Investigation of Communist activities in Seattle, Wash., area. Hearings, Part 3

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

TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL—Resumed

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, were you a member of the national committee of the International Labor Defense in 1940?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know——

Mr. Tavenner. The Daily Worker of May 3, 1938, reports that Jeremiah O’Connell was a speaker at a function of the International Labor Defense.

According to Equal Justice, page 4, of the November 1938 issue, Jeremiah O’Connell was one of the sponsors of the Christmas drive of that organization.

According to the May 1939 issue of Equal Justice, Jeremiah O’Connell was one of those who sent congratulations to the southern California district year book 1938 of the International Labor Defense.

According to a leaflet the summer milk fund drive, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York City, of June 13, 1940, you were listed as a member of that committee of the International Labor Defense.

Now, does that information refresh your recollection?

Mr. O’Connell. No. I mean I can’t—I don’t remember ever being elected to the international committee of the International Labor Defense, or selected for it.

I probably, as a Congressman, like on the milk fund, summer milk fund and Christmas fund, and so on, at that time the International Labor Defense used to send, I think Christmas presents to labor prisoners.

During my term in Congress I was particularly active in fighting for the freedom of Tom Mooney. My Dad had been in the miner’s union, a member and executive for that particular period; he has always been interested. When I came here I introduced a resolution in the Congress asking for the freedom of Tom Mooney and for a pardon for him.

I think my best recollection is as far as the International Labor Defense is concerned that the matters I sponsored were around prisoners like Tom Mooney.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar with the fact that it has been cited as a Communist front organization?

Mr. O’Connell. I shouldn’t say that I actually know that it has been cited, or when it was cited.

Mr. Tavenner. Attorney General Tom Clark cited it as a subversive and Communist organization on June 1, 1948, and again on September 22, 1948.

Mr. O’Connell. It wasn’t even in existence then.

Mr. Tavenner. Probably not. Attorney General Francis Biddle, on September 24, 1942, cited it as a legal arm of the Communist Party.

This committee on January 3, 1939, again on January 3, 1940; on June 25, 1942; and on March 29, 1944, cited it. In this committee’s citation it was referred to as the American section of the MOPR Red International of Labor Defense, often referred to as the Red International Aid.

It was subsequently combined with the National Federation of Constitutional Liberties to form the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. Velde. Mr. O’Connell, as a former Member of Congress, naturally you were interested in the citations of the Un-American Activities Committee and the citation of the Attorneys General. Surely you must have some recollection that these organizations were subversive and cited as subversive by duly constituted bodies?

Mr. O’Connell. Actually, I mean as far as the International Labor Defense is concerned, I think the latest, according to that record, that I was involved is sometime in 1940. I think its earliest citation was by this committee in 1939.

Then the Attorney General’s citations were many years after that when it was actually in existence.

Mr. Tavenner. 1942?

Mr. O’Connell. 1942.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; you said many years later; 1942 is the date that the Attorney General first cited.

Mr. O’Connell. I thought you said 1948.

Mr. Tavenner. There was one in 1948.

Mr. Velde. Mr. O’Connell, I understood you to say that you didn’t know that the International Labor Defense was a subversive organization or cited as a subversive organization.

Mr. O’Connell. I actually didn’t know at the time I was involved there. I, for instance, know now that the International Labor Defense has been, and I have known it for some time in the past few years since it was cited.

Mr. Velde. How long have you known it has been cited?

Mr. O’Connell. My best recollection would be that I have probably known since 1945, somewhere in there; maybe a little earlier, but certainly at this time I didn’t know it.

For instance, I am out in the State of Montana. A lot of this material is not covered by the press in Montana, and it does not have any particular interest, and, of course, I was not involved; I was no longer a Member of Congress at that time.

I had a sincere desire, I actually believed, and felt that Tom Mooney had been framed, and I felt that he ought to be released from prison. I worked for his freedom.

I think, in one instance, as far as the International Labor Defense is concerned, I was going into Jersey City to speak against Mayor Frank Hague. The meeting that I was speaking at apparently was sponsored by Norman Thomas’ Socialist Party, or they were the ones that had arranged it, and members of the International Labor Defense requested me not to speak, but I went there and spoke.

At that time, to my best recollection, Mike Quill was the New York labor leader and still is. He was prevailing upon me not to go in there and speak, but I did go into Jersey City and tried to speak there. I felt that Frank Hague was denying civil liberties and particularly freedom of speech.

Mr. Velde. But at that time did you not realize that the International Labor Defense had been cited by your Government as being subversive?

Mr. O’Connell. Congressman, at that time I was 27, 28 years old. My political experience, particularly as far as Socialists were concerned, as far as Communists were concerned, and all of that, I had no training or study in Marxism-Leninism.

As a matter of fact, I had very little knowledge of what the differences were, what their division of opinion was, or anything of the kind.

My feeling was that both of them were for socialism and I didn’t know what their particular division was.

Mr. Velde. What I am getting at is this: As a Member of Congress, following your defeat as a Member of Congress, you certainly were interested in the committees of Congress, you certainly were interested in what the Attorney General of the United States was doing. It seems to me that you should have been cognizant of the fact that the International Labor Defense was cited as a subversive organization.

Mr. O’Connell. This is the first time today—no, for instance, this committee had cited the International Labor Defense at that particular date. Now, I learned later——

Mr. Velde. Now, Mr. O’Connell, there have been a lot of witnesses appear before this committee with a lot less intelligence than you, with a lot less knowledge of political activities of our Government, and, of course, we realize that there were a lot of those people who became involved in the Communist Party and the Communist Party manipulations.

But I just cannot understand how you, as a Member of Congress, would not be cognizant of the fact that the International Labor Defense was cited as a subversive organization.

I don’t question whether you believed it was, or was not; or whether you believed that the Attorney General or this committee was right.

Mr. O’Connell. I said that I later knew, but at the particular time involved here, Congressman, it had not been, in my first connection with it, had not been cited by the committee as such.

I can’t remember this milk fund in 1940, or whatever it was, but I presume it was to raise funds to provide milk for prisoners, labor prisoners, children of labor prisoners, and so on. I don’t remember specifically about——

Now, as far as my particular situation was concerned, the way I felt about these things, I mean for instance whether it was Mooney or whoever it might have been, I made up my mind so far as my judgment was concerned, what I thought was right and what I thought was wrong.

Mr. Velde. Certainly you have that privilege, as we all do.

Mr. O’Connell. And I worked to accomplish what I thought was right.

Mr. Velde. I am not questioning your privilege, your right, to make up your own mind. I am questioning the facts, your statement that you did not know.

Mr. O’Connell. About the best way to explain it to you, I came out of a district, I was born and raised in Butte. Butte is a mining town——

Mr. Velde. But you had been to Washington, D. C. Even before you ran for Congress you had been here.

Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I had gone to school here, yes.

In that particular day when I went to school here, as I remember, there wasn’t any great discussion about Communists or Socialists or anything of that kind. When I went to school here in that day, I was in the——

Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I do not see that this argument is getting us anywhere.

Mr. O’Connell. The biggest thing of interest at that time was Al Smith and Governor Ritchie and other people’s nominations for the Presidency.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, were you a member of the national committee of the American League for Peace and Democracy in 1939?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether I was in 1939, but maybe in 1938 or 1937, and possibly 1939 I was a member of the American League for Peace and Democracy.

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you a member that organization?

Mr. O’Connell. I really wouldn’t know. Actually after I went back to Montana, outside of some communication and sponsorship, something of that kind, I had very little connection. As I remember, the League didn’t last; I mean it didn’t last very long.

Mr. Tavenner. While you were a member of its national committee, did you take part as a speaker in various functions of the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’Connell. I think I can remember about two speeches. I made a speech in Pittsburgh that you asked me about, and I made a speech in New York, at a banquet in New York.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you remain a member of the national committee of the American League for Peace and Democracy until its dissolution?

Mr. O’Connell. When did it dissolve?

Mr. Tavenner. In 1941.

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I couldn’t say whether I remained a member all of that time. I don’t know.

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of the hearing before this committee the chairman read into the record minutes of an executive committee meeting of the American League for Peace and Democracy, held on January 23, 1939. I quote from what the chairman read into the record:

In connection with the legislative program it says: “Get lists of friendly Congressmen and have teas and luncheons for them.”

A further idea of how they proceed is shown in the minutes of January 13, 1939, of the meeting held at the home of Mrs. Fowler, as follows:

“It was suggested that we make an attempt to get Congressmen to join the league. Mr. Smith will arrange for a luncheon meeting with Marcantonio and Jerry O’Connell to get their views on how to proceed. The idea is to make Congressmen part of an impressive list of sponsors.”

and from the same minutes——

“Mr. Berrall announced a legislative office will be established in Washington over the weekend with Jerry O’Connell doing the congressional work and two assistants at the office.”

Will you explain what your activity was among Congressmen to solicit membership in the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’Connell. When was this supposed to be?

Mr. Tavenner. The minutes of the executive meeting were January 13, 1939.

Mr. O’Connell. I was no longer a Member of Congress in 1939.

Mr. Tavenner. I didn’t say that you were.

Mr. O’Connell. Then I was supposed to head some kind of office here?

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Berrall announced that a legislative office will be established in Washington——

Mr. O’Connell. What is this Mr. Berrall? Who is he?

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know him?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t know him.

Mr. Tavenner (reading):

Mr. Berrall announced that a legislative office will be established in Washington over the weekend with Jerry O’Connell doing the congressional work and two assistants at the office.

Mr. O’Connell. As far as I am concerned he is talking out of thin air. I had nothing to do with any office. I wasn’t in a legislative office down here for the American League for Peace and Democracy.

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you in January 1939?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, my best recollection would be that in January 1939 I was back in the State of Montana. After I was defeated for Congress I started a weekly newspaper called Jerry O’Connell’s Montana Liberal.

I am pretty sure I was back there getting that paper underway and getting it published and so on, trying to get subscriptions. I just think he is talking out of complete thin air because I certainly never came down here and did any kind of work like that, or talked to any Congressmen or had teas for them or anything.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall when you left Washington at the end of the Congress in which you served?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t think after my defeat that I came back here at all. I was defeated, of course, in November 1938. I think my secretary came back and cleaned up what we had in the office and brought it back.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that the American League for Peace and Democracy was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Francis Biddle on September 24, 1942, in the following language:

Established in the United States in 1937 as successor to the American League against War and Fascism in an effort to create public sentiment on behalf of the foreign policy adapted to the interest of the Soviet Union. The American League for Peace and Democracy was designed to conceal Communist control in accordance with the new tactics of the Communist International.

Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire a little further on that?

Mr. Willis. Certainly.

Mr. Velde. Were you acquainted with any of the leaders of the movement of the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, about the only one I can remember, that stands out in my mind, was Dr. Harry F. Ward.

Mr. Velde. Do you know Dr. Harry F. Ward?

Mr. O’Connell. I knew him at that time.

Mr. Velde. You still know him, do you not?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I think if he walked in the room I don’t know whether I would recognize him. I would say it has probably been 10 or almost 15 years.

Mr. Velde. At that time he was head of the Methodist Federation of Social Action. I presume you know that, do you not?

Mr. O’Connell. My impression was that he was head of this organization.

Mr. Velde. Will you answer my question? Did you know that he was head of the Methodist Federation for Social Action at that time?

Mr. O’Connell. No, I really didn’t know whether he was or not. My impression was that it was somebody by the name of Jack McMichael that was head of that.

Mr. Velde. If my memory serves me correctly, it was not until after that time. It was 1942. Am I right, that Jack McMichael became head of the Methodist Federation for Social Action?

Mr. O’Connell. This was quite a while ago.

Mr. Velde. What contact did you have with Harry Ward as far as the American League for Peace and Democracy was concerned?

Mr. O’Connell. About the only contact I had with him, I don’t know whether he personally, but somebody before him, asked me to speak at a convention or meeting they had out in Pittsburgh in November 1937.

Then there was a banquet as I recall; I think after that time, something in the early part of 1938, in New York, where he asked me to speak and, of course, he presided at the banquet in New York. I don’t know whether it was at Pittsburgh, or whether he resided there, or not, but I remember his presiding.

Mr. Velde. Do you have any idea why he asked you to speak before the meeting?

Mr. O’Connell. I think because of my position on foreign policy and particularly on Spain at that time.

Mr. Velde. Did you know any other leaders in the movement for the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’Connell. The only one I recall now is Dr. Ward.

Mr. Tavenner. Possibly I can refresh his recollection on that. Wasn’t Earl Browder one of the leaders?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. I really don’t know. If he were, any connection I had with the league—I mean I had certainly nothing to do with him. I mean, he wasn’t involved at the meeting that I spoke to in New York or the meeting I spoke to in Pittsburgh. I never saw Browder or knew he was involved in it.

Mr. Tavenner. In the extract from the minutes of the executive meeting which I read a few moments ago——

Mr. O’Connell. Where was this executive meeting?

Mr. Tavenner. It was held in the home of Mrs. Fowler, on January 13, 1939. Now, it was suggested at that meeting, according to what I read, that a person by the name of Mr. Smith would get in touch with Marcantonio and Jerry O’Connell to get their advice on how to proceed.

Did anyone confer with you as to how to proceed to get Congressmen to lend their names as sponsors so as to form an impressive list for the American League for Peace and Democracy?

Mr. O’Connell. No; certainly nobody got in touch with me. I don’t know of any Smith who got in touch with me. I know I never had anything to do; I never came down here and tried to give Congressmen teas. I don’t know who this Mrs. Fowler is; I don’t know who Berrall is.

I think they were talking through their hat so far as I was concerned. I mean, I can’t speak for Marc.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall having been a speaker at the function of American Friends of the Chinese People in June of 1938?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; that was in New York, was it not? A banquet in New York.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. O’Connell. Or was that a meeting here in Washington? I think that was just after the Japanese aggression in China.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now aware that the American Friends of the Chinese People has been cited by this committee as a Communist-front organization?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I am not aware of that even now.

Mr. Tavenner. It was so cited on March 29, 1944.

Mr. O’Connell. I never got copies of the hearings or deliberations or decisions of the committee. Out there our press, unless it is specifically related to something out there, rarely carries any of this material.

Mr. Tavenner. The November 1948 issue of the Far East Spotlight reflects that you sent greetings to the Communist, Madame Sun Yat-Sen under auspices of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. Do you recall having done that?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I really don’t recall having done it, but I don’t deny that I did. I have tremendous respect for Madame Sun Yat-Sen. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not you were affiliated with the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy?

Mr. O’Connell. Affiliated with it?

Mr. Tavenner. In any way; yes.

Mr. Willis. What is the name of that committee?

Mr. Tavenner. A Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy.

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t remember——

Mr. Tavenner. When you say you probably did join in such a greeting, can you recall the circumstances under which the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy obtained your assistance?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I really don’t recall how it was done or who contacted me, or who asked me or anything. I am sure that if somebody asked me to send a greeting to Madame Sun Yat-Sen I might have done it.

Mr. Tavenner. The record should show at this point that the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy was cited as a Communist organization by Attorney General Tom Clark on April 27, 1949.

Were you acquainted with Mother Bloor?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I knew Mother Bloor.

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you knew her?

Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure that she came here to Washington and I was introduced to her here in Washington when I was in Congress, or if not, I probably——

Mr. Velde. Did you know her to be a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes.

Mr. Velde. How did you know she was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I think she said she was and was an avowed Communist. I don’t think she hid it or anything of that kind.

Mr. Willis. What is the name of that person?

Mr. O’Connell. Mother Bloor.

Mr. Tavenner. B-l-o-o-r.

Mr. O’Connell. As I recall, she came to see me in connection with my resolution in behalf of freedom for Tom Mooney. I am pretty sure that is how I met her.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you send her this greeting on her 75th birthday:

It affords me great pleasure to add my word of commendation and praise to Mother Bloor and to wish her well on the occasion of the celebration in her honor. When the final history of the movement of labor throughout the world is written, I know that proper tribute will be paid to her for her militant and unceasing fight for the betterment of the classes that toil and I am happy and proud to be one of those who join in paying honor and tribute to her on this day of memorable celebration. With the sender’s personal regards and every good wish, I greet her.

Did you send such a greeting?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. When was this supposed to be sent?

Mr. Tavenner. On her 75th birthday.

Mr. O’Connell. I mean, when was that?

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain as to the date.

Mr. O’Connell. I mean she was a real character. I am trying to recall. My dad was killed in a strike out in Butte and another organizer of the miners union was taken and hung at the Milwaukee trestle there. Whether Mother Bloor came out during that period or not, I really don’t know.

But she, at least when I was—she was a very old lady.

Mr. Tavenner. I can give you the date. It is July 18, 1937.

Mr. O’Connell. It was her 75th birthday?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. O’Connell. I can’t recall the wire. I don’t remember sending it, but I wouldn’t deny that I had greeted her on her 75th birthday.

Mr. Tavenner. Was that part of a plan of a group of people to add to her celebration?

Mr. Connell. I mean, I can’t recall any of the facts.

I don’t know who held the celebration, or under what auspices.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection:

It is a fact that there was a celebration committee established to celebrate the 75th birthday of Mother Bloor, an open Communist in this country, throughout the width and breadth of the land, and that you were a member of that celebrating committee? Or, I should correct that and say that you were a sponsor of that celebration committee?

I have before me a letterhead showing that Congressman Jerry J. O’Connell was one of a list of sponsors for that celebration.

Mr. Connell. I can’t recall the circumstances now, but as far as Mother Bloor was concerned, I am sure that I would have sent her some greetings on her 75th birthday, and if I am listed there as a sponsor—I don’t recall it now, but I don’t deny that I was.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to introduce the document in evidence, and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 6” for identification only, and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.

Mr. Tavenner. The National Federation for Constitutional Liberties in January 1943 addressed a message to the House of Representatives critical of the Dies committee and calling for its abolishment. A number of signatories appear to that letter and among them appears your name. It appears in this way:

I hereby join in signing the January 1943 message to the House of Representatives opposing renewal of the Dies committee.

There were a number of signatories, including Jerry O’Connell. Do you recall that?

Mr. Connell. I don’t recall, but I voted against the creation of the Dies committee in 1938 and I have constantly opposed it all the time it was in existence.

Mr. Tavenner. Now, in asking the question I am not critical in any sense and don’t mean it in any sense, because of your decision to oppose a congressional committee. That is a right that anyone has.

Mr. Connell. Well, I was a Member of Congress and I had a right to vote against it.

Mr. Tavenner. Not only as a Member of Congress, but as a citizen you had that right. I don’t intend it in any way as critical, but my purpose in asking it is to find out what connection you had with the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties which put out this message.

Mr. Connell. So far as I can remember they probably sent me a copy of that message and asked me if I would join in it. And then I think I was the sponsor of a call to organize or set up the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties.

Mr. Tavenner. I think I have already read into the record the citations by the Attorneys General Clark and Biddle of that organization. So I will not repeat it.

I asked you this morning about the activity of John Daschbach in connection with the Civil Rights Congress in the State of Washington. According to the committee’s information, he was chairman of the steering committee of that organization. Is that true?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether he was chairman of the steering committee. I remember he was the director in charge of the Civil Rights Congress office in Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. Didn’t he name you as one of the members of the steering committee?

Mr. O’Connell. If he did, I had no knowledge of it. When did he name me? When was this done?

Mr. Tavenner. In October of 1948.

Mr. O’Connell. He may have put me on there, but I never served as a member of the steering committee in the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. Tavenner. Why didn’t you?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I just remember I didn’t. In October of 1948 particularly we were in the midst of the 1948 campaign and I was the executive secretary of the Progressive Party.

Mr. Tavenner. The campaign would have been over in November; would it not?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir; it would have been, but I mean from October—October is always involved in politics, October is the month when the general election campaign is carried on.

He, of his own volition, may have made me a member of the steering committee, but I certainly don’t remember getting any notification and I certainly know I didn’t serve on the steering committee.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you have repeated a number of times during the course of the testimony your denial of any knowledge of Communist Party membership on the part of Tom Rabbitt and William Pennock while you were in the State of Washington.

Now, I have examined the testimony taken at the Canwell hearings—which occurred in 1948; did they not?

Mr. O’Connell. As I remember, there were two hearings out there. There was one in 1947—I think there was a hearing in 1947, and one in 1948.

Mr. Tavenner. The first hearings were conducted from January 27, to February 5 of 1947, and subsequent hearings were, or at least the report was made in 1948. I am not sure whether the bulk of the hearings were in 1947 or in 1948.

Mr. O’Connell. I think, as I remember, the longer hearings were in 1947 and then there were some shorter hearings held in 1948.

Mr. Tavenner. Now, I have examined this testimony and I find that Louis Budenz identified Tom Rabbitt, as a member of the Communist Party during the course of that hearing. He was the first witness.

Mr. O’Connell. If the committee please, I think Mr. Budenz at that hearing was asked questions about whether or not I was a member of the Communist Party and I think the records will show there that he didn’t definitely say that I was. He said that there was some discussion about me in Communist Party headquarters, and that I had a good record in Congress and the Communists thought I was——

Mr. Tavenner. I will give you an opportunity to explain that a little later.

Mr. O’Connell. Don’t let me forget because I sued Mr. Budenz about it.

Mr. Tavenner. I will give you an opportunity to explain that.

Mr. Willis. Sued whom?

Mr. O’Connell. I sued Mr. Budenz for the statements that he made.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Ward F. Warren identified Thomas Rabbitt as a person he knew to be a member of the Communist Party, that he sat in closed party meetings with Thomas Rabbitt.

Senator James Sullivan identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

Kathryn Fogg, K-a-t-h-r-y-n, identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party, and described fraction meetings which he attended with her.

Jess Fletcher, who was a well-known member of the Communist Party in Seattle, identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party and stated that he had sat in many Communist Party meetings with him and that he had attended, that Rabbitt had attended, Communist Party meetings in his home; that is, in Fletcher’s home.

Nat Honig identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

Harriett Riley identified Thomas Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

H. C. Armstrong identified Rabbitt as a member of the Communist Party.

Now, you knew at the time of those hearings that Thomas Rabbitt during those hearings had been identified as a Communist Party member by numerous individuals; didn’t you?

Mr. O’Connell. I knew that at those hearings those people whom you have named had said that he was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. When I asked you that question, you told us that you had never heard that Thomas Rabbitt was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t think I said I ever heard. You asked if I knew that he was a member of the Communist Party, and I said no, I didn’t know.

Now, I could go through, and I don’t want to take the time of the committee, I could tell you like, for instance, Armstrong, Sullivan, and all of the others, not all of the others, many of those, Kathryn Fogg, were all members of the State legislature, and they had various fights and conflicts and so on, and some of them were eliminated from the legislature, and some weren’t, and so on.

I could go through, Jess Fletcher was in the building-service union of which Rabbitt also was a member. There was fighting and division and dissension there.

Now, I think in view of all this, I think it ought to be remembered I came out in the State of Washington in August of 1944 and many of these things that have gone on, and so on, I know nothing of, or knew anything about it.

As a matter of fact, one of the principal jobs I had in the Democratic Party was to try to smooth out a lot of the fighting and dissension that had gone on between the so-called conservative and progressive wings of the Democratic Party out there. It was a job that I was apparently quite successful in.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a number of meetings, the purpose of which was to oppose the holding of the Canwell hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I mean the Progressive Party had meetings and, of course, to oppose the Canwell committee.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you bitterly opposed to the conduct of those hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. Decidedly so.

Mr. Tavenner. Was the hearing picketed?

Mr. O’Connell. The hearing was picketed; yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the picket line?

Mr. O’Connell. I wasn’t actually in the picket line.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take part in the picketing?

Mr. O’Connell. I was there and I was encouraging the picket line to be orderly and to make sure that its conduct was correct and so on.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you arrested in connection with a disturbance calculated to break up those hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. I was arrested for disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct, but I was acquitted on that charge.

Mr. Tavenner. So you were keenly interested in the Canwell hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. I was decidedly opposed to the Canwell committee. As a matter of fact, of the 7 members of the committee, I think we eliminated 6 of them in the following elections.

Mr. Tavenner. You knew very well that Tom Rabbitt had been identified over and over again in the course of those hearings as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, was not inside the meetings. I mean, I didn’t hear a lot of the testimony.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to tell us that you didn’t know that Tom Rabbitt had been identified as a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I knew, for instance, in the press and the press reports, and from information given to me that various people in there had said that Rabbitt and others were members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Then we cannot rely on your statement of this morning and yesterday when I asked you whether or not you knew that Tom Rabbitt, or had heard that Tom Rabbitt was a member of the Communist Party when you were dealing with him in the pension union and in the work of the Progressive Party?

Mr. O’Connell. Now, I said, and if my testimony is that I had not heard, I want to change it, but I said I did not know of my own knowledge and my testimony is that I did not know of my own knowledge and even today I do not know of my knowledge that Rabbitt is a member of the Communist Party.

As I understand it, he has not admitted that he is. I think according to your report he refused to testify and invoked the privilege of the fifth amendment as far as he was concerned.

Mr. Tavenner. Didn’t almost the same witnesses identify William Pennock as a Communist Party member during those same hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. So what is true with regard to Mr. Rabbitt, is true with regard to Mr. Pennock?

Mr. O’Connell. My testimony is that I didn’t know of my own knowledge that they were members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Velde. You stated you did have a suspicion that they were members of the Communist Party at the time you were dealing with them in the pension union. Now, will you tell this committee upon what you based that suspicion?

Mr. O’Connell. Largely, I was decidedly surprised when I heard the testimony of many of the people who testified in the Canwell hearings. I was surprised by Kathryn Fogg who, for instance, was a Democratic leader in South King County whom I knew real well. I didn’t dream she was a member of the Communist Party or had been one. When she came and testified that she had been a member of the Communist Party and had met in meetings I was certainly surprised.

And H. C. Armstrong——

Mr. Velde. When did you first suspect that Rabbitt and Pennock were members of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, the first suspicion that I had was actually around the period of time of those hearings out there. Up to that time it had been my job as executive secretary of the Democratic Party, I had to cover the whole State of Washington. I went around on tours and trips and speaking schedules and so on, and my contact with Rabbitt and Pennock largely during the first 2 years I was out there, 1945 and 1946, really was when I would come in to talk to a meeting of the King County Democratic Central Committee that they were sitting on as delegates, Democratic delegates from the 35th Legislative District.

Mr. Velde. Yet they were district committee members of the Communist Party in the State of Washington.

Mr. O’Connell. That I do not know.

Mr. Velde. It was fairly well known among politicians at least that they were; is that not true?

Mr. O’Connell. No, I don’t think so because—of course, I was completely dependent upon information from Democratic Party leaders out there who had been active in the Democratic Party for a long time. For instance, Rabbitt and Pennock were on various committees all through the Democratic Party and were actually, of course, members of the legislature, 1 in the senate and 1 in the house.

Mr. Tavenner. Were they working with the Progressive Party after that?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes, but, my position as far as Rabbitt and Pennock—today it is easy to go back 5 and 6 years and the developments that have gone on and the exposures that have been made and so on, have been much greater in the past than they were then. It was not my job to determine whether Rabbitt or Pennock was a Communist.

Mr. Velde. We acknowledge that, of course.

Mr. O’Connell. As far as the Democratic Party was concerned, we had certain platforms, certain programs.

Mr. Velde. But it is difficult for me to believe in your associations, the various associations you had with them, that you did not know that they were members of the Communist Party. I want to say that with all respect to you as a former Member of Congress.

Mr. O’Connell. I didn’t like Rabbitt; I had very little to do with Rabbitt. I fired him as a Progressive Party staff man in about May of 1948.

My first connection with him, where I was close to what he was like and what he did and so on, all that was from about the latter part of March 1948 down until May and in May of 1948 I removed him from the staff of the Progressive Party. I didn’t really like him.

Now, up until Bill Pennock, actually I had talked with Bill Pennock many times and he was much more, I would say, a real Democrat. He was in the Democratic Party conclaves; in their meetings and so on, and, of course, a much more personable fellow and all that, but until Bill Pennock actually announced, and regardless of this testimony that is there, and I talked with Bill Pennock after this testimony was given, and he vociferously denied that he issued statements in the papers and in the press and everything and pension union statements were made, up to the minute Bill Pennock made an open statement just before he was going on trial in the Smith Act cases in 1953 or 1954, whenever they were out there, I certainly had some real, real doubt whether Bill Pennock was a member of the Communist Party.

And I think you will find that pretty generally out there, if you went out and talked to ordinary people out there, who were working in the Democratic Party, chairmen and State committeemen and so on, and all of that kind.

Mr. Velde. Well, it is entirely possible.

Mr. O’Connell. For instance, Governor Wallgren, who had been in the Congress for 10 years, and had been United States Senator for about 6 years, Governor Wallgren appointed Pennock to a position as assistant superintendent of institutions out there.

Mr. Tavenner. However, that wasn’t after 1948.

Mr. O’Connell. No, that was in 1945.

Mr. Velde. At that time, how would you determine in your own mind whether or not a person was a member of the Communist Party? What standards would you use? I am talking about the Wallace campaign.

Mr. O’Connell. About which campaign?

Mr. Velde. The Progressive campaign with Wallace. What standards would you use to determine whether or not a man was a Communist?

Mr. O’Connell. Taking Rabbitt specifically, the reason I removed him as a member of the staff in the Progressive Party in 1948, in 1948 the Progressive Party was under attack, particularly nationally, as being Communist controlled and Communist dominated and being a Red party and so on, and we had, particularly in South King County, an organizer by the name of Belden who was a member of various veterans’ groups out there.

Belden was organizing Progressive Party clubs——

Mr. Velde. With all due respect, I think you could tell what standards you would use.

Mr. O’Connell. When Belden was asked by people whether or not this was a Red party, Belden, of course, would deny it and go on and say the kind of people who were in it.

Rabbitt was critical of the way that he said that it was not a Red party and the inference which he left which was in effect a denunciation of the Reds and all of that and, of course, I figured if he is touchy about that on the subject and all that, why, there is probably some basis for it, for the charges that have been made against him.

Mr. Velde. You have not answered the question at all, in my opinion. Let me ask you this: You were familiar with the fact that the Soviet Union had established an espionage network here in the United States by 1948, were you not?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I was not. I don’t know whether that is true even today. I mean, you asked me and I don’t know. I would have to be shown and somebody would have to show me where they are and the proof. I don’t know whether that is true.

Mr. Velde. Are you familiar with the various Smith Act trials?

Mr. O’Connell. I have read a lot about the Smith Act trials; yes, sir. But in none of the Smith Act trials they were not charged with espionage and treason or anything of that kind.

Mr. Velde. No; of course they were charged with advocating the overthrow of our form of government by force and violence.

Mr. O’Connell. It even goes back further than that, conspiring to teach and all that, but in none of those trials I don’t know any development of espionage or spying. Of course, I am not familiar with all the testimony. I have not read it all.

Mr. Velde. Are you familiar with the Rosenberg case?

Mr. O’Connell. I am familiar with the Rosenberg case.

Mr. Velde. Certainly from the result of that you must have had the suspicion that there was an espionage network operating in this country.

Mr. O’Connell. Even today I am not convinced that the Rosenbergs were involved in Soviet espionage. Right now I think there is serious doubt of it.

Mr. Velde. Even though they were convicted under our American system of jurisprudence?

Mr. O’Connell. Even though they were convicted and executed I still feel it. You see, Congressman, I have a genuine interest in civil liberty. It is not a Communist interest in civil liberty. I have studied the testimony in the case of the Rosenbergs and so on. I think it is seriously lacking, at least in my mind, and from my very meager experience as an attorney, it is seriously lacking in fundamental proof of their guilt. I think Dr. Harold Urey, many scientists and so on, feel the same way about it.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, I note when speaking of Pennock and Rabbitt that a great part of your answers has dealt with the period when you were secretary for the Democratic Party. But it was after the Canwell hearings that the Progressive Party was established. It was in the spring of 1947.

So at the time that Pennock and Rabbitt were associated with the Progressive Party this information had already come out in the Canwell hearings?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. And you have spoken of what happened before the Canwell hearings.

Mr. O’Connell. That doesn’t prove to me, I mean knowing many of the people that testified—for instance, Jim Sullivan, I know Jim Sullivan’s attitude and motives. I know precisely that he was president of the Washington Pension Union and he lost his job and Pennock got it.

I could go through with those, I could go through each one and show the particular reason why they testified. I judge by what Budenz said about me—Budenz knew I wasn’t a member of the Communist Party. He didn’t dare testify that I was.

Mr. Velde. Will you tell us——

Mr. O’Connell. Will you let me finish, Congressman.

Mr. Velde. You did not answer my question a while ago as to how you would judge whether or not a person was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I really haven’t thought about it. I can’t give you precise standards and tests. I, for instance, don’t think, I mean the standards and tests set down in the Communist Control Act of 1954 are good; I think they would embrace a lot of people who are non-Communists. I think it would involve a lot of people who are not members of the Communist Party if you were to take those tests, for instance. I think it is entirely too broad.

Mr. Tavenner. The sum and substance of your testimony is that the eight witnesses whose testimony I have quoted here are not worthy of belief and therefore, you just ignored their testimony when the matter came up of associating Rabbitt and Pennock with you in the Progressive Party work?

Mr. O’Connell. Not only as far as I was concerned, but as far as the people of the State of Washington, particularly in the districts that these representatives were concerned, and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Washington itself, this job was so poorly done by the Canwell committee that the committee was never re-created, and in the last session of the Legislative Assembly of Washington State had Canwell before it for contempt for the destruction of the records of his committee.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer my question, please?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, the thing I am trying to point out to you is that I know how those hearings were conducted. There was no opportunity, no opportunity for cross-examination; no opportunity for witnesses to come in on the other side, or anything. I mean, people were paraded there, like Budenz, and the others, came there and made long, long statements; they just went on and on and made statements about almost everything imaginable and conceivable.

Mr. Tavenner. You still haven’t answered my question.

Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned that did not prove to me that Rabbitt or Pennock or anybody named in there was Communist.

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not you absolutely ignored the testimony in the selection of those people to assist you in the work of the Progressive Party.

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I wouldn’t use the language that I totally ignored it, or anything, but I was not motivated in my dealings with them by anything that was developed in those hearings. Now, you promised me an opportunity to——

Mr. Tavenner. I will.

Mr. O’Connell. All right.

Mr. Tavenner. You have told us that you were acquainted with Barbara Hartle.

Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I think that is a correct statement that I was acquainted with her.

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you had met her probably 5 times.

Mr. O’Connell. I met her the first time in Montana. Then I met her a few times in the State of Washington.

Mr. Tavenner. I asked Mrs. Hartle in the course of the testimony taken in June 1954 to tell the committee to what extent the Communist Party in that area was interested in the work of the Progressive Party. You will find it on page 6215 of her testimony. Her reply was this:

To a very considerable extent. After the reconstitution the Communist Party recognized its revisionism of Marxism-Leninism in the political field, and decided that the correct program was for a new third anti-imperialist party. After this ideological campaign had proceeded for at least a year the Progressive Party was founded preceded for a period by the Progressive Citizens of America. The Communist Party viewed this as a development along favorable lines and in this district threw considerable effort into the support and building of it and was able to furnish the top leadership as well in the State. Hugh DeLacy, head of the Progressive Citizens of America, Jerry O’Connell, and Tom Rabbitt, head of the Progressive Party, all three of whom were in executive positions, were members of the Communist Party to the best of my understanding. I have less knowledge of O’Connell’s Communist Party membership than of DeLacy and Rabbitt, but have sat in Communist Party meetings with him when all present were Communists, and I understood him to be one also, or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference. Many Communist Party members were for the founding of the Progressive Party in this State and worked in it after its founding. They numbered in the hundreds. The policy of the Progressive Party in this State was controlled by the Communist Party and if there were any problems at all along this line they came from national demands or from demands of persons and groups working also in the Progressive Party and whom the Communist Party wanted to retain and influence. Other Communist Party leaders also in leadership of the Progressive Party were William J. Pennock, Karley Larsen, Fair Taylor, Tom Rabbitt, Jerry O’Connell.

Then she proceeded to refer to other Communist Party members active in the Progressive Party.

I want to call to your attention the fact that she stated that the Communist Party furnished the leadership to the Progressive Party in the State. The first person she named in that capacity was Hugh DeLacy. What was Hugh DeLacy’s position in the Progressive Party?

Mr. O’Connell. Hugh DeLacy had no position in the Progressive Party and no office in the Progressive Party, in the State of Washington.

Mr. Tavenner. Was it in the Progressive Citizens of America?

Mr. O’Connell. I think he was head of the Progressive Citizens of America. We had actually, when the Progressive Party was organized we had a real fight because the Progressive Citizens of America were coming in, they had an organizational drive which was in support of Wallace as such, but when the Progressive Party of Washington was actually set up the leadership came not from the people who were in the Progressive Citizens of America, but from people who were in the Democratic Party.

Mr. Tavenner. And people who were in the Young Progressives?

Mr. O’Connell. I don’t think we had any Young Progressives.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any position, prior to the formation of the Progressive Party in any organization other than the Democratic Party?

Mr. O’Connell. No. As I told you, we had an organization known as Roosevelt Democrats; I was executive secretary of it.

Mr. Tavenner. Other than that, you had no position in any group or branch?

Mr. O’Connell. No, and Tom Rabbitt was not the head of the Progressive Party. Russell Fluent was.

Mr. Tavenner. But he did hold an executive position as stated by Mrs. Hartle?

Mr. O’Connell. No, he did not.

Mr. Tavenner. What was his position?

Mr. O’Connell. As I said, he was on the staff from about, I would say——

Mr. Tavenner. Isn’t that an executive position, being a member of the staff? Was he paid for his services?

Mr. O’Connell. He was paid for his services.

I mean, as I understand, he was not in an executive position. He had an organizational job to do this southern King County. I mean, he was assigned to organizational work, but it certainly wasn’t, I mean he wasn’t chairman or vice chairman, or secretary, or any executive position as I know it. And because of the kind of job he did out there, I dropped him from the staff.

Mr. Tavenner. Now, DeLacy has been shown to have been a member of the Communist Party by witnesses other than Barbara Hartle and since her testimony. Rabbitt has also.

Mrs. Hartle stated she had less knowledge of Communist Party membership on your part, but that she sat with you in Communist Party meetings when all present were Communists. Is that statement true or false?

Mr. O’Connell. That statement, as far as I am concerned, is false. I never sat in any Communist Party meeting with her, at least that I knew was called a Communist Party meeting. I have never sat in when all present were Communists.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you sit in any Communist Party meeting when some of the persons present were not Communists?

Mr. O’Connell. I do not know what her definition of a Communist Party meeting would be. That is the first thing that bothers me about that statement. I, for instance—I mean if the Communist Party called a meeting, as I understand her statement here, if the Communist Party called a meeting I know I never went to that meeting.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you sit in a meeting of Communist Party members?

Mr. O’Connell. If she means, for instance, that a meeting of probable Democrats in the 35th District, people who were in the Democrat Party were there and there was a meeting——

Mr. Tavenner. You speak of the Democrat Party each time. This testimony relates to the Progressive Party. Why not refer to that period of time?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, she said she sat in Communist Party meetings with me when all present were Communists. Likewise with the Progressive Party. I mean there could have been a Progressive Party meeting called and all that, and all of the people there present might have been Communists to her knowledge but certainly not to mine. She is careful; I mean she qualifies, she says, “I understood to be one or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference.” She had doubts.

Mr. Willis. At this point that is what this has just about boiled down to in my mind, Mrs. Hartle’s description. This morning I sat here and listened to the period of time when you were chairman of the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. You became associated with or had business relations with Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Stone, Rose Clinton, Tom Buchanan, Ruth Rifkin, Elizabeth Sasuly, Tilla Minowitz, Carl Marzani, Lillian Clott, and Alexander Wright. In each instance you had an explanation, although we read from the record that others had said that these people were Communists, that you did not know about them. Well, that is a little difficult but it could have happened. I am not reproaching you, but you become a little more indifferent when you will not accept, for instance, the pronouncement of a court, the highest court of the land, that Rosenbergs were Communists. You refuse to accept that; you still are not convinced.

To me her description is becoming pretty good, to be so tolerant as to be completely indifferent. Probably your mind is shut to having a standard to satisfy you as to whether a group is or is not Communist. I am entirely frank about it. Listening all morning my mind at this time, even more and more as we go along, is that maybe your sincere feeling—how did she describe that?

Mr. O’Connell (reading):

I understand him to be one also, or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference.

Mr. Willis. Well, if she had used the words “so indifferent,” it would have been pretty close to my frank analysis of your testimony.

Mr. Velde. Let me say I concur with your statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Willis. If she had substituted the word “indifferent,” it would have been a close analysis of our appreciation of your testimony up to now. I look forward, however, to your contest with Mr. Budenz in that lawsuit that you mentioned.

Mr. O’Connell. I want to assure you that there is a difference. One can be a sincere American liberal and still fight for the political rights and civil rights of Communists. I can be non-Communist and yet not anti-Communist, just like I can be a Democrat and yet not an anti-Republican.

Mr. Willis. Yes, but you still have not given us a standard. It is hard to put in words—I do not know how to describe it—as to what is my standard, of what is a Communist. I would say that after a trial by all our courts, including a refusal of relief from the Supreme Court, refusal of appeals to two Presidents, with all the pressure brought on them, the courts and executive officers (I suppose they must have reviewed the record; they all seemed satisfied) but still you are not satisfied. So that makes it indifferent to me as to what your standard could be.

Mr. O’Connell. I do not want to go into all of the evidence as I understand it, but as an attorney I am completely suspicious of the testimony given by David Greenglass. He had real motives. He had everything to gain by what he was doing. During the pleas for clemency and since that time there has been other evidence produced that in my mind raises a real question, the positions taken by Dr. Harold Urey and by other scientists as to whether or not the so-called secret which was transferred or alleged to have been transferred and so on was a secret at all. These are the things that make me wonder about it. I am not satisfied.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you of course, noted from the testimony that I read that Barbara Hartle, who has been qualified as an expert in this field, stated that the Communist Party furnished the top leadership in the State of Washington for the Progressive Party. She also stated that the policy of the Progressive Party in that State was controlled by the Communist Party.

Now in that connection I want to follow a little further along with her testimony to support the extent to which the Communist Party was in a position to control the Progressive Party. I made this statement to Mrs. Hartle on page 6216:

Mrs. Hartle, the committee staff has procured from the secretary of state of the State of Washington a photostatic copy of the reports required to be made by law of the proceedings of the nominating convention for the year 1952—

that was the nominating convention of the Progressive Party—

It is noted that the certificate is signed by Thomas C. Rabbitt, permanent secretary of the Progressive Party. You have heretofore identified him as a member of the Communist Party, have you not?

Mrs. Hartle. Yes, I have.

Mr. Tavenner. The document referred to contains a certificate of attendance at the nominating convention of the Progressive Party held on the 9th day of September 1952. Will you please examine the list and read into the record the names of those appearing thereon who are known to you to have been members of the Communist Party?

(The witness then proceeded to read the names of those she had identified.)

Mr. Tavenner. Will you now count the number of those whose signatures appear on the list?

Mrs. Hartle. Yes; 33.

Mr. Tavenner. I have kept a record of the number of those identified by you as members of the Communist Party. Out of the total list of 33 names, you have identified 19.

Mrs. Hartle further testified that while she was in the underground of the Communist Party, which meant after 1950——

Mr. O’Connell. Where is that?

Mr. Tavenner. It is on the same page.

I received a brief description of what this Independent Party was. I was told that it had been impossible to place candidates for the Communist Party on the election ballot and that steps were taken then to put Communist candidates on an Independent Party ticket and take this means of bringing the Communist program into the election campaign.

The result was that we furnished to Mrs. Hartle a list of 49 persons certified by an affidavit to have attended the nominating convention of the Independent Party. Mrs. Hartle was asked to examine that list. Of the 49 persons appearing on the list, she identified 36 as known to her to be members of the Communist Party.

Mr. O’Connell. That list, of course, is all 1952 with reference to the Progressive Party in 1950, with reference to the so-called Independent Party?

Mr. Tavenner. That is right.

Mr. O’Connell. My testimony is that I left the State of Washington in October 1949.

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct.

Mr. O’Connell. I could distinguish if we had the time, as far as these people were concerned, with reference to the Progressive Party as it existed when I was there.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

(The committee members present when the hearing reconvened were Messrs. Willis and Velde.)

Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you told us a few minutes ago that Hugh DeLacy had not been connected with your organization; that is, the Progressive Party.

Mr. O’Connell. No; I did not say that he——

Mr. Tavenner. You said he was not in an executive position.

Mr. O’Connell. He was not in an executive position.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he an organizer employed by you?

Mr. O’Connell. I do not remember whether he was there during the period when the party was actually organized, but he was there for a period of a few weeks.

Mr. Tavenner. That was in 1948, was it not?

Mr. O’Connell. In 1948 when the organization work was being done. Then he later went on to the position with the national office of the Progressive Party.

Mr. Tavenner. He finally became the head of the Progressive Party for the State of Ohio?

Mr. O’Connell. I think that is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. According to his testimony, he was employed as a State organizer for the Progressive Party in Washington from sometime around February or March, perhaps even later, of 1948, up to somewhere around June of the same year.

Mr. O’Connell. I think that is comparatively correct. My remembrance of it is that the provisional committee operated from about March, I would say around March 23 of 1948, and we actually had the founding convention of the rest of the party in the State of Washington the latter part of May.

Mr. Tavenner. DeLacy was a paid functionary for the Progressive Party during the period he indicated, was he not?

Mr. O’Connell. He was a paid organizer during that period.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you employ him?

Mr. O’Connell. I could not say strictly that I employed him. I think that there was an executive committee group that was set up at the time.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you his superior?

Mr. O’Connell. I was his superior; yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Now you indicated that you desired an opportunity to explain the testimony that Mr. Louis Budenz——

Mr. Willis. Before you come to that, you started to say 3 or 4 times that you had fired Mr. Rabbitt.

Mr. O’Connell. I fired Mr. Rabbitt; I removed him from the staff. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Willis. Yes. Why did you fire him?

Mr. O’Connell. I explained he was organizing in southern King County and he was supercritical of the work of a man by the name of Belden who was organizing clubs in what we call the 30th Legislative District of King County. The party was being attacked as being Communist or Communist-controlled or Red, and Belden was trying to explain as an ordinary individual that it was not Communist-controlled and was not Red. In the course of his explanation, at least, left anti-Communist inference; Rabbitt was critical of it.

Mr. Tavenner. It appears from the certificate made under law to the State of Washington that he was secretary of the Progressive Party in 1952—that Rabbitt was secretary.

Mr. O’Connell. In 1952?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, of my own knowledge would not know if that is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Did he remain on the executive committee of the Progressive Party after the time you say you discharged him from his paid position?

Mr. O’Connell. No, not as long as I was there. When I left in October of 1949, as I understand, in the early part of December a resolution was passed by the State board of the Progressive Party declaring my office vacant because I had not returned from the State of Montana. Either at that meeting or shortly after, Rabbitt was named by the executive committee. I think, first, the original title given to him was coordinator. Later I think he was made executive secretary. I know these things from what people have told me, but not of my own knowledge.

Mr. Tavenner. I am not sure that you have answered specifically my question relating to the testimony of Barbara Hartle insofar as it referred to you. Barbara Hartle testified that you attended Communist Party meetings in which she was present where all the persons present were members of the Communist Party. Did you attend any such meeting or meetings?

Mr. O’Connell I think my explanation of that was that if I sat in a Communist Party meeting or what she considered to be a Communist Party meeting where all present were Communists, I had no knowledge that they were Communists or it was a Communist Party meeting. Since I read the testimony yesterday, I tried to recall all the meetings out there where there would be a possibility she was present. I just cannot recall the occasions I saw Barbara Hartle out there—usually on the street or something of that kind—and I cannot recall any meeting that she sat in that I was in. I just cannot remember any single meeting that she sat in there where at least I knew she was there. She might have been in another room or some other place, but she was not visible to me anywhere.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party during the period of time you were in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’Connell. I was not.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time while in the State of Washington, that is, between 1944 and 1949, affiliated in any way with the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I was not.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. O’Connell. I am not now and I have never been a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. You stated a desire to explain the testimony of Mr. Louis Budenz given at the Canwell hearings.

Mr. O’Connell. Yes. At the Canwell hearings, Mr. Budenz—I think to save time, and I want to save time, Mr. Budenz testified that—I think the substance of his testimony was that he did not know whether or not I was a Communist, very much like Mrs. Hartle does. I think it is significant that she was the second top Communist in the State of Washington; and yet if I were the leading Communist that she says I was out there, she still is not sure whether I was or not. I think that is quite significant.

Likewise with Budenz. He was not sure whether I was Communist, but he had heard some discussion about me in the Communist Party headquarters in New York. As far as he knew, in meetings that he had heard, I was supposed to be all right and I was a person they could get along with. He made many statements of that kind. Then he went into the statement about the assassination of Leon Trotsky, which to the press in the State of Washington, left the impression that particularly somehow or other I was involved. So I sued Mr. Budenz in a civil suit in the Superior Court of King County the very next day.

Mr. Willis. In New York?

Mr. O’Connell. No; in the State of Washington—Seattle, Wash. I sued him for libel for the statements that he made about me. I fixed the sum of damages at $1,500,000. He was served with subpena, legally served with a summons, rather, in that suit, and through his attorneys defended the suit by taking advantage of his immunity as a legislative witness before the State legislative committee. He did not defend it.

Mr. Willis. What do you mean, he did not defend it?

Mr. O’Connell. I mean instead of letting the thing come to trial, instead of letting the issue come to trial on facts, to be tried on the facts, and so on, he and his attorneys hid behind his legislative immunity that he was in the State of Washington by virtue of a subpena to appear before the legislative committee of the State of Washington and under the laws of the State could not be legally served with a summons and sued in the State. The case was dismissed on that ground.

Mr. Tavenner. Was this the testimony to which you referred:

I will ask you, Professor, Do you know a former Congressman from Montana by the name of Jerry O’Connell?

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.

Question. Do you know whether or not Mr. O’Connell was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Budenz. Not that specific. I know that he was one whom the party felt it must take care of because of his agreement constantly with the party line. This came up in the case of Congressman John T. Bernard, of Minnesota, and Congressman O’Connell. The discussion came up in the national headquarters of the Communist Party in the committee headed by William Winant about how to take care of these Congressmen because they agreed with the party line. And it was agreed that Bernard and O’Connell both would get jobs with the International Workers Order, this Communist-controlled front to which I have referred.

Now, it is my impression that—well, I know that Bernard got it, and it is my impression that Mr. O’Connell temporarily also received that cynosure through the cooperation of the party. I heard the discussion in the party circles first, and later on I heard that it was to be accomplished.

That is the testimony to which you refer?

Mr. O’Connell. That is the testimony to which I refer.

Mr. Tavenner. You were employed by the International Workers Order, were you not?

Mr. O’Connell. In order not to prolong it—Congressman Willis did not hear this, but yesterday I testified about my connections with the International Workers Order. The original contact, as I remember, was made by Peter Shipka to advise the local Serbs and Croats which existed in the city of Butte. It was, as I remember, during a period when I think Hitler had already invaded Yugoslavia and it was a question of whether they were supporting Milhailovich or Pavlich. There was a lot of dissension going on between the Serbs and Croats. I was asked to go down and advise with them and help with them. Many of them I knew because of my political candidacies for legislature and for the railroad and public service commission and for Congress there.

Mr. Tavenner. That is all in the record.

Mr. O’Connell. Yes. Then I was sent on a specific job to do with reference to these coal miners at Steamboat Springs who were applying for citizenship and were members of the International Workers Order.

Mr. Tavenner. You were employed to go on speaking tours over the country for which you were paid $200 a month and your expenses?

Mr. O’Connell. I made only one speaking tour on the plan for plenty. The plan for plenty we had was an improved social security, called for improvement of the social security system as it existed at that time. I made some speeches. You asked me what I got, how much compensation I had received. I said in my opinion it would average about $200 a month.

Mr. Tavenner. And your expenses?

Mr. O’Connell. And my expenses, yes. I knew nothing about Mr. Budenz’ discussion with the Communist Party headquarters or anything. I got a call from Mr. Shipka. I am sure it was Mr. Shipka, the treasurer of the organization, who asked me first to do these two specific jobs which I did within a short time. Then later he called me to make these speeches on a plan for plenty.

Mr. Tavenner. Now I have before me an excerpt from the May 29, 1941, issue of Montana Labor News. The title is, “IWO Names O’Connell Rocky Mountain Director.” It is datelined New York, May 10. I will read it:

“Former Representative Jerry J. O’Connell, labor’s fighting Congressman from Montana, has been appointed regional director for the International Workers Order in the Rocky Mountain area, Herbert Benjamin, executive secretary of that organization, announced today. “Mr. O’Connell will be able to continue his effort on behalf of the labor movement on a much broader scale in his new post,” Herbert Benjamin declared, “since the IWO is labor’s foremost and largest fraternal benefit society. Our national membership of 155,000 supports the trade-union movement and its individual members on many fronts; providing insurance, sickness, and accident benefits at low rates, a rounded program of club and fraternal social life, plus a nationwide campaign for improving living standards, and social security embodied in our plan for plenty.”

Mr. O’Connell. That is the first I knew—nobody told me that I was to be regional director of the IWO. As far as I can remember, as far as their clubs were concerned out in the Rocky Mountain area, they had one in Butte, which was the only one they had in the whole State of Montana. I think they had one down in this town called Steamboat Springs, Col. Those were the only two clubs that I know of in the Rocky Mountain area. There were certainly no—at least on my part, there was no idea I was to be regional director, because the first 2 assignments that I got were first to go down to advise this club in Butte and the other to go down to this Steamboat Springs, in Colorado, and clear up the question that the judge and the examiner were raising there. The judge at the time thought that the IWO and the IWW were one and the same. I brought Mr. Charles Cunningham, I think his name was, commissioner of insurance of the State of Colorado, to the judge to point out that the IWO was a fraternal benefit organization.

Mr. Tavenner. You have explained all that in exactly the same detail.

Mr. O’Connell. Yes, but the concept that I was a regional director——

Mr. Willis. I am not so sure I followed you on the reason for the dismissal of the suit you filed.

Mr. O’Connell. I did not dismiss the suit.

Mr. Willis. I do not think I caught the point. Was it a jurisdictional question? Specifically, what was it?

Mr. O’Connell. It was a motion to quash. Actually, it arose on the motion to quash the service of the summons.

Mr. Willis. On what grounds?

Mr. O’Connell. On the grounds that Mr. Budenz had immunity as a legislative witness before the State legislative committee that he was appearing before in the State of Washington.

Mr. Willis. He was not from Washington—not a resident of the State of Washington?

Mr. O’Connell. No; he was a resident of New York.

Mr. Willis. You filed suit against him in Washington at a time while he happened to be there?

Mr. O’Connell. While he happened to be there.

Mr. Willis. But he was there on State legislative business?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes.

Mr. Willis. And therefore was immune from service, and that was the basis for his motion to quash?

Mr. O’Connell. We served the summons on him. My desire was to get a test and a trial on the factual merits.

Mr. Willis. Was it filed in the State or Federal court?

Mr. O’Connell. In the superior court of King County.

Mr. Willis. His motion to quash was based on the fact he was served with the papers while he happened to be in the State of Washington on State legislative business and therefore was not subject to service process?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes.

Mr. Willis. And his motion came up before the court and the court dismissed the action?

Mr. O’Connell. Yes.

Mr. Willis. Did you sue him elsewhere?

Mr. O’Connell. And I did not pursue it elsewhere.

Mr. Willis. You did not file suit elsewhere against him?

Mr. O’Connell. By the time that was done he was gone.

Mr. Willis. I am not talking about that. You could have sued him. Anybody is subject to suit somewhere, and his domicile is the real place. I say did you not pursue him, upon dismissal of the suit in Washington and file another suit elsewhere?

Mr. O’Connell. You mean go to New York and file a suit against him?

Mr. Willis. Yes.

Mr. O’Connell. No; certainly not.

Mr. Willis. Or in the Federal court or in any court?

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I would have to go to New York. If he was a resident of New York, I would have to go to New York in order to get service; but I had him out in the State of Washington where I did get service on him.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the photostatic copy of the news article from the Montana Labor News and ask that it be marked as “O’Connell Exhibit No. 7” for identification purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like the record to show at this point that the International Workers Order was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and again on September 21, 1948, and that it was cited by Attorney General Francis Biddle on September 24, 1942, as one of the strongest Communist organizations. It has also been cited by other committees, including this committee.

Were you acquainted with its secretary, Herbert Benjamin?

Mr. O’Connell. I knew Herbert Benjamin. I am pretty sure he is the same Herbert Benjamin who was an officer in the Workers Alliance during WPA days, when I was in Congress. But I have actually had no contact with Benjamin in the IWO. In fact, this is the first I knew he had any connection with the IWO. But I knew him; I am sure he was lobbying here on the Hill with a man by the name of David Lasser while I was in Congress. I think he was with the Workers Alliance.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Louis Budenz prior to the time he appeared as a witness at the Canwell hearings in the State of Washington?

Mr. O’Connell. No, I was not acquainted with him. Shortly before he left the Communist Party he wrote me a letter asking me to write a series of articles for the Daily Worker about Senator Wheeler, which I refused, which I rejected. That is the only contact I ever had. I never met Budenz, never saw him or anything, until he was out in the State of Washington.

Mr. Velde. Did he want you to write articles favorable to Senator Wheeler?

Mr. O’Connell. No, he wanted me to write anti-Wheeler articles. Senator Wheeler and I became tangled politically out there. I was going to run against Senator Wheeler for the Senate in 1940, and Senator Wheeler of course took care of me in 1938. So I did not get to run. I mean the fight, there were people who were anxious to defeat Wheeler from 1940 on down until he was actually defeated in 1946.

He wrote that letter to me, I would say, just shortly before he left the Communist Party.

Mr. Willis. Those articles were to appear in the Daily Worker?

Mr. O’Connell. In the Daily Worker; yes.

Mr. Willis. Would an unfavorable article appearing in the Daily Worker be harmful to one’s political life in those days in Montana?

Mr. O’Connell. No, I mean——

Mr. Willis. You did not want to inject yourself in it?

Mr. O’Connell. I did not want to write the articles, that is all.

Mr. Willis. I would say the best compliment to me in my district would be for the Daily Worker to say that I was a rotter.

Mr. O’Connell. Well, I think that would be true today. You would be surprised if you went out to the State of Montana and went into some of the mining camps and taverns and what not. For instance, we have a character in Butte by the name of Paddy King. Paddy sells the Daily Worker. He has silicosis. He is a real character around there. He goes all around the town. Everybody buys the Daily Worker from Paddy. They do not think much of it. Some of them read it, some of them throw it away, and so on.

Mr. Velde. Do you still read it?

Mr. O’Connell. No; I do not. Of course, I do not live in Butte any longer. I actually do not think I have seen the Daily Worker since they used to be delivered to our doors here in Washington.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Alexander Bittelman?

Mr. O’Connell. No. Who is he?

Mr. Tavenner. Alexander Bittelman has been identified in testimony as a functionary of the Communist Party in the city of New York.

Mr. O’Connell. I do not know any Alexander Bittelman.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. Velde. I have no questions to ask the witness. It is apparent from his testimony, that Mr. O’Connell has a great deal of knowledge about Communist Party activities which he has refused to give this committee. That does not disturb me as much as the fact that it appears that he is still ideologically favorable to the Communist Party of the United States. It is very regrettable, but apparently every person, including those favorable to the Communist Party, has a right to express his opinion in this country. I want to say this: I hope that Mr. O’Connell will think this matter over in the future and give us the benefit of the knowledge that he possesses about the activities of the Communist Party in the United States.

Mr. O’Connell. Congressman, I have done my very best. I have talked to you. I do not want to argue. I do say that I appreciate all the consideration which the committee has given me, particularly on the two instances when I asked for continuations because of my illness. I appreciate the fairness with which the committee has treated me throughout the hearings. I just want to say that, as far as I am concerned—that is, the best way I can describe it honestly and sincerely, is that from my environment, from the poverty since my birth and the things that happened to me as a child and as a young man, and so on, I grew up in a very, very liberal tradition where people were certainly tolerant of all the various shades and hues of political opinion as we saw them. I think I could best describe myself, I am just an old-fashioned American liberal. I want to assure you that I have had no training——

Mr. Tavenner. I do not want to prolong the discussion. At the beginning of the hearing you mentioned the fact that you had passed the bar in Montana, and that you are now a practicing lawyer, and you intended to forget about any type of political activity. I just wonder whether you consider the Communist Party activity as being political.

Mr. O’Connell. I think you asked me that question before.

Mr. Tavenner. I do not think I did.

Mr. O’Connell. Well, somebody asked me it before. As far as I am concerned, I am not engaged in any Communist Party activity in the State of Montana or any party activity, Progressive, or Democrat, or anything. I have been asked by the Progressive Party in 1950 to run for the United States Senate and I refused. I have been asked by the press in Montana—I am not being braggadocio or conceited—by the various newspapers, the Great Falls Tribune, the Lewistown Daily News, and many others, whether I was going to come back into the political life of the State. I have always told them, and told them constantly, that I wanted to be a lawyer; I wanted to be, if I could, the best lawyer that Montana ever had. That was the desire that I had. I have been practicing law to the very best of my ability. When a man starts to practice law, as I did, when he is about 40 years of age, he has a lot to learn. There are many—well, I am sure, Mr. Willis, as an attorney you know the best teacher, of course, is experience. I have been trying to keep my nose clean and hewing to the line. I have been practicing law. That is what I have been doing. I think in my work out there I have earned the respect and consideration of all the people in the kind of job I have been doing.

We do not have any integrated bar in the State of Montana. The Montana Supreme Court regulates and supervises the bar out there. I am sure that the members of the supreme court will tell you the things I have said here today about my friend and all that are true.

Mr. Velde. Do you not think you are a bit gullible or naive when you say that you did not know there was a Soviet espionage ring operating in this country? Tell the committee the truth.

Mr. O’Connell. Now listen. I think I have set forth my position. I do not know that that is actually true. I do not know that it is true. I do not know it. I have never met a Soviet spy that I know of.

Mr. Velde. It is just unbelievable to me. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Mr. O’Connell. You are in a different position than I am.

Mr. Velde. With all your connections that have been brought out here with the various front groups, with all of your connections with well-known Communists, not to realize that there has been an espionage ring operating in this country is amazing to me. You are an intelligent man.

Mr. O’Connell. Any of those groups or any of the individuals that have been mentioned here can be tied down to specific programs or purposes or things of that kind, but certainly nothing along the line of espionage.

Mr. Willis. Would it surprise you if they were?

Mr. O’Connell. No, it would not surprise me; but what I am saying is that I do not know.

Mr. Willis. The committee is adjourned and the witness is dismissed.

Mr. O’Connell. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 5:25 p. m., the hearing in the above matter was concluded and the committee recessed to the call of the Chair.)

---