Part 15

Mr. DENNETT. I should preface that by remarking that upon my arrival in Bellingham the Ku Klux Klan was very active in Whatcom County. It was a practice for them at that time to burn the fiery cross frequently in various places of the county. And I was informed that they had a very considerable membership in the county.

I learned that some of those Klansmen were quite disillusioned with the activities of the Klan. I made a practice of trying to contact various persons whom I learned had been disillusioned by their activities in the Klan. And I have been trying my level best to think of the name of a particular man who was an officer in the Klan whom I did succeed in recruiting into the Communist Party. But I have been unable to remember that man’s name. I can only give this description, that he was in the Sumas area and that he was a sheet-metal worker. And that is the best that I can recall about him. It is quite possible that if some of the other persons I mention, if they were asked, they probably would remember him because he was a neighbor of theirs.

In this connection 2 very fine young men, one John Brockway and another one, Harold Brockway, were working out on their father’s farm. Nothing to do. And they were quite intrigued by the prospect which we held forth as the new life which would come under a Soviet rule.

There was a young man at that time by the name of Mel Luddington.

There was a very old man by the name of A. A. Johnson. I would expect that because of his advanced age at that time he may not still be alive.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I suggest that if you have information as to any of the persons being deceased that you not give us their names, unless they performed some outstanding service for the Communist Party which we should know about.

Mr. DENNETT. I do not know.

Then, of course, I have mentioned George Bradley.

Mr. TAVENNER. I should have asked you to spell some of these names, the spelling of which may be uncertain. Will you go back, please?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is the spelling of Brockway?

Mr. DENNETT. B-r-o-c-k-w-a-y.

Mr. TAVENNER. Luddington?

Mr. DENNETT. Luddington, L-u-d-d-i-n-g-t-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Johnson?

Mr. DENNETT. J-o-h-n-s-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Bradley? B-r-a-d-l-e-y?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. DENNETT. There was one other person I see that I have omitted, a fellow by the name of Ed Hanke. I think he had a brother, too, that was in. But I do not recall the brother’s name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please.

Mr. DENNETT. H-a-n-k-e.

Mr. TAVENNER. You mentioned a little earlier that several people from this area were trained in Moscow and attended the Lenin Institute. I believe you named 2 of them from this area. Who were the 2?

Mr. DENNETT. One was Alex Noral. The other was Hutchin R. Hutchins.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were there any others?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

James Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e.

I think there were more than that, but I cannot at this moment place them.

I remember that in 1932 there was an organization known as the Friends of the Soviet Union, which was inspired by and under the leadership of the Communist Party, and its purpose was to take delegations to the Soviet Union to win their support and approval of the Soviet Union and what it was doing. And I recall one experience with a longshoreman from Tacoma. I cannot for the life of me think of his name. But he went to the Soviet Union on one of these Friends-of-the-Soviet-Union tours, came back, made the prepared speeches which the Friends of the Soviet Union asked him to make, and proceeded afterward to go around and make speeches contradicting his original speeches, stating that he did not realize how much harm he was doing by presenting the Soviet Union as the land of paradise, that he was quite disappointed with what he found when he found all the women doing the heavy work. And that seemed to be the chief thing that he objected to.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of your transfer back to Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. It was some time late in 1933.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain as agitprop, agitation propagandist in Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. Not very long. It seems to be an office in which there are many casualties because one, to fill that position, has to have a broad knowledge of the theoretical works of the party. And I can assure this committee that there is a great deal of written material on the subject which it takes a lifetime to study. I did the best I knew how at mastering a knowledge of it, but I then found out that the things which I had learned in the theoretical sense were not always respected by those who were in the administrative positions of the party, and frequently they would disregard my knowledge of the theoretical work and try to make it appear as though I was far off the line.

And there was constant conflict. Rappaport, when he came into the district, found many practical problems that didn’t lend themselves to the theoretical solutions which I found, and he, being a man of a great deal more experience and much more authority, made short work of me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you tell us the approximate period of time that you remained in that position? You said not long. But give us a more adequate idea.

Mr. DENNETT. It was only a couple of months, I believe. I do not recall the exact circumstances which arose. But there was some conflict, some specific conflict in which Rappaport convinced me that I was completely wrong, and required that I submit a statement to the party in which I admit that I was completely wrong.

I believe that you have a copy of that. I cannot put my finger on a copy now.

I did precisely what I was requested to do as a sign of my obedience.

I have found my own statement. I think I could put it in.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I see it, please.

(Document handed to Mr. Tavenner.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state to the committee, please, what the error was which you were induced to confess?

Mr. DENNETT. I have been trying to think what it is. I can’t even recall now what it was. In fact, I had completely forgotten the incident until Mr. Wheeler ran across it and asked me what it was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read it in evidence, please.

Mr. DENNETT. (reading):

STATEMENT OF V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT

_To the District Buro, District 12, CPUSA_:

I have made a political error, in consequence of which I have been removed from the functions of district agitprop director.

I agree with the decision.

It is my responsibility to the party to prove myself by correct rank-and-file activity.

Comradely submitted,

V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to introduce the paper in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 9.”

Mr. MOULDER. The above statement will be identified as “Dennett Exhibit No. 9” in the record.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what the organization setup was of the Communist Party in Seattle during the 2 periods when you served here as agitprop?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, the first period the party consisted almost exclusively of what we called a skidroad branch. Almost all the membership of the party was transient workers who lived on or about the skidroad. And when Rappaport came in--speaking now of the second period--Rappaport raised cain over the fact that the membership was all transient, insisting that the party must root itself in the neighborhoods. It must become acquainted with the permanent citizens, not those who were called the boomers or the floaters, those who used Seattle as a mail headquarters and holed up during the winter or off season but left the city during their construction work, which most of them followed.

And he used the technique of developing neighborhood branches out of those who were members of the unemployed citizens leagues or unemployed councils, and from those, as people went to work in industry, he tried to develop shop or factory, what we call nuclei.

Most of the success in that field occurred among the lumber workers because they were among the first to get out and get back to work out in the woods, the loggers.

So we had still the problem of maintaining contact with them. It was very difficult to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, who were the functionaries of the Communist Party in Seattle during those two periods.

Mr. DENNETT. The first one I think we have covered, when we mention Mr. Alex Noral, Fred Walker, Jim Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e, Mr. John Lawrie. I think that is L-a-w-r-i-e. John Lawrie, Sr.

There was a Mr. Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t.

They were the leading functionaries with whom I worked at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. After you were removed as agitprop what was your next activity in the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. I had to become a good rank-and-file member and work in the unemployed-citizens leagues. Yes; by that time the Communists had taken over a number of the locals of the unemployed-citizens leagues in the city of Seattle, and were making a strong bid to take over the top leadership, the central UCL. And I was working in the skid-road local of the unemployed-citizens leagues, and was living in the soup line.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did that continue?

Mr. DENNETT. That continued until I went into the CCC’s.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us the approximate date?

Mr. DENNETT. I think it was in April 1934.

Mr. MOULDER. In what capacity did you go into the CCC?

Mr. DENNETT. As an enlisted man.

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t that a program where there was a chairman in each community or county? Or section of a city?

Mr. DENNETT. No. This is the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes; I know. And they were given so much employment in each county or each section of the city, and someone had to pass upon those. Is that the program where you were paid so much and the parents would receive so much?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. That is the program. I think you are correct, sir, in saying there was a quota allotment for each community. I think you are right.

But in this particular case that was not involved in mine because the camps that we were recruited to were known as LEM’s or local experience man camps. We were making new camps. We were doing the heavy construction work and making camps that would later be taken over by the young people that you are thinking of that were assigned by quota. You are quite correct. That is the program. I had forgotten that part of it.

And that evidently is what happened, an allotment had been made as to the number that could come out of the Seattle soup line, and I was one of those that was able to volunteer and got into it.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain a member of the Civilian Conservation Corps?

Mr. DENNETT. Until July of 1935.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you engage in any Communist Party activities during that period?

Mr. DENNETT. That is a question that is open to dispute. I didn’t think that I did. But the company commander thought that I did. So he proceeded to have me expelled from the CCC.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of the activity in which you did engage and which resulted in your expulsion?

Mr. DENNETT. When I became a member of the CCC there was provision for the Army to administer the camps, the Forest Service to administer the work, and for an educational director to supervise the training. And there was provision for an educational director to have an assistant who could be selected from among those enlistees who were a part of the company. I was chosen as the assistant educational director.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you advised by the Communist Party to get into the CCC camps for any propaganda purpose?

Mr. DENNETT. No; I was not. On the contrary, in my instance, they said, “You had better stay away from that Fascist outfit because it is just a place where they are going to give military training and get ready for the next imperialist war, and we don’t want you to be in it.”

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t it in the nature of a relief program?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. And naturally the Communist Party was opposed to the relief program, and wanted people generally to stay in the depression. Wasn’t that the policy or wishes of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That would be one way of putting it, and probably the way that many people viewed it. I didn’t look at it that way myself at that time. But I can’t dispute that point of view. The point that I started to speak of was that I was selected as the assistant educational director, and, frankly, I took quite seriously the literature which was sent from the United States Office of Education to the camps.

And among the points which were emphasized in this literature was the necessity of teaching the democratic process of government. But it has always been my experience that when you try to carry out the teaching of the democratic process of government and you come in contact with the military, sometimes they don’t quite agree with you. And in this particular instance my efforts to carry out the literature and carry out the educational program which came from John W. Studebaker’s office, the United States Office of Education, met with considerable resistance on the part of the company commander. He just didn’t like the idea. It sounded to him as though it was communistic for people to be talking about democracy and talking about having some way of resolving grievances and difficulties and that sort of thing through the democratic legislative method. And we came into sharp conflict over that.

Of course, I finally gave him the excuse which he was looking for. Some of these workers in the camp were from the soup line with me--most of them were. They knew me around Seattle and they knew that I had been an agitator on the waterfront and on the skidroad. I had held many meetings on the skidroad. So I was well known to these men. And they asked me to conduct a course in sociology. I had some knowledge on the subject, and I had some textbooks of my own which I had used, which I had studied when I was going to the university. One of those was a book entitled “Contemporary Social Movements” by Jerome Davis. I had that book. And, of course, that book attempts to survey all the then current social, political, and economic philosophies that were occupying the attention of various people throughout the world, including the Communists and the Fascists, the Soviet Union and what was going on in Italy, and that sort of thing, and also in Germany. So I proceeded to answer the request of these workers to have a class in contemporary social movements.

The company commander attended two sessions of the class. And he attended those two sessions where I was using this text to describe the Communist system in the Soviet Union and the Fascist system in Italy. And he decided that that was subversive propaganda and should not be conducted, and he accused me of spreading subversive propaganda in the camp.

Mr. MOULDER. Then were you expelled?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Wasn’t his accusation correct?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that his accusation was misplaced. I was making as honest an effort as I knew how to make an objective study. And there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in these days, as there was then, to determine the difference between an objective presentation of a factual situation with respect to a controversial subject without being accused of propagandizing for it. It is a difficult point.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what work after your removal from the Civilian Conservation Corps did you engage?

Mr. DENNETT. That is when I was shanghaied on to a boat here on the waterfront in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a subject that we will reserve discussion for until later. But I would like to ask at this time, if the chairman will issue a subpena duces tecum requiring the witness to present to the staff all of the documents which he now has in his possession. By that I do not mean the committee is going to remove them in such a way that the witness will not have access to them, but in order that we may keep those documents intact until the committee staff has been able to fully examine them.

Mr. MOULDER. The subpena will be issued.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is there any objection to that on your part?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have just conferred with my counsel, and we wondered whether or not you included books.

Mr. TAVENNER. There may be some books which the committee would like to have included. However, the committee would not be interested in those books which it already has in its possession.

Mr. MOULDER. Whatever counsel will require will be set forth in the subpena.

Mr. TAVENNER. I wanted to be certain that the witness is agreeable to it. We could do it without his agreement, but I prefer to find out if he is agreeable.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have conferred with my counsel, and he has raised the question with me: Can I provide adequate protection for the documents which seem to have such importance. And, frankly, I have some misgivings as to whether I can furnish as good protection for them as perhaps the committee can. So I am agreeable to whatever the committee wishes to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will stand in recess. However, I wish to announce that immediately after the recess Mr. Johnston and Mr. Carlson should make themselves available for recall appearances before the committee.

The committee will stand in recess for a period of 10 minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will be in order.

The committee is informed that the witness Jerry O’Connell has counsel appearing for him.

Mr. HATTEN. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Please come forward.

STATEMENT OF C. T. HATTEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. HATTEN. I was in attendance all day yesterday. However, I was not authorized to speak for Mr. O’Connell. I understood that he had wired and otherwise contacted the chairman of this committee, Representative Walter, and had expected to receive word from him.

The reason for Mr. O’Connell’s not appearing here is the fact that he has had an acute heart attack, and has had a heart condition for a considerable period of time.

I have with me a letter from Dr. Harry McGregor, Great Falls, Mont., which gives the results of an examination made on March 15, and which concludes that----

Mr. MOULDER. Will you read the letter into the record?

Mr. HATTEN. I can hand the letter over and make it a part of the record if the chairman wishes. I merely wanted to state that it concludes that he is advised not to attend, or to withhold from the duties set forth in the subpena.

Of course, I appreciate that the committee may want to have him examined by an independent physician, and I am sure that whatever the committee’s desires are in that regard will be agreeable with Mr. O’Connell, or in the event that the committee should desire to examine him in Great Falls, Mont., at some later continued hearing. One of the problems is the distance that he would have to travel under his condition. He would either have to come by plane, or, in the absence of that, travel over the mountain passes, which would seriously affect his health.

Mr. VELDE. I do not want to violate any of your rights as to attorney-client relationship, but have you talked to Mr. O’Connell personally?

Mr. HATTEN. No, I did not.

Mr. VELDE. You mentioned that he had previously requested Mr. Walter, the chairman of the full committee----

Mr. HATTEN. I understand that he has communicated with Representative Walter, yes.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know the date of that?

Mr. HATTEN. I do not.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made a matter of record that Mr. O’Connell was duly subpenaed on--what was the date?

Mr. MOULDER. The eighth of March.

Mr. VELDE. The 8th day of March and up until this moment we have not received any type of communication from Mr. O’Connell.

While, of course, we always have been very lenient as far as the witnesses who have medical ailments are concerned, however, it has always been the custom--and I think probably Mr. O’Connell knows about this, too--for a medical affidavit to be filed promptly. In this case it certainly hasn’t been prompt.

Mr. HATTEN. That depends upon the period of time when he had the attack. He certainly couldn’t advise the committee on the date of the subpena of his inability to attend if the reason why he couldn’t attend was an attack which occurred later.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is that the situation?

Mr. HATTEN. I couldn’t advise the committee. The committee will undoubtedly go into this further, and the exact dates and situations will be discovered.

I have not been in Great Falls, Mont., and I don’t want to make any representations.

Mr. MOULDER. You aren’t making an appearance? You are simply presenting this letter?

Mr. HATTEN. That is correct.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Will you call Mr. Johnston as a witness?

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD JOHNSTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES--Resumed

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Johnston, you were on the stand yesterday to testify in answer to questions propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and the Chair asked you the question or a similar question, as to whether or not you approved or disapproved of Communist infiltration, influence, and domination of the labor union of which you are a member. And you said that you hadn’t had time to give the question any thought or consideration. We felt that by giving you sufficient time and recalling you today you could give us an answer to that question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the wording of that you just now mentioned was not the wording of the question yesterday. It was a little different.

But, in answer to the question you just now raised to me, there is only one thing I can do under that, and that is to--if I answer that either way it would tend to incriminate me, and I have to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. We will rephrase the question in this way:

Do you approve or disapprove of Communist domination of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Purely as a matter of opinion, I do not approve of any group, whether it be to control the trade-union movement--I feel it should be a free union. Whether it is Communist, Fascist, National Manufacturers Association or what-have-you. That is purely my opinion on it.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you object to a Communist holding an official position in any labor union?

Mr. JOHNSTON. On that one I will have to, as in the past, invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you vote for or against a candidate seeking office in a local laborers’ union if he were a Communist?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that, under our rights--and I know the majority of unions, as I understand them--we vote by secret ballot, the same as in our elections for the honorable representatives elected by your people in your district, by secret ballot. And that is a right that we are able to keep to ourselves.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir; I have no questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. SYKES. Can I make a short statement here? I think it might be helpful to the committee. It will take about a half minute.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that in regard to me?

Mr. SYKES. No.

STATEMENT OF JAY G. SYKES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. SYKES. Several witnesses here have invoked the fifth amendment upon being asked the question: “Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” And I know that the use of the fifth amendment in answer to that question may have created some misunderstanding in the mind of the public and the mind of the committee.