Mr. DENNETT. I heard the Communist Party members in that union were
going to make a demand in that union that my former wife be removed
from office and be removed as a member of that union because the party
had disciplined her.
The situation in that union was very peculiar. It was a union of about
65 members, and there were no more than a half-dozen persons in it who
were not members of the Communist Party.
That seems incredible, but the reason for it is that most of the
persons who were members of the union were working as secretaries in
various union offices, or were working for some individual employer
with whom there were no collective-bargaining contracts and there were
no regular functions of a union. It was simply a home where these
people could pay dues and use the union label wherever they wanted to
for their own convenience. As a matter of fact, that is the reason why
the Communist Party usually uses the union label on its circulars or
letters, because it has members in the Communist Party office who were
members of that union.
This particular expulsion drew the attention of the Communist Party to
us, and especially to my former wife. They knew that the steelworkers
union was bitterly anti-Communist. They didn’t dare to try to make any
approaches to the steelworkers union to have me thrown out, but they
did have absolute control, they thought, in the office workers union,
and they thought they would take their revenge on my former wife by
proceeding against her.
When I learned of this I went to the office of the party and asked for
the district leadership to give me an audience.
They treated me like scum under their feet when I went in their office
because I had just been expelled. However, I did speak to them and
advised them that I heard this rumor, that I urged them not to be as
foolhardy as that because to do so would attract public attention. And
if that was done it would do irreparable harm to that union and might
also bring down a great deal of criticism on the entire labor movement
for something for which the labor movement itself was not at fault but
was something for which the Communist Party was at fault.
I, therefore, asked them if they would be so considerate as to allow my
former wife to resign her position if it was inconvenient for them to
have her in that position.
She had no desire to remain in it any longer than necessary. She
thought she was rendering them a service and thought she was rendering
the union a service by holding that position.
But they said they would not take their advice from expelled members.
So they proceeded that night to introduce a mimeographed proposal
preferring charges against my former wife.
Now I have borrowed this from a person who has kept the file because he
was prevailed upon by my former wife and myself to act as her counsel
during the course of that proceeding, and he kept a complete file.
I have here the original of the charges that were preferred against
her, and the substance of it is simply this: That they were asking for
my former wife to be expelled from that union and from the office of
president in that union simply because she had been expelled from the
Communist Party on a kangaroo court proceeding. And the names of the
signers are here and in their own original handwriting. Some of them
have been called before this committee before.
Mr. VELDE. Is that for expulsion from the United Office and
Professional Workers Union or from the party?
Mr. DENNETT. No. This is the charges that were preferred in the
Office Workers Union by members of the Office Workers Union who were
also--they must have been members of the Communist Party. I didn’t
know of them of my own knowledge, but my former wife did, and it is in
their handwriting. Their names are there in their own handwriting. And
I think the committee would like to know this and have this as a matter
of record.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read the names into the record.
Mr. VELDE. If you are sure that they are all members of the party.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. DENNETT. My counsel raised the same question, Mr. Tavenner,
that inasmuch as I cannot testify of my own knowledge about their
membership, that perhaps it is not proper for me. However, this is the
document which was used in that union.
Mr. TAVENNER. Let me ask you a few preliminary questions.
Were you given a written notice of expulsion by the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, we were.
Mr. TAVENNER. Can you identify language in that expulsion notice as
being virtually the same language as in the notice of charges given by
the union to your wife?
Mr. DENNETT. It certainly is. In both instances they accuse her of the
crime of being an informer for the FBI.
Mr. TAVENNER. We will not take time now to analyze those documents, but
I would like for them to be in evidence, and, in light of the fact that
the names signed have not been shown by evidence to be members of the
Communist Party, I ask that that part of the document be deleted until
investigation has established whether or not they are members of the
party.
Mr. MOULDER. As requested by counsel, without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TAVENNER. I would like for the document to be marked “Dennett
Exhibit No. 10.”
(The document above referred to, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 10,” is
filed herewith.)