Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Investigation of Communist activities in Seattle, Wash., area. Hearings, Part 3
Author: Activities, United States Congress House Committee on Un-American
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Investigation of Communist activities in Seattle, Wash., area. Hearings, Part 3" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



Libraries.)



  INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE
  SEATTLE, WASH., AREA--Part 3

  HEARINGS
  BEFORE THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
  FIRST SESSION

  JUNE 1 AND 2, 1955

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities

  INCLUDING INDEX

  [Illustration]

  UNITED STATES
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
  62222 WASHINGTON: 1955



  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

  UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, _Chairman_
  MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri       HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois
  CLYDE DOYLE, California           BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York
  JAMES B. FRAZIER, JR., Tennessee  DONALD L. JACKSON, California
  EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana        GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio
                 THOMAS W. BEALE, Sr., _Chief Clerk_



CONTENTS


                                                           Page
  June 1, 1955, testimony of Jeremiah Joseph O’Connell      502

  June 2, 1955, testimony of Jeremiah Joseph O’Connell      547

  Index                                                       i



PUBLIC LAW 601, 79TH CONGRESS


The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter
753, 2d session, which provides:

    _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, * * *


PART 2--RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


RULE X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

    17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.


RULE XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

    (q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.

    (A) Un-American activities.

    (2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or
    by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time
    investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of
    un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the
    diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American
    propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a
    domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government
    as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in
    relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial
    legislation.

    The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session)
    the results of any such investigation, together with such
    recommendations as it deems advisable.

    For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on
    Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized
    to sit and act at such times and places within the United States,
    whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has
    adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such
    witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents,
    and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any
    subcommittee, or by any member designated by any such chairman,
    and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or
    member.



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 84TH CONGRESS

House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955

       *       *       *       *       *


RULE X

STANDING COMMITTEES

    1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each
    Congress, the following standing committees:

       *       *       *       *       *

    (q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.

       *       *       *       *       *


RULE XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

    17. Committee on Un-American Activities

    (a) Un-American Activities.

    (b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or
    by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time,
    investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of
    un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the
    diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American
    propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a
    domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government
    as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in
    relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial
    legislation.

    The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session)
    the results of any such investigation, together with such
    recommendations as it deems advisable.

    For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on
    Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized
    to sit and act at such times and places within the United States,
    whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has
    adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such
    witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents,
    and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any
    subcommittee, or by any member designated by such chairman, and may
    be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member.



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA--Part
3


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1955

  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,
  _Washington, D. C._


PUBLIC HEARING

A subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m. in the caucus room,
Old House Office Building, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde
Doyle, and Harold H. Velde.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, counsel.

Mr. MOULDER. The subcommittee will be in order, please.

Let the record show that the Honorable Francis E. Walter, chairman,
Committee on Un-American Activities, pursuant to the provisions of
law creating this committee, appointed Representatives Clyde Doyle,
of California, Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, and myself, Morgan M.
Moulder, of Missouri, as chairman of a subcommittee to conduct this
hearing. All the members of the subcommittee are present.

The hearing today is a continuation of the hearings initiated in
Seattle on June 14, 1954, and resumed in Seattle on March 17, 1955.

The purpose of the hearings in Seattle was to discover the activities
of the Communist Party in the Pacific Northwest area, the extent of
Communist infiltration in that area, and the methods resorted to by the
Communist Party in the accomplishment of its objectives in that area.

Two outstanding witnesses were heard: Mrs. Barbara Hartle, during
the hearings of June 14, 1954, and Mr. Eugene V. Dennett during the
hearings of March 17, 1955. It is the hope of the committee that the
witness to be heard today will throw additional light on the subject of
this inquiry.

Today’s witness was subpenaed to appear before the committee at the
March 1955 hearings in Seattle, but due to illness was not heard at
that time.

Mr. Tavenner, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Jeremiah Joseph O’Connell.

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

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do.


TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name, please, sir?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Jeremiah Joseph O’Connell.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you also known by the name of Jeremiah J.
O’Connell?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I would presume that my baptismal name
in the Catholic Church was probably Jeremiah J. O’Connell, but during
grade school, high school, college, and law school, and in my political
career I have always been known as Jerry J. O’Connell.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you are acquainted with the
practice of the committee to permit witnesses to be accompanied by
counsel and to confer with counsel if a witness desires?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I understand that, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted that you are not accompanied by
counsel.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had expected Senator Langer of North Dakota
to appear with me, but his office notified me today he was out of town
and wasn’t going to be able to get back until this afternoon, but I
have worried about this thing, and I have been under tension about it,
and I am anxious to get it over with.

Mr. TAVENNER. You are satisfied, then, to proceed without
having counsel with you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of course, should it develop at any point in
your testimony you desire to consult counsel, you may address your
request to the committee.

When and where were you born, Mr. O’Connell?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was born in Butte, Mont., on October 4, 1908.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you now reside?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I now reside at Great Falls, Mont.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly
what your educational training has been?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I received my grammar school education at
St. Patrick’s School in Butte, Mont., my high school education at Butte
Central Catholic High School in Butte, Mont., my liberal arts education
at Mount St. Charles College, now known as Carroll College, where I
graduated with an A. B. degree.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what year did you graduate from that college?

Mr. O’CONNELL. 1931.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where did you receive your A. B. degree?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Mount St. Charles College, now known as Carroll
College, in Helena, Mont., in 1931.

Through the late Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana, I obtained
employment here in the District with the Democratic National Committee,
later in 1931, and attended law school at Columbus Law School here in
the District.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you receive a degree?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not. I was elected to the Legislature
of the State of Montana in 1931, when I was only 21 years of age and
while a senior at Mount St. Charles College. I came back here and went
to law school and then in 1932 during the summer vacation I went back
and sought renomination and reelection to the State legislature and was
successful.

I served in the 1933 session of the State legislature. Also in a
special session of the legislature in the latter part of 1933 and the
early part of 1934.

In between I came back and continued taking law courses in between the
legislative sessions and so on, and later studied law privately at home
and in a law office at Butte, Mont., and then in 1934 I was elected to
the State Railroad and Public Service Commission of Montana, which is a
statewide elective office in the State, and then in 1936 I was elected
to the 75th Congress of the United States from the First Western
District of the State of Montana.

I served one term, from 1937 to 1939, and was defeated in the 1938
general elections. I won the Democratic nomination.

In 1940 I again won the Democratic nomination and was defeated in the
1940 election by Jeannette Rankin.

After my defeat I edited a statewide weekly newspaper called Jerry
O’Connell’s Montana Liberal. I also was active politically and
particularly in the organization of an old-age pension group in which I
had the principal activity or principal organizational activity in the
State.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is that in the State of Montana?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of the organization of the
old-age pension group by you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I actually think that I--it is quite
a long while ago now--it was 1939, if I remember correctly. I began
holding meetings in various parts of the State and we were advancing
a State, it was a State initiative for improvement of the pension
situation as far as senior citizens were concerned in the State. I
think that came out in 1938 campaign, I had originally been endorsed
by the Townsend organization for reelection to Congress and then
during the 1938 general elections Dr. Townsend flew from Hawaii into
my district and made 3 speeches against me, 2 or 3 speeches. I am not
sure which. And the result was a considerable division in the Townsend
organization as it existed in the State then, and out of that I am
pretty sure at that time there was a gentleman by the name of Arthur L.
Johnson, who was promoting I think what he called the general welfare
acts or general welfare plan, and on a State pattern, using that
general welfare act we promoted a pension plan in the State of Montana
on an initiative, we have an initiative law there.

Mr. VELDE. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned you studied law here at Columbus Law School and in a law
office, I believe, in Butte, Mont.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. Did you pass the bar of the State of Montana?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I passed the bar of the State of Montana.

Mr. VELDE. I do not think you mentioned that. When did that
happen?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I actually didn’t pass the bar in Montana. I
had been active politically and I didn’t pass the State bar examination
until June 23, 1950.

Mr. VELDE. Since that time you have been a practicing lawyer?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Since then I have been practicing law at Great
Falls, Mont.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you been admitted to practice in any State
other than Montana?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I have not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you held any other organizational positions
of any character in the State of Montana or elsewhere?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, in I think about February 1944 I was
appointed by Sidney Hillman as CIO political action director for the
State of Montana, and in about August of 1944--in that year I was
elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention from the State
of Montana and attended the Chicago convention in that year.

In August of 1944 after the convention I was appointed assistant
regional director for the CIO Political Action Committee with offices
or headquarters at Seattle, Wash., under the director who was Roy W.
Atkinson, and that region included Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and
Montana.

After I went to the State of Washington, I became active particularly
with--one of the principal activities of the CIO political action
committee was to advance and encourage registration for voting in
the 1944 elections and in the State of Washington, particularly
along the West coast there was a considerable influx of war workers
during that period who, of course, were unregistered and my principal
activity preceding the actual beginning of that 1944 general campaign
was bringing about registration by getting the city councils in the
various larger cities, particularly in the State of Washington, to
hold a registration week and opening up the schools and then after the
campaign, as I was explaining, the city councils called a registration
week where there was the extended registration campaign or program
carried on, and after that I then became assistant regional director
for the CIO political action committee active with the Democratic
organization, particularly in the State of Washington and of course
also to some extent in Idaho and I don’t think during that campaign at
all that I appeared in the State of Oregon.

I was back in Montana a few times in that connection but I spent
the principal part of that time working with the Democratic Party
organization in the State of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you hold any position in the Democratic
organization in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. At that time I didn’t hold any. After the
election--the Democratic Party was considerably successful in the State
of Washington--and I think the Democratic Party leaders had a feeling
that I had made a considerable contribution to the success which they
had.

Within a few weeks after the election the Democratic Party leaders
in that State discussed with me taking a full-time position with the
Democratic Party in the State of Washington as executive secretary of
the Democratic Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. That began in 1944?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was elected by the State central committee at
Ellensburg, Wash., I think somewhere about in the middle of December
1944.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you continue in that position?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I continued in that position then until
December, actually I ended my term as executive secretary some time in
the beginning of the year, January 1947.

In December 1946 a new Democratic State chairman was elected and he
abolished the position of executive secretary and took the job and
worked on the job on a full-time basis himself.

Mr. TAVENNER. After that time did you hold an executive
position with the Progressive Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, let me, in order to keep it in
chronological order, I would like to say that after that election there
was of course a considerable division in the Democratic Party over the
results of the election which were quite disastrous for the Democratic
Party in 1946, and there was a considerable cleavage among what was
considered to be the conservative forces in the party and the liberal
forces in the party and at the convention at Ellensburg in December of
1946 the conservative element or conservative forces in the Democratic
Party were in control by a very slight margin.

The liberal forces in the Democratic Party then organized within the
Democratic Party a group known as Roosevelt Democrats, and I was
I think also called the executive secretary, or given the title,
elected as executive secretary of the Roosevelt Democrats and I
served in that position until April of 1948 when I resigned from the
Democratic Party and actually began to work for the organization of
the Progressive Party in the State of Washington. We had set up what
we called a provisional committee for a new party. I had supported
Henry Wallace for Vice President in the 1944 Democratic convention. I
was a considerable admirer of his, and I joined with the people who
were forming the Progressive Party, and I think then--I would say in
probably May or June of 1948--the Progressive Party of the State of
Washington was organized at a State convention in Seattle, Wash., and
I was elected executive secretary of the Progressive Party at that
convention, and I served in that capacity until October 1949, when I
left the State of Washington and went back to the State of Montana and
began studying law and preparing for the taking of the bar examinations
which I eventually took.

Mr. TAVENNER. After your return to the State of Montana in
1949 did you hold any other organizational positions?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not. On many occasions--in October
of 1949 I had made up my mind that I had given the best years of my
life to political activity. In July of 1949 Mrs. O’Connell and I had
a young son after having been married about 13 years. Mrs. O’Connell
had a very, very difficult time in giving birth to our son, and for 5
days her life was in danger. Her folks live at Great Falls, Mont. She
is a native of Great Falls. She wanted to go back there to be with
her folks. Up to that time I had always studied law with the idea of
being an attorney and I wanted to be one and so we went back to the
State of Montana and I have not been engaged in any partisan political
organization or affairs of any kind since my return to the State of
Montana.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee has information that after that
time you became chairman of the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt
Bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. In 1948, I would say probably in June of
1948, while I was executive secretary of the Progressive Party of
the State of Washington, I came down to the city of Washington here
to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was then
considering the Mundt bill, which had already passed the House. We
were to testify at a hearing before which I think Senator Ferguson was
presiding and Senator Langer was sitting with him and apparently the
hearings had gone on for several days and Senator Ferguson adjourned
the hearings or at least announced there would be no further hearings
at that time before many of us there had yet been heard.

Senator Langer then suggested that we go to his office, I think at that
time he was chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads
in the Senate, and we retired to his committee room. At that time we
discussed particularly with him the situation as far as the Mundt bill
was concerned and at his suggestion this committee to oppose the Mundt
Bill was set up and at that particular meeting I was elected chairman
of the group. Senator Langer, of course, had known me while I was in
Congress and suggested----

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the approximate date when you were
selected as chairman of the committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My best recollection, my best guess would be
some time in June of ’48.

Mr. TAVENNER. You continued to serve as chairman of the
National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill for how long a period?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, in 1948, if I remember correctly, the
bill was not voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the
adjournment of Congress at that particular time. The bills as I
remember were proposed again at the beginning of the next session of
Congress and we continued to oppose the legislation at that time and
then finally I think--if I remember correctly, in about, I would say,
about March of 1950--I came down here again to the city of Washington.
If I remember correctly, the bill had again passed the House of
Representatives at that time although I am not too sure. I think it had.

I stayed here from I would say March--I remember I defended somebody
at home in court at Great Falls and I came down here I would say in
the latter part of March 1950 and I stayed until about the 9th or 10th
day of June 1950 when I returned to Montana to bone up for the bar
examination which I was taking on the 23d of June 1950.

I passed the bar examination at that time and I came back here again.
My offhand guess would be that I came back again some time maybe in the
latter part of July or first part of August of 1950 and stayed here
until Congress adjourned sine die, I think somewhere around September,
probably September 13.

Mr. TAVENNER. During that period of time were you actively
engaged in the work of the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. VELDE. Do I understand, Mr. O’Connell, that you continued
in the 82d Congress the same type of work you were doing as far as the
Mundt bill was concerned in the 81st Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If those are the correct----

Mr. VELDE. You were chairman of the committee.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was chairman of the committee from the time
I was selected in June of 1948 until the committee dissolved after the
passage of the legislation over the President’s veto in September of
1950.

Mr. VELDE. Of course, that would be the committee, I suppose,
which was set up to defeat the McCarran-Wood bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. The Mundt-Nixon bill was combined, I think it
was combined by a proposal made by several of the Senators over there
and also the McCarran Act, I can’t remember all the things that went on
in connection with it now, but I think it became popularly called the
McCarran Act, if I remember correctly.

Mr. TAVENNER. The McCarran-Wood bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. I think the language became the Internal
Security Act.

Mr. VELDE. Who composed the committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually the executive officers were myself
as chairman, Robert Silverstein of the National Lawyers Guild as
secretary, and Bruce Waybur, who was an official or an organizational
employee of the United Electrical Workers[1] who was treasurer of the
organization, and then the group was sponsored by various outstanding
prominent individuals throughout the country. I can’t remember all of
them now and all who from time to time----

Mr. VELDE. If I remember correctly, after the bill was passed
and became law there was a committee to repeal the McCarran-Wood Act,
was there not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think there was, but I had nothing to do with
it.

Mr. TAVENNER. You had no part in it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had no part in it. I went back. I think
Professor Chafee [Zechariah Chafee, Jr.] at Harvard and some others
organized a committee to repeal the act after that, but I went back to
Montana and I had nothing to do with it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or
not you became regional director for the International Workers Order
during the period of time----

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. I think that language that you use comes
from an old report of the Dies committee. I was never regional director
for the IWO. The only connection that I had with the IWO is that in the
city of Butte the IWO had an affiliated local or lodge there composed
of Serbs and Croats and there was considerable division particularly
during the war period, World War II period, because if I remember
correctly there was a religious difference. I think the Serbs in the
organization were Protestants and the Croats were Catholics. There was
a division then over the politics of the situation. I think there were
some of them who were supporting Milhailovich at that time and some who
were supporting Pavlich, if I remember the names correctly.

I was asked by--I am pretty sure the man’s name was Peter Shipka, who
was the officer of the International Workers Order, who asked me if I
would advise with the lodge and if I would help them try to straighten
out the difficulties so that the lodge could go ahead.

After that I was sent down to the State of Colorado or asked by them
to go down to the State of Colorado where I think about 11 members of
the IWO had applied for their citizenship papers in a little town I
think called Steamboat Springs, Colo., and the Federal judge who was
hearing the citizenship matter at that time was in my opinion confusing
the IWO with the IWW, and I was asked and again I wouldn’t be sure who
the national officer of the IWO was, but my best recollection at the
time--and I think that was in 1940 or 1941 or 1942, it was a long
time ago--asked me to go down there and I talked with the judge and
with the examiner and also brought a Mr. Cunningham who I think was
either the State auditor or the secretary of state, but was ex officio
commissioner of insurance of the State of Colorado, to show the judge
the IWO was actually a fraternal benefit society and had no connection
with the IWW.

Then later, I can’t remember what year, the IWO was promoting what they
called a Plan for Plenty, which was in essence an improvement on the
present social security, or I mean on the social security system as it
existed at that time.

I made speeches at various IWO lodges in different parts of the country
speaking on the Plan for Plenty, explaining the legislative detail in
connection with it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who made arrangements with you to conduct this
nationwide speaking tour that you mentioned?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, it is so long ago, it is hard for
me--there are just two names that stick out in my memory as far as the
IWO is concerned and the only two I can remember are Peter Shipka,
the treasurer, and if I remember correctly they had an attorney named
Joseph Brodsky. Those are the two names that stick out in my mind.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was Joseph Brodsky from New York?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; he was from New York.

Mr. TAVENNER. What compensation did you receive while engaged
in that work for the IWO?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, at the time it was very minimal, I can
remember that. I would say that as far as--it would amount, in my
opinion, for the small period of time I was involved, which I would say
was a period of a few months, I would say on the average of about $200
a month. It was not very long.

Mr. TAVENNER. And your expenses?

Mr. O’CONNELL. And my expenses; yes. As I remember, they were
quite restrictive on the expenses; if I remember correctly.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do I understand that your connection with the
IWO was one of employment rather than one of an official character? Is
that correct?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct. I think that would be the best
way to describe it.

Mr. TAVENNER. For how long a period were you employed by the
IWO?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My best recollection is that that employment
was over a period of maybe 5 or 6 months. It might have been 7 or 8. It
was not very long, and I don’t think I could put it in the precise year
or years that were involved.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it resumed at a later date?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; it was not resumed at any later date.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you receive any compensation or money from
the IWO for anything other than the services you have mentioned?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I certainly don’t recollect any.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, whether you
had any employment since 1930 other than the positions you have already
described and other than those matters related to the practice of law?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, going back in 1930, I was still a student
in St. Charles College.

Mr. TAVENNER. We can pass that up.

Mr. O’CONNELL. At Helena. Of course, during the summer months
I was employed in the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.’s mines at Butte while
I went to school. I think the summer of 1932 I was employed by the
Industrial Accident Board of the State of Montana settling compensation
cases during that period. I think I told about my employment with the
Democratic National Committee while I was back here.

I also had some employment as legal adviser to the State income-tax
division of the State board of equalization of the State of Montana
while I was running for State railroad and public service commissioner
in Montana and before my election to that post. Then I think I have
detailed all of the rest of it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you spoke of being instrumental
in organizing an old-age pension initiative, I believe you call it, in
the State of Montana in 1939.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I remember, we were trying to put it on the
1940 ballot in Montana.

Mr. TAVENNER. You are familiar, I suppose, with the Washington
State Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I am. I would like to say that at the time
I was organizing the clubs in Montana I knew nothing whatever of the
existence of the Washington Pension Union of the State of Washington,
or any of its officers, or anybody connected with it. My first
connection with the organization and the group was when I went to the
State of Washington in 1944. Those contacts were made in my position as
executive secretary of the Democratic Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were also familiar, of course, with the
Washington Commonwealth Federation, were you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really couldn’t say that I was, Mr.
Tavenner. I think the Washington Commonwealth Federation was still in
existence when I went to the State of Washington in 1944, but if I
remember correctly, shortly after the elections in November of 1944
the Washington Commonwealth Federation was dissolved but I had no
connection with the Washington Commonwealth Federation at all.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you become acquainted with Barbara Hartle
after you became a resident of the State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I naturally read some of the news stories
in both the Seattle Post Intelligencier and the Seattle Times. And
I heard about her. Now, I don’t recall her too well but I am pretty
sure that in the early days of the WPA in the State of Montana she,
I think she was working in the Great Falls area; if I remember her
correctly, she is rather short and squat, rather pasty complexion? I
don’t remember her too well. I can remember she--I think I saw her once
or twice at that time while I was on the Public Service Commission
and later when I was in Congress, a group of people had gone down
and raided a commodity warehouse in Great Falls and had taken food
and various things out of the commodity warehouse. If I remember her
correctly, at that time she was on a committee that came to see me to
use my influence to see that they weren’t prosecuted for what they had
done.

Then I later saw her in the State of Washington, my feeling would be
maybe 3 or 4 times. I am pretty sure; I don’t remember her too well.

Mr. VELDE. Could you place those times you did see her more
definitely as to the year?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really couldn’t. I was in the State of
Washington from August of 1944 until October of 1949, and it is over
that period of time that I actually saw her.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the 1954 hearings of this committee in
Seattle, Barbara Hartle was asked to tell the committee from her own
personal knowledge what connection the Washington Pension Union had,
if any, with Communist activity in that area. I should state to you
that Barbara Hartle was one of the Smith Act defendants in the State of
Washington and was convicted. She testified before this committee after
her conviction and sentence. She testified very fully regarding her
knowledge of Communist Party activities in the Northwest. She described
the circumstances under which she became a member of the Communist
Party and how she rose to the No. 2 position in the Communist Party in
the State of Washington.

This is the answer that she gave to the question of the connection
between the Washington Pension Union and Communist activities:

    There was quite a lot of connection with Communist activity in this
    area between the Communist Party and the Washington Pension Union.
    The Northwest district of the Communist Party has paid a great deal
    of attention to the Washington Pension Union for a long period of
    years. What to do next in the pension union has been the subject of
    many discussions in district board and district committee meetings
    in which I have participated between the period of 1932 to 1940
    and in large district committee meetings before that in the latter
    1930’s.

    Important offices and many local offices of the Washington Pension
    Union have been held by Communist Party members, and the activities
    and policies of the pension union have always been supported by the
    Communist Party. Many issues have been brought into the pension
    union by the Communist Party and gained wide support by so doing.
    The Communist Party in this district viewed the Washington Pension
    Union as really its most important single front organization. It is
    called mass organization by the Communist Party. They don’t use the
    term “front organization.” They call it a mass organization. It was
    the largest and most influential and second only to the Washington
    Commonwealth Federation, which was a federation of organizations,
    and the Washington Pension Union was an affiliate of the Washington
    Commonwealth Federation, in which the Communist Party likewise had
    a dominating influence.

I think I should read a little further. Mrs. Hartle also testified
that----

Mr. O’CONNELL. May I say I had no connection; I was not an
officer of the Washington Pension Union.

Mr. TAVENNER. I was going to discuss that question, whether or
not you were affiliated in any way with the Washington Pension Union.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think as executive secretary of the
Democratic Party and as executive secretary of the Progressive Party I
made speeches to State conventions of the Washington Pension Union, as
did practically all the political leaders of the State of Washington,
regardless of the party.

I think during a period after my employment as executive secretary of
the Democratic Party at the request of a local in Everett I was sent
there to make a speech and I think I was--I am pretty sure I was paid
expenses and I may have been paid a fee for the speech I made to the
group at Everett at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that a convention of the Washington Pension
Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, as I remember it, the Everett meeting was
some kind of a large local meeting that they had, some kind of an event
or celebration or something of that kind that I spoke at. It is hard to
recollect. It is a long time ago and I have made a lot of speeches all
over the State of Washington in those years and to a lot of groups.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you work closely with the leadership of the
union in the political positions that you held, first, as secretary of
the State Democratic Party and later as secretary of the Progressive
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know if you would say I worked closely.
We were naturally anxious in both the Democratic Party and in the
Progressive Party to get the votes of the senior citizens of the State
of Washington, and the only pension organization, the only senior
citizens organization at that particular time anyway I can remember was
the Washington Pension Union.

I think later there were some dissensions and shoot-offs and smaller
groups organized but I mean I had no official connection with the
pension union. Pennock, who was the president of the Pension Union,
was also Democratic representative from the 35th Legislative District.
He was the chairman of what we called the delegates from that district
to the King County Democratic Central Committee. He was, I think, a
chairman or member of the rules committee on the Democratic side in the
State legislature.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is William Pennock?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is William Pennock. In his activity as
a Democrat or member of the Democratic organization as executive
secretary of the Democratic Party, I naturally saw Pennock and
naturally he was involved.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he one of the Smith Act defendants in the
State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I am informed, he was.

Mr. TAVENNER. And was convicted.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think so. He died.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe that is true.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I understand it, he either committed suicide
or was found dead.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the period of the trial.

Mr. O’CONNELL. While the trial was in progress, yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you know William Pennock to be a member of
the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I did not. As I understand, he never
divulged his membership in the Communist Party until a few days before
the Smith Act trial and I think he made a public statement at that time.

I, by that time, was back in the State of Montana some 4 or 5 years.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to continue to present the
testimony of Mrs. Hartle regarding the Washington Pension Union to make
plain a few facts. Mrs. Hartle further testified:

    My knowledge of the membership of the pension union is that it was
    reported by William J. Pennock and others in meetings that it had
    about 10,000 members.

She further testified:

    The membership of the Communist Party in the organization was
    small, smaller than in most so-called mass organization work.
    This was considered by the district leadership of the Communist
    Party and by the national leadership as well as being evidence of
    very successful mass work, and it was often used as an example
    of successful Communist mass work where it didn’t take so many
    Communists in order to influence a large number of people.

Were you aware of the influence that was brought to bear by the
Communist Party upon this organization, the Washington Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, sir; I certainly wasn’t aware of it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know of any issues that were brought to
the Washington Pension Union by the Communist Party as testified to by
Mrs. Hartle?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, sir; I don’t.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have told us that you spoke on numerous
occasions at meetings of the pension union.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wouldn’t want to make it numerous. I spoke
several times. I spoke at their State conventions, I know that, during
the period while I was executive secretary of the Democratic Party and
while I was executive secretary of the Progressive Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you familiar with the testimony of Ernest
Paul Stith before the Canwell committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember, he was an investigator for the
Canwell committee. I don’t know what his testimony was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Stith analyzed a report contained in the
January 30, 1947, issue of the New World relating to a program that was
conducted at the Tri-County Snohomish, Whatcom, and Skagit Legislative
Conference. The analysis goes on to show that 21 of the 99 delegates at
that convention represented the pension union. The speakers included
William Pennock, president of the Washington Old Age Pension Union, and
Jerry O’Connell, former Democratic Party State executive secretary.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is the meeting I was talking about.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is the one you were referring to. Terry
Pettus was editor of the New World. Was that a Communist paper?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether the New World was a
Communist paper. There apparently was some distinction; they later
became the Northwest edition of the People’s World, and, of course, the
People’s World, as I understand it, is a Communist newspaper.

Mr. TAVENNER. And Frank Batterson, chairman of the Snohomish
County Communist Party was a speaker. You say that is the occasion to
which you refer?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure that is the occasion--was that
held at Everett; does it say?

Mr. TAVENNER. It doesn’t state where it was held.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t even know Batterson. He certainly
didn’t speak while I was there and of course I had no knowledge of the
fact that he was a speaker and no knowledge of the fact that he was
chairman of--what group of the Communist Party?

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall William Pennock speaking?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall him speaking, no, but I am sure
that if it were--you see, I may have spoken. Does it say how many days
it lasted?

Mr. TAVENNER. No.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember Pennock speaking while I was
there--at least that. But whether he spoke at the meeting or not I
don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did Terry Pettus speak at that meeting?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Same way with Terry Pettus. I wouldn’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. The witness stated that the following is the
portion of the program adopted at this meeting regarding foreign policy:

    Break diplomatic and economic relations with Franco Spain,
    withdraw United States troops from China, and stop aid to Chiang
    Kai-shek, dictatorship, United States participation in worldwide
    disarmament, stop manufacture of atomic bombs and outlaw their
    use, abolish compulsory military training, remove from private
    industry development of atomic power to insure its peaceful use for
    benefit of all, restoration and extension of UNRRA, promote Big
    Three unity, carry through the denazification and demilitarization
    programs in Germany and Japan.

Those were the policies being advocated by the Communist Party at that
time; were they not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wouldn’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. You would not know?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. I presume--if you say so, they are. I don’t
know what their particular program was at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you become acquainted with Mr. Eugene
V. Dennett, who at one time was vice president of the Washington
Commonwealth Federation--in fact held that position while you were
there?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He what?

Mr. TAVENNER. He held the position of vice president when you
moved to Seattle?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember him at all. The only time
I remember Dennett was coming to my office as executive secretary
of the Democratic Party in the Vance Building, when he was in a
military uniform and telling me that he had been vice president of
the Washington Commonwealth Federation, but he would have been vice
president a very short period of the Commonwealth Federation because
I was there only from August of 1944 and if I remember correctly,
the Commonwealth Federation was dissolved shortly after the November
elections in 1944 and, of course, the only thing I can say about
Dennett is I can remember him coming to the office of the executive
secretary of the Democratic Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you aware that he was a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I certainly was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett was called as a witness by this
committee at its June 1954 hearings. Mr. Dennett, when he appeared,
relied upon the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions but
later on during the hearing he came back and asked the committee to
permit him to testify. It was so near the end of the hearings that it
was impossible to hear him then. So the committee took his testimony in
March of 1955 and Mr. Dennett described his activity in the Communist
Party as a Communist Party functionary over a long period of time and
described how he got out of the Communist Party, in fact described his
expulsion and also the expulsion of his wife. He gave the committee
much valuable information.

In the course of his testimony he told the committee how a man by the
name of Lowell Wakefield was sent by the Communist Party from New York
to Seattle to engage in organizational work for the Communist Party and
that one of his chief assignments was to assist in the organization of
the Washington Pension Union.

Were you acquainted with Mr. Lowell Wakefield?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember anybody by the name of
Lowell Wakefield at all. In my time, I mean my only recollection--was
Wakefield later some kind of a representative for a fish company or
operated a fish company of his own down on the waterfront?

Mr. TAVENNER. I understood he did, but not down on the
waterfront in Washington. I think he went to Alaska.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, anyway, I think I heard about him but I
don’t think I ever met Wakefield personally, or personally knew him.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you any knowledge of his activities?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My only recollection, if it is the same
Wakefield, is that he was a contributor to the Democratic Party, if
it is the same person. What I want to do, I don’t want to get myself
in trouble, I certainly didn’t know Wakefield as a Communist or knew
that he was a Communist or anything of the kind and I don’t want--my
recollection is if it is the same Wakefield he had some kind of a
fish company or was a representative for a fish company and did make
contributions to the Democratic Party while I was executive secretary.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Tom Rabbitt?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I was acquainted with Tom Rabbitt.

Mr. TAVENNER. He was State Senator and also an office holder
in the Washington Pension Union; is that right?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was Washington State senator from the 35th
legislative district. He was, I think, a delegate to the King County
Democratic Central Committee from that district.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is it a fact that the State legislature refused
to seat him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think so. I think the State
legislature, before I came to the State of Washington, refused to seat
a party by the name of Lenus Westman, elected as a State senator from
up in Snohomish County, but at least in my time nobody challenged
Rabbitt’s senator-ship.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am probably in error.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Counsel, isn’t it true both Mrs. Hartle and
Eugene Dennett testified that both Wakefield and Rabbitt were members
of the Communist Party?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir. I think the record should show
that William J. Pennock was identified by Barbara Hartle not only
as president of the Washington Pension Union but as a member of the
district committee of the Communist Party for the State of Washington
and that Tom Rabbitt was likewise an officer of the Washington Pension
Union and a member of the district committee of the Communist Party.

Mr. VELDE. Isn’t it true, also, that Mr. Rabbitt appeared in
executive session in June 1954 and refused to answer questions relating
to his membership in the Communist Party and other activities along
that line, relying on the fifth amendment?

Mr. TAVENNER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. O’Connell, did you confer with William Pennock and Tom Rabbitt or
any of the other leaders of the Washington Pension Union regarding its
organization, its policies, or any phases of its work?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In view of the prefatory statements made by you
and by Congressman Velde, and particularly with respect to the fact
that you state that Rabbitt and Pennock were members of the district
board of the Communist Party----

Mr. VELDE. Just a minute. I didn’t state that. I said two
witnesses had testified that he was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I see. I want to protect myself. I don’t know
whether I can safely answer that question now.

Mr. VELDE. What was the question?

Mr. TAVENNER. Read the question, please.

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is a real difficult one for me to answer.
As executive secretary of the Democratic Party, I probably, of course,
suggested things they might do to help us in the campaign and so on.
I don’t know, but I certainly--what I want to do--what I did was not
because they were members of the district board of the Communist
Party or because they were Communists, or anything of that kind. If
I suggested something they ought to do about the Washington Pension
Union either to Pennock or Rabbitt, it was in connection with either
Democratic Party activity or Progressive Party activity as far as
campaigns were concerned.

It is a very broad general question. You asked me about it, any phases
of its work. For instance, I mean we were certainly anxious in the
Democratic Party and Progressive Party, too, to get the votes of the
senior citizens of the State and----

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by the “senior citizens”?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The older people of the State that were in the
pension organization, and so on. And outside the organization as well
that they had influence on.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were your discussions with the leadership of the
Washington Pension Union chiefly with Pennock and Rabbitt?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, during my time out there I think the
Washington Pension Union, if I remember correctly, had a whole host of
vice presidents, I don’t know how many, I think they elected--I think
Rabbitt was one of those vice presidents. But the executive officer of
the Washington Pension Union of course was Pennock and in my work as
executive secretary of the Democratic Party and also the Progressive
Party I certainly conferred with Pennock, I certainly asked him to see
that things were done by the campaign and see that work was done in
connection with it.

But in my time out there I think, I don’t think Rabbitt was any kind
of--was he a full-time paid employee of the Pension Union?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not sure what his official connection was
with it.

Mr. O’CONNELL. My recollection is that he was one of the
many vice presidents, I think if I recall there were about 16 vice
presidents and I think he was one of them. As far as Rabbitt and
Pennock were concerned, all of the time they were both leaders in
the Democratic Party. Rabbitt was a Democrat State senator from a
legislative district, Pennock was a representative from the same
legislative district and likewise within the Democratic organization
particularly in King County and because King County was the largest
county in the State, the impact it would have on the State organization
as well, I was thrown into considerable contact with them in my work
as executive secretary of the Democratic Party with both Pennock and
Rabbitt.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. O’Connell, both Pennock and Rabbitt were
generally known to be members of the Communist Party, as members of the
district board, were they not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. I couldn’t say. I don’t think
Rabbitt acknowledged he was a member of the Communist Party and Pennock
only announced it shortly before he died. Shortly before the beginning
of the Smith Act trial in Seattle, he announced he was.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were quite aware, were you not, of the
effort being made by the Communist Party to take over the Washington
Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether I--I was not in Washington
Pension Union. I was not engaged in its work or activity.

Mr. TAVENNER. Any person who has held the two positions
that you have as secretary of two very active organizations would
certainly have had his finger on the pulse of general activities in the
community. You certainly knew, did you not, that the Communist Party
was operating the Washington Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I certainly did not know that. I didn’t
know that.

Mr. TAVENNER. You believed it, didn’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I didn’t believe it. There are a lot of
wonderful old people in that organization and Dr. Fisher----

Mr. TAVENNER. I am talking about the leadership.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Who is the president of it----

Mr. TAVENNER. I have told you Mrs. Hartle said there were
comparatively few.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Mrs. Hartle, on her own acknowledgment was a
functionary of the Communist Party, was she not?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. She certainly would know whether they were
working or not, but I was not a functionary of the Communist Party
and I wouldn’t know what the Communist Party was doing as far as the
Pension Union was concerned.

Mr. VELDE. You had no inkling whatsoever that Pennock,
Rabbitt, and Mrs. Hartle were members of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had no inkling?

Mr. VELDE. Suspicion.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. You did have a suspicion they were?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. Upon what did you base that suspicion?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I couldn’t prove it. Of course it was not my
particular job to prove it.

Mr. VELDE. Certainly not. No question about that.

Mr. TAVENNER. In your judgment what was the purpose of
the Communist Party in attempting to capture the leadership of the
Washington Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In my judgment what would it have been?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I presume, as Mrs. Hartle states there,
they were engaged in developing what she called mass organizations and
so on, and this was a large organization, there isn’t any doubt about
that, there was a very, very large group. I think the membership of
10,000 is even underestimated. My feeling is its membership ran closer
to 16,000 just from my contact with it. I presume they would like to
control it because of its tremendous effect and tremendous influence
without any doubt. I know in the Democratic Party I wanted to make
sure that the pension union supported the candidates of the Democratic
Party. We worked hard to get them to indorse and support Democratic
Party candidates and to work for them every way we knew how.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the leadership in the Washington Pension
Union endeavor to influence the selection of candidates for office in
either the Progressive Party or the Democratic Party while you were
secretary?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Did the Washington Pension Union try----

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; through its leadership, try to influence
the selection of individuals for office.

Mr. O’CONNELL. If you mean they wanted certain people
elected----

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not talking about supporting certain people
but did they endeavor to get certain individuals selected for party
nomination.

Mr. O’CONNELL. By that do you mean did they go out and select
certain people?

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the leadership in the Washington Pension
Union try to influence your party organization in behalf of certain
individuals in whom they were interested?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as the party organization was concerned,
we had the Democratic primary where the people voted in the Democratic
primary and selected the nominees and then after the Democratic
nominees were selected and so on, I would say the Washington Pension
Union with rare exceptions--and I think those exceptions were some 9 or
10 State senators who were called quisling senators, who didn’t support
the Democratic organization in the State senate at the time--I think
the Washington Pension Union generally supported the Democratic Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Eugene Dennett testified that the purpose of
the Communist Party in exerting its infiltration efforts in both the
Washington Commonwealth Federation and the Washington Pension Union was
to strengthen its own political influence. I shall read a part of his
testimony. In referring to the Washington Commonwealth Federation he
said:

    It was our estimate that it was capable--

by “our” he is referring to the Communist Party--

    that it was capable of influencing and obtaining the vote of
    one-third of the members who voted in the Democratic Party slate
    or side of the ticket and because of that fact and because we were
    in a higher state of mobilization than the rest of the Democratic
    Party when primaries came along we could exercise a more direct
    influence in the primaries than anybody else because our members
    in the Washington Commonwealth Federation had a great zeal and a
    greater devotion to carrying out their objectives than the other
    Democrats who frequently relied upon making their decisions in the
    general election.

When asked the question why was it that the Communist Party was
so interested in obtaining control of the Washington Commonwealth
Federation, he replied:

    Because we wanted to ultimately obtain political power for the
    Communist Party in the United States of America.

Did you observe efforts made by William Pennock and Tom Rabbitt, to
get control of either the Democratic machinery, the machinery of the
Democratic Party, or the machinery of the Progressive Party through the
use of the Washington Pension Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I would say in a certain few districts
in King County, probably one district in Snohomish County, legislative
district in Grays Harbor County, that the nominees of the Democratic
Party were certainly not people that the pension union had selected or
had picked out but I think they were people the pension union supported
because of their votes in the legislature and so on. The Commonwealth
Federation was actually gone in my time. I don’t know what it did.
I don’t know what its power was and what its influence was but for
instance in the 35th District if Pennock was the Representative and
Rabbitt was the Senator and they were both in the pension union they
certainly had some influence there.

I am trying to think of the district in Snohomish, there are two
legislative districts there, I think it was northern Snohomish County
where I think there was a pension union member who was actually a
member and elected to the legislative assembly and I think that was
true in the district down in Grays Harbor County, but you take all of
the eastern end of Washington, all the eastern side of Washington they
certainly had no influence to speak of over there. They might have had
a tiny bit of influence in one district in Spokane County, but in the
great part, I would say in the great part of the State outside of those
few areas I picked out and where the selections were actually people
of their own membership, I don’t, I can’t see any actual picking or
selecting of people that were put in. I can’t recall all of the people
who were, but for instance the major State offices like Governor and
United States Senator, Congressman, and so on, I couldn’t see any
influence except in the First Congressional District where of course
they could have been instrumental in the nomination and election of
Hugh DeLacy in 1944 election, I think it was, but as to the other
districts, John Coffee was in Congress a long time I think, even before
the pension union was established, Charlie Levy was in the House.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was Hugh DeLacy known to you to be a member of
the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. NO.

Mr. TAVENNER. He has been identified by both Barbara Hartle
and Eugene Dennett. He was produced as a witness before the committee
in Ohio in September of last year and he refused to answer any material
questions relating to Communist Party affiliations, relying upon the
fifth amendment as the reason for so doing.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Senator Neuberger wrote a chapter in a book
published by Bob Allen called Our Fair City, and wrote the article in
connection with the city of Seattle, and he gives me credit in that
book, if I remember correctly, for having forced Hugh DeLacy on the
Democratic Party in the State of Washington, but Hugh DeLacy had
actually been nominated for Congress on the Democratic Party ticket
before I ever went to the State of Washington.

He was actually the Democratic nominee.

Let me say, Mr. Neuberger also gives me credit for--Senator
Neuberger--for taking over. He said I took over the Democratic
organization and so on. I don’t think I did. I had served in the House
with Senator Wallgren who later became Governor and Senator Magnuson,
who was in the House, and I knew them well and Senator Mitchell,
who was secretary to Senator Wallgren at that time, and who later
became Senator and Congressman and all of that, and I think they were
appreciative of the kind of job I had done out there, and so on.

Mr. VELDE. Did you have any suspicion or inkling that Mr. Hugh
DeLacy was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I couldn’t say, I wouldn’t want to say.

Mr. VELDE. Why would you not want to say?

Mr. O’CONNELL. You see, I really didn’t get to know him. He
was elected to Congress shortly after I came out there and then he came
down here to Washington and then after his defeat for Congress he was
only back in the State of Washington a short time and went to work, if
I recall correctly, in the national office of the Progressive Party
and was working outside the State of Washington so that my contact
with DeLacy was not very great. I didn’t get to know him like the
people that were out in the State day in and day out and were in the
Democratic Party meetings.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, we have the situation where the
Communist Party went deliberately about seizing the leadership and
capturing the leadership in a very powerful political organization in
the State of Washington, namely, the Washington Pension Union, and
ahead of it the Washington Commonwealth Federation. It succeeded in
capturing the leadership of it. It did it for the purpose of advancing
the interests of the Communist Party.

Will you tell the committee whether or not the leadership of this
group, the Washington Pension Union, was successful in influencing
either of the parties of which you were secretary in any of its policy
actions?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think for instance, in the Democratic Party
particularly by its organization and by its work and demands for
improved pension legislation, they had tremendous influence on the
Democratic Party. As a matter of fact the--I would say even on the
Republican Party. In the 1945 session of the State legislature the
actual legislation proposed by the pension union placing a $50 floor
under old-age-pension grants and setting up a system of budget and
what-not, the legislation which they actually introduced passed the
State senate by, I think, a vote of 45 or 46 to nothing. Both Democrats
and Republicans voted for it.

In the House I think it passed the same way probably 102 to 1 or 105 to
3 or something like that, it was almost unanimous. In that particular
effect certainly they not only had influence with the Democratic Party
but certainly in putting legislation on the books----

Mr. TAVENNER. What influence did it have on the Progressive
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of course we had no power. We had no officials
of any kind.

Mr. TAVENNER. Actually, wasn’t the leadership in the
Washington Pension Union and the leadership in the Progressive Party
practically the same?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The leadership?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, wasn’t there an overlapping leadership
which made the two practically the same?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I wouldn’t say so. Actually, it is hard to
put the picture in the pattern of that time, but the 1946 elections
had been as we all recall quite disastrous to the Democrats, there was
considerable dissension among some Democrats with President Truman,
and there was a move from Democrats generally--I would say in the
Progressive Party, as it existed particularly in 1948, the Progressive
Party was not, did not have an officialdom or even a membership that
you could say, “Well, this is identical with the Washington Pension
Union.”

For instance, I never held any office in the Washington Pension
Union of any kind--I was executive secretary--Russell Fluent, who
had just finished a term as Democratic treasurer was the chairman of
the Progressive Party--L. C. Hunterer, who was Democratic sheriff
in Olympia in Thurston County, was a national committeeman--and the
Democratic national committeewoman from eastern Washington, who later
became the national committeewoman of the Progressive Party from the
State of Washington. Leadership in many counties was a leadership that
moved from the county chairman and others and moved over from the
Democratic Party into the Progressive Party.

The leadership of the pension union, Pennock and Fisher and Nora McCoy,
and others I recall there, if you consider Rabbitt----

Mr. TAVENNER. What was Fisher’s first name?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Dr. C. H. Fisher. He had been president of
Northern Washington Normal College, I think, at Bellingham.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, I hand you a photostatic copy of
a document and I will ask you to examine it, please, and state whether
you know what it is.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I understand, it purports to be a sort of a
schedule or catalog of the Pacific Northwest Labor School for what they
call its fall term of October 6 to December 12.

Mr. TAVENNER. What year? 1947?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It apparently--I notice somebody made a
notation up here, 1947, but it doesn’t appear.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the document in evidence, and
ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 1” for identification
purposes only, and made a part of the committee files.

Mr. DOYLE. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. By reference to the exhibit it is noted that
course No. 148, offered at this school, was entitled “Northwest Labor
History” by John Daschbach, extension director, and William J. Pennock,
president of the Washington Pension Union. Will you tell the committee,
please, whether John Daschbach was known to you to be a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. He was not a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was not known to me to be a member of the
Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show he
has been identified by both Eugene Dennett and Barbara Hartle----

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think he was also a Smith Act defendant.

Mr. TAVENNER. As a member of the party and he was a Smith Act
defendant. He was a teacher at this school. It is observed here on the
second page that a course on trade-union organizational problems was to
be taught by a person by the name of J-a-c-k-i-n-s. What was his first
name, Harvey?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall Jackins too well. Was he a
member of the union, the Boeing union?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not certain which union.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know there was a party by the name of Jackins
and that he was a leader in some one of the unions out there and my
best recollection is he was in the Boeing union.

Mr. TAVENNER. We have testimony before our committee that
Harvey Jackins taught at this school and I think the record should
also show Harvey Jackins was identified as a member of the Communist
Party by Elizabeth Boggs Cohen and Leonard Basil Wildman. He was
cited for contempt of the House of Representatives for refusal to
answer questions during the June 1954 hearings in Seattle and has been
convicted by a Federal court.

Mr. O’CONNELL. In that connection I want to--I notice in that
schedule that my name is listed as teaching a course in political----

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes. Labor’s political role, 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I never taught such a class or roll or
schedule. Never appeared or anything else.

Mr. TAVENNER. Well, you were enrolled as a teacher, were you
not, in the labor school?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was not. I never taught a class in the labor
school, never appeared in the labor school.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your explanation of the advertising of
the curriculum with you as a teacher?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My explanation is really easy. Mr. Daschbach
got that schedule out and later called me and asked me if I would do it
and I refused and told him I didn’t want to do it.

Mr. TAVENNER. He did call you and you refused?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why did you refuse?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Because I didn’t want to do it.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was your reason for not wanting to do it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Let me see what it was. If I remember
correctly, my objection was to “tackle both ideological and
organizational problems which labor must solve to gain its ends in
1948.”

And my particular objection, of course, was that I had never been
involved, never was a member of a labor union or trade-union, and I
didn’t, I couldn’t speak as a laboring man or as a member of organized
labor. There was no particular way that I could particularly expound on
what labor’s role was because I wasn’t qualified to do it. I had either
been in political office or had been engaged in political organization.

Mr. VELDE. Did you know at that time that the Pacific
Northwest Labor School was a Communist organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No.

Mr. VELDE. What was the date of that?

Mr. TAVENNER. 1947.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think it was either listed earlier or later
but it had been attacked by some of the labor organizations long before
it was listed, it had been attacked by some, particularly I think the
Central Labor Council in Seattle, and had been attacked by other groups
out there.

Mr. VELDE. Your suspicion that it was a Communist organization
was not the reason you didn’t teach the course?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wouldn’t want to say now that is it. I
know at the time when he called me about it I objected to the word
ideological. I remember that expressly and I objected to the fact
that I was qualified in no way to talk about labor’s role in 1948. I
was not a member of a trade union, I had not been involved in labor
organization or anything of the kind. I know I didn’t teach there and I
didn’t----

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the meaning of “coordinator” after your
name?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. Maybe if you let me look at it--I
don’t know what it means.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did Mr. Daschbach discuss the title of
coordinator with you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; he certainly did not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show
at this time the Communist affiliation of other teachers in this
school--Theodore Raymond Astley.

Mr. O’CONNELL. While you are doing that I wonder if I could
say this. When I spoke up and said I knew Mr. Daschbach was a Smith Act
defendant there was some remonstrance from over here where the press
is located and I wanted to point out I left the State of Washington
in 1949 and Mr. Daschbach did not become a Smith Act defendant, if I
remember correctly, until 1954.

Mr. VELDE. I think that commotion was because they didn’t know
how to spell his name.

Mr. TAVENNER. The spelling is D-a-s-c-h-b-a-c-h.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I thought maybe I had left something
unexplained.

Mr. TAVENNER. Ted Astley was slated to conduct course No. 245,
psychology in the social science. He appeared as a witness before the
committee and refused to testify, relying on the fifth amendment as to
past and present Communist Party membership. He was identified as a
member of the Communist Party by Barbara Hartle.

Ruth Bitterman was slated to conduct a course in children’s workshop.
She refused to testify as a witness before the committee but was
identified by Barbara Hartle as a member of the Communist Party.

Jean Danielson was shown by testimony in our hearings in Seattle to be
the same person as Margaret Jean Schuddakoph, and was advertised to
conduct course No. 300, as special workshop in reading and writing.
She refused to testify before the committee and was identified as a
Communist Party member by Barbara Hartle.

Marjorie Daschbach was advertised to conduct course No. 304 and was
identified by Barbara Hartle as a member of the Communist Party.

John Davis was advertised to conduct a course on workshop in the
graphic arts and was identified before this committee as having been a
member of the Communist Party by Barbara Hartle.

Fair Taylor, editor of Union Guardian, was advertised in the catalog
to teach a course on labor writer’s workshop. The testimony before the
committee shows that she is the same person as Fair Taylor Egroth, and
she was identified by Barbara Hartle as having been a member of the
Communist Party.

Dr. Ralph Gundlach was advertised to conduct a course of the analysis
of employer propaganda. Were you acquainted with Dr. Gundlach?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir. He was a professor at the University
of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. Dr. Gundlach was identified by Harold Sunoo,
before this committee, as having been a member of the Communist Party.
There was a course conducted on labor news reporting by a person by the
name of Pettus. Do you know his first name?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Do I know his first name?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I understand, there were two Pettuses who
were newspapermen, Ken Pettus and Terry Pettus, and I am pretty sure
the party involved here is the editor of the New World, or does it say?
Ken Pettus, I think, was editor of the Stars and Stripes in the Far
Eastern area at one time, and then Terry was editor of the New World in
Seattle, Terry Pettus.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know which one taught this course on
labor news reporting?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I don’t.

Mr. TAVENNER. You do not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My guess would be that it would be Terry
because he was in Seattle but I don’t know whether he actually did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Terry Pettus was identified before this
committee as having been a member of the Communist Party by Elizabeth
Boggs Cohen and Barbara Hartle.

Did Mr. Daschbach when he called you indicate his reason for calling
you about teaching this course in the Pacific Northwest Labor School?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He thought because of my political experience
and because of the position, I think I had just shortly concluded my
term as executive secretary of the Democratic Party, that was when, in
December of 1947.

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That was in April of 1947, wasn’t it?

Mr. TAVENNER. October to December 1947.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Anyway, he thought because of my political
experience and because of my previous position that I could do a job
and that I would be able to do it. When he told me what it was I told
him it was in a field that I was not particularly qualified to do.

Mr. DOYLE. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m. the same day.)


AFTERNOON SESSION, JUNE 1, 1955

Mr. DOYLE. Let the record show that the legal quorum of the
subcommittee is present, Mr. Velde, of Illinois, and Mr. Doyle, of
California.

Mr. Tavenner, will you proceed, please.

TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with Robert
Marshall during his lifetime?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. What were the circumstances under which you
became acquainted with him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Robert Marshall at the time of my original
acquaintance with him was chief of the reclamation division of the
forestry service. He had begun his early career in the forestry service
at Missoula, Mont., which was located in my Congressional District, the
First or Western Congressional District of Montana.

Shortly after I came back to Washington to take my seat in 1937, Robert
Marshall came to my office and introduced himself and told me that
because he had started his career in the forestry service out there he
had always had an interest in the district particularly because of its
large forestry holdings, large forestry provisions, and he and I became
close friends, socially, I would say more socially than anything else.
I think he died about a year and a half or maybe two years after I--I
can’t remember whether he died in 1938 or 1939.

Mr. TAVENNER. His will was probated in 1940.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is correct. His death was probably
in 1939.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you one of the witnesses to his will?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did he discuss with you at the time of the
making of his will or prior thereto the purpose he had in mind in
setting up a trust in which you were named as one of the trustees?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he had never discussed--in fact, I really
did not know that Bob Marshall had any money. He lived very ordinarily,
didn’t give any indication he had any money. I was back out in Butte,
Mont., and I had been defeated for Congress and I got a notice from the
surrogate court in New York that I was named trustee in the will and I
thought I had come into a lot of money. I was sent a copy of the will
and I was named as trustee of what later became the Robert Marshall
Foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. The will authorized you and the other trustees
to apply the income derived from the trust and such parts of the
principal as the trustees in their own unlimited discretion deemed
necessary for the following objects and purposes:

    The education of the people of the United States of America to the
    necessity and desirability of the development and organization of
    unions of persons engaged in work or of unemployment and unemployed
    persons, and the promotion and advancement of an economic system in
    the United States based upon the theory of production for use and
    not for profit.

Did it not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. That part of the will which related to the
education of the people of the United States to the necessity and
desirability of developing and organizing unions of persons engaged in
work was actually considered by the trustees as more or less window
dressing, wasn’t it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No it was the other way around, Mr. Tavenner. I
don’t know when Bob Marshall prepared this will, but I think Mr. Doyle
would know about this, Upton Sinclair had his so-called epic movement
in California, and there was a lot of discussion of an economy based
on production for use rather than for profit and in the first meeting
of the trustees that we held there was actually a resolution passed
where the rather untenable idea of getting a production-for-use economy
in the United States was discussed and it was decided by the trustees
that the money should actually be employed to develop as much as we
could the organization of trade unions, development and organization
of trade unions, organizing of unemployed people, and actually for the
development of a cooperation between farmers and workers, farmers and
labor, so that instead of having a division of interests as far as they
were concerned, and the trustees laid down a rule that with reference
to grants, that in order to come within what the trustees considered
the provisions of the will as the development of trade unions was
concerned, that the grants would have to be made for some trade-union
purpose, or development of trade unions, and so on, and that was what
was actually done by the trustees.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were there occasions when grants were made on
that theory--on that principle?

Mr. O’CONNELL. On what principle?

Mr. TAVENNER. The one you just named.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually, as far as I can remember--and of
course this goes back a long, long time, from 1940 on--I can’t remember
all of the organizations but we usually had an annual meeting of the
trustees and applications were made to the trustees by practically--I
mean just hundreds of organizations around the country that applied to
foundations of this kind, and I think, I can’t remember any exceptions,
I don’t recall any now.

As closely as we could the applications were considered from the point
of view that the money was to be applied by the organization to whom it
was granted to help the organization and development of trade unions
and organizing of unemployed people and particularly the development of
a principle of cooperation between farmers and laborers.

Mr. TAVENNER. But actually the will did provide for the use of
the money for promotion and advancement of an economic system in the
United States based upon the theory of production for use?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think another thing that would lend
some stability to what I am saying is that I think the tax bureau at
one of the local Federal district courts in determining the taxability
of the foundation itself actually I think handed down a ruling that
the foundation was not entitled to a section 101 exemption because
that particular provision actually called for the elimination of the
capitalistic system. I think that was the wording used either by the
bureau or the court and from that time on the trustees never actually,
I can’t think of a single organization or a single group--and we had
applications I know, I am trying to think of some of the organizations
that existed over that period of time--I can’t recall any of them now
who specifically asked for grants based on what they called theory
of production for use rather than for profit. But I can’t think of a
single instance where the trustees actually made----

Mr. TAVENNER. That was actually the system in use in the
Soviet Union, was it not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have never been in the Soviet Union and I am
not----

Mr. TAVENNER. However, you know, that is true, don’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My information that I get from reading and so
on is that there is a modification. I think if I state it correctly in
the industrial field I think there is production for use rather than
for profit, but as I understand the Soviets have now abandoned as far
as particular foreign farm production is concerned----

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it not the purpose of the Communist Party in
the United States at that time to foist upon this country just such a
plan, namely, to establish a Communist system of production for use and
not for profit?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, wouldn’t be qualified to say, I
wouldn’t be qualified to state whether or not that was their purpose or
their program.

As a matter of fact, the program of the Communist Party as I remember
it before I came to Congress, while I was in Congress and after the
program of the Communist Party in the United States was fluctuating--as
a matter of fact, I think there was a removal of Browder because he
was advocating--removal of Browder by the Communist Party leadership
because he was advocating a companionship or partnership with capital
and that capital and communism could exist and there could be as I
understand it--that was the program of the Communist Party for a long
time until he was removed, I can’t remember when.

But I knew Bob Marshall those years--I think I can positively state
that Bob Marshall was not a Communist and that the provisions in that
will and certainly the people that were named as trustees in addition
to the trade union trust as we called it, the Marshall Foundation
Trust, there was a civil liberties trust of which I think Roger
Baldwin was the head and I think everyone will agree he is decidedly
anti-Communist.

There was also a wilderness area trust. In fact, out in the State of
Montana there is a great wilderness area named the Robert Marshall
Wilderness Area after Robert Marshall.

My distinct feeling about that is that in talking with Bob and talking
to him that he was caught up in the period of the depression situation
where there were all kinds of economic theories advanced at the time,
not only New Deal but all kinds of other movements and I don’t think
there was actually any connection in Bob Marshall’s mind between what
the Communist Party might be advocating at that time and what he
actually put in his will.

Mr. DOYLE. May I ask this about that will? Was it a
typewritten will or a will written by him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually his brother, Jim Marshall, is an
attorney in the city of New York and I think a member of the New York
City Board of Education and the will was actually prepared by Jim
Marshall’s firm, I can’t remember all who are in it, but the copy which
I got was actually a copy of the will which I received through the
surrogate court in New York, actually a printed form.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you mentioned the fact that tax
exempt status of the trust was removed by action of the court. Was that
a result of action taken by the Internal Revenue Bureau?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it after the Internal Revenue Bureau learned
of the type of grants being made under this trust that it took the
action it did to remove the tax exemption status of the trust?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My best recollection, Mr. Tavenner, is that
Congressman Dies made a speech on the floor, and if I remember
correctly, in which he discussed the Robert Marshall Foundation in
which he went into the various grants that we had made and shortly
after that, on whose initiative I don’t know, the Bureau took up with
the foundation the matter of its one exemption and the Bureau exemption
was removed and I believe as trustees we appealed it to the courts and
the courts decided against us.

We appealed, I am sure the briefs will show that we appealed to the
courts on the basis that the grants were being made for the purpose
of organizing and developing of trade unions and for organization of
unemployed people and not for the theory of production for use rather
than for profit. I am sure the briefs will bear me out on that. I of
course had nothing to do with the preparation of them.

George Marshall, who is Bob Marshall’s brother, was the manager of the
trust funds and as I said, the trustees usually met annually, once a
year.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were aware, were you not, that the Communist
Party in the State of Washington just 2 years prior to the probate of
this will, endeavored or at least proposed a plan for legislation to
set up exactly the same type of economy in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew nothing about that. The first time I
ever went to the State of Washington in August 1944----

Mr. TAVENNER. Robert Marshall you say was from the State of
Montana?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, Robert Marshall was actually a New Yorker,
his dad was Louis Marshall, a partner of Samuel Untermyer, outstanding
corporation lawyer in New York.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was a great deal of his experience in the
forestry service on the west coast?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; 3 years of his service in the Forestry
Department were at Missoula, Mont., but not on the west coast. We are
in the Rocky Mountain area, you see.

Mr. TAVENNER. I understand.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Is this within the scope of the hearing?

Mr. VELDE. The Robert Marshall Foundation?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. I think it would be.

Mr. DOYLE. We will take a short recess.

(Brief recess.)

(Committee members present after recess: Representatives Doyle and
Scherer.)

Mr. DOYLE. The committee will come to order and let the record
show that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walter, appointed
a different subcommittee to continue this hearing today, consisting
of Mr. Moulder, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and that Mr.
Scherer and Mr. Doyle are both present, a legal majority of the new
subcommittee.

Mr. O’Connell, will you please rise and be sworn again.

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, I referred to the proposal
sponsored by the Communist Party in the State of Washington in 1936 for
the enactment of a law establishing production-for-use initiative as it
was called.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That was stolen from Upton Sinclair’s
legislation.

Mr. TAVENNER. And possibly also from the Soviet Union.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t propose to speak for the Soviet Union.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you propose to speak for Mr. Upton Sinclair?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew Mr. Sinclair quite well and he used
to contribute to my campaign and I had some opportunity to see his
campaign in California.

Mr. TAVENNER. Eugene V. Dennett described a convention of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation, held in April 1936 in Everett,
Wash., and the part that the Communist Party played in that convention.
His testimony relating to this particular matter is as follows:

    There was another matter which arose as a serious issue in that
    convention and it concerned a proposal for an initiative measure
    which became known as the production-for-use initiative. Many
    people, because of the Communist Party influence in the unemployed
    days, were quite concerned and alarmed over the problem of
    unemployment, insecurity, possible impoverishment, et cetera.
    All the consequences of economic dislocation. They had read many
    of the so-called utopian pieces of literature such as Bellamy’s
    Looking Backward and other documents of the kind. They had also
    read Mr. Upton Sinclair’s Program in California. They were somewhat
    acquainted with the propaganda of the Soviet Union to the effect
    that production for use was the solution to the problems of
    capitalist lack of planning. In other words, planned economy.

    The story on the production-for-use initiative is simply this:
    Because there was such a popular demand for some change in the
    economic situation to assure continued production and a cooperative
    effort, many people tried to translate an ideal of a cooperative
    commonwealth into some form of legislative effort. This resulted
    in many conferences and the calling in of legal talent to try
    to draft a measure which would be legal and which would satisfy
    the ambitions of the people to have the so-called dream of a
    cooperative commonwealth organization.

    Question. Now, at that point describe a little more fully what
    production for use meant in a practical sense.

    Mr. DENNETT. I wish I could satisfy you completely on
    that point, because that is one of the problems we ran into in
    trying to draw up this initiative measure. We could never satisfy
    ourselves that we had it satisfactorily organized. However, the
    staff who worked on it worked long and hard and finally produced a
    measure which was known as the production-for-use initiative. It
    was ready for presentation to that convention. However, some of us
    in the Communist Party, while we agreed that such a measure was a
    good propaganda weapon and felt that it was an excellent means of
    popularizing the ideas which we understood and claimed were the
    basis of the operation of the economy in the Soviet Union, we were
    startled when we read the document and found that it sounded a
    little bit more like the Fascist corporate state that the Italian
    leader Mussolini had established. We became so alarmed about it and
    we were so perplexed that we asked a very world famous person who
    happened to be a guest of the convention what this person thought
    about it. The person to whom I refer is Anna Louise Strong, who
    had just come from the Soviet Union, extended greetings to the
    convention and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her
    travels and won wide acclaim for that effort.

    Question. Did she on the floor of the convention address herself to
    the problem of production for use?

    Mr. DENNETT. She did not. Not at that moment. She spoke
    only in general terms about the referring to it in a complimentary
    way and hoping for success, but at that moment she did not know
    very much about what was in that document. However, we felt that
    she, coming from the Soviet Union with fresh knowledge, might know
    quite a lot about it and might be able to assist us in revising the
    document so that it would be possible to satisfy us that it was in
    fact a step in the right direction of a cooperative commonwealth.
    So she consented very graciously to take the document and work on
    it overnight. She did exactly that and we read it the next morning
    and much to our surprise she had moved the emphasis in the control
    even more in the direction of top control and less in the direction
    of allowing the members or the organization to have anything to say
    about it, which was just the reverse of the trend that we had hoped
    for.

    Consequently we began to ask ourselves, that is, the Communists
    asked themselves, if this is the end result of an effort to draw
    up an initiative maybe it would be smarter politically for us to
    see that the measure died a-borning. Consequently we came to the
    conclusion that it was impossible to draw up an initiative measure
    which would be adequate and which would answer our propaganda
    needs and our desires to satisfy us that it was in harmony with
    our program. So we embarked upon a campaign in the course of the
    election.

    Question. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed bill or to
    defeat it?

    Mr. DENNETT. We all went out presumably to win support, to
    get the measure adopted. That is, it was an initiative measure and
    it was before the voters. The voters were to cast a vote “yes” or
    “no” on this initiative. The Communist Party found itself in that
    predicament.

    We were committed to support the measure but we were determined
    to bring about its defeat. Consequently, we campaigned far and
    wide all over the State of Washington explaining the measure in
    such a way as to convince the people that they should not vote for
    it. At the same time we represented ourselves as campaigning for
    the measure and we did it so successfully that the measure was
    defeated. If we had not have done it I am afraid it would have been
    adopted.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Sounds like he needs a mental examination.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think it is rather consistent with Communist
Party tactics.

    Mr. DENNETT. My counsel asked me who was “we.” I am
    referring to the Communist Party in that instance, the leaders of
    the Washington Commonwealth Federation were terribly disturbed
    by the nature of the campaign we were carrying on--that is, the
    Communists.

    Question. I should think it would be a rather confusing campaign
    where the Communist Party in order to defeat it actually supported
    it.

    Mr. DENNETT. That is true. It was a very confusing to
    every one, even to us at times.

    Question. That is a very interesting thing. The Communist Party in
    order to defeat this measure went out and conducted a statewide
    campaign in favor of it but in order to accomplish its defeat, if I
    understand you correctly, it so represented the issues that people
    would be bound to vote against it.

    Mr. DENNETT. That is true. There is triple deception
    in this maneuver, which is rather hard to follow. I hope I have
    explained it.

    Question. I am afraid that the point may not be absolutely clear in
    the record, and I want to be sure that it is clear.

    If I understand you correctly, it was not the fact that the
    Communist Party was supporting this measure that caused its defeat.

    Mr. DENNETT. You are correct, sir; that was not the
    reason. It was the way we as disguised Communists carried on the
    campaign, ostensibly for it, but in fact against it.

    Question. In other words, your representations were of such a
    character as to make known the weaknesses in the bill and the
    person would actually think you were supporting it.

    Mr. DENNETT. True. You understand it quite clearly.

    Question. I hope so. I think the bill was properly named when you
    used the word “initiative” because that certainly is the use of
    initiative. I am glad to know it is Communist Party initiative. It
    is a very deceptive type of campaign.

That was the history of production for use as first sponsored by the
Communist Party until they found that it was not workable to reduce to
a form of legislative enactment in the State of Washington.

Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1936.

Mr. TAVENNER. In 1936.

And yet the will of Robert Marshall was prepared 2 years later in 1938,
and it embraces the same principle of the promotion and advancement
of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of
production for use. And you were one of the trustees of that foundation.

Do you know of any connection or any influence brought upon Robert
Marshall to establish this trust fund for the changing of the system
of economy in the United States which had its origin in the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know absolutely none. As I said earlier, and
I am sure Bob had no connection with the Washington situation that you
have read about in detail. I think like a great many others in that
depression period, there were all kinds of discussions of panaceas to
solve the economic situation that existed at the time. I am positive
that Bob Marshall was not a member of the Communist Party, that he was
not influenced by the Communists in the preparation of that will or the
provisions that are in it, and as a trustee I want to assure you that
I can’t think of a single instance, a single instance where any grant
of any money was made to any organization to begin an economy based on
production for use or propagandize it or publicize it or anything.

I can remember at one time the National Farmers Union came to the
foundation, Mr. Patton, the national president, particularly presented
the proposal and wanted to establish branch centers throughout the
United States trying to some extent bring about what he called a
cooperative movement and an economy based upon cooperatives. I think he
wanted an immediate expenditure of some $160,000 and it was rejected by
the trustees. I know that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Lem Harris?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I was not acquainted with Lem Harris.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think I know who he is. Wasn’t he in the
Department of Agriculture?

Mr. TAVENNER. He was in the Department of Agriculture. He
spent many years in the Soviet Union, studying and working in the
field of agriculture. He was prominent in organizations interested in
agriculture in this country. He was before this committee and refused
to testify as to his prior or present Communist Party membership,
relying upon the fifth amendment. He was considered the head of the
agricultural division of the Communist Party in the United States.

Did he importune in behalf of the National Farmers Union in procuring
grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He particularly never talked to me or never
asked me to do it. I don’t know whether----

Mr. TAVENNER. You don’t need to put it on such a personal
basis. As a trustee you know whether he did or did not.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. As a trustee, Gardner Jackson,
who I think was employed by the National Farmers Union, actually
talked more and actually guided the trust or the foundation as far as
agricultural matters were concerned, and I, of course, all I--I never
met Lem Harris.

Mr. TAVENNER. You wouldn’t have to meet Lem Harris to know
what influence he had to bear upon the making of grants by your
trustees.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know of no influence he had, particularly as
far as I am concerned. He never importuned me at any time to vote for
anybody or grant any money to any organization.

Mr. TAVENNER. Gardner Jackson is alleged to have written a
letter on August 3, 1946, to James G. Patton, president of the National
Farmers Union. Mr. Lem Harris admitted that he had seen a copy of that
letter when he testified before this committee. In this letter to Mr.
Patton, Gardner Jackson makes this statement:

    I don’t have to tell you that many of us understand your
    appointment of the pathetic Communist or pro-Communist boy Phil
    Reno to your headquarters staff in Denver as political and labor
    relations official was at the behest of George Marshall and Lem
    Harris, the Communist Party’s avowed agricultural policy fellow,
    in order to insure a continuing flow of money from the Marshall
    Foundation to the National Farmers Union.

Doesn’t that prove to you the influence that was exerted by the
Communist Party upon awards made to the National Farmers Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That, of course, is a statement made by Gardner
Jackson, I think after he had been removed from his position with the
Farmers Union, and in which he supplied information to Senator Bridges,
I think, and I can’t remember others, but what influence--for instance
I don’t even know who Phil Reno is, don’t know anything about him, and
what Jackson is attempting there I don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. You had a responsibility as one of the trustees
to know how the awards were being paid.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is right and, as a matter of fact, the
foundation called Patton before it because we got in disagreement with
him about the way the funds were being expended and from then on grants
were made to the various State organizations of the Farmers Union
rather than to the national office directly.

Mr. TAVENNER. But they were continued?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, they were actually made to different
State farm union organizations but not to the National Farmers Union,
not to Patton. And certainly one of the basic reasons was because of
this gigantic proposal that he had about establishing these branch
centers. We just didn’t think it was a wise expenditure of the
foundation’s funds, and so on, and that was some of the disagreement
that we had.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you ever see a copy of the letter which I
referred to?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I never did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Had you heard of it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think the way I heard of it, I don’t know
whether this is the same letter, but Senator Bridges made a speech on
the floor of the Senate I think in 1950 in which I am pretty sure he
quoted or actually inserted the Gardner Jackson letter, if I remember,
and I think I read it within Senator Bridges remarks at that time that
were on the floor.

Now, I remember that there was quite a to-do about it. I was out in
the State of Montana at that time. I have been close. I have known
the Farm Union leadership and members out there and I know they were
exercised and committed and worried about this whole development.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall from that letter, and the
discussions which you have just mentioned, that Lem Harris, whom I
have identified from the committee files as a person prominent in the
agricultural section of the Communist Party, was himself attempting to
decide what awards or what grants the trustees of the foundation should
make to the National Farmers Union?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall as far as I am concerned any
influence on me. I voted as far as I was concerned on those grants the
way I wanted to.

Mr. TAVENNER. I understand that, but I am asking you about
your knowledge and what you learned in the course of the performance of
your duties as a trustee.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as Lem Harris was concerned, I never
heard anything about Lem Harris’ influence or anything.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have just told us there was a great
disturbance in 1950 when this information became public.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Over the Gardner Jackson letter; yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. So you did not know something about it in 1950?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; but I mean from 1950 on there had been no
meetings of the Robert Marshall Foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me quote further from this same letter, in
which Mr. Gardner Jackson is addressing Mr. Patton:

    I do not have to recall to your mind--

meaning Mr. Patton’s mind--

    Lem Harris’ visit to you in Denver a few years ago to tell you that
    of the total amount of money remaining in the Marshall Foundation,
    the National Farmers Union would be allowed so much and to ask you
    as president of the National Farmers Union how you wanted that sum
    spread over the ensuing few years.

    Lem Harris is not a trustee of that fund.

Do you know anything about that? Does that refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I was not close
to Patton of course. I don’t know what he was doing as far as Lem
Harris was concerned, I mean I just don’t know anything about that. I
am telling you that very frankly.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have been very positive in your statements
that no awards or grants were made by this foundation which might be
construed as being grants to or for the benefit of the Communist Party.
That has been the inference of your testimony.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, that is what I am trying--of course the
questions all have been with reference to the economic system based on
production for use rather than for profit.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is right.

Mr. O’CONNELL. And all that.

Mr. TAVENNER. You trustees had very broad powers to determine
what organization you would aid in the purpose of this trust which was,
namely, to promote an economic system in the United States based upon
profit for use. I am trying to find out how you exercised those broad
powers.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Those powers were exercised by different
trustees.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of which you were one.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of which I was one. All of us exercised I am
sure our independent judgment on it. If it were possible to bring them
all here, I don’t have them, but there were many instances where the
trustees divided, where these grants were made by majority vote rather
than by full vote and so on.

There are all kinds of situations that exist. But as far as I am
concerned, Lem Harris never influenced me to make a grant to the
Farmers Union or to any organization.

Mr. TAVENNER. Don’t misunderstand me again. My question is
broader than the influencing of you. My question is whether or not it
influenced the action of the trustees.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of course I don’t know whether Lem Harris went
out and met with Jim Patton and Gardner Jackson, who was a trustee. I
don’t know whether that actually took place. I don’t know whether he
did these other things that are said. I don’t know whether he did them
or not, but if he did those things and Jackson was going along then he
had some influence and so on. But I think Jim Patton became leader of
the National Farmers Union after I left Congress. I never got to know
him real well, I think I have been introduced to him maybe once or
twice. I know that Jim Patton was displeased with some of my votes on
the foundation which were evidently reported to him by Jackson and went
to the leadership of the Farmers Union in Montana to try to exercise
influence as far as I was concerned in my votes on the foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have any other groups attempting to
influence your judgment or decision in the matter of making grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Any other groups?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; or individuals.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, over the period of years from 1940 on
down there were all kinds of grants made and there have been various
individuals who have come to me in connection with them.

Mr. TAVENNER. And many of those people were leaders in
notorious Communist-front organizations; weren’t they?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, of course I don’t go along with your
description of notorious Communist-front organizations. Many of the
people came to me and asked me to vote for grants for causes and for
principles which I thought were right and which I thought ought to be
done, and if they were right in my opinion I thought they were right, I
voted for them and if they were not I voted against them.

Mr. TAVENNER. Well, for instance, was a grant made of $20,000
to be used in the payment of attorney’s fees for the defense of William
Robert Remington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Not by the Marshall Foundation, by the trust
funds that I was a trustee of. We certainly made no grant.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was any money of the foundation----

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think, isn’t that in connection with the
civil-liberties trust? It is not in connection with the trade-union
trust. Isn’t that right?

Mr. TAVENNER. That was paid out from another fund in the same
trust, not from the one in which----

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. The will established, I think I can explain
it, the will established three trusts, one that was called the Robert
Marshall Foundation, we were denoted always as the trade-union trust.
The second trust was a civil-liberties trust and 5 trustees, not all
of the 5 trustees on the trade-union trust, were trustees on the
civil-liberties trust. There were 15.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you on both?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I was only on the trade union trust.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have any knowledge of the payment from
this other trust--that is, the civil-liberties trust--of the grant of
$20,000 for defense of Remington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know nothing about it except, was that
contained in Mr. Dies’ speech? Was that reported----

Mr. TAVENNER. No.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really personally have no--I am not a member
of that civil-liberties trust and I don’t know. There is also a
wilderness area trust that is set up in the will and I am not a trustee
on that fund either.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the only fund of which you were a trustee
the one which provided for the promotion of an economic system in the
United States based upon the theory of production for use?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Which the trustees abandoned and decided to
eliminate at the very first meeting of the trustees that was held.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let us see the nature of the grants and we can
determine more about whether they did actually abandon it or not. How
long did this trust continue to operate? How long was it active?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think we actually made grants from, if I
remember correctly, 1940 until 1950. I am not sure whether we made any
grants in 1950 or not. We have not met in the last 5 years, I know
that. If I remember correctly, there is approximately $41,000 left in
the fund of which I am a trustee and there have been no meetings of the
trustees in at least the last 4 or 5 years.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee has information that grants were
made in 1941 and 1942 by the Robert Marshall Foundation to the American
Youth Congress for the total of $10,250. Do you know who solicited
those grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. An actual application would be made to Mr.
George Marshall as manager of the trust by the organization that was
involved--by the American Youth Congress. I can’t recall the reason for
the grant. My offhand guess would be that the American Youth Congress
was proposing to establish some kind of a labor secretary or labor
division of the Youth Congress or something, and they would tie it
in actually to the provision of the will as far as the trade union,
development of trade unions were concerned, organization of unemployed
youth, I imagine.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you, as a trustee, do anything to ascertain
how the money was being used after the grants were made?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I never did actually as a trustee. We had
the organization report to us from time to time how they were expending
the funds and what they were doing, but I couldn’t personally take any
one of those grants and tell you actually what the report was.

Mr. TAVENNER. The American Youth Congress has been cited as a
subversive and Communist organization by Attorney General Tom Clark on
December 4, 1947, and September 21, 1948, under a citation by Attorney
General Francis Biddle September 24, 1942, and also, May 28, 1942, it
was stated in the citation that--

    It originated in 1934 and has been controlled by the Communists and
    manipulated by them to influence the thought of American youth.

It was cited by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities June
29, 1942, January 3, 1939, January 3, 1941, and again on March 29,
1944, in which it was stated that it was one of the principal fronts
of the Communist Party and prominently identified with the White
House picket line under the immediate auspices of the American Peace
Mobilization.

Do you know whether Jack R. McMichael was the national chairman of the
American Youth Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I couldn’t recall--the name doesn’t mean
anything to me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did he play any part in the solicitation of
these grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned, he didn’t at
least to me. If his name was on the stationery, I got a copy of the
application and all that, but----

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not certain that he was its president at
the time those grants were made, but he may have been.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the same period, according to the
committee’s information, grants totaling $3,250 were made to the
Federated Press.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. And subsequently increased to a total of $29,200.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether those totals are correct,
but I know grants were made consistently to the Federated Press.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were the grants sufficiently large to make these
figures within reason?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I would say they are. They never got a large
grant each year. I think they got small grants like $3,500 or something
of that kind. It could have totaled $29,000 over the years.

Mr. TAVENNER. That organization was cited on March 29,
1944, by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities as a
Communist-controlled organization financed by the American Fund for
Public Service and the Robert Marshall Foundation, both principal
sources of funds for Communist enterprises.

Mr. O’CONNELL. There are a lot of conclusions drawn there that
need proof.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think we are proceeding to prove it right now.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Federated Press was a press service that
operated in the labor field. It supplied labor papers throughout the
country with labor news, news about labor, and about things labor was
doing and we thought certainly was entitled to a grant from the point
of view of development and organization of trade unions.

Mr. TAVENNER. It was a principal supplier of the Daily Worker
and the Daily People’s World.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wouldn’t know, but I would presume that they
probably----

Mr. TAVENNER. You didn’t inquire?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Probably did. As far as I was concerned the
Federated Press was doing an excellent job in the labor field. As a
Congressman, of course, I had excellent opportunity to get all of the
labor newspapers and the labor newspapers particularly in my district,
and they were getting news from the Federated Press that covered a want
that was sorely needed as far as labor information was concerned.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you know that the American Youth Congress
had been cited as a Communist-front organization at the time you acted
upon----

Mr. O’CONNELL. By whom?

Mr. TAVENNER. By the Attorney General of the United States,
both Attorney General Clark and Attorney General Biddle and by this
committee.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned, I am pretty sure I
had knowledge they were cited by Attorney General Clark and by Attorney
General Biddle or by any other attorney general, but that didn’t
determine in my mind----

Mr. TAVENNER. That did not serve to put you on inquiry?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That did not serve as far as I was concerned
to make it conclusive by any means, and if I in my personal opinion
thought they were doing a good job and doing a job within the
provisions of this will and so on, I voted for it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would you have made a grant to the Communist
Party in the State of Washington which as shown by the testimony I read
to you was interested in enacting into law the same principle under
which this trust was being operated?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I told you that at the very beginning, at the
very first meeting that the trustees held, that we voted not to make
any grants that were asked for on the basis of being used for the
promotion of an economy based on production for use rather than for
profit.

Mr. TAVENNER. That would have been in violation of the
provisions of the will, wouldn’t it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, sir; we made our grants within the first
provisions, within the provision that provided for the development and
the organization of workers and unemployed persons and so on. We made
it a strictly trade-union trust.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, you entirely disregarded this
provision?

Mr. O’CONNELL. And if the Communist Party or the Democratic
Party or Republican Party or any partisan organization came and asked
for funds they wouldn’t have gotten it.

Mr. TAVENNER. But if it was an organization which the
leadership of the Communist Party had captured and had under its
control, it would be perfectly all right to make an award?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The organization never, I mean the foundation
never went out and conducted any Red hunt or went out----

Mr. TAVENNER. Never took any precautionary measures?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Don’t put words in my mouth. We never went
out and conducted any kind of a Red hunt, we never investigated the
organization to see what they were doing.

Mr. TAVENNER. Didn’t you make any investigation?

Mr. O’CONNELL. When they said we want to do so and so in
the labor field. We wanted to do this or that, if it was within the
provisions of the will and in the minds of the majority of the
trustees something we felt ought to be done, the grant was made. If we
didn’t, it wasn’t.

Mr. TAVENNER. You said you didn’t make a Red hunt, witch hunt,
I am not sure which you stated. Red hunt. But actually you didn’t make
any investigation?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As to whether or not this organization had Reds
in it or Communists in it?

Mr. TAVENNER. As to whether it was a Communist-controlled
organization.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, we didn’t make any such investigation.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why didn’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It wasn’t our job to do anything of that kind.
As a matter of fact, I am sure, Mr. Tavenner, you have been around here
a long time, and I mean the development as far as these organizations
are concerned that you are talking about to me now, the proscription
of these organizations, certain individuals, are things that have gone
on. I went into this foundation selected solely as a friend of Bob
Marshall’s. I went in with an honest mind determined to do the best job
I knew how to see that the money was spent to do what I thought Bob
would like to have seen done.

Mr. TAVENNER. Bob unquestionably wanted to promote a new
economic system in the United States based on the theory of production.
That is what Bob wanted to do according to his last will and testament.

Did you make grants aggregating $6,000 to Frontier Films?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure we did. I can’t recall the
particular grant now or know what it was made for. I think there was a
particular picture. Wasn’t the picture of 1937 Little Steel strike out
in Chicago where many of the workers were murdered? You see it is very
difficult to go back 17 or 18 years and try to put it in the pattern
that you now work on today.

Mr. TAVENNER. We know that Frontier Films produced the
Communist film Native Land based on Richard Wright’s Native Son. The
picture featured the Negro actor, Paul Robeson. That is the only
information that I have.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know as far as Frontier Films were concerned
whatever the picture was, as I recall, it was a labor picture and my
best recollection is it was the picture about the Little Steel strike
and particularly the Memorial Day massacre in 1937 at Republic Steel in
Chicago.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall who solicited the grant?

Frontier Films was cited by this committee as a Communist front on
March 29, 1944.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, the first name of Paul comes to my mind.
I can’t remember any last name. The party came and talked to us about
it--was there a Paul--Paul comes to my mind. That is all I can recall.

Mr. TAVENNER. Grants totaling $900 were made to the
International Juridical Association. Do you recall the circumstances
under which that grant was made?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I really can’t recall the circumstances
now. It is apparently a very small grant. I don’t know what it was
used for. It must have been in connection with some particular labor
legal problem that may have been involved as far as the Wagner Act was
concerned or NLRB or something of that nature.

Mr. TAVENNER. Grants totaling $4,250 were made to the National
Federation for Constitutional Liberties. That is an organization you
did know about; isn’t it? In fact, the amount was increased after 1942
to a total of $56,000. You were acquainted with that organization;
weren’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew of the National Federation for
Constitutional Liberties, yes, and I am sure that grants were made, I
would say on an annual basis to the National Federation, I don’t know
what amounts specifically, but whether that total amount is correct or
not I cannot say.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you familiar with the citation of that
organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I am not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me read it to you. It was cited as
subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4,
1947; it was also cited by Attorney General Francis Biddle September
24, 1942, in the following language:

    Part of what Lenin called the solar system of organizations,
    ostensibly having no connection with the Communist Party, by
    which Communists attempt to create sympathizers and supporters of
    their program. It was established as a result of a conference on
    constitutional liberties held in Washington, D. C., June 7-9, 1940.
    The defense of Communist leaders such as Sam Darcy and Robert Wood,
    party secretaries for Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, have been major
    efforts of the federation.

What purpose did the trustees of your foundation have in making $56,000
of grants to that organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, of course, if I had the specific
application before me I could tell you, but I am sure that the
application set out that it would be used for the defense of various
labor leaders who were under attack of any kind, particularly from the
civil liberties point of view.

Mr. TAVENNER. Communist or not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Communist or non-Communist.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were actually one of the sponsors for the
call to the conference, in June of 1940, which was alluded to in the
citation by Attorney General Biddle; were you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether I was. If my name is
there, I was, and of course I was all for any organization that was
fighting for constitutional liberties and still am, any organization
that fights for them.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain associated with the
National Federation for Constitutional Liberties?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Associated with them?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. In what capacity?

Mr. TAVENNER. In any capacity. You were a sponsor of the call
for the constitutional liberties conference which gave birth to the
National Federation for Constitutional Liberties.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I imagine I was a sponsor as long as it took
to sponsor the call. I don’t know how long that might be. But I had no
office in the National Federation.

Mr. TAVENNER. How was your assistance as a sponsor in this
movement obtained?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Have you got a list of the officers of the
federation?

Mr. TAVENNER. No; I do not.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I would presume--if you had a list of the
officers--I presume I was contacted through the officers.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you aware that this organization merged with
the International Labor Defense, another arm or branch of the Communist
Party, to form the Civil Rights Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My information is that the Civil Rights
Congress was formed from a merger of these two organizations. That is
as I understand it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Our information is that the Civil Rights
Congress was given grants totaling $63,500. Are you familiar with those
grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure the Civil Rights Congress was given
grants. Whether or not that total figure is correct or not I couldn’t
say.

Mr. TAVENNER. Civil Rights Congress was cited as subversive
and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark in 1947 and in 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I understand, they now are going through
proceedings before the Board to determine whether or not they are?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, whether or not they will be required to
register. That is the provision of law.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I mean the determination of whether or not they
register is whether or not they are a Communist-front organization.

Mr. TAVENNER. They are probably making the defense that they
are not required to.

Did you also make grants totaling $10,125 to the National Negro
Congress which subsequently was increased to $54,530?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That sounds--I am sure grants were made to the
National Negro Congress for the employment of a labor secretary to work
particularly on the organizing of both working and unemployed Negroes
in the Southern States. I am sure that was done.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you aware that that organization was cited
as subversive and Communist by the Attorney General Tom Clark, on
December 4, 1947, and again on September 21, 1948?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Do you know when our grants were made to the
National Negro Congress?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, from 1942 until March 1951.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, then, I am sure that, I feel sure we knew
it had been cited. As I said before, of course mere citations by the
Attorney General is not sufficient----

Mr. TAVENNER. It wasn’t sufficient to put you on inquiry?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It wasn’t sufficient at least in my mind to
proscribe that organization, and I think history and subsequent events
have proved that it is necessary to go a little further than just to
have the Attorney General put organizations on a list.

Mr. TAVENNER. You say a little further? You didn’t go any
further, did you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as we were concerned, as I told you
when an organization came to us they came to us with the specific
application for funds for a specific purpose and we never--as a matter
of fact, we never permitted the organization to appear before the
foundation or any representative of the organization. We went into the
matter ourselves. We conducted no investigations to determine what
their political beliefs might be or anything like that.

Mr. TAVENNER. You made the awards regardless of the purpose
behind the formation of the organization; is that what it comes down to?

Mr. O’CONNELL. For instance, we never went, we never sent out
a group of investigators, never had the funds, as a matter of fact, to
do that to find out.

Mr. TAVENNER. If you had read the citation of Attorney General
Francis Biddle, for instance, which was made on September 24, 1942, you
would have learned as follows:

    A. Philip Randolph, president of the congress since its inception
    in 1936, refused to run again in April 1940 on the ground that it
    was deliberately packed with Communists and Congress of Industrial
    Organization members who were either Communists or sympathizers
    with Communists.

    Commencing with its formation in 1936, Communist Party
    functionaries and fellow travelers have figured prominently in the
    leadership and affairs of the congress. According to A. Phillip
    Randolph, John P. Davis, secretary of the congress, has admitted
    that the Communist Party contributed $100 a month to its support.

    From the record of its activities and the composition of its
    governing bodies there can be little doubt that it has served as
    what James W. Ford, Communist Vice Presidential candidate elected
    to the executive committee in 1937 predicted: an important sector
    of the Democratic front sponsored and supported by the Communist
    Party.

Those are the words of Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the
United States, in 1942. Do you say that statement was not worthy of
consideration?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, didn’t have that statement in
front of me.

Mr. TAVENNER. It would have been in front of you if you had
inquired about it. It was in the Congressional Record.

Mr. O’CONNELL. We didn’t take the Congressional Record. There
are many things in the Congressional Record, as you well know, that you
just don’t take as it’s the Bible.

Mr. TAVENNER. Actually you were not interested to see whether
or not the money which you were paying out was for the promotion of
Communist Party projects?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That didn’t enter into our consideration, the
fact that an organization came to us with a specific application for a
specific purpose to do a certain job, and if we thought it ought to be
done and thought it was in the provisions of the will we granted it. We
didn’t think it was incumbent upon the trustees to make any kind of an
investigation into these organizations as far as the political opinions
and beliefs of their leaders or their members, whatever they might be.
We just didn’t do it. It just wasn’t particularly being done by private
individuals or private trusts.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did your foundation make grants totaling $1,500
to the Southern Conference for Human Welfare?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is, through 1942 and subsequently increased
to a grand total of $14,000.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure, I don’t know whether that total is
correct, but I am sure we made grants to the Southern Conference for
Human Welfare.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you look into that organization or the
formation of that organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. From my own information they were doing an
excellent job in the field of promoting Negro rights, in the field of
organizing of labor unions, and so on in the South, and particularly
asked for the grant, if I remember correctly, to employ a labor
secretary to develop that particular part of the conference or group.

Mr. TAVENNER. This organization was cited as Communist-front
which received money from the Robert Marshall Foundation, one of the
principal sources of funds by which many Communist-fronts operate,
Special Committee on Un-American Activities reported March 29, 1944.

Did you make total grants of $30,750 to the Southern Negro Youth
Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure we made grants to the Southern Negro
Youth Congress. Whether that total is correct, I can’t say.

Mr. TAVENNER. This organization was cited on December 4, 1947,
by Attorney General Tom Clark as subversive and among the affiliates
and committees of the Communist Party, U. S. A., which seeks to alter
the form of the Government of the United States by unconstitutional
means.

You thought that was not worth looking into?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew nothing about that. I certainly knew
that that was--Who said that? I don’t know who said it now.

Mr. TAVENNER. Attorney General Tom Clark.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Do you think yourself that--well, that Tom
Clark’s mere proscription of this organization is sufficient?

Mr. TAVENNER. Certainly this should have been a warning to you
to make some inquiry and investigation unless your view and purpose was
to help the Communist Party by promoting its interests through large
awards.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That might be your conclusion but there were
certainly no awards or grants made to these organizations from the
point of view of being beneficial in any respect to the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall grants having been made of $6,000
to U. S. Week?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think I can recall that. Wasn’t that
young Bill Dodd (William E. Dodd, Jr.), son of the former Ambassador to
Germany?

Mr. TAVENNER. Young Bill Dodd was the son of the former United
States Ambassador to Germany, but I don’t know who applied to you.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that was the magazine he was interested
in, if I remember.

Mr. TAVENNER. It was cited on March 29, 1949, by this
committee as a Communist front which received funds from your Robert
Marshall Foundation.

Mr. O’CONNELL. When was the grant made to U. S. Week?

Mr. TAVENNER. 1941. Were grants made to American Youth for
Democracy in the amount of $5,000?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Was it grants or grant?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not sure whether that is the total grant or
whether that is one grant.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am not, either. I recollect a considerable
amount of discussion about that grant when it came up.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of the discussion?

Mr. O’CONNELL. There was some discussion about what kind of
a job they were doing and what organization it was, and so on. I am
pretty sure the grant was not continued.

Mr. TAVENNER. It was cited as subversive and Communist by
Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and the citation by
the Special Committee on Un-American Activities report March 29, 1944,
reads as follows:

    Cited as the new name under which the Young Communist League
    operates and which also largely absorbed the American Youth
    Congress.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Do you know when the grant was made?

Mr. TAVENNER. No; I do not. It would be between 1942 and 1951,
but I don’t know the specific date.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can remember a discussion about the grant,
and I think you will find--I could be wrong, but I think there was only
one grant made, and it was discontinued.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were grants totaling $6,500 made to the
California Labor School?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I don’t know whether that total amount is
correct, but I know a grant was made to the California Labor School.

Mr. TAVENNER. This organization was cited by Attorney General
Tom Clark on June 1, 1948, as a subversive and Communist organization.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Do you know when the grant was made?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir. Grants totaling $8,000 were made to the
Council for Pan-American Democracy. Do you recall those grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can remember that a grant was made, or
grants, to that organization, but I can’t remember who the people were
that were involved.

Mr. TAVENNER. The organization was cited by Attorney General
Tom Clark on June 1, 1948, as subversive and Communist and by the
Special Committee on Un-American Activities report on March 29, 1944,
and again on June 25, 1942.

$21,000 was granted to Farm Research, according to our information. Do
you recall that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I don’t recall it, but I presume your
information is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Farm Research was cited by the Special Committee
on Un-American Activities on March 29, 1944, as a Communist-front
organization, receiving finances from the Robert Marshall Foundation.

Did the foundation make grants to the National Lawyers Guild in the
amount of $15,250?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure it did, although I don’t know whether
the amount is correct?

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the purpose of those grants?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The purpose of those grants was to assist
the Lawyers Guild in getting out certain legal material as far as
particular labor cases before the NLRB and the courts were concerned.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it furnished to assist the guild in getting
out any other work besides that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. They came in with a specific application to
do this particular kind of job or work that had to be done, and where
they were working particularly in representation of labor, in the labor
field.

Mr. TAVENNER. Total of $25,000 was granted, according to our
information, to the New World?

Mr. O’CONNELL. $25,000?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I know grants were made, I think that paper
was originally called the Washington New Dealer. Isn’t that right?
And grants were made to it while it was the Washington New Dealer. It
was changed to the New World and grants were made both to it as the
Washington New Dealer and the New World.

But the minute it became a part of the People’s World which became a
Northwest edition of the People’s World, there were no further grants
made.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you procure from the Robert Marshall
Foundation a grant to be used by any progressive causes in the
Northwest in May 1949?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think a grant for the Seattle Labor
School.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the amount of that $4,000?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. You left Seattle in May 1949 to attend your
meeting in New York City of your trustees?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. I don’t know whether it was May of 1949,
but some time----

Mr. TAVENNER. And returned with $4,000 for the Seattle Labor
School.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; that is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. The Seattle Labor School, according to the
testimony of Barbara Hartle, is the same as the Pacific Northwest Labor
School. It was first known by the name of Seattle Labor School and then
later became known as the Pacific Northwest Labor School.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Wasn’t it the other way around?

Mr. TAVENNER. I may have it backward. You probably would know.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember which was which, but I think
it was the other way around. But I can remember that grant; yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who was instrumental in soliciting the funds for
that labor school?

Mr. O’CONNELL. John Daschbach.

Mr. TAVENNER. The same person who used your name on the
catalogue of the school as an instructor of course 112?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. You knew it was a Communist Party school at that
time, didn’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not.

Mr. TAVENNER. It was cited by the Attorney General Tom Clark,
as early as December 4, 1947.

You again state you just didn’t pay any attention to that citation by
an Attorney General?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall that it was cited. I don’t
remember, but as I said, a citation by the Attorney General or placing
it on a list would not be determinative for me as to whether or not it
ought to get a grant.

Mr. TAVENNER. We have demonstrated in the testimony to you
here today that nearly every teacher on the staff was a member of the
Communist Party, according to testimony before this committee. We have
shown you now the citation of the Attorney General of that school, and
we find now that you procured this grant of $4,000.

Did you procure any other money for this school besides this grant of
$4,000?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I can’t----

Mr. TAVENNER. Our information is that the total amount
advanced to the Pacific Northwest Labor School was $11,500.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I thought you meant money outside of the
Marshall Foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. No.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure grants were made to the
Seattle Labor School for 2 or 3 years, I don’t remember which.

Mr. TAVENNER. In fact, it would have closed its doors but for
the financial assistance given it through you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As a matter of fact, when the last grant was
made it had closed its doors and the grant was made to pay up debts and
salaries and things of that kind that were--incurred loans.

Mr. TAVENNER. Salaries to Communist Party teachers?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. Daschbach’s salary for one.

Mr. TAVENNER. He has been identified by a number of witnesses
as an active member of the Communist Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned, I didn’t know he was
a member of the Communist Party and many of these people I don’t even
know that you read today as teachers at that school, I don’t even know.

I do know Gundlach, who was a professor at the University of
Washington. Whether he is a Communist or not, I don’t know, but----

Mr. TAVENNER. You are not willing to accept the testimony of a
Communist Party functionary, the No. 2 person in the Communist Party in
the State of Washington, for that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, of course, I haven’t had an opportunity
to read her testimony. Did she say Gundlach was a Communist? The reason
I feel so sure Gundlach isn’t a Communist is when the State un-American
activities committee was conducting its investigations out there----

Mr. TAVENNER. I read to you this morning and read into the
record the identification of Gundlach as a member of the Communist
Party, according to the testimony given this committee and my
recollection is that it was Barbara Hartle.

At any rate, didn’t you know that and weren’t you aware of the fact
that he was ousted from the university as a professor because of his
Communist Party membership?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember correctly, and it is a long time
ago, Gundlach was actually ousted, if I remember correctly, because
President Allen, who was at the university at the time, didn’t think he
was a Communist but thought that his conduct in connection with the
investigation that was carried on by the State un-American activities
committee, was such that he didn’t think he was a fit and proper person
to be a teacher at the university. That is my recollection of it.

The reason I wonder about Gundlach is that he took an entirely
different course, as I remember, before the State un-American
activities committee out there than certain others who were there
later, but if Barbara Hartle says he is and says he was, she may be
right. I don’t know. All I am doing is conjecturing on the basis of----

Mr. TAVENNER. As a matter of fact, Mr. O’Connell, from your
vast experience and your intelligence, didn’t you form the opinion
that the Pacific Northwest Labor School was a training school for the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I particularly didn’t get that idea because
I know some excellent people who were connected with the school. One is
Frank Carlson, who was in the streetcarmen’s union out there who was an
outstanding labor leader who certainly wasn’t a Communist.

I. E. Sandvigen of the machinists union was not a Communist, I am
sure. Many others identified with the school particularly in the labor
movement that promoted the school and I think what may have happened
to it as it went along, I don’t know, but the idea of the school was a
good one and I think they were trying to do a good job.

Daschbach became director of the school somewhat later in its history,
as I remember it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me read into the record at this point, Mr.
Chairman, the testimony of Barbara Hartle regarding the labor school.
She was asked the question as to what connection there was between the
school and the Communist Party. That is between the Pacific Northwest
Labor School and the Communist Party. Her answer was as follows:

    The Pacific Northwest Labor School was a Communist front project
    in the field of education and its basic purpose was to spread
    Marxist-Leninist education, but to do it in such a way as to
    attract non-Communists in addition to its use for being a school
    for Communist Party members.

    It had a double purpose, to educate the party membership and to
    draw as many non-Communists into classes as possible at the same
    time. It was not considered a party leadership training school,
    it was more for the membership. And in order to attract a broader
    segment of persons into the school a number of courses were
    included that were not in Marxism-Leninism, but they were included
    in order to appeal to people from labor unions, professional
    fields, and others.

    For example, parliamentary law would be a subject intended for the
    purpose of drawing people into the school and drawing them closer
    to it with no idea on their part that they were getting into a
    Communist school. An air of respectability was also created in this
    way so that people would feel if they enrolled in this school they
    had a perfect right to do so and there was nothing wrong with being
    in it.

    The hope, of course, was that if non-Communists enrolled this way,
    after a while they would learn more about it and would become
    convinced to enroll in courses on Marxist-Leninism. The objective
    of the school was to gain Communist influence over non-Communists,
    recruit as many people as possible out of this school into the
    Communist Party, and special attention was paid to members of
    organized labor through this school.

Mr. DOYLE. The committee will stand in recess until 9:30
tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:20 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at
9:30 a. m., Thursday, June 2, 1955.)



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA


THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1955

  UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,
  _Washington, D. C._


PUBLIC HEARING

A subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:45 a. m. in the Caucus
Room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Edwin E. Willis, presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Edwin E. Willis and Gordon
H. Scherer.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, counsel.

Mr. WILLIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Let the record show there are present today Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and
myself, Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana.

Inasmuch as the subcommittee is reconstituted, that is, members are
here today who were not present yesterday, it might be well to reswear
the witness.

Let the record show also that the chairman of the committee appointed
a new subcommittee to continue these hearings, namely, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Scherer, and myself as chairman.

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

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do.

Mr. WILLIS. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.


TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, continuing with the matter of
grants by the Robert Marshall Foundation, of which you were one of the
trustees, it is noted that grants totaling $30,366.85 were made to you.
Can you explain that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. Those would be in my opinion the total
amount that I received for traveling expenses, for meetings of the
foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean, then, no specific grant was
actually made to you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. There was no actual specific grant made to
me. The provisions of the will, as I remember them, provided that the
trustees are to receive no compensation except their traveling expenses
to and from meetings of the trustees of the foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. I note that there was introduced into the record
during the Canwell hearings, check No. 94 bearing date of October 2,
1942, drawn on the funds of the Robert Marshall Foundation in the
amount of $150 made payable to you.

Have you any explanation to make of that item?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure that, if I knew the meeting date of
the foundation at that time, we also had a practice when a meeting of
the foundation was called by the trustees, if the financial situation
of the trustee involved was such that he needed an advance for expenses
to come to the meeting, an advance was made in the amount of probably
$150 or so, but it was always expended for either transportation or
meals and hotel and so on, while in attendance at the meetings of the
foundation.

Mr. TAVENNER. You testified yesterday that in May of 1949 you
procured a grant of $4,000 for the use of the Northwest Pacific Labor
School.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of course I think that ought to be--I
personally couldn’t procure the grant. The grant was voted by at least
a majority of the trustees for the Pacific Northwest Labor School.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the grant actually made through your efforts?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I advocated that the grant be made, yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. And Daschbach interviewed you with regard to it
before you presented it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was any part of that grant or any other grant
used for the benefit of the Northwest edition of the Daily People’s
World?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I know, certainly not. I mean the
grants were made to the organization and certainly no part of that
grant as far as I would know, what actually Daschbach may have done
with it later I wouldn’t be able to specifically say.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you learn anything about it, even from a
second-hand source?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I never learned, never had any information
that it was used for any other purpose.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know whether any part of the $4,000 grant
or any other grant from the foundation was used for the benefit of the
Civil Rights Congress in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether it was, that grant or any
other grant. I know there was some argument and some consultation with
me by Mr. Daschbach about it and I was very specific--I think that was
before the grant was made--and I was very specific with him that no
part of the grant would be used for any other purpose than that for
which it was made. That was the Pacific Northwest Labor School.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was John Daschbach an official of the Civil
Rights Congress in Seattle?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember correctly, I left Seattle, I
don’t remember when the Civil Rights Congress was organized in Seattle,
but as I remember when I left Seattle Daschbach was then functioning as
head or director of the Washington Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did he hold that position at the time he spoke
to you about the use of proceeds of the grant for the Civil Rights
Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think I would be able to say whether he
was actually in the position at that time. I can’t recall. I remember
at the time that he asked me about the grant they were closing out,
they were terminating this Seattle Labor School and they had borrowed
money from particularly various labor union members about the town. I
remember I think it was either Frank or Fred Carlson to whom they owed
money and other people, I can’t remember precisely who they were now,
but anyway the representations made to me in connection with the grant
were they were trying to close out the labor school and pay off their
debts and pay I think back salaries that were owed to Mr. Daschbach and
to some others there, I don’t know who.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was John Daschbach known to you to be a member
of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I never knew John Daschbach was a member of the
Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Had you heard that he was a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had never heard that he was a member of the
Communist Party. I actually, my first, I think the first time I met
Mr. Daschbach was in Spokane and I think he was attending Gonzaga
University, a Jesuit university in Spokane, and as far as I knew
personally, I didn’t know he was a Communist, didn’t know whether he
was or was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. You are aware now, are you not, that he has been
identified by a number of witnesses as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I couldn’t say that I know that precisely; but
I do know he was indicted as a Smith Act defendant in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. And convicted.

Mr. O’CONNELL. And convicted. I don’t know whether he is in
prison now.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall what individual it was in the
National Lawyers Guild who solicited an award from the trustees?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, my best recollection as far as that would
be concerned is that it was Mr. Martin Popper, who was an attorney in
New York.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the executive secretary of the National
Lawyers Guild take any part in representations or solicitations
regarding the grant?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think Mr. Silberstein (Robert J.
Silberstein), I wouldn’t remember correctly. It is hard for me to
remember. I would say Mr. Silberstein actually probably prepared the
actual application that was made to the foundation for a grant.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did he confer with you about the matter?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can never even remember Bob Silberstein
talking to me about a grant for the Lawyers Guild. As I remember the
particular grant, it was made in connection with labor work that the
guild was doing, and Mr. Martin Popper, as I remember it, was the one
who actually made the presentation, at least I know he talked to me and
I think to some of the other trustees.

Mr. TAVENNER. The New World issue of March 25, 1948, reflects
that Jerry O’Connell launched a series of three special forum programs
at the Pacific Northwest Labor School to discuss our foreign policy and
our fight for peace. Do you recall that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t recall that. I know I never made
any speeches at Seattle Labor School.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have any connection with the
presentation of a special forum program at the Seattle Labor School?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I certainly cannot recall any. I don’t remember
ever speaking at the Seattle Labor School or being involved in any
forum. Was that a forum I was supposed to conduct?

Mr. TAVENNER. The article says you launched a series of three
forum programs.

Mr. O’CONNELL. It says it is on foreign policy?

Mr. TAVENNER. That the subject was Our Foreign Policy and Our
Fight for Peace.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I certainly don’t remember any such thing.
Practically all the time I was in the State of Washington I was engaged
either as executive secretary of the Democratic Party or was executive
secretary of the Progressive Party and my particular work was in
political organization and political work and I don’t want to say I did
or didn’t but I certainly now don’t recall any such series of lectures.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you have advised us that you
became chairman of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill
during the year 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you aware of a special fund drive conducted
by the Communist Party in 1947 for the purpose of fighting anticipated
congressional action relating to the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had no knowledge of any such--what was it a
fund?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Blauvelt testified before the Committee on
Un-American Activities within the past 3 weeks on that subject. She was
a police detective for the city of New York and was a member of the
Communist Party and served the New York City Police Department as an
underground agent for a period of more than 8 years before her identity
was discovered. Mrs. Blauvelt testified for nearly a week.

In the course of this testimony she stated that upon the agitation
for a bill relating to communism in the House of Representatives the
Communist Party hurriedly made a fund drive and that they sought to
raise a total of $225,000 for the purpose of fighting the opposition to
communism. Within 25 days the Communist Party raised $250,000.

During the period that you were chairman of this committee to defeat
the Mundt bill--that was over the period from 1948 until some time in
1950 or 1951----

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; but it ought to be explained that in 1948
the only functioning of the committee was from a period I would say
probably in June of 1948 until the adjournment of Congress, which was
in that year I think, because of the party conventions, the national
conventions, was adjourned quite early.

I know there was probably, I was here probably a month or a little over
a month in that connection, and then I did not--all during 1949 there
was no functioning of the committee whatsoever, as I remember it, and I
think the first time I came down in 1950 was, I would say, about March
of 1950 and I was here until about maybe the early part of June, when I
returned to Montana to take the bar exams I have already talked about.

Mr. TAVENNER. As you stated, you came back here in July and
were here for a period of time?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think the latter part of July or first part
of August and I was here until the Congress adjourned sine die about
the middle of September.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is correct.

To complete my question: Did the Communist Party give your committee
any financial assistance at any time during the period from 1948 to
1950 while you were chairman of the National Committee To Defeat the
Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of my knowledge, I don’t know of any assistance
that the Communist Party gave to the National Committee To Defeat the
Mundt Bill. I, of course received, all I received, I think I received
$125 a week salary, if I remember correctly. I had no charge of funds
or the expenditure of funds.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that salary of $125 a week paid by the
Progressive Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1948 I think the salary was paid by the
Progressive Party, but I am not too sure.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you not so certify on the reports made to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I did, that was so.

Mr. WILLIS. For the record, Mr. Tavenner, state the substance
of the Mundt bill.

Mr. TAVENNER. The Mundt bill is that section of the Internal
Security Act of 1950 which requires the registration of the Communist
Party and registration of Communist fronts. There is also written into
that bill the substance of what was known as the Wood bill, which dealt
with persons employed in defense contracts. The remaining part of the
bill related to immigration and naturalization matters and is known as
a different section of the bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Then I think there was the detention camp
features added in the Senate.

Mr. TAVENNER. There are no detention camp features to the bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. In the bill that was finally passed in the
Senate I think Senator Kilgore and some of the other Democratic
Senators offered an amendment to the bill or a provision that provided
for----

Mr. TAVENNER. In conference between the Representatives of the
Senate and the House, it was agreed to accept the House bill exactly as
prepared and submitted by this committee, which was done.

How were you employed at the time you first became chairman of this
committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was the executive secretary of the
Progressive Party in the State of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe you have told us that Mr. Robert J.
Silberstein, executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild, was one
of the official family of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt
Bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. My recollection is he was secretary. I don’t
want to be held to it but I am pretty sure he was the secretary of the
committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he a person known to you to be a member of
the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I never knew Bob Silberstein to be a member
of the Communist Party.

Mr. SCHERER. I didn’t get the last answer.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I never knew or did not know that Bob
Silberstein was a member of the Communist Party and I don’t know it now.

Mr. TAVENNER. Had you heard he was a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I had not heard that he was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Up until this present time you have not heard?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have not heard that Bob Silberstein is a
member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this committee heard 2 witnesses
from California in 1952, both of them attorneys at law, one of them a
professor at a law university, who testified to the effect that Mr.
Silberstein was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Silberstein was subpenaed before this committee and confronted with
the testimony of those two lawyers and he refused to testify on the
subject, claiming that to do so might tend to incriminate him.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Just for the record, Mr. Tavenner, I, of
course, haven’t read all the proceedings of this committee; I have
not had available to me the transcript of the hearings of the
committee, what some lawyers in California may have testified about Bob
Silberstein in 1952, I don’t know anything about.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you aware of the fact that the National
Lawyers Guild has been cited by this committee as a Communist-front
organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I am.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the National Lawyers Guild?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am a member, have been and am now a member of
the National Lawyers Guild.

Mr. SCHERER. When did you last have any connection with Robert
J. Silberstein?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1950, sir. In 1950 we had occasional
meetings in connection with the Mundt bill at that time and Mr.
Silberstein attended those meetings and I am pretty sure he was the
secretary of the organization.

Mr. SCHERER. Was that the last time you saw him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is the last time I have seen Bob
Silberstein.

Mr. SCHERER. Have you had any communication with him since?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I of course receive a membership card in the
National Lawyers Guild and I think it is signed by Bob Silberstein as
executive secretary, or executive secretary of the National Lawyers
Guild.

Mr. SCHERER. Is that his position today?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My understanding is he has resigned, at the
last convention of the National Lawyers Guild, that he resigned and was
replaced by somebody else.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you know what he is doing today?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t have any idea.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you know where he lives?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, the last I knew he was living in New
York. He actually, I think, comes from New Jersey and I think he is
married to a banker’s daughter who comes from wealthy family, if I
remember correctly, in New Jersey.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee the circumstances
under which the Progressive Party contributed your services to the
National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, in connection with the--there were
hearings being held in the Senate, as I stated yesterday, by a
subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1948. I think those
hearings were being presided over by former Senator Ferguson and
Senator Langer of North Dakota was a member of the committee.

If I remember correctly, we received a communication from the national
office of the Progressive Party, I think particularly from Mr. C. B.
Baldwin, who was then executive vice chairman, if I remember rightly,
asking us to send, the Progressive Party of the State of Washington,
to send somebody to Washington to testify at this hearing before the
Senate Judiciary subcommittee, and I was delegated by the Progressive
Party in the State of Washington to come to testify at that hearing.
I also think Mr. Russell Fluent, who was chairman of the Progressive
Party at that time--he was also incumbent Democratic State treasurer of
the State of Washington, was also a delegate, and I think the two of us
came down here to testify and I said yesterday while we were waiting to
testify the hearings had been going on several days, Senator Ferguson
adjourned the hearings and Senator Langer--a considerable number of the
people there were upset because they had waited around to be heard and
there was considerable protestation, as I remember, about the hearings
being adjourned and so Senator Langer asked the people who had not
testified to come to his office or, rather, his committee room.

As I remember then he was chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and
Post Roads of the Senate, and we adjourned to that particular committee
room and had a meeting there. I can’t remember now the precise details
of the situation, whether it was Senator Langer or somebody in the
group or who it was who suggested a committee ought to be formed to
defeat the bill. I know Senator Langer suggested I become chairman of
the committee. He had known me as a member of Congress and I have known
him for a long time. North Dakota and Montana are very close together
and our political situations are quite similar and so on.

So it was at that meeting it was decided I should become chairman, that
I should stay to see what could be done to lobby and so forth, to see
what could be done to defeat the legislation. I think arrangements were
then made with the Progressive Party in the State of Washington for me
to stay down here during the month or so that was necessary and to have
my salary advanced by the Progressive Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the occasion for your return to
Washington in March of 1950?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I remember, the legislation had again been
reintroduced. It had not cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in
1948 by the time of congressional adjournment, then, but I think the
legislation was reintroduced in the next session of Congress and if I
remember correctly it passed, it had already passed the House and it
was pending in the Senate, and hearings were being held and were to be
held in the Senate in March of 1950.

I came on down. I don’t remember whether, I can’t remember whether it
was Mr. Silberstein or Mr. Waybur (Bruce Waybur), who contacted me and
it was anticipated at the time I would have to spend about a month down
there lobbying.

Mr. TAVENNER. I hand you a copy of a telegram which the
committee procured under subpena duces tecum from the Western Union,
dated July 18, 1950, addressed to you, which reads as follows:

    Greetings. Essential you take first plane or train here.

It shows it was charged to the National Lawyers Guild and signed
“Silberstein.” The telegram was charged to the National Lawyers Guild.
Will you examine it, please.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir. I think that is the----

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the telegram in evidence and
ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 2” for identification
purposes only and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. O’CONNELL. What is the date?

Mr. TAVENNER. July 18, 1950.

Did you then advise Mr. Silberstein that you would require advancement
of funds for the purpose of making the trip?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I remember, I had been down here, as I
said earlier, from March until I returned to Montana to take the bar
examinations, and then I was out there in the State of Montana getting
ready to establish my law practice and I got this wire from Mr.
Silberstein to come back, or to come on down. Now what arrangements
were made to send me funds, I don’t know whether Mr. Silberstein----

Mr. TAVENNER. I hand you a second telegram addressed to you
under date of July 26, 1950, signed “Silberstein,” and charged to the
account of the National Lawyers Guild, and obtained by this committee
in the same manner as the former telegram, reading as follows:

    Sorry funds not available here. Proceed other plans.

Does that refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. What this would mean, as far as I can recollect
now, was that of course I informed him I had no funds to come down
here, to fly or whatever it was, and that unless I had them I would not
be able to come and would stay out in the State of Montana.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was meant by that part of the telegram
which suggested that you “proceed other plans?”

Mr. O’CONNELL. The thing, I am sure I can’t remember now but I
am sure I told Mr. Silberstein that I had no funds of my own to advance
to come down to Washington and do any kind of work down here, and that
unless I got funds I would not be able to come.

Mr. TAVENNER. That explanation would not be responsive to the
language of the telegram. The telegram says “proceed other plans.”

Mr. O’CONNELL. It says, “Proceed other plans.”

Mr. TAVENNER. “Proceed other plans.”

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What other plans?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned, I am sure I had
notified them unless there were funds sent to me I could not come down
here at all.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would it be logical that Mr. Silberstein would
tell you to proceed by other plans, when to adopt your construction it
would mean that that just meant for you to remain where you were?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, actually, I imagine if I had all of the
correspondence or wires here I could probably give you the full and
complete story. That is way back, almost 5 years ago. It is hard for me
to recall but I am pretty sure that what I told him if I didn’t have
the funds, whatever work I would have to do on the bill it would have
to be done from the State of Montana.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the document in evidence,
and asked that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit 3,” for identification
purposes only, and be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. On July 28, 1950, 2 days later, there was
another telegram signed “Silberstein” directed to you and charged to
the National Lawyers Guild, which reads as follows:

    Means now available for travel. Telephone me collect.

Will you examine that telegram, please, sir?

Mr. O’CONNELL. What is the date on the second one?

Mr. TAVENNER. 26th.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think this would be in line with what I had
said. I told him there was no way I could possibly come without funds.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the document in evidence and
ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 4” for identification
purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. How were the funds referred to in Silberstein’s
telegram made available to you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I just don’t remember, but I am pretty sure
that Mr. Silberstein sent me the funds.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were those funds, funds of the National Lawyers
Guild?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really couldn’t say whether they were the
funds of the National Lawyers Guild or not. As I remember, there
was some confusion between the guild and Mr. Waybur of the national
committee about the funds. I think Silberstein sent these wires out
of the National Lawyers Guild office and then, if I remember, later
collected from the national committee for them, the National Committee
to Defeat the Mundt Bill.

But as I remember, my best recollection is I got the funds from Mr.
Silberstein. I have a recollection, they could have been Lawyers Guild
funds or could have been Mr. Silberstein’s personal check, I am not
sure.

Mr. TAVENNER. When you returned to Washington did you
establish a headquarters for the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt
Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember correctly, Mr. Silberstein was
taking his vacation at that time. I think a month or 6 weeks’ vacation.
He turned over to us the use of the field offices here in Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. The National Lawyers Guild offices in Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What address was that? Do you recall?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The thing that comes to my mind was 918 or 920
K Street.

Mr. TAVENNER. Wasn’t it 902 20th Street NW.?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think that is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. As a matter of fact, hadn’t that been the
headquarters since 1948 of the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt
Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. Originally we set up offices in a building
downtown on--what is the main street? Is it E Street, where the
theaters are all located?

Mr. TAVENNER. Could that be F Street?

Mr. O’CONNELL. F Street. I guess it is. If I remember
correctly, the building is the Atlantic Building or some such name, and
we had offices there during 1948, and early--I know offices before I
returned to Montana were also in the same building in 1950.

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you first occupy the offices of the
National Lawyers Guild as the headquarters of the National Committee To
Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure when I came back after July 28, I
probably got there--I can’t remember--either the very last part of July
or the early part of August.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now, prior to 1950 had you registered as a
lobbyist for the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill with the
Clerk of the House of Representatives?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did anyone else register with you for the same
purpose?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I couldn’t say for sure, but I think Mr. Waybur
did. I don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me refresh your recollection. Our
investigation shows Mr. John B. Stone registered with you on the same
day.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I remember he was doing press work, press
relations for the committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who selected Mr. Stone to register?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Who selected him to register?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I imagine we had a discussion in the office and
decided that whoever was involved would have to register with the----

Mr. TAVENNER. You had a discussion? You and who else?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Myself, Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Waybur, Mr. Stone,
and at different times some of the other people who are listed on the
committee stationery there. I can’t remember just which one.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was Mr. Stone known to you to be a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; he was not. His father had been the dean of
the school of journalism out at the University of Montana.

Mr. TAVENNER. Does that mean the son can’t be an active member
of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t want to argue with you, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why present that as a reason?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wanted to tell you how I knew Mr. Stone and
how I happened to know him. He, of course, was a Montanan, and I knew
him that way, and I knew him when I was in Congress. I think he was in
the press gallery when I was in Congress for the Federated Press, if
I remember correctly, but I certainly had no knowledge that Mr. Stone
was a member of the Communist Party and have no such knowledge, even at
this moment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show at
this point Mrs. Mary Stalcup Markward at the instance of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation entered the Communist Party in the city of
Washington and served there in an undercover capacity and by reason of
her diligence in her work she was elevated finally to the position of
treasurer of the Communist Party for the District of Columbia.

She appeared before this committee and testified and among other things
identified members of the newspaper club of the Communist Party in the
District of Columbia. Of those persons identified as members of that
club she named John B. Stone, and when asked to give the committee her
knowledge of his activities stated that he had been active within the
National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill, and stated that, “I know
Rob Hall suggested him for membership due to his activity with the
Progressive Party.”

Was Mr. Stone active in the Progressive Party in Montana, when you knew
him there?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of course the Progressive Party--Mr. Stone was
in Montana in the late twenties and early thirties and so on, when he
might have been identified with the old Progressive Party of Bob La
Follette and Senator Wheeler.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he active in the Progressive Party in the
District of Columbia?

Mr. SCHERER. I want to ask the witness the same questions I
did about Silberstein. When did you last see Stone?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think the last time I saw Stone was in 1948.

Mr. SCHERER. Where was that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That was here in Washington, D. C.

Mr. SCHERER. In connection with what activities?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Doing press work for the National Committee to
Defeat the Mundt Bill.

Mr. SCHERER. Is that the last contact you had with him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. I had no--that was the last contact and
the only contact I have had with him outside of the fact that when
he lived out in Montana and because of my political activity and
prominence out there, I knew him at that time.

I was just wondering when he became--when Rob Hall nominated him for
membership or whatever he did--does she date that any time?

Mr. TAVENNER. Her membership in the party was from 1943 to
1949, so it would be within the limits of that period.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I got the impression from what you said that
he was recommended because of the work he had done in the National
Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.

Mr. TAVENNER. No; I may not have stated that clearly. I would
like to restate it.

When Mrs. Markward was asked as to her knowledge of Stone’s activities
within the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill, she testified:
“I know Robert Hall suggested him for membership”--that meant
membership in the Communist Party--“due to his activity with the
Progressive Party.”

Mr. O’CONNELL. The Progressive Party wasn’t organized until
1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. That would indicate that it must then have been
about 1948 or 1949 when this occurred.

Mr. O’CONNELL. My distinct feeling--I don’t know what he may
have done, but my distinct feeling about Mr. Stone is he was not a
member of the Communist Party as long as I knew him.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you know what Stone is doing today?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I really don’t.

Mr. SCHERER. The last contact you had with him then was, as
you said, 1949?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I would say, I think the last contact I had
with him was in 1948.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you know what his activities were following
1948?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I really don’t. I haven’t kept up with
him. I think--well, I know at the time he was writing some stories,
children’s stories, or something of that kind. He was talking about it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you select Stone as the publicity man for
the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I probably had more to do with his selection
than anybody because of course I knew him as a newspaperman.

Mr. TAVENNER. How many persons normally composed the staff of
the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually in 1948 the only ones outside of
Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Waybur, and one or two of those people on the
letterhead, if they were in town and would come to the meeting, the
actual people working in the office were Mr. Stone and myself and a
stenographer.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have more than one stenographer at a
time, usually?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think when the situation, as far as the
legislation was concerned, was critical we may have had additional
stenographers to help get out additional material.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was Rose Clinton ever a member of your staff?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Not to my knowledge. I don’t know anybody by
the name of “Rose Clinton.”

Mr. TAVENNER. The quarterly statement submitted by you for the
period ended June 30, 1949, filed July 9, 1949, reveals that she was
employed by your committee.

Mr. O’CONNELL. If she were, I certainly don’t recollect or
remember her. She was probably an ordinary stenographer. Her name
means--I have no recollection, and it means nothing to me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you any recollection of her?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I can’t, I think--does it show she was a
stenographer there?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; shows she was paid a salary of $250 for the
month of June.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember. There could have been. I
remember one little girl there and the name I remember is Marjorie. I
think her first name was Marjorie. I don’t know if that was in the 1948
period or the 1950.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should also
show that according to the testimony of Mrs. Mary Markward, Rose
Clinton was known to her as a member of the Communist Party in the
District of Columbia and assigned to the Northeast Club of the
Communist Party in this city.

In the course of her testimony Mrs. Markward said:

    Rose Clinton, I believe she was active in the Committee To Defeat
    the Mundt Bill in 1949.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wasn’t in the city of Washington in 1949 in
connection with the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.

Mr. TAVENNER. However, were you not chairman for the National
Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill during that period?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. You signed quarterly reports showing who were
employed and the amounts of salaries paid?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure the reports were sent to me in
Montana in 1949, and I signed them.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you acquainted with a person named Tom
Buchanan?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think he did the presswork for the committee
in 1950.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you employ him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. When I came down here in 1950 he had
already been employed by Mr. Waybur or Mr. Silberstein; I don’t know
which. I think, wasn’t he a reporter, had been a reporter for the
Washington Star?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; he was until he was removed from that
position. Did you know Tom Buchanan to be a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should also
show that Tom Buchanan was identified in the testimony of Mrs. Mary
Stalcup Markward as an ex-Washington newspaperman assigned to the Youth
Club of the Communist Party when he became a member of the Communist
Party in Washington, D. C.

Later he was transferred to the Newspaper Club of the Communist Party
in Washington and since that time has been an employee of the Civil
Rights Congress in Washington.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Does it state when he became a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not certain that it does. I do not have her
testimony with me. But I am not certain as to the number of years of
Communist Party membership before he was assigned to the Newspaper Club
of the Communist Party.

Was Ruth Rifkin an employee of your committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember now. The name doesn’t--wasn’t
she a notary public?

Mr. TAVENNER. She could have been a notary public.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Didn’t she run in addition to being a notary
public, didn’t she run a mimeograph shop or something of that kind?
That is the recollection that I have.

Mr. TAVENNER. According to your report covering the period of
April 1950 she was employed in a secretarial capacity. She was paid for
secretarial services.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think she ran a secretarial service shop and
did mimeographing and so on. That is my recollection.

Mr. TAVENNER. How was she employed by you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think we took particular materials to her
sometimes to dictate and then to have her run off on mimeograph.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was she known to you to be a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, she was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to
show Mary Stalcup Markward in the course of her testimony before this
committee also identified Ruth Rifkin as a member of the Communist
Party.

Mr. WILLIS. Was she assigned or had anything to do with the
Newspaper Club of the Communist Party?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir. I am certain she was not, but I
would like to turn to that testimony, if I can locate it. I think it
important to read that testimony, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILLIS. I asked that question because the witness
identified her as some kind of a secretarial service or mimeographing
service.

Mr. O’CONNELL. My only recollection about her was that
her shop was close to the Lawyers Guild office there and she did
secretarial work and got out mimeographing and my connection with her
was of course completely mechanical.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who selected her for the performance of their
work?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I would imagine Mr. Silberstein told me she did
that kind of work and where her office was and where her shop was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Elizabeth Sasuly?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was she employed by the National Committee To
Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure she was. I think she was
employed both in--well, I couldn’t say whether she was employed both in
1948 and 1950 or just in 1948, or just in 1950, but my recollection is
she was employed both of the times I was down here in 1948 and in 1950.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was she known to you to be a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I had no knowledge that she was a member of
the Communist Party or not.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think the record should show Elizabeth Sasuly
appeared before this committee on July 12, 1949, at which time she
refused to answer any and all questions put to her by the committee
pertaining to her membership in the Communist Party or any questions
relating to Communist Party activities in the city of Washington.

Mr. WILLIS. In light of that I think it is important for the
witness to try to refresh his memory as to whether she was in fact
employed on his return to Washington in 1950 or do the payroll records
so indicate?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Of course, Congressman, also I had no knowledge
she was before the committee.

Mr. WILLIS. I am not implying it. I want to be fair with you.
You are a lawyer and you can see the point.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Possibly I can clear that up from reference to
the records. The report covering the second quarter of 1950 by you
to the House of Representatives shows that in April 1950 Elizabeth
Sasuly was paid salary and expenses of $359.89. Does that refresh your
recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. My recollection, I knew she was employed
by the committee, but I wasn’t sure which year, whether it was in 1948
or 1950 or whether it was both of those years, as a matter of fact.
But, I again, I repeat that I had no knowledge that she was or was not
a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Returning now to Ruth Rifkin----

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember correctly, was Miss Sasuly cited
for contempt?

Mr. TAVENNER. No.

Mrs. Markward was asked the question:

    Are you acquainted with an individual by the name of Ruth Rifkin?

To which she replied: “Yes.”

She was asked the question:

    What was the nature of your relationship with Ruth Rifkin?

And Mrs. Markward testified as follows:

    I got a transfer card from this individual together with a note
    saying if I contact her I was to say I was Evelyn’s cousin. I
    believe she was living at McLean Gardens at that time. I called and
    made an appointment to meet her. She was quite cautious about the
    way this meeting should take place. We met at Union Station and
    had dinner later. I learned later she was working for the United
    Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.

    “Question. Where did she come from?

    “Mrs. MARKWARD. New York.

    “Question. What was the purpose of your contacting her?

    “Mrs. MARKWARD. I contacted her as Evelyn’s cousin.

    “Question. Did you pick her up on your rolls?

    “Mrs. MARKWARD. Because of her working with the UNRRA in
    the State Department, I could not transfer her in our organization
    as such. However, I talked to her. She seemed extremely capable and
    a good Communist. So I spoke to Elizabeth Searle about seeing if
    she could be picked up by some organization that did take members
    working for the Government and Elizabeth Searle took the address
    and how to get in touch with her and said she would see what could
    be done.

    “Question. Did you subsequently see Ruth Rifkin?

    “Mrs. MARKWARD. Yes. She seemed disturbed by the manner in
    which she had been contacted and she asked if this other person was
    all right. I went to Elizabeth Searle about this and she said it
    was all right because this other person was in a position that it
    would be assumed she was calling about union business. Ruth Rifkin
    and I had dinner together at the time we had this conversation.
    Ruth Rifkin told me she was not in a position with UNRRA that she
    wanted to seem identified with a union. Elizabeth Searle told me to
    tell her not to call and talk to me over the telephone, so I had no
    further contact with her.”

That is the testimony relating to her.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Now I want to clarify--was she with UNRRA?

Mr. TAVENNER. According to the testimony of Mrs. Markward she
was.

Mr. O’CONNELL. When?

Mr. TAVENNER. In the State Department.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think UNRRA had been, I think it had actually
been discontinued by 1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. Suppose it was discontinued.

Mr. O’CONNELL. What I want to point out is that my
relationship with her is I brought her material to transcribe or to
mimeograph and so on. My recollection is she was running a secretarial
shop.

Mr. TAVENNER. Which of course was a period after UNRRA had
been disbanded.

Mr. O’CONNELL. What I wanted to make clear is I had no
connection with her while she was a Government employee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, where did the committee have its
printing done?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really couldn’t recollect.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it the Superior Print Shop?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am sure we have it in the report there.

Mr. TAVENNER. Your report so says.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who was the owner of the Superior Print Shop?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who made the arrangements for the Superior Print
Shop to do the printing for your committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I just couldn’t recollect who actually did it.
I would imagine the stenographer in the office called them to come and
said we had certain printing to do or something of that kind. I wasn’t
acquainted, I wasn’t in Washington, D. C., with the various printing
houses and my actual work with the committee was largely on the Hill.
I was rarely in the office. I was out here contacting Members of the
House and Members of the Senate.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Markward in her testimony advised the
committee that the operator of the Superior Print Shop was Tilla
Minowitz, and she identified Tilla Minowitz as a member of the
Communist Party and as a member of the Community Club of the Communist
Party in Washington, D. C.

Tilla Minowitz was subpenaed before this committee on July 6, 1949, and
refused to answer any and all questions put to her by the committee
dealing with her membership in the Communist Party.

Mr. WILLIS. When was that?

Mr. TAVENNER. July 6, 1949. The report covering June 1949
shows the payment of a bill for printing in the amount of $195 and
the report covering March 1950 shows the printing of letterheads and
stationery on March 30, 1950.

Were you aware at that time that Tilla Minowitz had been identified and
had been brought before this committee and questioned regarding her
Communist Party identification?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t know Tilla Minowitz, I don’t think
I have ever seen her in my life and the name means absolutely nothing
to me. The printing went to Superior Printing Co.

Mr. TAVENNER. You knew she was doing the printing for your
company because you signed these reports.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I didn’t know it was Tilla Minowitz. I knew it
was the Superior Printing Co.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did your committee ever employ the firm of
Presentation, Inc.?

Mr. WILLIS. What?

Mr. TAVENNER. Presentation, Inc.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t recall. If I could see the report--What
does Presentation, Inc., do?

Mr. TAVENNER. We find a report covering June 22, 1949, which
says--

    Presentation, Inc., 2118 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 25,000
    pamphlets, $785.46--

as one of the items. Does that help you to refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I said before, in 1949 I was not down in
Washington. Those reports were sent out to me to be signed as chairman,
and I don’t know Presentation, Inc. I don’t know what they do, but that
report was made up.

Mr. TAVENNER. Another bill in June and September of 1949 is
for printing, done by Presentation, Inc., and the amount of the bill is
$1,075.38. Who selected Presentation, Inc., for this work?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really wouldn’t know. I don’t know who did it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Notwithstanding your having signed the reports
covering those employments in 1949 when you say you were not actually
in Washington, we find in April of 1950 another printing of pamphlets
on the Mundt bill was done by Presentation, Inc., for which there was a
charge of $300.

At that time did you know that a person by the name of Carl Marzani, an
official of that corporation, was under sentence of the United States
district court after having been convicted for concealing his Communist
Party affiliations while an employee of the Federal Government?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I didn’t know that. In fact, I didn’t know
Presentation, Inc., and didn’t know anybody who was identified with it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, is it not a fact that during the
period that the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill used the offices of
the National Lawyers Guild, it also used the National Lawyers Guild
telephone, bearing number District 3205, to which both telegrams and
telephone tolls were charged to the National Lawyers Guild?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; but with an understanding, as I remember,
that whatever expenditure was made on the telephone or telegraph was to
be paid by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you reimburse the National Lawyers Guild in
full?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really don’t know. I went home directly after
the adjournment of Congress in September of 1950 and what disposition
was made after I left of those bills and so on by Mr. Waybur, I don’t
know.

Mr. TAVENNER. You say you don’t know?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. As I said, my principal work was
always up here on the Hill. I usually came up in the mornings about
10 o’clock or 9:30 or so and was up here until either adjournment of
Congress or later, and so on, each day that I was here.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did Lillian Clott perform any services for the
National Lawyers Guild while you occupied its offices as chairman for
the committee to defeat the Mundt bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t recall. I know Lillian Clott and all
that, but I can’t recall whether she did or not.

Mr. TAVENNER. What were the circumstances under which you
became acquainted with Lillian Clott?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I remember, first of all her husband or
ex-husband, Herman Clott, is I think legislative representative here
for the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and I
knew him and I think through him I was introduced to her. I think she
later worked, if I remember correctly, with the United Electrical
Workers.

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; and prior to that time didn’t she work in
one of the Embassies here in Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. I wouldn’t know whether she did
or not. When I came here Mr. Waybur, of course, was identified with,
I think he was legislative representative from the United Electrical
Workers and I went there lots of times to pick up my check and she was
working in the office there, and I think Senator Wheeler’s daughter was
also working there, Frances Wheeler, and she introduced me to her.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did she do any work at any time for the National
Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember that she did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was Lillian Clott known to you to be a member of
the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I didn’t know that she was or was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show
that Mary Stalcup Markward in the course of her testimony identified
Lillian Clott as a member of the Community Club of the Communist Party
in the District of Columbia, and that when called as a witness before
this committee in September 1954, in Dayton, Ohio, Lillian Clott
refused to testify regarding her alleged Communist Party membership on
the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate her.

Mr. WILLIS. Let’s take an informal recess.

(Brief recess.)

Mr. WILLIS. The committee will come to order.

You may proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, are you familiar with the
testimony of Matthew Cvetic before this committee, relating to the
activities of the Communist Party in the western part of Pennsylvania
in connection with the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I am not acquainted with that testimony.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Matthew Cvetic became a member of the
Communist Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and after working quite a number of years for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation within the Communist Party, withdrew and testified fully
before this committee regarding his experience within the Communist
Party.

Mr. Cvetic testified that the District Committee of the Communist Party
of western Pennsylvania established a branch or a unit of the National
Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. This branch or unit occupied no
office of its own but worked out of the offices of the Communist Party
of western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Cvetic further testified that petitions and pamphlets published by
the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill were made available
in Pittsburgh for distribution by Communist Party headquarters. He
personally participated in the distribution of petitions and pamphlets
published by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill at the
instruction of the Communist Party functionaries in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Cvetic also testified that the officials of the Communist Party in
western Pennsylvania referred to the National Committee To Defeat the
Mundt Bill as “One of our organizations.”

Mr. Cvetic revealed that the strategy and planning of the fight
against the Mundt-Nixon bill in Pittsburgh was headed by the district
organizer of the Communist Party. These plans were carried out by the
Communist Party District Committee through the various trade unions,
front organizations, Progressive Party, and other organizations
which had been created or captured by the Communist Party in western
Pennsylvania.

Did you confer at any time with any one from Pittsburgh with reference
to the strategy and planning of the fight against the Mundt bill in
that area?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, sir, I did not. You mean by that a personal
conference with somebody from there?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I did not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you aware of the fact that it was the
Communist Party in that area which led and headed the fight against the
Mundt bill in connection with the program of the National Committee To
Defeat the Mundt Bill.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I was not aware of that. I think as far
as the western area was concerned, I think the only contact we had
was with Alexander Wright, who was I think executive secretary of the
Progressive Party out there and I never talked with him personally.

I think he corresponded with the committee or sent some communication
and we in turn sent a wire or material to him but I don’t remember any
contact with anybody else.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he known to you to be a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he was not. In fact, I don’t know him. I
have never even met him. Whatever communication we had was by mail or
by wire, as I remember. I don’t know him at all.

Mr. TAVENNER. He was identified by Matthew Cvetic as an active
member of the Communist Party.

Mr. WILLIS. Alexander Wright?

Mr. TAVENNER. Alexander Wright, W-r-i-g-h-t.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Communication by the committee was as executive
secretary of the Progressive Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. O’Connell, that the
situation which Mr. Cvetic described in Pittsburgh with reference to
the strategy and planning by the Communist Party for the fight against
the Mundt-Nixon bill was duplicated in many instances and many places
throughout the United States?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I said, my work was here in Washington and
what actually took place, either in Pittsburgh or any other section of
the country, I wouldn’t know. Certainly my guess would be and certainly
my feeling would be that inasmuch as the legislation was proscribing
the Communist Party and affecting it, they certainly worked on it and
certainly did what they could to defeat it. I have no doubt about that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the Progressive Party in the State of
Washington active in promoting the fight against the passage of the
Mundt bill?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Wasn’t a good part of the leadership of the
Progressive Party in the State of Washington of Communist Party
membership?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as the leadership of the Progressive
Party was concerned, as I stated yesterday, Mr. Russell Fluent was
the chairman; he was at the time of his chairmanship Democratic State
treasurer in the State of Washington; I feel sure was not a member of
the Communist Party; Mr. L. C. Hunterer was national committeeman; he
was Democratic sheriff in Olympia in Thurston County and I am sure was
not a member of the Communist Party.

I think at one time he used to be--out in the Western States we have
Old Greenbacks and Old Populace and former followers of the Progressive
Party under Bob La Follette, but Mr. Hunterer was not. Elsie Hoffman,
who was national committeewoman, was president of the Democratic
Women’s Club in the city of Spokane, and I am sure was not a Communist.

Mr. TAVENNER. What about Tom Rabbitt?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Tom Rabbitt worked for a short time in the
Progressive Party, I would say from probably April of maybe--I would
say latter part of March or early part of April 1948 until latter part
of May of 1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. What about William J. Pennock?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure that--well, Mr. Pennock had
no office in the Progressive Party. I think he was a member of the
executive committee. We had a very, very large executive committee, and
I think he was a member of the executive committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. What about John Daschbach?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember any Progressive Party in
activity in my time on the part of John Daschbach.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, will you tell the committee what
action the Communist Party took in protesting to Judge Medina during
the trial of the 11 Communists under the provisions of the Smith Act in
Foley Square, New York?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Outside of what was in the ordinary press
notices, I mean of my own knowledge, I don’t know anything. I read
about the trial and so on, but of my own knowledge I don’t know
anything.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the leadership of the Progressive Party in
the State of Washington take any active part in protesting to Judge
Medina regarding the trial of the 11 Communists?

Mr. O’CONNELL. When was that trial?

Mr. TAVENNER. The trial was in 1949; I think the first motion
of the trial was disposed of in the spring of 1949 before they began
the trial on its merits.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wouldn’t want to say categorically one way or
the other what action might have been taken by the Progressive Party
in the State of Washington in that connection. I can’t recall anything
right now.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you as executive secretary have any part in
the activity?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember any.

Mr. TAVENNER. I hand you a photostatic copy of the June 6,
1949, issue of the Daily Worker and call your attention to an article
entitled “Men of Labor and Civic Leaders Throughout Nation Voice
Indignation,” and I ask if you see in that article a reference to the
fact that Henry Huff, chairman, and Clayton Van Lydegraf, secretary of
the Washington State Communist Party, having wired Dennis in connection
with those trials. Do you see that paragraph?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I see that paragraph.

Mr. TAVENNER. The subject of the wire is quoted as follows:

    The northwest district is proud and inspired by the splendid fight
    the defendants are making against the biased conduct and vicious
    rulings of Judge Medina who is acting as prosecutor at Foley
    Square. The jailing of John Gates, Gus Hall, and Henry Winston
    has shocked and aroused our party and the massed forces to a new
    fighting pitch and widespread protest action.

Will you examine the article again, please, and state whether just
above the paragraph pointed out to you there is the description of
a telegram sent by Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell,
executive secretary of the Progressive Party to Judge Medina. Do you
see it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I see that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read it into the record, please?

Mr. O’CONNELL (reading):

    Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell, executive secretary
    of the Progressive Party, wired Medina “Thousands of members are
    shocked at your willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to
    deny any defense to the Communist Party leaders now on trial.”

Mr. WILLIS. That was sent by whom to whom?

Mr. O’CONNELL. This paper----

Mr. WILLIS. Alleged to have been sent by whom to whom? What
does the paper say?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The paper says:

    Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell, executive secretary
    of the Progressive Party wired Medina “Thousands of members shocked
    at your willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to deny any
    defense to the Communist Party leaders now on trial.”

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you send that wire?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember sending any such wire.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would you state in view of the report of the
Daily Worker that the wire was not sent?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I just have no recollection of sending
that wire, myself sending it. It is a long time ago and I don’t know
who wrote that story or how it was acquired or anything. I can’t
remember. I just can’t remember sending any wire in that connection.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the document in evidence and
ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 5” for identification
purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I might say your showing me this paper is the
first time that has ever been called to my attention.

Mr. TAVENNER. The sending of this telegram to Judge Medina was
not the first occasion you have publicly come to the support of the
Communist Party, is it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I wouldn’t want to say that I came to the
support of the Communist Party. As a progressive American, I believe
that all people regardless of their political opinions and beliefs are
entitled to their political rights and civil liberties, whether they be
Communists or not.

Mr. TAVENNER. According to your statement, do you consider
that the Communist Party is a political party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as my information is concerned, I know
there are findings by the Congress that it is not, but----

Mr. TAVENNER. And also by the courts?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall any by the courts. I can’t
recall any case by the courts. Cases I can recall hold otherwise.

Mr. SCHERER. There are court cases.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. The
thing is that as an American I feel that all people, regardless of
their political opinions or beliefs, whether they are Communist or
non-Communists, are entitled to their rights to their political
opinions and beliefs and to their civil rights and to their civil
liberties as provided by our Constitution. I say that as a progressive
American who really honestly and sincerely believes it.

Mr. SCHERER. I think we all believe that.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I didn’t get you, Congressman.

Mr. SCHERER. I said I think we all believe in the statement
you made.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was just expressing--that is my position on
it. I just think it is dangerous to proscribe----

Mr. TAVENNER. You undertook in this telegram to accuse the
judge of willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to deny the
Communist Party leaders any defense.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I said, I don’t remember sending that wire.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you deny it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, Congressman, I can’t say. I just don’t
have any recollection of sending that wire, and I am saying that
honestly and truthfully. I did think, and I still do think, that Judge
Medina did restrict their defense at the trial.

Mr. SCHERER. We have had some of the lawyers who appeared
before Judge Medina in that trial appear before this committee, and
I am just wondering how Judge Medina withstood the assault that was
made upon him, not only by those lawyers but by telegrams such as the
counsel has just read, which, of course, I believe you sent.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Congressman, I really----

Mr. SCHERER. I think that was an attack on our judicial system
that was a disgrace by those who participated in it.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I have said, I really don’t remember sending
any such wire, and this is the first time that has ever been called to
my attention.

Mr. SCHERER. The Communists and their followers talk about
persecution. If ever a fine jurist was persecuted for attempting to
do his job, as he was required to do by law, Judge Medina was so
persecuted and smeared.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have not condoned the conduct of the
attorneys who were present at that trial.

Mr. SCHERER. I understand that.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think--you have been here most of the time or
a considerable part of the time I testified.

Mr. SCHERER. I might say your conduct has been exemplary,
you have been very respectful and we certainly have no complaint. You
have used, I am not criticizing you for it, what is used regularly in
matters such as this, namely, the convenient and overworked answers, “I
don’t remember” and “not to my recollection, et cetera.”

Mr. O’CONNELL. These things happened some 5 and 6 and 7 years
ago and it is not easy and all of these people are actually strangers
to me and all that. I came down here as a former Congressman, as a
political figure in the Democratic Party in my own right and so on, I
came here with a true and honest and firm belief in my opposition to
the Mundt bill at that time. I think that it was wrong and I think it
is wrong now.

Mr. SCHERER. I do not want anything I have said to appear
as a criticism of you. As I said, I think you have been very polite
and very respectful, but I think when certain statements are made
it is incumbent upon members of the committee to comment upon those
statements and clear the record.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have been a Member of the House, sir, and I
have full respect for the committee and I realize, I have sat up there
and I have made my comments too as witnesses have testified.

Mr. SCHERER. Have you been given every opportunity to make
explanations to answers you gave?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. SCHERER. I think that the members of the committee, then,
have a right of course to comment upon statements you have made, the
same as you have that privilege.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have no complaint. I have been treated very
fairly and respectfully and everything, I have made no complaint and
I am doing my very level honest best to do a good job to answer the
questions as they are given to me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall having spoken to the legislative
conference of the Freedom Crusade Congress of the Civil Right Congress
on the question of the indictment of the 12 Communist leaders?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know what that Freedom Crusade is.
Where was that supposed to be?

Mr. TAVENNER. In Washington.

Mr. O’CONNELL. State of Washington?

Mr. TAVENNER. No. It was in Washington, D. C. According to
the Daily Worker of January 13, 1949, we find an article entitled
“Congressman To Address Crusade,” this paragraph:

    The final panel on persecuted political minorities based on the
    indictments of the 12 Communist leaders will be discussed by
    Marcantonio, Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, and former Montana Congressman
    Jerry O’Connell.

Do you recall whether you did speak?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am positive I did not. I have never met
DuBois, never met him in my life. I have never been involved with him.
Marc I know real well.

Mr. SCHERER. Do I understand you to say you don’t recall
whether you made the speech?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am positive I never spoke at any such panel.
Because I----

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall having agreed to appear on that
program?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I surely don’t.

Mr. SCHERER. Is that the Daily Worker?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you mean the Daily Worker can be wrong?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The reason I feel positive about that is I do
not know Dr. DuBois, I have never met him, and I don’t know him at all,
and I know I was not on any panel where he talked. I know I didn’t do
that. Marc of course I knew real well, but I certainly don’t remember
speaking any place with Marc. I knew him.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you speak, regardless of who accompanied
you, on a program sponsored by the Freedom Crusade Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. What date was that?

Mr. TAVENNER. In January 1949.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am positive I did not.

The other reason I feel sure about that is I left the State of
Washington in October 1949, and I went back to Montana, and I know
during that particular period I was in the State of Montana and my wife
and I were living with her folks in Great Falls. I know my financial
circumstances at that time were very slim and that I am sure, I am just
positive that I never spoke at any such panel at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. A report is made by the Special Committee on
Un-American Activities that the Daily Worker issue of June 23, 1937,
page 1, carried a letter addressed by you to David Leeds, business
manager of the Daily Worker, official organ of the Communist Party, in
which you state:

    I feel that the Daily Worker is America’s outstanding daily labor
    paper and has done much during these past crucial labor years to
    bring true and accurate accounts of labor conditions throughout the
    entire country to the attention of the people.

Did you write such a letter?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I wrote such a letter.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a subscriber to the Daily Worker?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t think--I was a Member of Congress
at that time and the Daily Worker was delivered like a lot of other
newspapers are to my office. My particular recollection of that--that
is 1937--was that a man by the name of Paddy King was an avowed
Communist in the State of Montana and is quite a familiar character
around there came to my office and asked me if I would do this and I
think I told him I would confine it strictly to the labor coverage of
what the Daily Worker was doing, coverage on labor, on strikes, on
labor’s rights, and so on. I wrote the letter at that time.

Mr. SCHERER. Was what you said in 1937 true about the Daily
Worker?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That was written in 1937.

Mr. SCHERER. 1937. It surely has changed since I became
acquainted with it. I have just been reading the account of some of the
hearings we had in Newark a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. O’CONNELL. A lot of things have changed since 1937.

Mr. SCHERER. I said if what you stated in 1937 was true about
it, the paper surely has changed since my acquaintance with it.

Mr. O’CONNELL. You will remember that was the period in which
the CIO was beginning to organize and there was considerable, we had
the little steel strike, we had Memorial Day massacre at Republic Steel
near Chicago; there were many things happening in the labor situation
at that time, and in my opinion the Daily Worker covered them better
and did a better job than any other paper I knew of.

Mr. TAVENNER. You knew of course that the Daily Worker was
the official organ of the Communist Party, and that it was required
to be read by all Communist Party members in order to ascertain the
directives that were being issued by the Communist Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew that it was the organ of the Communist
Party but whether or not the members were required to do it, I was not
a Communist, I didn’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why did you desire to give aid to the Communist
Party by writing such a highly commendatory article to be printed in
the Daily Worker?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was dealing with the paper as such and
particularly with its labor coverage as such. I think I confined my
letter to that particular phase of the coverage that the Daily Worker
did. There was no intent on my part to give aid or support to the
Communist Party or anything----

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it your purpose to get aid or support for
yourself from the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, not aid and support from the Communist
Party. I lived in western Montana and I was a Congressman from western
Montana where we had a very, very militant tradition out there as far
as labor was concerned. In that particular period and of course during
the depression and at other times, labor leaders had been hanged out
there, one labor leader was hanged to a railroad trestle----

Mr. TAVENNER. What has that to do with the question I asked?

Mr. O’CONNELL. What I am trying to point out is that I lived
in a district, that I represented a district where there were a lot
of militant labor leaders who read the Daily Worker, who actually,
many of them I know, were not Communists, there wasn’t any particular
fear--there might have been 30 or 37 Communists in the whole State,
nobody was ever bothered about them, nobody was afraid of them. As a
politician they came to see me and talk with me, they came to other
politicians there.

Mr. TAVENNER. Communists?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. I can remember--in the 33d--in the 33d
Legislature of Montana the Communist Party came and talked to the
legislative assembly while the legislature was assembled and all that
on the conditions that existed in the State at the time. There wasn’t
any, I am trying to put you in the pattern and in the spirit and in the
situation that existed in that day. We weren’t worried about them, we
weren’t afraid of them at all. We let them speak their piece, we let
them say the things they wanted to say, if they had any contribution to
make, to make it, and so on.

That is the attitude and that was not only true of them. We had heavy
Socialist following, the Socialist Party out there, Norman Thomas
had decidedly strong feeling, in fact strong support out there and
carried some of the counties in the State of Montana particularly in my
district in the 1932 election.

What I am trying to do is put you in the mind and in the spirit
that existed as far as I was concerned at that particular time. For
instance, today I wouldn’t write that kind of a letter to the Daily
Worker.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the same condition exist in Seattle, Wash.,
which you have described?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In the State of Washington you had about the
same situation, in the history of the State there was----

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me ask you this question: Did members of the
Communist Party in Seattle come to you as secretary of the Progressive
Party to discuss Communist Party problems with you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; not to discuss Communist Party problems
as such, both while I was executive secretary of the Democratic Party
and executive secretary of the Progressive Party I can remember Mr.
Henry P. Huff and Mr. Van Lydegraf, I think there was a Mr. Remes, and
others who came to the Democratic Party office and to the Progressive
Party Office and made certain representations about support of the
legislation they were interested in, matters that they were taking a
position in, and so on. I talked with them.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did that also include Tom Rabbitt and William
Pennock?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, in my time out there Rabbitt and Pennock
had never been identified or identified themselves as members of the
Communist Party. As I told you, Rabbitt was Democratic State senator,
Pennock was Democratic State representative and their dealings with me,
they were delegates to the Democratic Central Committee in King County
and their dealings with me were, as far as I knew, and ostensibly they
dealt with me as members of the Democratic party.

Mr. TAVENNER. We have spoken of the Daily Worker. You say you
were not a subscriber. Were you a subscriber to the Daily People’s
World?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think I ever subscribed to the People’s
World. I got the New World. I was a subscriber to the New World and to
the Washington New Dealer.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were acquainted, were you not, with a paper
published in Chicago by the name of Midwest Daily Record?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t remember the Midwest Daily Record. When
was that published?

Mr. TAVENNER. In the thirties. Do you recall having written a
letter to the Daily Worker or made a public pronouncement recommending
the publication of that paper?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I don’t. Was it a Communist newspaper?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, it was.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Did it exist any time? Did it last any time?

Mr. TAVENNER. Not for a long period. I don’t know the period
it existed. As I understand, you do not recall anything about that
paper?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I honestly can’t remember anything about it. I
didn’t even know it existed as far as I can remember. When I was down
here in Congress there were a lot of newspapers and I am trying to
think of some of them. A lot of them came in.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with John T.
Bernard, former Member of Congress?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir; I was a Member of the House in the
75th Congress with Mr. Bernard and I have seen him on several occasions
since that time and I am acquainted with Mr. Bernard.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have before me the January 8, 1938, issue of
the Daily Worker carrying an article entitled “‘I Am for the Loyalists
and China,’ Police Captain Declares at Lincoln Vets Trial.” The last
paragraph of this article states as follows:

    A dinner in honor of Robert Raven was given by the friends of the
    Abraham Lincoln Brigade last night at the Aldine Club, 200 Fifth
    Avenue. Congressman John T. Bernard, Farmer-Laborite of Minnesota,
    paid tribute to the heroic death of Raven, and gave some account
    of his experiences while visiting Spanish battle-grounds with
    Jerry O’Connell, Congressman of Montana. Other speakers were Steve
    Nelson. * * *

Did you accompany John T. Bernard to the Spanish battlefields?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. When were you in Spain and for what period of
time?

Mr. O’CONNELL. You are really getting into ancient history. My
best recollection was that we were in Spain, I would say sometime in
the month of October 1938 or maybe the latter part of October or early
November 1938, somewhere in that period.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long were you there?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I would say about 3 weeks.

Mr. TAVENNER. As part of your experience there, did you
and Mr. Bernard take part in the review of the American Brigade,
Anglo-American Brigade, on the occasion of the celebration of the
anniversary of the Russian Revolution? Do you recall reviewing the
troops?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I remember reviewing the troops but not
in connection with any celebration of the Russian Revolution. As
I remember, the only troops we reviewed were troops that came up
when there was a change of command. The command of the brigade was
to be taken over by somebody, I can’t remember who they were now,
but certainly not in connection with any celebration of the Soviet
Revolution. At least I certainly was not informed that that was the
case. I had been active, while I was a Member of Congress, before I
went to Spain I was very decidedly and very specifically on the side
of the Spanish Republic, I did everything I could to promote American
policy to help and to aid the Spanish Loyalists. They were the legally
elected government of Spain, they were being attacked by Hitler and
Mussolini as I saw it, and in my opinion it was the beginning, in fact
the first battlefield of World War II.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, who invited
you and the circumstances under which you made the trip?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, earlier in that year a group of
Congressmen in the 75th Congress, we had a group of Congressmen known
as the liberal bloc of Congress headed by Maury Maverick of Texas. The
newspapers described us as all fairly young. I was only 27 at the time.
We were described as Young Turks and out of that liberal bloc a group
of us, 5 or 6 or maybe 4 or 5, went to see Secretary of State Cordell
Hull in connection with the Spanish situation and also legislation
which was pending with reference to invoking the Neutrality Act as it
existed at that time against Germany and Italy for their intervention
in Spain, and Mr. Hull told us as far as this Government was concerned
there was actually no evidence of Spanish and German intervention or I
should say German and Italian intervention.

I think I later, along with Congressman Coffee and Congressman Bernard
and others, talked with David Niles, who was then executive assistant
to President Roosevelt in connection with the situation. It was then
suggested, I think just about the time Congress was adjourning, Mrs.
O’Connell and I had been married on the 2d of January 1937, and we had
had no honeymoon and were going to Europe.

My mother and father were both born in Ireland and I had always wanted
to go there and we did go to Ireland, to England, France, and so on,
had a reception at the Spanish Embassy, I would say probably about a
month before adjournment or shortly before adjournment, Ambassador de
Los Rios invited not only myself but Congressman Bernard and several
other Congressmen to go to Spain and investigate what the situation was
there.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he the person who extended the invitation to
go to Spain?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. He was the one. We of course took
care of our own arrangements here, got our passport from the State
Department--I think we were issued special passports by the State
Department. Our visas were procured.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was any contribution made to you for the
expenses of this trip for you and your wife, either for transportation
or otherwise?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. We paid our own passage. I think we went
over on the _Queen Mary_ and came back on the _Normandy_. We paid all
of our hotel expenses and we traveled by plane from Le Bourget to
Croydon and paid for those. I spent about a month in Ireland where my
folks were born and all those expenses were paid by me and in Spain we
were the guests of the Spanish Republic and there were no expenses for
hotel and transportation in Spain itself.

Our entry into Spain was expedited by the American Embassy in Paris.
I think Robert Murphy was then Minister Plenipotentiary at the time
and Acting Ambassador and he had Col. Steven Fuquay, who was military
attaché of the American Embassy in Spain to meet us at the airport at
Valencia.

Mr. TAVENNER. After your return to this country, did you then
become affiliated with organizations which have since been designated
as front organizations relating to the Spanish problem?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I don’t know whether you could define it
as affiliated--I made speeches before many groups that were involved in
the fighting in behalf of the Spanish Republic.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you become one of the sponsors of the
Medical Bureau and North American Committee To Aid Spanish Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Right now I don’t remember whether I did, but I
wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I am sure I did everything I could----

Mr. TAVENNER. I find your name on the letterhead of that
organization on July 6, 1938. Does that refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I haven’t seen it but if I am on there--I want
to say I did everything I could to save the Spanish Republic. I felt
very intensely about it. I am proud of what I did. I feel the same way
about it today as I did then.

I think the position that I took as far as history was concerned
was later in the establishment of the United Nations and disbarment
of Franco Spain from the United Nations at least vindication of the
position that I had taken. But in July of 1938 certainly that committee
or that organization whose letterhead you say I am a sponsor on was not
listed as a subversive organization or so described by anyone.

Mr. TAVENNER. An examination of the letterhead of American
Relief Ship for Spain bearing date of September 3, 1938, reflects you
as one of the sponsors of this organization. Do you recall that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t recall it but I am sure it is true. As
I said, I worked every way I knew how for defeat of Franco and for the
saving of the Spanish Republic.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you appear on a program of the Fourth
National Congress of the American League for Peace and Democracy in
Pittsburgh in November 1937?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. November 26 to 28, 1937.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I remember I missed the Army-Navy game. It
rained and I was anxious to get to it. I remember I spoke at that
meeting.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that in behalf of the Loyalist cause?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It was in connection with Loyalist Spain. I
think there was a resolution pending in the Congress to invoke the
Neutrality Act against Germany and Italy for intervention and I think
also removal of the embargo which had been placed against Spain.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you from time to time appear before various
meetings of the Veterans of the Lincoln Brigade, and speak on the
subject of the Spanish cause?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember how many times. My present
recollection of that, which, of course, is some 17 or 18 years ago, is
that I made 1 or 2 speeches at meetings of the Friends of the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade.

Mr. TAVENNER. In the course of the making of those speeches
did you become acquainted with Steve Nelson?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, sir; I never ever met Steve Nelson; have
never met Steve Nelson to this day.

Mr. TAVENNER. I notice in the Daily Worker issue of July 8,
1937, that you were listed to speak along with Earl Browder and others
on July 19. This was prior to your trip to Spain?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. As I remember from the date that was
the first anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish War and it was
a meeting, as I remember, in Madison Square Garden and the speakers
included--I know Fiorello LaGuardia spoke there. I know Norman Thomas,
the candidate for the Socialist Party spoke there; a Republican
Representative in Congress also spoke there. I spoke as a Democrat.

Mr. SCHERER. Who was the Representative?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If I remember, he was from one of the New York
districts, I am not too sure which.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you remember his name?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really don’t. The purpose of the meeting as
it was outlined was to have a representative of all of the political
parties speak at the meeting. Did Marcantonio speak there?

Mr. TAVENNER. He is listed as one of those.

Mr. O’CONNELL. At that time I am pretty sure Marc was a
Republican Representative or had been a Republican Representative.

Mr. SCHERER. Marcantonio was a Republican Representative?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; he was. He came to Congress as a
Republican Representative.

Mr. SCHERER. I understand how that happened. Was he the one
you are referring to or was it somebody else?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am not sure. I know there was a
representative of every political party that spoke there on the Spanish
situation and in favor of the Spanish Republic.

Mr. SCHERER. I understand that, but might it have been
Marcantonio you were referring to?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My remembrance is it was somebody else, but I
don’t want to--I am trying to think. As a matter of fact, he was from
one of the silk-stocking districts of New York, as I remember.

Mr. WILLIS. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m. the same day.)


AFTERNOON SESSION, JUNE 2, 1955

The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m.

Mr. WILLIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Because of the pressure of legislative work, as we have gone along in
these hearings it has been necessary to constitute and reconstitute the
subcommittee.

Mr. Scherer could not be here this afternoon and the chairman has now
appointed a subcommittee of my colleagues, Mr. Velde, and Mr. Doyle,
and myself as chairman.

In view of the reconstitution of the subcommittee we will reswear the
witness.

Do you solemnly swear that you will testify according to the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before this subcommittee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do.

Mr. WILLIS. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.


TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, were you a member of the national
committee of the International Labor Defense in 1940?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know----

Mr. TAVENNER. The Daily Worker of May 3, 1938, reports that
Jeremiah O’Connell was a speaker at a function of the International
Labor Defense.

According to Equal Justice, page 4, of the November 1938 issue,
Jeremiah O’Connell was one of the sponsors of the Christmas drive of
that organization.

According to the May 1939 issue of Equal Justice, Jeremiah O’Connell
was one of those who sent congratulations to the southern California
district year book 1938 of the International Labor Defense.

According to a leaflet the summer milk fund drive, Hotel Pennsylvania,
New York City, of June 13, 1940, you were listed as a member of that
committee of the International Labor Defense.

Now, does that information refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. I mean I can’t--I don’t remember ever being
elected to the international committee of the International Labor
Defense, or selected for it.

I probably, as a Congressman, like on the milk fund, summer milk fund
and Christmas fund, and so on, at that time the International Labor
Defense used to send, I think Christmas presents to labor prisoners.

During my term in Congress I was particularly active in fighting for
the freedom of Tom Mooney. My Dad had been in the miner’s union, a
member and executive for that particular period; he has always been
interested. When I came here I introduced a resolution in the Congress
asking for the freedom of Tom Mooney and for a pardon for him.

I think my best recollection is as far as the International Labor
Defense is concerned that the matters I sponsored were around prisoners
like Tom Mooney.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you familiar with the fact that it has been
cited as a Communist front organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I shouldn’t say that I actually know that it
has been cited, or when it was cited.

Mr. TAVENNER. Attorney General Tom Clark cited it as a
subversive and Communist organization on June 1, 1948, and again on
September 22, 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. It wasn’t even in existence then.

Mr. TAVENNER. Probably not. Attorney General Francis Biddle,
on September 24, 1942, cited it as a legal arm of the Communist Party.

This committee on January 3, 1939, again on January 3, 1940; on
June 25, 1942; and on March 29, 1944, cited it. In this committee’s
citation it was referred to as the American section of the MOPR
Red International of Labor Defense, often referred to as the Red
International Aid.

It was subsequently combined with the National Federation of
Constitutional Liberties to form the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. O’Connell, as a former Member of Congress,
naturally you were interested in the citations of the Un-American
Activities Committee and the citation of the Attorneys General.
Surely you must have some recollection that these organizations were
subversive and cited as subversive by duly constituted bodies?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually, I mean as far as the International
Labor Defense is concerned, I think the latest, according to that
record, that I was involved is sometime in 1940. I think its earliest
citation was by this committee in 1939.

Then the Attorney General’s citations were many years after that when
it was actually in existence.

Mr. TAVENNER. 1942?

Mr. O’CONNELL. 1942.

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir; you said many years later; 1942 is the
date that the Attorney General first cited.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I thought you said 1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. There was one in 1948.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. O’Connell, I understood you to say that you
didn’t know that the International Labor Defense was a subversive
organization or cited as a subversive organization.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I actually didn’t know at the time I was
involved there. I, for instance, know now that the International Labor
Defense has been, and I have known it for some time in the past few
years since it was cited.

Mr. VELDE. How long have you known it has been cited?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My best recollection would be that I have
probably known since 1945, somewhere in there; maybe a little earlier,
but certainly at this time I didn’t know it.

For instance, I am out in the State of Montana. A lot of this material
is not covered by the press in Montana, and it does not have any
particular interest, and, of course, I was not involved; I was no
longer a Member of Congress at that time.

I had a sincere desire, I actually believed, and felt that Tom Mooney
had been framed, and I felt that he ought to be released from prison. I
worked for his freedom.

I think, in one instance, as far as the International Labor Defense is
concerned, I was going into Jersey City to speak against Mayor Frank
Hague. The meeting that I was speaking at apparently was sponsored by
Norman Thomas’ Socialist Party, or they were the ones that had arranged
it, and members of the International Labor Defense requested me not to
speak, but I went there and spoke.

At that time, to my best recollection, Mike Quill was the New York
labor leader and still is. He was prevailing upon me not to go in there
and speak, but I did go into Jersey City and tried to speak there. I
felt that Frank Hague was denying civil liberties and particularly
freedom of speech.

Mr. VELDE. But at that time did you not realize that the
International Labor Defense had been cited by your Government as being
subversive?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Congressman, at that time I was 27, 28 years
old. My political experience, particularly as far as Socialists were
concerned, as far as Communists were concerned, and all of that, I had
no training or study in Marxism-Leninism.

As a matter of fact, I had very little knowledge of what the
differences were, what their division of opinion was, or anything of
the kind.

My feeling was that both of them were for socialism and I didn’t know
what their particular division was.

Mr. VELDE. What I am getting at is this: As a Member of
Congress, following your defeat as a Member of Congress, you certainly
were interested in the committees of Congress, you certainly were
interested in what the Attorney General of the United States was doing.
It seems to me that you should have been cognizant of the fact that the
International Labor Defense was cited as a subversive organization.

Mr. O’CONNELL. This is the first time today--no, for instance,
this committee had cited the International Labor Defense at that
particular date. Now, I learned later----

Mr. VELDE. Now, Mr. O’Connell, there have been a lot of
witnesses appear before this committee with a lot less intelligence
than you, with a lot less knowledge of political activities of our
Government, and, of course, we realize that there were a lot of those
people who became involved in the Communist Party and the Communist
Party manipulations.

But I just cannot understand how you, as a Member of Congress, would
not be cognizant of the fact that the International Labor Defense was
cited as a subversive organization.

I don’t question whether you believed it was, or was not; or whether
you believed that the Attorney General or this committee was right.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I said that I later knew, but at the particular
time involved here, Congressman, it had not been, in my first
connection with it, had not been cited by the committee as such.

I can’t remember this milk fund in 1940, or whatever it was, but I
presume it was to raise funds to provide milk for prisoners, labor
prisoners, children of labor prisoners, and so on. I don’t remember
specifically about----

Now, as far as my particular situation was concerned, the way I felt
about these things, I mean for instance whether it was Mooney or
whoever it might have been, I made up my mind so far as my judgment
was concerned, what I thought was right and what I thought was wrong.

Mr. VELDE. Certainly you have that privilege, as we all do.

Mr. O’CONNELL. And I worked to accomplish what I thought was
right.

Mr. VELDE. I am not questioning your privilege, your right, to
make up your own mind. I am questioning the facts, your statement that
you did not know.

Mr. O’CONNELL. About the best way to explain it to you, I came
out of a district, I was born and raised in Butte. Butte is a mining
town----

Mr. VELDE. But you had been to Washington, D. C. Even before
you ran for Congress you had been here.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I had gone to school here, yes.

In that particular day when I went to school here, as I remember, there
wasn’t any great discussion about Communists or Socialists or anything
of that kind. When I went to school here in that day, I was in the----

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not see that this argument is
getting us anywhere.

Mr. O’CONNELL. The biggest thing of interest at that time was
Al Smith and Governor Ritchie and other people’s nominations for the
Presidency.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, were you a member of the national
committee of the American League for Peace and Democracy in 1939?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether I was in 1939, but maybe
in 1938 or 1937, and possibly 1939 I was a member of the American
League for Peace and Democracy.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long were you a member that organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really wouldn’t know. Actually after I
went back to Montana, outside of some communication and sponsorship,
something of that kind, I had very little connection. As I remember,
the League didn’t last; I mean it didn’t last very long.

Mr. TAVENNER. While you were a member of its national
committee, did you take part as a speaker in various functions of the
American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think I can remember about two speeches.
I made a speech in Pittsburgh that you asked me about, and I made a
speech in New York, at a banquet in New York.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you remain a member of the national
committee of the American League for Peace and Democracy until its
dissolution?

Mr. O’CONNELL. When did it dissolve?

Mr. TAVENNER. In 1941.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I couldn’t say whether I remained a
member all of that time. I don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the course of the hearing before this
committee the chairman read into the record minutes of an executive
committee meeting of the American League for Peace and Democracy, held
on January 23, 1939. I quote from what the chairman read into the
record:

    In connection with the legislative program it says: “Get lists of
    friendly Congressmen and have teas and luncheons for them.”

    A further idea of how they proceed is shown in the minutes of
    January 13, 1939, of the meeting held at the home of Mrs. Fowler,
    as follows:

    “It was suggested that we make an attempt to get Congressmen to
    join the league. Mr. Smith will arrange for a luncheon meeting
    with Marcantonio and Jerry O’Connell to get their views on how to
    proceed. The idea is to make Congressmen part of an impressive list
    of sponsors.”

and from the same minutes----

    “Mr. Berrall announced a legislative office will be established
    in Washington over the weekend with Jerry O’Connell doing the
    congressional work and two assistants at the office.”

Will you explain what your activity was among Congressmen to solicit
membership in the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. When was this supposed to be?

Mr. TAVENNER. The minutes of the executive meeting were
January 13, 1939.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was no longer a Member of Congress in 1939.

Mr. TAVENNER. I didn’t say that you were.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Then I was supposed to head some kind of office
here?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Berrall announced that a legislative office
will be established in Washington----

Mr. O’CONNELL. What is this Mr. Berrall? Who is he?

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t know him.

Mr. TAVENNER (reading):

    Mr. Berrall announced that a legislative office will be established
    in Washington over the weekend with Jerry O’Connell doing the
    congressional work and two assistants at the office.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I am concerned he is talking out
of thin air. I had nothing to do with any office. I wasn’t in a
legislative office down here for the American League for Peace and
Democracy.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where were you in January 1939?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, my best recollection would be that in
January 1939 I was back in the State of Montana. After I was defeated
for Congress I started a weekly newspaper called Jerry O’Connell’s
Montana Liberal.

I am pretty sure I was back there getting that paper underway and
getting it published and so on, trying to get subscriptions. I just
think he is talking out of complete thin air because I certainly never
came down here and did any kind of work like that, or talked to any
Congressmen or had teas for them or anything.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall when you left Washington at the
end of the Congress in which you served?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think after my defeat that I came back
here at all. I was defeated, of course, in November 1938. I think
my secretary came back and cleaned up what we had in the office and
brought it back.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to
show that the American League for Peace and Democracy was cited
as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Francis Biddle on
September 24, 1942, in the following language:

    Established in the United States in 1937 as successor to the
    American League against War and Fascism in an effort to create
    public sentiment on behalf of the foreign policy adapted to the
    interest of the Soviet Union. The American League for Peace and
    Democracy was designed to conceal Communist control in accordance
    with the new tactics of the Communist International.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire a little further on
that?

Mr. WILLIS. Certainly.

Mr. VELDE. Were you acquainted with any of the leaders of the
movement of the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, about the only one I can remember, that
stands out in my mind, was Dr. Harry F. Ward.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know Dr. Harry F. Ward?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew him at that time.

Mr. VELDE. You still know him, do you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I think if he walked in the room I don’t
know whether I would recognize him. I would say it has probably been 10
or almost 15 years.

Mr. VELDE. At that time he was head of the Methodist
Federation of Social Action. I presume you know that, do you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My impression was that he was head of this
organization.

Mr. VELDE. Will you answer my question? Did you know that he
was head of the Methodist Federation for Social Action at that time?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I really didn’t know whether he was or not.
My impression was that it was somebody by the name of Jack McMichael
that was head of that.

Mr. VELDE. If my memory serves me correctly, it was not until
after that time. It was 1942. Am I right, that Jack McMichael became
head of the Methodist Federation for Social Action?

Mr. O’CONNELL. This was quite a while ago.

Mr. VELDE. What contact did you have with Harry Ward as far as
the American League for Peace and Democracy was concerned?

Mr. O’CONNELL. About the only contact I had with him, I don’t
know whether he personally, but somebody before him, asked me to speak
at a convention or meeting they had out in Pittsburgh in November 1937.

Then there was a banquet as I recall; I think after that time,
something in the early part of 1938, in New York, where he asked me to
speak and, of course, he presided at the banquet in New York. I don’t
know whether it was at Pittsburgh, or whether he resided there, or not,
but I remember his presiding.

Mr. VELDE. Do you have any idea why he asked you to speak
before the meeting?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think because of my position on foreign
policy and particularly on Spain at that time.

Mr. VELDE. Did you know any other leaders in the movement for
the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The only one I recall now is Dr. Ward.

Mr. TAVENNER. Possibly I can refresh his recollection on that.
Wasn’t Earl Browder one of the leaders?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. I really don’t know. If he were,
any connection I had with the league--I mean I had certainly nothing
to do with him. I mean, he wasn’t involved at the meeting that I spoke
to in New York or the meeting I spoke to in Pittsburgh. I never saw
Browder or knew he was involved in it.

Mr. TAVENNER. In the extract from the minutes of the executive
meeting which I read a few moments ago----

Mr. O’CONNELL. Where was this executive meeting?

Mr. TAVENNER. It was held in the home of Mrs. Fowler, on
January 13, 1939. Now, it was suggested at that meeting, according to
what I read, that a person by the name of Mr. Smith would get in touch
with Marcantonio and Jerry O’Connell to get their advice on how to
proceed.

Did anyone confer with you as to how to proceed to get Congressmen to
lend their names as sponsors so as to form an impressive list for the
American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; certainly nobody got in touch with me. I
don’t know of any Smith who got in touch with me. I know I never had
anything to do; I never came down here and tried to give Congressmen
teas. I don’t know who this Mrs. Fowler is; I don’t know who Berrall is.

I think they were talking through their hat so far as I was concerned.
I mean, I can’t speak for Marc.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall having been a speaker at the
function of American Friends of the Chinese People in June of 1938?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; that was in New York, was it not? A
banquet in New York.

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Or was that a meeting here in Washington? I
think that was just after the Japanese aggression in China.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you now aware that the American Friends
of the Chinese People has been cited by this committee as a
Communist-front organization?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I am not aware of that even now.

Mr. TAVENNER. It was so cited on March 29, 1944.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I never got copies of the hearings or
deliberations or decisions of the committee. Out there our press,
unless it is specifically related to something out there, rarely
carries any of this material.

Mr. TAVENNER. The November 1948 issue of the Far East
Spotlight reflects that you sent greetings to the Communist, Madame Sun
Yat-Sen under auspices of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern
Policy. Do you recall having done that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I really don’t recall having done it, but
I don’t deny that I did. I have tremendous respect for Madame Sun
Yat-Sen. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee whether or not you
were affiliated with the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Affiliated with it?

Mr. TAVENNER. In any way; yes.

Mr. WILLIS. What is the name of that committee?

Mr. TAVENNER. A Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t remember----

Mr. TAVENNER. When you say you probably did join in such a
greeting, can you recall the circumstances under which the Committee
for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy obtained your assistance?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I really don’t recall how it was done
or who contacted me, or who asked me or anything. I am sure that if
somebody asked me to send a greeting to Madame Sun Yat-Sen I might
have done it.

Mr. TAVENNER. The record should show at this point that the
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy was cited as a Communist
organization by Attorney General Tom Clark on April 27, 1949.

Were you acquainted with Mother Bloor?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I knew Mother Bloor.

Mr. TAVENNER. What were the circumstances under which you knew
her?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am pretty sure that she came here to
Washington and I was introduced to her here in Washington when I was in
Congress, or if not, I probably----

Mr. VELDE. Did you know her to be a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. How did you know she was a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think she said she was and was an avowed
Communist. I don’t think she hid it or anything of that kind.

Mr. WILLIS. What is the name of that person?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Mother Bloor.

Mr. TAVENNER. B-l-o-o-r.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I recall, she came to see me in connection
with my resolution in behalf of freedom for Tom Mooney. I am pretty
sure that is how I met her.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you send her this greeting on her 75th
birthday:

    It affords me great pleasure to add my word of commendation and
    praise to Mother Bloor and to wish her well on the occasion of the
    celebration in her honor. When the final history of the movement of
    labor throughout the world is written, I know that proper tribute
    will be paid to her for her militant and unceasing fight for the
    betterment of the classes that toil and I am happy and proud to be
    one of those who join in paying honor and tribute to her on this
    day of memorable celebration. With the sender’s personal regards
    and every good wish, I greet her.

Did you send such a greeting?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know. When was this supposed to be sent?

Mr. TAVENNER. On her 75th birthday.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I mean, when was that?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not certain as to the date.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I mean she was a real character. I am trying
to recall. My dad was killed in a strike out in Butte and another
organizer of the miners union was taken and hung at the Milwaukee
trestle there. Whether Mother Bloor came out during that period or not,
I really don’t know.

But she, at least when I was--she was a very old lady.

Mr. TAVENNER. I can give you the date. It is July 18, 1937.

Mr. O’CONNELL. It was her 75th birthday?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I can’t recall the wire. I don’t remember
sending it, but I wouldn’t deny that I had greeted her on her 75th
birthday.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that part of a plan of a group of people to
add to her celebration?

Mr. CONNELL. I mean, I can’t recall any of the facts.

I don’t know who held the celebration, or under what auspices.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection:

It is a fact that there was a celebration committee established to
celebrate the 75th birthday of Mother Bloor, an open Communist in this
country, throughout the width and breadth of the land, and that you
were a member of that celebrating committee? Or, I should correct that
and say that you were a sponsor of that celebration committee?

I have before me a letterhead showing that Congressman Jerry J.
O’Connell was one of a list of sponsors for that celebration.

Mr. CONNELL. I can’t recall the circumstances now, but as far
as Mother Bloor was concerned, I am sure that I would have sent her
some greetings on her 75th birthday, and if I am listed there as a
sponsor--I don’t recall it now, but I don’t deny that I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to introduce the document in evidence,
and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 6” for identification
only, and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. The National Federation for Constitutional
Liberties in January 1943 addressed a message to the House of
Representatives critical of the Dies committee and calling for its
abolishment. A number of signatories appear to that letter and among
them appears your name. It appears in this way:

    I hereby join in signing the January 1943 message to the House of
    Representatives opposing renewal of the Dies committee.

There were a number of signatories, including Jerry O’Connell. Do you
recall that?

Mr. CONNELL. I don’t recall, but I voted against the creation
of the Dies committee in 1938 and I have constantly opposed it all the
time it was in existence.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now, in asking the question I am not critical in
any sense and don’t mean it in any sense, because of your decision to
oppose a congressional committee. That is a right that anyone has.

Mr. CONNELL. Well, I was a Member of Congress and I had a
right to vote against it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Not only as a Member of Congress, but as a
citizen you had that right. I don’t intend it in any way as critical,
but my purpose in asking it is to find out what connection you had with
the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties which put out this
message.

Mr. CONNELL. So far as I can remember they probably sent me
a copy of that message and asked me if I would join in it. And then I
think I was the sponsor of a call to organize or set up the National
Federation for Constitutional Liberties.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think I have already read into the record
the citations by the Attorneys General Clark and Biddle of that
organization. So I will not repeat it.

I asked you this morning about the activity of John Daschbach in
connection with the Civil Rights Congress in the State of Washington.
According to the committee’s information, he was chairman of the
steering committee of that organization. Is that true?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t know whether he was chairman of the
steering committee. I remember he was the director in charge of the
Civil Rights Congress office in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Didn’t he name you as one of the members of the
steering committee?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If he did, I had no knowledge of it. When did
he name me? When was this done?

Mr. TAVENNER. In October of 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. He may have put me on there, but I never served
as a member of the steering committee in the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why didn’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I just remember I didn’t. In October of
1948 particularly we were in the midst of the 1948 campaign and I was
the executive secretary of the Progressive Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. The campaign would have been over in November;
would it not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, sir; it would have been, but I mean from
October--October is always involved in politics, October is the month
when the general election campaign is carried on.

He, of his own volition, may have made me a member of the steering
committee, but I certainly don’t remember getting any notification and
I certainly know I didn’t serve on the steering committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you have repeated a number of
times during the course of the testimony your denial of any knowledge
of Communist Party membership on the part of Tom Rabbitt and William
Pennock while you were in the State of Washington.

Now, I have examined the testimony taken at the Canwell hearings--which
occurred in 1948; did they not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I remember, there were two hearings out
there. There was one in 1947--I think there was a hearing in 1947, and
one in 1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. The first hearings were conducted from January
27, to February 5 of 1947, and subsequent hearings were, or at least
the report was made in 1948. I am not sure whether the bulk of the
hearings were in 1947 or in 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think, as I remember, the longer hearings
were in 1947 and then there were some shorter hearings held in 1948.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now, I have examined this testimony and I find
that Louis Budenz identified Tom Rabbitt, as a member of the Communist
Party during the course of that hearing. He was the first witness.

Mr. O’CONNELL. If the committee please, I think Mr. Budenz
at that hearing was asked questions about whether or not I was a
member of the Communist Party and I think the records will show there
that he didn’t definitely say that I was. He said that there was some
discussion about me in Communist Party headquarters, and that I had a
good record in Congress and the Communists thought I was----

Mr. TAVENNER. I will give you an opportunity to explain that a
little later.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Don’t let me forget because I sued Mr. Budenz
about it.

Mr. TAVENNER. I will give you an opportunity to explain that.

Mr. WILLIS. Sued whom?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I sued Mr. Budenz for the statements that he
made.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Ward F. Warren identified Thomas Rabbitt as
a person he knew to be a member of the Communist Party, that he sat in
closed party meetings with Thomas Rabbitt.

Senator James Sullivan identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the
Communist Party.

Kathryn Fogg, K-a-t-h-r-y-n, identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of
the Communist Party, and described fraction meetings which he attended
with her.

Jess Fletcher, who was a well-known member of the Communist Party in
Seattle, identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party
and stated that he had sat in many Communist Party meetings with him
and that he had attended, that Rabbitt had attended, Communist Party
meetings in his home; that is, in Fletcher’s home.

Nat Honig identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

Harriett Riley identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist
Party.

H. C. Armstrong identified Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

Now, you knew at the time of those hearings that Thomas Rabbitt during
those hearings had been identified as a Communist Party member by
numerous individuals; didn’t you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew that at those hearings those people whom
you have named had said that he was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. When I asked you that question, you told us that
you had never heard that Thomas Rabbitt was a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I don’t think I said I ever heard. You
asked if I knew that he was a member of the Communist Party, and I said
no, I didn’t know.

Now, I could go through, and I don’t want to take the time of the
committee, I could tell you like, for instance, Armstrong, Sullivan,
and all of the others, not all of the others, many of those, Kathryn
Fogg, were all members of the State legislature, and they had various
fights and conflicts and so on, and some of them were eliminated from
the legislature, and some weren’t, and so on.

I could go through, Jess Fletcher was in the building-service union of
which Rabbitt also was a member. There was fighting and division and
dissension there.

Now, I think in view of all this, I think it ought to be remembered
I came out in the State of Washington in August of 1944 and many of
these things that have gone on, and so on, I know nothing of, or knew
anything about it.

As a matter of fact, one of the principal jobs I had in the Democratic
Party was to try to smooth out a lot of the fighting and dissension
that had gone on between the so-called conservative and progressive
wings of the Democratic Party out there. It was a job that I was
apparently quite successful in.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you attend a number of meetings, the purpose
of which was to oppose the holding of the Canwell hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I mean the Progressive Party had meetings
and, of course, to oppose the Canwell committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you bitterly opposed to the conduct of
those hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Decidedly so.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the hearing picketed?

Mr. O’CONNELL. The hearing was picketed; yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you in the picket line?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I wasn’t actually in the picket line.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you take part in the picketing?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was there and I was encouraging the picket
line to be orderly and to make sure that its conduct was correct and so
on.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you arrested in connection with a
disturbance calculated to break up those hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was arrested for disturbing the peace and
disorderly conduct, but I was acquitted on that charge.

Mr. TAVENNER. So you were keenly interested in the Canwell
hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was decidedly opposed to the Canwell
committee. As a matter of fact, of the 7 members of the committee, I
think we eliminated 6 of them in the following elections.

Mr. TAVENNER. You knew very well that Tom Rabbitt had been
identified over and over again in the course of those hearings as a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, was not inside the meetings. I
mean, I didn’t hear a lot of the testimony.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean to tell us that you didn’t know that
Tom Rabbitt had been identified as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew, for instance, in the press and the
press reports, and from information given to me that various people in
there had said that Rabbitt and others were members of the Communist
Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then we cannot rely on your statement of this
morning and yesterday when I asked you whether or not you knew that Tom
Rabbitt, or had heard that Tom Rabbitt was a member of the Communist
Party when you were dealing with him in the pension union and in the
work of the Progressive Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Now, I said, and if my testimony is that I had
not heard, I want to change it, but I said I did not know of my own
knowledge and my testimony is that I did not know of my own knowledge
and even today I do not know of my knowledge that Rabbitt is a member
of the Communist Party.

As I understand it, he has not admitted that he is. I think according
to your report he refused to testify and invoked the privilege of the
fifth amendment as far as he was concerned.

Mr. TAVENNER. Didn’t almost the same witnesses identify
William Pennock as a Communist Party member during those same hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. So what is true with regard to Mr. Rabbitt, is
true with regard to Mr. Pennock?

Mr. O’CONNELL. My testimony is that I didn’t know of my own
knowledge that they were members of the Communist Party.

Mr. VELDE. You stated you did have a suspicion that they were
members of the Communist Party at the time you were dealing with them
in the pension union. Now, will you tell this committee upon what you
based that suspicion?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Largely, I was decidedly surprised when I
heard the testimony of many of the people who testified in the Canwell
hearings. I was surprised by Kathryn Fogg who, for instance, was a
Democratic leader in South King County whom I knew real well. I didn’t
dream she was a member of the Communist Party or had been one. When she
came and testified that she had been a member of the Communist Party
and had met in meetings I was certainly surprised.

And H. C. Armstrong----

Mr. VELDE. When did you first suspect that Rabbitt and Pennock
were members of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, the first suspicion that I had was
actually around the period of time of those hearings out there. Up to
that time it had been my job as executive secretary of the Democratic
Party, I had to cover the whole State of Washington. I went around on
tours and trips and speaking schedules and so on, and my contact with
Rabbitt and Pennock largely during the first 2 years I was out there,
1945 and 1946, really was when I would come in to talk to a meeting of
the King County Democratic Central Committee that they were sitting on
as delegates, Democratic delegates from the 35th Legislative District.

Mr. VELDE. Yet they were district committee members of the
Communist Party in the State of Washington.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That I do not know.

Mr. VELDE. It was fairly well known among politicians at least
that they were; is that not true?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I don’t think so because--of course, I was
completely dependent upon information from Democratic Party leaders out
there who had been active in the Democratic Party for a long time. For
instance, Rabbitt and Pennock were on various committees all through
the Democratic Party and were actually, of course, members of the
legislature, 1 in the senate and 1 in the house.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were they working with the Progressive Party
after that?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, but, my position as far as Rabbitt and
Pennock--today it is easy to go back 5 and 6 years and the developments
that have gone on and the exposures that have been made and so on, have
been much greater in the past than they were then. It was not my job to
determine whether Rabbitt or Pennock was a Communist.

Mr. VELDE. We acknowledge that, of course.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as the Democratic Party was concerned,
we had certain platforms, certain programs.

Mr. VELDE. But it is difficult for me to believe in your
associations, the various associations you had with them, that you did
not know that they were members of the Communist Party. I want to say
that with all respect to you as a former Member of Congress.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I didn’t like Rabbitt; I had very little to do
with Rabbitt. I fired him as a Progressive Party staff man in about May
of 1948.

My first connection with him, where I was close to what he was like and
what he did and so on, all that was from about the latter part of March
1948 down until May and in May of 1948 I removed him from the staff of
the Progressive Party. I didn’t really like him.

Now, up until Bill Pennock, actually I had talked with Bill Pennock
many times and he was much more, I would say, a real Democrat. He was
in the Democratic Party conclaves; in their meetings and so on, and,
of course, a much more personable fellow and all that, but until Bill
Pennock actually announced, and regardless of this testimony that is
there, and I talked with Bill Pennock after this testimony was given,
and he vociferously denied that he issued statements in the papers and
in the press and everything and pension union statements were made, up
to the minute Bill Pennock made an open statement just before he was
going on trial in the Smith Act cases in 1953 or 1954, whenever they
were out there, I certainly had some real, real doubt whether Bill
Pennock was a member of the Communist Party.

And I think you will find that pretty generally out there, if you went
out and talked to ordinary people out there, who were working in the
Democratic Party, chairmen and State committeemen and so on, and all of
that kind.

Mr. VELDE. Well, it is entirely possible.

Mr. O’CONNELL. For instance, Governor Wallgren, who had been
in the Congress for 10 years, and had been United States Senator for
about 6 years, Governor Wallgren appointed Pennock to a position as
assistant superintendent of institutions out there.

Mr. TAVENNER. However, that wasn’t after 1948.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, that was in 1945.

Mr. VELDE. At that time, how would you determine in your own
mind whether or not a person was a member of the Communist Party? What
standards would you use? I am talking about the Wallace campaign.

Mr. O’CONNELL. About which campaign?

Mr. VELDE. The Progressive campaign with Wallace. What
standards would you use to determine whether or not a man was a
Communist?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Taking Rabbitt specifically, the reason I
removed him as a member of the staff in the Progressive Party in
1948, in 1948 the Progressive Party was under attack, particularly
nationally, as being Communist controlled and Communist dominated and
being a Red party and so on, and we had, particularly in South King
County, an organizer by the name of Belden who was a member of various
veterans’ groups out there.

Belden was organizing Progressive Party clubs----

Mr. VELDE. With all due respect, I think you could tell what
standards you would use.

Mr. O’CONNELL. When Belden was asked by people whether or not
this was a Red party, Belden, of course, would deny it and go on and
say the kind of people who were in it.

Rabbitt was critical of the way that he said that it was not a
Red party and the inference which he left which was in effect a
denunciation of the Reds and all of that and, of course, I figured if
he is touchy about that on the subject and all that, why, there is
probably some basis for it, for the charges that have been made against
him.

Mr. VELDE. You have not answered the question at all, in my
opinion. Let me ask you this: You were familiar with the fact that the
Soviet Union had established an espionage network here in the United
States by 1948, were you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I was not. I don’t know whether that is
true even today. I mean, you asked me and I don’t know. I would have
to be shown and somebody would have to show me where they are and the
proof. I don’t know whether that is true.

Mr. VELDE. Are you familiar with the various Smith Act trials?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I have read a lot about the Smith Act trials;
yes, sir. But in none of the Smith Act trials they were not charged
with espionage and treason or anything of that kind.

Mr. VELDE. No; of course they were charged with advocating the
overthrow of our form of government by force and violence.

Mr. O’CONNELL. It even goes back further than that, conspiring
to teach and all that, but in none of those trials I don’t know any
development of espionage or spying. Of course, I am not familiar with
all the testimony. I have not read it all.

Mr. VELDE. Are you familiar with the Rosenberg case?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am familiar with the Rosenberg case.

Mr. VELDE. Certainly from the result of that you must have had
the suspicion that there was an espionage network operating in this
country.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Even today I am not convinced that the
Rosenbergs were involved in Soviet espionage. Right now I think there
is serious doubt of it.

Mr. VELDE. Even though they were convicted under our American
system of jurisprudence?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Even though they were convicted and executed
I still feel it. You see, Congressman, I have a genuine interest in
civil liberty. It is not a Communist interest in civil liberty. I have
studied the testimony in the case of the Rosenbergs and so on. I think
it is seriously lacking, at least in my mind, and from my very meager
experience as an attorney, it is seriously lacking in fundamental proof
of their guilt. I think Dr. Harold Urey, many scientists and so on,
feel the same way about it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, I note when speaking of Pennock
and Rabbitt that a great part of your answers has dealt with the period
when you were secretary for the Democratic Party. But it was after the
Canwell hearings that the Progressive Party was established. It was in
the spring of 1947.

So at the time that Pennock and Rabbitt were associated with the
Progressive Party this information had already come out in the Canwell
hearings?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. And you have spoken of what happened before the
Canwell hearings.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That doesn’t prove to me, I mean knowing many
of the people that testified--for instance, Jim Sullivan, I know Jim
Sullivan’s attitude and motives. I know precisely that he was president
of the Washington Pension Union and he lost his job and Pennock got it.

I could go through with those, I could go through each one and show the
particular reason why they testified. I judge by what Budenz said about
me--Budenz knew I wasn’t a member of the Communist Party. He didn’t
dare testify that I was.

Mr. VELDE. Will you tell us----

Mr. O’CONNELL. Will you let me finish, Congressman.

Mr. VELDE. You did not answer my question a while ago as
to how you would judge whether or not a person was a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I really haven’t thought about it. I can’t
give you precise standards and tests. I, for instance, don’t think,
I mean the standards and tests set down in the Communist Control Act
of 1954 are good; I think they would embrace a lot of people who are
non-Communists. I think it would involve a lot of people who are not
members of the Communist Party if you were to take those tests, for
instance. I think it is entirely too broad.

Mr. TAVENNER. The sum and substance of your testimony is
that the eight witnesses whose testimony I have quoted here are not
worthy of belief and therefore, you just ignored their testimony when
the matter came up of associating Rabbitt and Pennock with you in the
Progressive Party work?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Not only as far as I was concerned, but as far
as the people of the State of Washington, particularly in the districts
that these representatives were concerned, and the Legislative Assembly
of the State of Washington itself, this job was so poorly done by the
Canwell committee that the committee was never re-created, and in
the last session of the Legislative Assembly of Washington State had
Canwell before it for contempt for the destruction of the records of
his committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you answer my question, please?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, the thing I am trying to point out to
you is that I know how those hearings were conducted. There was no
opportunity, no opportunity for cross-examination; no opportunity for
witnesses to come in on the other side, or anything. I mean, people
were paraded there, like Budenz, and the others, came there and made
long, long statements; they just went on and on and made statements
about almost everything imaginable and conceivable.

Mr. TAVENNER. You still haven’t answered my question.

Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned that did not prove to
me that Rabbitt or Pennock or anybody named in there was Communist.

Mr. TAVENNER. My question was whether or not you absolutely
ignored the testimony in the selection of those people to assist you in
the work of the Progressive Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I wouldn’t use the language that I
totally ignored it, or anything, but I was not motivated in my dealings
with them by anything that was developed in those hearings. Now, you
promised me an opportunity to----

Mr. TAVENNER. I will.

Mr. O’CONNELL. All right.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have told us that you were acquainted with
Barbara Hartle.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I think that is a correct statement that I
was acquainted with her.

Mr. TAVENNER. You stated that you had met her probably 5 times.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I met her the first time in Montana. Then I met
her a few times in the State of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. I asked Mrs. Hartle in the course of the
testimony taken in June 1954 to tell the committee to what extent
the Communist Party in that area was interested in the work of the
Progressive Party. You will find it on page 6215 of her testimony. Her
reply was this:

    To a very considerable extent. After the reconstitution the
    Communist Party recognized its revisionism of Marxism-Leninism in
    the political field, and decided that the correct program was for a
    new third anti-imperialist party. After this ideological campaign
    had proceeded for at least a year the Progressive Party was founded
    preceded for a period by the Progressive Citizens of America. The
    Communist Party viewed this as a development along favorable lines
    and in this district threw considerable effort into the support
    and building of it and was able to furnish the top leadership as
    well in the State. Hugh DeLacy, head of the Progressive Citizens of
    America, Jerry O’Connell, and Tom Rabbitt, head of the Progressive
    Party, all three of whom were in executive positions, were members
    of the Communist Party to the best of my understanding. I have less
    knowledge of O’Connell’s Communist Party membership than of DeLacy
    and Rabbitt, but have sat in Communist Party meetings with him when
    all present were Communists, and I understood him to be one also,
    or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference. Many
    Communist Party members were for the founding of the Progressive
    Party in this State and worked in it after its founding. They
    numbered in the hundreds. The policy of the Progressive Party in
    this State was controlled by the Communist Party and if there
    were any problems at all along this line they came from national
    demands or from demands of persons and groups working also in the
    Progressive Party and whom the Communist Party wanted to retain
    and influence. Other Communist Party leaders also in leadership of
    the Progressive Party were William J. Pennock, Karley Larsen, Fair
    Taylor, Tom Rabbitt, Jerry O’Connell.

Then she proceeded to refer to other Communist Party members active in
the Progressive Party.

I want to call to your attention the fact that she stated that the
Communist Party furnished the leadership to the Progressive Party in
the State. The first person she named in that capacity was Hugh DeLacy.
What was Hugh DeLacy’s position in the Progressive Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Hugh DeLacy had no position in the Progressive
Party and no office in the Progressive Party, in the State of
Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it in the Progressive Citizens of America?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think he was head of the Progressive Citizens
of America. We had actually, when the Progressive Party was organized
we had a real fight because the Progressive Citizens of America were
coming in, they had an organizational drive which was in support of
Wallace as such, but when the Progressive Party of Washington was
actually set up the leadership came not from the people who were in
the Progressive Citizens of America, but from people who were in the
Democratic Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. And people who were in the Young Progressives?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think we had any Young Progressives.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have any position, prior to the
formation of the Progressive Party in any organization other than the
Democratic Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. As I told you, we had an organization known
as Roosevelt Democrats; I was executive secretary of it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Other than that, you had no position in any
group or branch?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, and Tom Rabbitt was not the head of the
Progressive Party. Russell Fluent was.

Mr. TAVENNER. But he did hold an executive position as stated
by Mrs. Hartle?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he did not.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was his position?

Mr. O’CONNELL. As I said, he was on the staff from about, I
would say----

Mr. TAVENNER. Isn’t that an executive position, being a member
of the staff? Was he paid for his services?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was paid for his services.

I mean, as I understand, he was not in an executive position. He had
an organizational job to do this southern King County. I mean, he
was assigned to organizational work, but it certainly wasn’t, I mean
he wasn’t chairman or vice chairman, or secretary, or any executive
position as I know it. And because of the kind of job he did out there,
I dropped him from the staff.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now, DeLacy has been shown to have been a member
of the Communist Party by witnesses other than Barbara Hartle and since
her testimony. Rabbitt has also.

Mrs. Hartle stated she had less knowledge of Communist Party membership
on your part, but that she sat with you in Communist Party meetings
when all present were Communists. Is that statement true or false?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That statement, as far as I am concerned, is
false. I never sat in any Communist Party meeting with her, at least
that I knew was called a Communist Party meeting. I have never sat in
when all present were Communists.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you sit in any Communist Party meeting when
some of the persons present were not Communists?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not know what her definition of a
Communist Party meeting would be. That is the first thing that bothers
me about that statement. I, for instance--I mean if the Communist Party
called a meeting, as I understand her statement here, if the Communist
Party called a meeting I know I never went to that meeting.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you sit in a meeting of Communist Party
members?

Mr. O’CONNELL. If she means, for instance, that a meeting
of probable Democrats in the 35th District, people who were in the
Democrat Party were there and there was a meeting----

Mr. TAVENNER. You speak of the Democrat Party each time. This
testimony relates to the Progressive Party. Why not refer to that
period of time?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, she said she sat in Communist Party
meetings with me when all present were Communists. Likewise with the
Progressive Party. I mean there could have been a Progressive Party
meeting called and all that, and all of the people there present might
have been Communists to her knowledge but certainly not to mine. She is
careful; I mean she qualifies, she says, “I understood to be one or at
least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference.” She had doubts.

Mr. WILLIS. At this point that is what this has just about
boiled down to in my mind, Mrs. Hartle’s description. This morning I
sat here and listened to the period of time when you were chairman of
the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. You became associated with or
had business relations with Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Stone, Rose Clinton,
Tom Buchanan, Ruth Rifkin, Elizabeth Sasuly, Tilla Minowitz, Carl
Marzani, Lillian Clott, and Alexander Wright. In each instance you
had an explanation, although we read from the record that others had
said that these people were Communists, that you did not know about
them. Well, that is a little difficult but it could have happened. I
am not reproaching you, but you become a little more indifferent when
you will not accept, for instance, the pronouncement of a court, the
highest court of the land, that Rosenbergs were Communists. You refuse
to accept that; you still are not convinced.

To me her description is becoming pretty good, to be so tolerant as
to be completely indifferent. Probably your mind is shut to having a
standard to satisfy you as to whether a group is or is not Communist.
I am entirely frank about it. Listening all morning my mind at this
time, even more and more as we go along, is that maybe your sincere
feeling--how did she describe that?

Mr. O’CONNELL (reading):

    I understand him to be one also, or at least so sympathetic as to
    make no actual difference.

Mr. WILLIS. Well, if she had used the words “so indifferent,”
it would have been pretty close to my frank analysis of your testimony.

Mr. VELDE. Let me say I concur with your statement, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. WILLIS. If she had substituted the word “indifferent,” it
would have been a close analysis of our appreciation of your testimony
up to now. I look forward, however, to your contest with Mr. Budenz in
that lawsuit that you mentioned.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I want to assure you that there is a
difference. One can be a sincere American liberal and still fight
for the political rights and civil rights of Communists. I can be
non-Communist and yet not anti-Communist, just like I can be a Democrat
and yet not an anti-Republican.

Mr. WILLIS. Yes, but you still have not given us a standard.
It is hard to put in words--I do not know how to describe it--as to
what is my standard, of what is a Communist. I would say that after a
trial by all our courts, including a refusal of relief from the Supreme
Court, refusal of appeals to two Presidents, with all the pressure
brought on them, the courts and executive officers (I suppose they must
have reviewed the record; they all seemed satisfied) but still you
are not satisfied. So that makes it indifferent to me as to what your
standard could be.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not want to go into all of the evidence
as I understand it, but as an attorney I am completely suspicious of
the testimony given by David Greenglass. He had real motives. He had
everything to gain by what he was doing. During the pleas for clemency
and since that time there has been other evidence produced that in my
mind raises a real question, the positions taken by Dr. Harold Urey and
by other scientists as to whether or not the so-called secret which was
transferred or alleged to have been transferred and so on was a secret
at all. These are the things that make me wonder about it. I am not
satisfied.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you of course, noted from the
testimony that I read that Barbara Hartle, who has been qualified as an
expert in this field, stated that the Communist Party furnished the top
leadership in the State of Washington for the Progressive Party. She
also stated that the policy of the Progressive Party in that State was
controlled by the Communist Party.

Now in that connection I want to follow a little further along with her
testimony to support the extent to which the Communist Party was in a
position to control the Progressive Party. I made this statement to
Mrs. Hartle on page 6216:

    Mrs. Hartle, the committee staff has procured from the secretary of
    state of the State of Washington a photostatic copy of the reports
    required to be made by law of the proceedings of the nominating
    convention for the year 1952--

that was the nominating convention of the Progressive Party--

    It is noted that the certificate is signed by Thomas C. Rabbitt,
    permanent secretary of the Progressive Party. You have heretofore
    identified him as a member of the Communist Party, have you not?

    Mrs. HARTLE. Yes, I have.

    Mr. TAVENNER. The document referred to contains a
    certificate of attendance at the nominating convention of the
    Progressive Party held on the 9th day of September 1952. Will you
    please examine the list and read into the record the names of those
    appearing thereon who are known to you to have been members of the
    Communist Party?

(The witness then proceeded to read the names of those she had
identified.)

    Mr. TAVENNER. Will you now count the number of those whose
    signatures appear on the list?

    Mrs. HARTLE. Yes; 33.

    Mr. TAVENNER. I have kept a record of the number of those
    identified by you as members of the Communist Party. Out of the
    total list of 33 names, you have identified 19.

Mrs. Hartle further testified that while she was in the underground of
the Communist Party, which meant after 1950----

Mr. O’CONNELL. Where is that?

Mr. TAVENNER. It is on the same page.

    I received a brief description of what this Independent Party was.
    I was told that it had been impossible to place candidates for the
    Communist Party on the election ballot and that steps were taken
    then to put Communist candidates on an Independent Party ticket and
    take this means of bringing the Communist program into the election
    campaign.

The result was that we furnished to Mrs. Hartle a list of 49 persons
certified by an affidavit to have attended the nominating convention of
the Independent Party. Mrs. Hartle was asked to examine that list. Of
the 49 persons appearing on the list, she identified 36 as known to her
to be members of the Communist Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. That list, of course, is all 1952 with
reference to the Progressive Party in 1950, with reference to the
so-called Independent Party?

Mr. TAVENNER. That is right.

Mr. O’CONNELL. My testimony is that I left the State of
Washington in October 1949.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is correct.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I could distinguish if we had the time, as far
as these people were concerned, with reference to the Progressive Party
as it existed when I was there.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

(The committee members present when the hearing reconvened were Messrs.
Willis and Velde.)

Mr. WILLIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you told us a few minutes ago
that Hugh DeLacy had not been connected with your organization; that
is, the Progressive Party.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not say that he----

Mr. TAVENNER. You said he was not in an executive position.

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was not in an executive position.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he an organizer employed by you?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not remember whether he was there during
the period when the party was actually organized, but he was there for
a period of a few weeks.

Mr. TAVENNER. That was in 1948, was it not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1948 when the organization work was being
done. Then he later went on to the position with the national office of
the Progressive Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. He finally became the head of the Progressive
Party for the State of Ohio?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. According to his testimony, he was employed as a
State organizer for the Progressive Party in Washington from sometime
around February or March, perhaps even later, of 1948, up to somewhere
around June of the same year.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is comparatively correct. My
remembrance of it is that the provisional committee operated from about
March, I would say around March 23 of 1948, and we actually had the
founding convention of the rest of the party in the State of Washington
the latter part of May.

Mr. TAVENNER. DeLacy was a paid functionary for the
Progressive Party during the period he indicated, was he not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. He was a paid organizer during that period.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you employ him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I could not say strictly that I employed him.
I think that there was an executive committee group that was set up at
the time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you his superior?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was his superior; yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now you indicated that you desired an
opportunity to explain the testimony that Mr. Louis Budenz----

Mr. WILLIS. Before you come to that, you started to say 3 or 4
times that you had fired Mr. Rabbitt.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I fired Mr. Rabbitt; I removed him from the
staff. Is that what you mean?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes. Why did you fire him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I explained he was organizing in southern King
County and he was supercritical of the work of a man by the name of
Belden who was organizing clubs in what we call the 30th Legislative
District of King County. The party was being attacked as being
Communist or Communist-controlled or Red, and Belden was trying to
explain as an ordinary individual that it was not Communist-controlled
and was not Red. In the course of his explanation, at least, left
anti-Communist inference; Rabbitt was critical of it.

Mr. TAVENNER. It appears from the certificate made under law
to the State of Washington that he was secretary of the Progressive
Party in 1952--that Rabbitt was secretary.

Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1952?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, of my own knowledge would not
know if that is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did he remain on the executive committee of the
Progressive Party after the time you say you discharged him from his
paid position?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, not as long as I was there. When I left
in October of 1949, as I understand, in the early part of December
a resolution was passed by the State board of the Progressive Party
declaring my office vacant because I had not returned from the State
of Montana. Either at that meeting or shortly after, Rabbitt was named
by the executive committee. I think, first, the original title given
to him was coordinator. Later I think he was made executive secretary.
I know these things from what people have told me, but not of my own
knowledge.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not sure that you have answered
specifically my question relating to the testimony of Barbara Hartle
insofar as it referred to you. Barbara Hartle testified that you
attended Communist Party meetings in which she was present where all
the persons present were members of the Communist Party. Did you attend
any such meeting or meetings?

Mr. O’CONNELL I think my explanation of that was that if I sat
in a Communist Party meeting or what she considered to be a Communist
Party meeting where all present were Communists, I had no knowledge
that they were Communists or it was a Communist Party meeting. Since I
read the testimony yesterday, I tried to recall all the meetings out
there where there would be a possibility she was present. I just cannot
recall the occasions I saw Barbara Hartle out there--usually on the
street or something of that kind--and I cannot recall any meeting that
she sat in that I was in. I just cannot remember any single meeting
that she sat in there where at least I knew she was there. She might
have been in another room or some other place, but she was not visible
to me anywhere.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party during
the period of time you were in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you at any time while in the State of
Washington, that is, between 1944 and 1949, affiliated in any way with
the Communist Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you at any time a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I am not now and I have never been a member of
the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. You stated a desire to explain the testimony of
Mr. Louis Budenz given at the Canwell hearings.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. At the Canwell hearings, Mr. Budenz--I
think to save time, and I want to save time, Mr. Budenz testified
that--I think the substance of his testimony was that he did not know
whether or not I was a Communist, very much like Mrs. Hartle does. I
think it is significant that she was the second top Communist in the
State of Washington; and yet if I were the leading Communist that she
says I was out there, she still is not sure whether I was or not. I
think that is quite significant.

Likewise with Budenz. He was not sure whether I was Communist, but he
had heard some discussion about me in the Communist Party headquarters
in New York. As far as he knew, in meetings that he had heard, I was
supposed to be all right and I was a person they could get along with.
He made many statements of that kind. Then he went into the statement
about the assassination of Leon Trotsky, which to the press in the
State of Washington, left the impression that particularly somehow
or other I was involved. So I sued Mr. Budenz in a civil suit in the
Superior Court of King County the very next day.

Mr. WILLIS. In New York?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; in the State of Washington--Seattle, Wash.
I sued him for libel for the statements that he made about me. I fixed
the sum of damages at $1,500,000. He was served with subpena, legally
served with a summons, rather, in that suit, and through his attorneys
defended the suit by taking advantage of his immunity as a legislative
witness before the State legislative committee. He did not defend it.

Mr. WILLIS. What do you mean, he did not defend it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I mean instead of letting the thing come to
trial, instead of letting the issue come to trial on facts, to be
tried on the facts, and so on, he and his attorneys hid behind his
legislative immunity that he was in the State of Washington by virtue
of a subpena to appear before the legislative committee of the State of
Washington and under the laws of the State could not be legally served
with a summons and sued in the State. The case was dismissed on that
ground.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was this the testimony to which you referred:

    I will ask you, Professor, Do you know a former Congressman from
    Montana by the name of Jerry O’Connell?

    Mr. BUDENZ. Yes, sir.

    Question. Do you know whether or not Mr. O’Connell was a member of
    the Communist Party?

    Mr. BUDENZ. Not that specific. I know that he was one
    whom the party felt it must take care of because of his agreement
    constantly with the party line. This came up in the case of
    Congressman John T. Bernard, of Minnesota, and Congressman
    O’Connell. The discussion came up in the national headquarters
    of the Communist Party in the committee headed by William Winant
    about how to take care of these Congressmen because they agreed
    with the party line. And it was agreed that Bernard and O’Connell
    both would get jobs with the International Workers Order, this
    Communist-controlled front to which I have referred.

    Now, it is my impression that--well, I know that Bernard got
    it, and it is my impression that Mr. O’Connell temporarily also
    received that cynosure through the cooperation of the party. I
    heard the discussion in the party circles first, and later on I
    heard that it was to be accomplished.

That is the testimony to which you refer?

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is the testimony to which I refer.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were employed by the International Workers
Order, were you not?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In order not to prolong it--Congressman Willis
did not hear this, but yesterday I testified about my connections with
the International Workers Order. The original contact, as I remember,
was made by Peter Shipka to advise the local Serbs and Croats which
existed in the city of Butte. It was, as I remember, during a period
when I think Hitler had already invaded Yugoslavia and it was a
question of whether they were supporting Milhailovich or Pavlich. There
was a lot of dissension going on between the Serbs and Croats. I was
asked to go down and advise with them and help with them. Many of them
I knew because of my political candidacies for legislature and for the
railroad and public service commission and for Congress there.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is all in the record.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes. Then I was sent on a specific job to do
with reference to these coal miners at Steamboat Springs who were
applying for citizenship and were members of the International Workers
Order.

Mr. TAVENNER. You were employed to go on speaking tours over
the country for which you were paid $200 a month and your expenses?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I made only one speaking tour on the plan for
plenty. The plan for plenty we had was an improved social security,
called for improvement of the social security system as it existed at
that time. I made some speeches. You asked me what I got, how much
compensation I had received. I said in my opinion it would average
about $200 a month.

Mr. TAVENNER. And your expenses?

Mr. O’CONNELL. And my expenses, yes. I knew nothing about Mr.
Budenz’ discussion with the Communist Party headquarters or anything. I
got a call from Mr. Shipka. I am sure it was Mr. Shipka, the treasurer
of the organization, who asked me first to do these two specific jobs
which I did within a short time. Then later he called me to make these
speeches on a plan for plenty.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now I have before me an excerpt from the May 29,
1941, issue of Montana Labor News. The title is, “IWO Names O’Connell
Rocky Mountain Director.” It is datelined New York, May 10. I will read
it:

    “Former Representative Jerry J. O’Connell, labor’s fighting
    Congressman from Montana, has been appointed regional director for
    the International Workers Order in the Rocky Mountain area, Herbert
    Benjamin, executive secretary of that organization, announced
    today. Mr. O’Connell will be able to continue his effort on behalf
    of the labor movement on a much broader scale in his new post,”
    Herbert Benjamin declared, “since the IWO is labor’s foremost
    and largest fraternal benefit society. Our national membership
    of 155,000 supports the trade-union movement and its individual
    members on many fronts; providing insurance, sickness, and accident
    benefits at low rates, a rounded program of club and fraternal
    social life, plus a nationwide campaign for improving living
    standards, and social security embodied in our plan for plenty.”

Mr. O’CONNELL. That is the first I knew--nobody told me that
I was to be regional director of the IWO. As far as I can remember, as
far as their clubs were concerned out in the Rocky Mountain area, they
had one in Butte, which was the only one they had in the whole State
of Montana. I think they had one down in this town called Steamboat
Springs, Col. Those were the only two clubs that I know of in the
Rocky Mountain area. There were certainly no--at least on my part,
there was no idea I was to be regional director, because the first 2
assignments that I got were first to go down to advise this club in
Butte and the other to go down to this Steamboat Springs, in Colorado,
and clear up the question that the judge and the examiner were raising
there. The judge at the time thought that the IWO and the IWW were one
and the same. I brought Mr. Charles Cunningham, I think his name was,
commissioner of insurance of the State of Colorado, to the judge to
point out that the IWO was a fraternal benefit organization.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have explained all that in exactly the same
detail.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, but the concept that I was a regional
director----

Mr. WILLIS. I am not so sure I followed you on the reason for
the dismissal of the suit you filed.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I did not dismiss the suit.

Mr. WILLIS. I do not think I caught the point. Was it a
jurisdictional question? Specifically, what was it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. It was a motion to quash. Actually, it arose on
the motion to quash the service of the summons.

Mr. WILLIS. On what grounds?

Mr. O’CONNELL. On the grounds that Mr. Budenz had immunity as
a legislative witness before the State legislative committee that he
was appearing before in the State of Washington.

Mr. WILLIS. He was not from Washington--not a resident of the
State of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; he was a resident of New York.

Mr. WILLIS. You filed suit against him in Washington at a time
while he happened to be there?

Mr. O’CONNELL. While he happened to be there.

Mr. WILLIS. But he was there on State legislative business?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. WILLIS. And therefore was immune from service, and that
was the basis for his motion to quash?

Mr. O’CONNELL. We served the summons on him. My desire was to
get a test and a trial on the factual merits.

Mr. WILLIS. Was it filed in the State or Federal court?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In the superior court of King County.

Mr. WILLIS. His motion to quash was based on the fact he
was served with the papers while he happened to be in the State of
Washington on State legislative business and therefore was not subject
to service process?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. WILLIS. And his motion came up before the court and the
court dismissed the action?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. WILLIS. Did you sue him elsewhere?

Mr. O’CONNELL. And I did not pursue it elsewhere.

Mr. WILLIS. You did not file suit elsewhere against him?

Mr. O’CONNELL. By the time that was done he was gone.

Mr. WILLIS. I am not talking about that. You could have sued
him. Anybody is subject to suit somewhere, and his domicile is the real
place. I say did you not pursue him, upon dismissal of the suit in
Washington and file another suit elsewhere?

Mr. O’CONNELL. You mean go to New York and file a suit against
him?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes.

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; certainly not.

Mr. WILLIS. Or in the Federal court or in any court?

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I would have to go to New York. If he was
a resident of New York, I would have to go to New York in order to get
service; but I had him out in the State of Washington where I did get
service on him.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the photostatic copy of the
news article from the Montana Labor News and ask that it be marked as
“O’Connell Exhibit No. 7” for identification purposes only, and to be
made a part of the committee files.

Mr. WILLIS. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like the record to show at this point
that the International Workers Order was cited as subversive and
Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and again
on September 21, 1948, and that it was cited by Attorney General
Francis Biddle on September 24, 1942, as one of the strongest Communist
organizations. It has also been cited by other committees, including
this committee.

Were you acquainted with its secretary, Herbert Benjamin?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew Herbert Benjamin. I am pretty sure he is
the same Herbert Benjamin who was an officer in the Workers Alliance
during WPA days, when I was in Congress. But I have actually had no
contact with Benjamin in the IWO. In fact, this is the first I knew
he had any connection with the IWO. But I knew him; I am sure he was
lobbying here on the Hill with a man by the name of David Lasser while
I was in Congress. I think he was with the Workers Alliance.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Louis Budenz prior to
the time he appeared as a witness at the Canwell hearings in the State
of Washington?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I was not acquainted with him. Shortly
before he left the Communist Party he wrote me a letter asking me to
write a series of articles for the Daily Worker about Senator Wheeler,
which I refused, which I rejected. That is the only contact I ever had.
I never met Budenz, never saw him or anything, until he was out in the
State of Washington.

Mr. VELDE. Did he want you to write articles favorable to
Senator Wheeler?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he wanted me to write anti-Wheeler
articles. Senator Wheeler and I became tangled politically out there.
I was going to run against Senator Wheeler for the Senate in 1940, and
Senator Wheeler of course took care of me in 1938. So I did not get to
run. I mean the fight, there were people who were anxious to defeat
Wheeler from 1940 on down until he was actually defeated in 1946.

He wrote that letter to me, I would say, just shortly before he left
the Communist Party.

Mr. WILLIS. Those articles were to appear in the Daily Worker?

Mr. O’CONNELL. In the Daily Worker; yes.

Mr. WILLIS. Would an unfavorable article appearing in the
Daily Worker be harmful to one’s political life in those days in
Montana?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I mean----

Mr. WILLIS. You did not want to inject yourself in it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. I did not want to write the articles, that is
all.

Mr. WILLIS. I would say the best compliment to me in my
district would be for the Daily Worker to say that I was a rotter.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I think that would be true today. You
would be surprised if you went out to the State of Montana and went
into some of the mining camps and taverns and what not. For instance,
we have a character in Butte by the name of Paddy King. Paddy sells the
Daily Worker. He has silicosis. He is a real character around there. He
goes all around the town. Everybody buys the Daily Worker from Paddy.
They do not think much of it. Some of them read it, some of them throw
it away, and so on.

Mr. VELDE. Do you still read it?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I do not. Of course, I do not live in Butte
any longer. I actually do not think I have seen the Daily Worker since
they used to be delivered to our doors here in Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Alexander Bittelman?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No. Who is he?

Mr. TAVENNER. Alexander Bittelman has been identified in
testimony as a functionary of the Communist Party in the city of New
York.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not know any Alexander Bittelman.

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

Mr. VELDE. I have no questions to ask the witness. It is
apparent from his testimony, that Mr. O’Connell has a great deal of
knowledge about Communist Party activities which he has refused to give
this committee. That does not disturb me as much as the fact that it
appears that he is still ideologically favorable to the Communist Party
of the United States. It is very regrettable, but apparently every
person, including those favorable to the Communist Party, has a right
to express his opinion in this country. I want to say this: I hope that
Mr. O’Connell will think this matter over in the future and give us the
benefit of the knowledge that he possesses about the activities of the
Communist Party in the United States.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Congressman, I have done my very best. I have
talked to you. I do not want to argue. I do say that I appreciate
all the consideration which the committee has given me, particularly
on the two instances when I asked for continuations because of my
illness. I appreciate the fairness with which the committee has treated
me throughout the hearings. I just want to say that, as far as I
am concerned--that is, the best way I can describe it honestly and
sincerely, is that from my environment, from the poverty since my birth
and the things that happened to me as a child and as a young man, and
so on, I grew up in a very, very liberal tradition where people were
certainly tolerant of all the various shades and hues of political
opinion as we saw them. I think I could best describe myself, I am just
an old-fashioned American liberal. I want to assure you that I have had
no training----

Mr. TAVENNER. I do not want to prolong the discussion. At the
beginning of the hearing you mentioned the fact that you had passed
the bar in Montana, and that you are now a practicing lawyer, and you
intended to forget about any type of political activity. I just wonder
whether you consider the Communist Party activity as being political.

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think you asked me that question before.

Mr. TAVENNER. I do not think I did.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, somebody asked me it before. As far as I
am concerned, I am not engaged in any Communist Party activity in the
State of Montana or any party activity, Progressive, or Democrat, or
anything. I have been asked by the Progressive Party in 1950 to run for
the United States Senate and I refused. I have been asked by the press
in Montana--I am not being braggadocio or conceited--by the various
newspapers, the Great Falls Tribune, the Lewistown Daily News, and
many others, whether I was going to come back into the political life
of the State. I have always told them, and told them constantly, that
I wanted to be a lawyer; I wanted to be, if I could, the best lawyer
that Montana ever had. That was the desire that I had. I have been
practicing law to the very best of my ability. When a man starts to
practice law, as I did, when he is about 40 years of age, he has a lot
to learn. There are many--well, I am sure, Mr. Willis, as an attorney
you know the best teacher, of course, is experience. I have been trying
to keep my nose clean and hewing to the line. I have been practicing
law. That is what I have been doing. I think in my work out there I
have earned the respect and consideration of all the people in the kind
of job I have been doing.

We do not have any integrated bar in the State of Montana. The Montana
Supreme Court regulates and supervises the bar out there. I am sure
that the members of the supreme court will tell you the things I have
said here today about my friend and all that are true.

Mr. VELDE. Do you not think you are a bit gullible or naive
when you say that you did not know there was a Soviet espionage ring
operating in this country? Tell the committee the truth.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Now listen. I think I have set forth my
position. I do not know that that is actually true. I do not know that
it is true. I do not know it. I have never met a Soviet spy that I know
of.

Mr. VELDE. It is just unbelievable to me. Of course, that is
just my opinion.

Mr. O’CONNELL. You are in a different position than I am.

Mr. VELDE. With all your connections that have been brought
out here with the various front groups, with all of your connections
with well-known Communists, not to realize that there has been an
espionage ring operating in this country is amazing to me. You are an
intelligent man.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Any of those groups or any of the individuals
that have been mentioned here can be tied down to specific programs or
purposes or things of that kind, but certainly nothing along the line
of espionage.

Mr. WILLIS. Would it surprise you if they were?

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, it would not surprise me; but what I am
saying is that I do not know.

Mr. WILLIS. The committee is adjourned and the witness is
dismissed.

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 5:25 p. m., the hearing in the above matter was
concluded and the committee recessed to the call of the Chair.)



INDEX


INDIVIDUALS

  Adair, Robin, 473

  Archer, James, 436

  Armstrong, Harry C., 419, 420, 586, 588

  Astley, Theodore Raymond, 522

  Atkinson, N. P., 423

  Atkinson, Roy, 470, 504


  Bader, Barney, 435

  Bailey, George, 434

  Baldwin, C. B., 553

  Balmer, Alice, 485

  Batterson, Frank, 512

  Beattie, John F., 312

  Belden (Mr.), 589

  Benjamin, Herbert, 272, 599, 601

  Bernard, John T., 572, 573, 598

  Bitterman, Jacob, 441-443 (testimony)

  Bitterman, Ruth, 442, 522

  Bittleman, Alexander, 602

  Blauvelt, Mildred, 550

  Bloor, Ella Reeve, 583

  Boggs, Elizabeth, 471

  Bourne, James, 357, 359, 479

  Bradley, George, 273, 336, 356

  Bristol, Al, 471

  Bristol, Frances, 471

  Brockway, Harold, 356

  Brockway, John, 356

  Brodsky, Joseph, 508

  Browder, Earl, 264, 475, 581

  Brown, Roy, 262

  Buchanan, Tom 559, 593

  Budenz, Louis, 264, 585, 590, 591, 594, 596-598, 600, 601

  Burns, Helmi (Mrs. Tom Burns; also known as Hutenen, Helmi), 437

  Burns, Tom, 437

  Burton, Philip L., 414


  Camozzi, Robert, 469

  Campbell, Ray, 311

  Carlson, Edwin A., 327-329 (testimony), 365-374 (testimony)

  Carlson, Frank, 545, 548

  Carmichael, Edward Brook, Jr., 322-326 (testimony)

  Carter, Edward C., 461

  Cayton, Revels, 467

  Chafee, Zechariah, Jr., 507

  Clinton, Rose, 558, 593

  Clott, Herman, 563

  Clott, Lillian, 563, 564, 593

  Cluck, Jack R., 443, 450

  Coffee, John M., 573

  Cohen, Abraham Arthur, 490-492 (testimony)

  Cohen, Elizabeth Boggs, 521, 523

  Cole, Merwin, 469

  Coley, Ward, 469

  Corr, Bill, 468

  Costigan, Howard, 401, 402, 406, 407, 411, 421

  Cour, Jim, 468

  Cummings, Al, 381

  Cvetic, Matthew, 564, 565


  Dafoe, Doc, 473

  Daggett, Charles, 468, 469

  Daggett, Herbert, 469

  Danielson, Jean, 522

  Daschbach, John, 472, 520-522, 544, 545, 548, 549, 566, 584

  Daschbach, Marjorie, 522

  Davis, Jerome, 361

  Davis, John, 523, 540

  DeLacy, Hugh, 406, 407, 413, 434, 519, 592, 593, 596

  Delaney, Paul William, 438-440 (testimony)

  Dennett, Eugene Victor, 249-303 (testimony), 335-362 (testimony),
    391-413 (testimony), 419-438 (testimony), 466-490 (testimony),
    492-493 (testimony), 307, 308, 483, 494, 501, 513, 514, 517,
    518, 521, 528, 529.

  Dennett, Harriette, 482-484

  Dobbins, William K., 406, 407

  Dodd, William E., Jr, 541

  Dokter, Ted, 470

  Donaldson, Hallie, 485

  Doran, Dave, 345

  DuBois, W. E. B., 569


  Ebey, Harold, 406, 407, 412, 434

  Egroth, Fair Taylor, 523, 592

  Engstrom, James, 355, 395

  Espe, Conrad, 438


  Field, Gladys, 432, 470

  Fisher, C. H., 516, 520

  Fletcher, Jess, 340, 406, 434, 469, 586

  Flood, George, 434, 435

  Fluent, Russell, 520, 553, 565, 567, 592

  Fogg, Kathryn, 586, 588

  Ford, James W., 540

  Foster, William Z., 262

  Fowler (Mrs.), 582

  Fox, Ernest, 394, 427, 428, 470

  Fox, Elsie (Mrs. Ernest Fox; also known as Gilland, Elsie), 470

  Frankfeld, Philip, 472

  Freyd, Bernard, 492-494 (testimony)

  Furuseth, Andrew, 395


  Gates, John, 566

  Gemson, Richard L., 438

  George, Lawrence Earl, 414-416 (testimony)

  Gilland, Elsie. (_See_ Fox, Elsie)

  Granich, Max, 264

  Greenglass, David, 594

  Gundlach, Ralph, 523, 544, 545

  Gustafson, Margaret Elizabeth, 374-377 (testimony)


  Haines, Victor, 258, 351, 352, 358

  Halonen, Oiva R., 299-301, 302-308 (testimony)

  Hall, Gus, 567

  Hall, Robert, 557

  Hanke, Ed, 357

  Hannon, Bruce, 395

  Harding, Alex, 474

  Harding, Arthur, 470

  Harding, Jean, 470

  Harris, Calvin, 381

  Harris, Lem, 530, 532, 533

  Harter (Mrs.). (_See_ Noral, Mrs. Alex.)

  Hartle, Barbara, 247, 278, 299, 300, 305, 311, 314, 315, 319,
    327, 332, 365, 380, 381, 385, 388, 414, 415, 417, 426, 427,
    437, 439-442, 474, 489, 496, 501, 509-511, 514, 516-518,
    521-523, 543-545, 591-595, 597.

  Hatten, C. T., 317, 362, 363, 493, 495

  Hatten, Eugene R., 485

  Henderson, Donald, 437

  Henry, Edward E., 490

  Hicks, Victor, 434

  Hillman, Sidney, 504

  Hoffman, Elsie, 566

  Honig, Nat, 433, 586

  Hosue, I., 438

  Huber, L. R., 468

  Hudson, Roy, 430, 431, 472

  Huff, Helen, 485

  Huff, Henry, 475, 477, 479, 484, 566, 571

  Hunterer, L. C., 520, 565, 566

  Hutcheson (William), 268

  Hutchins, Hutchin R., 349, 357

  Hutenen, Helmi. (_See_ Burns, Helmi.)


  Jackins (Carl), Harvey, 521

  Jackson, Gardner, 530-533

  Jackson, Harry, 405, 406, 436, 470

  Jackson, Henry, 405

  Johnson, A. A., 356

  Johnston, Harold, 313-316 (testimony), 331, 332, 363-364
    (testimony), 365, 471


  Kerr, Frank, 311, 312, 499, 500

  King, Paddy, 570, 602

  Kinney, Alice, 485

  Kinney, Glenn, 311, 471

  Kirkwood, Trudi, 485

  Knudsen, C. Calvert, 330

  Krahl, Robert B., 379-382 (testimony)

  Kroener, Donna, 332

  Kroener, Edmund D., 330-333 (testimony)


  Larsen, Karley, 406, 407, 433, 592

  Lasser, David, 601

  Law, Dick, 470

  Law, Laura, 470

  Lawrence, Adrian, 434

  Lawrie, John (Jack), Jr., 316, 317-322 (testimony)

  Lawrie, John, Sr., 260, 359, 479

  Leavitt, Edward, 260, 359

  Leeds, David, 570

  Legg, Charles, 472

  Lesser, Sarah H., 322

  Linden, Emil, 262

  Lokanath, D(r.), 461

  London, M. M., 273, 336, 340

  Lovestone, Jay, 279

  Luddington, Mel, 356

  Lundeberg, Harry, 269, 394, 395, 427-429

  Lundquist, Hugo, 435


  MacDonald, Kenneth A., 249, 335, 374, 391, 419, 441, 466, 492

  Marcantonio, Vito, 569, 575, 582

  Markward, Mary Stalcup, 556, 558, 559, 561, 562, 564

  Marshall, Andrew, 474

  Marshall, James, 526

  Marshall, Robert, 524-527, 530

  Marzani, Carl, 563, 593

  Max, Alan, 349

  McCoy, Nora, 520

  McGrath, Ellen, 469

  McGregor, Harry, 362

  McMichael, Jack R., 535, 581

  Merrill, Lewis, 436

  Miller, Robert, 382-391 (testimony)

  Minowitz, Tilla, 562, 593

  Moe, Iver, 467

  Mortimer, Wyndham, 435

  Mosio, Wayne, 472

  Munter, Paul, 254-257

  Murphy, James, 262


  Nelson, Burt, 434

  Nelson, Steve, 326, 572, 575

  Niendorff, Fred, 482

  Niles, David, 573

  Noral, Alex, 259, 260, 270, 272, 273, 349, 350, 357, 359

  Noral, Mrs. Alex (formerly Mrs. Harter), 468


  O’Connell, Jeremiah Joseph, 261, 274, 300, 362, 363, 502-603
    (testimony)

  Olson, Martin, 355

  Orton, O. M., 432


  Patton, James G., 530-533

  Payne, Earl, 471

  Peck, I. A., 365

  Pennock, William, 408, 420, 421, 423, 511-516, 518, 520, 566,
    572, 585, 587-592

  Pettus, Ken, 523

  Pettus, Terry, 468, 512, 513, 523

  Pierce, Harriet, 416-418 (testimony)

  Poth, Philip, 472

  Popper, Martin, 549

  Powell, R. H., 365

  Pressman, Lee, 430, 431, 435, 436

  Pringle (Mr.), 395

  Pritchett, Harold J., 432, 468


  Quill, Mike, 578

  Quist, Helen, 354


  Rabbitt, Thomas C., 421, 514-516, 518, 566, 572, 585-593, 595-597

  Randolph, A. Philip, 540

  Rappaport, Morris (also known as Rapport, Morris), 349-351, 357,
    358, 401, 405, 407, 410, 421, 433, 471

  Rapport, Morris. (_See_ Rappaport, Morris.)

  Rasmussen, Ted, 469, 470

  Raven, Robert, 572

  Ray, Tommy, 437

  Remes, Andrew, 470, 475, 477, 571

  Remington, William Robert, 533, 534

  Reno, Phil, 531

  Rifkin, Ruth, 559-561, 593

  Riley, Harriett, 586

  Ringold, Solie M., 382

  Robel, Eugene Frank, 309-312 (testimony), 331, 473

  Roberts, Daniel, 486

  Robeson, Paul, 537

  Robinson, Reid, 436

  Rodney (Mr.), 256


  Sandvigen, I. E., 545

  Santos, John, 482

  Sass, Lou, 470

  Sasuly, Elizabeth, 560, 561, 593

  Schuddakoph, Margaret Jean, 522

  Searle, Elizabeth, 561

  Shipka, Peter, 507, 508, 598, 599

  Silberstein, Robert J., 549, 551-556, 558-560, 593

  Silverstein, Robert, 507

  Sinclair, Upton, 528

  Smith, Claude, 469, 483, 484

  Smith, F. S. U., 471

  Smith, Ferdinand, 436

  Smith, George, 355

  Sobeleski, Helen, 433, 470

  Starkovich, George Tony, 274

  Stack, Walter, 394, 434, 435

  Stenhouse, John, 443-466 (testimony)

  Stevens, John, 434

  Stith, Ernest Paul, 512

  Stone, John B., 556-558, 593

  Stromberg, Yetta, 293, 300

  Strong, Anna Louise, 403, 528

  Stucker, Vivian, 485

  Sullivan, James, 586, 590

  Sunoo, Harold, 523

  Sykes, Jay G., 302, 309, 312, 313, 327, 363-365, 379, 499


  Taverniti, Helen, 374

  Taylor, Fair. (_See_ Egroth, Fair Taylor.)

  Telford, Kate, 466

  Telford, Sam, 466

  Thrasher, Elmer, 332

  Ting, Chi Chio, 465

  Trolson, Roy, 416


  Urey, Harold, 590


  Van Erman, Thomas J., 437

  Van Lydegraf, Clayton, 471, 484, 566, 571

  Van Veen, Sadie, 347

  Vassiliev, B., 279, 280


  Wakefield, Lowell, 349, 420, 514

  Walker, Fred, 254-257, 259, 359

  Walsh, Patrick, 433

  Ward, Harry F., 581

  Warren, Ward F., 586

  Waybur, Bruce, 507, 553, 555, 556, 558, 559, 563

  Westman, Hans Lenus Adolph, 495-499 (testimony), 514

  Wheeler, Frances, 564

  Wildman, Leonard Basil, 471, 521

  Wildman, Muriel, 471

  Williamson, John, 472

  Winston, Henry, 567

  Wright, Alexander, 593

  Wright, Richard, 537


ORGANIZATIONS

  Abraham Lincoln Brigade, 323, 472, 572

  American Federation for Social Action, 581

  American Federation of Musicians, Seattle: Local 76, 374

  American Federation of Teachers, 375, 376

  American Friends of the Chinese People, 582

  American Fund for Public Service, 535

  American League Against War and Fascism, 581

  American League for Peace and Democracy, 579-582
    Fourth National Congress, 574

  American Newspaper Guild, 491

  American Peace Mobilization, 535

  American Youth Congress, 534

  American Youth for Democracy, 541

  Automobile Workers of America, United, 435


  CIO, Political Action Committee, 504

  California Labor School, 542

  Cannery, Agricultural and Packinghouse Workers of America, United, 437
    Cannery Workers Union, Seattle, 437

  Central Labor Council, 396, 397

  Civil Rights Congress, 477, 539
    District of Columbia, 559
    Washington State, 548, 584, 585

  Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, 582, 583

  Commonwealth Builder Clubs, 397-399

  Communist International, 352
    Executive committee, 352-354

  Communist Party, U. S. A.:
    District of Columbia:
      Community Club, 562
      Newspaper Club, 559
    Language groups: Finnish Federation, 293, 300
    Northwest District (District 12), 483, 510
      District Bureau, 358
      Review Commission, 483, 484
    Washington, State of:
      Bellingham, 352
        Bellamy Club, 354
        Liberal Club, 353, 354
      Bremerton: Victory Club, 377
      King County: Negro and National Groups Commission, 415
      Northwest Region, 326
      Seattle:
        Georgetown Club, 417
        Hilltop Club, 439
        Holly Park Branch, 388
        Queen Anne Section, 439
        Snohomish County, 512
        Sultan Section 51, 326

  Communist Political Association, 387-389


  Ferry Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific, 392, 393, 395, 427

  Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, 575

  Friends of the Soviet Union, 357, 471

  Frontier Films, 537


  Industrial Workers of the World, 266, 268, 507, 599

  Inland Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific, 396, 398, 427, 431, 469, 473

  International Labor Defense, 255, 467, 539, 576, 578

  International, Third (Comintern): Sixth World Congress, 260, 350

  International Workers Order, 507, 598-601

  Interracial Action Committee, 415

  International Juridical Association, 537

  Institute of Pacific Relations, 459-462


  Ku Klux Klan, 356


  Labor Youth League, 299

  Lincoln Book Store, 448

  Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, International, 268, 414

  Lumber Workers Union, National, 262


  Machinists, International Association of, 311, 314, 315, 330, 365
     Local 79, 441

  Marine Cooks and Stewards, National Union of (of the Pacific),
    393, 467

  Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, Pacific
    Coast, 393

  Marine Workers Industrial Union, 393, 406, 436, 437

  Maritime Federation of the Pacific, 268, 393-396, 427
     District Council, 393, 396

  Medical Bureau and North American Committee To Aid Spanish
    Democracy, 574

  Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, International Union of, 436, 563


  National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill, 505, 506, 550-552,
    555-558, 560, 563-565, 593

  National Farmers Union, 530-533

  National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, 538, 584

  National Lawyers Guild, 507, 542, 549, 551, 552, 554-556, 563

  National Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, 469

  National Maritime Union, 436, 437

  National Negro Congress, 539


  Office and Professional Workers of America, United, 436
     Local 35, 480-484


  Pacific Northwest Labor School (also known as Seattle Labor
    School), 375, 520, 522, 523, 543-545, 548, 549

  People’s Councils, 335-338

  Presentation, Inc., 562, 563

  Progressive Citizens of America, 592

  Progressive Party, 592
     Washington State, 505, 553


  Red International of Labor Unions, 263, 265-267, 276, 393, 394

  Robert Marshall Foundation, 524, 527, 531-535, 541-544, 547


  Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, 393, 394, 470

  Seamen’s Union of America, International, 267, 393

  Seattle Labor School. (_See_ Pacific Northwest Labor School.)

  Socialist Party of America, 353, 354

  Socialist Workers Party, 389, 486, 487

  Southern Negro Youth Congress, 541

  Southern Conference for Human Welfare, 540, 541

  Superior Print Shop, 561, 562


  Trade Union Unity League, 262-267

  Transport Workers Union of America, CIO, 482


  Unemployed Citizens Leagues, 336-340, 359, 398

  Unemployed Councils, 336, 338, 339
    National Committee, 348

  United Nations, 462


  Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, 575


  Washington Commonwealth Federation, 397-402, 404, 405, 407-413,
    420, 426, 429, 474, 509, 510, 513, 517-519, 528, 529.

  Washington Pension Union, 420-422, 429, 509-512, 514-520, 590

  Woodworkers of America, International, 407, 432, 433, 466, 468

  Workers School of New York, 256

  Workers Alliance, 398, 601


  Young Pioneers of America, 292-298

  Young Communist League, 292, 299, 346, 354, 542


PUBLICATIONS

  Daily People’s World, 535
    Northwest edition, 468, 512, 548

  Daily Worker, 535, 570


  Federated Press, 535, 536, 556


  How the Communist International Formulates at Present the
    Problem of Organization, 279


  Jerry O’Connell’s Montana Liberal, 503, 580


  New World, 413, 468, 484, 523, 543


  Twenty-one Conditions for Affiliation With the Communist
    International, The, 264


  Union Guardian, 523

  United States Week, 541


  Victory and After, 475

  Voice of Action, 468


  Young Worker, 346



FOOTNOTES:

[1] This is a reference to the United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America.


[Transcriber's Note:

Obvious printer errors corrected silently.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Investigation of Communist activities in Seattle, Wash., area. Hearings, Part 3" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home