were newspapermen, Ken Pettus and Terry Pettus, and I am pretty sure
the party involved here is the editor of the New World, or does it say?
Ken Pettus, I think, was editor of the Stars and Stripes in the Far
Eastern area at one time, and then Terry was editor of the New World in
Seattle, Terry Pettus.
Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know which one taught this course on
labor news reporting?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I don’t.
Mr. TAVENNER. You do not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. My guess would be that it would be Terry
because he was in Seattle but I don’t know whether he actually did.
Mr. TAVENNER. Terry Pettus was identified before this
committee as having been a member of the Communist Party by Elizabeth
Boggs Cohen and Barbara Hartle.
Did Mr. Daschbach when he called you indicate his reason for calling
you about teaching this course in the Pacific Northwest Labor School?
Mr. O’CONNELL. He thought because of my political experience
and because of the position, I think I had just shortly concluded my
term as executive secretary of the Democratic Party, that was when, in
December of 1947.
Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. O’CONNELL. That was in April of 1947, wasn’t it?
Mr. TAVENNER. October to December 1947.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Anyway, he thought because of my political
experience and because of my previous position that I could do a job
and that I would be able to do it. When he told me what it was I told
him it was in a field that I was not particularly qualified to do.
Mr. DOYLE. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION, JUNE 1, 1955
Mr. DOYLE. Let the record show that the legal quorum of the
subcommittee is present, Mr. Velde, of Illinois, and Mr. Doyle, of
California.
Mr. Tavenner, will you proceed, please.
TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL--Resumed
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with Robert
Marshall during his lifetime?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I was.
Mr. TAVENNER. What were the circumstances under which you
became acquainted with him?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Robert Marshall at the time of my original
acquaintance with him was chief of the reclamation division of the
forestry service. He had begun his early career in the forestry service
at Missoula, Mont., which was located in my Congressional District, the
First or Western Congressional District of Montana.
Shortly after I came back to Washington to take my seat in 1937, Robert
Marshall came to my office and introduced himself and told me that
because he had started his career in the forestry service out there he
had always had an interest in the district particularly because of its
large forestry holdings, large forestry provisions, and he and I became
close friends, socially, I would say more socially than anything else.
I think he died about a year and a half or maybe two years after I--I
can’t remember whether he died in 1938 or 1939.
Mr. TAVENNER. His will was probated in 1940.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is correct. His death was probably
in 1939.
Mr. TAVENNER. Were you one of the witnesses to his will?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, I was not.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did he discuss with you at the time of the
making of his will or prior thereto the purpose he had in mind in
setting up a trust in which you were named as one of the trustees?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he had never discussed--in fact, I really
did not know that Bob Marshall had any money. He lived very ordinarily,
didn’t give any indication he had any money. I was back out in Butte,
Mont., and I had been defeated for Congress and I got a notice from the
surrogate court in New York that I was named trustee in the will and I
thought I had come into a lot of money. I was sent a copy of the will
and I was named as trustee of what later became the Robert Marshall
Foundation.
Mr. TAVENNER. The will authorized you and the other trustees
to apply the income derived from the trust and such parts of the
principal as the trustees in their own unlimited discretion deemed
necessary for the following objects and purposes:
The education of the people of the United States of America to the
necessity and desirability of the development and organization of
unions of persons engaged in work or of unemployment and unemployed
persons, and the promotion and advancement of an economic system in
the United States based upon the theory of production for use and
not for profit.
Did it not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. That part of the will which related to the
education of the people of the United States to the necessity and
desirability of developing and organizing unions of persons engaged in
work was actually considered by the trustees as more or less window
dressing, wasn’t it?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No it was the other way around, Mr. Tavenner. I
don’t know when Bob Marshall prepared this will, but I think Mr. Doyle
would know about this, Upton Sinclair had his so-called epic movement
in California, and there was a lot of discussion of an economy based
on production for use rather than for profit and in the first meeting
of the trustees that we held there was actually a resolution passed
where the rather untenable idea of getting a production-for-use economy
in the United States was discussed and it was decided by the trustees
that the money should actually be employed to develop as much as we
could the organization of trade unions, development and organization
of trade unions, organizing of unemployed people, and actually for the
development of a cooperation between farmers and workers, farmers and
labor, so that instead of having a division of interests as far as they
were concerned, and the trustees laid down a rule that with reference
to grants, that in order to come within what the trustees considered
the provisions of the will as the development of trade unions was
concerned, that the grants would have to be made for some trade-union
purpose, or development of trade unions, and so on, and that was what
was actually done by the trustees.
Mr. TAVENNER. Were there occasions when grants were made on
that theory--on that principle?
Mr. O’CONNELL. On what principle?
Mr. TAVENNER. The one you just named.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually, as far as I can remember--and of
course this goes back a long, long time, from 1940 on--I can’t remember
all of the organizations but we usually had an annual meeting of the
trustees and applications were made to the trustees by practically--I
mean just hundreds of organizations around the country that applied to
foundations of this kind, and I think, I can’t remember any exceptions,
I don’t recall any now.
As closely as we could the applications were considered from the point
of view that the money was to be applied by the organization to whom it
was granted to help the organization and development of trade unions
and organizing of unemployed people and particularly the development of
a principle of cooperation between farmers and laborers.
Mr. TAVENNER. But actually the will did provide for the use of
the money for promotion and advancement of an economic system in the
United States based upon the theory of production for use?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes; I think another thing that would lend
some stability to what I am saying is that I think the tax bureau at
one of the local Federal district courts in determining the taxability
of the foundation itself actually I think handed down a ruling that
the foundation was not entitled to a section 101 exemption because
that particular provision actually called for the elimination of the
capitalistic system. I think that was the wording used either by the
bureau or the court and from that time on the trustees never actually,
I can’t think of a single organization or a single group--and we had
applications I know, I am trying to think of some of the organizations
that existed over that period of time--I can’t recall any of them now
who specifically asked for grants based on what they called theory
of production for use rather than for profit. But I can’t think of a
single instance where the trustees actually made----
Mr. TAVENNER. That was actually the system in use in the
Soviet Union, was it not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I have never been in the Soviet Union and I am
not----
Mr. TAVENNER. However, you know, that is true, don’t you?
Mr. O’CONNELL. My information that I get from reading and so
on is that there is a modification. I think if I state it correctly in
the industrial field I think there is production for use rather than
for profit, but as I understand the Soviets have now abandoned as far
as particular foreign farm production is concerned----
Mr. TAVENNER. Was it not the purpose of the Communist Party in
the United States at that time to foist upon this country just such a
plan, namely, to establish a Communist system of production for use and
not for profit?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, wouldn’t be qualified to say, I
wouldn’t be qualified to state whether or not that was their purpose or
their program.
As a matter of fact, the program of the Communist Party as I remember
it before I came to Congress, while I was in Congress and after the
program of the Communist Party in the United States was fluctuating--as
a matter of fact, I think there was a removal of Browder because he
was advocating--removal of Browder by the Communist Party leadership
because he was advocating a companionship or partnership with capital
and that capital and communism could exist and there could be as I
understand it--that was the program of the Communist Party for a long
time until he was removed, I can’t remember when.
But I knew Bob Marshall those years--I think I can positively state
that Bob Marshall was not a Communist and that the provisions in that
will and certainly the people that were named as trustees in addition
to the trade union trust as we called it, the Marshall Foundation
Trust, there was a civil liberties trust of which I think Roger
Baldwin was the head and I think everyone will agree he is decidedly
anti-Communist.
There was also a wilderness area trust. In fact, out in the State of
Montana there is a great wilderness area named the Robert Marshall
Wilderness Area after Robert Marshall.
My distinct feeling about that is that in talking with Bob and talking
to him that he was caught up in the period of the depression situation
where there were all kinds of economic theories advanced at the time,
not only New Deal but all kinds of other movements and I don’t think
there was actually any connection in Bob Marshall’s mind between what
the Communist Party might be advocating at that time and what he
actually put in his will.
Mr. DOYLE. May I ask this about that will? Was it a
typewritten will or a will written by him?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Actually his brother, Jim Marshall, is an
attorney in the city of New York and I think a member of the New York
City Board of Education and the will was actually prepared by Jim
Marshall’s firm, I can’t remember all who are in it, but the copy which
I got was actually a copy of the will which I received through the
surrogate court in New York, actually a printed form.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you mentioned the fact that tax
exempt status of the trust was removed by action of the court. Was that
a result of action taken by the Internal Revenue Bureau?
Mr. O’CONNELL. That is correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was it after the Internal Revenue Bureau learned
of the type of grants being made under this trust that it took the
action it did to remove the tax exemption status of the trust?
Mr. O’CONNELL. My best recollection, Mr. Tavenner, is that
Congressman Dies made a speech on the floor, and if I remember
correctly, in which he discussed the Robert Marshall Foundation in
which he went into the various grants that we had made and shortly
after that, on whose initiative I don’t know, the Bureau took up with
the foundation the matter of its one exemption and the Bureau exemption
was removed and I believe as trustees we appealed it to the courts and
the courts decided against us.
We appealed, I am sure the briefs will show that we appealed to the
courts on the basis that the grants were being made for the purpose
of organizing and developing of trade unions and for organization of
unemployed people and not for the theory of production for use rather
than for profit. I am sure the briefs will bear me out on that. I of
course had nothing to do with the preparation of them.
George Marshall, who is Bob Marshall’s brother, was the manager of the
trust funds and as I said, the trustees usually met annually, once a
year.
Mr. TAVENNER. You were aware, were you not, that the Communist
Party in the State of Washington just 2 years prior to the probate of
this will, endeavored or at least proposed a plan for legislation to
set up exactly the same type of economy in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew nothing about that. The first time I
ever went to the State of Washington in August 1944----
Mr. TAVENNER. Robert Marshall you say was from the State of
Montana?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, Robert Marshall was actually a New Yorker,
his dad was Louis Marshall, a partner of Samuel Untermyer, outstanding
corporation lawyer in New York.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was a great deal of his experience in the
forestry service on the west coast?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No; 3 years of his service in the Forestry
Department were at Missoula, Mont., but not on the west coast. We are
in the Rocky Mountain area, you see.
Mr. TAVENNER. I understand.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Is this within the scope of the hearing?
Mr. VELDE. The Robert Marshall Foundation?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.
Mr. VELDE. I think it would be.
Mr. DOYLE. We will take a short recess.
(Brief recess.)
(Committee members present after recess: Representatives Doyle and
Scherer.)
Mr. DOYLE. The committee will come to order and let the record
show that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walter, appointed
a different subcommittee to continue this hearing today, consisting
of Mr. Moulder, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and that Mr.
Scherer and Mr. Doyle are both present, a legal majority of the new
subcommittee.
Mr. O’Connell, will you please rise and be sworn again.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I do.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, I referred to the proposal
sponsored by the Communist Party in the State of Washington in 1936 for
the enactment of a law establishing production-for-use initiative as it
was called.
Mr. O’CONNELL. That was stolen from Upton Sinclair’s
legislation.
Mr. TAVENNER. And possibly also from the Soviet Union.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t propose to speak for the Soviet Union.
Mr. TAVENNER. Do you propose to speak for Mr. Upton Sinclair?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I knew Mr. Sinclair quite well and he used
to contribute to my campaign and I had some opportunity to see his
campaign in California.
Mr. TAVENNER. Eugene V. Dennett described a convention of the
Washington Commonwealth Federation, held in April 1936 in Everett,
Wash., and the part that the Communist Party played in that convention.
His testimony relating to this particular matter is as follows:
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.
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.
Question. Now, at that point describe a little more fully what
production for use meant in a practical sense.
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
we 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 the
convention and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her
travels and won wide acclaim for that effort.
Question. 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 the 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 right 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 organization 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 the measure died a-borning. 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.
Question. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed bill or to
defeat it?
Mr. DENNETT. 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 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 had not have done it I am afraid it would have been
adopted.
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.
Mr. TAVENNER. Were you acquainted with Lem Harris?