Mr. VELDE. With all due respect, I think you could tell what
standards you would use.
Mr. O’CONNELL. When Belden was asked by people whether or not
this was a Red party, Belden, of course, would deny it and go on and
say the kind of people who were in it.
Rabbitt was critical of the way that he said that it was not a
Red party and the inference which he left which was in effect a
denunciation of the Reds and all of that and, of course, I figured if
he is touchy about that on the subject and all that, why, there is
probably some basis for it, for the charges that have been made against
him.
Mr. VELDE. You have not answered the question at all, in my
opinion. Let me ask you this: You were familiar with the fact that the
Soviet Union had established an espionage network here in the United
States by 1948, were you not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I was not. I don’t know whether that is
true even today. I mean, you asked me and I don’t know. I would have
to be shown and somebody would have to show me where they are and the
proof. I don’t know whether that is true.
Mr. VELDE. Are you familiar with the various Smith Act trials?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I have read a lot about the Smith Act trials;
yes, sir. But in none of the Smith Act trials they were not charged
with espionage and treason or anything of that kind.
Mr. VELDE. No; of course they were charged with advocating the
overthrow of our form of government by force and violence.
Mr. O’CONNELL. It even goes back further than that, conspiring
to teach and all that, but in none of those trials I don’t know any
development of espionage or spying. Of course, I am not familiar with
all the testimony. I have not read it all.
Mr. VELDE. Are you familiar with the Rosenberg case?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I am familiar with the Rosenberg case.
Mr. VELDE. Certainly from the result of that you must have had
the suspicion that there was an espionage network operating in this
country.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Even today I am not convinced that the
Rosenbergs were involved in Soviet espionage. Right now I think there
is serious doubt of it.
Mr. VELDE. Even though they were convicted under our American
system of jurisprudence?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Even though they were convicted and executed
I still feel it. You see, Congressman, I have a genuine interest in
civil liberty. It is not a Communist interest in civil liberty. I have
studied the testimony in the case of the Rosenbergs and so on. I think
it is seriously lacking, at least in my mind, and from my very meager
experience as an attorney, it is seriously lacking in fundamental proof
of their guilt. I think Dr. Harold Urey, many scientists and so on,
feel the same way about it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, I note when speaking of Pennock
and Rabbitt that a great part of your answers has dealt with the period
when you were secretary for the Democratic Party. But it was after the
Canwell hearings that the Progressive Party was established. It was in
the spring of 1947.
So at the time that Pennock and Rabbitt were associated with the
Progressive Party this information had already come out in the Canwell
hearings?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes.
Mr. TAVENNER. And you have spoken of what happened before the
Canwell hearings.
Mr. O’CONNELL. That doesn’t prove to me, I mean knowing many
of the people that testified--for instance, Jim Sullivan, I know Jim
Sullivan’s attitude and motives. I know precisely that he was president
of the Washington Pension Union and he lost his job and Pennock got it.
I could go through with those, I could go through each one and show the
particular reason why they testified. I judge by what Budenz said about
me--Budenz knew I wasn’t a member of the Communist Party. He didn’t
dare testify that I was.
Mr. VELDE. Will you tell us----
Mr. O’CONNELL. Will you let me finish, Congressman.
Mr. VELDE. You did not answer my question a while ago as
to how you would judge whether or not a person was a member of the
Communist Party?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I really haven’t thought about it. I can’t
give you precise standards and tests. I, for instance, don’t think,
I mean the standards and tests set down in the Communist Control Act
of 1954 are good; I think they would embrace a lot of people who are
non-Communists. I think it would involve a lot of people who are not
members of the Communist Party if you were to take those tests, for
instance. I think it is entirely too broad.
Mr. TAVENNER. The sum and substance of your testimony is
that the eight witnesses whose testimony I have quoted here are not
worthy of belief and therefore, you just ignored their testimony when
the matter came up of associating Rabbitt and Pennock with you in the
Progressive Party work?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Not only as far as I was concerned, but as far
as the people of the State of Washington, particularly in the districts
that these representatives were concerned, and the Legislative Assembly
of the State of Washington itself, this job was so poorly done by the
Canwell committee that the committee was never re-created, and in
the last session of the Legislative Assembly of Washington State had
Canwell before it for contempt for the destruction of the records of
his committee.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you answer my question, please?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, the thing I am trying to point out to
you is that I know how those hearings were conducted. There was no
opportunity, no opportunity for cross-examination; no opportunity for
witnesses to come in on the other side, or anything. I mean, people
were paraded there, like Budenz, and the others, came there and made
long, long statements; they just went on and on and made statements
about almost everything imaginable and conceivable.
Mr. TAVENNER. You still haven’t answered my question.
Mr. O’CONNELL. As far as I was concerned that did not prove to
me that Rabbitt or Pennock or anybody named in there was Communist.
Mr. TAVENNER. My question was whether or not you absolutely
ignored the testimony in the selection of those people to assist you in
the work of the Progressive Party.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I wouldn’t use the language that I
totally ignored it, or anything, but I was not motivated in my dealings
with them by anything that was developed in those hearings. Now, you
promised me an opportunity to----
Mr. TAVENNER. I will.
Mr. O’CONNELL. All right.
Mr. TAVENNER. You have told us that you were acquainted with
Barbara Hartle.
Mr. O’CONNELL. Yes, I think that is a correct statement that I
was acquainted with her.
Mr. TAVENNER. You stated that you had met her probably 5 times.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I met her the first time in Montana. Then I met
her a few times in the State of Washington.
Mr. TAVENNER. I asked Mrs. Hartle in the course of the
testimony taken in June 1954 to tell the committee to what extent
the Communist Party in that area was interested in the work of the
Progressive Party. You will find it on page 6215 of her testimony. Her
reply was this:
To a very considerable extent. After the reconstitution the
Communist Party recognized its revisionism of Marxism-Leninism in
the political field, and decided that the correct program was for a
new third anti-imperialist party. After this ideological campaign
had proceeded for at least a year the Progressive Party was founded
preceded for a period by the Progressive Citizens of America. The
Communist Party viewed this as a development along favorable lines
and in this district threw considerable effort into the support
and building of it and was able to furnish the top leadership as
well in the State. Hugh DeLacy, head of the Progressive Citizens of
America, Jerry O’Connell, and Tom Rabbitt, head of the Progressive
Party, all three of whom were in executive positions, were members
of the Communist Party to the best of my understanding. I have less
knowledge of O’Connell’s Communist Party membership than of DeLacy
and Rabbitt, but have sat in Communist Party meetings with him when
all present were Communists, and I understood him to be one also,
or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference. Many
Communist Party members were for the founding of the Progressive
Party in this State and worked in it after its founding. They
numbered in the hundreds. The policy of the Progressive Party in
this State was controlled by the Communist Party and if there
were any problems at all along this line they came from national
demands or from demands of persons and groups working also in the
Progressive Party and whom the Communist Party wanted to retain
and influence. Other Communist Party leaders also in leadership of
the Progressive Party were William J. Pennock, Karley Larsen, Fair
Taylor, Tom Rabbitt, Jerry O’Connell.
Then she proceeded to refer to other Communist Party members active in
the Progressive Party.
I want to call to your attention the fact that she stated that the
Communist Party furnished the leadership to the Progressive Party in
the State. The first person she named in that capacity was Hugh DeLacy.
What was Hugh DeLacy’s position in the Progressive Party?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Hugh DeLacy had no position in the Progressive
Party and no office in the Progressive Party, in the State of
Washington.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was it in the Progressive Citizens of America?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I think he was head of the Progressive Citizens
of America. We had actually, when the Progressive Party was organized
we had a real fight because the Progressive Citizens of America were
coming in, they had an organizational drive which was in support of
Wallace as such, but when the Progressive Party of Washington was
actually set up the leadership came not from the people who were in
the Progressive Citizens of America, but from people who were in the
Democratic Party.
Mr. TAVENNER. And people who were in the Young Progressives?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I don’t think we had any Young Progressives.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have any position, prior to the
formation of the Progressive Party in any organization other than the
Democratic Party?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No. As I told you, we had an organization known
as Roosevelt Democrats; I was executive secretary of it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Other than that, you had no position in any
group or branch?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, and Tom Rabbitt was not the head of the
Progressive Party. Russell Fluent was.
Mr. TAVENNER. But he did hold an executive position as stated
by Mrs. Hartle?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, he did not.
Mr. TAVENNER. What was his position?
Mr. O’CONNELL. As I said, he was on the staff from about, I
would say----
Mr. TAVENNER. Isn’t that an executive position, being a member
of the staff? Was he paid for his services?
Mr. O’CONNELL. He was paid for his services.
I mean, as I understand, he was not in an executive position. He had
an organizational job to do this southern King County. I mean, he
was assigned to organizational work, but it certainly wasn’t, I mean
he wasn’t chairman or vice chairman, or secretary, or any executive
position as I know it. And because of the kind of job he did out there,
I dropped him from the staff.
Mr. TAVENNER. Now, DeLacy has been shown to have been a member
of the Communist Party by witnesses other than Barbara Hartle and since
her testimony. Rabbitt has also.
Mrs. Hartle stated she had less knowledge of Communist Party membership
on your part, but that she sat with you in Communist Party meetings
when all present were Communists. Is that statement true or false?
Mr. O’CONNELL. That statement, as far as I am concerned, is
false. I never sat in any Communist Party meeting with her, at least
that I knew was called a Communist Party meeting. I have never sat in
when all present were Communists.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you sit in any Communist Party meeting when
some of the persons present were not Communists?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not know what her definition of a
Communist Party meeting would be. That is the first thing that bothers
me about that statement. I, for instance--I mean if the Communist Party
called a meeting, as I understand her statement here, if the Communist
Party called a meeting I know I never went to that meeting.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you sit in a meeting of Communist Party
members?
Mr. O’CONNELL. If she means, for instance, that a meeting
of probable Democrats in the 35th District, people who were in the
Democrat Party were there and there was a meeting----
Mr. TAVENNER. You speak of the Democrat Party each time. This
testimony relates to the Progressive Party. Why not refer to that
period of time?
Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, she said she sat in Communist Party
meetings with me when all present were Communists. Likewise with the
Progressive Party. I mean there could have been a Progressive Party
meeting called and all that, and all of the people there present might
have been Communists to her knowledge but certainly not to mine. She is
careful; I mean she qualifies, she says, “I understood to be one or at
least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference.” She had doubts.
Mr. WILLIS. At this point that is what this has just about
boiled down to in my mind, Mrs. Hartle’s description. This morning I
sat here and listened to the period of time when you were chairman of
the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. You became associated with or
had business relations with Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Stone, Rose Clinton,
Tom Buchanan, Ruth Rifkin, Elizabeth Sasuly, Tilla Minowitz, Carl
Marzani, Lillian Clott, and Alexander Wright. In each instance you
had an explanation, although we read from the record that others had
said that these people were Communists, that you did not know about
them. Well, that is a little difficult but it could have happened. I
am not reproaching you, but you become a little more indifferent when
you will not accept, for instance, the pronouncement of a court, the
highest court of the land, that Rosenbergs were Communists. You refuse
to accept that; you still are not convinced.
To me her description is becoming pretty good, to be so tolerant as
to be completely indifferent. Probably your mind is shut to having a
standard to satisfy you as to whether a group is or is not Communist.
I am entirely frank about it. Listening all morning my mind at this
time, even more and more as we go along, is that maybe your sincere
feeling--how did she describe that?
Mr. O’CONNELL (reading):
I understand him to be one also, or at least so sympathetic as to
make no actual difference.
Mr. WILLIS. Well, if she had used the words “so indifferent,”
it would have been pretty close to my frank analysis of your testimony.
Mr. VELDE. Let me say I concur with your statement, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. WILLIS. If she had substituted the word “indifferent,” it
would have been a close analysis of our appreciation of your testimony
up to now. I look forward, however, to your contest with Mr. Budenz in
that lawsuit that you mentioned.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I want to assure you that there is a
difference. One can be a sincere American liberal and still fight
for the political rights and civil rights of Communists. I can be
non-Communist and yet not anti-Communist, just like I can be a Democrat
and yet not an anti-Republican.
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, but you still have not given us a standard.
It is hard to put in words--I do not know how to describe it--as to
what is my standard, of what is a Communist. I would say that after a
trial by all our courts, including a refusal of relief from the Supreme
Court, refusal of appeals to two Presidents, with all the pressure
brought on them, the courts and executive officers (I suppose they must
have reviewed the record; they all seemed satisfied) but still you
are not satisfied. So that makes it indifferent to me as to what your
standard could be.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not want to go into all of the evidence
as I understand it, but as an attorney I am completely suspicious of
the testimony given by David Greenglass. He had real motives. He had
everything to gain by what he was doing. During the pleas for clemency
and since that time there has been other evidence produced that in my
mind raises a real question, the positions taken by Dr. Harold Urey and
by other scientists as to whether or not the so-called secret which was
transferred or alleged to have been transferred and so on was a secret
at all. These are the things that make me wonder about it. I am not
satisfied.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you of course, noted from the
testimony that I read that Barbara Hartle, who has been qualified as an
expert in this field, stated that the Communist Party furnished the top
leadership in the State of Washington for the Progressive Party. She
also stated that the policy of the Progressive Party in that State was
controlled by the Communist Party.
Now in that connection I want to follow a little further along with her
testimony to support the extent to which the Communist Party was in a
position to control the Progressive Party. I made this statement to
Mrs. Hartle on page 6216:
Mrs. Hartle, the committee staff has procured from the secretary of
state of the State of Washington a photostatic copy of the reports
required to be made by law of the proceedings of the nominating
convention for the year 1952--
that was the nominating convention of the Progressive Party--
It is noted that the certificate is signed by Thomas C. Rabbitt,
permanent secretary of the Progressive Party. You have heretofore
identified him as a member of the Communist Party, have you not?
Mrs. HARTLE. Yes, I have.
Mr. TAVENNER. The document referred to contains a
certificate of attendance at the nominating convention of the
Progressive Party held on the 9th day of September 1952. Will you
please examine the list and read into the record the names of those
appearing thereon who are known to you to have been members of the
Communist Party?
(The witness then proceeded to read the names of those she had
identified.)
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you now count the number of those whose
signatures appear on the list?
Mrs. HARTLE. Yes; 33.
Mr. TAVENNER. I have kept a record of the number of those
identified by you as members of the Communist Party. Out of the
total list of 33 names, you have identified 19.
Mrs. Hartle further testified that while she was in the underground of
the Communist Party, which meant after 1950----
Mr. O’CONNELL. Where is that?
Mr. TAVENNER. It is on the same page.
I received a brief description of what this Independent Party was.
I was told that it had been impossible to place candidates for the
Communist Party on the election ballot and that steps were taken
then to put Communist candidates on an Independent Party ticket and
take this means of bringing the Communist program into the election
campaign.
The result was that we furnished to Mrs. Hartle a list of 49 persons
certified by an affidavit to have attended the nominating convention of
the Independent Party. Mrs. Hartle was asked to examine that list. Of
the 49 persons appearing on the list, she identified 36 as known to her
to be members of the Communist Party.
Mr. O’CONNELL. That list, of course, is all 1952 with
reference to the Progressive Party in 1950, with reference to the
so-called Independent Party?
Mr. TAVENNER. That is right.
Mr. O’CONNELL. My testimony is that I left the State of
Washington in October 1949.
Mr. TAVENNER. That is correct.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I could distinguish if we had the time, as far
as these people were concerned, with reference to the Progressive Party
as it existed when I was there.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
(The committee members present when the hearing reconvened were Messrs.
Willis and Velde.)
Mr. WILLIS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. O’Connell, you told us a few minutes ago
that Hugh DeLacy had not been connected with your organization; that
is, the Progressive Party.
Mr. O’CONNELL. No; I did not say that he----
Mr. TAVENNER. You said he was not in an executive position.
Mr. O’CONNELL. He was not in an executive position.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was he an organizer employed by you?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I do not remember whether he was there during
the period when the party was actually organized, but he was there for
a period of a few weeks.
Mr. TAVENNER. That was in 1948, was it not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1948 when the organization work was being
done. Then he later went on to the position with the national office of
the Progressive Party.
Mr. TAVENNER. He finally became the head of the Progressive
Party for the State of Ohio?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. According to his testimony, he was employed as a
State organizer for the Progressive Party in Washington from sometime
around February or March, perhaps even later, of 1948, up to somewhere
around June of the same year.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that is comparatively correct. My
remembrance of it is that the provisional committee operated from about
March, I would say around March 23 of 1948, and we actually had the
founding convention of the rest of the party in the State of Washington
the latter part of May.
Mr. TAVENNER. DeLacy was a paid functionary for the
Progressive Party during the period he indicated, was he not?
Mr. O’CONNELL. He was a paid organizer during that period.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you employ him?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I could not say strictly that I employed him.
I think that there was an executive committee group that was set up at
the time.
Mr. TAVENNER. Were you his superior?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I was his superior; yes.
Mr. TAVENNER. Now you indicated that you desired an
opportunity to explain the testimony that Mr. Louis Budenz----
Mr. WILLIS. Before you come to that, you started to say 3 or 4
times that you had fired Mr. Rabbitt.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I fired Mr. Rabbitt; I removed him from the
staff. Is that what you mean?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes. Why did you fire him?
Mr. O’CONNELL. I explained he was organizing in southern King
County and he was supercritical of the work of a man by the name of
Belden who was organizing clubs in what we call the 30th Legislative
District of King County. The party was being attacked as being
Communist or Communist-controlled or Red, and Belden was trying to
explain as an ordinary individual that it was not Communist-controlled
and was not Red. In the course of his explanation, at least, left
anti-Communist inference; Rabbitt was critical of it.
Mr. TAVENNER. It appears from the certificate made under law
to the State of Washington that he was secretary of the Progressive
Party in 1952--that Rabbitt was secretary.
Mr. O’CONNELL. In 1952?
Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.
Mr. O’CONNELL. I, of course, of my own knowledge would not
know if that is correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did he remain on the executive committee of the
Progressive Party after the time you say you discharged him from his
paid position?
Mr. O’CONNELL. No, not as long as I was there. When I left
in October of 1949, as I understand, in the early part of December
a resolution was passed by the State board of the Progressive Party
declaring my office vacant because I had not returned from the State
of Montana. Either at that meeting or shortly after, Rabbitt was named
by the executive committee. I think, first, the original title given
to him was coordinator. Later I think he was made executive secretary.
I know these things from what people have told me, but not of my own
knowledge.
Mr. TAVENNER. I am not sure that you have answered
specifically my question relating to the testimony of Barbara Hartle
insofar as it referred to you. Barbara Hartle testified that you
attended Communist Party meetings in which she was present where all
the persons present were members of the Communist Party. Did you attend
any such meeting or meetings?