Mr. Moulder. It may be possible when the hearings are held in Los Angeles in June that additional hearings could be held here to complete the testimony of Mr. Dennett.
Mr. Tavenner. Certainly further consideration will have to be given to that.
I wanted to make this explanation principally so the committee would understand that I have asked the witness to confine his testimony today principally to his own activities. I did not want the committee to feel that the witness was attempting to relate what he had done alone as a matter of his own choice.
Mr. Dennett. Thank you.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett can be subpenaed to appear in California when hearings are held there; the subcommittee could resume hearings here at a later date if we feel it is necessary to secure his additional information.
Mr. Tavenner. Continuing with the subject of the old-age pension, were you active in it in your individual capacity?
Mr. Dennett. No; I was not. I spoke before it on a number of times on invitation of the leaders to indicate some labor support because I was representing the State CIO at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. Tell us briefly to what extent was the Communist Party successful in the accomplishment of the two purposes you stated the Communists had in interesting the leadership of the old-age pension unit.
Mr. Dennett. As I indicated at the outset, the first leaders of the pension union—president, vice president, and some of the other officers—were anti-Communist people. And it did not take too long before they came into conflict with those Communists who were trying to make certain that the organization carried out these purposes which I have indicated.
I believe that the first president of the organization left it very quickly. Later on another person took over as a president of the organization, who was a member of the Communist Party, and he remained a leader for quite a long time. Ultimately he got into conflict with the Communist Party, and the Communist Party did what we call a hatchet job on him.