TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL—Resumed
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with Robert Marshall during his lifetime?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I was.
Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you became acquainted with him?
Mr. O’Connell. Robert Marshall at the time of my original acquaintance with him was chief of the reclamation division of the forestry service. He had begun his early career in the forestry service at Missoula, Mont., which was located in my Congressional District, the First or Western Congressional District of Montana.
Shortly after I came back to Washington to take my seat in 1937, Robert Marshall came to my office and introduced himself and told me that because he had started his career in the forestry service out there he had always had an interest in the district particularly because of its large forestry holdings, large forestry provisions, and he and I became close friends, socially, I would say more socially than anything else. I think he died about a year and a half or maybe two years after I—I can’t remember whether he died in 1938 or 1939.
Mr. Tavenner. His will was probated in 1940.
Mr. O’Connell. I think that is correct. His death was probably in 1939.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you one of the witnesses to his will?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he discuss with you at the time of the making of his will or prior thereto the purpose he had in mind in setting up a trust in which you were named as one of the trustees?
Mr. O’Connell. No, he had never discussed—in fact, I really did not know that Bob Marshall had any money. He lived very ordinarily, didn’t give any indication he had any money. I was back out in Butte, Mont., and I had been defeated for Congress and I got a notice from the surrogate court in New York that I was named trustee in the will and I thought I had come into a lot of money. I was sent a copy of the will and I was named as trustee of what later became the Robert Marshall Foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. The will authorized you and the other trustees to apply the income derived from the trust and such parts of the principal as the trustees in their own unlimited discretion deemed necessary for the following objects and purposes:
The education of the people of the United States of America to the necessity and desirability of the development and organization of unions of persons engaged in work or of unemployment and unemployed persons, and the promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use and not for profit.
Did it not?
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. That part of the will which related to the education of the people of the United States to the necessity and desirability of developing and organizing unions of persons engaged in work was actually considered by the trustees as more or less window dressing, wasn’t it?
Mr. O’Connell. No it was the other way around, Mr. Tavenner. I don’t know when Bob Marshall prepared this will, but I think Mr. Doyle would know about this, Upton Sinclair had his so-called epic movement in California, and there was a lot of discussion of an economy based on production for use rather than for profit and in the first meeting of the trustees that we held there was actually a resolution passed where the rather untenable idea of getting a production-for-use economy in the United States was discussed and it was decided by the trustees that the money should actually be employed to develop as much as we could the organization of trade unions, development and organization of trade unions, organizing of unemployed people, and actually for the development of a cooperation between farmers and workers, farmers and labor, so that instead of having a division of interests as far as they were concerned, and the trustees laid down a rule that with reference to grants, that in order to come within what the trustees considered the provisions of the will as the development of trade unions was concerned, that the grants would have to be made for some trade-union purpose, or development of trade unions, and so on, and that was what was actually done by the trustees.
Mr. Tavenner. Were there occasions when grants were made on that theory—on that principle?
Mr. O’Connell. On what principle?
Mr. Tavenner. The one you just named.
Mr. O’Connell. Actually, as far as I can remember—and of course this goes back a long, long time, from 1940 on—I can’t remember all of the organizations but we usually had an annual meeting of the trustees and applications were made to the trustees by practically—I mean just hundreds of organizations around the country that applied to foundations of this kind, and I think, I can’t remember any exceptions, I don’t recall any now.
As closely as we could the applications were considered from the point of view that the money was to be applied by the organization to whom it was granted to help the organization and development of trade unions and organizing of unemployed people and particularly the development of a principle of cooperation between farmers and laborers.
Mr. Tavenner. But actually the will did provide for the use of the money for promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I think another thing that would lend some stability to what I am saying is that I think the tax bureau at one of the local Federal district courts in determining the taxability of the foundation itself actually I think handed down a ruling that the foundation was not entitled to a section 101 exemption because that particular provision actually called for the elimination of the capitalistic system. I think that was the wording used either by the bureau or the court and from that time on the trustees never actually, I can’t think of a single organization or a single group—and we had applications I know, I am trying to think of some of the organizations that existed over that period of time—I can’t recall any of them now who specifically asked for grants based on what they called theory of production for use rather than for profit. But I can’t think of a single instance where the trustees actually made——
Mr. Tavenner. That was actually the system in use in the Soviet Union, was it not?
Mr. O’Connell. I have never been in the Soviet Union and I am not——
Mr. Tavenner. However, you know, that is true, don’t you?
Mr. O’Connell. My information that I get from reading and so on is that there is a modification. I think if I state it correctly in the industrial field I think there is production for use rather than for profit, but as I understand the Soviets have now abandoned as far as particular foreign farm production is concerned——
Mr. Tavenner. Was it not the purpose of the Communist Party in the United States at that time to foist upon this country just such a plan, namely, to establish a Communist system of production for use and not for profit?
Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, wouldn’t be qualified to say, I wouldn’t be qualified to state whether or not that was their purpose or their program.
As a matter of fact, the program of the Communist Party as I remember it before I came to Congress, while I was in Congress and after the program of the Communist Party in the United States was fluctuating—as a matter of fact, I think there was a removal of Browder because he was advocating—removal of Browder by the Communist Party leadership because he was advocating a companionship or partnership with capital and that capital and communism could exist and there could be as I understand it—that was the program of the Communist Party for a long time until he was removed, I can’t remember when.
But I knew Bob Marshall those years—I think I can positively state that Bob Marshall was not a Communist and that the provisions in that will and certainly the people that were named as trustees in addition to the trade union trust as we called it, the Marshall Foundation Trust, there was a civil liberties trust of which I think Roger Baldwin was the head and I think everyone will agree he is decidedly anti-Communist.
There was also a wilderness area trust. In fact, out in the State of Montana there is a great wilderness area named the Robert Marshall Wilderness Area after Robert Marshall.
My distinct feeling about that is that in talking with Bob and talking to him that he was caught up in the period of the depression situation where there were all kinds of economic theories advanced at the time, not only New Deal but all kinds of other movements and I don’t think there was actually any connection in Bob Marshall’s mind between what the Communist Party might be advocating at that time and what he actually put in his will.
Mr. Doyle. May I ask this about that will? Was it a typewritten will or a will written by him?
Mr. O’Connell. Actually his brother, Jim Marshall, is an attorney in the city of New York and I think a member of the New York City Board of Education and the will was actually prepared by Jim Marshall’s firm, I can’t remember all who are in it, but the copy which I got was actually a copy of the will which I received through the surrogate court in New York, actually a printed form.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you mentioned the fact that tax exempt status of the trust was removed by action of the court. Was that a result of action taken by the Internal Revenue Bureau?
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it after the Internal Revenue Bureau learned of the type of grants being made under this trust that it took the action it did to remove the tax exemption status of the trust?
Mr. O’Connell. My best recollection, Mr. Tavenner, is that Congressman Dies made a speech on the floor, and if I remember correctly, in which he discussed the Robert Marshall Foundation in which he went into the various grants that we had made and shortly after that, on whose initiative I don’t know, the Bureau took up with the foundation the matter of its one exemption and the Bureau exemption was removed and I believe as trustees we appealed it to the courts and the courts decided against us.
We appealed, I am sure the briefs will show that we appealed to the courts on the basis that the grants were being made for the purpose of organizing and developing of trade unions and for organization of unemployed people and not for the theory of production for use rather than for profit. I am sure the briefs will bear me out on that. I of course had nothing to do with the preparation of them.
George Marshall, who is Bob Marshall’s brother, was the manager of the trust funds and as I said, the trustees usually met annually, once a year.
Mr. Tavenner. You were aware, were you not, that the Communist Party in the State of Washington just 2 years prior to the probate of this will, endeavored or at least proposed a plan for legislation to set up exactly the same type of economy in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew nothing about that. The first time I ever went to the State of Washington in August 1944——
Mr. Tavenner. Robert Marshall you say was from the State of Montana?
Mr. O’Connell. No, Robert Marshall was actually a New Yorker, his dad was Louis Marshall, a partner of Samuel Untermyer, outstanding corporation lawyer in New York.
Mr. Tavenner. Was a great deal of his experience in the forestry service on the west coast?
Mr. O’Connell. No; 3 years of his service in the Forestry Department were at Missoula, Mont., but not on the west coast. We are in the Rocky Mountain area, you see.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand.
Mr. O’Connell. Is this within the scope of the hearing?
Mr. Velde. The Robert Marshall Foundation?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Velde. I think it would be.
Mr. Doyle. We will take a short recess.
(Brief recess.)
(Committee members present after recess: Representatives Doyle and Scherer.)
Mr. Doyle. The committee will come to order and let the record show that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walter, appointed a different subcommittee to continue this hearing today, consisting of Mr. Moulder, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and that Mr. Scherer and Mr. Doyle are both present, a legal majority of the new subcommittee.
Mr. O’Connell, will you please rise and be sworn again.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. O’Connell. I do.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, I referred to the proposal sponsored by the Communist Party in the State of Washington in 1936 for the enactment of a law establishing production-for-use initiative as it was called.
Mr. O’Connell. That was stolen from Upton Sinclair’s legislation.
Mr. Tavenner. And possibly also from the Soviet Union.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t propose to speak for the Soviet Union.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you propose to speak for Mr. Upton Sinclair?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew Mr. Sinclair quite well and he used to contribute to my campaign and I had some opportunity to see his campaign in California.
Mr. Tavenner. Eugene V. Dennett described a convention of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, held in April 1936 in Everett, Wash., and the part that the Communist Party played in that convention. His testimony relating to this particular matter is as follows:
There was another matter which arose as a serious issue in that convention and it concerned a proposal for an initiative measure which became known as the production-for-use initiative. Many people, because of the Communist Party influence in the unemployed days, were quite concerned and alarmed over the problem of unemployment, insecurity, possible impoverishment, et cetera. All the consequences of economic dislocation. They had read many of the so-called utopian pieces of literature such as Bellamy’s Looking Backward and other documents of the kind. They had also read Mr. Upton Sinclair’s Program in California. They were somewhat acquainted with the propaganda of the Soviet Union to the effect that production for use was the solution to the problems of capitalist lack of planning. In other words, planned economy.
The story on the production-for-use initiative is simply this: Because there was such a popular demand for some change in the economic situation to assure continued production and a cooperative effort, many people tried to translate an ideal of a cooperative commonwealth into some form of legislative effort. This resulted in many conferences and the calling in of legal talent to try to draft a measure which would be legal and which would satisfy the ambitions of the people to have the so-called dream of a cooperative commonwealth organization.
Question. Now, at that point describe a little more fully what production for use meant in a practical sense.
Mr. Dennett. I wish I could satisfy you completely on that point, because that is one of the problems we ran into in trying to draw up this initiative measure. We could never satisfy ourselves that we had it satisfactorily organized. However, the staff who worked on it worked long and hard and finally produced a measure which was known as the production-for-use initiative. It was ready for presentation to that convention. However, some of us in the Communist Party, while we agreed that such a measure was a good propaganda weapon and felt that it was an excellent means of popularizing the ideas which we understood and claimed were the basis of the operation of the economy in the Soviet Union, we were startled when we read the document and found that it sounded a little bit more like the Fascist corporate state that the Italian leader Mussolini had established. We became so alarmed about it and we were so perplexed that we asked a very world famous person who happened to be a guest of the convention what this person thought about it. The person to whom I refer is Anna Louise Strong, who had just come from the Soviet Union, extended greetings to the convention and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her travels and won wide acclaim for that effort.
Question. Did she on the floor of the convention address herself to the problem of production for use?
Mr. Dennett. She did not. Not at that moment. She spoke only in general terms about the referring to it in a complimentary way and hoping for success, but at that moment she did not know very much about what was in that document. However, we felt that she, coming from the Soviet Union with fresh knowledge, might know quite a lot about it and might be able to assist us in revising the document so that it would be possible to satisfy us that it was in fact a step in the right direction of a cooperative commonwealth. So she consented very graciously to take the document and work on it overnight. She did exactly that and we read it the next morning and much to our surprise she had moved the emphasis in the control even more in the direction of top control and less in the direction of allowing the members or the organization to have anything to say about it, which was just the reverse of the trend that we had hoped for.
Consequently we began to ask ourselves, that is, the Communists asked themselves, if this is the end result of an effort to draw up an initiative maybe it would be smarter politically for us to see that the measure died a-borning. Consequently we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to draw up an initiative measure which would be adequate and which would answer our propaganda needs and our desires to satisfy us that it was in harmony with our program. So we embarked upon a campaign in the course of the election.
Question. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed bill or to defeat it?
Mr. Dennett. We all went out presumably to win support, to get the measure adopted. That is, it was an initiative measure and it was before the voters. The voters were to cast a vote “yes” or “no” on this initiative. The Communist Party found itself in that predicament.
We were committed to support the measure but we were determined to bring about its defeat. Consequently, we campaigned far and wide all over the State of Washington explaining the measure in such a way as to convince the people that they should not vote for it. At the same time we represented ourselves as campaigning for the measure and we did it so successfully that the measure was defeated. If we had not have done it I am afraid it would have been adopted.
Mr. O’Connell. Sounds like he needs a mental examination.
Mr. Tavenner. I think it is rather consistent with Communist Party tactics.
Mr. Dennett. My counsel asked me who was “we.” I am referring to the Communist Party in that instance, the leaders of the Washington Commonwealth Federation were terribly disturbed by the nature of the campaign we were carrying on—that is, the Communists.
Question. I should think it would be a rather confusing campaign where the Communist Party in order to defeat it actually supported it.
Mr. Dennett. That is true. It was a very confusing to every one, even to us at times.
Question. That is a very interesting thing. The Communist Party in order to defeat this measure went out and conducted a statewide campaign in favor of it but in order to accomplish its defeat, if I understand you correctly, it so represented the issues that people would be bound to vote against it.
Mr. Dennett. That is true. There is triple deception in this maneuver, which is rather hard to follow. I hope I have explained it.
Question. I am afraid that the point may not be absolutely clear in the record, and I want to be sure that it is clear.
If I understand you correctly, it was not the fact that the Communist Party was supporting this measure that caused its defeat.
Mr. Dennett. You are correct, sir; that was not the reason. It was the way we as disguised Communists carried on the campaign, ostensibly for it, but in fact against it.
Question. In other words, your representations were of such a character as to make known the weaknesses in the bill and the person would actually think you were supporting it.
Mr. Dennett. True. You understand it quite clearly.
Question. I hope so. I think the bill was properly named when you used the word “initiative” because that certainly is the use of initiative. I am glad to know it is Communist Party initiative. It is a very deceptive type of campaign.
That was the history of production for use as first sponsored by the Communist Party until they found that it was not workable to reduce to a form of legislative enactment in the State of Washington.
Mr. O’Connell. In 1936.
Mr. Tavenner. In 1936.
And yet the will of Robert Marshall was prepared 2 years later in 1938, and it embraces the same principle of the promotion and advancement of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use. And you were one of the trustees of that foundation.
Do you know of any connection or any influence brought upon Robert Marshall to establish this trust fund for the changing of the system of economy in the United States which had its origin in the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I know absolutely none. As I said earlier, and I am sure Bob had no connection with the Washington situation that you have read about in detail. I think like a great many others in that depression period, there were all kinds of discussions of panaceas to solve the economic situation that existed at the time. I am positive that Bob Marshall was not a member of the Communist Party, that he was not influenced by the Communists in the preparation of that will or the provisions that are in it, and as a trustee I want to assure you that I can’t think of a single instance, a single instance where any grant of any money was made to any organization to begin an economy based on production for use or propagandize it or publicize it or anything.
I can remember at one time the National Farmers Union came to the foundation, Mr. Patton, the national president, particularly presented the proposal and wanted to establish branch centers throughout the United States trying to some extent bring about what he called a cooperative movement and an economy based upon cooperatives. I think he wanted an immediate expenditure of some $160,000 and it was rejected by the trustees. I know that.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Lem Harris?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I was not acquainted with Lem Harris.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know him?
Mr. O’Connell. I think I know who he is. Wasn’t he in the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Tavenner. He was in the Department of Agriculture. He spent many years in the Soviet Union, studying and working in the field of agriculture. He was prominent in organizations interested in agriculture in this country. He was before this committee and refused to testify as to his prior or present Communist Party membership, relying upon the fifth amendment. He was considered the head of the agricultural division of the Communist Party in the United States.
Did he importune in behalf of the National Farmers Union in procuring grants?
Mr. O’Connell. He particularly never talked to me or never asked me to do it. I don’t know whether——
Mr. Tavenner. You don’t need to put it on such a personal basis. As a trustee you know whether he did or did not.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. As a trustee, Gardner Jackson, who I think was employed by the National Farmers Union, actually talked more and actually guided the trust or the foundation as far as agricultural matters were concerned, and I, of course, all I—I never met Lem Harris.
Mr. Tavenner. You wouldn’t have to meet Lem Harris to know what influence he had to bear upon the making of grants by your trustees.
Mr. O’Connell. I know of no influence he had, particularly as far as I am concerned. He never importuned me at any time to vote for anybody or grant any money to any organization.
Mr. Tavenner. Gardner Jackson is alleged to have written a letter on August 3, 1946, to James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers Union. Mr. Lem Harris admitted that he had seen a copy of that letter when he testified before this committee. In this letter to Mr. Patton, Gardner Jackson makes this statement:
I don’t have to tell you that many of us understand your appointment of the pathetic Communist or pro-Communist boy Phil Reno to your headquarters staff in Denver as political and labor relations official was at the behest of George Marshall and Lem Harris, the Communist Party’s avowed agricultural policy fellow, in order to insure a continuing flow of money from the Marshall Foundation to the National Farmers Union.
Doesn’t that prove to you the influence that was exerted by the Communist Party upon awards made to the National Farmers Union?
Mr. O’Connell. That, of course, is a statement made by Gardner Jackson, I think after he had been removed from his position with the Farmers Union, and in which he supplied information to Senator Bridges, I think, and I can’t remember others, but what influence—for instance I don’t even know who Phil Reno is, don’t know anything about him, and what Jackson is attempting there I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. You had a responsibility as one of the trustees to know how the awards were being paid.
Mr. O’Connell. That is right and, as a matter of fact, the foundation called Patton before it because we got in disagreement with him about the way the funds were being expended and from then on grants were made to the various State organizations of the Farmers Union rather than to the national office directly.
Mr. Tavenner. But they were continued?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, they were actually made to different State farm union organizations but not to the National Farmers Union, not to Patton. And certainly one of the basic reasons was because of this gigantic proposal that he had about establishing these branch centers. We just didn’t think it was a wise expenditure of the foundation’s funds, and so on, and that was some of the disagreement that we had.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever see a copy of the letter which I referred to?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never did.
Mr. Tavenner. Had you heard of it?
Mr. O’Connell. I think the way I heard of it, I don’t know whether this is the same letter, but Senator Bridges made a speech on the floor of the Senate I think in 1950 in which I am pretty sure he quoted or actually inserted the Gardner Jackson letter, if I remember, and I think I read it within Senator Bridges remarks at that time that were on the floor.
Now, I remember that there was quite a to-do about it. I was out in the State of Montana at that time. I have been close. I have known the Farm Union leadership and members out there and I know they were exercised and committed and worried about this whole development.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall from that letter, and the discussions which you have just mentioned, that Lem Harris, whom I have identified from the committee files as a person prominent in the agricultural section of the Communist Party, was himself attempting to decide what awards or what grants the trustees of the foundation should make to the National Farmers Union?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall as far as I am concerned any influence on me. I voted as far as I was concerned on those grants the way I wanted to.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand that, but I am asking you about your knowledge and what you learned in the course of the performance of your duties as a trustee.
Mr. O’Connell. As far as Lem Harris was concerned, I never heard anything about Lem Harris’ influence or anything.
Mr. Tavenner. You have just told us there was a great disturbance in 1950 when this information became public.
Mr. O’Connell. Over the Gardner Jackson letter; yes.
Mr. Tavenner. So you did not know something about it in 1950?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; but I mean from 1950 on there had been no meetings of the Robert Marshall Foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me quote further from this same letter, in which Mr. Gardner Jackson is addressing Mr. Patton:
I do not have to recall to your mind—
meaning Mr. Patton’s mind—
Lem Harris’ visit to you in Denver a few years ago to tell you that of the total amount of money remaining in the Marshall Foundation, the National Farmers Union would be allowed so much and to ask you as president of the National Farmers Union how you wanted that sum spread over the ensuing few years.
Lem Harris is not a trustee of that fund.
Do you know anything about that? Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I was not close to Patton of course. I don’t know what he was doing as far as Lem Harris was concerned, I mean I just don’t know anything about that. I am telling you that very frankly.
Mr. Tavenner. You have been very positive in your statements that no awards or grants were made by this foundation which might be construed as being grants to or for the benefit of the Communist Party. That has been the inference of your testimony.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, that is what I am trying—of course the questions all have been with reference to the economic system based on production for use rather than for profit.
Mr. Tavenner. That is right.
Mr. O’Connell. And all that.
Mr. Tavenner. You trustees had very broad powers to determine what organization you would aid in the purpose of this trust which was, namely, to promote an economic system in the United States based upon profit for use. I am trying to find out how you exercised those broad powers.
Mr. O’Connell. Those powers were exercised by different trustees.
Mr. Tavenner. Of which you were one.
Mr. O’Connell. Of which I was one. All of us exercised I am sure our independent judgment on it. If it were possible to bring them all here, I don’t have them, but there were many instances where the trustees divided, where these grants were made by majority vote rather than by full vote and so on.
There are all kinds of situations that exist. But as far as I am concerned, Lem Harris never influenced me to make a grant to the Farmers Union or to any organization.
Mr. Tavenner. Don’t misunderstand me again. My question is broader than the influencing of you. My question is whether or not it influenced the action of the trustees.
Mr. O’Connell. Of course I don’t know whether Lem Harris went out and met with Jim Patton and Gardner Jackson, who was a trustee. I don’t know whether that actually took place. I don’t know whether he did these other things that are said. I don’t know whether he did them or not, but if he did those things and Jackson was going along then he had some influence and so on. But I think Jim Patton became leader of the National Farmers Union after I left Congress. I never got to know him real well, I think I have been introduced to him maybe once or twice. I know that Jim Patton was displeased with some of my votes on the foundation which were evidently reported to him by Jackson and went to the leadership of the Farmers Union in Montana to try to exercise influence as far as I was concerned in my votes on the foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any other groups attempting to influence your judgment or decision in the matter of making grants?
Mr. O’Connell. Any other groups?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; or individuals.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, over the period of years from 1940 on down there were all kinds of grants made and there have been various individuals who have come to me in connection with them.
Mr. Tavenner. And many of those people were leaders in notorious Communist-front organizations; weren’t they?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, of course I don’t go along with your description of notorious Communist-front organizations. Many of the people came to me and asked me to vote for grants for causes and for principles which I thought were right and which I thought ought to be done, and if they were right in my opinion I thought they were right, I voted for them and if they were not I voted against them.
Mr. Tavenner. Well, for instance, was a grant made of $20,000 to be used in the payment of attorney’s fees for the defense of William Robert Remington?
Mr. O’Connell. Not by the Marshall Foundation, by the trust funds that I was a trustee of. We certainly made no grant.
Mr. Tavenner. Was any money of the foundation——
Mr. O’Connell. I think, isn’t that in connection with the civil-liberties trust? It is not in connection with the trade-union trust. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Tavenner. That was paid out from another fund in the same trust, not from the one in which——
Mr. O’Connell. No. The will established, I think I can explain it, the will established three trusts, one that was called the Robert Marshall Foundation, we were denoted always as the trade-union trust. The second trust was a civil-liberties trust and 5 trustees, not all of the 5 trustees on the trade-union trust, were trustees on the civil-liberties trust. There were 15.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you on both?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was only on the trade union trust.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of the payment from this other trust—that is, the civil-liberties trust—of the grant of $20,000 for defense of Remington?
Mr. O’Connell. I know nothing about it except, was that contained in Mr. Dies’ speech? Was that reported——
Mr. Tavenner. No.
Mr. O’Connell. I really personally have no—I am not a member of that civil-liberties trust and I don’t know. There is also a wilderness area trust that is set up in the will and I am not a trustee on that fund either.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the only fund of which you were a trustee the one which provided for the promotion of an economic system in the United States based upon the theory of production for use?
Mr. O’Connell. Which the trustees abandoned and decided to eliminate at the very first meeting of the trustees that was held.
Mr. Tavenner. Let us see the nature of the grants and we can determine more about whether they did actually abandon it or not. How long did this trust continue to operate? How long was it active?
Mr. O’Connell. I think we actually made grants from, if I remember correctly, 1940 until 1950. I am not sure whether we made any grants in 1950 or not. We have not met in the last 5 years, I know that. If I remember correctly, there is approximately $41,000 left in the fund of which I am a trustee and there have been no meetings of the trustees in at least the last 4 or 5 years.
Mr. Tavenner. The committee has information that grants were made in 1941 and 1942 by the Robert Marshall Foundation to the American Youth Congress for the total of $10,250. Do you know who solicited those grants?
Mr. O’Connell. No. An actual application would be made to Mr. George Marshall as manager of the trust by the organization that was involved—by the American Youth Congress. I can’t recall the reason for the grant. My offhand guess would be that the American Youth Congress was proposing to establish some kind of a labor secretary or labor division of the Youth Congress or something, and they would tie it in actually to the provision of the will as far as the trade union, development of trade unions were concerned, organization of unemployed youth, I imagine.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you, as a trustee, do anything to ascertain how the money was being used after the grants were made?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never did actually as a trustee. We had the organization report to us from time to time how they were expending the funds and what they were doing, but I couldn’t personally take any one of those grants and tell you actually what the report was.
Mr. Tavenner. The American Youth Congress has been cited as a subversive and Communist organization by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and September 21, 1948, under a citation by Attorney General Francis Biddle September 24, 1942, and also, May 28, 1942, it was stated in the citation that—
It originated in 1934 and has been controlled by the Communists and manipulated by them to influence the thought of American youth.
It was cited by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities June 29, 1942, January 3, 1939, January 3, 1941, and again on March 29, 1944, in which it was stated that it was one of the principal fronts of the Communist Party and prominently identified with the White House picket line under the immediate auspices of the American Peace Mobilization.
Do you know whether Jack R. McMichael was the national chairman of the American Youth Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. I couldn’t recall—the name doesn’t mean anything to me.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he play any part in the solicitation of these grants?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, he didn’t at least to me. If his name was on the stationery, I got a copy of the application and all that, but——
Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain that he was its president at the time those grants were made, but he may have been.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. During the same period, according to the committee’s information, grants totaling $3,250 were made to the Federated Press.
Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. And subsequently increased to a total of $29,200.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether those totals are correct, but I know grants were made consistently to the Federated Press.
Mr. Tavenner. Were the grants sufficiently large to make these figures within reason?
Mr. O’Connell. I would say they are. They never got a large grant each year. I think they got small grants like $3,500 or something of that kind. It could have totaled $29,000 over the years.
Mr. Tavenner. That organization was cited on March 29, 1944, by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities as a Communist-controlled organization financed by the American Fund for Public Service and the Robert Marshall Foundation, both principal sources of funds for Communist enterprises.
Mr. O’Connell. There are a lot of conclusions drawn there that need proof.
Mr. Tavenner. I think we are proceeding to prove it right now.
Mr. O’Connell. Federated Press was a press service that operated in the labor field. It supplied labor papers throughout the country with labor news, news about labor, and about things labor was doing and we thought certainly was entitled to a grant from the point of view of development and organization of trade unions.
Mr. Tavenner. It was a principal supplier of the Daily Worker and the Daily People’s World.
Mr. O’Connell. I wouldn’t know, but I would presume that they probably——
Mr. Tavenner. You didn’t inquire?
Mr. O’Connell. Probably did. As far as I was concerned the Federated Press was doing an excellent job in the labor field. As a Congressman, of course, I had excellent opportunity to get all of the labor newspapers and the labor newspapers particularly in my district, and they were getting news from the Federated Press that covered a want that was sorely needed as far as labor information was concerned.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you know that the American Youth Congress had been cited as a Communist-front organization at the time you acted upon——
Mr. O’Connell. By whom?
Mr. Tavenner. By the Attorney General of the United States, both Attorney General Clark and Attorney General Biddle and by this committee.
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, I am pretty sure I had knowledge they were cited by Attorney General Clark and by Attorney General Biddle or by any other attorney general, but that didn’t determine in my mind——
Mr. Tavenner. That did not serve to put you on inquiry?
Mr. O’Connell. That did not serve as far as I was concerned to make it conclusive by any means, and if I in my personal opinion thought they were doing a good job and doing a job within the provisions of this will and so on, I voted for it.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you have made a grant to the Communist Party in the State of Washington which as shown by the testimony I read to you was interested in enacting into law the same principle under which this trust was being operated?
Mr. O’Connell. I told you that at the very beginning, at the very first meeting that the trustees held, that we voted not to make any grants that were asked for on the basis of being used for the promotion of an economy based on production for use rather than for profit.
Mr. Tavenner. That would have been in violation of the provisions of the will, wouldn’t it?
Mr. O’Connell. No, sir; we made our grants within the first provisions, within the provision that provided for the development and the organization of workers and unemployed persons and so on. We made it a strictly trade-union trust.
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you entirely disregarded this provision?
Mr. O’Connell. And if the Communist Party or the Democratic Party or Republican Party or any partisan organization came and asked for funds they wouldn’t have gotten it.
Mr. Tavenner. But if it was an organization which the leadership of the Communist Party had captured and had under its control, it would be perfectly all right to make an award?
Mr. O’Connell. The organization never, I mean the foundation never went out and conducted any Red hunt or went out——
Mr. Tavenner. Never took any precautionary measures?
Mr. O’Connell. Don’t put words in my mouth. We never went out and conducted any kind of a Red hunt, we never investigated the organization to see what they were doing.
Mr. Tavenner. Didn’t you make any investigation?
Mr. O’Connell. When they said we want to do so and so in the labor field. We wanted to do this or that, if it was within the provisions of the will and in the minds of the majority of the trustees something we felt ought to be done, the grant was made. If we didn’t, it wasn’t.
Mr. Tavenner. You said you didn’t make a Red hunt, witch hunt, I am not sure which you stated. Red hunt. But actually you didn’t make any investigation?
Mr. O’Connell. As to whether or not this organization had Reds in it or Communists in it?
Mr. Tavenner. As to whether it was a Communist-controlled organization.
Mr. O’Connell. No, we didn’t make any such investigation.
Mr. Tavenner. Why didn’t you?
Mr. O’Connell. It wasn’t our job to do anything of that kind. As a matter of fact, I am sure, Mr. Tavenner, you have been around here a long time, and I mean the development as far as these organizations are concerned that you are talking about to me now, the proscription of these organizations, certain individuals, are things that have gone on. I went into this foundation selected solely as a friend of Bob Marshall’s. I went in with an honest mind determined to do the best job I knew how to see that the money was spent to do what I thought Bob would like to have seen done.
Mr. Tavenner. Bob unquestionably wanted to promote a new economic system in the United States based on the theory of production. That is what Bob wanted to do according to his last will and testament.
Did you make grants aggregating $6,000 to Frontier Films?
Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure we did. I can’t recall the particular grant now or know what it was made for. I think there was a particular picture. Wasn’t the picture of 1937 Little Steel strike out in Chicago where many of the workers were murdered? You see it is very difficult to go back 17 or 18 years and try to put it in the pattern that you now work on today.
Mr. Tavenner. We know that Frontier Films produced the Communist film Native Land based on Richard Wright’s Native Son. The picture featured the Negro actor, Paul Robeson. That is the only information that I have.
Mr. O’Connell. I know as far as Frontier Films were concerned whatever the picture was, as I recall, it was a labor picture and my best recollection is it was the picture about the Little Steel strike and particularly the Memorial Day massacre in 1937 at Republic Steel in Chicago.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall who solicited the grant?
Frontier Films was cited by this committee as a Communist front on March 29, 1944.
Mr. O’Connell. No, the first name of Paul comes to my mind. I can’t remember any last name. The party came and talked to us about it—was there a Paul—Paul comes to my mind. That is all I can recall.
Mr. Tavenner. Grants totaling $900 were made to the International Juridical Association. Do you recall the circumstances under which that grant was made?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I really can’t recall the circumstances now. It is apparently a very small grant. I don’t know what it was used for. It must have been in connection with some particular labor legal problem that may have been involved as far as the Wagner Act was concerned or NLRB or something of that nature.
Mr. Tavenner. Grants totaling $4,250 were made to the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties. That is an organization you did know about; isn’t it? In fact, the amount was increased after 1942 to a total of $56,000. You were acquainted with that organization; weren’t you?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew of the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, yes, and I am sure that grants were made, I would say on an annual basis to the National Federation, I don’t know what amounts specifically, but whether that total amount is correct or not I cannot say.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar with the citation of that organization?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I am not.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me read it to you. It was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947; it was also cited by Attorney General Francis Biddle September 24, 1942, in the following language:
Part of what Lenin called the solar system of organizations, ostensibly having no connection with the Communist Party, by which Communists attempt to create sympathizers and supporters of their program. It was established as a result of a conference on constitutional liberties held in Washington, D. C., June 7-9, 1940. The defense of Communist leaders such as Sam Darcy and Robert Wood, party secretaries for Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, have been major efforts of the federation.
What purpose did the trustees of your foundation have in making $56,000 of grants to that organization?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, of course, if I had the specific application before me I could tell you, but I am sure that the application set out that it would be used for the defense of various labor leaders who were under attack of any kind, particularly from the civil liberties point of view.
Mr. Tavenner. Communist or not?
Mr. O’Connell. Communist or non-Communist.
Mr. Tavenner. You were actually one of the sponsors for the call to the conference, in June of 1940, which was alluded to in the citation by Attorney General Biddle; were you not?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether I was. If my name is there, I was, and of course I was all for any organization that was fighting for constitutional liberties and still am, any organization that fights for them.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain associated with the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties?
Mr. O’Connell. Associated with them?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. In what capacity?
Mr. Tavenner. In any capacity. You were a sponsor of the call for the constitutional liberties conference which gave birth to the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties.
Mr. O’Connell. I imagine I was a sponsor as long as it took to sponsor the call. I don’t know how long that might be. But I had no office in the National Federation.
Mr. Tavenner. How was your assistance as a sponsor in this movement obtained?
Mr. O’Connell. Have you got a list of the officers of the federation?
Mr. Tavenner. No; I do not.
Mr. O’Connell. I would presume—if you had a list of the officers—I presume I was contacted through the officers.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you aware that this organization merged with the International Labor Defense, another arm or branch of the Communist Party, to form the Civil Rights Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. My information is that the Civil Rights Congress was formed from a merger of these two organizations. That is as I understand it.
Mr. Tavenner. Our information is that the Civil Rights Congress was given grants totaling $63,500. Are you familiar with those grants?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure the Civil Rights Congress was given grants. Whether or not that total figure is correct or not I couldn’t say.
Mr. Tavenner. Civil Rights Congress was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark in 1947 and in 1948.
Mr. O’Connell. As I understand, they now are going through proceedings before the Board to determine whether or not they are?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, whether or not they will be required to register. That is the provision of law.
Mr. O’Connell. I mean the determination of whether or not they register is whether or not they are a Communist-front organization.
Mr. Tavenner. They are probably making the defense that they are not required to.
Did you also make grants totaling $10,125 to the National Negro Congress which subsequently was increased to $54,530?
Mr. O’Connell. That sounds—I am sure grants were made to the National Negro Congress for the employment of a labor secretary to work particularly on the organizing of both working and unemployed Negroes in the Southern States. I am sure that was done.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you aware that that organization was cited as subversive and Communist by the Attorney General Tom Clark, on December 4, 1947, and again on September 21, 1948?
Mr. O’Connell. Do you know when our grants were made to the National Negro Congress?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, from 1942 until March 1951.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, then, I am sure that, I feel sure we knew it had been cited. As I said before, of course mere citations by the Attorney General is not sufficient——
Mr. Tavenner. It wasn’t sufficient to put you on inquiry?
Mr. O’Connell. It wasn’t sufficient at least in my mind to proscribe that organization, and I think history and subsequent events have proved that it is necessary to go a little further than just to have the Attorney General put organizations on a list.
Mr. Tavenner. You say a little further? You didn’t go any further, did you?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as we were concerned, as I told you when an organization came to us they came to us with the specific application for funds for a specific purpose and we never—as a matter of fact, we never permitted the organization to appear before the foundation or any representative of the organization. We went into the matter ourselves. We conducted no investigations to determine what their political beliefs might be or anything like that.
Mr. Tavenner. You made the awards regardless of the purpose behind the formation of the organization; is that what it comes down to?
Mr. O’Connell. For instance, we never went, we never sent out a group of investigators, never had the funds, as a matter of fact, to do that to find out.
Mr. Tavenner. If you had read the citation of Attorney General Francis Biddle, for instance, which was made on September 24, 1942, you would have learned as follows:
A. Philip Randolph, president of the congress since its inception in 1936, refused to run again in April 1940 on the ground that it was deliberately packed with Communists and Congress of Industrial Organization members who were either Communists or sympathizers with Communists.
Commencing with its formation in 1936, Communist Party functionaries and fellow travelers have figured prominently in the leadership and affairs of the congress. According to A. Phillip Randolph, John P. Davis, secretary of the congress, has admitted that the Communist Party contributed $100 a month to its support.
From the record of its activities and the composition of its governing bodies there can be little doubt that it has served as what James W. Ford, Communist Vice Presidential candidate elected to the executive committee in 1937 predicted: an important sector of the Democratic front sponsored and supported by the Communist Party.
Those are the words of Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the United States, in 1942. Do you say that statement was not worthy of consideration?
Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, didn’t have that statement in front of me.
Mr. Tavenner. It would have been in front of you if you had inquired about it. It was in the Congressional Record.
Mr. O’Connell. We didn’t take the Congressional Record. There are many things in the Congressional Record, as you well know, that you just don’t take as it’s the Bible.
Mr. Tavenner. Actually you were not interested to see whether or not the money which you were paying out was for the promotion of Communist Party projects?
Mr. O’Connell. That didn’t enter into our consideration, the fact that an organization came to us with a specific application for a specific purpose to do a certain job, and if we thought it ought to be done and thought it was in the provisions of the will we granted it. We didn’t think it was incumbent upon the trustees to make any kind of an investigation into these organizations as far as the political opinions and beliefs of their leaders or their members, whatever they might be. We just didn’t do it. It just wasn’t particularly being done by private individuals or private trusts.
Mr. Tavenner. Did your foundation make grants totaling $1,500 to the Southern Conference for Human Welfare?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. That is, through 1942 and subsequently increased to a grand total of $14,000.
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure, I don’t know whether that total is correct, but I am sure we made grants to the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you look into that organization or the formation of that organization?
Mr. O’Connell. No. From my own information they were doing an excellent job in the field of promoting Negro rights, in the field of organizing of labor unions, and so on in the South, and particularly asked for the grant, if I remember correctly, to employ a labor secretary to develop that particular part of the conference or group.
Mr. Tavenner. This organization was cited as Communist-front which received money from the Robert Marshall Foundation, one of the principal sources of funds by which many Communist-fronts operate, Special Committee on Un-American Activities reported March 29, 1944.
Did you make total grants of $30,750 to the Southern Negro Youth Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure we made grants to the Southern Negro Youth Congress. Whether that total is correct, I can’t say.
Mr. Tavenner. This organization was cited on December 4, 1947, by Attorney General Tom Clark as subversive and among the affiliates and committees of the Communist Party, U. S. A., which seeks to alter the form of the Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
You thought that was not worth looking into?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew nothing about that. I certainly knew that that was—Who said that? I don’t know who said it now.
Mr. Tavenner. Attorney General Tom Clark.
Mr. O’Connell. Do you think yourself that—well, that Tom Clark’s mere proscription of this organization is sufficient?
Mr. Tavenner. Certainly this should have been a warning to you to make some inquiry and investigation unless your view and purpose was to help the Communist Party by promoting its interests through large awards.
Mr. O’Connell. That might be your conclusion but there were certainly no awards or grants made to these organizations from the point of view of being beneficial in any respect to the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall grants having been made of $6,000 to U. S. Week?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I think I can recall that. Wasn’t that young Bill Dodd (William E. Dodd, Jr.), son of the former Ambassador to Germany?
Mr. Tavenner. Young Bill Dodd was the son of the former United States Ambassador to Germany, but I don’t know who applied to you.
Mr. O’Connell. I think that was the magazine he was interested in, if I remember.
Mr. Tavenner. It was cited on March 29, 1949, by this committee as a Communist front which received funds from your Robert Marshall Foundation.
Mr. O’Connell. When was the grant made to U. S. Week?
Mr. Tavenner. 1941. Were grants made to American Youth for Democracy in the amount of $5,000?
Mr. O’Connell. Was it grants or grant?
Mr. Tavenner. I am not sure whether that is the total grant or whether that is one grant.
Mr. O’Connell. I am not, either. I recollect a considerable amount of discussion about that grant when it came up.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the discussion?
Mr. O’Connell. There was some discussion about what kind of a job they were doing and what organization it was, and so on. I am pretty sure the grant was not continued.
Mr. Tavenner. It was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and the citation by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities report March 29, 1944, reads as follows:
Cited as the new name under which the Young Communist League operates and which also largely absorbed the American Youth Congress.
Mr. O’Connell. Do you know when the grant was made?
Mr. Tavenner. No; I do not. It would be between 1942 and 1951, but I don’t know the specific date.
Mr. O’Connell. I can remember a discussion about the grant, and I think you will find—I could be wrong, but I think there was only one grant made, and it was discontinued.
Mr. Tavenner. Were grants totaling $6,500 made to the California Labor School?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I don’t know whether that total amount is correct, but I know a grant was made to the California Labor School.
Mr. Tavenner. This organization was cited by Attorney General Tom Clark on June 1, 1948, as a subversive and Communist organization.
Mr. O’Connell. Do you know when the grant was made?
Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. Grants totaling $8,000 were made to the Council for Pan-American Democracy. Do you recall those grants?
Mr. O’Connell. I can remember that a grant was made, or grants, to that organization, but I can’t remember who the people were that were involved.
Mr. Tavenner. The organization was cited by Attorney General Tom Clark on June 1, 1948, as subversive and Communist and by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities report on March 29, 1944, and again on June 25, 1942.
$21,000 was granted to Farm Research, according to our information. Do you recall that?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I don’t recall it, but I presume your information is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Farm Research was cited by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities on March 29, 1944, as a Communist-front organization, receiving finances from the Robert Marshall Foundation.
Did the foundation make grants to the National Lawyers Guild in the amount of $15,250?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure it did, although I don’t know whether the amount is correct?
Mr. Tavenner. What was the purpose of those grants?
Mr. O’Connell. The purpose of those grants was to assist the Lawyers Guild in getting out certain legal material as far as particular labor cases before the NLRB and the courts were concerned.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it furnished to assist the guild in getting out any other work besides that?
Mr. O’Connell. No. They came in with a specific application to do this particular kind of job or work that had to be done, and where they were working particularly in representation of labor, in the labor field.
Mr. Tavenner. Total of $25,000 was granted, according to our information, to the New World?
Mr. O’Connell. $25,000?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
Mr. O’Connell. I know grants were made, I think that paper was originally called the Washington New Dealer. Isn’t that right? And grants were made to it while it was the Washington New Dealer. It was changed to the New World and grants were made both to it as the Washington New Dealer and the New World.
But the minute it became a part of the People’s World which became a Northwest edition of the People’s World, there were no further grants made.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you procure from the Robert Marshall Foundation a grant to be used by any progressive causes in the Northwest in May 1949?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I think a grant for the Seattle Labor School.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the amount of that $4,000?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. You left Seattle in May 1949 to attend your meeting in New York City of your trustees?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. I don’t know whether it was May of 1949, but some time——
Mr. Tavenner. And returned with $4,000 for the Seattle Labor School.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Tavenner. The Seattle Labor School, according to the testimony of Barbara Hartle, is the same as the Pacific Northwest Labor School. It was first known by the name of Seattle Labor School and then later became known as the Pacific Northwest Labor School.
Mr. O’Connell. Wasn’t it the other way around?
Mr. Tavenner. I may have it backward. You probably would know.
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t remember which was which, but I think it was the other way around. But I can remember that grant; yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Who was instrumental in soliciting the funds for that labor school?
Mr. O’Connell. John Daschbach.
Mr. Tavenner. The same person who used your name on the catalogue of the school as an instructor of course 112?
Mr. O’Connell. That is right.
Mr. Tavenner. You knew it was a Communist Party school at that time, didn’t you?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I did not.
Mr. Tavenner. It was cited by the Attorney General Tom Clark, as early as December 4, 1947.
You again state you just didn’t pay any attention to that citation by an Attorney General?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall that it was cited. I don’t remember, but as I said, a citation by the Attorney General or placing it on a list would not be determinative for me as to whether or not it ought to get a grant.
Mr. Tavenner. We have demonstrated in the testimony to you here today that nearly every teacher on the staff was a member of the Communist Party, according to testimony before this committee. We have shown you now the citation of the Attorney General of that school, and we find now that you procured this grant of $4,000.
Did you procure any other money for this school besides this grant of $4,000?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I can’t——
Mr. Tavenner. Our information is that the total amount advanced to the Pacific Northwest Labor School was $11,500.
Mr. O’Connell. I thought you meant money outside of the Marshall Foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. No.
Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure grants were made to the Seattle Labor School for 2 or 3 years, I don’t remember which.
Mr. Tavenner. In fact, it would have closed its doors but for the financial assistance given it through you?
Mr. O’Connell. As a matter of fact, when the last grant was made it had closed its doors and the grant was made to pay up debts and salaries and things of that kind that were—incurred loans.
Mr. Tavenner. Salaries to Communist Party teachers?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. Daschbach’s salary for one.
Mr. Tavenner. He has been identified by a number of witnesses as an active member of the Communist Party.
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, I didn’t know he was a member of the Communist Party and many of these people I don’t even know that you read today as teachers at that school, I don’t even know.
I do know Gundlach, who was a professor at the University of Washington. Whether he is a Communist or not, I don’t know, but——
Mr. Tavenner. You are not willing to accept the testimony of a Communist Party functionary, the No. 2 person in the Communist Party in the State of Washington, for that?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, of course, I haven’t had an opportunity to read her testimony. Did she say Gundlach was a Communist? The reason I feel so sure Gundlach isn’t a Communist is when the State un-American activities committee was conducting its investigations out there——
Mr. Tavenner. I read to you this morning and read into the record the identification of Gundlach as a member of the Communist Party, according to the testimony given this committee and my recollection is that it was Barbara Hartle.
At any rate, didn’t you know that and weren’t you aware of the fact that he was ousted from the university as a professor because of his Communist Party membership?
Mr. O’Connell. If I remember correctly, and it is a long time ago, Gundlach was actually ousted, if I remember correctly, because President Allen, who was at the university at the time, didn’t think he was a Communist but thought that his conduct in connection with the investigation that was carried on by the State un-American activities committee, was such that he didn’t think he was a fit and proper person to be a teacher at the university. That is my recollection of it.
The reason I wonder about Gundlach is that he took an entirely different course, as I remember, before the State un-American activities committee out there than certain others who were there later, but if Barbara Hartle says he is and says he was, she may be right. I don’t know. All I am doing is conjecturing on the basis of——
Mr. Tavenner. As a matter of fact, Mr. O’Connell, from your vast experience and your intelligence, didn’t you form the opinion that the Pacific Northwest Labor School was a training school for the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I particularly didn’t get that idea because I know some excellent people who were connected with the school. One is Frank Carlson, who was in the streetcarmen’s union out there who was an outstanding labor leader who certainly wasn’t a Communist.
I. E. Sandvigen of the machinists union was not a Communist, I am sure. Many others identified with the school particularly in the labor movement that promoted the school and I think what may have happened to it as it went along, I don’t know, but the idea of the school was a good one and I think they were trying to do a good job.
Daschbach became director of the school somewhat later in its history, as I remember it.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me read into the record at this point, Mr. Chairman, the testimony of Barbara Hartle regarding the labor school. She was asked the question as to what connection there was between the school and the Communist Party. That is between the Pacific Northwest Labor School and the Communist Party. Her answer was as follows:
The Pacific Northwest Labor School was a Communist front project in the field of education and its basic purpose was to spread Marxist-Leninist education, but to do it in such a way as to attract non-Communists in addition to its use for being a school for Communist Party members.
It had a double purpose, to educate the party membership and to draw as many non-Communists into classes as possible at the same time. It was not considered a party leadership training school, it was more for the membership. And in order to attract a broader segment of persons into the school a number of courses were included that were not in Marxism-Leninism, but they were included in order to appeal to people from labor unions, professional fields, and others.
For example, parliamentary law would be a subject intended for the purpose of drawing people into the school and drawing them closer to it with no idea on their part that they were getting into a Communist school. An air of respectability was also created in this way so that people would feel if they enrolled in this school they had a perfect right to do so and there was nothing wrong with being in it.
The hope, of course, was that if non-Communists enrolled this way, after a while they would learn more about it and would become convinced to enroll in courses on Marxist-Leninism. The objective of the school was to gain Communist influence over non-Communists, recruit as many people as possible out of this school into the Communist Party, and special attention was paid to members of organized labor through this school.
Mr. Doyle. The committee will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:20 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a. m., Thursday, June 2, 1955.)