Investigation of Communist activities in Seattle, Wash., Area, Hearings, Part 2

by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities

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.

Iver Moe’s importance and significance is that he led an unemployed demonstration in Anacortes to a privately owned store which had foodstuffs in its stock, and the populace of Anacortes helped themselves. Mr. Moe was one of the leaders of that group, and was prosecuted for it. He was a member of the Communist Party at the time he did this. He thought he was doing the right thing. And, as a consequence, he was put on trial and was convicted and sentenced, and I know that he was turned against the Communist Party as a consequence of that experience.

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

Mr. Dennett. Another person known to me in the unemployed days was a lady by the name of Mrs. Harter, H-a-r-t-e-r. Her significance to me is that she later became the wife of Alex Noral, before he left here. He took her with him as his wife to California.

She was a very active person in the unemployed movement, in the unemployed councils.

Later on, I knew Mr. Terry Pettus, who was the editor of the New World, and now the northwest edition of the People’s World.

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

Mr. Dennett. P-e-t-t-u-s, Pettus.

Mr. Moulder. Are all the names you are referring to individuals who once were, or who now are, members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. They were known to me at the time I was in the Communist Party as members of the Communist Party, and I had Communist business with them.

Another person’s name was Jim Cour, C-o-u-r or C-o-u-e-r. I am not too sure of that spelling.

But Jim Cour was in an editorial capacity on the old Voice of Action, which was the predecessor of the present paper, the northwest edition of the People’s World. In between the name changed many times. At one time they had the New World, and, another time, it had several different names. But it was the same organization, the same subscribers, the same leadership. The change of name was intended to more adequately satisfy the attitude of the public toward political questions at that particular moment.

There was another one by the name of Bill Corr, but his was spelled differently, and it was C-o-r-r. Bill Corr was in the business management end of the paper, the Voice of Action.

Later I knew a person by the name of Huber, L. R. It seems to me that his first name was Louis, L-o-u-i-s. He served as editor of the Lumberworkers’ paper for a long period of time, that is, the paper issued by the International Woodworkers of America, at the time that Harold Pritchett was the president of the organization.

Another person whom I knew was Charles Daggett. Charles Daggett I knew in several different capacities. At one time he was the city editor of the Seattle Star, a paper which went out of business in Seattle a great number of years ago.

Mr. Daggett later was known to me as an official in the inlandboatmen’s union,[9] having become elected business agent in the San Francisco branch of the organization, and got into financial difficulties there; later went to Los Angeles. That is the last I heard of him.

Mr. Tavenner. We have seen him since then, and he has testified before this committee and admitted his Communist Party membership.

Did you know him in this area in any activity within the newspaper guild?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, I knew him in the newspaper guild, but I was not certain of his Communist Party activity at the time that I knew him then. I knew him as a Communist just as he left here.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he active in that field in Los Angeles?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, he was. He was very active as a newspaperman. He had a great deal to do with three other newspaper people whom I became closely acquainted with because of the official position that they held in the organization.

The first was a person by the name of Ellen McGrath. I have heard since that she is deceased. But Ellen McGrath was a sort of business agent for the newspaper guild when it was first organized here, and I knew her both in the official capacity as a representative of the newspaper guild and as a Communist actively operating in that field.

I knew her successor in that field, a man by the name of Claude Smith. Claude Smith was also known to me at that time as a Communist.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. Yes, he is the one who was expelled from the Party at the same time that I was subsequently.

I knew another person by the name of Robert Camozzi, C-a-m-o-z-z-i. Robert Camozzi was the president of the Seattle CIO council at the time I was its secretary, and we had official business representing the council, and also we had official business as Communists.

In the building service union,[10] in addition to Mr. Jess Fletcher, whom I knew quite well because of his work on the district bureau of the Communist Party, I also knew a man by the name of Merwin Cole, C-o-l-e. Merwin Cole was one of the business agents of that union, and was quite well known to me because I had tried very hard to recruit him during some of the peace demonstrations that the youth from the university had organized downtown some time in the summer of 1936, I believe. Or perhaps it was 1935. It may have been a year one way or the other.

I also knew one of his associates, Mr. Ward Coley, who was a business agent in that union, C-o-l-e-y.

I knew another man by the name of Daggett. His name is Herbert Daggett. He is a brother of Charles Daggett. Herbert Daggett was known to me as a Communist in the National Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association. Herbert Daggett was some official there. I do not recall exactly what it was at that time. I do not know as to his political position as of the present time either. I do understand that he is now the president of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association with headquarters in Washington, D. C. I repeat that I do not know what his political attitude is now.

He had an associate in the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association by the name of Ted Rasmussen. Rasmussen, I am not sure of the spelling. There are several different ways of spelling that name, and I am not positive of it. You will have to take the best guess you can make. But Ted was a member of the marine engineers organization, and I knew him as a Communist. I am not sure whether I am the person who recruited him, but I think I am because at the time I first started to work in the Inlandboatmen’s Union Ted Rasmussen was the organizer of a dissident group of engineers who wanted to separate themselves from the existing organization. And I worked very hard to persuade him not to split the organization, and finally did prevail upon him, with the assistance of Harry Jackson, who was the Communist leader in the trade-union field here at that time, and either Mr. Jackson or myself recruited Mr. Rasmussen.

In the lumber organization I recall the name of Ted Dokter, D-o-k-t-e-r. Ted Dokter was a very able man in the lumber industry, and we thought he was very efficient, and we liked his work at the time I knew him. Later, after I ceased to know him personally and directly, I heard criticism of him to the effect that he did not follow the party line. So I don’t know what has happened to him.

Of course, I knew Dick and Laura Law. Both are now deceased.

I have previously mentioned Helen Sobeleski and Gladys Field who were in the woodworkers’ office.[11]

One of my successors in the Seattle CIO Council was a man by the name of Arthur Harding. He was known to me. I understand he is deceased. I have not known of him for several years. But he was a loyal party member and so was his wife, a Jean Harding, J-e-a-n.

I have previously mentioned Ernie Fox, who was in the Sailors Union of the Pacific.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me suggest that we not lose time by repeating any of those that you have already named.

Mr. Dennett. I knew his wife very well. She went by the name of Elsie Gilland, G-i-l-l-a-n-d. One day a very peculiar thing occurred to me. Mr. Harry Jackson came to me with a request. He said that he had received an application card from a Mr. Roy Atkinson, and asked me whether I felt Mr. Atkinson could possibly really mean to join the Communist Party.

I expressed my belief that I didn’t think he could because I had never seen anything on his behavior which would indicate any sympathy toward the Communist Party. He said, “Well, we have received an application from him. We have received dues. Instead of doing anything about it we will not issue a card to him, and we will not let him be assigned to any branch. We are suspicious of that application. So we will not honor it.” Mr. Atkinson was an active official in the CIO, and I thought that it was quite a ridiculous thing myself.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you thought that he desired to join the Communist Party in order to obtain information of its activities.

Mr. Dennett. That was my opinion.

Mr. Tavenner. Rather than to become genuinely a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

Two persons who came to this area from the national office were known very well to me, Mr. Andrew Remes—and I know that that is not his proper name—but I don’t know what his proper name was. That was a party name. And it was always spelled R-e-m-e-s, as far as I remember.

One of his associates, who also came from the East, was Mr. Lou Sass—S-a-s-s.

The committee will probably remember testimony from Mr. Leonard Wildman to the effect that he knew me in the Communist Party, which is correct. I did know him in the Communist Party.

I also knew his wife, Muriel. I also knew Elizabeth Boggs, who gave testimony to the effect that she knew me in the Communist Party.

I knew Mr. Harold Johnston, who was on this stand here this morning. Mr. Johnston was known to me as an active Communist and a close associate of Mr. Morris Rappaport.

Mr. Velde. Was he a Communist at the time you left the Communist Party, to your best knowledge?

Mr. Dennett. I had no direct knowledge as to what Mr. Johnston’s position was after I went in the service. I did not know him after 1942-43. But I understand he was quite amused over my remark that Mr. Rappaport made short work of me. He was in a position to know.

I knew Mr. Glenn Kinney—K-i-n-n-e-y. I knew him over a period of a great many years. As a matter of fact, he was one of the first persons with whom I attempted to build a shop unit out in the steel mill. I wasn’t employed there at the time. I believe he was. I was an official working here in town, doing full-time work for the party. Later on Mr. Kinney became a machinist, or I think he was a machinist actually at that time, but he became a machinist and rose to the heights in the machinists’ union,[12] at least to the extent of being a business agent there several times.

In the old days there was an old man known to me by the name of F. S. U. Smith. And the reason we called him F. S. U. Smith was because he made one speech wherever he went, and that was to ask for people to be Friends of the Soviet Union, which was the name of an organization that he was very ardently supporting. He was a very loyal man to the party and did the best he knew how and the best he could.

These that I am scratching off are names that I have previously mentioned.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett, I wish to apologize and thank you for your patience in being called and recalled, but we previously set the recess at 3:30. Do you mind at this time if we have a 5-minute recess and resume the hearings after it?

Mr. Dennett. I would like to finish the names before we recess so we can take up the other business.

Mr. Moulder. All right; let’s proceed if you wish to do so.

Mr. Dennett. A very old friend of mine with whom I went to school—I have no knowledge as to what has become of him now—but at the time I knew him in the Communist Party he was the section organizer in King County. His name is Al Bristol. Al was a very fine friend of mine, a very patient fellow. I knew his wife Frances quite well.

Another official that held the position of section organizer here was Clayton Van Lydegraf—V-a-n L-y-d-e-g-r-a-f. Clayton Van Lydegraf was one of the officials who took part in my expulsion from the party, signing the expulsion notice.

Another person whom I knew as a Communist was Mr. Earl Payne—P-a-y-n-e. The last I heard of him he had been assigned section organizer in the Portland, Oreg., area. When I knew him he had just returned from serving in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain.

Mr. Philip Frankfeld was sent here by the Central Committee to take over when Mr. Morris Rappaport was removed, or when it was known——

Mr. Velde. When was Mr. Rappaport removed?

Mr. Dennett. It was about the time of the outbreak of the war, shortly after the party had to make modifications in its practices because of the passage of the Voorhis Act. And Mr. Rappaport had been born in old Russia at the time of the Czar and was one of those continuing problems to the Immigration Department because no country would accept him as a deportee. And the Immigration Department could not dispose of him except to hold him in their jail. He was one of their problems. And the party, in preparation for its super-patriotic efforts during the Second World War changed its constitution to provide that only citizens of the United States, or persons who were eligible to become citizens of the United States could be members of the Communist Party. When that was adopted, Mr. Rappaport could not qualify, and was removed from office in the Communist Party.

Mr. Velde. In 1941 or 1942?

Mr. Dennett. Well, it was about in that period. I can’t be too certain of it because I was beginning to fall into some disrepute myself, and was being left out of many activities and much information.

Another person well known to me in this period was Mr. John D-a-s-c-h-b-a-c-h. Daschbach was known to me as a comparatively young man who worked—I’ll be blessed if I know where he worked, but I know he was always active in the Communist Party activities.

A longshoreman known to me that I failed to mention this morning was a rather heavy-set fellow who was known to me in a rather incidental sort of way. I know he was in the Communist Party, but I know little of any activity that he took part in, a man by the name of Wayne Mosio. I am not sure of the spelling. I think it is M-o-s-i-o. It may be z, but I am not certain.

Another longshoreman who was well known to me as a member of the Communist Party is a person who broke with the Communist Party and later changed his occupation from longshoreman to that of lawyer. He went to school while he was longshoring and qualified to be admitted to the bar.

I know that he was bitterly anti-Communist long before he became an attorney. I don’t know whether you wish his name mentioned or not, but he was known to me and he certainly was known to the longshoremen. His name was Philip Poth, P-o-t-h.

A national leader of the party whom I failed to mention before was Mr. John Williamson, one of the Smith Act defendants who suffered penalty of conviction and incarceration. He served as the trade-union section or secretary, replacing Mr. Roy Hudson.

A person who was well known to me in my work of attempting to organize steel workers into the Communist Party was a section organizer, a man by the name of Charles Legg, L-e-g-g.

Another person known to me as a member of the Communist Party who later turned up as an informer for the Government and served as a witness for the FBI was known to me under the name of Doc Dafoe. He was employed at that time in the steel mill at Northwest Rolling Mills.

Another person well known to me in the Communist Party many years ago who was rather mild in his Communist Party efforts when I knew him and who later turned against the Communist Party was Dan Adair, A-d-a-i-r. He was in Olympia, his home was Olympia.

I also knew his father whose name was Robin Adair.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean by that you are identifying his father as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; both of them were members of the Communist Party at that time. Mr. Dan Adair, the last I heard of him, was bitterly anti-Communist and has left the State.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to remind you, wherever it is known to you that a person being identified has left the Communist Party, that it is only the fair thing to say so.

Mr. Dennett. True.

I believe, sir, that covers all the names that I have not covered before.

Mr. Moulder. We will stand in recess for 5 minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

Mr. Moulder. The committee will please come to order.

Proceed with the witness, please, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, at the time you were a member of the CIO Council what union was it that you were representing?

Mr. Dennett. I was from the Inlandboatmen’s Union at that time.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you have given us the names of those in that union who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. The only ones that I know——

Mr. Tavenner. I don’t want you to repeat them. I want to make certain.

Mr. Dennett. The only ones I knew in the Inlandboatmen’s Union—two are deceased.

Mr. Tavenner. We are not interested in that.

Mr. Dennett. I think that is of no value.

There was a person known to me in the Inlandboatmen’s Union by the name of Gene Robel, who was a member of the Communist Party in the Inlandboatmen’s Union. I think that he was one of the witnesses subpenaed before this hearing.

Mr. Tavenner. Did he testify several days ago?

Mr. Dennett. I believe so.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at a later time become a member of the Steel Workers’ Union?

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Tavenner. What date did you become a member?

Mr. Dennett. Some time in 1942, I think it was. Yes, it was in 1942.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, if any members of that union were known to you to be members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. I have this recollection about that:

Remember now all of that transpired more than 7 years ago. I have been expelled from the party for the past 7 years, going on 8.

My recollection is positive about 2 persons. There are others about whom I have a very indistinct recollection, and I would be afraid to be positive about. But the two that I can be positive about—one’s name was Andrew Marshall. He was referred to in Barbara Hartle’s testimony as Andy. She did not finish the name. He was well known to me.

Another person was Alex Harding. H-a-r-d-i-n-g.

I know that there were around 6 or 7 active members of the Communist Party in the steelworkers at that time, but I am so uncertain about the other names that I would hesitate to mention them for fear I might be wrong and might speak of the wrong person.

Mr. Tavenner. There are other matters that I wanted to obtain information about, but there is apparently not time to do it.

I wanted particularly to inquire into examples of discipline exercised by the Communist Party over its members. We shall not have time to cover that even in a general way, but I know from what you have said during the course of your testimony that on a number of occasions the Communist Party disciplined you. You have told us of two occasions so far. I wish you would tell the committee of other examples of discipline.

Mr. Dennett. Well, the most important one was my expulsion and that of my former wife.

This occurred after my return from the service. You will recall that I have previously indicated that by the time I was inducted into service I was beginning to fall into some disrepute in the party, and the reason for that was that I had been actively engaged in trying to develop a struggle for equal rights for Negroes.

I was very much impressed by cases of police brutality against Negroes in the city of Seattle way back in 1940 and 1941. And some special cases had been brought to my personal attention, and I had developed a rather broad struggle on behalf of those people through my connections with the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Of course, I was trying to build a considerable corps of Negro people in the Communist Party.

Without going into the detail of that, I simply want to say that my activities at first met with the approval of the Communist Party, but, with the outbreak of the war and the changed policy of the Communist Party, my activities met with the sharp disapproval of the party.

In other words, the party adopted the policy during the war of subordinating all other things in supporting the war. They had a slogan of “Subordinate the sectional or local interests to the national interest.” This was quite a sharp change in policy.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you construe that as a sharp interest in the policy of the United States or of some other country?

Mr. Dennett. It was not with respect to the policy of the United States. It was intended to guarantee that the full strength of the United States would be brought to bear on the side of the Soviet Union in the war which was then raging with Nazi Germany; and to guarantee that it would be complete, the Communist Party ordered that the fight for equal rights for Negroes should be subordinated and that Negroes would have to wait for their equal rights, they would have to cease being troublemakers over this question. And they used that term. They used that term against me, that I was simply a troublemaker organizing diversionary interests.

Well, I felt that if the war that was being fought was worth anything it certainly was worth applying the principle of equal rights throughout the length and breadth of this Nation of the United States, especially when I knew of the heavy burden which the Negroes were carrying in parts of this country. And I knew that there were some attitudes around here which were extremely offensive to the Negro people. They certainly do object to segregation, and they certainly have a right to object to it.

It is my feeling, and always has been, that it is the duty of the white people to see to it that they are not treated as inferiors.

So I was pressing that point, and I defied the leadership of the district in the party to show me anything anywhere which justified their change of attitude.

For my militant determination on it I was falling into bad graces so rapidly that they removed me from the district bureau.

Before I went into the service I also quarreled with them over some of the literature published under the name of Earl Browder, under the title of “Victory and After,” in which I challenged some of the contentions of Browder that it was possible to get along with some of the big capitalists of the United States in the interest of the war effort and forget the interest of the workers who were employed by those capitalists, because in too many instances the capitalists were making enormous profits in the war but the workers were not increasing their wages.

This was an issue which was of extreme importance to me. I was working in a steel mill and I felt that the steelworkers’ wages at that time were altogether too inadequate. I think that history since has borne out the justification of my attitude in it, and I think the Communist Party policy which flip-flopped all over the place at that time has proven how unstable it was, and has proven that it was not genuinely trying to improve the condition of the workers.

Mr. Velde. When were you removed from the district bureau of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Some time in 1941 or 1942, I believe it was. Then, of course, I went into the service.

Upon return from the service I tried to become as active as possible in the party work, tried to restore organization of the party apparatus. I was first advised by Mr. Andrew Remes when he came—he had just returned from the service ahead of me. He advised me that when he was in the service, evidently, Mr. Huff, who had been left in charge of the district, had permitted the entire district to collapse, because when he came back from the service—I am speaking of Mr. Remes—he told me there was not a single functioning branch of the Communist Party in the entire district, that it took him several weeks to get together the membership of any one branch. And he could only do it by legwork, walking from house to house, to the old addresses of the people he knew before he went into the service. And he was dumfounded to find that condition existing.

When he had gone in the service the party numbered in the neighborhood of 5,000 in this district.

In other words, it was baffling to us as to why that thing had happened.

Later on I came to the conclusion that Mr. Huff was either representing the Federal Bureau of Investigation or somebody else who was as opposed to the party as anybody could be because I couldn’t account for any explanation for that development.

I soon found that I was running into a stone wall. Everything I proposed by way of reorganization or by way of organizational activities—I, for instance, felt that a fundamental policy of the party was to concentrate in the mass production industries, to concentrate in basic industries. I had always been taught that that was one of the party’s chief concerns.

But, lo and behold, when I approached the district leaders asking for assistance to concentrate on making a strong party in the steelworkers, they said, “Oh, we’re not interested in them. We have got other problems that are more important to us than just a bunch of steelworkers.” Which was an attitude expressing to me a certain contempt for the workers, which didn’t go very well because I have the greatest respect for men who have the audacity to try to work for a living. And I didn’t like this business of people who were sitting up on top sneering, speaking about the membership in such a cursory way.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the question of Communist Party activity in veterans’ organizations come up at that time?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; it did.

Mr. Tavenner. Just touch on it very briefly, please, because we have very little time.

Mr. Dennett. I was called to a fraction meeting of returned veterans to try to work out some kind of veterans’ policy, and some of these veterans reported boastfully that they had just walked into some veterans’ posts and had captured the leadership—no trouble at all.

I chastised them for being so naive as to think that the Communists could capture a veterans’ organization when the purpose of the veterans’ organization was to oppose the Communist Party. And I told them they were foolish to undertake such a task and that they shouldn’t embark upon that policy. They told me I was nuts and that they knew what they were doing because they had the success of having captured a post.

Mr. Tavenner. Time, however, proved that you were correct, did it not?

Mr. Dennett. I think it did.

Mr. Tavenner. You said both you and your wife were disciplined by the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

When I returned from the service it didn’t take very long before rumor was circulated to the effect that I was alleged to be an FBI agent.

Mr. Moulder. Was your wife a member of the Communist Party, too?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to say at this point that it is not the practice of this committee, and it is not my practice to ask a witness any questions relating to the activities of his wife. There have been several occasions when witnesses felt that, in order to give the complete story to the committee, it was necessary to speak of their wife’s activities. But when they did, they did it on their own volition. Therefore, I am not asking you any questions with regard to your wife. If you mention her it is purely on your own volition.

Mr. Dennett. To explain this disciplinary action I have to advise that my former wife and I were expelled from the party on the same document with the same explanation, the same reasons. The documentary evidence will bring her into this part of it.

And the account which I wish to make about the discipline against her is of far more importance than the discipline against me, although I am convinced that the purpose of the discipline was to get me out of their hair.

It seems as though some people in the district leadership did not like to be reminded of what the party policy used to be, and they objected to my reminding them of the zigzags which they had followed in the intervening period.

I was trying to find some way of bringing them to what I considered to be the official party position, and they seemed to have an entirely different attitude than I.

It resulted finally in a series of meetings with the district disciplinary body known to me originally as a control commission. The last I heard it was called a review commission. But, in effect, it amounts to a kangaroo court because, in my case, they started out with this rumor that I was an FBI agent, asked me to explain it, and all I could do was explain that my former wife had done something which they had authorized. And Mr. Huff admitted that he authorized it.

It is true that it ultimately led her to make certain reports which did contribute to the war effort by way of eliminating bottlenecks which she found in various parts of the war production industry. But this had been approved by Mr. Huff.

And then when I was on the pan, Mr. Huff first admitted that he had authorized her to engage in this activity, then later denied that he had done so, and used the allegation that I was an FBI agent as the excuse to cause my expulsion from the party, mainly and, in my judgment, solely because I was in total disagreement with them on policies relating to civil rights, policies relating to Veterans’ Administration and veterans’ work, and policies relating to organization in basic industry.

And the civil rights question was extremely important to me because in the organization of civil rights struggles it was my conception that if you are going to fight for civil rights you have to fight for civil rights for everyone. And when we attempted to organize a civil rights congress at the outset with that purpose in mind, and that as our declared effort, we were advised that the Communist Party could not afford to waste its time fighting for civil rights for everybody, that they were only interested in fighting for civil rights for members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Is that one of the matters on which you disagreed with the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. It certainly was. Mr. Andrew Remes advised me personally that that was the situation, the party was in so much difficulty that it had to restrict its efforts to the defense of the Communist Party and that the Civil Rights Congress was created solely for that purpose.

I ceased to have any interest in it whatsoever, and, as a consequence, one thing led to another, and they finally expelled us with a notice on the early week of October 1947.

Mr. Velde. You were removed from the party then. Membership was taken away from you for about the same reasons that you were removed from the bureau, from the district bureau?

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Velde. That was about 6 years before?

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Velde. Do you mean they spent all that time trying to change your mind about civil rights?

Mr. Dennett. Well, there was an intervening period in which I was away, you know. I was in the service.

Mr. Velde. That is right.

Mr. Dennett. There were several breaks there.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you were in the service from 1943 practically through the year 1945.

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Tavenner. I do not want you to go into great detail, but I believe the record should be a little clearer on the character of work in which your wife was actually engaged, which you say was authorized by the head of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. A stranger approached her and asked her if she would submit reports to him about any bottlenecks that she found in war production. He advised her that he had been informed that she was a very well-informed person, knew a lot of people, and would be capable of doing this work. She didn’t know what to make of it. So she wrote to me while I was in the service asking my opinion, and I told her to hold off until I got back on furlough.

At that time I suggested to her that she take it up with the district leadership of the party, which she did, and got this approval.

The nature of that work she found——

Mr. Tavenner. That had nothing to do with reporting to any agency of Communist Party activities as such?

Mr. Dennett. No; it did not.

Mr. Tavenner. But it was just a matter of reporting things which interfered with the war effort in industry?

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Among the things that she found, some of the outstanding things, was one occasion pertaining to the Tacoma shipyards. She learned by various sources—friends that she knew in the labor movement—that the shipyard had been in operation for a period of around 10 months or more and still didn’t have a ship on the ways. She made a number of inquiries as to how they could account for such a thing, and at one point she ran across a name that rang a bell with her.

She started to do a little probing, and found out that this name was the same as that of a person who had been removed from the navy yard some time before, either 2 or 3 years before, maybe. It might have been longer than that. But the person had been removed as a Fascist. He was known to be a member of a Silver Shirt organization.

Lo and behold, this person turns up as the production supervisor or superintendent in this particular shipyard.

Anyway, she submitted a report of all the information she had gathered on the subject. Within a couple of weeks’ time this person was removed from his position, and within a short time afterward ships were on the ways in that shipyard and production started booming. We could only draw a conclusion that her information had, certainly, some value.

Mr. Tavenner. We will be very much interested to hear of other occasions, but, because of the shortness of time, we will have to move on.

The point is, that before undertaking that type of work your wife conferred with the leadership of the Communist Party and obtained approval.

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Tavenner. Then take it up from there and tell us what occurred.

Mr. Dennett. That was part of the story on which this allegation of FBI agent thing arose.

When I was first confronted with the story I recounted this whole thing in every detail to the leader of the section. The person was Mr. Jim Bourne. Mr. Jim Bourne told me to sit tight, do nothing, say nothing until I heard from the district.

I waited from March until June 1947, and still had no word from them. About sometime in June I was invited to a meeting which was called by the Communist Party for the purpose of preparing its defenses from the anticipated attack which would come from the Canwell committee investigation which was about to open.

I reluctantly went to the meeting because I felt I was under a cloud. However, I did go. I am glad I did because they did discuss the whole question of these investigating committees, and it gave me some insight as to my rights under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It was thoroughly discussed in this meeting, and we understood that that was the sole and only real protection that a person had if he wanted to avoid testifying.

However, during the course of that meeting I spoke to a leader of the party, asking what was happening to my case. He advised me to speak to Mr. Huff. I spoke to Mr. Huff about it and Mr. Huff, as a result of it, arranged a meeting of the control commission.

The control commission called me to a meeting within a week’s time. We reviewed the whole situation, the whole case, and I told them every single thing I knew about it. They asked me to submit a written statement. I did exactly that. I detailed everything that I knew about the situation in the statement.

I declined to sign the statement, however, because at that time I feared that their practices and methods were a little bit too loose, and I feared it might fall into the wrong hands and be used against me.

However, they accepted the statement, but they did not like what was in it.

They called me to another meeting, and at the second meeting they upbraided me and accused me of everything under the sun, and we finally broke up in rather a violent battle over whether or not they were trying to help the working class or not.

That occurred some time in August.

By October Mr. John Lawrie, the chairman of the control commission, visited our home, demanded our books, our party books.

We reluctantly gave them to him, protesting that we understood that a person had a right to be charged and tried, hear witnesses, and that sort of thing.

He said, “Well, you will get a statement.”

About a week later we did receive a statement. The statement was an expulsion notice from the Communist Party.

No charges had ever been actually preferred, no opportunity for trial had been granted us, and we were blasphemed and accused of everything under the sun which is looked upon as a crime by the members of the Communist Party.

This statement was circulated to all the Communist Party sections, and evidently it reached other hands, because shortly afterward some security agencies of the Government called me up and asked me what was going on. I told them I didn’t know, and I declined to talk with any of them, and I have never talked to any of them except on one occasion when Mr. John Boyd asked that I stop by the Immigration Bureau Office.

I did stop by there. He asked me a number of questions then, and I refused to be of any assistance to him whatsoever at that time. That was shortly after the expulsion.

Now, the most important part of this disciplinary action is what I have to say at this time, because immediately after receiving this notice, we received rumors to the effect that the Communist Party members in the union of which my former wife was the president, which was the United Office and Professional Workers of America, Local 35—I heard the rumor that they were going to come into that meeting that night and demand her removal from the organization.

Mr. Tavenner. You mean that the union members were going to demand——

Mr. Dennett. I heard the Communist Party members in that union were going to make a demand in that union that my former wife be removed from office and be removed as a member of that union because the party had disciplined her.

The situation in that union was very peculiar. It was a union of about 65 members, and there were no more than a half-dozen persons in it who were not members of the Communist Party.

That seems incredible, but the reason for it is that most of the persons who were members of the union were working as secretaries in various union offices, or were working for some individual employer with whom there were no collective-bargaining contracts and there were no regular functions of a union. It was simply a home where these people could pay dues and use the union label wherever they wanted to for their own convenience. As a matter of fact, that is the reason why the Communist Party usually uses the union label on its circulars or letters, because it has members in the Communist Party office who were members of that union.

This particular expulsion drew the attention of the Communist Party to us, and especially to my former wife. They knew that the steelworkers union was bitterly anti-Communist. They didn’t dare to try to make any approaches to the steelworkers union to have me thrown out, but they did have absolute control, they thought, in the office workers union, and they thought they would take their revenge on my former wife by proceeding against her.

When I learned of this I went to the office of the party and asked for the district leadership to give me an audience.

They treated me like scum under their feet when I went in their office because I had just been expelled. However, I did speak to them and advised them that I heard this rumor, that I urged them not to be as foolhardy as that because to do so would attract public attention. And if that was done it would do irreparable harm to that union and might also bring down a great deal of criticism on the entire labor movement for something for which the labor movement itself was not at fault but was something for which the Communist Party was at fault.

I, therefore, asked them if they would be so considerate as to allow my former wife to resign her position if it was inconvenient for them to have her in that position.

She had no desire to remain in it any longer than necessary. She thought she was rendering them a service and thought she was rendering the union a service by holding that position.

But they said they would not take their advice from expelled members.

So they proceeded that night to introduce a mimeographed proposal preferring charges against my former wife.

Now I have borrowed this from a person who has kept the file because he was prevailed upon by my former wife and myself to act as her counsel during the course of that proceeding, and he kept a complete file.

I have here the original of the charges that were preferred against her, and the substance of it is simply this: That they were asking for my former wife to be expelled from that union and from the office of president in that union simply because she had been expelled from the Communist Party on a kangaroo court proceeding. And the names of the signers are here and in their own original handwriting. Some of them have been called before this committee before.

Mr. Velde. Is that for expulsion from the United Office and Professional Workers Union or from the party?

Mr. Dennett. No. This is the charges that were preferred in the Office Workers Union by members of the Office Workers Union who were also—they must have been members of the Communist Party. I didn’t know of them of my own knowledge, but my former wife did, and it is in their handwriting. Their names are there in their own handwriting. And I think the committee would like to know this and have this as a matter of record.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you read the names into the record.

Mr. Velde. If you are sure that they are all members of the party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. My counsel raised the same question, Mr. Tavenner, that inasmuch as I cannot testify of my own knowledge about their membership, that perhaps it is not proper for me. However, this is the document which was used in that union.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you a few preliminary questions.

Were you given a written notice of expulsion by the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, we were.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify language in that expulsion notice as being virtually the same language as in the notice of charges given by the union to your wife?

Mr. Dennett. It certainly is. In both instances they accuse her of the crime of being an informer for the FBI.

Mr. Tavenner. We will not take time now to analyze those documents, but I would like for them to be in evidence, and, in light of the fact that the names signed have not been shown by evidence to be members of the Communist Party, I ask that that part of the document be deleted until investigation has established whether or not they are members of the party.

Mr. Moulder. As requested by counsel, without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like for the document to be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 10.”

(The document above referred to, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 10,” is filed herewith.)

Dennett Exhibit No. 10

We, the undersigned, prefer charges against Harriette Dennett, President, United Office and Professional Workers of America, Local 35, for violation of the Constitution of the National Union under the following Articles:

Article II, Section 3. “No person whose interests are deemed to lie with the employer as against the employees shall be eligible for membership.”

Article II, Section 5, Obligations of Members. “... to bear true allegiance to, and keep inviolate the principles of the union; ... and to promote the interests of our members in harmony with the best interests of our country.”

Article VI, Section 9, Obligations of Local Union Officers. “... to perform all your duties as required by the laws of the Union and the instruction of the membership ... and that you will do everything in your power to forward the interests of the organized labor movement.”

We have certain evidence clearly revealing that Harriette Dennett has made regular reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation over a long period of time for which she has received payment. We are convinced that no honest trade unionist would have connections with any police body, especially the FBI, and still serve the best interests of the Union.

Let as examine the role of the FBI. Organized labor recognizes that law enforcing agencies are absolutely necessary in the protection of public and private property, prevention of crime, and safeguarding our welfare. However, various police bodies, both Federal and local, have always allied themselves with the employers in economic struggles. In strikes, the U. S. Army and National Guard have smashed picket lines and arrested union leaders, and, in conjunction with the courts, have framed them, had them imprisoned, deported, and even executed.

The FBI especially, acting as the undercover arm of these police forces, while it has done a commendable job in the apprehension of criminals, has constantly used its prestige and power in aiding employers and local police agencies in their efforts to weaken and destroy unions by hunting down progressive and militant trade unionists and having them blacklisted from their jobs.

In the Bridges Case, witnesses were either paid or intimidated by the FBI to testify falsely. They did not hesitate to use wiretapping, dictographing, and other devices, although illegal. At the present time, John Santos, long-time leader of the Transport Workers Union, is undergoing an ordeal very similar to that of Bridges. Strenuous efforts are being made to deport him because he has earned the enmity of powerful transit and utility corporations. He is charged with being an alien “red.” And, once again, the FBI is playing a key role in this hearing by rounding up questionable anti-labor characters to testify against him.

According to the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was found to have 300 operatives enrolled in unions as members, of whom at least 100 were union officials—of them 14 presidents of locals, one national vice-president, 14 trustees, and 20 local union secretaries.

We are at present witnessing an attack upon a union in our own city as a result of the combination of discredited labor leaders, the un-American Canwell Committee and the Seattle P-I and its FBI agent and strike-breaker, Fred Niendorff.

Today, Labor is faced with and all-out offensive of the profit-greedy NAM. They are determined to bring wages down while continuing to raise the cost of living. This attack on the peoples’ living standards is most serious to the thousands of greatly underpaid white-collar workers.

To accomplish this union-busting program, the most vicious antilabor legislation, such as the Taft-Hartley law has been passed, and the Un-American Activities Committee, the little Dies Committees and numerous other government agencies—all in conjunction with the FBI—are engaged in a witch-hunt against labor.

Let us recall that it was not until trade unions were made impotent in Germany that Hitler dared to embark on the road to concentration and extermination camps.

The National CIO has condemned the Department of Justice for conducting a “gumshoe” probe of CIO political expenditures. President Philip Murray has reported “furtive operations and dramatic unearthing of clues by the FBI ... which can have only the objective of harassing and intimidation.”

Anyone working with the FBI or with any of the above-named antilabor committees or against the best interests of the union must clearly be labeled an enemy of labor and removed from membership in any labor organization to which he may belong.

Therefore, in pursuance of the procedure established by Section I, ARTICLE XV, which states that any elective or appointive officers of a local union may be removed from office subject to provisions of this Article for any violation of this Constitution “or because of the commission of an act impairing the usefulness of the organization,” we are presenting these charges, and demanding the expulsion of Harriette Dennett from UOPWA 35. We call upon our Union to immediately set up a trial committee to investigate these charges and report back its findings to a special membership meeting to be called for action by the membership.

uopwa 35 cio

Mr. Tavenner. And I would like also to introduce in evidence at this time the expulsion notice that was given you, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 11.”

Mr. Moulder. As requested by counsel, without objection, it is so ordered.

(The document above referred to, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 11,” is filed herewith).

Dennett Exhibit No. 11

Notice of Expulsion

To All Sections, Clubs, and Members of the
Northwest District Communist Party, U. S. A.:

This is to notify all Sections and Clubs of the expulsion from the Communist Party of Eugene V. Dennett, Harriet Dennett, and Claude Smith.

In the case of Eugene Dennett and Harriet Dennett, the expulsion is based upon violation of the conditions of membership in the Communist Party as set forth in Article 9, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Constitution of the Communist Party, U. S. A., based upon the following facts established by the District Review Commission:

1. Admitted employment of Harriet Dennett by an agency of the F. B. I. and the submitting of regular reports to said agency over a long period of time, with the knowledge and consent, and direct participation of Eugene V. Dennett. This was established by his admission of personal contact with a known agent of the F. B. I. and his concealment from the Party of Harriet Dennett’s activities and his own personal contact with the F. B. I.

2. Admitted personal and political relations by Eugene V. Dennett with known Trotskyites with established participation by Harriet Dennett.

3. An established record of anti-party, disruptive, and provocative activity by Eugene Dennett on numerous occasions and by Harriet Dennett in several instances.

In the case of Claude Smith, the expulsion is based upon violation of the conditions of membership in the Communist Party as set forth in Article 9, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Constitution of the Communist Party, U. S. A., and based upon the following facts established by the District Review Commission:

1. Admitted participation in the preparation of the reports submitted by Harriet Dennett to the Agency referred to above as well as sharing in the payment for those reports and concealment of these activities from the Party.

The District Review Commission wishes to call to the attention of the Party membership and its organizations the necessary conclusions from these facts. First, in this case as in many in the past, a negative, carping attitude toward the Party and its program has upon investigation disclosed enemies of the Party and the working class.

The same thing must be said of toleration and association with Trotskyites who are simply fascists hiding behind “left” phrases. While such attitudes may be due to lack of understanding in new members, in the case of experienced long time members it can only be regarded as conscious assistance to fascism and to the agents of fascism. It must be noted also that the personal record of these people is marked by individualism instability and extreme egotism.

The District Review Commission also wishes to point out that it is necessary to learn to distinguish between honest differences of opinion which we have to constantly resolve by discussion and majority decision and disruptive, dishonest attacks upon the program activities and leadership of the Party, which is the earmark of the provocateur and agent of the enemy. Only by more resolutely defending and fighting for the program of the Party can we make this distinction clear. Only by becoming more alert to the smell of anti-Party poison can we root out these disrupters. Only by fighting for the unity of the Party and testing our cadres struggle can we create guarantees that such elements will not remain long in the Party or be able to steal into its posts of leadership, and that the damage that they do will be reduced to a minimum.

Harriet Dennett is at present holding the position of President of the Seattle UOPWA Local Union No. 35. Eugene Dennett is a member of the Board of Control of the NEW WORLD and a member of the Steelworkers Union. Claude Smith is at present editor of the Washington State CIO news.

All Party members are warned against personal or political association with these expelled members and to give them no consideration or comfort in the excuses and protests they can be expected to make against the expulsion action which was ordered carried out by unanimous vote of the Northwest District Committee in executive session on October 6, 1947.

Signed:
	Henry Huff,
	District Chairman,
	C. Van Lydegraf,
	District Orig. Sec’y,
For the Northwest District Committee Communist Party, U. S. A.

uopwa No. 35.

1. Admitted employment of Harriet Dennett by an agency of the F. B. I. and the submitting of regular reports to said agency over a long period of time, with the knowledge and consent, and direct participation of Eugene V. Dennett. This was established by his admission of personal contact with a known agent of the F. B. I. and his concealment from the Party of Harriet Dennett’s activities and his own personal contact with the F. B. I.

2. Admitted personal and political relations by Eugene V. Dennett with known Trotskyites with established participation by Harriet Dennett.

3. An established record of anti-party, disruptive, and provocative activity by Eugene Dennett on numerous occasions and by Harriet Dennett in several instances.

1. Admitted participation in the preparation of the reports submitted by Harriet Dennett to the Agency referred to above as well as sharing in the payment for those reports and concealment of these activities from the Party.

Signed:
	Henry Huff,
	District Chairman,
	C. Van Lydegraf,
	District Orig. Sec’y,
For the Northwest District Committee Communist Party, U. S. A.

Mr. Velde. There is one question I would like to ask you, Mr. Dennett, about your expulsion and your wife’s. You probably recall the argument that took place within the ranks of the Communist Party during the change from the Communist political association to the militant type of organization it was before.

Did you or your wife engage in any of those arguments after the receipt of the Duclos letter?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, we did.

Mr. Velde. I am interested in that, if you will please be as brief as you can.

Mr. Dennett. I will do my best, sir.

I was still in the service at the time. This occurred in New Orleans. My wife was still doing this same work in New Orleans.

Mr. Velde. Was that in the middle of 1945?

Mr. Dennett. That is right, in May and June of 1945.

And with the publication of the Duclos letter in the Daily Worker, which my wife was a subscriber to at that time, we observed that something tremendous was taking place within the party. And she made contact with some of the party people in New Orleans.

When they found that we had an interest in it, they invited us to the meetings where this discussion took place. And I was quite startled to find that the general criticism was mainly directed at the bureaucratic attitude and dictatorial policies pursued by Mr. Earl Browder. I was flabbergasted because I did not have that conception of him, and I was quite surprised as a result of it. And, of course, you know the rest of the story, which was published.

Mr. Velde. In other words, you and your wife both took the side of Earl Browder?

Mr. Dennett. I wouldn’t say that my former wife took the side of Earl Browder. I wouldn’t say I took the side of Earl Browder either because I was not in the party at the time. I was simply a visitor invited, and I was mainly surprised. I questioned the reports that people made. I didn’t pass judgment on it. I simply could hardly believe the criticism which I heard.

Mr. Velde. It appears to me from your testimony that you were probably sort of independent in this matter of following the Communist Party line as handed down from Soviet Russia, and that was probably one of the chief reasons why you were expelled. Is that not right? You would not follow the party line? You thought for yourself.

Mr. Dennett. I thought I was following the party line, and I thought the leaders around here were zigzagging all over the lot, and they didn’t know what the line was. They thought I was nuts. I thought they were nuts.

Mr. Velde. Maybe you were just like Trotsky or Lovestone. You just didn’t happen to be in the ruling class as far as the party line was concerned.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, we have just checked the names on exhibit No. 10, and find that all of the persons whose names appear there have been identified in testimony before this committee as Communist Party members. Therefore, I see no reason for restricting that document in any way in its introduction in evidence.

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. Do you wish to read the names?

Mr. Tavenner. I desire the witness to read the names.

Mr. Dennett. Alice Kinney, known to me before as Alice Balmer, B-a-l-m-e-r; Trudi Kirkwood, Helen Huff. Helen Huff was known to me as the wife of Henry Huff, who was the district organizer of the party, and Helen Huff was one of those persons to whom I spoke when I requested that they allow my former wife to resign, but they would have nothing to do with that. They wouldn’t allow it. They wanted to make an example of her. Hallie Donaldson, Vivian Stucker, S-t-u-c-k-e-r, Jean R. Hatten.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, are there any other facts relating to your expulsion which would be of interest to this committee?

Mr. Dennett. I think, Mr. Tavenner and members of the committee, that there are probably many. But, in view of the pressing time, I think that this is sufficient to give you the picture, and, if you want to go into more detail at a later time when you have more time available, I think maybe we could do that. I have said all I think I need to say at this time.

Mr. Tavenner. After your expulsion have you been identified with the Communist Party in any way?

Mr. Dennett. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee had information indicating that you may possibly have become a member after your expulsion, or even prior to that, of the Socialist Workers Party. And the information that the committee had in that respect was a nominating petition of that group signed by you.

We would like to know whether you were at any time a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. Dennett. The answer is very simple. I was not. I never have been a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

The occasion for that signature on that nominating petition is the result of a request from the Socialist Workers Party leader, Mr. Daniel Roberts, who was the leader at that time, that I sign a nominating petition to permit their candidates to get on the ballot.

In the State of Washington a provision is in the election laws allowing nominating petitions to be signed by a minimum of 25 people who are qualified voters who did not vote in the primary. In other words, it is equivalent to casting a vote.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Socialist Workers Party endeavor to recruit you as a member?

Mr. Dennett. Yes. Mr. Daniel Roberts tried time and time again to recruit me, thinking that my vast experience in the Communist Party gave me plenty of background to qualify me if I would simply change my thinking with respect to certain fundamental ideas which were points of difference between the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party. However, I never was able to accept all of the ideas which Mr. Roberts and some of their national leaders to whom he introduced me—I could never resolve all of the policies which they advocated to my own thinking.

And the whole experience caused me to go back and question and challenge the validity of the theoretical basis upon which the Communist Party was organized and upon which it operated. And it caused me to reach the conclusion a long time ago that it is very inadvisable for anyone to commit his political fealty to anyone or any organization that he doesn’t understand in full. And I do not to this day completely understand the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. Tavenner. I noticed in some of the earlier documents introduced in evidence that reference was made to you when the Communist Party was critical of you as being a Trotskyite.

Mr. Dennett. That is true. Remarks were made about me on a number of occasions. And, as near as I can make out, the reason for it is I was asking embarrassing questions. It seems as though Trotsky did that against Mr. Stalin in the Soviet Union—when everyone especially was interested in a democratic procedure that went contrary to Stalin’s rule. His rule was that you had to accept his decision whether you liked it or not. And that is the rule of democratic centralism, a principle with which I am in total disagreement today. I thought for a long time that that was a wonderful principle. I had read Lenin’s writings on the subject. I thought that his explanations were quite good. But once I had had service in the military, once I knew what military organization was like, I recognized the principle of democratic centralism as the application of military rule to civilian life. And I am strictly opposed to it.

Mr. Tavenner. In light of your experience in the Communist Party, and from your study of the Socialist Workers Party, would you please state as briefly as you can the principal differences between these organizations as you understood them.

Mr. Dennett. One of the principal differences lies in the fact that the Socialist Workers Party people accused the Communist Party people, in particular Stalin and Stalinism, of having deserted the principle of socialism, of internationalism, accusing Stalin of degenerating into nationalism. That is when he developed the so-called theory of the possibility of developing socialism in one country alone.

Mr. Tavenner. That country being the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dennett. That country being the Soviet Union.

The Trotskyites maintained that Stalin was thereby deserting the cause of internationalism and that he would think first of the interests of the Soviet Union, and later, if at all, subordinate the interests of the world working class to building the Soviet Union at the cost of letting the working class in other countries go by the boards.

In other words, if a revolutionary situation developed in some other country Stalin would exert his power to prevent the success of the revolution in that country for fear that it would detract from the success of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Tavenner. Unless, of course, such a revolution would strengthen his power and his regime in the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t you make that qualification?

Mr. Dennett. That might be a consideration. But all history, all experience since the Second World War would indicate that Stalin at no time approved successful revolutions in any country. He opposed revolutionary effort of the Yugoslavs. He opposed the revolutionary effort of the Communists in Greece. He opposed the revolutionary effort of the Chinese Communists. He even made commitments, and part of the deal which people seemed to be so concerned about at Yalta and Potsdam and Cairo and Casablanca involved Stalin making commitments to Roosevelt and Churchill to the effect that the Soviet Union would use its influence to suppress the revolutionary effort of the workers in the various countries that were on the brink of revolution.

And that is why when the Soviet Red Army marched into those border countries in eastern Europe they did not attempt to create a Soviet revolution. They, instead, created something they called people’s democracies. But they were established in some instances with the aid of the Red army marching in, and the people in those countries had nothing to say about it.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the attitude of the Trotskyites as to Stalin’s agreement with reference to Greece, for instance?

Mr. Dennett. They accused him of betraying the working class not only in Greece but in the Soviet Union because he was ruling in the Soviet Union with such an iron hand that workers there were being suppressed. They were being forbidden from enjoying the efforts they were putting in to build a Socialist country. In fact, they were being deprived of the fruits of what was intended to be socialism. In fact, the Trotskyites, as I understand, their philosophy in the matter is that the Soviet Union has suffered from an arrested development—it is not truly Socialist; it has not been permitted to become Socialist, and that the biggest crime Stalin committed was to pretend and hold the Soviet Union up to world view as a Socialist country when, in fact, it was not a Socialist country.

I also came to the conclusion, as a result of some of the theoretical material I read in about 1946, where Stalin was insisting that, instead of the authority of the state withering away as predicted in the writings of Engels and Lenin, that Stalin insisted that the authority of the state must increase, that the police power must be increased in the Soviet Union to make sure that they would continue in an ordered fashion, which certainly was contrary to all the earlier writings on the theoretical subject of the development of the state.

Mr. Tavenner. It has been demonstrated time and again, has it not, to your satisfaction, that Stalin has endeavored to use international communism as a tool in order to advance his own foreign policy which necessarily, of course, meant his strengthening his own position in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dennett. It certainly is.

Mr. Tavenner. There are many other matters that I would have liked to have gone into with you, but I must terminate the examination. I do not like to do so without giving you an opportunity to state anything that may be in your mind about the effect of your experience in the Communist Party or your present attitude toward the Communist Party.

I am not insisting that you do, but I merely want to give you the opportunity.

Mr. Dennett. My counsel has already advised me to be very brief. I am very appreciative of the suggestion because the hour is late, and I want to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to make a statement.

The only statement I would make at this time is some elaboration over what I started to say earlier when we were talking about what steps to take to protect yourself against this sort of deception.

I am sure that some people in hearing the account which I have given by way of testimony before this committee may gather the impression that I learned quite a little bit about deception. And I am sure that some people were quite firmly convinced that I would do nothing except deceive this committee when I appeared before it.

I wish to assure you that I have testified to the best of my ability about the facts that I know and facts which I can substantiate with documentary evidence in my own records.

Those records are available to the committee. They have been made available to the committee, and I understand that you intend to have the United States Marshal pick them up and place them in protective custody where they will be available for me for further study and also to yourself.

I simply recite that as some indication that in my testifying before you the only reservation that I have is that I still have some misgivings about this kind of procedure because I fear that we are needlessly hurting individuals when we name them in such vast numbers as the committee has called upon me to do.

I think that some means needs to be found to change that procedure. And I believe that there will be more information of value to convincing the general public and to assisting the Congress, by way of its legislative effort, if a better effort is found.

And I hope that you will seriously pay attention to the recommendations of the American Civil Liberties Union in this regard. I think their recommendations deserve your worthy consideration.

I think, gentlemen, that is about all that is needed for me to say at this time. I can only say that I am available for whatever further work that you wish to do with me. I do not want anyone to think that they are going to make a professional witness out of me. I have no intention of being a professional witness. I would like to be able to live in peace and quiet because my own health will not permit me to do all the other things that need to be done.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett, as chairman of this committee, and on behalf of counsel, Mr. Tavenner, and Mr. Wheeler, and I believe I should presume to express appreciation also on behalf of the full committee on Un-American Activities, the Congress of the United States, and the people of America for your honest, courageous, patriotic, and convincing testimony and information concerning communistic activities.

Your comprehensive and intelligent testimony is not only revealing but has been ably presented by you in a patriotic and conscientious spirit and duty to your country and also to yourself.

We commend you for your appearance and conduct before this committee as an example—and I emphasize this—as an example of how any and all former Communist Party members can clear themselves of any doubt whatsoever concerning their loyalty to the United States of America.

And, speaking for myself, I am glad I had an opportunity to observe your conduct on the witness stand, and, having heard your testimony, I am deeply impressed by the valuable information you have given to the committee.

Mr. Velde, do you have anything?

Mr. Velde. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I can add too much to your very fine statement.

Let me say that I concur with our distinguished friend from Missouri in his statement about your testimony.

I happened to be here last year when you refused to testify. I think I mentioned earlier—last Thursday—that you would have a lot more friends after you got through testifying than you had before or during the time that you appeared here last time, and I sincerely hope that that is true. I believe it will be.

The reason, of course, that we were not able to hear your testimony at the sessions here last June was that we had too many other witnesses subpenaed to be heard as we do apparently this time, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say that I think you have made a great addition to the information that is already on file concerning the activities of the Communist Party. But, chiefly, you have made a great contribution in substantiating, in large part, the testimony that was given by Mrs. Barbara Hartle and other witnesses who gave information here last June. For that we are very appreciative.

I want to say just a word about Mrs. Hartle.

As you know, she is presently serving in the prison in West Virginia, a Federal penitentiary in West Virginia.

I think she certainly exhibited a great deal of courage and a great deal of American spirit in giving the testimony that she did.

Mr. Dennett, as far as the particular testimony you have given about your expulsion from the Communist Party is concerned, the experience that you had is similar to the experience of other persons who have been expelled from the Communist Party.

I think, of course, that you should be proud to have been expelled by the Communist Party. And I trust that, while you might at times find yourself in the same position of following the same line that the Communist Party does at the present time, that you no longer cling to the philosophy that we know the Communist Party represents here in the United States, that is, the philosophy of the Soviet Union, which intends of course, to rule the world eventually, whether it be by changing governments by peaceful means or by overthrowing it by force and violence.

We say it has been a great pleasure to hear your very fine testimony, and let me say also that I agree that you have been a very intelligent and truthful witness.

Mr. Moulder. With our thanks and gratitude, you are excused.

Mr. Dennett. Thank you, sir.

I wish to say, upon my being excused, that I want to extend my greatest appreciation to the patience of Mr. Tavenner, who has been the counsel to examine me. It has been a pleasure to work with a gentleman who is as well versed and who knows what he is doing as well as Mr. Tavenner.

And I want to thank Mr. Wheeler for the patience that he had, and the committee as well.

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

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Abraham Cohen.

Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand.

Mr. Photographer, when you take your picture, would you stand to the right or left so I can swear the witness.

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

Mr. Cohen. I do.