[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 c