Part 11

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, how you obtained your employment with the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, I was trying many avenues to get employment.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am referring only to your employment with the United Nations.

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, there may have been a number of channels through which I got it, but I think that it may have been through the Institute of Pacific Relations.

Mr. TAVENNER. Why did you appeal to the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Because I had been a subscriber to the Institute of Pacific Relations, and I knew of the Institute as one interested in far-eastern affairs. And that, amongst several dozens of business firms and organizations, seemed to be a likely place to find an occupation in the area where I wanted to be.

Mr. TAVENNER. Before going to the Institute of Pacific Relations, did you have in mind that you desired to secure a position with the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No; I don’t think I did. In fact----

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the suggestion then made to you by the Institute of Pacific Relations that you seek employment with the United Nations?

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room.)

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think it was suggested to me there that this commission was being formed--the commission was already in effect, but that there was this job to do on this subcommittee of trade relations and that I should contact a Dr. Lokanath. He was an Indian economist.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing room.)

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think that may have been the channel through which it came. I am not entirely certain. But I did contact him and got the appointment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the person or persons with whom you conferred in the Institute of Pacific Relations know of your Communist Party membership?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you furnish any references to the Institute of Pacific Relations when you went there to confer on the subject of your employment?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think I probably did. You mean a sort of curriculum vitae.

Mr. TAVENNER. The real purpose of my question is to find out whether or not you were recommended to the Institute of Public Relations by any person who knew you had been a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I went there entirely on my own initiative.

Mr. VELDE. Did you know any of the defendants in the Amerasia case?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No.

Mr. VELDE. Had you ever met any of them?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know who it was from the Institute of Pacific Relations who first interested you in the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I was interested in the United Nations myself.

Mr. VELDE. Naturally, I suppose you were. Was any one person at the Institute of Pacific Relations responsible for your employment by the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I went to the Institute of Pacific Relations as one of many, many sources for a new occupation. And in the office of the Institute of Pacific Relations I was told that there was this opening. So I applied to the United Nations. I have at home a file about that thick [indicating] of letters to many business firms that I wrote to and had interviews with.

Mr. VELDE. Do you have any written memorandums or anything else in writing that would show your contact with the Institute of Pacific Relations at that time?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I have nothing to hide about my Institute of Pacific Relations contacts. I was a subscriber to the Institute of Pacific Relations. I thought they were doing a good job of objective reporting on the Far East. I was interested in it because of my background.

While I was in Washington, D. C., I went to several Institute of Pacific Relations meetings and discussion groups. It was only natural that that should be one place where I would go to find out if there was any firm or any organization that was associated with the Far East who would be interested in my background.

Mr. VELDE. Of course, I don’t want to cast any reflections on the individual members of the Institute of Pacific Relations or any others you have contacted, but I do feel it would be valuable to the committee if you would make available the various letters you used when applying for jobs in order that we might search our records. Would you be willing to make those available?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Do you want me to tell you the names of the people in the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. VELDE. No. I am not particularly anxious for that. Again, I want to say if you do mention names of persons in the Institute of Pacific Relations, it should be no reflection upon them whatsoever because you, as a former Communist, contacted them.

I am interested in finding out who you contacted or who in the Institute of Pacific Relations recommended you for a job with the United Nations.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I haven’t been asked that question.

Mr. VELDE. I ask you that question.

Mr. STENHOUSE. If you want to know who it was in the Institute of Pacific Relations who I think gave me the information, I am very frank to tell you that it was Mr. Carter.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know his first name?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Edward C.

Mr. VELDE. Was he in his office at the time you went to the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. VELDE. What did he do to promote your appointment in the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. He may have contacted Dr. Lokanath, for all I know. I think he possibly did.

Mr. VELDE. Did you get recommendations from members of the Institute of Pacific Relations other than Mr. Carter?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No.

Mr. VELDE. Did you have recommendations of any kind other than the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes.

The chief of my division gave me a very fine recommendation. A colleague who was in the China legal section gave me a very fine recommendation.

Mr. VELDE. Did either Mr. Carter or the chief of your division know that you were a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No; they did not.

Mr. VELDE. What type of formal application did you make for the position you sought and afterward obtained in the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I don’t recall now any formal application. I have in my files a letter of appointment, but I don’t recall a formal application.

Mr. VELDE. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. TAVENNER. After accepting the position with the United Nations, were you sent on a project to China?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Before your selection for that project, were you interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. TAVENNER. When was it you were interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation at which time you refused to advise them as to your previous Communist Party membership?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, I think you gave me the date of that the other day. I had forgotten it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Don’t you remember it?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No; I don’t. But you said it was in 1946, and I think it probably was.

Mr. TAVENNER. So before you were selected for the position in the United Nations and, particularly for this project in China, you had refused to give information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to whether or not you had been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, that is true, some nearly 2 years before. By the time I had applied for the position in the United Nations I didn’t consider myself to be whatever it was I had been before.

Mr. TAVENNER. And no governmental agency, after the FBI came to see you, ever made any inquiry until the present time?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, that is not so.

Last September I was called by a Treasury representative, and he told me he wanted to ask me some questions. So I met him at my home and he started to ask me about the sort of work I did and whether I ever did much traveling. And in the course of that discussion I told him that I had been in Washington, D. C. I told him quite frankly what I had been doing.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you tell him you had been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No. He didn’t ask me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that the first time you had been questioned along this line?

Mr. STENHOUSE, Yes. But he did ask me a question did I know a certain individual in Washington, D. C. And the name of the man was----

Mr. TAVENNER. I would suggest that you not mention the name in public. The committee, I think, would want to know privately.

Let me ask you this:

In seeking that information from you, did it have any connection with the Communist Party?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I don’t know what his intentions were at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think, Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, we should not ask him to state the matter in public when we have no idea what it is he is talking about.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. STENHOUSE. You asked me if I had ever been questioned.

Mr. TAVENNER. I mean questioned about communism in a Federal agency and regarding the matters under discussion here.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I beg your pardon. I thought you meant had I ever been questioned by an agency of the Government in the interim.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of course, we are not interested in whether you have been interrogated by someone in a Government department on matters not at all related to the functions of this committee. I understand you to say you have not been.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. STENHOUSE. The reason I thought you might be interested in it was that he did ask me a question which related to the Institute of Pacific Relations. And since it related to that, I thought that the committee should know about it.

He asked me if I had ever known (name deleted).

And first I couldn’t remember the name. But then he said, “Well, didn’t you ever go to a luncheon in Washington, D. C., sponsored by the Institute of Pacific Relations?”

And then I remembered that I had, along with several hundred or so other people, gone to such a luncheon.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this being a matter about which we have no knowledge at all, I believe we are getting into a field that should not be explored in public without some investigation on our own part.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, will you step up here, please?

(Mr. Tavenner confers with the chairman.)

Mr. STENHOUSE. May I make one concluding remark as to that last testimony?

Mr. MOULDER. At this time the name you mentioned will be stricken from the record until further investigation can be made of your last testimony.

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, this individual, I may say, addressed a large group of people in what was substantially an open meeting, and reported on----

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, in light of your ruling, I suggest we not go into that matter at all until the committee staff has had an opportunity to investigate the witness’ last testimony.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes.

Mr. STENHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I make one concluding statement in regard to my last remarks?

When the man who was questioning me heard my report he then asked me why I was changing jobs. And I said I had no intention to change a job. And he said, “Did you apply for a job with the Treasury Department?”

And I said, “No.”

And he said, “Well, do you know another John Stenhouse?”

And I told him I did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, the purpose of the project on which you were sent to China?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think I have already stated that. Do you want me to repeat it, sir?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. STENHOUSE. It was to study and report on the rehabilitation of trade in the Far East.

Mr. TAVENNER. And that necessitated your travel in what part of China?

Mr. STENHOUSE. The headquarters were in Shanghai.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you spend all of your time in Shanghai?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I was in Nanking--well, while I was with that particular commission I spent all of my time in Shanghai.

Mr. TAVENNER. When was it that you went to Nanking?

Mr. STENHOUSE. After 3 months with the Economic Commission I then was with the Food and Agriculture Administration, and the Food and Agriculture Administration had an office both in Shanghai and in Nanking. And it was my duty, as administrative assistant, to supervise both offices.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state the dates you were stationed in Shanghai, and the dates you were in Nanking?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I can’t do it. I was back and forth.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state the dates which divided your time between the two places?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think maybe there is a mistake in my previous testimony as to dates.

Could the recorder----

Mr. TAVENNER. Rather than to take the time to look that up, if you give us what you consider to be the correct dates now, we will understand if that is different from what you stated before that you are thereby correcting the date.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I think I went to Shanghai in April--April, May, June, with the Commission. And then June, July, August, or something like that, with Food and Agriculture.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of what year?

Mr. STENHOUSE. 1948.

Mr. VELDE. Were you a member of the Communist Party at that time, Mr. Stenhouse?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you define your duties in the various assignments you held while in China?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, on the Commission it was research and analysis and reporting, and I wrote a report on the problems of reestablishing interregional trade in the Far East. And it was published by the United Nations--not under my name, but incorporated in a much larger volume.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you identify the volume and the article for the use of the committee?

Mr. STENHOUSE. It must have been published. I suppose it was published in 1949 probably.

Mr. TAVENNER. Under what caption?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I don’t remember that. It was published by the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East as a subsidiary agency of the United Nations. But my material wasn’t any single article. It was incorporated with a lot of other material by a lot of other people.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, your article was used as source material in the preparation of a report by the United Nations. Is that what you mean?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. During your assignment in China were you required to confer with known members of the Communist Party?

Mr. STENHOUSE. No.

Mr. TAVENNER. Or Communists?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, I want to be frank here, but, first of all, I would like you to tell me in the context of Chinese people what the definition of a Communist is.

Mr. TAVENNER. Living in China as long as you did, you probably should understand that.

Mr. STENHOUSE. That is very difficult. The longer you live in China the harder it is to do it.

Mr. VELDE. Were you conferring with the economic leaders in China when you were on this assignment with the United Nations?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. Was China under Communist domination at that time?

Mr. STENHOUSE. It certainly wasn’t.

Mr. VELDE. When was this?

Mr. STENHOUSE. 1948.

Mr. VELDE. At that time then you didn’t actually know whether you were dealing with Chiang Kai-shek forces or the Red forces?

Mr. STENHOUSE. At that time, Mr. Congressman, Shanghai was still under the Nationalists, and we dealt with officials of the Nationalist Government.

Mr. VELDE. Then you certainly wouldn’t expect them to be Communists.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I wouldn’t expect it, but there were many, I suppose--from what I know now--there were Communists in Shanghai at that time.

Mr. VELDE. As leaders in the Nationalist Government?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, the reason why I asked for the definition was we are always running into this problem of what is a Communist.

Mr. VELDE. There was nothing wrong in you conferring with Communists at that time; understand that.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I want to answer the question.

Mr. VELDE. Or with Nationalists either. That was part of your duties.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I asked for the definition because one of the men who was a consultant--and I didn’t appoint him--to the group that I was working with was the chief of the Foreign Exchange Department of the Bank of China.

Mr. VELDE. Do you recall his name?

Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes. Chi Chio Ting.

Mr. VELDE. You certainly do have a good recollection as to some of these people, and you fail to recollect other people, chiefly Communists, with whom you were associated.

Mr. STENHOUSE. China is my field. I remember him because he was related to an area that I have since had contact with. And I remember him, too, because shortly after--I think it was shortly after I left Shanghai or while I was still there--he went over to the Peking Government. And, as far as I know, that is the only contact that I had in Shanghai with anything that you could call a Communist. And I don’t know that he was.

Mr. VELDE. Certainly I am sure, as Mr. Tavenner has very well stated, that you, being acquainted in China, would certainly have a lot better knowledge of communism in China than probably any of us here would. I would like to ask if you recognized any of those associated with you on the United Nations Commission in China as being what you consider Communists?

Mr. STENHOUSE. The answer to that question is “No.”

This particular individual was acting only in the capacity of a consultant. And I don’t think he was actually a member of the United Nations. We were consulting with him and people like him because we were concerned with finance and foreign exchange and so on.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that if the committee desires to go into the Chinese phase of that matter carefully that it be done at some other time. I believe, with the witnesses we have here, we would not be able to complete the work that is outlined if we attempt to go into that matter now. Besides, I think it is a matter we should discuss with the witness, at least preliminarily, before attempting to have a public hearing on it.

Mr. STENHOUSE. I would be very happy to do that.

Mr. VELDE. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: I am disappointed at the witness’ lack of memory concerning his early Communist associations and his inability to identify the members of the group with which he associated. However, I do feel that the information the witness possesses would be valuable to this committee, and he certainly should be given an opportunity to refresh his memory on any of these aspects as much as possible.

I would suggest our staff immediately prepare, or start an investigation into the matters related here today so we might hold a future hearing to secure more valuable information than we have today. And in that connection I would suggest that the subpena to this witness be continued until some future date.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Stenhouse, the subpena which was served upon you will remain in full force and effect until you are otherwise notified, or notified to appear here as a witness before this committee in further open session.

Mr. STENHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a short statement?

Mr. MOULDER. You will not be entitled to make a statement. You mean you want to ask a question?

Mr. STENHOUSE. I just wanted to refer once more to this matter of remembering the names. There were not more than 5 of these meetings. They occurred in a context where I was discussing the same sort of subjects in many different groups with many different individuals with many different points of view. As I said before, I cannot remember the names of people with whom I was in daily contact at that time.

I have moved out of that part of the country. I have very few associations with it. It is entirely impossible for me to drag names out of the air.

If the committee or its staff will be able to submit names to me I will do my best to say whether or not I can remember those people.

Mr. MOULDER. That is the purpose of continuing in force and effect your subpena. And you are now temporarily excused as a witness.

(Whereupon the witness was temporarily excused.)

Mr. MOULDER. Call the next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett.

Mr. MOULDER. The name of the witness?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett.

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

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, I would like you to resume at this point the identification of individuals who were prominent in Communist Party activities in this area during the period that you were a member of the CIO council.

Mr. DENNETT. Mr. Chairman, there is one fellow that came to my mind after I left the stand here in connection with the Boeing plant, a fellow by the name of Sam Telford, who was very well known to me at that time.

Telford was very active in the organization of young people. His wife, Kate, was one of the principal workers in the office of the International Woodworkers of America. I happen to recall that because Kate and I had one thing in common--we had both attended church when we were young and had learned a number of hymns. And whenever social affairs occurred she and I would be singing hymns. And it seemed to grate on the nerves of the comrades. They wanted to know if we didn’t know some revolutionary songs, and we got a big kick out of irritating them with that.

I have quit singing, however. My voice doesn’t suit for that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you recall whether the first name was Kate or Kay?

Mr. DENNETT. I knew her by the name of Kate, K-a-t-e.

Now the other day Mr. Wheeler asked me to think of the names of persons whom I knew, and I wrote down those which came to my mind in an offhand sort of way. Now in speaking of these names I want to again reiterate my personal moral objection to being called upon to bring to public notice the names of people whom I did know in the Communist Party for the reason that I think it is much better for them to speak for themselves.

Mr. TAVENNER. Just a moment. If you can devise some plan for Communists speaking for themselves without the committee ascertaining their names we would be glad to have the suggestion.

Mr. DENNETT. Maybe when I get through they might want to.

Mr. TAVENNER. I might say the committee has to take the responsibility for asking you these questions, and realizes that it is not being generously given.

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

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I make the point of my objection for the reason that among nearly all of my friends are people who believe in bending over backwards the other way to protect the good name of any person. And I fear the consequences to the individuals.

I mean I just hate to be a party to doing anything which will in anywise injure any of them. I trust that the way in which this is done it will not injure them. However, I know that they are going to suffer some embarrassment as a consequence of it. However, the names that I am going to submit to you are persons who were known to me to be members of the Communist Party, and I am sure they knew what they were doing when they were members of the Communist Party.

These names are somewhat scattered. In order to expedite the business, I think I should go down through those that I have not previously mentioned to you, and make their identification so that we can get on to other matters which I know counsel wishes to cover.

Mr. TAVENNER. Please proceed.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. Long ago, I knew a man by the name of Revels Cayton, who was the head of the International Labor Defense.

C-a-y-t-o-n is the last name, Revels--R-e-v-e-l-s, the first name.

Later, I knew Mr. Cayton as an official in the Marine Cooks and Stewards of the Pacific union.[8]

Way back in the unemployed days I knew a man by the name of Iver Moe, I-v-e-r M-o-e.