Part 7

Just like in the conduct of the affairs of the Government of the United States, I don’t think it is sufficient for persons to be elected as Congressmen and then just sit there. I think they have got to know what the Constitution of the United States provides, and I think they have to be the guardians to make certain that everybody abides by it, and that they abide by it themselves and insist that their own members abide by it.

I think that the question of a member just being a member of an organization and just being a card-carrying member is not sufficient. Likewise, it is not sufficient to have representatives of government just be present. Being present isn’t enough. They have to understand what they are there for. And pursue their purpose of representing their constituents.

I say that as a comparison because the two things are similar. There is an identity.

Our greatest democratic practice occurs in the organizations which are not directly associated with government as such.

Mr. MOULDER. That applies, as you have said, to unions and organizations social or otherwise, as well as the general election of the United States where probably only 65 percent of the people go to the polls and vote.

Mr. TAVENNER. A very simple way of expressing what you have said is that people should be informed.

Mr. DENNETT. They must be informed.

And I am strictly opposed to secret negotiations, whether it occurs between employers and unions, whether it occurs between heads of organizations, or whether it occurs in international affairs. I think that the only safeguard that we have that the rights of the people will not be trespassed upon is when everything is out in the open.

I am willing to admit that until an agreement is arrived at, until a conclusion is reached, it may be necessary to conduct the negotiations or the conferences with a limited amount of access to public discussion. That may be so. I am not prepared to say that everything must be done in a goldfish bowl. But I am very insistent in my own conviction and in my own practices, at least for the past several years, that anything I do is going to be out in the open where the whole world can take a look at it. If they don’t like it they can say so. And if that is the way they feel about it, fine. I’ll step aside and retire. But if they do approve it, let them go ahead.

Mr. MOULDER. When discussing the Washington Commonwealth Federation yesterday, did you give an estimate of 5,500 as being, in your opinion, the total Communist Party membership in the State of Washington or in this district?

Mr. DENNETT. I said at that time there were approximately 5,500 members at one time in 1 year. I think it was 1938.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you any knowledge or information, whether it be in the form of an opinion or from your experience, as to the total Communist Party membership in this area at the present time?

Mr. DENNETT. No. I have no adequate idea about that. I think that it must be very small. Someone asked me the other day what I thought it was, and I said, “Well, I think the ranks of the Communist Party have been decimated by their own foolish behavior and by the change in public attitude. I think that has resulted in them being reduced to a mere handful, a shell of its former self.”

Mr. MOULDER. Then you would tell us now that you have no knowledge or information of any communistic or Communist Party activity in Seattle at this time?

Mr. DENNETT. No. We are coming to the point of my expulsion, which occurred 7, nearly 8 years ago. So my experience and knowledge would have to break at that point with respect to the Communist Party itself.

Mr. VELDE. I presume you are familiar generally with the testimony Barbara Hartle gave here?

Mr. DENNETT. I listened to it very carefully.

Mr. VELDE. She brought Communist Party activities in this area up to date as nearly as anyone possibly could in her situation.

Would you appraise her testimony as being true as to general matters concerning Communist activities here?

Mr. DENNETT. In all fairness to her and in all fairness to the persons that she mentioned, I would have to say that I think Barbara Hartle was her real self when she was here. She appeared to me to be exactly the same as the person I knew many years before. She was very deliberate and methodical. She always had been. And I think that she gave as accurate an account as she could possibly do. I marvel at the ability that she displayed in doing it, the names that she mentioned.

I have tried to explain to my personal friends--they have asked me about it; how could a person name so many people as she did? I can only say that Barbara was in a position where she had access to those records. It was part of her duty to handle records of the membership. Therefore, she would be required to know those things.

People have asked me, “Well, do you know the same people that she knew?” And I have had to answer, “I certainly knew most of those people.”

But I am not in a position where I could say that, of my own knowledge, I knew those persons as members of the Communist Party.

I knew practically all of those persons in some capacity or another, but in very few instances is it possible for me to say, of my own knowledge, that I knew such and such a person to be a member of the Communist Party.

And that was a very important distinction for me to make.

But I must say that it is my considered judgment that Barbara Hartle gave very valid and very accurate information.

Mr. VELDE. I certainly thank you for that, Mr. Dennett. That was my impression, too. Not being in a position to know as much about it as either of you I did get the impression that she told a very valid story.

Mr. DENNETT. I am sure she was accurate.

Mr. VELDE. I appreciate your verification of her story as to the extent of the Communist Party in this area.

Another thing I would like to get cleared up before we go further, Mr. Counsel and Mr. Chairman, is a matter of your identification of Harry Lundeberg as having attended fraction meetings. I think you probably are as anxious to get that cleared up as we are. We know that Mr. Lundeberg has been a very faithful anti-Communist for a long time.

Would you like to make further comment on that?

Mr. DENNETT. I didn’t expect that that would come up, and I was quite surprised at the furor it has created. I had no idea at the time that I mentioned this that it was of such importance or that such importance would be made of it.

I think perhaps it requires that I give you a little bit more detail of how I had such knowledge so that you may judge for yourselves as to the accuracy or validity of what I had to say.

Mr. VELDE. Actually, of course, back in those days about which you were testifying there was nothing seriously wrong in the minds of most American people with attending fraction meetings of the Communist Party. So I agree with you. I don’t see any reason for all the furor. But I thought possibly you would like to clear it up.

Mr. DENNETT. I certainly would, sir. Thank you for asking me.

The first I heard of the furor, a friend of mine called me on the phone last night and asked me if I had read the morning paper which carried the story of Mr. Lundeberg’s denial. I said I had not. So he read it to me, and he asked me what I had to say about it then. Some of my personal friends did. And I had to remind him, just as I just stated to you, that I had no idea it was going to have that much importance attached to it.

But let me give you the facts as it occurred.

You will recall in my testimony I mentioned going into the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, what was then the Ferry Boatmen’s Union. It was in 1936--Well, it was in 1935, the end of 1935 when the first strike occurred against an arbitration award.

At that time the Maritime Federation of the Pacific had been already organized. Mr. Lundeberg was the president of it. Their headquarters were here in Seattle. He had an office here in a building close to the Pioneer Square. I believe it is properly called Pioneer Place. Mr. Lundeberg held an office there as the president of the federation, and his first and able assistant was Mr. Ernest Fox whom I have mentioned before.

When I was elected a delegate to represent the crew of the ship that I was working on, to attend our first strike meeting, on my way to that meeting I stopped at the office of the president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific, Mr. Harry Lundeberg, and asked him what he thought of the situation that I found myself in; namely, elected as a delegate, representing an organization which I knew practically nothing about. And I asked him further what advice he would give me.

Mr. Lundeberg was very gracious to me, and advised me that the “tule” sailors--by which he referred to our Sound freight-boat men because he didn’t consider us to be genuine sailors at all because we didn’t get outside into deep water; we were always here in the rivers or the harbors, and he called us “tule” sailors.

And he said, “The first thing you have got to do is get rid of your finky leaders.”

And I asked him on what basis he made such a statement.

And he said, “You talk to Ernie. Ernie can tell you the whole story, and I will O. K. and vouch for it.”

So I asked Ernest Fox a little bit more about it. And Ernie explained to me that the maritime leaders at that time had a great hatred for the leaders of the then ferry boatmen’s union because those leaders of the ferry boatmen’s union had not gone along with the general strike plans in San Francisco in 1934. And Mr. Lundeberg was one of the principal supporters of those strike plans at that time.

As a result of Mr. Lundeberg’s attitude at that time, the Communist Party had the utmost confidence in his integrity and in his leadership. And Mr. Fox, Ernest Fox, informed me that Lundeberg had attended fraction meetings, taught fraction meetings where he had met with 1 or 2 party leaders to outline the policy and program to be followed.

Mr. VELDE. When you say “party leaders” are you referring to the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That is right; I am referring to Communist Party leaders.

But Mr. Fox also warned me at that time that he had a few misgivings about where Mr. Lundeberg was going because Mr. Lundeberg had already begun to show evidence that he was beginning to have differences with the party and that he was resisting attending any more fraction meetings at a very early date.

So it is quite true that Mr. Lundeberg was incensed. He didn’t like the Communist Party.

I simply mention in passing, at the outset, that he had been brought into a fraction meeting, and it was common knowledge.

Mr. MOULDER. In other words, he had been brought into contact with the Communist Party leaders as a result of the work he was performing but not in the capacity of being a Communist himself? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. Even the most ardent anti-Communist can be drawn into Communist activities.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean drawn into contact with Communists?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

My counsel cautions me to be certain that you understand I at no time accused Mr. Harry Lundeberg of being a Communist.

Mr. VELDE. I think that is a matter of record. In fact, you have said everything favorable to Mr. Lundeberg’s record. But I suppose it might be presumed that if you and another Communist Party leader had a conference with Mr. Lundeberg some time that that would be a meeting such as you mentioned in your testimony yesterday, or could be considered a fraction meeting; could it not?

Mr. DENNETT. No; that would not be regarded as a top fraction meeting. A top fraction meeting would be only a meeting where the leaders of an organization who were members of the Communist Party met either with themselves or with some official of the Communist Party. And in Mr. Lundeberg’s case----

Mr. VELDE. Is that the type of meeting to which you referred when you said that you had general knowledge, or it was common knowledge that Mr. Lundeberg attended top fraction meetings?

Mr. DENNETT. True.

Mr. TAVENNER. My recollection of your testimony was that you made it clear Mr. Lundeberg was not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. DENNETT. I thought so; I meant to, certainly.

Mr. TAVENNER. You meant to, and if there is any question about your testimony on that point I understand you now do make it clear that you did not intend, and that you did not characterize Mr. Lundeberg as a member of the Communist Party. Am I correct in that?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. And your only information about his attendance at a so-called fraction meeting was the information given to you by his assistant, Mr. Fox?

Mr. DENNETT. And I might say, for verification, that the very line which Mr. Lundeberg had urged upon me to follow was exactly the line which the leaders of the Communist Party gave me at that time also; namely, attack your leaders, get rid of them.

Mr. TAVENNER. We were discussing the activity of the Communist Party within the Old-Age Pension Union. Will you tell the committee, please, whether you can at this time recall the names of other persons active in that organization who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. My own knowledge doesn’t extend beyond the top leaders of that organization, which I have already mentioned.

Mr. TAVENNER. That brings us to the period you described yesterday when the Washington Commonwealth Federation was being dissolved. My recollection is you indicated that it was dissolved at the instance of the Communist Party. Am I correct in that?

Mr. DENNETT. It did that during the Second World War when I was in the military service. I only know of that from correspondence and what I read in the newspapers.

Mr. TAVENNER. You also told us that the component parts of the Washington Commonwealth Federation began to pull away from that organization.

Mr. DENNETT. That is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the reason for that?

Mr. DENNETT. The main reason was the conflicting international policies.

You will recall that in that historical period there were rapid changes taking place.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am trying to return to the point where we broke off testimony on that subject.

What became your activity in the field, in this general field upon the weakening of the federation as a result of the change in international problems you described yesterday?

Mr. DENNETT. With the rise of the CIO following the split in the labor movement I was elected to be the secretary of the Seattle CIO Council, and subsequently became the executive secretary of the Washington State CIO Council.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us dates, please?

Mr. DENNETT. In 1937 the American Federation of Labor started expelling from its ranks those unions which had advocated the industrial form of organization. I was in a union which did advocate the industrial form of organization, but we were not one of those that attracted primary interest. Therefore, they did not expel our union right away. They never did expel it in fact. However, since we were supporting the industrial form of organization, I advocated that our organization be among the first to swing to the CIO. That was the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific.

Subsequently, a referendum vote was held and the membership voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the American Federation of Labor and affiliate with the CIO.

Being one of the most regular representatives of the organization among outside affiliates, I was selected and elected by the members of these unions to represent what was first called the Seattle Unity Council, in 1937. In that year we had affiliated to that council both CIO and A. F. of L. organizations and unaffiliated organizations.

To make a long story short, I could say that my activities there were transferred to a larger field when I became the secretary of the State CIO council, which was founded in 1938. And history will confirm that the first convention of the CIO was also held that year in Atlantic City.

I was a delegate to that convention, and there I came in contact with the national leadership of the CIO unions, and with the national leaders in the CIO unions who were known to me as Communists.

Do you wish me to go into that now?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, briefly.

Mr. DENNETT. One of the first instructions that I received in that matter was from a man by the name of Roy Hudson who was the national--well, he objected to being called the labor expert in the central committee of the Communist Party. However, he usually had the duty of following the assignments of the respective Communist members.

Mr. TAVENNER. Just a moment.

Mr. Chairman, you will probably recall that we had Roy Hudson as a witness in our California hearings in December of 1953, but he refused to give this committee any material information.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, he gave me some instructions when I went to a national convention, and his instruction to me was very brief. He said, “Any time you need to settle a question and you are in doubt, just see Lee Pressman.”

Mr. TAVENNER. Lee Pressman?

Mr. DENNETT. Lee Pressman.

I did try to do that, but my experience with Lee Pressman was highly unsatisfactory, and I came back to one of the district bureau meetings and reported the unsatisfactory nature of my relations with him, and the district organizer instructed me to destroy the report which I had brought back.

I had brought back a somewhat detailed report of my unsatisfactory experiences with him, and the bureau listened with considerable astonishment at my impressions of how unsatisfactory this situation was. That was from the first convention. And after that, after they had instructed me to destroy the records, they also instructed me to not talk about it with anyone because they feared it might undermine the prestige of such an important person as Mr. Lee Pressman.

Mr. VELDE. During what period of time did you know Mr. Pressman?

Mr. DENNETT. That was in 1938.

Mr. VELDE. At that time he was in the CIO. He had left the Government, as I understand it.

Mr. DENNETT. He was the general counsel of the CIO, and was John L. Lewis’ righthand man.

Mr. VELDE. I do not recall the date of Mr. Pressman’s testimony. Was it in 1949?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; in 1949 or early 1950 we had him as a witness before our committee and interrogated him on his connection with the CIO at that particular time.

Mr. VELDE. Did you know Lee Pressman as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. I didn’t know that personally. I was just under the instruction--I asked Roy Hudson who I should see in the event I got crossed up and didn’t know what policy to pursue or anything, and he said, “See Lee Pressman. Do what he says.”

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which we should follow through. But, not knowing the character of the experience this witness had with Mr. Pressman, I believe it is a matter we should investigate fully before attempting to further examine the witness on the subject.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have documentary evidence of any character on that incident?

Mr. DENNETT. I can’t be sure whether I have or not. I don’t recall all the things that I have in my files.

Mr. TAVENNER. Proceed, please.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I came in contact with many other leaders in the national CIO. I used to have the habit of attending the national CIO executive board meetings whenever the convention was over. There had been an election of new officials at the close of the convention, and I was usually there in company with the president of the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, who became a member of the executive board. And he usually asked me to come along with him.

And it has always been my habit to take rather copious notes. As a matter of fact, most people screamed to high heaven because the notes I take are a little bit too full and too elaborate. I do that for my own benefit because I try not to rely solely on memory. I have found it very profitable in my own experience to have my full memoranda at hand when I am called upon to testify.

And in this testimony here I am testifying almost completely from memory, but I assure you that I have plenty of memoranda and data which cannot only substantiate what I have been testifying, but enrich it very, very much.

Mr. TAVENNER. What further information can you give us as to the Communist Party membership of individuals in this new field in which you were engaged?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, of course, one of our principal centers of interest was the International Woodworkers of America. And there, of course, it became my responsibility to become well acquainted with the top leadership in the International Woodworkers of America. And I think that many people have made the accusation but probably few people know of their own knowledge such as I do, that practically all of the top leaders were, with a few exceptions, members of the Communist Party. And that began with Mr. Harold J. Pritchett.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the last name?

Mr. DENNETT. P-r-i-t-c-h-e-t-t.

Mr. Harold Pritchett was a very able and outstanding man from the lumber industry.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was his official title?

Mr. DENNETT. He was the president.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is the period or the date?

Mr. DENNETT. 1938.

He was a Canadian and was barred from reentry into the United States shortly afterward, and has been unable--he was at that time unable to continue his functions as president, and had to give up the office of president.

We were quite disappointed that that occurred. We tried every way we knew to insure that he could continue to serve in that capacity. However, we had to be satisfied with allowing another member who was a vice president to take his position. This was Mr. O. M. Orton, O-r-t-o-n, better known to us as Mickey Orton. He was the vice president who took over when Mr. Pritchett had to give up the office.

The office staff--I mean the girls who worked in the office were virtually cleared by the Communist Party before they secured their employment in the office. The girl who was in charge at that office--the name I knew her by----

Mr. TAVENNER. You said virtually cleared?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Does that mean that the worker you have in mind must have been a member of the Communist Party? In other words, we do not want you to give us the name of a person unless you have evidence of actual Communist Party membership.

Mr. DENNETT. I will not name anyone unless that person was a member of the Communist Party, according to my knowledge. Well, the girl who was looked upon as the office manager--I don’t recall the exact title she had--but her name was Gladys Field, F-i-e-l-d. And all the stenographers and bookkeepers who were employed by the organization had to meet her approval before they could be employed in that office. And her approval was based upon whether or not the person would be friendly or hostile to the Communist Party, as well as being, of course, efficient and able to do the job. She was an exceedingly efficient girl herself, and did a splendid job as an office manager. She would be a credit to any office so far as her office work is concerned, and she was a credit to that organization. She had as one of her able assistants a girl by the name of Helen Sobeleski. I am not sure that I can spell that. It is a Polish name.

Well along in that period Mr. Karley Larsen came into prominence in the Woodworkers.

Mr. TAVENNER. To what union does this testimony relate concerning officials and employees?

Mr. DENNETT. The International Woodworkers of America.

Another person I knew was Nat Honig, H-o-n-i-g.