mr. Freeman. No, sir.
    Senator Symington. When did you get out of the party?
    Mr. Freeman. Out of the party as a party member in 1925 or 
1926.
    Senator Symington. When did you renounce all interest in 
communism?
    Mr. Freeman. 1939. In the fall of 1939.
    Senator Symington. You have had no interest in Communist 
relations, Communist party or communism since 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. None whatsoever. I may talk to some. I don't 
know.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you this. I haven't read your 
book. What has happened is that the party line changed in 1939 
and your book probably related to the anti-Fascist approach of 
1936 and then when the Russian-Nazi Pact came along it made 
your book, as a Communist book, look a little ridiculous in 
light of the party line in 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. That is one fact.
    Dr. Matthews. You wrote Soviet Worker? That appeared in 
1932? \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Joseph Freeman, The Soviet Worker; An Account of the Economic, 
Social and Cultural Status of Labor in the U.S.S.R. (New York: 
Liveright, 1932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Freeman. I wrote that.
    Dr. Matthews. What was the book about? The 1936 book, An 
American Testament?
    Mr. Freeman. It was an attempt to tell in autobiographical 
form the literary and social history of the United States with 
the impact of Europe and events like war, why so many 
intellectuals became Communists.
    Dr. Matthews. Was Soviet Worker pro-Communist or anti-
Communist?
    Mr. Freeman. I wrote it feeling pro-Communist. I wrote it 
as an objective economic study and it was accepted by economic 
magazines. I was a Communist when I wrote it. I called myself a 
Communist, believed in it.
    Senator Jackson. Were you under party discipline? If you 
wrote something and they said, ``It doesn't conform to the 
party line,'' then would you change your manuscript?
    Mr. Freeman. I have had occasion where I have written 
things against the party line and told so. I just said I was 
going to do nothing about it.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you submit your manuscripts to the 
Politburo?
    Mr. Freeman. I submitted them to a friend in the Communist 
party, like the late Robert Minor whom I had known since I came 
on. Some of them didn't like it for one reason or another but 
it didn't prevent me from publishing it. I didn't change it.
    I would like to say another thing as to how it was written. 
I had an offer to write this book. I was called in by two 
publishers, Stanley Rinehart and John Farrar, Republicans. They 
said, ``We would like you to write an autobiography.'' I said, 
``I am pretty young. What do you want me to write about?'' You 
must remember the early 1930's brought many writers and artists 
to the left, and also in 1933 Hitler's rise in Germany did 
influence many people here, and they said, ``We would like you 
to write an autobiography along the lines of Walter Durant's 
book explaining why so many intellectuals have gone left.'' The 
idea was to do a short story. I started to write this book at 
their invitation. They gave me a contract. I went to the 
country, wrote the book for them, and it was published in 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. This book, An American Testament, would you use 
that book in this program of the State Department to expose 
communism and present a true picture of the American-way-of-
life?
    Mr. Freeman. Well, Mr. Cohn, that is a matter of opinion. I 
can only say two things. I could have called the book anything. 
I called it An American Testament. The reason when I went left 
I entered a literary movement, I did it neither for or against 
the United States. Proletarian literature was not invented by 
the Russians. Proletarian literature and this phase was 
invented in 1921 in the United States by a group of writers, 
including Upton Sinclair, Edward Markham, the man who wrote 
``Man With a Hoe.'' In fact, we looked down on Russians. We 
felt we in the United States had really done it.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Freeman, you never answered my question. Do 
you think An American Testament should be used by the State 
Department to give a true picture of the American-way-of-life?
    Mr. Freeman. I can answer the question in this way, if you 
will let me. When the book was published, outside of the 
Communist attack, all other papers accepted it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think today, in 1953, that book should be 
used as part of a program to expose communism and give a true 
picture of the American-way-of-life?
    Mr. Freeman. It would not hurt my feelings if you took it 
out. If you would give me a copy, I would appreciate it. I have 
no copies of the book.
    Senator Jackson. Is this book in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. We haven't definite word. The one written in 1943 
definitely is.
    Senator Jackson. Do you have some comments on the book, An 
American Testament, by critics?
    Mr. Freeman. For instance, the New York Times said: ``Mr. 
Freeman has put together an important narrative. . . . It is 
indeed an American testament.''
    Mr. Cohn. Who wrote these reviews?
    Mr. Freeman. Ruth Thompson, the late Carl Van Doren----
    Mr. Cohn. What did Carl Van Doren say?
    Mr. Freeman. ``It is difficult to imagine a serious reader 
who, whatever special preoccupations, would not find this book 
absorbing as the record of a life-story, the chronicle of a 
generation. It is itself part of the times, and to that extent 
it is itself history.''
    Dr. Matthews. Do you know Carl Van Doren?
    Mr. Freeman. He was my teacher at Columbia University. 
Frankly, I didn't see very much of him after I got out of 
school.
    Senator Jackson. What else do you have?
    Mr. Freeman. The Irish Times said--Maybe they are a 
Communist paper. I just got the clipping.
    Senator Jackson. From Dublin?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes. This is an English edition. ``A brilliant 
autobiography. This is a book which no serious student of 
contemporary affairs should fail to read.''
    Senator Jackson. The thing I don't understand about the 
book, was it an ideological treatise or was it simply a book 
trying to give the reason why so many intellectuals went into 
Communist and extreme left movements?
    Mr. Freeman. It was chiefly a story of personal events, 
such as I was born here; my grandparents were, etc.
    Senator Jackson. What happened to you?
    Mr. Freeman. It is a story showing how I became a 
Communist. To my surprise, the Communists turned around and 
said, ``You are not a Communist.''
    Mr. Cohn. I think we can excuse the witness, if it is 
agreeable with you?
    Senator Mundt. The witness is excused.
                   TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SELDES
    [Senator Stuart Symington, Acting Chairman]
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please? 
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give shall 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Seldes. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name?
    Mr. Seldes. George H. Seldes. S-e-l-d-e-s.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seldes, are you the author of various books? 
Fourteen or fifteen. Let me read you the names of some of them 
that the State Department is using in Overseas Information 
Centers. Facts and Fascism, Freedom of the Press, Lords of the 
Press, People Don't Know.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ George Seldes, Facts and Fascism (New York: In Fact, Inc., 
1943); Freedom of the Press (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935); Lords 
of the Press (New York: J. Messner, 1938); People Don't Know (New York: 
Gaer Associates, 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Seldes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Seldes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Seldes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting.
    Mr. Seldes. Who said I was?
    Mr. Cohn. Who said you were? Has it ever been brought to 
your attention that anybody said you were?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, [space blank] wrote a piece saying I was a 
``Stalinite'' and smearing me in other ways. I got very angry 
and went to a lawyer. He said it would cost me $5,000 to clear 
this up, so I didn't do anything about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Has Professor Budenz ever said anything about it?
    Mr. Seldes. I don't know anything about him except an 
article written in some magazine, probably by Wechsler or 
Eugene Lyons, either Plain Talk or American Mercury magazine. 
My files are locked up. He is quoted in one of these articles 
against me.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he say?
    Mr. Seldes. I can only trust my memory. I think he said 
once at a meeting of some Communists at their headquarters they 
said they would like to have me editor of the Daily Worker or 
some paper--as editor of something.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor Budenz said you were under Communist 
discipline, did he not?
    Mr. Seldes. I never read that line, and I deny it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communist party members?
    Mr. Seldes. Well, look, do I know them or--Well, look for 
instance--I want to tell you this frankly.
    Senator Symington. When you talk, talk a little slower and 
remember it is being taken down and she will have to read it.
    Mr. Seldes. I have ulcers and am sort of the nervous type.
    I started a weekly newsletter with another man. His name on 
the letterhead was Bruce Minton. I swear I had no idea he was a 
Communist. He was expelled from the Communist party, I think, 
1945. Before that I want to say, after I started this 
newsletter, I said, ``We will run news in this which is not in 
the newspapers.'' That was my only purpose in running it.
    I forgot--if I know any Communists? I know Bruce Minton.
    Mr. Cohn. One you can name is Bruce Minton?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, I want to say how I happened to know that. 
I didn't know it until he had left my publication and was 
thrown out of the party.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer is that you know now that Bruce 
Minton was a Communist, but you didn't know it at the time he 
worked for your publication?
    Mr. Seldes. No, I didn't know it.
    Dr. Matthews. He was your associate editor, was he not?
    Mr. Seldes. I think he was listed as associate. We were 
actually partners.
    Dr. Matthews. What is his real name?
    Mr. Seldes. Richard Bransten.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the 
record from the report of the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, the following quoted 
finding of the committee:
    George Seldes has a record of subservience to the Communist 
party, which is unsurpassed by any other subversive agent in 
this Country.
    Is that the first you have heard of that?
    Mr. Seldes. I got the Congressional Record. Senator Murray 
sent it to me for ten years.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seldes, I think we will get along better if 
you answer the questions. We are not interested in whether you 
got the Congressional Record.
    Mr. Seldes. I don't want to be antagonistic, but I have to 
defend myself.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to know whether this quotation was ever 
brought to your attention or was my reading it the first you 
ever knew about it? It is the finding of the House Un-American 
Activities Committee, published in the Congressional Record and 
elsewhere.
    Mr. Seldes. I can't say positively because there was a 
congressman who made a statement which I did read in the 
Congressional Record. That I have seen. Congressman Hoffman. It 
is either this or a similar statement.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Seldes. It is not true.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever belong to the Communist cell in 
Connecticut?
    Mr. Seldes. Positively not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended Communist meetings in 
Connecticut?
    Mr. Seldes. No, sir. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. If someone said you were there, that person is 
lying?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the 
following organization: American Committee for Democratic and 
Intellectual Freedom?
    Mr. Seldes. I don't know the names of them. My name was put 
down twenty, thirty, or forty times. Some of them I have had 
nothing to do with.
    Senator Symington. Did you know you were a member of this 
committee?
    Mr. Seldes. Once in a while I would get a letterhead with 
my name on something. Sometimes I would see a list. I never 
gave them permission to use my name. I found that my name was 
used by different committees.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you editor of In Fact?
    Mr. Seldes. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that was found to be a Communist 
publication?
    Mr. Seldes. Not according to my statement from the 
Department of Justice.
    [The witness handed Mr. Cohn a letter.]
    Mr. Cohn. This is the Department of Justice's statement. It 
was found by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I 
am asking you, Mr. Seldes, whether or not the House Committee 
made an official finding that In Fact was a Communist 
publication?
    Mr. Seldes. That I am not aware of.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Seldes, I want to go to some of your 
writings. Did you write this? I quote. This is from People 
Don't Know, published in 1949, New York.
    The entire world has moved to the Left-part Socialist, part 
Communist, part just Left. The Right, all the way from 
conservative to fascist, has been defeated almost everywhere. 
The status quo and reactionary countries, such as Italy and 
France, Portugal and Greece, are merely held to the Right by 
American money and pressure, will go Leftward when these forces 
diminish or cease.
    Mr. Seldes. I wrote that probably. I don't have the book 
before me.
    Senator Symington. You felt that way?
    Mr. Seldes. I felt that way after my trip to Europe in 
1948.
    Senator Symington. You felt if we didn't continue supplying 
money, they would continue to go farther to the left?
    Mr. Seldes. My feeling was that we should supply them.
    Senator Symington. I think you may be right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write in a book entitled Facts and 
Fascism:
    There is probably no greater example of mass misguidance in 
American history since World War I and the present Global war 
than the history of the million men of the American Legion and 
its handful of misleaders.
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, I probably wrote that.
    Senator Symington. Why did you say that?
    Mr. Seldes. Because for many years the American Civil 
Liberties Union has listed the American Legion as the leading 
force against liberalism and civil rights in America.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you expressed any similar views about the 
Catholic Church?
    Mr. Seldes. I have never attacked the Catholic Church.
    Mr. Cohn. Who in the Legion were you referring to? Give us 
a couple of names?
    Mr. Seldes. I can't remember them. I knew General Smedley 
Butler very well. He discovered a group that was going to throw 
out President Roosevelt and establish a Fascism dictatorship. 
General Butler gave this evidence before a congressional 
committee. I forget the name of the committee. There was some 
big people from the Legion in this. I have a chapter on this in 
one of my books.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you state on Page 12:
    The real Fascists of America are never named in the 
commercial press. It will not even hint at the fact that there 
are many powerful elements working against a greater democracy, 
against an America without discrimination, etc. and many more 
millions working for semi-starvation wages while the Du Pont, 
Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires move into the 
billions of dollars. I call all these elements Fascist.
    Mr. Seldes. If it is in that book, I wrote it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you consider these appropriate works, giving a 
true picture of the American-way-of-life fighting communism?
    Mr. Seldes. I will answer that this way. I represented a 
certain view of life and think this ought to begin with other 
views. I am anti-Communist.
    Senator Symington. When was this particular book written?
    Mr. Seldes. 1943.
    Senator Symington. In 1943 the Soviets were our allies. Do 
you feel differently now?
    Mr. Seldes. Positively.
    Senator Symington. Are you writing any more of this kind of 
stuff?
    Mr. Seldes. I have written stuff of a completely opposite 
nature. May I explain that more fully? May I volunteer some 
information?
    Mr. Cohn. Go ahead.
    Mr. Seldes. I was thrown out of Russia in 1923. When I 
worked for the Chicago Tribune--I worked for them for ten 
years--I accused the Russians of force and violence, of the end 
justifies the means, of terrorism, denial of civil liberties, 
and I smuggled out some news they didn't like, which was true, 
and was thrown out of Russia. I conducted a campaign against 
Moscow--against Russia for many years.
    In 1936 I was sent by the New York Post to cover the war in 
Spain, and the war in Spain, I found only two countries 
helping--the Republic of Mexico and Russia, and because of 
that--and I thought the war of Spain was justified, the war 
against Mussolini and Hitler. The only troops were Italian and 
German. I felt sympathetic in their helping to save the Spanish 
Republic, although they didn't succeed in doing it. Well, I was 
sympathetic for that reason, although I objected to their 
methods, which never changed. Later on we were in the war. 
Well, then Russia was our ally. After the war was over I found 
that the Moscow methods were even worse than ever before and I 
began writing a series of articles against Moscow. The result 
was that many of my readers, whom I realize must have been 
Communists, canceled subscriptions. My magazine was thrown out 
of the Prague bookshops, I suppose you have heard of them, and 
actually it was to some part due to this Communist attack on 
the publication that we, had to suspend--that we went under.
    Mr. Cohn. We have this 1949 writing of yours which I read 
to you before, ``The entire world has moved to the Left-part 
Socialist, part Communist, . . .'' Let me go on.
    The status quo and reactionary countries, such as Italy and 
France, Portugal and Greece, are merely held to the Right by 
American money and pressure, will go Leftward when these forces 
diminish or cease. Nothing is more important in history than 
this Leftward trend of the world. Etc.
    Right above this you say people in this country don't 
understand Russia. It is misrepresented, lots of bad things 
said which are inaccurate, and so on.
    Mr. Seldes. I say that about Russia? I'd like to see that. 
I was very anti-Russian when I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. How about this:
    This volume and this author agree with Dr. George T. 
Robinson who said that ``Never did so many know so little about 
so much.''
    Then you quote Dr. Robinson in making that remark as 
referring to all American's misunderstanding of Russia. You go 
on to say:
    Curiously enough, two years later when the ``preventive 
war'' crowd was riding high and William Christian (sic) Bullitt 
was screaming madly for the use of the atom bomb to destroy 
Russian civilians--``atomize the Russians'' was the battlecry--
and the Churchill policy of ``containment'' of ideas (as well 
as nations) had become the paramount policy of the Truman 
administration, a survey made by Princeton University showed 
that 38,000,000 Americans of voting age ``don't know at all 
what kind of government Russia has.''
    The Robinson structures can be applied not only to Russia 
and the Eastern nations--against which the West, and most 
notably the United States has hung not an iron but a newspaper 
curtain of suppression and silence--but also to China and all 
of Asia; in fact to most of the world.
    Do you think that is anti-Russian?
    Mr. Seldes. Well, in a way, ``yes.''
    Mr. Cohn. I would love to know how.
    Mr. Seldes. I will tell you why. May I explain myself?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Seldes. I think in fighting Russia we have to be very 
careful and tell exactly what the situation is there. We must 
not make mistakes, say things that aren't true. If they catch a 
great writer saying something about Russia which isn't true, 
you lose your point.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you feel about the Korean war?
    Mr. Seldes. Now, I wish you could get my copies of In Fact.
    It was the Korean war which was largely responsible for the 
Communist sabotaging or destroying my publication. A lot of 
people wrote and said, ``How do you feel about the Korean 
War?'' I replied that I was running a newspaper--news that 
isn't printed elsewhere--the truth. I don't express opinions 
except in books. The Korean war is obviously the Communist 
attack. The Communists are the aggressors and we are right. 
After that I got a lot of cancellations. I was 100 percent for 
the Koreans, our side of the Korean War.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last issue of In Fact published?
    Mr. Seldes. October 1950.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you written or published anti-Catholic 
books?
    Mr. Seldes. I have never written what I called anti-
Catholic books. One of my books was the choice of the Catholic 
Book of the Month Club. \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ George Seldes, The Vatican: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (New 
York: Harper & Brothers, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Matthews. Was it on the Catholic Church?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, sir.
   TESTIMONY OF DOXEY WILKERSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)
    [Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Chairman]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, 
please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Doxey Wilkerson. W-i-l-k-e-r-s-o-n.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are accompanied by Mr. Joseph Forer?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Wilkerson, are you the author of various 
books?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. A number of them. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Some, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And we have been advised that some of them are in 
use by the State Department information program.
    Have you ever worked in any capacity for the government of 
the United States?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I was research associate for the president's 
Advisory Committee on Education.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that, sir?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Around 1938 or 1939, approximately.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you held the post on the president's 
Advisory Committee on Education, were you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question under the 
basis of the Fifth Amendment and my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Immediately after you left the employ of the 
government, did you immediately announce that you were an 
organizer of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I will refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Wasn't it a matter of public knowledge? 
Wouldn't it have been in the newspapers?
    Mr. Wilkerson. It may or may not have been.
    Mr. Cohn. What you are being asked is, didn't the 
newspapers carry an account to the effect that you had stated 
such and such and such?
    Mr. Wilkerson. May I consult with counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons previously stated, I refuse 
to answer the question.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if that 
became a matter of public record, it be put in the record at 
this point.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor Wilkerson, will you list the books 
written by you as literary works?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I wrote a book entitled Special Problems of 
Negro Education. \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Doxey A. Wilkerson, Special Problems of Negro Education, 
Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Education (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. That was published in 1939?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at that 
time?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer for the 
same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss the preparation of that 
manuscript with any Communists?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you on orders from the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a Communist now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe you are a good American?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Of course I do.
    Senator Symington. Where were you born?
    Mr. Wilkerkson. Right outside the city of Excelsior 
Springs.
    Senator Symington. You believe you are a good American and 
at the same time you still will not say whether or not you are 
a Communist?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Senator Symington. How could you be a good American if 
today you are a member of an organization which is dedicated to 
the overthrow of the United States by force and violence? Do 
you think you could be a good American if you were a member of 
such an organization? An organization dedicated to the 
overthrow of the government by force and violence?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't think so.
    Senator Symington. Do you know whether or not the Communist 
party is so dedicated?
    Mr. Wilkerson. In my opinion it is not.
    Senator Symington. If you knew it was so dedicated--to the 
overthrow of our government, by force end violence--would you 
belong?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I would not.
    Senator Symington. Then, if you are a Communist you are 
ignorant of that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I should refuse to answer that 
question on the grounds stated. Did I understand your 
question?----
    Senator Symington. If you are a Communist and that is the 
Communist party line, you are ignorant of that fact?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I stated that answer to a previous question 
that I would not belong to an organization which advocated the 
violent overthrow of our government.
    Senator Symington. If you are a Communist and it can be 
shown to you that the Communist party is dedicated to the 
overthrow of this country by force and violence, if you were a 
Communist, would you resign from the party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Your question assumes some things.
    Senator Symington. I must say I can understand how a lot of 
people could be Communist in the Depression and later we were 
fighting as allies, but I don't see how a good American, if he 
knew the Communist party line, how anybody could believe they 
were good Americans and at the same time take protection of the 
Constitution as to membership in the party.
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I expressed the opinion that the 
Communist party does not advocate the overthrow of our 
government by force and violence.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever studied communism?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have read about it.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever taught history?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have taught some history.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever felt that you were well up 
on the Communist party line as a result of your studies?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I am not sure what that means.
    Senator Symington. Have you gotten enough knowledge of 
communism to be an authority on whether or not the Communist 
party has as one of its ends the overthrow of the American 
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I have enough authority to take a 
position in that. I have an opinion based on my observation and 
studies. My opinion is that the Communist party does not 
advocate the overthrow of this government by force and 
violence.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever had a card at any time in 
your life?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons previously stated, I refuse 
to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you ever taught at the Jefferson School 
of Social Science?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you teach there now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons stated, I refuse to answer.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you now or did you ever know Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reason stated, I refuse to answer 
that question.
    Senator Symington. Alger Hiss has been known by a lot of 
people, some of them high people. Why would you be afraid to 
answer that question if you thought you were a good American?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't see what that has to do with being a 
good American.
    Senator Symington. Why do you refuse to answer the question 
whether you knew Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. It seems to me that I am properly invoking 
my privilege not to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with 
Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the same reason I refuse to answer the 
question.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the same reason I refuse to answer the 
question.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you know that Owen Lattimore was a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question for the 
same reason.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Of course not. I wouldn't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in sabotage?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know Dean Acheson?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet him?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't recall it.
    Senator Symington. Did you ever meet Dwight D. Eisenhower?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't think I ever met him.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any information that would 
make you feel Dean Acheson was any more a Communist than John 
Foster Dulles?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have no information.
    Senator Symington. No more about Acheson than about Dulles?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I know neither of the gentlemen. All I know 
about them is what I read in the newspapers.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you ever teach at Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Dr. Matthews. When did you leave Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. In the summer of 1943, I think it was.
    Dr. Matthews. Why did you leave?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I resigned.
    Dr. Matthews. You left voluntarily?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I did.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you a member of the Communist party at 
the time you were teaching at Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question for the 
reason stated.
    Senator Symington. Why do you think, commenting about this 
Jefferson School, that is something that you should take 
advantage of your rights?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I believe my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment also authorizes my not answering that question.
    Senator Symington. Would you like to comment on what you 
know about that school, if anything?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No, I should not.
    Senator Symington. You refuse to answer whether you taught 
there. Is that right?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Senator Symington. Or whether you teach there now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. You mean you won't say anything about 
your method of making a livelihood?
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this. Have you ever held any 
other position in the government other than that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I was educational specialist for the Office 
of Price Stabilization.
    Senator Symington. I would like to get back to one point. 
You say you feel you are a good American; that you wouldn't 
belong to an organization that was dedicated to the overthrow 
of the American government by force and violence. Then I would 
like to ask you this question. Why are you ashamed or afraid to 
say something about the Jefferson School or this school we were 
talking about? Why have you got fear or embarrassment about 
that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. There is no embarrassment. You are asking 
the same question you asked before. My privilege also 
guarantees me the right not to explain why I invoke that 
amendment.
    Dr. Matthews. Who hired you for the Office of Price 
Stabilization position?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Whoever is head of the educational division. 
I don't remember his name.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you recall who sponsored you for a 
position in the OPS?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Allan Chase (1913-1993), had published 
three novels before his appearance before the subcommittee. He 
devoted his later writing to studies of health and science: 
Biological Imperatives: Health, Politics and Human Survival 
(1971); Legacy of Malthus: Social Costs of the New Scientific 
Racism (1977); Magic Shots: A Human and Scientific Account of 
the Long and Continuing Struggle to Eradicate Infectious 
Disease by Vaccination (1982); and Truth about STD: The Old 
Ones--Herpes and the Other New Ones--the Primary Causes--the 
Available Cures (1983). Chase was not called to testify in 
public.]
                              ----------                              
                         THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Dr. J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy 
M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl 
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                    TESTIMONY OF ALLAN CHASE
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please? Do 
you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in 
this matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Chase. I do.
    Dr. Matthews. Mr. Chase, will you give your full name?
    Mr. Chase. Allan Chase.
    Dr. Matthews. A-l-l-a-n?
    Mr. Chase. Right.
    Dr. Matthews. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Chase. I reside at 725 West End Avenue, New York City.
    Dr. Matthews. Where were you born?
    Mr. Chase. I was born in the City of New York, Borough of 
Manhattan.
    Dr. Matthews. What is your present occupation?
    Mr. Chase. Writer.
    Dr. Matthews. Freelance writer?
    Mr. Chase. Freelance writer.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you published any books?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I have published three books.
    Dr. Matthews. What are the titles?
    Mr. Chase. You have Falange, and The Five Arrows, and the 
third book, Shadow of a Hero. \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Allan Chase, Falange: The Axis Secret Army in the Americas 
(New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943); The Five Arrows (New York: 
Random House, 1944); Shadow of a Hero (Boston: Little, Brown, 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Matthews. The Five Arrows was published in what year?
    Mr. Chase. I believe The Five Arrows was published in 1945.
    Dr. Matthews. Mr. Chase, do you believe that the FBI fakes 
evidence against people?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. You rather indicated that it did, did you 
not, in your novel, The Five Arrows?
    Mr. Chase. I am quite certain I did not, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. Let me read what you had to say about the 
crime laboratory of the FBI.
    Mr. Chase. Pardon me, sir. Was it the Federal Bureau of the 
Republic of Cuba or Federal Bureau of the United States of 
America?
    Dr. Matthews. Well, so far as I have been able to read your 
meaning, it would refer to the FBI in the United States.
    Mr. Chase. I would doubt that highly because I don't think 
I had anything in that book about the FBI.
    Dr. Matthews. You call it the FBI, but if it is your 
testimony that it does not refer to the United States.
    Mr. Chase. It is not my testimony. I don't know the passage 
you refer to, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. Let's go on to other matters.
    Were you an official of the American Committee for Spanish 
Freedom?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I was.
    Dr. Matthews. In what capacity?
    Mr. Chase. Secretary.
    Dr. Matthews. Executive secretary.
    Mr. Chase. No, as far as I know it was never anything 
except secretary.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you aware of the fact that that 
organization was cited as a Communist front by the attorney 
general?
    Mr. Chase. I am aware of the fact it was cited as a 
Communist front subsequent to my leaving it.
    Dr. Matthews. And are you aware of the fact that during the 
existence of the committee, I believe, the House Un-American 
Activities Committee wrote the committee a letter asking if the 
committee was un-American in any way?
    Mr Chase. A number of members of the committee, including 
Dr. Norman Vincent Peale and Hartman, Methodist Bishop of 
Boston and others, but those two I remember, answered the House 
Un-American Activities Committee to their satisfaction because 
they never investigated or corresponded further with the 
American Committee for Spanish Freedom.
    Dr. Matthews. The House Un-American Activities Committee 
has cited the organization as a Communist front organization?
    Mr. Chase. I have no knowledge, but if it did, it was 
subsequent to my leaving it.
    Dr. Matthews. When were you the secretary of the 
organization?
    Mr. Chase. I believe, now don't hold me to this, but I 
believe it was sometime in 1945.
    Dr. Matthews. And also 1946, were you not?
    Mr. Chase. I would doubt that very much because of one 
specific date I remember--12 September 1945--when my daughter 
was born and from there on in I have been pretty much out of 
everything.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you a member of the Communist party at 
that time?
    Mr. Chase. Not at that time.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you now?
    Mr. Chase. No.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you ever?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I was.
    Dr. Matthews. When did you join?
    Mr. Chase. Well, I have been trying since Mr. Cohn spoke to 
me on the phone to pin down the exact date. I believe it was 
sometime in the vicinity of 1934.
    Dr. Matthews. How long did you remain a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Chase. I don't think it was more than two weeks if it 
was that long.
    Dr. Matthews. Why did you quit, or were you expelled?
    Mr. Chase. I wasn't expelled. I looked and saw and said to 
myself, ``Not me.'' I felt like the Rabbi who wandered into a 
house of burlesque in Boston without knowing what he had 
wandered into. I saw and heard and by the time I realized what 
I had gotten into, I picked up my hat and feet and ran.
    Dr. Matthews. Who invited you?
    Mr. Chase. I am afraid the fool who did that was a fool 
named Allan Chase. At the time I was twenty or twenty-one and I 
thought I knew all there was to know, all the answers, and no 
one had to tell me.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you go about joining? You must have known 
someone in the party.
    Mr. Chase. Well, frankly, the headquarters were fairly open 
and I walked into the headquarters in my neighborhood.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever talked with the FBI?
    Mr. Chase. About what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Your activities in the Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir, I haven't, but I did talk to the FBI 
about other peoples' activities.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it ever occur to you that you could have 
information which would be valuable to them concerning the 
Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir. It never did.
    Mr. Cohn. If you had anything of value, would you be 
willing to give them a full account?
    Mr. Chase. If I had anything of value to our government, I 
would be willing to testify.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you break with the Communist movement? 
It seems long after you left the party you were still active in 
a number of front organizations? Tell us with complete 
frankness.
    Mr. Chase. Well, we are now talking about the period close 
to twenty years ago when we had 20 million unemployed and a 
great deal of unrest. I was vitally concerned with one major 
issue of our times--that was the Spanish War.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say sometime after the Spanish War you 
completely broke with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. Well, I completely broke with the Communist 
movement when I walked out of the Communist movement.
    Mr. Cohn. You completely broke as far as being a member, 
but the record shows that long after you were active in various 
front organizations.
    Mr. Chase. The record shows organizations interested in 
Spain.
    Dr. Matthews. Let me ask you if you were not a sponsor of 
the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in March 
1949?
    Mr. Chase. I don't know. I have been trying to find out 
about that myself. I know my name appeared on the letterhead. I 
don't remember how it got there. I think I was asked to sign it 
by--I think I was asked to join by Dr. Dahlberg who was then or 
subsequently president of the American Baptist Convention.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you repudiate your name on the list of 
sponsors for the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World 
Peace?
    Mr. Chase. It didn't last long enough.
    Dr. Matthews. When did it come to your attention that it 
was there?
    Mr. Chase. Frankly, it came to my attention in 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew you signed up for that?
    Mr. Chase. I presume I gave permission.
    Mr. Cohn. You have some recollection of that?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I do.
    Dr. Matthews. You knew at the time the conference was held 
that it was widely publicized as an instrument of the Soviet 
propaganda movement, did you not?
    Mr. Chase. Yes.
    Dr. Matthews. And you knew the publicity was very 
widespread.
    Mr. Chase. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. And you did nothing to repudiate that 
publicity?
    Mr. Chase. Frankly, there was no publicity about me. I am 
not that important that I issue press statements.
    Dr. Matthews. Was that Edward T. Dahlberg who enlisted you 
for that conference?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir. If it was for that, I know I signed 
something for Dr. Dahlberg on some such appeal for a peace 
group. The man you are referring to is the author. The man I am 
referring to was a Baptist minister who, as I said earlier, was 
either then or subsequently president of the American Baptist 
Convention.
    Mr. Cohn. When were your two books published?
    Mr. Chase. Falange was published in 1943 and The Five 
Arrows was published in 1944. There was a book club edition in 
1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they represent your present thinking?
    Mr. Chase. I can't answer that because I haven't read those 
books for years.
    Mr. Cohn. To the best of your recollection?
    Mr. Chase. I still can't answer. I don't know every word in 
those books. I would have to read them before I could answer.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you anti-Communist at the present time?
    Mr. Chase. At the present time I am writing an anti-
Communist novel.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Chase you have represented the committee 
in coming down here. At the present time you are completing a 
strongly anti-Communist book.
    Mr. Chase. That is true.
    Mr. Cohn. And you feel if you were called in public session 
it would ruin the book?
    Mr. Chase. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that will be an anti-Communist book?
    Mr. Chase. Yes. You can have a copy.
    The Chairman. I think under the circumstances we should not 
call this gentleman in public session. I may say that there 
will be no mention of the fact that you were called in 
executive session unless you discuss it. The testimony here 
will not be made public. There will be no announcement here. 
You are free if you care to discuss it yourself but the 
committee will not.
    Mr. Chase. Thank you very much, sir.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Eslanda Goode Robeson (1896-1965) married 
Paul Robeson in 1921, while both were students at Columbia 
University. She persuaded him to take a role in a Harlem YMCA 
production, a performance that launched his career as a stage 
and film actor and concert singer. She occasionally acted with 
him and was his business manager. She later earned a Ph.D. in 
anthropology and published several books. In 1946, after Paul 
Robeson testified before the House Un-American Activities 
Committee, he was blacklisted and boycotted as a performer in 
the United States. The Robesons then spent most of their time 
abroad, while he performed in Europe and the Soviet Union. 
Eslanda Robeson testified in public session later that morning.
    Arnaud d'Usseau (1916-1990) also testified in public that 
morning. A Hollywood scriptwriter since the 1930s, he had 
collaborated with James Gow on a series of plays, Tomorrow the 
World (1943), Deep Are the Roots (1945) and The Legend of Sarah 
(1950). After d'Usseau took the Fifth Amendment in his 
testimony before the subcommittee, he was blacklisted in 
Hollywood and moved to Europe, where he continued to write 
screenplays under psudonyms. He later returned to New York to 
teach writing at New York University and at the School of 
Visual Arts.
    Leo Huberman (1903-1968) began his career as a school 
teacher, and in 1932 published a popular children's history 
textbook, We the People. He later studied at the London School 
of Economics and became labor editor for the New York tabloid 
PM. Together with Paul Sweezy, he founded the Socialist 
magazine Monthly Review in 1949, and the Monthly Review Press 
in 1952. Huberman testified at a public hearing on July 14, 
1953.]
                              ----------                              
                         TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl 
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
TESTIMONY OF ESLANDA GOODE ROBESON (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                      MILTON H. FRIEDMAN)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Robeson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name.
    Mrs. Robeson. Eslanda Cardozo Goode Robeson.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the wife of Paul Robeson. Is that 
correct?
    Mrs. Robeson. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Robeson, are you the author of a book 
entitled African Journey? \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Eslanda Goode Robeson, African Journey (New York: John Day, 
1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Robeson. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you also the author of a book which is a 
biography of your husband?
    Mrs. Robeson. Yes, Paul Robeson, Negro.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Eslanda Goode Robeson, Paul Robeson, Negro (New York: Harper & 
Brothers, 1930).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Robeson, are you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection afforded me by the Fifth 
and Fifteenth Amendments, I decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. The Fifteenth?
    Mrs. Robeson. Yes, the Fifteenth. I am Negro you know. I 
have been brought up to seek protection under the Fifteenth 
Amendment as a Negro.
    The Chairman. You have a right to refuse to answer if you 
think a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you. That is 
the only right under which you can refuse to answer. If you 
feel a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you, you may 
refuse to answer.
    Do you feel the answer will tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. At any time you care to.
    Do you want to answer that Mrs. Robeson?
    Mrs. Robeson. Would you say the question again, please?
    The Chairman. You, I believe, made the statement that you 
are refusing to answer under the Fifth and the Fifteenth 
Amendments. The Fifteenth Amendment has nothing to do with it. 
That provides the right to vote.
    Mrs. Robeson. I understand it has something to do with my 
being a Negro and I have always sought protection under it.
    The Chairman. Negro or white, Protestant or Jews, we are 
all American citizens here and you will answer the question as 
such.
    The question is: Are you a Communist today? If you feel the 
answer will tend to incriminate you, you can refuse to answer.
    That is the only ground under which you can refuse to 
answer.
    Mrs. Robeson. What confuses me a little about what you 
said--you see I am a second-class citizen in this country and, 
therefore, feel the need of the Fifteenth. That is the reason I 
use it. I am not quite equal to the rest of the white people.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you tell us the truth, a 
truthful answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and 
Fifteenth Amendment, if I can use it, I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel a truthful 
answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. I thought I had already.
    The Chairman. You are being ordered to answer whether you 
feel a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the Fifth and the Fifteenth Amendments, 
I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mrs. Robeson. I will have to consult my lawyer. I don't 
understand this.
    Now, once more, may I have the question?
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel that your 
answer, if your answer is a truthful answer, that might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. I would not consider any other answer except 
the truth. I would certainly not be bothered with any 
untruthful answer.
    The Chairman. I am going to make you answer that. We ask 
certain questions and if you feel the answer might tend to 
incriminate you, you are allowed to refuse to answer. Before 
granting you that privilege or right of refusing to answer, we 
must know from you very simply whether you feel a truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. I do not understand the truthful part. 
Certainly the answer would be truthful. Under any circumstances 
whatsoever it would be truthful. That is the reason you are 
confusing me.
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel a truthful 
answer to the question of whether or not you are a Communist 
today would tend to incriminate you? You are ordered to answer 
that question.
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and 
Fifteenth Amendments, I refuse to answer this.
    The Chairman. The counsel is informed I am asking the full 
committee to cite the witness for contempt. She has refused to 
give us information and taken refuge under the Fifteenth 
Amendment----
    Mr. Friedman. The witness wants to answer the question. She 
thought she had answered it.
    Mrs. Robeson. Would you just tell me now what the question 
is? You see the truthful part confused me. I am under oath.
    The Chairman. Just for your benefit you are not entitled to 
refuse to answer if perjury might incriminate you. That is why 
you are asked the question whether or not you feel a truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, my answer is ``yes.''
    [At this point, Senator Symington took over as acting 
chairman.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Robeson, have you ever contributed royalties 
received from your writings to the Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. May I consult counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Mrs. Robeson, did you write this book all by 
yourself?
    Mrs. Robeson. All by myself.
    Mr. Schine. This African Journey?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, I don't quite understand that question.
    Mr. Schine. Did you receive help on this book?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, I really think that is a very insulting 
question. I am quite capable of writing a book. I did write 
this book all by myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you refuse to answer that question concerning 
money to the Communist party from royalties?
    Mrs. Robeson. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage or espionage, 
Mrs. Robeson?
    Mrs. Robeson. I don't know what sabotage and espionage are.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in any illegal acts against 
the United States?
    Mrs. Robeson. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever taught or advocated the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Robeson. I have never taught anywhere at any time.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe in the overthrow of the government 
of the United States by force and violence under any 
circumstances?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under no circumstances whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard that the overthrow of this 
government of the United States was taught or advocated at any 
Communist party meeting?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well. I have never heard it advocated at all 
anywhere and I don't believe it.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and 
Fifteenth Amendments, I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Are you a member now of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under protection of the Fifth and Fifteenth 
Amendment, I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Do you think you are a good American?
    Mrs. Robeson. I know I am.
    Senator Symington. You couldn't be a good American and at 
the same time dedicated to the overthrow of the government by 
force and violence?
    In other words, you say you are a good American. You 
couldn't be a good American and still belong to an organization 
dedicated to the overthrow of our government by force and 
violence.
    Mrs. Robeson. I know I am a good American.
    Senator Symington. Do you know the Communist party is 
dedicated to the overthrow of the government of the United 
States by force and violence?
    Mrs. Robeson. I don't know anything at all about the 
Communist party except what I read in the papers or hearsay and 
I would not dream of making a statement here from what I read 
in books.
    Senator Symington. You don't know anything about the 
Communist party and yet you refuse to answer whether or not you 
are a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. You mean I could perhaps in a faint or 
something or when I was unconscious----
    Senator Symington. I am asking you.
    Mrs. Robeson. I only know what I hear, what I read, etc.
    Senator Symington. You only know what you hear and read and 
you refuse to answer whether or not you are a member of the 
Communist party--whether you ever have been or whether you are 
a member now.
    Mrs. Robeson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Counsel, will you have the witness in room 
318 at 10:30 sharp.
    Mr. Friedman. Yes.
TESTIMONY OF ARNAUD d'USSEAU (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, ROYAL 
                           W. FRANCE)
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. d'Usseau. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Arnaud d'Usseau.
    Mr. Cohn. Spell that, please?
    Mr. d'Usseau. d-'-U-s-s-e-a-u
    Mr. Cohn. You are the author of certain books. Is that 
right?
    Mr. d'Usseau. No, that is not right.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of plays printed in book form?
    Mr. d'Usseau. I am.
    May I ask why I have been called down here? \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Arnold d'Usseau had originally been subpoenaed to appear at 
the Federal Building in Foley Square, but when he and his attorney 
arrived there on July 3, they were informed that the hearings had been 
postponed and relocated to Washington. Royal W. France to Roy Cohn, 
July 4, 1953, Records of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 
RG 46, National Archives and Records Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Sure.
    Mr. d'Usseau. Why?
    Mr. Cohn. You have been called down here because some of 
your works were purchased with the taxpayers' money and used 
overseas by the State Department.
    Mr. d'Usseau. Why do you make a separation for me? I am a 
taxpayer too. I have been paying taxes a long time.
    Mr. Cohn. I will try to make a point now.
    Mr. d'Usseau. I see you people make a separation.
    Mr. Cohn. Identify your counsel.
    Mr. France. R. W. France of New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of Deep Roots? \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Arnaud d'Usseau and James Gow, Deep Are the Roots (New York: 
Scribner's, 1946)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. d'Usseau. I am co-author.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the other co-author?
    Mr. d'Usseau. James Gow.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You know I am going to take the Fifth 
Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. On what grounds do you refuse to answer?
    Mr. d'Usseau. On the grounds given me by the Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refuse to answer on the grounds that a 
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. d'Usseau. If you want to put it that way you can.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not putting it. That is the one ground on 
which you can refuse to answer--properly use the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Were you a member of the Communist party at the time you 
wrote Deep Are the Roots?
    Mr. d'Usseau. My answer is the same.
    Mr. Cohn. How about James Gow, the co-author, was he a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. He is dead.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment. Do you want me to dig him up 
and ask him?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Witness, please answer the questions.
    Did you contribute any money at any time to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any royalties received from the sale of your 
plays in any form contributed to the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you submit your manuscripts to anybody in the 
Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You know I am down here voluntarily.
    Senator Symington. You mean that you wouldn't be down here 
if you didn't want to come down here?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You served me with a subpoena, yes, but it 
was very irregularly served. It was served to me Wednesday. I 
went to Foley Square Wednesday.
    Senator Symington. But you are here?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Voluntarily.
    Senator Symington. And you came down here willing to answer 
questions?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Questions that I choose to answer.
    Senator Symington. And questions you don't want to answer 
you will take the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Counsel, the chairman directs that the 
witness be in room 318 at 10:30 a.m.
   TESTIMONY OF LEO HUBERMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, R. 
                        LAWRENCE SIEGEL)
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Huberman. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Huberman. I have never been a member of the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. What does that mean?
    Mr. Cohn. What does it mean to you, sir?
    Mr. Huberman. Well, if you mean by a Communist one who 
believes in socialism, I do believe in socialism.
    Mr. Cohn. You believe in socialism?
    Mr. Huberman. I do, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think works written by you should be used, 
purchased with the taxpayers' money and used in overseas 
information centers, the purpose of which is to give a true 
picture of our form of government to the people in Europe.
    Mr. Huberman. I say frankly, ``yes.'' I think that my 
responsibility as an author means that before I submit the 
final draft of a manuscript to a publisher, I must be content 
that it is true; that it is accurate; that it is sound 
scholarship and still is right. Once I have done that I stand 
behind the book, and at the risk of being immodest, if I can 
say that about a book, it is a good book.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not questioning that for one moment. This 
isn't a library. This is a specialized program to show our way 
of life to people overseas. You have told us frankly that you 
believe in a different form of government. I am asking you 
about this particular program.
    Senator Symington. You say you are a Socialist?
    Mr. Huberman. That is right,
    Senator Symington. What is that?
    Mr. Huberman. Socialism is common ownership of means of 
production and planned economy.
    Senator Symington. And elimination of all private property?
    Mr. Huberman. Not all private property but in means of 
production.
    Senator Symington. What do you think of the Korean War? Do 
you think it is our fault or the fault of the Communists? Who 
do you think is the aggressor?
    Mr. Huberman. I think, sir, that my feeling on that--We 
have written of that frequently in our magazine.
    Senator Symington. I haven't read what you wrote. I am 
asking you now what you think.
    Mr. Huberman. May I consult counsel?
    Senator Symington. Pardon me. What is your name?
    Mr. Siegal. My name is R. Lawrence Siegal.
    Senator Symington. You are the lawyer for this gentleman?
    Mr. Siegal. Yes. May I ask a question, Senator? May I 
consult with the witness?
    Senator Symington. Only at his request.
    What is the answer?
    Mr. Huberman. I was going to say that as I understand it, 
this hearing has to do with----
    Senator Symington. I asked a question and I would like to 
get an answer. Who do you think was the aggressor in Korea? I 
am trying to find out what he means by ``Socialist''--whether 
he is really a Communist or a Socialist.
    Mr. Huberman. I have answered the question of whether or 
not I am a Communist.
    Senator Symington. Who is the aggressor in Korea?
    Mr. Huberman. I say it is not a simple question to answer.
    Senator Symington. All right, we will take that as an 
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave the 
National Maritime Union?
    Mr. Huberman. I resigned in 1945 or 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you resign voluntarily or was your 
resignation requested?
    Mr. Huberman. Voluntarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any discussion as to whether or not you 
were a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. I don't remember any, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Joseph Curran?
    Mr. Huberman. Very well.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you not have any such discussions with him?
    Mr. Huberman. I don't remember any, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't remember any discussions with Mr. 
Curran prior to your resignation?
    Mr. Huberman. We had many.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they center around allegations that you were 
a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. Absolutely not, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever indicate that the views to which you 
adhered were harmful to the policy of the union?
    Mr. Huberman. We had a disagreement about the education 
program among other things.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he accuse you of trying to inject socialism 
and communism in the education program?
    Mr. Huberman. Frankly, I don't recall any of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Wouldn't you recall that?
    Mr. Huberman. That was a long time ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you report to room 318, please, right away.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Harvey O'Connor (1897-1987) worked in the 
logging camps of the Northwest and in 1918 became editor of the 
Seattle Daily Call, a Socialist newspaper. During Seattle's 
general strike in 1919, he was arrested for ``publishing matter 
tending to incite a breach of the peace,'' although the charges 
were later dropped. He then reported for the Federation Press, 
a labor news service, edited the Locomotive Engineers Journal, 
and published several muckraking exposes. From 1945 to 1948 he 
was publicity director for the Oil Workers International Union.
    O'Connor testified in public session later on July 14. Away 
from the subcommittee he denied having been a Communist, but he 
refused to answer any questions, citing his rights under the 
First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and of the 
press, rather than the Fifth Amendment. O'Connor described 
himself as ``an innocent bystander caught in a brawl'' between 
Senator McCarthy and the State Department.
    In October 1953, a federal grand jury in Washington 
indicted him for contempt of Congress, and on November 18, 
1953, he was convicted, fined $500, and given a one-year 
suspended sentence. The Appellate Court later reversed the 
sentence.]
                              ----------                              
                         TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m., in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, 
chief consultant; Karl Barslag, research director; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
   TESTIMONY OF HARVEY O'CONNOR (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       LEONARD B. BOUDIN)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, before taking the oath under 
protest, may I state my objection to the committee's 
jurisdiction?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. O'Connor. I would like to state my objection, first, 
under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The committee 
has no authority to look into my books or political beliefs, 
and if my writings have violated any laws, that is the proper 
subject for the law enforcement agencies and this committee is 
not a law enforcement agency.
    My second objection is under the constitutional limitations 
and under the powers of Congress and the committee--my books 
and writings and political views are of no legitimate concern 
to the committee.
    My third point, under statutes creating the committee, my 
writings and political views are of no legitimate concern to 
the committee.
    The Chairman. Then will you stand and take the oath?
    Mr. O'Connor. Under protest.
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. O'Connor. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Will counsel identify himself?
    Mr. O'Connor. Leonard B. Boudin.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. O'Connor, you have written certain books. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. O'Connor. That is correct but I object to the question 
on the grounds I mentioned.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. O'Connor. I object to the question on the grounds 
mentioned.
    The Chairman. Has it been established that Mr. O'Connor's 
books are being used in the information centers?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, it has.
    Mr. Cohn. Which books?
    Mr. Schine. We have a few here. The Astors, The 
Guggenheims, and The History of the Oil Workers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Harvey O'Connor, The Astors (A.A. Knopf, 1941); The 
Guggenheims: The Making of an American Dynasty (New York: Covici 
Friede, 1937); History of the Oil Workers International Union, CIO 
(Denver: Oil Workers International Union, 1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of these three books?
    Mr. O'Connor. I am the author but I object to the question 
on the ground I have already stated. It is not the proper 
concern of this committee.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you wrote these books were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    The Chairman. You will be entitled to refuse to answer the 
question only if you feel a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate you. That is the only ground under which you can 
refuse to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I feel that a truthful answer will not 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Then you will answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I have answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote these books, were you a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. O'Connor. I object to the question on the three grounds 
already stated.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I decline. How many ways do I have to phrase 
the damn thing?
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You may step down. You will stay under 
subpoena and remain here. Not only that, I will ask the 
committee to cite your client for contempt.
    Mr. Boudin. You understand that his answer was not based on 
self-incrimination. It was based on the grounds he stated.
    The Chairman. I just wanted to make sure you understood the 
grounds.
    Mr. Boudin. It may be the witness wants to add one more 
statement.
    The Chairman. You may step down.
    Mr. Boudin. I thought the witness might want to make a 
statement to you in further explanation of his privilege.
    The Chairman. We will hear no statement from him.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--Naphtali Lewis was a professor of 
classical studies at the City University of New York, teaching 
also at Columbia, Yale, and Boston universities. He specialized 
in deciphering and interpreting the oldest Greek manuscripts, 
called papyri, and was president of the International 
Association of Papyrologists. In April 1953, Lewis received a 
U.S. Educational Exchange Award, or Fulbright scholarship, to 
study ancient manuscripts in Florence. He testified in public 
session on June 10, and again with his wife, Helen Lewis, on 
June 19, 1953.
    During their public testimony, Helen Lewis invoked the 
Fifth Amendment, after which Senator McCarthy announced: ``Dr. 
Lewis, we have just been notified by the State Department that 
your job in Italy has been canceled; that you are not being 
sent there. I think that is an excellent idea.'' In a written 
statement that he filed with the committee, Professor Lewis 
asserted: ``Senator McCarthy has not inquired concerning my 
qualification as a scholar for a scholarly assignment. He 
appears to be interested in my Fulbright award only to the 
extent of inquiring into my political opinions and, what is 
even more astonishing, into my wife's politics, past as well as 
present. This inquisition, if it has its way, establishes a 
novel and singularly un-American principle; namely, that before 
a man is permitted to pursue a career of research--even in 
ancient manuscripts--he must have the stamp of approval of a 
congressional subcommittee on himself and his family.'']
                              ----------                              
                         WEDNESDAY MAY 20, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:00 p.m. in the Office of the 
Secretary of the Senate, Senator Henry M. Jackson presiding.
    Present: Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk; Mason Drury, Senate liaison officer, State 
Department.
                  TESTIMONY OF NAPHTALI LEWIS
    Senator Jackson. Will you rise and be sworn, please?
    Raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 
so help you God?
    Mr. Lewis. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name?
    Mr. Lewis. My full name is Naphtali Lewis.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you spell that first name?
    Mr. Lewis. N-a-p-h-t-a-l-i.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you are barking up the wrong tree, mister. 
The answer is ``no.''
    Senator Jackson. Before we proceed any further, you 
understand you have a right to counsel if you so desire.
    Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cohn explained that to me.
    Senator Jackson. I just wanted to make the record clear.
    Mr. Lewis. But since no one indicated, in summoning me 
here, that I was to be accused of anything, it never occurred 
to me.
    Senator Jackson. Do you desire to have counsel?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think I need one, no, sir. I have 
nothing but simple answers to simple questions, if that is all 
that is involved. Now, I am not a lawyer, and if we get into 
legalities----
    Senator Jackson. You may want to reserve the right?
    Mr. Lewis. I hope you will inform me of what my rights are, 
and so on.
    Senator Jackson. You understand that you have the right to 
refuse to answer any question if, in answering that question it 
may tend to incriminate you. That means that it may cause you 
to be a witness against yourself. Even though that tendency is 
slight, you have the right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse 
to answer if you conscientiously believe, if you believe in 
conscience, that to answer the question would tend to 
incriminate you, not in itself incriminate you, but tend to 
incriminate you. In that case, you have the right to refuse to 
answer.
    Mr. Lewis. I understand.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you have never been a 
Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at Brooklyn College?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know someone named David McKelvy White?
    Mr. Lewis. No, sir, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Alex Novikov?
    Mr. Lewis. Now, that is a name that I do know. Alex Novikov 
was at Brooklyn College in the biology department. I knew him 
slightly, but he has for a long time now not been in New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. A meeting?
    Mr. Corn. Yes, any kind of a meeting other than one 
connected with your official activities at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Lewis. My best recollection is ``no.'' I mean it would 
surprise me if I had. I just don't recall.
    Senator Jackson. You do not have any recollection as of 
now?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't have any recollection of having attended 
a meeting.
    Senator Jackson. Where he was present?
    Mr. Lewis. Where he was present. Well, now, wait a moment. 
If you mean where he was present in a large gathering of five 
hundred people or so, I can't answer for that.
    You mean where he was present to my knowledge?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. Where he was present to my knowledge. Unless it 
was some kind of social meeting, the answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anyone named Albaum?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, he is a member of the biology department 
now.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Lewis. I know him as a colleague.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended any meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. Not that I can recall, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I would not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists at Brooklyn 
College?
    Mr. Lewis. By the way, I could amend my answer on Albaum to 
say I have read in the paper about his testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you read concerning his testimony?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, he testified some months ago that he had 
been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. That was the first you knew of it?
    Mr. Lewis. This was all I know about Mr. Albaum's communism 
or anybody's. I have no direct knowledge of Communist activity 
or membership, since I have not been one myself and have not 
associated with such people, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Irving Goldman?
    Mr. Lewis. Who?
    Mr. Cohn. Irving Goldman.
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know him, though I know who he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Charlotte Robinson?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Her name is now Charlotte Jenkins.
    Mr. Cohn. That is right.
    Mr. Lewis. She works in the registrar's office.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know her?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, only as a person who works for the 
college.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meeting with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again, I don't know what you mean by 
``meeting.'' If you mean a Communist meeting, the answer is 
``no.'' I have never been to a Communist meeting, to my 
knowledge.
    But if you mean could she have been present at a faculty 
meeting where I was, the answer is that she could have been.
    Mr. Cohn. As I first told you, we were excluding meetings 
held in the course of official business.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. I had forgotten.
    Mr. Cohn. So that is out.
    Now, outside of that, did you ever attend any meeting with 
Charlotte Robinson?
    Mr. Lewis. To the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anyone named Pomerance, P-o-m-e-r-a-
n-c-e?
    Mr. Lewis. I know him slightly. He is in the philosophy 
department.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, to the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mrs. Pomerance?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. You are married, Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your wife's first name?
    Mr. Lewis. Helen.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again, if you knew my wife, it is really--
My wife is a wife and a mother, and she certainly is no 
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. No, my question was: Has she ever been a 
Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Has she ever been a Communist? Well, let me give 
you a very precise answer. Eleven years ago, when our first 
child was born, my wife ceased being a teacher, and since then 
she has devoted herself and concentrated on bringing up the 
family. She has been, since we have had a family, I would say, 
all that any man could want in a devoted wife and a devoted 
mother of his children.
    Now, before we began our family, my wife was a teacher.
    Mr. Cohn. You do have my question in mind?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, I am answering it in the fullest way I 
know.
    And in those years of her teaching activity, she was very 
active in teachers' organizations, teachers committees, and so 
on.
    Now, at that time, unlike the present, where we are a very 
quiet family and have no outside activities, she had many 
outside activities in which I did not share. Many times she 
would go off to meetings, and I would go to the library to 
work.
    Now, I am well aware of the fact that in those days, many 
teachers' activities were participated in by Communists and 
non-Communists alike, but I would want it demonstrated 
certainly to me that my wife was engaged in any Communist 
activity. Now, naturally, I don't know all of what she was 
engaged in those days, and frankly, I much less cared. That is 
the best answer I can give you.
    Senator Jackson. To your knowledge, is she or has she ever 
been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. To my knowledge, sir, the answer is ``no'' and 
the reason I say ``to my knowledge'' is that knowing that she 
was associated with all of these teachers outfits, and so on, I 
certainly urged her never to join up, and I have no reason to 
believe she disregarded my advice.
    Mr. Cohn. Your sworn testimony is that to your knowledge 
your wife was never a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. I have no reason to believe that she was, yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether she attended Communist 
meetings?
    Mr. Lewis. I cannot tell you, because----
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed that with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I remember that back in those days when 
she was a teacher, she discussed sometimes the meetings she 
attended, and I am fully aware of the fact that there must have 
been Communists at them.
    Senator Jackson. What meeting? Let us pinpoint this a 
moment. Let me first of all ask you when you were married. I am 
not asking this question to get into your personal affairs.
    Mr. Lewis. 1936.
    Senator Jackson. Now, the meetings you are talking about 
were subsequent to your marriage?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right. They would be from about '37 or 
'39 to the time when my wife quit all that, when her first 
child was born, beginning in '42.
    Senator Jackson. Now, between '36 and '42, you say your 
wife attended meetings?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. They were teachers union meetings.
    Senator Jackson. Was that the Teachers' Union?
    Mr. Lewis. That is the Teachers' Union of New York.
    Senator Jackson. And did the Communists dominate those 
locals, or the local she belonged to?
    Mr. Lewis. As you know, that has frequently been charged 
and possibly sustained. But in those days, if you recall, there 
was a kind of united front, and in those days the Teachers' 
Union, that is, in the late thirties, was a very large and 
respected organization, to which many of the teachers of New 
York City belonged, including for a time myself.
    Senator Jackson. Did you attend the meetings with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Teachers Union meetings, yes, but not these 
committee meetings and all these other things.
    Senator Jackson. What do you mean by ``committee 
meetings''?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, she was on committees of the union. She 
was editor of their newspaper for a time, and so on.
    Senator Jackson. Those were committee meetings set up by 
the union?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. It did not go beyond that?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, not to my knowledge, no; and I say, there 
are lots she went to that I never talked with her about.
    Senator Jackson. Did she ever talk to you about meetings 
being controlled by the commies, or anything like that?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think so. I remember that after a while, 
toward the forties, communism began to become an issue.
    Senator Jackson. An issue where?
    Mr. Lewis. In the Teachers Union. And then, of course as 
you undoubtedly know, the Teachers Union split up. It 
splintered into pieces. And that is when she dropped out and I 
dropped out, and so on.
    Senator Jackson. If she were a member of the Communist 
party and you were her husband, you certainly should know about 
it, should you not?
    Mr. Lewis. I certainly should, unless she chose to keep it 
secret from me.
    Senator Jackson. But she never discussed any membership?
    Mr. Lewis. Oh, yes. She discussed it. She discussed it in 
the sense that inevitably we had to, when communism became an 
issue. And I constantly warned her to keep clear of that.
    Senator Jackson. Now, explain that. You said you discussed 
the membership. You mean they asked her to join?
    Mr. Lewis. I shouldn't be surprised. Not to my 
recollection, did I ever ask her that confidence. I don't think 
I ever did.
    Senator Jackson. Are you sure?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I am just trying to recollect. You know 
this is fifteen years ago. That is my best recollection, sir.
    Senator Jackson. That they never asked her to join?
    Mr. Lewis. No, my best recollection is that we did not 
discuss that.
    Senator Jackson. You did not discuss that.
    Mr. Lewis. That is, in those specific terms. What I tried 
to convey before is that when the Teachers Union began to be 
attacked because of its Communist membership and alleged 
Communist domination, at that point I strongly advised her not 
to get involved in any of this.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position and the position of 
your wife on the Soviet-Nazi Pact in '39?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I really can only speak for my position I 
suppose, sir. I certainly regarded that as a disillusionment.
    Senator Jackson. At that time?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, and I still do.
    Senator Jackson. You opposed it?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I frankly neither opposed nor approved. I 
have no real major concern with these things.
    Senator Jackson. What was your wife's position on the 
subject?
    Mr. Lewis. I think it was mostly like mine. But, again, you 
see, we have not been a particularly political family, and we 
had no really profound or great political discussions. Her 
position used to be at any rate, in those days, slightly left 
of mine, and perhaps she had fewer reservations.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was she teaching then?
    Mr. Lewis. She was teaching at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. What was she teaching?
    Mr. Lewis. Psychology.
    Mr. Cohn. She was teaching psychology at Brooklyn College. 
And you taught philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I taught classical languages.
    Senator Jackson. Have you published any books?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, in the last years I have published three 
books, twenty articles in learned journals, over thirty book 
reviews.
    Mr. Cohn. For what have you written book reviews?
    Mr. Lewis. The Classical Weekly, Classical Journal, 
American Journal of Philology, American Historical Review, 
Classical Philology.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any connection with the exchange 
program of the State Department?
    Mr. Lewis. If you mean connection with anything in the 
State Department, no. But I have applied.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you applied?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, I have applied for an exchange fellowship.
    Mr. Cohn. Has there been any action on your application?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it accepted, or rejected?
    Mr. Lewis. It was accepted.
    Mr. Cohn. And when was that?
    Mr. Lewis. I believe the letter informing me of acceptance 
was dated April 30th last.
    Mr. Cohn. Just this past April 30th?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you supposed to go?
    Mr. Lewis. Italy.
    Mr. Cohn. And when?
    Mr. Lewis. The next academic year.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you supposed to? Teach over there?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I was supposed to do research in the 
library.
    Mr. Cohn. In what city?
    Mr. Lewis. Florence.
    Mr. Cohn. On classical subjects?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right, and decipherment of the oldest 
Greek manuscripts known, which is my specialty.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your wife going to accompany you over there?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this. There are 
some other witnesses we want to hear on the subject of Mr. 
Lewis, and we were anxious to talk with Mrs. Lewis. I was going 
to suggest that we adjourn for the afternoon, and maybe Mr. 
Lewis would want to consult counsel. I would feel better about 
it if he did. And we would like Mr. and Mrs. Lewis to be down 
on Monday afternoon, if that is agreeable, at 2:30.
    What room would that be, Ruth?
    Mrs. Watt. If the Senate is in session, we could come over 
here. But we could get room 101.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us make it room 101.
    Mr. Lewis. Room 101 where?
    Senator Jackson. Senate Office Building.
    Mr. Lewis. At 2:30 p.m., next Monday.
    Senator Jackson. On Monday the 25th, this coming Monday. 
Just one last question. Do you have any recollection of 
belonging to any organization cited by the attorney general as 
subversive?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I don't. As I said, I am not an organization 
man, myself.
    Senator Jackson. You are not a joiner?
    Mr. Lewis. I am not a joiner. I belong to only two or three 
professional associations, like the American Philological 
Association, Phi Beta Kappa, and the International Association 
of Papyrologists, which is my specialty, and I believe that is 
all.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your wife's maiden name?
    Mr. Lewis. Helen Block, B-l-o-c-k.
    Mr. Cohn. Was she teaching under her married or maiden 
name?
    Mr. Lewis. Both, I think. I think after she was married she 
used her married name.
    Mr. Cohn. Could I get your street address?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. 245 West 101st Street.
    Mr. Cohn. And your phone is Academy----
    Mr. Lewis. 2-4424.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know what organizations your wife 
might have belonged to?
    Mr. Lewis. I certainly----
    Senator Jackson. If you do not know, do not say so.
    Mr. Lewis. No, I would have no way of knowing, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, would you produce that April 30th 
letter when you come down on Monday?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And any other correspondence you had. I assume 
you had to make some kind of application.
    Mr. Lewis. I can't produce the application, because they 
have it.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't retain a copy of it?
    Mr. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. We can get that from them. And who did you 
give as references on that application?
    Mr. Lewis. The dean of Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Lewis. His name is William Gaede, G-a-e-d-e, Professor 
C. Bradford Welles, W-e-l-l-e-s, of Yale, and Professor James 
H. Oliver, of Johns Hopkins.
    Mr. Cohn. All right, sir. And anything else, any 
correspondence you have had with them of which you have copies, 
in other words, your file. That was James C. Oliver?
    Mr. Lewis. James H. Oliver.
    Mr. Cohn. Johns Hopkins?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Oh, yes. There were four. And Professor 
Meyer Reinhold, M-e-y-e-r of my own department. They asked for 
one reference from my own department.
    Mr. Cohn. And then your whole file on that. And, as I say, 
and as Senator Jackson explained, you have a right to consult 
with counsel. He will not be allowed to participate in the 
proceedings, but may accompany you, and if at any time you or 
your wife desires to confer with him in privacy, you have that 
right, and I would suggest that you procure counsel.
    Mr. Lewis. All right. You make it sound very serious.
    Mr. Cohn. If it weren't serious, we wouldn't trouble you to 
come down here.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, my record is an open book. There is 
nothing in it I am ashamed of or that any American would not be 
proud of.
    Senator Jackson. Do you have anything you would like to 
say? You understand, the question was asked: if you are or ever 
have been a member of the Communist party. And you have been 
very frank about it. You say you have never belonged.
    And obviously, the committee would like to ask the same 
question of your wife when she comes.
    Mr. Lewis. Naturally.
    Mr. Cohn. So you have an idea about what the questions will 
be about. I am not saying that it is limited to that, on 
Monday, but I am sure you understand that some question has 
been raised about whether your wife was a member of the 
Communist party or is now.
    Mr. Lewis. I gather that, and I think I have answered that 
to the best of my ability. I understood also from Mr. Cohn that 
there was an accusation made that I was a Communist. I believe 
you said that.
    Mr. Cohn. No, I didn't say that. But I say you have a right 
to assume it is a very serious matter, and if we weren't acting 
on the basis of other testimony, we wouldn't trouble you to 
come down here.
    Mr. Lewis. Didn't you say before that there were witnesses 
before me?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I said we were going to talk to other 
witnesses, that we had heard witnesses and we would be talking 
to some other witnesses. There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. Lewis. All right.
    In matters of this kind, do you assign or recommend 
counsel, or is that something I do on my own?
    Senator Jackson. I would suggest, as a lawyer myself, that 
I would get competent counsel, to make sure that you are 
advised of all your rights. The committee does not recommend 
any particular counsel, but I think that from your own 
standpoint it is wise to have counsel. The fact that you have 
counsel does not create any inference that your case is any 
more serious than anybody else's, nor does it create any 
inference of guilt of anything. That is your American right, 
and the decision as to whether you obtain counsel is entirely 
up to you. But I would volunteer the statement that it is 
usually a pretty wise thing to do.
    Mr. Lewis. Bring counsel with me to the next hearing?
    Senator Jackson. Yes. But you understand, the committee is 
not requesting you to bring counsel.
    Mr. Lewis. I understand. It is a recommendation, shall we 
say.
    Mr. Cohn. It is just a step for your protection.
    Senator Jackson. I am merely trying to be fair to you in 
saying that for your own protection it might be a wise thing. 
You will be released, then, from the subpoena until Monday.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I haven't received any subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. You were asked to come down. That is the same 
thing under the Senate rules.
    Mr. Lewis. The girl who phoned me said very specifically I 
was not being subpoenaed.
    Mr. Cohn. As long as you receive some formal notification, 
that is the equivalent of a subpoena.
    Senator Jackson. You will be under subpoena until released 
by the committee, and the committee will then notify you. This 
constitutes a subpoena under the rules.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I am not interested so much in the legal 
technicalities. I understand you want me and my wife here on 
Monday afternoon.
    Mr. Cohn. At 2:30.
    Senator Jackson. Monday, the 25th of May.
    Mr. Lewis. At the room that I jotted down.
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the hearing was recessed until 
2:30 p.m., Monday, May 25, 1953.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--The actress, director and producer 
Margaret Webster (1905-1972) was born in New York City while 
her British father, actor Ben Webster was performing on 
Broadway (her mother was the actress Dame May Whitty), and as a 
result held dual British and American citizenship. Moving back 
to New York from London in 1937, Webster was elected to the 
board of the Actors' Equity Association in 1941. With Eva Le 
Gallienne she founded the American Repertory Theatre in 1945, 
and from 1948 to 1951 she directed the Margaret Webster 
Shakespeare Company. In 1950, her name appeared in Red 
Channels, a private listing of radio, television and stage 
actors, writers, announcers and directors alleged to have 
belonged to left-wing organizations. She was blacklisted in 
radio and television, although she remained active on stage.
    In her memoir, Don't Put Your Daughter on the Stage (New 
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), Webster described being 
subpoenaed to testify before the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations. She felt no need to invoke the Fifth Amendment, 
she wrote, since she had ``nothing to tell or refuse to tell.'' 
But her attorney repeatedly impressed on her the importance of 
never saying ``no'' when asked if she had attended a meeting or 
subscribed to a cause. She was instructed to answer ``I cannot 
remember doing so,'' ``not so far as I can recall,'' and ``to 
the best of my recollection, no.'' This, her attorney advised, 
was because ``Two witnesses could easily be produced to say 
yes, you did or yes, you had and a suit for perjury was in 
order.'' Margaret Webster was not called back to a public 
hearing.
    Helen B. Lewis testified publicly on June 19, and Naphtali 
Lewis on June 10 and 19, 1953.]
                              ----------                              
                          MONDAY, MAY 25, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:30 p.m. in the Office of the 
Secretary of the Senate, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. 
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, 
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, 
Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine, 
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury, 
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN B. LEWIS (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, MURRAY 
                           WEINSTEIN)
    The Chairman. Will you rise and be sworn, please? Raise 
your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mrs. Lewis. I do.
    The Chairman. Who is your counsel?
    Mr. Weinstein. Murray Weinstein, 37 Wall Street, New York 
City.
    The Chairman. You can confer with your lawyer at any time 
you care to at any time during the testimony. Under the rules 
of the committee, counsel is not allowed to take a part in the 
proceedings except to freely advise his client whenever he 
cares to.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Lewis, you are the wife of Naphtali Lewis, 
is that right?
    Mrs. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And Mr. Lewis is a professor at Brooklyn College?
    Mrs. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And he has been elected under the State 
Department Exchange Program to go abroad?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you planning to accompany him?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a teacher in the school system at 
New York?
    Mrs. Lewis. I taught at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question under 
the privileges afforded me by the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party while 
teaching at Brooklyn college?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question under 
the privileges afforded me by the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. Are you now a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party last 
year?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What date will you assert a privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment and what date will you deny membership?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Two years ago were you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. Three years ago were you a member?
    Mrs. Lewis. I was not a member of the Communist party two 
years ago. Three years ago I was not a member of the Communist 
party.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist three years ago?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, Senator, the use of the word Communist is 
very loose.
    The Chairman. You seem to distinguish between membership 
and being a Communist.
    Mrs. Lewis. Very frequently the word Communist is used as 
quoting anybody you disagree with.
    Senator Jackson. Using the definition following Communist 
programs and policies, then would you answer the question?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am not a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    Senator Jackson. The chairman asked you if you were a 
Communist three years ago, and I defined a Communist as 
following the program and policies of the Communist party. Were 
you following the policies adhering to the party line of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, there might be some things such as 
housing or----
    The Chairman. May I ask the witness a question? Will you 
define what in your mind is Communist?
    Mrs. Lewis. In my mind a Communist is an enrolled member of 
the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. How about one who follows the program in 
every respect but doesn't pay the dues?
    Mrs. Lewis. I think when you get into the question of 
definition of people's beliefs, opinions and sympathies, you 
get into questions which simply cannot be answered.
    Senator Jackson. If you walk like a duck, sit like a duck, 
quack like a duck, must you not be a duck?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Senator Symington. Wouldn't it save the committee's time 
and save your being in open session by answering the question. 
I can see this has distressed you a little bit, but wouldn't it 
save the Committee's time and your time to give us the year you 
left the Communist party?
    Senator Jackson. Let me rephrase the question. Would you 
give us a year when you would be willing to say you were not a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question. If you 
had asked me about a specific year.
    Senator Symington. I suggest you ask her as she says, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. In 1950 were you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. In 1949 were you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1948?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. In 1947?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. 1940?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. In 1935?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. 1930?
    Mrs. Lewis. In 1930, sir, I was roughly seventeen years 
old.
    The Chairman. The Young Communist League?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1931?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer on the ground that if 
you give a truthful answer, the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Lewis. No, sir. As I understand it no such inference 
can be drawn.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer.
    Mrs Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer or I shall ask that 
you be held in contempt.
    Senator McClellan. Maybe we are moving too rapidly. I 
suggest that you ask the question again.
    The Chairman. The question is: in 1931 were you a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1932?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1933?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1934?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Are you declining on the ground that if you 
told the truth, gave a truthful answer that answer might tend 
to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am declining under the protection of the 
Fifth Amendment which says that I may not be a witness against 
myself.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse to answer the 
question only if you feel a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate you. I am asking you if that is the reason you 
decline to answer the question.
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. Just 
so you understand, we must determine whether you are entitled 
to refuse to answer the question under the Fifth Amendment. You 
are only entitled to refuse to answer my question if you feel 
an honest answer might tend to incriminate you. If you refuse 
to answer that, I am not going to threaten you, but for your 
own information, if you do not I will ask the committee to cite 
you for contempt. You may consult with counsel?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, then, I will answer your question that if 
I answer the question it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. And you feel if you gave a truthful answer it 
might tend to incriminate?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Today would you say that you feel sympathetic 
towards the Communist philosophy?
    Mrs. Lewis. Senator, that is a question now that is asking 
about my opinions and beliefs, is that right?
    The Chairman. I think you understood the question. The 
question is: Are you now sympathetic to Communist philosophy?
    Mrs. Lewis. There are some things in the Communist 
philosophy that I am not particularly sympathetic with.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us those things in the Communist 
philosophy you are not sympathetic with?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, there have been certain world events 
which certainly make it appear as if there is a possibility of 
conflict between the United States, for instance, and the 
Soviet Union. I am a loyal and patriotic American.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you will get back to the 
question. What part of the Communist philosophy are you not in 
sympathy with. You are entitled to refuse to answer.
    Mrs. Lewis. I don't see what particularly--what might be 
incriminating in my beliefs.
    The Chairman. May I say, just for your information, if you 
were really an American citizen, we would not be concerned with 
your beliefs. You could believe anything. However, in view of 
the fact that there has been testimony concerning you and your 
husband before another committee--your husband has been 
selected at considerable expense to the taxpayers to a rather 
important position. For that reason we are curious to know 
whether you are still a believer in communism or not. You are 
going on this trip, you see. Otherwise we are not checking 
whether you believe in the Communist cause. I ask you again--
what part of the Communist philosophy do you disagree with?
    Mrs. Lewis. If I follow your reasoning, it stems from my 
husband's selection for the student exchange. I fail to see 
where my beliefs are relevant to his selection.
    The Chairman. I order you to answer the question unless you 
refuse to answer it on the grounds that your answer might tend 
to incriminate you. Will you answer that question, Mrs. Lewis?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, as I have already begun to indicate--
although let me say, as I said before, that I think my beliefs 
are entirely irrelevant to my husband's selection for the 
Student Exchange Program.
    The Chairman. Have you gotten a passport yet?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. You haven't gotten your passport yet?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. What part of the Communist philosophy do you 
disagree with?
    Mrs. Lewis. Let me begin with the beginning of my answer 
for the record. I wish the record to indicate that my beliefs--
that questions of my opinions are irrelevant to my husband's 
Fulbright scholarship. If you want to know about my opinions 
and direct me to answer you as to what part of the Communist--
what was it again?
    The Chairman. You said you disagree with some part of the 
Communist philosophy.
    Mrs. Lewis. I do not believe in philosophy that allows 
aggressive action against other states, for instance.
    Senator Symington. What was that?
    Mrs. Lewis. I do not believe in aggressive action. I 
believe that is wrong.
    Senator Jackson. You believe aggressive action is wrong?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you believe that 
Communists are wrong now in taking aggressive action against 
other states. You believe the Communists are wrong in Korea?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir. I think it has been demonstrated that 
the first moves were made by the North Koreans, and in the 
light of that, I am opposed to aggressive action as a solution 
to international problems.
    Senator Potter. Do you oppose the persecution of the Jewish 
people in the Soviet Union?
    Mrs. Lewis. I certainly do. I have been against 
discrimination all my life.
    The Chairman. Would you favor a Communistic form of 
government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am inalterably in favor of our democracy.
    The Chairman. I will ask you again. Would you be opposed to 
a Communist form of government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. In 1947 were you opposed to a Communist form 
of government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    The Chairman. Has your husband ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. Now, Senator McCarthy, on advice of counsel, I 
am not going to answer any questions about my husband as I 
believe such questions would be an invasion of the sanctity and 
privacy of our marriage.
    Mr. Cohn. Sir, I believe that only includes confidential 
communications. In other words, confidential communications to 
her which were given in the capacity as his wife. There is no 
such thing as an absolute privilege between husband and wife. 
It only applies to confidential communications. She cannot 
assert a general statement that she is not going to answer any 
questions about her husband.
    The Chairman. I think you are right, Mr. Cohn----
    Senator McClellan. I am inclined to think it would be 
rather difficult to separate confidential communications from 
others.
    Senator Symington. I agree with that.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, suppose they attended meetings.
    The Chairman. I think you are strictly right on the rule, 
Roy, but I am inclined to agree with Senator McClellan that you 
can't tell whether they are confidential communications or not.
    Did you attend Communist meetings in 1948?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1947?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    Senator McClellan. I will ask you if you attended Communist 
meetings in 1946 or 1947 with your husband?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. On the ground of self-incrimination?
    Senator McClellan. I would like to ask a question of the 
committee here. I am a little bit lacking in background on this 
thing. Has her husband been questioned by this committee or any 
other committee?
    The Chairman. Yes, he was questioned by Senator Jackson. 
Before further questioning he decided he wanted counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn and myself strongly advised him 
that he should consult counsel.
    Senator McClellan. I feel this way about it. The husband is 
available and he is seeking benefit of this government and I 
think we should ask him questions directly.
    The Chairman. As far as I am concerned, we have finished 
with you, Mrs. Lewis. May I say, you are asking for a passport 
to go overseas. We have many fine people who have been in the 
Communist party who have decided communism was evil and they 
have dropped out of that party and are very fond of America 
now. If you have been a member of the party and, if you think 
that was wrong--if you dropped out of the party and you would 
care to tell us about that and tell us why, I assume that is 
something that the State Department would be interested in 
before granting a passport. I doubt very much that a passport 
will be granted to someone, to go overseas and represent us as 
your husband will be teaching in the exchange program. I doubt 
very much if they will give you a passport unless you come in 
and tell us about your activity in the party--if and when and 
why you left the party.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, you have asked the 
question that I was going to talk about. The chairman has 
proved his belief in that position by having an ex-Communist on 
the staff of this committee. I am only telling you what is now 
a matter of record. It seems if you say you are a good 
American, and in effect have admitted you were a member of the 
Communist party, it would be far better for you if you said you 
had been a member and felt it was wrong based on subsequent 
thinking, and inasmuch as you feel you are a good American--
looking at you and listening to you and certainly you are out 
of it now--if I had anything to do with giving you a passport, 
I would be glad to see you get one. On the other hand, if you 
come up here and say that you are a good American and take 
refuge through a lot of legal ``claptrap'' behind the Fifth 
Amendment, do you think the people of this committee will 
approve of your getting a passport to go out of the United 
States while you might have reason for not admitting anything 
about it. I think you are making a mistake. I think you are 
doing yourself an injustice from listening to you.
    Mrs. Lewis. I thank you for your interest in my welfare, 
but I, myself, do not agree with all the interpretations that 
you put on my testimony and my exercise of the Fifth Amendment, 
as this is something that I have thought about and do intend to 
do.
    Senator Symington. One more point. In regard to not 
answering questions concerning your husband, you might be 
interested to know that in my opinion you have already 
testified while I have been here at length against your 
husband--if you are interested in his future.
    Senator Jackson. I would like to supplement Senator 
Symington's statement. The general tenor of the questions will 
come up in connection with your passport and would have come 
up, and I think that it is a matter that you ought to give 
fuller consideration to. Maybe you will want to come back and 
discuss it with the committee.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Senator Jackson. You don't believe or advocate the 
overthrow of this government by force and violence?
    Mrs. Lewis. I certainly do not. Never have. I certainly do 
not believe in force and violence. I believe in the democratic 
solution.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever believed in it--the 
utilization of force to change our government here in the 
United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am a peaceful person, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Then, if you have never believed in such 
force and violence to achieve that end, you can answer the 
question. It might be well to keep the record straight,
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. You realize you will have to take a 
position in a public hearing----
    Mrs. Lewis. I am going to if I have to.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lewis, you may be excused now. You are 
still under subpoena and you will be notified when you are to 
appear.
                  TESTIMONY OF NAPHTALI LEWIS
    The Chairman. Professor Lewis, you have previously been 
sworn by the acting chairman of the committee, Senator Jackson?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are reminded that you are still under 
oath.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    The Chairman. You understand that you can freely discuss 
any matter with your counsel at any time you care to?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I understand that the hearing adjourned the 
other day so that you could obtain counsel. Mr. Cohn, will you 
proceed.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, you were in here Friday and you have 
counsel now.
    Mr. Lewis. Wednesday.
    Mr. Cohn. You have obtained counsel and had a chance to 
confer with counsel, is that right?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. I have never been a member of the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist? I am not 
referring to party membership.
    Mr. Lewis. The word Communist is bandied about today so 
much----
    Senator Jackson. Let's let the witness define it. How would 
you define a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Sir, I hardly know how. Perhaps you would be 
interested in something that happened in my presence in the 
last half year. I was riding on a bus and two men got into an 
argument as to whom pushed whom. One party got off the bus and 
the parting shot of the other one was--yelled, ``Oh, you 
Communist.'' These days the word Communist is used to describe 
anybody they disagree with.
    The Chairman. We are not interested in the different 
definitions of the users--not interested in something you heard 
on the bus.
    Mr. Lewis. My definition of a Communist is a person who is 
a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. How about a person who is not a formal 
member but believes in each and every principle of the 
Communist party, but does not hold a formal party membership. 
Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I don't know if there are such people.
    Senator Jackson. I am asking you the question assuming 
there are such people.
    Mr. Lewis. Is that a hypothetical question?
    Senator Jackson. If a person believes in all the principles 
of the Communist party that apply to formal membership, is he a 
Communist under your definition?
    The question I put, Mr. Chairman, assuming that an 
individual believes in the principal objectives and aims of the 
Communist party but is not a formal member of the party, is he 
a Communist under your definition?
    Mr. Lewis. Under my definition? You mean of a moment ago? 
My definition was a member of the Communist party. You have 
given me a hypothetical question. You wish me to respond not in 
terms of my definition but as I interpret your question--Well, 
I suppose such a person could be called a Communist with a 
small ``c.''
    The Chairman. Would you answer that question?
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever been one who has believed in 
accordance with my hypothetical question?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I have not.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever attended Communist meetings, 
Professor?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever believed in or espoused the 
Communist cause--Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again perhaps if you specify what you mean 
by Communist philosophy.
    Senator Jackson. Use your definition?
    Mr. Lewis. No, sir, I have not.
    Senator Jackson. What is your definition of the Communist 
philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. My definition of the Communist philosophy. 
Senator, I am no expert on the philosophy of the Communist 
party. I suppose----
    Senator Jackson. You say you never believed in or espoused 
the philosophy of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not. There might have been certain 
doctrines held by the Communists that I approve of.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, I am advised by counsel that for 
questions to be put to me concerning my wife is an invasion of 
the sanctity and privacy of our marriage and I must refuse to 
answer questions concerning my wife.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with your wife?
    Mr. Lewis. You have asked a question concerning my wife. I 
must refuse on advice of counsel to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question. 
You are entitled to refuse to answer any questions concerning 
any private communications between yourself and your wife. That 
is interpreted very broadly. However, when asked whether or not 
you attended a Communist meeting with your wife--that is not a 
confidential communication. Have you ever attended Communist 
meetings with your wife at which people other than you and your 
wife were present?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, may I consult with counsel, please?
    Senator, I will state here and now, I have never knowingly 
attended any Communist party meeting whatever.
    Senator Jackson. With or without your wife?
    Mr. Lewis. I have not knowingly attended any Communist 
party meeting.
    Senator Mundt. May I inquire why you inject knowingly?
    Mr. Lewis. Had I known it was a meeting of the Communist 
party----
    Senator Mundt. Have you attended meetings where when you 
left the meeting you had knowledge that it was a meeting of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. No. I have not attended a meeting that I knew 
was a meeting of the Communist party after I left.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended a meeting which you 
subsequently had reason to believe was a meeting of Communist 
party members or a meeting for the purpose of recruiting 
members of the party?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Then your testimony is at this time that you 
are of the opinion that you have never attended a meeting 
called by the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. To the best of my recollection, ``no.''
    The Chairman. To the best of your recollection ``no.''
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Lewis. Counsel informs me that he thinks the question 
is covered by the marital privilege.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to tell when you were 
married. It is not a confidential communication.
    Senator McClellan. That is a matter of public record.
    Mr. Lewis. I was married in 1946.
    The Chairman. To your present wife?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. And you have been married all that time--
ever since--to her?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    The Chairman. Roy, have you any further questions?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, you deny that you ever believed in 
communism for the United States?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, of course, you have not defined what you 
mean by communism. I have been given a hypothetical question. I 
certainly do not hold the view that there is any better form of 
government for the United States than the liberal American 
democracy.
    Mr. Cohn. And you never held an opinion contrary to that? 
Have you ever thought communism would be better? Have you ever 
advocated communism? Have you ever belonged to the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not.
    Senator Jackson. I think I asked you previously at the last 
meeting of the committee whether you have ever belonged to any 
organization listed by the attorney general to be subversive?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. I believe I told you at that time I 
had not. As far as I know, I believe that is a correct answer. 
I have not examined the attorney general's list, but the reason 
I would think my answer is correct is that I have never 
belonged to other than professional organizations.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a person can be a Communist 
and at the same time a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. There again it depends on what you mean by a 
Communist.
    The Chairman. A member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you are way out of my line. I am a 
professor of Greek and Latin. I really don't know that I have 
any concrete opinion on that.
    The Chairman. You don't have any opinion as to whether a 
member of the Communist party could also be a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. It would seem to me that the American tradition 
of liberalism would permit a man to hold opinions ranging from 
the extreme right to the extreme left.
    Senator Symington. Do you know that the Communist party 
advocates the overthrow of the United States by force and 
violence.
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know it. If it is so dedicated, I would 
be, with my entire being, opposed to it.
    Senator Symington. Would you like to correct your testimony 
then that if it is true that the Communist party is dedicated 
to the overthrow of the American system of government by force 
and violence you do not think a good American could be a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, I don't see that the second follows 
entirely from the first.
    The Chairman. Let me rephrase the question. If you don't 
know it, we can inform you that the Communist party is 
dedicated to the overthrow by force and violence----
    Mr. Lewis. I am certainly opposed to that.
    The Chairman. If that is true, any member of that 
organization cannot be a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. That I don't know.
    Senator Symington. If membership in the Communist party 
involves being a member of an organization that is dedicated to 
the overthrow of the American form of government by force and 
violence, can you have membership in the Communist party and be 
a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. If membership means dedicated to the overthrow 
of our government----
    Senator Symington. Not dedicated--being a member of the 
Communist party which advocates the overthrow of our government 
by force and violence.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you see, Senator----
    Senator Symington. It is beginning to look as if your 
reason for evading the question is that somebody close to you 
might be a member of the Communist party. As to whether it is 
you or not, I don't know.
    Mr. Lewis. I resent the implication.
    Senator Symington. Well, I resent your attitude too. I am 
getting a little tired of your ducking and dodging. We are 
trying to make the questions very straight and simple. The 
chairman asked you if you felt a member of the Communist party 
could be a loyal American. That is what I remember, and you 
felt it was all right for anybody to hold any political views. 
After that I asked you if you knew that the Communist party 
advocates the overthrow of the American system of government by 
force and violence and you get into a lot of languages instead 
of saying ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Lewis. I cannot answer that question.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Lewis, you are an intelligent man and 
certainly, I assume you read the newspapers even though you are 
engaged in teaching classical studies at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Aren't you aware of the fact by now that a 
person who is a member of the Communist party not only believes 
in the advocacy of force and violence to achieve that end in 
the United States, but above that owes loyalty to the Soviet 
Union?
    Mr. Lewis. You asked me if I was aware of it. I am 
certainly aware of what has appeared in newspapers and aware 
that this is the prevalent view.
    Senator Jackson. Now, you are aware of the events that have 
taken place since the end of World War II, namely the first 
move of the Soviet Union into Greece, threatening violence in 
Turkey, and I assume you are also aware of Czechoslovakia and 
what happened to Communists in that country. Can there be any 
doubt that a member of the Communist party in this country is 
in the international conspiracy and is strongly disloyal to 
this country?
    Mr. Lewis. I am certainly opposed to every one of the acts 
of aggression.
    Senator Jackson. Just answer the question.
    Mr. Lewis. The reason I cannot answer your question--at the 
end you seem to me to presuppose that I know what a member of 
the Communist party in this country is supposed to do?
    Senator Jackson. Aren't you pretty much convinced what they 
are supposed to do?
    Mr. Lewis. I know nothing of Communist affairs. If you ask 
me about events of the day, I will be perfectly willing and 
happy to do that, but if you ask me to make a judgment that is 
based on knowledge which I do not have, I don't see how I can 
do that.
    Senator Jackson. Listen, Mr. Lewis, you have been selected 
to go abroad and while you are, undoubtedly well-informed in 
the classics and very able to teach, responsibility of the 
Student Exchange Program entails broad responsibilities of 
citizenship above and beyond books.
    What about American Communists? Are they loyal?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know. I haven't made a personal 
examination of American Communists, so, therefore, I can't say.
    Senator Jackson. They may be all right?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think I said that.
    Senator Jackson. That is the effect of your testimony. 
Isn't that the effect of your testimony? You are saying because 
you don't have personal knowledge of the Communist movement in 
the United States, you can't answer the question. As an 
intelligent citizen you know, or should know, if you don't, 
that there is a Communist conspiracy in the world. Three-
fourths of your tax dollar is paying for defense. I don't see 
how you can qualify for a scholarship and go overseas to Italy, 
as you have been selected to go, without knowing something more 
than the classics.
    The Chairman. I don't think we should refer to the exchange 
program as the Fulbright Scholarship. The people will connect 
it with Senator Fulbright. I think we should refer to it 
whenever it appears in the record as the Student Exchange 
Program.
    Senator Mundt. Do you think a man who holds Communist 
beliefs is a suitable man to work for the federal government?
    Mr. Lewis. Under present conditions of world affairs I 
don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think, Professor, that a man who holds 
Communist beliefs is a suitable man to teach on a college or 
university faculty publicly supported?
    Mr. Lewis. There, sir, you have touched on one of the moot 
questions of the day. There is much argument about the 
question.
    Senator Jackson. You don't mean it is ``moot.''
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know that I know what the word means?
    Senator Jackson. Legally it means a judicial issue that 
doesn't exist--a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Lewis. I think the word ``moot'' has a non-legal sense, 
which I was applying to it, Senator, that this is an issue 
which is very much discussed these days.
    The Chairman. Counsel asked you a very simple question. He 
asked you whether Communists should be allowed to teach in 
colleges.
    Mr. Lewis. I have not made up my mind. Senator Taft says 
they should, and the Board of American Universities and 
Colleges say they should.
    The Chairman. The American Association of Universities has 
taken the position on one side and the American Association of 
University Professors has taken a position on the other side.
    Mr. Lewis. I am quoting the American Association of 
University Professors.
    The Chairman. Do you think a man who holds Communist 
beliefs should be granted an American passport to travel 
abroad?
    Mr. Lewis. What do you mean Communist beliefs?
    The Chairman. Communist sympathies?
    Mr. Lewis. If his purpose is innocent, a man who is an 
American citizen and has broken no laws is entitled to 
protection of an American passport----
    The Chairman. Your answer to the question would be ``yes.''
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, provided conditions are met--he hasn't 
broken any laws.
    Senator Potter. A man can be a member of the Communist 
party and not break any laws at present. He can be an active 
member of the Communist party and not break any laws. Is that 
your opinion regarding a passport whether he abided by the laws 
of our country?
    Mr. Lewis. I may be wrong, but my understanding of a 
passport is that it provides protection to American citizens 
who travel abroad.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you two or three questions. If a 
person came before a committee and he refused to tell whether 
she was a member of the Communist party, whether she had broken 
with the party, refused to tell whether she believed in our 
form of government or it should be destroyed by force and 
violence, on the ground that if she answered the question, such 
answer might tend to incriminate her, refused to give names of 
fellow members-Let's say that person was the wife of a 
professor to go overseas and teach in the Student Exchange 
Program, would you say that person should be given a passport 
to go overseas and hold that position of a professor 
representing the United States.
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, if your question refers to my wife in 
any respect----
    The Chairman. Just answer the question. It you don't 
understand I will have it re-read to you.
    Mr. Lewis. Is it a hypothetical question or a real 
question?
    The Chairman. It is exactly as I asked it.
    Mr. Lewis. I will ask to consult with counsel.
    As I analyze your question, it does not seem to me that you 
have given any indication of breaking any of our laws and as 
long as people do not break our laws, I do not see why they are 
not entitled to an American passport.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say a person that refused 
to tell whether they were a member of the Communist party, 
refused to identify fellow members, refused to tell whether 
they advocated the overthrow of the government by force or 
violence--you think such a person should be given a passport?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, such a person invokes a privilege from 
which, as I understand it, no inferences are permissible.
    The Chairman. Have you gotten your passport yet?
    Mr. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. You are under subpoena and will be told when 
to return.
    Mr. Lewis, would you turn over the correspondence we asked 
you to produce concerning your selection as an exchange 
student?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Will this be returned?
    The Chairman. You have handed counsel letter dated April 
20, 1953; carbon copy of letter dated April 27, 1953; original 
letter dated April 24, 1953; April 22, 1953; another memorandum 
dated February 26, 1953; letter dated February 17, 1953; one 
dated May 2, 1952; and one dated 28 April 1952. Is it your 
testimony that this is the only correspondence you have had 
with anyone regarding your selection in this exchange program?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. We have nothing further. We will notify your 
counsel when you are to return.
  TESTIMONY OF MARGARET WEBSTER (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                         SIDNEY DAVIS)
    The Chairman. The witness will be sworn.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Miss Webster. I do.
    The Chairman. And you have counsel?
    Miss Webster. Yes, Mr. Sidney Davis.
    The Chairman. Miss Webster, one of the rules of the 
committee is that you are allowed to discuss with your counsel 
any matter you care to during the hearing, and get advice when 
you care to. If at any time you want to have a private 
conference we will give you a private room.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, do you have any connection with the 
exchange program of the State Department?
    Miss Webster. Through the Fulbright Scholarship Division, 
International Institute of Education, I have done adjudication.
    Mr. Cohn. Just how does that work?
    Miss Webster. It is worked slightly differently in the four 
or five years in which I have been connected with them. I 
wouldn't absolutely swear whether it was four or five. I think 
when their representatives first came to me--I say I think four 
years--they were only beginning to develop their program of 
drama students, their program of interchanging so far as 
concerned theatre drama students. They came to me--David 
Warlinger, who seemed to be the head of that division--asking 
my opinion and advice as to selection of an already selected 
number of students who had made application to go overseas in 
the drama field. I think only the acting field. He gave me a 
folder and information on a number of candidates. I don't 
remember the number, it may have been ten or twenty. None of 
them were actually already there in New York at that time. 
There happened to be one who I had adjudicated in a different 
connection and had recommendations about and I recommended her. 
I don't remember whether I recommended any others. The 
following two years thought--it could conceivably have been 
three--I only entered into the proceedings at the last stage as 
far as adjudication is concerned. I had nothing to do with the 
selection process of candidates. I was present when they 
selected candidates, a dozen or so--acting only, not designers 
or any others--when they appeared personally to audition for 
the judges. I was one of approximately four judges. This past 
season, around December, I sat in with a jury of four people, 
including myself, to go through and rate the various selected 
material on the students which was presented by the institute 
people.
    I also attended the acting auditions. This year I attended 
both those selection sessions and also the acting auditions. 
The final selection, as I understand it, was made by--I don't 
know--the central committee over all actors, whatever it is.
    All that we have ever been asked to do is rate the 
candidates according to our view of their ability and turn this 
material and our recommendations back to the institute. In 
fact, as I remember, I have not been officially informed of 
what their final decisions were. I have in instances grown to 
know that. I don't think officially information has been 
returned to the jurors.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you currently connected with the program?
    Miss Webster. No, because there is nothing to do right now. 
The selection of candidates was done in December and January. 
What they asked me to do was done during those months.
    Mr. Cohn. And it won't arise again until next year?
    Miss Webster. Next December or January. Whether or not they 
will ask me----
    Mr. Cohn. Were you denied a passport for security reasons?
    Miss Webster. No, sir. It was questioned. I went to the 
passport office and answered all the questions they cared to 
ask me and I have a passport.
    Mr. Cohn. When was it issued?
    Miss Webster. May 12th, or some approximate date of that 
sort.
    Senator Symington. Are you a naturalized American citizen?
    Miss Webster. I was born in New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, have you belonged to a considerable 
number of Communist-front organizations?
    Miss Webster. I have never belonged to any organization 
which I knew to be influenced or dominated by Communists. I 
would be very glad to answer any questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a sponsor of the Committee for the Re-
election of Benjamin J. Davis, candidate for the Communist 
party in New York?
    Miss Webster. I have no recollection of it.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn, do you have a date?
    Mr. Cohn. December 25, 1945, it was reported in the Daily 
Worker that Margaret Webster was a sponsor for the reelection 
of Benjamin J. Davis.
    Miss Webster. To the best of my recollection on that, sir, 
at that time Mr. Davis was already a member of the city 
council, as far as my recollection goes, and he came forward 
with some scheme connected with the----
    Mr. Cohn. What we want to ascertain is whether or not you 
were of sponsor of this committee?
    Miss Webster. May I finish, sir? My recollection is that 
Mr. Davis came out for municipal support for a theatre in New 
York and that scheme was endorsed by a number of people in the 
theatre field, including myself. I have no further recollection 
than that.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection that it went beyond 
that? You are not telling us you didn't sign it? Was he running 
on the Communist party ticket?
    Miss Webster. Of that, sir, I have no recollection 
whatsoever.
    Had I known that, I would not have endorsed such a 
certificate.
    Senator Jackson. He has subsequently been convicted of 
teaching and advocating the overthrow of the government of the 
United States. Was he running on the Communist party ticket?
    Mr. Cohn. He was running on the Communist party ticket and 
the Communist party ticket alone.
    Mr. Davis. I am not sure that Mr. Davis, who is no relative 
of mine by the way, was on the city council prior to that and 
had been elected on some other ticket.
    Mr. Cohn. I will say this, Mr. Davis, he was the Communist 
party candidate, period, at the time it was reported by the 
Daily Worker that Miss Webster was a sponsor for his 
reelection.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Miss Webster. No, sir, at no time nor am I now.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, it is our information that you 
contributed financially to Peoples Radio Foundation, which is 
officially cited as a subversive organization by the attorney 
general.
    Miss Webster. I will tell you that to the best of my 
recollection on that. The year, again, I would take to be the 
end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945. I received a 
communication from the--was it the ``Peoples Radio 
Foundation''--which described objectives of establishing a 
radio station for public service program outlets for trade 
unions, radio, etc., which would not be carried by big 
networks. They solicited support and foolishly very soon 
afterwards I agreed to take a share of stock. They then asked 
me if I would belong to the committee or board of directors, 
which I refused to do. I had no further connection with them 
whatsoever. I don't think I ever received the share of stock. 
Very soon after that it became clear to me that it was in the 
nature of a gyp.
    Mr. Cohn. The records show that you endorsed and were a 
stockholder of this foundation.
    Miss Webster. That is the extent of my recollection. My 
recollection is very clear that they asked me to join the board 
of directors and I categorically refused to do so. I think I 
have had no further communications about it.
    Mr. Cohn. The certificate indicates that you were a 
stockholder.
    Miss Webster. That I have told you about, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the American Committee for 
the Protection of the Foreign Born?
    Miss Webster. I was never a member of that committee, sir. 
No.
    Mr. Cohn. Has it ever been called to your attention that 
the Daily Worker published on February 10, 1944, a greeting to 
the women of the Soviet Union, which was signed by you and 
sponsored by the American Council of American-Soviet 
Friendship?
    Miss Webster. No, sir, I remember nothing like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the Joint Anti-Fascist 
Refugee Committee?
    Miss Webster. I was never a member. I did make several 
fund-raising appeals for them for objectives which were 
entirely humanitarian and charitable. I was never a member of 
the board or committee or any such thing.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever connected with the Spanish Refugee 
Relief Committee? Specifically, we have a letter on which you 
are listed as a national sponsor, which was February 26, 1946. 
That is the date which the letter containing your name appears.
    Miss Webster. If it was part of the Joint Anti-Fascist 
Refugee Committee. I have no recollection of that event or 
date. It is not inconceivable. What was I supposed to have 
done?
    Mr. Cohn. National sponsor.
    Miss Webster. It is conceivable that I was solicited. I 
know that appreciably later--I wouldn't be certain of the 
year--two or three years later--I received a letter from the 
Spanish Refugee Appeal on which I saw that my name was then 
listed as a sponsor, the contents of which letter appeared to 
be political in character, something pertaining to Franco. I 
wrote to them at that time and stated that I had not given them 
permission to use my name and I had no sympathy, no political 
objective of that nature and would appreciate their withdrawing 
my name.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you connected with the American Committee to 
Save Refugees?
    Miss Webster. The American Committee to Save Refugees? I 
don't recognize that title at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a sponsor of the National Conference of 
Civil Rights held in Chicago November 21 to November 23, 1947, 
as reported in the Daily Peoples World on November 28th?
    Miss Webster. I have no recollection of that. If you want 
me to amplify any connections I may have had I think one time I 
made a donation to it, possibly more, for specific cases for 
which it didn't appear to me to have any connections with 
communism, nor did I know that it was Communist infiltrated or 
influenced. The answer that I made to that appeal were for 
specific cases, which appeared to me to be laudable and in no 
way blameworthy.
    I think that I must also say that I was insufficiently 
familiar with the workings of the organization and for a long 
time I confused it completely with the American Civil Liberties 
Union.
    Sometime in the beginning of 1948 they wrote to me and 
asked me to become a member of their board of directors, which 
I refused to do. At that time I think the Communistic 
tendencies were becoming apparent.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you have any participation in an article 
concerning you, which was a biography published in the Daily 
Worker on March 26, 1944, magazine section?
    Miss Webster. None whatsoever. I don't think I ever had a 
copy in my hand over once in my life. I never read it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Margaret Markham?
    Miss Webster. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the first you have heard concerning that 
article?
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir. If I may add to that, there was one 
time a supposed article published under my name in the New 
Masses, which was brought to my attention and which I bitterly 
protested. It was solely about the theatre.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you extend greetings to actors of Moscow, a 
telegram, November 1, 1948, as listed in the Daily Worker?
    Miss Webster. I should think it extremely doubtful because 
at the time I had connection with the Theatre Committee of the 
National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was during the 
years 1945 and the beginning of 1946, from which I resigned in 
the middle of 1946. I would think it very, very doubtful that 
as late as the end of 1948 I would have signed such a telegram.
    Mr. Cohn. You see the difficulty is that we have all these 
things listed here and you answer that you might have or it is 
doubtful----
    Miss Webster. I don't think that it is quite so. I have 
given you a number of things to the best of my recollection and 
specific details in a number of instances.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let's get back to the sponsorship of the 
Communist party candidate in 1945.
    Miss Webster. I think I never could have given that 
sponsorship in that form. I have told you that Mr. Davis was 
sponsoring a theatre scheme for New York City. I think all of 
this passed through the Independent Citizens Committee. I 
cannot believe I ever endorsed his candidacy as the authorized 
Communist party candidate running on the Communist party ticket 
alone, which you tell me took place.
    Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about it.
    Now, were you a sponsor of a dinner for the American 
Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born on April 17, 
1943, held in New York, at which the chairman or sponsor was 
Donald Ogden Stuart?
    Miss Webster. I must answer you under oath, and I have no 
recollection of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Donald Ogden Stuart?
    Miss Webster. I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Miss Webster. I don't know whether or not he is a 
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the National Council of 
American-Soviet Friendship?
    Miss Webster. That is the council to which I referred. I 
have never been a member of the board. I was chairman of the 
Theatre Committee at the time when Dr. Serge Koussevitsky was 
chairman of its Music Committee.
    Mr. Cohn. The Daily Worker of March 23, 1942, reported a 
speech by you before the American Committee to Save Refugees. 
Do you recall that?
    Miss Webster. You asked that before. That is about a 
specific speech. I have no recollection of that organization, 
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you speak at the United American Spanish Aid 
Committee at any time?
    Miss Webster. Unless it was in some way part of the Joint 
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, for which I did make an appeal 
for funds, humanitarian actions.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know the organization was Communist 
dominated at that time?
    Miss Webster. No, I would like to say that in connection 
with all these organizations which you have asked me about, the 
only two with which I had any connection to signify in any way 
was the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, which I 
said I was chairman of the Theatre Committee, and the Joint 
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, for which I made appeals for 
funds for charitable purposes on several occasions--I would say 
during, 1943 to 1947. I am very willing to elaborate the 
reasons why I did that.
    I would like to state now that I, myself, did none of those 
things through any influence on me of Communists or communism 
and that to my knowledge, and as far as I was aware, those 
organizations were not at that time dominated or used for 
Communist purposes and the reasons for which I was connected 
with them was not for Communistic purposes.
    Senator McClellan. As I gathered from your testimony, it is 
not a part of your regular duties to pass on and approve 
applicants for this Exchange Student Service for the Fulbright 
Scholarship?
    Miss Webster. No, sir. My understanding is that the 
relevant committee--the International Institute of Education--
invites experts in the different fields to pass on the 
qualifications of applicants in the different fields. I could 
give you some of the names of the people who have been 
associated with me.
    Senator McClellan. Primarily, you were only called in in 
the theatre field, is that right?
    Miss Webster. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. You have not had responsibility for or 
an assignment to pass upon student applicants other than in 
that area?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You would not be asked to pass on 
teachers?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. As I understand it, the judges or the 
jurors, as you called them, hear an audition from the 
applicant, then you report with your recommendations as to what 
the jury or the judges conclude with respect to their talent 
and possible suitability, etc.
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. What number would you say Miss Webster, 
you have----
    Miss Webster. As I told you, Senator, this past year, 
December 1952 and January 1953, the pattern was a little 
different because we sent through the, I think, already sifted 
applications, but I would say there may have been--we met for 
three sessions of approximately two to three hours each. I 
suppose at each session we went over the applications of about 
twenty to twenty-five candidates. Maybe that is putting it a 
little high. I would say not over twenty. Other years I have 
been only present at the acting auditions, which was only a 
further process of sifting and there were only perhaps a dozen.
    Senator McClellan. Then in your position you haven't had 
the final decision to make as to whether applicants are 
accepted or rejected?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. That has not been your responsibility at 
any time--only to act in an observing capacity and submit 
recommendations?
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever join any of these groups 
knowing at the time that they were Communist fronts or 
dominated by the Communist party?
    Miss Webster. At no time, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever expressed at any time 
Communist sympathy or sympathy with the Communist movement?
    Miss Webster. I have always been opposed to the Communist 
philosophy, its practices. It is a horror to me. In such a 
society I wouldn't last a week.
    Senator Jackson. And you feel that you are loyal to this 
country in every respect?
    Miss Webster. I must affirm again my complete American 
loyalty and I have done nothing I can look back upon with 
shame. I have done many things, as I started to tell Mr. Cohn, 
such as work for the Red Cross and Treasury Bond Drives, from 
which I hold awards. I have helped organizations and 
committees, the Iron Curtain Refugee thing.
    Senator Jackson. What is that?
    Miss Webster. That is the society to take care of the 
people who get out from behind the Iron Curtain. I have had no 
connection with the workings but I have made contributions. The 
American Veterans and Gold Star Wives.
    Senator Jackson. Do you feel from the reading of the record 
that you might have been taken in by some of that group?
    Miss Webster. I couldn't deny that possibility.
    I think that everybody who has ever known me and worked 
with me, my theatre record and my record in public life, would 
know that I would be the last person in the world to 
countenance communism. No person has ever admitted to me that 
they were a Communist. I think if they were Communists at the 
time I was working for them, such Communistic tendencies were 
carefully and deliberately concealed.
    Senator Jackson. And you have never knowingly associated 
with anyone you know to be a Communist?
    Miss Webster. I never have, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn----
    Senator McClellan. While I have been here the witness has 
been very frank with no reservations that I could see.
    Senator Jackson. I sort of have the feeling you may have 
been taken in by some of the groups. I want to say with Senator 
McClellan that I think you have been very forthright and very 
fair in trying to answer the questions.
    Miss Webster. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did I ask you about the Civil Rights Congress?
    Miss Webster. I refused to join the board. I did make one 
or two contributions. When they asked me to join them, I 
refused to.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you sign a letter prepared by the Civil 
Rights Congress attacking the Subversive Control Act of 1948, 
which letter was published with your signature in the Daily 
Worker?
    Miss Webster. I would think that extremely doubtful.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you object to the Subversive Control Act?
    Miss Webster. Which was the Subversive Control Act? There 
were so many of them.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all, Miss Webster.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--The composer Aaron Copland (1900-1990), 
whose works included Billy the Kid, Lincoln Portrait, Rodeo, 
and Appalachian Spring, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1944 and an 
Academy Award in 1950. Because he had gone to Italy on a 
Fulbright scholarship in 1951, the subcommittee questioned him 
about his past political associations. His oral history, 
published as Aaron Copland and Vivian Perlis, Copland, 1900 
through 1942 (New York: St. Martin's, 1984), and Copland Since 
1943 (New York: St. Martin's, 1989) acknowledged that he had 
been a ``fellow traveler'' in the 1930s because ``it seemed the 
thing to do at the time,'' but stated that he had never joined 
a political party.
    Following the closed hearing, Copland issued a public 
statement: ``On late Friday afternoon, I received a telegram 
from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to 
appear as a witness. I did. I answered to the best of my 
ability all of the questions which were asked me. I testified 
under oath that I have never supported, and am now opposed to, 
the limitations put on freedom by the Soviet Union. . . . My 
relationships with the United States Government were originally 
with the Music Advisory Committee to the Coordinator of Inter 
American Affairs and later as a lecturer in music in South 
America and as a Fulbright Professor. In these capacities my 
work was limited to the technical aspects of music.'' The 
subcommittee never called him to testify in public. Aaron 
Copland received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964 and 
a Congressional Gold Medal in 1986.]
                              ----------                              
                         TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:30 p.m. in the Office of the 
District Committee, the Capitol, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine, 
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury, 
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
TESTIMONY OF AARON COPLAND (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, CHARLES 
                            GLOVER)
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Copland. I do.
    The Chairman. And your counsel's name?
    Mr. Copland. Charles Glover. G-l-o-v-e-r.
    The Chairman. Mr. Glover, I think this is the first time 
you have appeared as counsel before this committee, so I will 
tell you the rules of the committee. You can advise as freely 
as you care to with your client. You can discuss any matter he 
cares to during the testimony. If at any time you feel you want 
a private conference, we will arrange a room. Counsel is not 
allowed to take any part in the proceedings other than to 
consult with his client.
    Mr. Copland, you are residing at----
    Mr. Copland. Shady Lane Farm, Ossining, New York.
    The Chairman. And you are a musician, composer and 
lecturer?
    Mr. Copland. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever had any connection with the 
exchange program?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, I have.
    The Chairman. Would you tell us what that connection has 
been?
    Mr. Copland. I was connected with the program on three 
different occasions, I believe. The first occasion I was a 
member of the Music Advisory Board of the State Department, and 
on the second occasion I was sent by Grant-in-Aid to Latin 
America to give lectures and concerts about American music, and 
on the third occasion I was a Fulbright professor in Italy for 
the same purpose.
    The Chairman. When were you a lecturer in Italy?
    Mr. Copland. 1951.
    The Chairman. Now, Mr. Copland, have you ever been a 
Communist?
    Mr. Copland. No, I have not been a Communist in the past 
and I am not now a Communist.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Copland. I am not sure that I would be able to say what 
you mean by the word ``sympathizer.'' From my impression of it 
I have never thought of myself as a Communist sympathizer.
    The Chairman. You did not.
    Mr. Copland. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Copland. I never attended any specific Communist party 
function of any kind.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Copland. I am afraid I don't know how you define a 
Communist meeting.
    The Chairman. A meeting you knew then or now had been 
called by the Communist party and sponsored by the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Copland. Not that I would know of. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting of which a 
major or sizable number of those in attendance were Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Did anyone ever discuss with you the 
possibility of your joining the Communist party?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. I know that every man has a different type of 
memory, so we can't ask you to evaluate your memory. Would it 
seem logical that were you asked to join the Communist party, 
you would remember?
    Mr. Copland. If I had been asked to? Not unless it had some 
significance in my mind.
    The Chairman. So your answer at this time is that you can't 
say definitely whether you have been asked to join the 
Communist party or not?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Are any of your close friends Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you know any members of the Communist 
party who are Communists?
    Mr. Copland. I don't know any member of the Communist 
party, as far as I know.
    The Chairman. I may say one of the reasons you are here 
today is because of the part you played in the exchange program 
lecturing, etc., and you have a public record of association 
with organizations officially listed by the attorney general. 
As the Communist party record is extremely long, I think 
counsel will want to ask you some questions on that.
    May I give you some advice. You have a lawyer here. There 
are witnesses who come before this committee and often indulge 
in the assumption that they can avoid giving us the facts. 
Those who underestimate the work the staff has done in the past 
end up occasionally before a grand jury for perjury, so I 
suggest when counsel questions you about these matters that you 
tell the truth or take advantage of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, I would like to say now, I 
received a telegram to be here Friday. The telegram gave me no 
hint as to why I was coming. If I am to be questioned on 
affiliations over a period of many years it is practically 
impossible without some kind of preparation to be able to 
answer definitely one way or another when I was and what I was 
connected with. This comes as a complete surprise.
    The Chairman. May I say that during the hearing if you feel 
you need more time for preparation, we will adjourn and give 
you that time. We have no desire whatsoever to have the witness 
commit perjury because of lack of preparation. If you feel you 
can't answer these questions concerning your Communist 
affiliations, Communist connections, if you need more time, we 
will give you more time.
    Mr. Copland. May I say one more word. I came here with the 
intention of answering honestly all the questions put to me. If 
I am unable to do that, it is the fact that memory slips in 
different ways over a long period of time.
    Mr. Cohn. The record states that you signed a letter to the 
president urging the United States declare war on Finland. This 
statement was sponsored by the Council of American-Soviet 
Relations.
    Mr. Copland. Is that a fact. Do you know when that was?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know if you signed such a statement?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that. I can't say 
positively.
    Mr. Cohn. This was during the trouble between the Soviet 
Union and Finland. That would be in the late thirties.
    Mr. Copland. I am sorry but I couldn't say positively. It 
seems highly unlikely.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your view on the trouble between the 
Soviet Union and Finland?
    The Chairman. May I rephrase that, Roy. Did you feel at 
that time we should declare war on Finland?
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, I am in no position--I spend 
my days writing symphonies, concertos, ballads, and I am not a 
political thinker. My relation has been extremely tangent.
    The Chairman. We want to know whether you signed this 
letter to the president urging that we declare war on Finland--
whether you are a musician or not. We now find that you are 
lecturing with the stamp of approval of the United States 
government and we would like to check on these things. This is 
one small item. There is a long record of apparent Communist 
activities. Now you say you don't remember signing the letter.
    Just to refresh your memory, may I ask, did you feel at the 
time the letter was signed by you that we should declare war on 
Finland?
    Mr. Copland. I would say the thought would be extremely 
uncharacteristic of me. I have never thought that the 
declaration of war would solve, in my opinion, serious 
problems. I would say I was a man of hope for a peaceful 
solution.
    The Chairman. Do you think someone forged your name?
    Mr. Copland. I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Have you heard before that you signed such a 
letter?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. This is the first time it has been brought to 
your attention?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know.
    The Chairman. You have no recollection of such a letter to 
the president?
    Mr. Copland. I have no recollection of it.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings at which 
this matter was the subject of conversation?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I remember,
    Mr. Cohn. What was your view of the Hitler-Stalin Pact--
1939 to 1941?
    Mr. Copland. I don't remember any specific view of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You are listed as a sponsor of the Schappes 
Defense Committee. Morris Schappes, as you might recall, is a 
teacher at City College, New York, and has been a witness 
before this committee in the last couple of months. He denied 
Communist party membership, was convicted of perjury and 
sentenced to jail. The Schappes committee was organized to 
secure his release from jail. You are listed as a sponsor of 
that committee. Do you recall that?
    Mr. Copland. No, I do not recall that. I know they use the 
names of well-known men to support their cause without 
authorization.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall the Schappes case?
    Mr. Copland. Vaguely.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever met Professor Schappes?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think they used your name without your 
authorization?
    Mr. Copland. I think it very possible.
    The Chairman. Did you authorize the use of your name by any 
organization that has been listed by the attorney general or 
the House Un-American Activities Committee?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know, I lent my name to 
organizations which were subsequently listed. I don't know now 
that I lent it in any cases after it was listed.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, a listing of the date does not signify 
the date it became subversive. A listing is made on the basis 
of past activities of the organization. If the attorney general 
lists an organization in September 1948, it doesn't mean that 
was when it was found subversive. It means that on that date a 
review of the activities of the organization was completed and 
found to be subversive.
    Mr. Copland. I didn't necessarily know about that.
    Mr. Cohn. What organization did you sponsor, allow to use 
your name, contribute to or help in any way who were then or 
were subsequently listed by the attorney general as Communist 
fronts?
    Mr. Copland. I would have to refer to my papers. May I say 
that I have never been shown by any official committee of any 
sort or questioned about this list. I heard about it through an 
inadvertent source. I haven't had the time or possibility of 
knowing whether it is complete. I did it rather hastily since 
Friday. I can't say positively.
    The Chairman. Give us what you have and you can complete it 
later on.
    I may say that I can understand a man who has got to depend 
upon the government for part of his income to have accepted a 
job with the government, perhaps knowing he had joined these 
front organizations, but it seems you have none of these 
qualifications and have been rather active in a number of these 
fronts.
    Do you care to give us the list?
    Mr. Copland. I think, Senator McCarthy, in fairness to me 
and my activity in relation to the Department of State, it was 
not primarily a financial relationship. I think that I was 
chosen because I had a unique position in American symphonic 
and serious music and I had a reputation as a lecturer on that 
subject. I, at any rate, was under the impression that I was 
chosen for that purpose. The payment was not the primary 
consideration. I was trying to help spread in other countries 
what we American composers were doing.
    Senator McClellan. Were you employed by the federal 
government--by the State Department?
    Mr. Copland. I believe it was in the program of interchange 
of persons. I don't know if that is an employee----
    Senator McClellan. Were you paid by the government?
    Mr. Copland. I was paid by the Department of State 
interchange of persons.
    Senator McClellan. Over what period of time?
    Mr. Copland. Are you referring now to the non-paid advisory 
capacity?
    Senator McClellan. Give us both. I want to get both in the 
record.
    Mr. Copland. I was a member of the Advisory Committee on 
Music, Department of State between July 1, 1950 and June 30, 
1951.
    Senator McClellan. Did you receive any pay for that?
    Mr. Copland. No. Except the per diem expenses.
    Senator McClellan. How much was the per diem?
    Mr. Copland. My memory may not be right. I think it was 
about $10.00 a day.
    I was also a member of the same advisory committee from 
September 8, 1941 to June 30, 1942. I was also a music advisor 
to Nelson Rockefeller's committee when he was coordinator of 
Inter-American Affairs and that music advisory post was renewed 
to June 1943. As far as I know, that was the end of the music 
advisory capacity.
    Senator McClellan. Did you receive a salary?
    Mr. Copland. No. That was not a government job.
    I was appointed visiting lecturer on music in Brazil, 
Argentina, etc., by the Grant-In-Aid at a salary of $500.00 a 
month over a period of three months around August or September 
of 1947.
    Senator McClellan. Was that plus expenses?
    Mr. Copland. I can't quite remember. It may have been per 
diem expenses when traveling.
    Senator Mundt. You did secure traveling expenses for that?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. And per diem also?
    Mr. Copland. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. What was the per diem?
    Mr. Copland. It may have been eight or ten dollars a day. 
My compensation was $500.00 a month.
    I was given a Fulbright professorship for six months to 
Italy from January to June of 1951 at a salary of $3,000 for 
six months, plus transportation to and from.
    Senator Mundt. Did you get $3,000 from the State Department 
or the difference between what the Italian University paid you 
and what you received over here.
    Mr. Copland. I was paid by the embassy in Rome. I wasn't 
attached to the university. I was attached to the American 
Academy in Rome and they housed me, but I was paid at the 
embassy itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have a security clearance before you 
undertook this?
    Mr. Copland. One that I knew about, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have to fill out a form prior to 
receiving this appointment?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. None at all.
    Mr. Copland. I am not sure there were none at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go under Public Law 402, the Smith-Mundt 
Bill?
    Mr. Copland. No. I knew of the bill, of course.
    The Chairman. Could I ask you now about some of your 
activities. As I said, according to the records, you have what 
appears to be one of the longest Communist-front records of any 
one we have had here.
    Is it correct that you signed some statement to President 
Roosevelt defending the Communist party?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that but I may have.
    The Chairman. Was that your feeling at that time? Did you 
feel the Communist party should be defended?
    Mr. Copland. Well, it would certainly depend on what basis. 
For example, if someone wanted to have them outlawed to go 
underground, I might have. I don't think they should be 
outlawed to go underground, but left above board.
    The Chairman. This is not outlawing the Communist party. 
This is a statement defending the Communist party.
    Mr. Copland. I would certainly have to have further time to 
study the letter, the nature of the letter and what I remember 
about it.
    May I say the list I got from the Congressional Record, 
almost all of these affiliations have to do with sponsoring of 
something, the signing of protests, or the signing of a 
statement in favor or against something, and that in this 
connection, if I had them or didn't have them, I say in my mind 
they are very superficial things. They consisted of my 
receiving in the mail in the morning a request of some kind or 
a list of names, which I judged solely on its merits quite 
aside from my being able to judge whether that was a Communist 
front. I must say that when I first saw this list I was amazed 
that I was connected with this many things. I consider this 
list gives a false idea of my activities as a musician. It was 
a very small part of my existence. It consisted of my signing 
my name to a protest or statement, which I thought I had a 
right to do as an American citizen.
    The Chairman. You have a right to defend communism or the 
Communist party--Hanns Eisler or anything else. You have a 
perfect right to do it, but the question is why were you 
selected as a lecturer when you exercised that right so often.
    Let me ask you this question. Before you were hired as a 
lecturer to tour South America, did anyone ask you to explain 
your membership in or sponsorship of these various Communist 
front movements?
    Mr. Copland. No, and I think the reason was that they were 
too superficial. No one took them seriously, and I think they 
were justified in not taking them seriously. In view of my 
position in the musical world and a teacher in the musical 
world, most people would think they would know whether or not I 
was a Communist. The question never came up.
    The Chairman. Would you give us that list?
    Mr. Copland. May I first, Senator, amend a prior answer I 
gave in regard to a petition to declare war on Finland. It 
occurred to me that I did have knowledge of that. I read it in 
the Congressional Record. It had no date as to when it was 
signed or any particular information as to what went into the 
petition, therefore, I am afraid I just ignored that I had seen 
it.
    The Chairman. Now, give us that list.
    Mr. Copland. In order to help matters, could I have the 
list read from there so I could give you my list.
    The Chairman. You give us your list first.
    Mr. Copland. This is only a summary.
    The Chairman. You won't be cut off. You can take all the 
time you want.
    Mr. Copland. I can only definitely say that I was a member 
of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship during 
the years that the Soviet Union was an ally in the war and for 
some years thereafter, I don't have the precise date. I joined 
the Music Committee of that Council of American-Soviet 
Friendship in order to help an understanding between the two 
countries through musical interchange. It was in no way, as far 
as I was concerned, a political move. At that time I had no 
knowledge that the National Council of American Soviet 
Friendship was a Communist front. I do know that subsequently 
it was solicited by the attorney general, and on the basis of 
that I formally resigned.
    The Chairman. How did you resign?
    Mr. Copland. By letter.
    The Chairman. Do you have a copy?
    Mr. Copland. I may have.
    The Chairman. You don't have a copy with you?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    Senator Mundt. What date was that?
    Mr. Copland. That was, I believe, June 1950.
    The Chairman. It was cited long before that.
    Mr. Copland. Was it? I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know when it was cited? I gather you 
resigned because you found it was cited. Is that correct?
    Mr. Copland. That is my recollection of events, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you resign as soon as you heard it was 
cited?
    Mr. Copland. Well, there was some question in my mind as to 
whether or not I was still a member because the Music Committee 
resigned as a body--at any rate they left and set up their own 
organization--the American-Soviet Music Society.
    The Chairman. When was this set up?
    Mr. Copland. The exact date escapes me. It was probably 
1945 or 1946.
    The Chairman. Can you give us the next front?
    Mr. Copland. May I emphasize again----
    The Chairman. Will you read them and then you can explain 
your participation in each one, the source also and the date. 
Give us the names of the organizations and then you can give us 
any explanations you care to. If you care to have me read them, 
I will. Hand me the list of fronts. [reading:]
    1. The American League of War and Fascism
    2. Advisory Board of Frontier Films
    3. Entertainer at the American Music Alliance of Friends of 
the Abraham Lincoln Brigade
    4. Entertainer of New Masses Benefit
    5. Sponsor New York Committee for Protection of the Foreign 
Born
    6. Signer, Petition American Committee for Democracy and 
Intellectual Freedom
    7. Signed Statement to FDR Defending the Communist party
    8. Signer of appeal for Sam Darcy, National Federation for 
Constitutional Liberties
    9. Sponsor, Citizens Committee for Harry Bridges
    10. Sponsor, Artists Front to Win the War
    11. Sponsor, letter for Harry Bridges by the National 
Federation of Constitutional Liberties
    12. Dinner Sponsor of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee 
Committee
    13. Sponsor, Called Conference of American-Soviet 
Friendship, National Council American Soviet Friendship
    14. Signer, Reichstag Fire Trial Anniversary Committee
    15. Signed petition for Hanns Eisler
    16. Eisler Concert sponsor
    17. Member, National Committee, National Defense of 
Political Prisoners
    18. Member, Committee of Professional Group for Browder 
Fund
    19. Member, National Committee of People's Rights
    20. Vice-Chairman and Member of the Music Committee, 
Council of American-Soviet Friendship
    21. Peoples Songs
    22. Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, 
Professions
    23. Win the Peace Conference
    24. American-Soviet Music Society
    25. New Masses contributor
    26. National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions
    27. Supporter, Communist Bookstore
    Senator Mundt. Was that list prepared by you?
    Mr. Copland. No, I did not prepare that list. I copied that 
list from Red Channels and the Congressional Record in an 
attempt to have some kind of preparation in coming to this 
committee so as to know what possible organizations my name had 
been connected with.
    Senator Mundt. It is not your testimony that this list is 
your list of fronts which you belonged to----
    Mr. Copland. Definitely not.
    The Chairman. It is not?
    Mr. Copland. No. An