Mr. Harold Ebey served in some advisory capacity. I think that he came
from a teachers’ union affiliate at that time.
Mr. Dobbins was a member there, but I do not recall the exact relation
that he held to obtain his position.
Mr. Karley Larsen was a leader there by virtue of the fact that he
was a leader in the Northern Washington District Council of the
International Woodworkers of America.
Mr. TAVENNER. It would seem that the Communist Party had complete
control of the organization.
Mr. DENNETT. We had another person there who is now deceased, but
I don’t think that it gives a complete picture without mentioning
him, and that is Mr. William Pennock, because Bill Pennock was the
workhorse. Bill Pennock carried the load. He was a very efficient man,
one of the fastest shorthand artists that I ever knew, and was capable
of keeping up with the fast pace that Mr. Costigan set.
Mr. Pennock deserves honorable mention for the work that he did in that
setup.
Mr. TAVENNER. What position did Pennock hold in the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. He attended the bureau meetings, but I do not remember
exactly whether he was a member of the bureau. But he attended most of
the bureau meetings by virtue of the fact that he became the head of
the pension union which was one of the big affiliates of the Washington
Commonwealth Federation.
Mr. TAVENNER. You have given a very full description of how the
Communist Party maneuvered to capture this organization.
Why was the Communist Party so interested in obtaining control of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation?
Mr. DENNETT. Because we wanted to ultimately obtain political power for
the Communist Party in the United States of America.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. TAVENNER. In the same manner, I assume, that you were attempting to
gain power for the Communist Party in every other field of endeavor.
Mr. DENNETT. Of course.
My counsel has suggested that I indicate the total membership of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation in that period.
Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, I think you should.
Mr. DENNETT. I am unable to give that in exact numbers, but I can give
you a proportionate situation which may indicate something of value.
It was our estimate and the result of our study from the election
returns of the candidates that we endorsed and the propositions that we
supported----
Mr. TAVENNER. When you say “we” are you speaking of the Communist Party
or the Washington Commonwealth?
Mr. DENNETT. The Washington Commonwealth Federation.
It was our estimate that it was capable of influencing and obtaining
the vote of one-third of the members who voted in the Democratic Party
slate or side of the ticket. And because of that fact and because we
were in a higher state of mobilization than the rest of the Democratic
Party, when primaries came along we could exercise a more direct
influence in the primaries than anybody else because our members in the
Washington Commonwealth Federation had a greater zeal and a greater
devotion to carrying out their objectives than the other Democrats who
frequently relied upon making their decisions in the general elections.
Mr. MOULDER. What do you mean by other Democrats?
Mr. DENNETT. Those who voted in the Democratic Party who were not
members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation through affiliation.
Mr. MOULDER. How many Communists would you estimate were members of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation?
Mr. DENNETT. The nearest I can give you by indication of that is
that in the period 1937-38, the high point of membership in the
Communist Party, as I recall the reports made to the district bureau
by the organization secretary, was in the neighborhood of 5,500
members of the Communist Party in the Northwest, in the 3 States of
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and Alaska, the Territory of Alaska.
Those 5,500 members of course, were scattered throughout all the
other organizations in the Northwest. And I am firmly of the belief
that fully 90 to 95 percent of that were members of the Washington
Commonwealth Federation through affiliations of one kind or another.
(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room.)
Mr. TAVENNER. Did the Washington Commonwealth Federation extend
throughout the entire 12th district, or, that is, in the Northwest
area? Or was it confined only to the State of Washington?
Mr. DENNETT. It was confined to the State of Washington. However, there
were some efforts made in the State of Oregon to develop an Oregon
Commonwealth Federation, but I have no direct knowledge of that, and I
would be unqualified to give you any testimony about it because I did
not participate in it and I do not know the people who did.
Mr. VELDE (presiding). Did your district committee of the Communist
Party, however, have representatives from Alaska and from Oregon?
Mr. DENNETT. No, there was no territorial representation like that.
The representatives of the district bureau of the Communist Party were
chosen because of their capability as political leaders, not because of
any particular area that they came from. And it was determined largely
by their ability to influence public opinion and to intervene in the
decision of public affairs.
Mr. VELDE. Did the district bureau act for the 12th district of the
Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it did.
Mr. VELDE. But were they all from the State of Washington?
Mr. DENNETT. That is true. I think perhaps it is necessary at this
point to clear up one little problem of organizational structure that
existed in the Communist Party at that time.
It was not based upon territory. Representatives of the higher
committees did not have to come from any particular territory. They
were chosen because of their availability and their influencing ability
to carry the party policy into the mass organizations or before the
public.
Mr. VELDE. Were they actually chosen by the national committee of the
Communist Party.
Mr. DENNETT. Not in this district they were not, no.
Mr. VELDE. Just how were they chosen?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, that is another organizational problem of
interorganization of the Communist Party which is rather difficult for
persons not familiar with it to comprehend. But let me try to do it as
briefly as possible this way.
When I first came into the Communist Party the usual procedure was
something that went under the title of “Cooption.” Cooption meant
that the district organizer could appoint anybody he wanted to the
district committee or to the district bureau and could call them in to
serve, and everybody else had to accept such a person as being a fully
qualified member of that body. In other words, it was a handpicked
staff which represented the wishes of that particular leader who held
the authority at that time. That was the process of cooption in the
event of a vacancy. He could appoint someone to fill that vacancy, and
he did so. It was his responsibility to do so.
However, with the rise of Hitler Germany, the trials of the Reichstag,
an international leader by the name of Dimitrov acquired world fame
because, in his defense against the frameup which Goering tried to put
over on him, he learned that the Communist tactics and the Communist
policies in Germany had turned the masses of German workers against
the Communist Party and had resulted or had certainly played a part in
contributing to making it possible for Hitler Germany to result with
Hitler’s ascension to power.
Therefore, Mr. Dimitrov, when offered asylum by the Soviet Government,
immediately went to work for the Comintern, and, in that capacity as
leader of the Comintern, brought forth what was known as a new line.
And that new line called for introducing the practice of democracy
into the ranks of the Communist Party organization. He urged and
advised that the practice of cooption be abolished, and that the
higher committees be elected by a democratic process. And he, in fact,
insisted that that must be done in all countries where the party was
not illegal.
Recognizing that it was not possible to hold conventions where the
party was illegal, and that applied especially to the United States,
when Mr. Rappaport came to this district he tried his best to follow
out the decisions which were laid down by the Communist International
and the national headquarters of the Communist Party, and that practice
of electing the leadership was followed. However, at the district
convention there was always a nominating committee who carefully
screened the names of persons who were being proposed for leadership
or election to these committees, and, in doing so, succeeded in
accomplishing the original result, only satisfying ourselves that we
were practicing democracy.
Mr. VELDE. What year did that change take place, Mr. Dennett?
Mr. DENNETT. Right around 1936.
Mr. TAVENNER. So the matter of making nominations through a committee
was a mere matter of form.
(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing
room.)
Mr. DENNETT. The district organizers still carefully looked it over and
still had a controlling influence there. But in this particular case
Mr. Rappaport exercised his influence not in any arbitrary way but in a
convincing way, because we all recognized that his broader experience
and his tremendous capacity for work equipped him to give us the
benefit of better wisdom than we had.
Mr. TAVENNER. Going back to the Washington Commonwealth Federation, you
were asked a question as to what the membership of the Communist Party
was in the district. Do you know what the membership of the Communist
Party was in the State of Washington at that time?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, most of that membership was in the State of
Washington. And I don’t know the exact number, but I think it would be
quite safe to say that around 85 to 90 percent of it was in the State
of Washington.
Mr. TAVENNER. How long did the Communist Party succeed in bringing its
influence to bear on political elections through this organization
known as the Washington Commonwealth Federation?
Mr. DENNETT. Until the international situation became unstable in about
the year 1938.
Mr. TAVENNER. How did the international situation affect political
matters locally here in the State of Washington as far as the Communist
Party was concerned?
Mr. DENNETT. The Communist Party had as one of its principal objectives
and one of its chief propaganda weapons, which it used upon other
persons of political mindedness, that the Communist program was a
consistent program on a domestic policy and on foreign policy, that our
program was liberal domestically and liberal internationally. However,
in 1938, after a long period of struggle and effort, the Communist
Party succeeded in prevailing upon many people to accept the slogan of
collective security as the proper policy to pursue in foreign affairs.
That, of course, was quite consistent with the policy of the Soviet
Union because it was the Soviet delegates to the League of Nations who
had continually agitated for a policy of collective security.
I think it was some time in 1938 that the Italian Premier launched his
attack in Ethiopia, and while we were clamoring for collective security
to be applied to that situation, it wasn’t too long afterwards when
the Soviet Union had a serious dispute with Finland, and hostilities
broke out and the Soviet Union smashed the Finnish Army and the Finnish
military installations.
We were confronted with the necessity of making an immediate switch
demanding nonintervention.
Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by we?
Mr. DENNETT. The Communist Party.
So our insistence upon nonintervention contradicted our prior
insistence upon collective security. This presented no end of trouble,
especially to those who had to meet the public and had to answer to
the public for the consistency of their program and policies from one
day to the next. It ultimately led to the disaffection of Mr. Howard
Costigan. And the chief reason that Mr. Costigan disaffected at that
time was because of his loyalty to Franklin D. Roosevelt as then
President of the United States, who came out in bitter denunciation
against the Soviets for attacking Finland, which left him in the
position of having a consistent policy because he had complained
bitterly against Mussolini’s march into Ethiopia. He had also been
critical of the Japanese invasion of China. He had also been critical
of each military venture where one country had attempted to impose its
will upon another by military means.
So Costigan felt that he was on sounder ground to continue his support
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did so with as much effort as he
dared, without bringing down the wrath of the Communist Party on him at
that particular moment. However, the Communist Party sensed that he was
beginning to disaffect, and we proceeded to isolate him from everything
we could. I mean the Communists proceeded to isolate Mr. Costigan.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was this the period when the Communist Party was crying
from the rooftops that the President of the United States was a
warmonger?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it was. I am a little bit fearful that if anyone
looks at the record very carefully they will find that I made a few
speeches on that subject myself.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, as a result of the international
situation the Communist Party had gotten itself into a position which
adversely affected its interests locally.
Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was the result of that adverse effect upon the
Communist Party locally?
Mr. DENNETT. The most damaging effect to the Communist Party was
that it shook the faith of many of those who were members of the
district bureau at that time. I must admit that I tried to present the
appearance myself of not losing faith in the integrity of the Soviet
foreign policy. However, I must also admit that there was a little bit
of deception in that for the reason that I could not completely justify
it, no matter how hard I tried, and I found that Mr. Costigan became
very bitter about it. I found also that Mr. Ebey had a few misgivings.
He didn’t express them at that time too sharply because he is a very
mild-mannered sort of person. But those of us who were in the rough and
tough political battles put on a case-hardened outward appearance which
was intended to inspire the ranks to hold the line.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was the final result?
Mr. DENNETT. The final result was that various organizations affiliated
to the Washington Commonwealth Federation found their political
conviction to be inconsistent with the official policy expressed by
disguised Communist leaders in the Washington Commonwealth Federation.
So that many of them began to disaffiliate and leave the organization,
so that it did not embrace the commanding minority which it had
previously had.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, your position of control in that
organization was weakened, if not virtually destroyed, by this
disaffection that had arisen within the Communist Party ranks largely
as a result of international problems.
Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.
Those of us who presented what might be referred to as a case-hardened
outward appearance did so largely in the hope and faith that our
loyalty to the Soviet Union under those circumstances would be rewarded
by the Soviet Union remaining loyal and true to the socialist ideals
which all of us held.
However, at a later date, after the Second World War, just to make the
comment without going into detail at this moment, many began to find
out through their experience in the Army and military efforts, and
through persons who traveled abroad and came into contact directly with
the Russian military effort--many became convinced that there was a
considerable difference between the democracy that had been preached
about in the Soviet Union and the actual practice which they found.
Also there was a serious disillusionment when large numbers of soldiers
learned, to their dismay, that even during the war period the Soviet
Union had in labor camps very large numbers of persons who were held in
those camps as political prisoners, a policy which we had been led to
believe, through all the official propaganda, that the Communist Party
in the Soviet Union wouldn’t possibly indulge in such a practice, that
only the capitalist countries would practice such a heinous crime.
But it was a terrible shock and disillusionment when large numbers of
people found, out of their own direct knowledge, that these huge forced
labor camps did in fact exist and that people who were committed to
them were committed to them for terms ranging from 25 years to life
instead of the official propaganda which has been preached, to the
effect that no sentence was over 10 years in length in the Soviet
Union. And we found there was a great deal of difference between fact
and fancy.
(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde left the hearing room.)
Mr. TAVENNER. Is the Washington Commonwealth Federation in existence
today?
Mr. DENNETT. It is not. It was liquidated by the Communist Party
leadership during the Second World War.
In my records there will be found some correspondence between Hugh
DeLacy and myself because I was a vice president of the federation, but
I was in the military service at the time this disillusion took place.
Mr. DeLacy had written me something about it, and I disagreed with it.
He had also written to me suggesting that since I was in the military
service maybe it would be better for me to give up my share of stock
which entitled me to be a member of the board of directors of the New
World, which was the official newspaper published under the federation
at that time.
I found occasion to disagree violently with him over the suggestion
for the reason that I felt that those who were in the armed services
should not be removed from their official positions because they were
in the armed services. I felt that they were more entitled to continue
their representation on the organization because they were in the armed
services.
We had an exchange of correspondence there which was quite acrimonious
at points, and I am amazed when I look back at it and see how it
developed.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a satisfactory point to
suspend the examination of this witness.
Mr. MOULDER. Yes, Mr. Dennett. We thank you for your patience and the
information which you have given the committee. We are endeavoring,
whenever possible, to give you a rest so there will not be this long
stress upon you for a long period of time.
Mr. DENNETT. I appreciate that. In my younger days I used to have a
marathon endurance, but I find I don’t have it any more.
Mr. MOULDER. Do you wish to call another witness?
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Lawrence Earl George.
Mr. MOULDER. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. GEORGE. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE EARL GEORGE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, PHILIP
L. BURTON
Mr. WHEELER. Will the witness state his full name, please?
Mr. GEORGE. My name is Lawrence Earl George.
Mr. WHEELER. Where do you reside?
Mr. GEORGE. Seattle, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. Will counsel identify himself for the record, please?
Mr. BURTON. My name is Philip L. Burton. I am a Seattle attorney.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. George, what is your occupation?
Mr. GEORGE. I am a warehouseman, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. How long have you been a warehouseman?
Mr. GEORGE. Oh, for 12, 15 years; 12 years anyway.
Mr. WHEELER. Being a warehouseman, are you a member of any union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Sir, upon advice of counsel, I will invoke my rights and
privileges under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. MOULDER. I didn’t hear your reply. Did you say you decline to
answer the question?
Mr. GEORGE. Because of certain insinuations about any union, it
is necessary for me to invoke my rights under the first and fifth
amendments of the Constitution and decline to answer the question.
Mr. WHEELER. Have you held any positions in the union that we are
discussing?
Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the warehousemen are members of the
International Longshoreman’s and Warehousemen’s Union? I am not asking
you if you are a member of the ILWU; just a blanket question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Yes; that is a fact.
Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the International Longshoremen’s and
Warehousemen’s Union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment.
Mr. WHEELER. Have you at any time during your residency in Seattle been
acquainted with a lady by the name of Barbara Hartle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke my privileges under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle testified before this committee last June that
she knew you as a member of the waterfront section of the Communist
Party. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to invoke the privileges
granted me under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
Mr. WHEELER. Will you also invoke the privilege on all questions
relating to the waterfront section of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment in connection with that.
Mr. WHEELER. Were you an official of the union in 1951?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Again I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment and decline to answer the question.
Mr. WHEELER. Did you sign a Taft-Hartley affidavit?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and
decline to answer.
Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the Communist Party advised members
of the Communist Party to disassociate themselves from the Communist
Party and sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment to that.
Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the members of the Communist Party
remained loyal and in the discipline of the Communist Party although
they officially did resign?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment as to that.
Mr. MOULDER. Did I understand you to say that your birthplace was here
in Seattle?
Mr. GEORGE. Sir, I didn’t give my place of birth. I wasn’t asked that
question.
Mr. MOULDER. Where were you born?
Mr. GEORGE. I was born in Denver, Colo.
Mr. MOULDER. When did you move to Seattle?
Mr. GEORGE. I came to Seattle after the First World War. I think it was
in 1918 or thereabouts.
Mr. MOULDER. Have you resided in Seattle ever since?
Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever heard of the Negro and National Groups
Commission of the Communist Party of King County?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment as to that, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle in her testimony stated you were chairman of
that group. Was she correct in this testimony?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I will have to invoke my privileges under the
fifth amendment and decline to answer.
Mr. WHEELER. Are you familiar with an organization called the
Interracial Action Committee?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment.
Mr. WHEELER Are you a member of the Communist Party today, Mr. George?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth
amendment and decline to answer that, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.
Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.
(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde returned to the hearing
room.)
Mr. MOULDER. Do you represent Mrs. Pierce? Will you step up?
Mr. TROLSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOULDER. I want to talk to him.
(Whereupon Mr. Trolson conferred with the chairman.)
Mr. MOULDER. Call the witness again, please.
Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.
Mr. MOULDER. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before
this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mrs. PIERCE. I do.
Mr. TROLSON. May I make a statement before you begin to question the
witness?
Mr. MOULDER. Yes; you may.
Mr. TROLSON. My name is Roy Trolson. I am a member of the Board of
Trustees of the Seattle Bar Association.
Mrs. Pierce has come to the bar association and rendered a statement
that she is unable to secure counsel because she has no funds for that
purpose. The president of the Bar Association has asked me to represent
Mrs. Pierce, and I want to make it clear that I am representing her
without compensation and at the request of the Legal Aid Bureau of the
Seattle Bar Association.
Mr. MOULDER. We certainly appreciate your position and wish to say
that you should be commended as an attorney when requested by the Bar
Association to appear and represent any person who has no funds to
employ counsel.
And certainly it should have no reflection, and doesn’t have any
reflection, upon you whatsoever.
For a person who is unable to employ counsel, it is the duty of a
lawyer under those circumstances to comply with that request, and the
burden that has been placed upon you.
Mr. TROLSON. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF MRS. HARRIET PIERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, ROY F.
TROLSON
Mr. WHEELER. Will you state your full name, please?
Mrs. PIERCE. Mrs. Harriet Pierce.
Mr. WHEELER. Where do you presently reside?
Mrs. PIERCE. In Seattle.
Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?
Mrs. PIERCE. Yes; I am.
Mr. WHEELER. Where are you employed?
Mrs. PIERCE. I am employed at the Tacoma Country and Golf Club.
Mr. WHEELER. Do you have any part-time employment other than your
present position?
Mrs. PIERCE. No; I do not.
Mr. WHEELER. Would you advise the committee of your occupational
background prior to your present occupation?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. PIERCE. I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on this question.
Mr. WHEELER. On all prior occupation?
Mrs. PIERCE. Yes, sir; that is on all prior occupation.
Mr. WHEELER. Isn’t it a fact that you worked for the United States
Government at one time?
Mrs. PIERCE. On this question, too, I wish to invoke the protection of
the fifth amendment.
Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean to say that your employment in the United
States Government may tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. PIERCE. I have already stated my answer, sir.
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mr. MOULDER. If investigation, Mr. Wheeler, reveals the witness’
employment, then I suggest that you ask the question according to what
your investigation has revealed, the specific questions which she can
answer.
Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever been employed by the United States Post
Office Department?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons
previously stated, sir. And I would like to explain that I fear that
answering these questions may lead to other questions which might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. WHEELER. Were you dismissed from this position because of security
reasons?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons
previously stated.
Mr. WHEELER. Have you been a paid employee of the Civil Rights Congress
of the city of Seattle?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons
previously stated.
Mr. WHEELER. Do you know Mrs. Barbara Hartle?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question, sir, for the reasons
previously stated.
Mr. WHEELER. She testified that you were a member of the Georgetown
Club of the Communist Party, King County. Is that a statement of fact
on the part of Mrs. Hartle?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer, and invoke my protection under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. WHEELER. Were you active in any way with the Progressive Party here
in the State of Washington?
Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that for the reasons previously
stated, sir.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite obvious that we are not
going to get the information we desire from this witness.