Part 5

It was our estimate 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 greater zeal and a greater devotion to carrying out their objectives than the other Democrats who frequently relied upon making their decisions in the general elections.

Mr. MOULDER. What do you mean by other Democrats?

Mr. DENNETT. Those who voted in the Democratic Party who were not members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation through affiliation.

Mr. MOULDER. How many Communists would you estimate were members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. DENNETT. The nearest I can give you by indication of that is that in the period 1937-38, the high point of membership in the Communist Party, as I recall the reports made to the district bureau by the organization secretary, was in the neighborhood of 5,500 members of the Communist Party in the Northwest, in the 3 States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and Alaska, the Territory of Alaska. Those 5,500 members of course, were scattered throughout all the other organizations in the Northwest. And I am firmly of the belief that fully 90 to 95 percent of that were members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation through affiliations of one kind or another.

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

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the Washington Commonwealth Federation extend throughout the entire 12th district, or, that is, in the Northwest area? Or was it confined only to the State of Washington?

Mr. DENNETT. It was confined to the State of Washington. However, there were some efforts made in the State of Oregon to develop an Oregon Commonwealth Federation, but I have no direct knowledge of that, and I would be unqualified to give you any testimony about it because I did not participate in it and I do not know the people who did.

Mr. VELDE (presiding). Did your district committee of the Communist Party, however, have representatives from Alaska and from Oregon?

Mr. DENNETT. No, there was no territorial representation like that. The representatives of the district bureau of the Communist Party were chosen because of their capability as political leaders, not because of any particular area that they came from. And it was determined largely by their ability to influence public opinion and to intervene in the decision of public affairs.

Mr. VELDE. Did the district bureau act for the 12th district of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it did.

Mr. VELDE. But were they all from the State of Washington?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. I think perhaps it is necessary at this point to clear up one little problem of organizational structure that existed in the Communist Party at that time.

It was not based upon territory. Representatives of the higher committees did not have to come from any particular territory. They were chosen because of their availability and their influencing ability to carry the party policy into the mass organizations or before the public.

Mr. VELDE. Were they actually chosen by the national committee of the Communist Party.

Mr. DENNETT. Not in this district they were not, no.

Mr. VELDE. Just how were they chosen?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, that is another organizational problem of interorganization of the Communist Party which is rather difficult for persons not familiar with it to comprehend. But let me try to do it as briefly as possible this way.

When I first came into the Communist Party the usual procedure was something that went under the title of “Cooption.” Cooption meant that the district organizer could appoint anybody he wanted to the district committee or to the district bureau and could call them in to serve, and everybody else had to accept such a person as being a fully qualified member of that body. In other words, it was a handpicked staff which represented the wishes of that particular leader who held the authority at that time. That was the process of cooption in the event of a vacancy. He could appoint someone to fill that vacancy, and he did so. It was his responsibility to do so.

However, with the rise of Hitler Germany, the trials of the Reichstag, an international leader by the name of Dimitrov acquired world fame because, in his defense against the frameup which Goering tried to put over on him, he learned that the Communist tactics and the Communist policies in Germany had turned the masses of German workers against the Communist Party and had resulted or had certainly played a part in contributing to making it possible for Hitler Germany to result with Hitler’s ascension to power.

Therefore, Mr. Dimitrov, when offered asylum by the Soviet Government, immediately went to work for the Comintern, and, in that capacity as leader of the Comintern, brought forth what was known as a new line. And that new line called for introducing the practice of democracy into the ranks of the Communist Party organization. He urged and advised that the practice of cooption be abolished, and that the higher committees be elected by a democratic process. And he, in fact, insisted that that must be done in all countries where the party was not illegal.

Recognizing that it was not possible to hold conventions where the party was illegal, and that applied especially to the United States, when Mr. Rappaport came to this district he tried his best to follow out the decisions which were laid down by the Communist International and the national headquarters of the Communist Party, and that practice of electing the leadership was followed. However, at the district convention there was always a nominating committee who carefully screened the names of persons who were being proposed for leadership or election to these committees, and, in doing so, succeeded in accomplishing the original result, only satisfying ourselves that we were practicing democracy.

Mr. VELDE. What year did that change take place, Mr. Dennett?

Mr. DENNETT. Right around 1936.

Mr. TAVENNER. So the matter of making nominations through a committee was a mere matter of form.

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

Mr. DENNETT. The district organizers still carefully looked it over and still had a controlling influence there. But in this particular case Mr. Rappaport exercised his influence not in any arbitrary way but in a convincing way, because we all recognized that his broader experience and his tremendous capacity for work equipped him to give us the benefit of better wisdom than we had.

Mr. TAVENNER. Going back to the Washington Commonwealth Federation, you were asked a question as to what the membership of the Communist Party was in the district. Do you know what the membership of the Communist Party was in the State of Washington at that time?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, most of that membership was in the State of Washington. And I don’t know the exact number, but I think it would be quite safe to say that around 85 to 90 percent of it was in the State of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did the Communist Party succeed in bringing its influence to bear on political elections through this organization known as the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. DENNETT. Until the international situation became unstable in about the year 1938.

Mr. TAVENNER. How did the international situation affect political matters locally here in the State of Washington as far as the Communist Party was concerned?

Mr. DENNETT. The Communist Party had as one of its principal objectives and one of its chief propaganda weapons, which it used upon other persons of political mindedness, that the Communist program was a consistent program on a domestic policy and on foreign policy, that our program was liberal domestically and liberal internationally. However, in 1938, after a long period of struggle and effort, the Communist Party succeeded in prevailing upon many people to accept the slogan of collective security as the proper policy to pursue in foreign affairs. That, of course, was quite consistent with the policy of the Soviet Union because it was the Soviet delegates to the League of Nations who had continually agitated for a policy of collective security.

I think it was some time in 1938 that the Italian Premier launched his attack in Ethiopia, and while we were clamoring for collective security to be applied to that situation, it wasn’t too long afterwards when the Soviet Union had a serious dispute with Finland, and hostilities broke out and the Soviet Union smashed the Finnish Army and the Finnish military installations.

We were confronted with the necessity of making an immediate switch demanding nonintervention.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by we?

Mr. DENNETT. The Communist Party.

So our insistence upon nonintervention contradicted our prior insistence upon collective security. This presented no end of trouble, especially to those who had to meet the public and had to answer to the public for the consistency of their program and policies from one day to the next. It ultimately led to the disaffection of Mr. Howard Costigan. And the chief reason that Mr. Costigan disaffected at that time was because of his loyalty to Franklin D. Roosevelt as then President of the United States, who came out in bitter denunciation against the Soviets for attacking Finland, which left him in the position of having a consistent policy because he had complained bitterly against Mussolini’s march into Ethiopia. He had also been critical of the Japanese invasion of China. He had also been critical of each military venture where one country had attempted to impose its will upon another by military means.

So Costigan felt that he was on sounder ground to continue his support of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did so with as much effort as he dared, without bringing down the wrath of the Communist Party on him at that particular moment. However, the Communist Party sensed that he was beginning to disaffect, and we proceeded to isolate him from everything we could. I mean the Communists proceeded to isolate Mr. Costigan.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was this the period when the Communist Party was crying from the rooftops that the President of the United States was a warmonger?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it was. I am a little bit fearful that if anyone looks at the record very carefully they will find that I made a few speeches on that subject myself.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, as a result of the international situation the Communist Party had gotten itself into a position which adversely affected its interests locally.

Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the result of that adverse effect upon the Communist Party locally?

Mr. DENNETT. The most damaging effect to the Communist Party was that it shook the faith of many of those who were members of the district bureau at that time. I must admit that I tried to present the appearance myself of not losing faith in the integrity of the Soviet foreign policy. However, I must also admit that there was a little bit of deception in that for the reason that I could not completely justify it, no matter how hard I tried, and I found that Mr. Costigan became very bitter about it. I found also that Mr. Ebey had a few misgivings. He didn’t express them at that time too sharply because he is a very mild-mannered sort of person. But those of us who were in the rough and tough political battles put on a case-hardened outward appearance which was intended to inspire the ranks to hold the line.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the final result?

Mr. DENNETT. The final result was that various organizations affiliated to the Washington Commonwealth Federation found their political conviction to be inconsistent with the official policy expressed by disguised Communist leaders in the Washington Commonwealth Federation. So that many of them began to disaffiliate and leave the organization, so that it did not embrace the commanding minority which it had previously had.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, your position of control in that organization was weakened, if not virtually destroyed, by this disaffection that had arisen within the Communist Party ranks largely as a result of international problems.

Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.

Those of us who presented what might be referred to as a case-hardened outward appearance did so largely in the hope and faith that our loyalty to the Soviet Union under those circumstances would be rewarded by the Soviet Union remaining loyal and true to the socialist ideals which all of us held.

However, at a later date, after the Second World War, just to make the comment without going into detail at this moment, many began to find out through their experience in the Army and military efforts, and through persons who traveled abroad and came into contact directly with the Russian military effort--many became convinced that there was a considerable difference between the democracy that had been preached about in the Soviet Union and the actual practice which they found.

Also there was a serious disillusionment when large numbers of soldiers learned, to their dismay, that even during the war period the Soviet Union had in labor camps very large numbers of persons who were held in those camps as political prisoners, a policy which we had been led to believe, through all the official propaganda, that the Communist Party in the Soviet Union wouldn’t possibly indulge in such a practice, that only the capitalist countries would practice such a heinous crime.

But it was a terrible shock and disillusionment when large numbers of people found, out of their own direct knowledge, that these huge forced labor camps did in fact exist and that people who were committed to them were committed to them for terms ranging from 25 years to life instead of the official propaganda which has been preached, to the effect that no sentence was over 10 years in length in the Soviet Union. And we found there was a great deal of difference between fact and fancy.

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

Mr. TAVENNER. Is the Washington Commonwealth Federation in existence today?

Mr. DENNETT. It is not. It was liquidated by the Communist Party leadership during the Second World War.

In my records there will be found some correspondence between Hugh DeLacy and myself because I was a vice president of the federation, but I was in the military service at the time this disillusion took place.

Mr. DeLacy had written me something about it, and I disagreed with it. He had also written to me suggesting that since I was in the military service maybe it would be better for me to give up my share of stock which entitled me to be a member of the board of directors of the New World, which was the official newspaper published under the federation at that time.

I found occasion to disagree violently with him over the suggestion for the reason that I felt that those who were in the armed services should not be removed from their official positions because they were in the armed services. I felt that they were more entitled to continue their representation on the organization because they were in the armed services.

We had an exchange of correspondence there which was quite acrimonious at points, and I am amazed when I look back at it and see how it developed.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a satisfactory point to suspend the examination of this witness.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes, Mr. Dennett. We thank you for your patience and the information which you have given the committee. We are endeavoring, whenever possible, to give you a rest so there will not be this long stress upon you for a long period of time.

Mr. DENNETT. I appreciate that. In my younger days I used to have a marathon endurance, but I find I don’t have it any more.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you wish to call another witness?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Lawrence Earl George.

Mr. MOULDER. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.

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

Mr. GEORGE. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE EARL GEORGE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, PHILIP L. BURTON

Mr. WHEELER. Will the witness state his full name, please?

Mr. GEORGE. My name is Lawrence Earl George.

Mr. WHEELER. Where do you reside?

Mr. GEORGE. Seattle, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Will counsel identify himself for the record, please?

Mr. BURTON. My name is Philip L. Burton. I am a Seattle attorney.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. George, what is your occupation?

Mr. GEORGE. I am a warehouseman, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you been a warehouseman?

Mr. GEORGE. Oh, for 12, 15 years; 12 years anyway.

Mr. WHEELER. Being a warehouseman, are you a member of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Sir, upon advice of counsel, I will invoke my rights and privileges under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. MOULDER. I didn’t hear your reply. Did you say you decline to answer the question?

Mr. GEORGE. Because of certain insinuations about any union, it is necessary for me to invoke my rights under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution and decline to answer the question.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you held any positions in the union that we are discussing?

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the warehousemen are members of the International Longshoreman’s and Warehousemen’s Union? I am not asking you if you are a member of the ILWU; just a blanket question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Yes; that is a fact.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you at any time during your residency in Seattle been acquainted with a lady by the name of Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle testified before this committee last June that she knew you as a member of the waterfront section of the Communist Party. Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to invoke the privileges granted me under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. WHEELER. Will you also invoke the privilege on all questions relating to the waterfront section of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment in connection with that.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you an official of the union in 1951?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer the question.

Mr. WHEELER. Did you sign a Taft-Hartley affidavit?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the Communist Party advised members of the Communist Party to disassociate themselves from the Communist Party and sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment to that.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the members of the Communist Party remained loyal and in the discipline of the Communist Party although they officially did resign?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment as to that.

Mr. MOULDER. Did I understand you to say that your birthplace was here in Seattle?

Mr. GEORGE. Sir, I didn’t give my place of birth. I wasn’t asked that question.

Mr. MOULDER. Where were you born?

Mr. GEORGE. I was born in Denver, Colo.

Mr. MOULDER. When did you move to Seattle?

Mr. GEORGE. I came to Seattle after the First World War. I think it was in 1918 or thereabouts.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you resided in Seattle ever since?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever heard of the Negro and National Groups Commission of the Communist Party of King County?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment as to that, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle in her testimony stated you were chairman of that group. Was she correct in this testimony?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you familiar with an organization called the Interracial Action Committee?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER Are you a member of the Communist Party today, Mr. George?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer that, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.

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

Mr. MOULDER. Do you represent Mrs. Pierce? Will you step up?

Mr. TROLSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. I want to talk to him.

(Whereupon Mr. Trolson conferred with the chairman.)

Mr. MOULDER. Call the witness again, please.

Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. PIERCE. I do.

Mr. TROLSON. May I make a statement before you begin to question the witness?

Mr. MOULDER. Yes; you may.

Mr. TROLSON. My name is Roy Trolson. I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the Seattle Bar Association.

Mrs. Pierce has come to the bar association and rendered a statement that she is unable to secure counsel because she has no funds for that purpose. The president of the Bar Association has asked me to represent Mrs. Pierce, and I want to make it clear that I am representing her without compensation and at the request of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Seattle Bar Association.

Mr. MOULDER. We certainly appreciate your position and wish to say that you should be commended as an attorney when requested by the Bar Association to appear and represent any person who has no funds to employ counsel.

And certainly it should have no reflection, and doesn’t have any reflection, upon you whatsoever.

For a person who is unable to employ counsel, it is the duty of a lawyer under those circumstances to comply with that request, and the burden that has been placed upon you.

Mr. TROLSON. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. HARRIET PIERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, ROY F. TROLSON

Mr. WHEELER. Will you state your full name, please?

Mrs. PIERCE. Mrs. Harriet Pierce.

Mr. WHEELER. Where do you presently reside?

Mrs. PIERCE. In Seattle.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. Yes; I am.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. I am employed at the Tacoma Country and Golf Club.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you have any part-time employment other than your present position?

Mrs. PIERCE. No; I do not.