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.