When we arrived at this meeting--I believe the meeting was held in the
labor temple--we discussed the award, and the union leaders at that
time were very frankly disappointed in the results of it.
The sum total of it was that it led to a strike, and the members
seemed to like the way I presented their case during the course of the
arguments, getting ready for the strike. And when the strike occurred
I was elected chairman of the strike committee and chairman of the
negotiating committee.
So we were again brought into public attention, and the Communist
Party looked me up very quickly to find out what was going on and to
try to advise me how to conduct myself in the course of that strike.
They really knew very little about it. They learned a great deal from
me because I was working with the men. And their advice was I must
immediately fight the leadership of the union.
I made a few feeble efforts in that direction and found that I didn’t
have any good reason for fighting that leadership because they were
carrying out the program which I had advocated in the original strike
meeting to satisfy the needs of the members.
Mr. TAVENNER. Apparently, the Communist Party was more interested in
promoting its own objectives than it was the objectives of the union
which was on strike.
Mr. DENNETT. They were anxious that someone from the Communist Party
gain control in that organization.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was the name of the organization?
Mr. DENNETT. At that time it was called the Ferry Boatmen’s Union of
the Pacific. It later has changed its name, and, in making use of that
name, I certainly want it to be clearly understood that using that name
in nowise should be construed as meaning that it was any Communist
organization because it was not.
Mr. TAVENNER. It rather demonstrated just the contrary.
Mr. DENNETT. And its leaders were not.
But the leaders of that organization were making as sincere an effort
as they knew how to represent the wishes and needs of the membership.
While there were some tactical differences between myself and them
on various occasions, we did adopt a program wherein we agreed with
each other that none of us would attempt to do anything or to speak in
behalf of the organization without conferring with the other. In other
words, we made a mutual agreement among ourselves as officials of the
strike committee which required the exchange of mutual confidence. And,
to the best of my ability, I carried that out, and I think, in all
fairness, it should be said that, to the best of their ability, they
carried their part out. I think the value of that is demonstrated by
the fact that in the final settlement of that strike we succeeded in
raising the wages of the freight-boat employees from $49 per month,
without any regulation of hours, to a wage of about $150 per month with
a regulation of hours and provision for overtime.
Mr. VELDE (presiding).
I am not quite clear about this ferry boatmen’s union. Was it a local
union not affiliated with any other?
Mr. DENNETT. It was a part of an American Federation affiliate. At
that time it was the Ferry Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific, affiliated
with the International Seamen’s Union of America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor.
Mr. VELDE. In what year?
Mr. DENNETT. That was in 1936.
Mr. VELDE. How large was the local? How many members?
Mr. DENNETT. I think there were in the neighborhood of 300 or 400
members in Puget Sound at that time. But that, of course, controlled
all the tug boats and all the barges, all the towing, all the
servicing, on the waterside of the smaller vessels.
I think that that completes the statement of what was in progress at
the time of the question.
Mr. TAVENNER. After this experience on the waterfront what was your
next contact with the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. The next occurred in the district council of the Maritime
Federation of the Pacific. That was Northwest District Council No. 1
which was in Seattle. This was the council to which delegates were sent
from all the maritime unions.
(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing
room.)
Mr. DENNETT. And some of the shoreside unions, which worked in the
shipyards.
These unions were brought together in the 1934 strike, which was before
my time. And I would be presuming on you to try to give any testimony
about the exact way in which it was formed except to say that,
consistent with the Communist Party policy, it was our objective, from
the days of the old Marine Workers Industrial Union, which was one of
the affiliates of the Red International of Labor Unions, to organize
all the maritime workers into one organization.
However, it was the desire of the workers in the industry to choose
their membership in the duly constituted, chartered organizations of
craft unions which were already in the field, such as the Sailors’
Union of the Pacific, the Marine Firemen, Oilers, Water Tenders and
Wipers Association, the Marine Cooks and Stewards of the Pacific.[2]
And later on I believe the radio operators, the masters, mates, and
pilots,[3] and the marine engineers.[4] Then, of course, the shoreside
organizations of longshoremen, machinists and shipwrights, joiners,
boilermakers. There were many organizations that were involved in any
kind of waterborne traffic.
Through the Maritime Federation of the Pacific all of these were
brought together, and, for a brief period of time at least, cooperated
quite successfully.
However, by 1935 one organization began to object to the Communist
Party influence in the federation. That was the sailors’ union under
Harry Lundeberg. However, in that dispute it wasn’t clear to the
average person who was in the industry just what the nature of the
dispute was, and most people felt that the dispute was a personal
dispute between the leaders of the sailors and the leaders of the
longshoremen. My own knowledge of the situation, of a later date, would
lead me to believe that that is not an adequate explanation of what the
dispute was all about.
The dispute ran much deeper than personality clashes. The dispute was a
fundamental policy question dispute, and that dispute centered around
whether or not the organization would move closer and closer to the Red
International of Labor Unions through this new form or whether it would
permit itself to separate into the respective component parts and each
function separately and independently without that international Red
affiliation.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was the outcome of that dispute?
Mr. DENNETT. The outcome was that the split spread. First one
organization and then another began to have misgivings as to the
consequences of being full partners in the Maritime Federation of the
Pacific.
The first one to show the disaffection were the sailors. Subsequently
the marine firemen showed disaffection. Then the master mates
and pilots showed disaffection. And the marine engineers showed
disaffection. The radio operators began to show some disaffection. Some
of the longshoremen showed disaffection.
So the result was that by the time 1937 or 1938 rolled around the
Maritime Federation was becoming sort of a bare skeleton which existed
with a powerful name but did not have the moral backing and support of
the members of the organizations that were affiliated to it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was the organization Communist-dominated?
Mr. DENNETT. The Maritime Federation of the Pacific top leadership had
at all times some prominent Communist leaders, some persons who were
Communists.
Mr. TAVENNER. Can you at this time give us the names of those who
occupied an official position in that organization who were known to
you to be members of the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. One of the first ones that I knew was a man by the name of
Walter Stack.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did Walter Stack become very prominent in the Communist
Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Walter Stack was in the marine firemen’s union and
exercised a great deal of influence in that organization here.
Another was Ernest Fox. Ernest Fox was a patrolman in the Sailors
Union of the Pacific, and he exercised a great deal of influence in
the sailors union. He was one of the original ones. When Mr. Lundeberg
was the first president of the organization Mr. Fox was his right hand
bower who did most of the leg work for Mr. Lundeberg at that time.
Lundeberg was the first president of the Maritime Federation of the
Pacific.
Mr. TAVENNER. At that time was he anti-Communist?
Mr. DENNETT. I think, from the stories that I have been told, that
Mr. Lundeberg was thought so well of at that time that he was invited
to take part and did participate in some top fraction meetings of the
Communist Party in the Maritime Federation. And when he turned against
the Communist Party a little bit later on that incensed the Communists
so much that they looked upon Mr. Lundeberg as a potential traitor
who might reveal a good deal more about them than they wished to have
revealed, so that they launched many attacks upon Mr. Lundeberg for the
political purpose of diverting the attention from the real reason for
the attack.
I do not mean to say by that that I endorsed everything Mr. Lundeberg
did, because I disagreed with most of the things he did on a
straight trade-union basis on a later date. But this much about that
relationship I do know, and I know that--continuing the answer to your
question as to the others--the next one whom I knew who also became
president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was a man by the
name of James Engstrom.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please.
Mr. DENNETT. E-n-g-s-t-r-o-m. Engstrom also came from the Marine
Firemen’s Union here in the Seattle branch. Mr. Engstrom exercised
powerful influence in the organization. However, he came to a very
sad end in his relationships there because, for some reason or other,
he began to have some difficulty following the Communist Party line
and instructions, and ultimately took a vacation, went to Alaska,
thought the situation over, and I believe that he informed some Federal
Government agency of his connection and relationship at that time, and
severed his connection or resigned from his position, and what happened
to him after that I do not know.
Mr. VELDE. I am not clear on this probably because I am not up on my
organization of labor unions as well as I should be.
Was the Sailors Union of the Pacific a part of the unit within the
federation?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it was affiliated.
Mr. VELDE. It was not a new organization then when it split off
under----
Mr. DENNETT. No. The Sailors Union of the Pacific is one of the oldest
organizations on the west coast, founded originally by old Andrew
Furuseth.
Mr. VELDE. Is the same true of the other organizations that split from
the federation? Were they at one time units within the federation?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, they were. Later on there was a man that became
an official in the Maritime Federation, by the name of Pringle,
P-r-i-n-g-l-e. I do not remember his first name. Pringle occupied a
high position in the federation. I do not recall at this moment the
exact position, but I do know that when I had business to transact on
behalf of the Ferry Boatsmen’s Union at that time, as it was known, I
had to deal with Mr. Pringle. And he was a member of the party also.
Later on I came to know another person who later became president of
the Maritime Federation, and was the last president to the best of
my recollection, a man by the name of Bruce Hannon, H-a-n-n-o-n. Mr.
Bruce Hannon was a longshoreman from the city of Seattle, worked on the
Seattle waterfront for a good many years. Mr. Hannon also came into
conflict with the Communist Party policy while he was a member of the
Communist Party, and totally disagreed with the decision to wipe out
the Maritime Federation.
The policy decision arrived at on that question was due to the fact
that the CIO was coming into existence in 1937, and it was the belief
of the Communist Party that if the Maritime Federation were dissolved
and liquidated that the affiliates of it would form a very good, solid,
and substantial core of the new CIO organization and would be able to
take all the fishermen unions with it into the CIO.
Mr. Hannon did not agree with that policy. He felt that the Maritime
Federation still had a function to perform and it should not have been
liquidated. And he came into violent dispute with the party leadership
over that question. How it was finally resolved I do not know. I did
not see Mr. Hannon until after the war, and I met him one day very
casually and he did not at that time express anything definitive which
I could contribute now to enlighten anyone as to what he felt except to
say that he was still bitter.
Mr. TAVENNER. As a result of that change of emphasis on the part of the
Communist Party, that is, from the Maritime Federation to its component
parts, which were to form another organization, was the Maritime
Federation of the Pacific disbanded?
Mr. DENNETT. That is right.
Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us the approximate date?
Mr. DENNETT. To the best of my recollection, it would be right around
1938 or 1939. I may be a little bit off one year or another there, but
it is close to that date.
Mr. TAVENNER. During this period, between the time that you were
shanghaied on a boat here in Seattle and 1938, did you engage in any
other activities in the Communist Party not connected with maritime
affairs?
Mr. DENNETT. I certainly did. I was sent as a delegate from the
Inlandboatmen’s Union.[5] The name didn’t become Inlandboatmen until
much later, but I think of it now in that term. The name actually was
Ferry Boatmen’s Union at that time.
As a result of the successful conduct of our strike in 1936, the
members and the good relationship which was established between the
officers and myself, the officers agreed with the membership in
electing me a delegate to represent the organization in the Central
Labor Council. And that, of course, involved attending a weekly meeting
every Wednesday night in the labor temple.
Mr. TAVENNER. Where?
Mr. DENNETT. In Seattle.
Mr. TAVENNER. Just tell us very briefly what the Central Labor Council
was.
Mr. DENNETT. It was the city organization to which all American
Federation of Labor affiliates were affiliated, and sent delegates to
discuss their mutual business weekly.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did the fact that you were sent there as a delegate make
you a member of the Central Labor Council?
Mr. DENNETT. It did. Because of my activity in the Maritime Federation
District Council, the delegates there, most of whom were also delegates
to the Central Labor Council, elected me chairman of the maritime
caucus which was comprised of all those affiliates from the maritime
unions who were also affiliates of the Central Labor Council. There
was a duplication of affiliation there, and I was elected chairman of
that caucus. As that chairman, I was able to speak in behalf of that
caucus--all those maritime delegates--which was the largest caucus at
that time in the Central Labor Council.
Consequently, when I arose to speak the chairman of the Central Labor
Council would recognize me rather than recognize any other member of
the caucus because he was recognizing the duly elected leadership of
the caucus. Consequently, it was my function to represent that caucus
on the floor of the Central Labor Council on all important questions,
which I did. And it caused a great deal of attention to be focused on
my work and on the work of the maritime unions.
We were trying our level best to support the policies which the
Communist Party urged upon us, and that pertained especially to the
question of war, fighting the program of involvement in war at that
time. It involved being very critical of the top leadership of the
American Federation of Labor, which many other people criticized as
well as we, and by we, I mean the Communists were not the only ones
that criticized; many of the rank-and-file members who had no knowledge
of Communist Party policy or activity were also critical. But because
of this similarity of criticism, the Communists, knowing where they
were going, were able to direct this criticism along very effective
lines. And I was a central instrument in that effort in the Central
Labor Council in the city of Seattle.
Mr. TAVENNER. As a result of your experience on the Central Labor
Council were you selected for other organizational work in the
Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, I was.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of your work?
Mr. DENNETT. The Communist Party recognized that the position which
I was attaining in the Central Labor Council represented a powerful
political influence in the city because the city of Seattle at that
time had the reputation of being the best organized labor city in the
United States of America. There was hardly an industry that was not
actually organized in some labor union, holding bona fide labor-union
contracts with its management or employer. And the city had a very wide
reputation in that respect. Some people looked upon that as good; some
people looked upon it as bad. The Communist Party looked upon it as
being very good because it provided us an opportunity to reach every
single worker in the city indirectly.
Mr. TAVENNER. Would you say that as a result of your successful efforts
while a member of the Central Labor Council, you took part in other
Communist Party activities?
Mr. DENNETT. That is true.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you describe the nature of those activities?
Mr. DENNETT. It was in the Washington Commonwealth Federation,
which was an organization which came into existence, the elements
of it came into existence, prior to my coming from the CCC’s. But
this organization originally grew out of the transformation from
the unemployed to the employed workers. And people built what was
known as Commonwealth Builder Clubs. And then, of course, you recall
that in that earlier period, 1933, there was a change of political
administration due to a national election. And in that period there
were a group of young, ambitious politicians who wanted to get elected
to public office. There were many young aspiring graduates of college
who felt that they had a contribution to make, and they sought
audiences before these respective organizations to win political favor,
make speeches and otherwise become publicly known so that when they did
choose to file as a candidate for public office that they could expect
enough support to get elected.
These Commonwealth Builders ultimately merged and formed what was known
as the Washington Commonwealth Federation.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was there anything of a Communist origin that you know of
in the establishment of the Commonwealth Builders?
Mr. DENNETT. No. To the best of my knowledge, this was a result of
the efforts of people who were not directed or led by the Communist
Party. However, their efforts met with such sweeping success that the
Communist Party had to concern itself if it was going to remain a
political factor.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, the Communist Party in order to become
the leader in the field which it desired, would have to get control of
such organizations. Is that what you mean?
Mr. DENNETT. Absolutely. We recognized that. And since being pushed
into leadership in various activities in the city, it fell to me to do
a lot of this representative work of the Communist Party in the ranks
of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, because the prestige I had
in the Inland Boatmen’s Union as a result of the successful strike made
it a comparatively simple matter for the members to elect me a delegate
and be a bona fide representative of a bona fide labor union in the
Washington Commonwealth Federation.
Mr. TAVENNER. Without going into detail, will you tell us what the
connection was, between the Commonwealth Builders and the Washington
Commonwealth Federation, or how one may have succeeded the other?
Mr. DENNETT. The Commonwealth Builders were the groups of small
organizations which preceded the Washington Commonwealth Federation.
The Communist Party became interested in the success of Commonwealth
Builders and brought forth some proposals to cause the organization to
expand and grow.
One of the proposals of the Communist Party was that steps should be
taken by the Commonwealth Builders to make possible the affiliation not
only of neighborhood groups alone----
Mr. TAVENNER. Neighborhood groups of what?
Mr. DENNETT. Of either Democrats or Commonwealth Builders, or
unemployed organizations or Workers Alliance. There are still a few
remnants of those, remnants of the old Unemployed Citizens League
organizations. These had all transformed and became the foundation upon
which the Commonwealth Builders rested.
The Communist Party, however, conceived that if the organization were
to become as powerful as it should and ought to be, that provision
should be made for the affiliation of larger organizations. And the
Communist Party succeeded in prevailing upon most of its members to
enter the American Federation of Labor unions. Consequently it was
a simple matter to introduce resolutions in numerous labor unions
urging that the American Federation of Labor unions affiliate with the
Washington Commonwealth Federation. At the same time they proposed the
calling of a convention to broaden the base of the organization of this
Commonwealth Builders.
That was done. And the Washington Commonwealth Federation was brought
into existence as an organization with affiliation from large numbers
of unions in addition to Democratic clubs and unemployed clubs and
fraternal organizations. Anything and everything which was willing
to affiliate was certainly welcomed and urged to affiliate to the
organization, pay dues, participate in its conventions, participate in
the electoral activities it engaged in.
Mr. TAVENNER. The method that the Communist Party used to assist in the
organization of the Washington Commonwealth Federation was to induce
the leadership of the particular organizations which they were members
of, such as the various labor organizations that you mentioned----
Mr. DENNETT. They would raise perfectly legitimate reasons which any
ordinary person would recognize as proper.
Mr. TAVENNER. And they brought their influence to bear on the formation
of the organization through that method.
Mr. DENNETT. That is right.
Mr. TAVENNER. As a result of that action did you say a convention was
held?
Mr. DENNETT. A convention of the Commonwealth Builders was held, which
changed the name to Washington Commonwealth Federation.
(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde left the hearing room.)
Mr. DENNETT. Because of that affiliation of whole organizations which
were not geographical in nature--take a labor union: It was not
geographical in nature; it was a complete affiliate without having
geographical definition whereas a Democratic club in a particular
district or a particular part of the city was restricted to a
particular area.
I say the federation part became a necessary part of the title because
of the nature of the changed affiliations.
Mr. TAVENNER. Before the name was changed what was the title?
Mr. DENNETT. Commonwealth Builders.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, it was a conversion of Commonwealth
Builders into an overall organization.
Mr. DENNETT. It was.
Mr. TAVENNER. Titled “Washington Commonwealth Federation.”
Mr. DENNETT. That is true.
Mr. MOULDER. The committee will stand in recess for approximately 5
minutes.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
(Representatives Moulder and Velde were present upon reconvening at the
expiration of the recess.)
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, I think you have made it clear in your
testimony that the Commonwealth Builders were not organized by the
Communist Party and that there was very little, if any, Communist Party
influence within those affiliated organizations as such. Am I correct
in that?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, that is essentially correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. I want to be certain as to what the picture is with
regard to the Washington Commonwealth Federation which succeeded; that
is, whether or not at the inception of that organization it was heavily
controlled by the Communist Party.
Mr. DENNETT. No; it was not. And, as a matter of fact, it was quite
anti-Communist at the very beginning.
Mr. TAVENNER. The original method used by the Communist Party to become
entrenched in the federation was through the various organizations
which were affiliated with it.
Mr. DENNETT. Through the process of building the organization larger
and bringing into affiliation organizations in which it did have
influence and ultimately getting top influence in the WCF.
Mr. TAVENNER. I think that explains it.
You made reference to a convention that was being called. When
and where was the convention held? That is, the convention of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation.
Mr. DENNETT. In the year 1936 it held two conventions. One was in April
and another one was later in the year. The one in April was concerned
with several important questions. It was the largest convention of any
of the WCF conventions that I ever attended, and I understood it was
the largest convention ever held. It was in Everett, Wash., in April
1936.
It must be remembered that 1936 was a Presidential campaign. The
political situation in the whole country was quite alive. Many new
people were rising in the political sphere. And, of course, the
Washington Commonwealth Federation was an open and ready instrument
through which ambitious political persons could make their first bid
for public office and fame.
Many of them did so. Many young graduates of the university did so. I
have very little personal knowledge about them, and I wish to make sure
that you understand, and everyone else does, that I am not referring
to these persons as Communists. They are not. And I make no inference
of that kind. I simply recite the fact that here was an organization
which was capable of exerting a great deal of political power, and it
attracted all persons who had political ambitions. As a matter of fact,
there were some Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents who
beat a path to the door of the Washington Commonwealth Federation to
obtain political endorsement.
Now this convention in 1936, in April, had before it several important
policy questions. At that particular time the Communist Party had
to exercise its influence by indirection. The top leadership of the
federation were not Communists at that time.
The Communist Party was striving to obtain an endorsement of that
federation convention which would call for the organization of
either a farmer-labor party or a new independent political party. In
other words, our effort, speaking of the Communists, was to drive
the federation into making a completely new, independent, separate
political organization. However, our plans were dependent upon approval
from the central committee of the Communist Party. And the central
committee of the Communist Party kept us dangling on the end of a
string for many, many weeks prior to the opening of this convention.
The reason they kept us dangling on a string was that nationally the
Communist Party wanted to see organized and wanted to have a part in
organizing a new national organization which would be separate from
and independent from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
And it hoped to attract all persons known as liberals or progressives
to support and participate in such an organization. But its chief
difficulty was to obtain some national figure of great prominence to
lead the thing to give it the initiative and give it the original
sendoff that it needed to draw the strength necessary to win something
in the next election.
The party leadership felt that the person most capable of accomplishing
that purpose and fulfilling that objective was the then Governor of
Minnesota. I think it is Minnesota. Yes. His name was Floyd Olson. He
was Governor there. And he was a Farmer-Labor Governor there.
The very designation lent itself to the spreading of a nationwide
farmer-labor party. And it was the original hope of the Communist Party
that through various forms of manipulation----
It was the Olson from Minnesota. I am quite sure, thinking back on it
now, it was Floyd.
But be that as it may, it was the Governor Olson of Minnesota who was
Governor in 1936 as a Farmer-Labor Governor.
However, at the very last moment when we had the resolution all ready
to press before the convention, we finally received word that this
Governor Olson was not well enough to undertake the job of organizing
a new national farmer-labor party because of ill health, and begged
off from the responsibility. Nationally, we were unable to find
another figure of as much prominence whom we thought would be capable
of leading such a successful effort. Consequently, we had to whip
our party machinery into shape rather rapidly and change our tactics
right on the floor of the WCF convention, and reverse ourselves in the
process of debating the question.
Actually the resolutions committee had come in with a report in which a
majority had objected to going the independent route. But I was one of
the delegates who was in the minority who was leading a fight for going
the independent route. And in the process of starting the debate we got
the official word that it was a hopeless task, and we had to withdraw
that effort.
We made a last-minute switch in our strategy and tactics, and some
of those who had been fighting us so vigorously on the floor were
completely dumfounded to find that we compromised--what appeared to
be a compromise--when we changed our policy during the course of the
debate on the resolution itself and withdrew our minority position.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you change your policy as a result of directions from
the Communist Party head in New York?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes. And the district organizer of the party was in the
anteroom of the convention hall, sending word and direction to those of
us who were up near the microphone who had an opportunity to command
the microphone and the debate. And there were runners running back and
forth to us rather rapidly telling us what the latest news of the party
line was.
And the executive secretary of the Commonwealth Federation at that time
was a man by the name of Howard Costigan who became somewhat alarmed to
see such an obvious maneuver where between 15 and 20 different people
were running back and forth passing messages to me and to others up in
the front from Rappaport advising us what the official party policy
was. He later on commented that he could see the party line running all
over the place, but he didn’t know what was in it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was Howard Costigan a member of the Communist Party at
that time?
Mr. DENNETT. Not at that time.
But that demonstration of power that we exercised in that convention
was very convincing to him that if he wanted to remain as head of that
organization he would have to make his peace with us, which he did
before that summer was over.
Mr. TAVENNER. And did he become a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. He did.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that Mr.
Howard Costigan has appeared before the committee and has testified
regarding some of the matters which have been mentioned here,
including the fact that he did become a member of the Communist Party
at about the time indicated by this witness, and at a later time, at
approximately 1940, he left the Communist Party.
Mr. DENNETT. I could substantiate that.
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.
Mr. VELDE. Mr. Dennett, you testified that you received the party
line by courier, by runners from Rappaport. Do you have any idea how
Rappaport received it from headquarters of the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes. Sometimes he received it by telegraph. In this
particular instance, about this Governor Olson, he received that by
telegram.
Mr. VELDE. Was there any secrecy involved, especially at that time?
Mr. DENNETT. No; there was no secrecy in that communication. As a
matter of fact, they took parallel measures to see that somebody in
Governor Olson’s staff also sent word to Howard Costigan directly.
He also received the word. So that there was parallel information.
At least we did make that concession to Costigan, that he would have
official information about it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did the rank-and-file membership of the Washington
Commonwealth Federation know of the Communist Party manipulations which
you have just described?
Mr. DENNETT. I am quite sure that most of them did not, although the
behavior of many of the Democratic Party leaders at that convention
would lead me to believe that they suspected it, because they fought us
so bitterly and so hard.
Mr. TAVENNER. Proceed, please.
Mr. DENNETT. 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.
Mr. TAVENNER. Describe in a practical sense what production-for-use
meant?
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 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 us, to the convention, and
otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her travels, and won wide
acclaim for that effort.
Mr. TAVENNER. 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 it, 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 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 organizations 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
this measure dies aborning. 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----
Mr. TAVENNER. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed measure or to
defeat it?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, 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 witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. DENNETT. My counsel asked me if I knew the number of it, and I have
forgotten the exact number of that initiative at this moment. So I
can’t furnish that. I wish I could. It is a matter of official record,
however, and it can be verified if anyone is curious about it.
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
hadn’t of done it I am afraid it would have been adopted.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. DENNETT. My counsel asked me who was the “we.”