[*]
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
EUGENE DENNIS, JOHN B. WILLIAMSON, JACOB STACHEL, ROBERT G. THOMPSON, BENJAMIN J. DAVIS, JR., HENRY WINSTON, JOHN GATES, IRVING POTASH, GILBERT GREEN, CARL WINTER and GUS HALL,
Defendants–Appellants.
JOINT APPENDIX
On Appeal from Judgments of Conviction of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York
[TRIAL TESTIMONY]
VOLUME VI — PAGES 4159 TO 4958
(Trial Transcript, pp. 2638 to 3922)
[*i]
INDEX*
Trial Testimony (Cont’d)
|
PAGE |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 35, Read into Record |
4165 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 36, Read into Record |
4167 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 37, Read into Record |
4183 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 38, Read into Record |
4195 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 39, Read into Record |
4196 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 40, Read into Record |
4201 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–B, Read into Record |
4214 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 44, Read into Record |
4247 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 43–C, Read into Record |
4248 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 45–A, Read into Record |
4254 |
| Excerpts From Defendants’ Exhibit II, Read into Record |
4409 |
| Excerpts From Defendants’ Exhibit GG–1, Read into Record |
4439 |
| Excerpts From Defendants’ Exhibit NN, Read into Record |
4467 |
| Motion to Strike Out Testimony of Witness, Philbrick |
4500 |
[*ii]
| Motion to Strike Out Testimony of Witness, Philbrick—Denied |
4505 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 47–A, Read into Record |
4544 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 48–A, Read into Record |
4548 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 48, Read into Record |
4551 |
| Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness, Nowell—Denied |
4675 |
| Excerpts From Defendants’ Exhibit AAA, Read into Record |
4850 |
| Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness, Nicodemus—Denied |
4862 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 51, Read into Record |
4869 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–C, Read into Record |
4873 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 51, Read into Record |
4876 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–D, Read into Record |
4888 |
| Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 51, Read into Record |
4895 |
| Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness, Herron—Denied |
4911 |
| GOVERNMENT’S WITNESSES (CONT’D) |
| Herbert A. Philbrick: |
| Direct (Cont’d) |
4159 |
| Cross |
4285 |
| Redirect |
4479 |
| Frank S. Meyer: |
| Direct |
4505 |
[*iii]
[*4159]
Herbert A. Philbrick—for Government—Direct
Mr. McCabe: I object to this. I object to this volunteered—
The Court: Yes, unless it was something that was said at that meeting by Martha or Pete leave it out.
Q. Was that said by Martha and Pete or is that part of your explanation? A. That was part of my explanation. I didn’t know if the jury understood—
The Court: Don’t you worry about what the jury understands. You just answer the questions.
Q. By what name, by what names were Pete and Martha known to the pro group? A. Just by their first names.
Q. Pete and Martha? A. Yes. In all of the clubs (T–2638) the first names are used only. No last names are used in the club meetings.
Mr. McGohey: Would you keep your voice up, please, Mr. Philbrick.
The Court: (To reporter) Will you read the last clause of the answer.
(Answer read.)
Q. No last names are used in the club meetings? A. No, sir.
Q. Now was anything said by Pete or Martha as to the purpose of conducting these mobilizations? You have told us what they said about how to conduct; did they say why they were to be conducted?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
Mr. McCabe: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(To witness) This is still what Pete and Martha said?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
A. In this case it was Martha who stated in and she stated such as a member of the pro council that the purposes of [*4160] the mobilizations was to enable us to get together quickly in case of an emergency.
Q. Now let’s go back for a moment to the time that you first joined the Communist Party. Do you (T–2639) remember when that was? A. Yes. I first became a member of the Communist Party in March of 1944.
Q. And at that time did you have a discussion with an agent of the FBI? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. From that time to the present have you had regular discussions with agents of the FBI?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Well, he has already testified to the fact that he had some in some other period. I will allow it.
(To witness) Don’t give the conversations, but did you have conversations from time to time with agents of the FBI?
The Witness: Well, I can cover it if I can say that during the entire nine years of my activities either in the Communist Party or in the Young Communist League I have been continuously in touch with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(T–2640) Q. Now you say you joined the Communist Party in March of 1944 or the spring, did you say? A. March of 1944.
Q. Now there has been evidence in this case that in May of 1944 the Party was dissolved and the Communist Political Association was formed. At the time the Communist Political Association was formed did you become a member of that organization? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. I show you this document. Do you recognize it? (Handed to witness.) A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it? A. It’s a membership card to the Communist Political Association dated 1945 and signed by Anne Burlack, the State president of the Massachusetts Communist Party.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence (handing to Mr. Sacher.)
Mr. Sacher: Will your Honor indulge us just a moment, please.
[*4161]
(Mr. Sacher examines.)
(Defense counsel examine.)
(Mr. Gladstein hands to Mr. Shapiro.)
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps you could pass it back here.
(Mr. Shapiro hands to Mr. Gordon.)
Mr. Sacher: Is that being offered now?
Mr. Gordon: Well, I stated some time ago—
(T–2641) The Court: Yes.
Mr. Sacher: I object to it, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 34 in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor would like to look at it, I assume.
The Court: Yes. Everybody else has had a look.
(Clerk hands to the Court.)
The Court: Very well.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 34. I am not sure the record is straight, is this a card that was issued to you, Mr. Philbrick (handing)? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gordon: I will pass that to the jury, your Honor (handing).
The Court: Is Mr. Philbrick’s name on it?
The Witness: Just the first name.
The Court: Just the first name?
The Witness: I think.
Mr. Gordon: Yes. That card just says “Herb.”
Mr. Sacher: I thought your Honor saw it.
(T–2642) The Court: Well, to tell you the honest truth I did see it and I didn’t notice that part. I suppose you will take exception to that. I didn’t notice that part. Is that all right?
Mr. Crockett: I do take exception to your Honor’s ruling—
[*4162]
The Court: You see, Mr. Sacher starts somethings. He made the remark that he thought I looked at it and how funny it was that I hadn’t noticed the name “Herb” there. You see, one thing starts another and then when one of your number starts it the others all get up and take the opposite view and do the old whipsaw game.
Mr. Crockett: I object to the Court’s remark. I stood up for the purpose of objecting and excepting to the Court’s passing on the admissibility of a document without even looking at it prior to making its ruling.
The Court: Well, I did look at it.
Mr. Crockett: Subsequent to making your ruling, your Honor.
The Court: Well,—
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps counsel would like to state some reason why it is not admissible. I heard counsel right here—
The Court: Well, counsel couldn’t say that.
Mr. Crockett: I understand I am restricted (T–2643) from stating my reasons.
The Court: Very well. It may appear that I have ruled on that before I had actually examined the details of the card which I did a moment later.
Q. At the—
The Court: Better wait until the jury gets through looking at it.
Q. At the time that you received Exhibit 34, that is, the membership card—I think it says on the exhibit “Malden Club, Middlesex County”—were you a member of the Malden Club of the Communist Political Association? A. Yes, sir, I was a member of the Malden Branch in Malden, Massachusetts.
Q. In July of 1945 was a convention held of the Communist Political Association in Massachusetts?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Just say yes or no. Overruled.
A. Yes.
[*4163]
Q. Did you attend the convention? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Gordon: Will you mark this for identification?
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 35 for identification.)
Q. In what capacity did you attend the convention?
(T–2644) Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I attended the State Convention of the Communist Political Association in two capacities in July 1945, first, as an alternate delegate from the Malden Branch of the Communist Party—Communist Political Association, and also upon invitation from Dave Bennett who, I believe, was secretary of the Party at that time.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 35 for identification and ask you if you recognize that? A. Yes, sir, this is the letter of invitation from Dave Bennett to attend the special convention of the CPA July 21 and 22, 1945.
Q. Which you received? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence. Perhaps if I pass it to your Honor now there will be no question.
The Court: Yes.
Is that offered in evidence, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor, and I am going to hand it to defense counsel now.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, may I ask if there is a photostatic copy of the exhibit available, for use by defense counsel?
The Court: Yes, you may ask that. Is there one?
Mr. Gordon: I hadn’t made one, your Honor. In (T–2645) fact, it is not in evidence but if counsel wants one we will make one.
Mr. Isserman: Thank you.
Mr. Crockett: May I ask if the endorsements are included in your offer?
[*4164]
Mr. Gordon: The endorsements?
Mr. Crockett: Yes, in the right upper corner.
Mr. Gordon: Let me see it.
Q. In view of Mr. Crockett’s question, Mr. Philbrick, do you know anything about the ink notations in the upper righthand corner of Exhibit 35 for identification? A. Well, I believe these were made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Court: They weren’t on there when you received the paper?
The Witness: No, no.
The Court: Let me see it for a second.
Mr. Gordon: I don’t think they are important, your Honor.
The Court: They should be no part of the offer, I think.
Mr. Gordon: No, they are just file numbers.
If it is agreeable to counsel, when we photostat it, we will photostat it without those on there.
Mr. Crockett: No, we would like them on there.
(T–2646) Mr. Sacher: We want them on there.
Mr. Gordon: I will offer it less those, your Honor.
The Court: We will wait until we hear the objections before we produce a ruling on this—objections, if any.
Let me see the membership card.
(Clerk hands card to the Court.)
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher asked me to ask the witness what the notations meant and I just told him that I thought the witness had said they were put on by the FBI.
The Court: He did say that.
Mr. Sacher: Yes, but that doesn’t say what they mean. It simply says who put them on there.
The Court: You mean you just want to know what those files of the FBI mean?
Mr. Sacher: No, no, what those notations mean. I think I know myself from reading them.
[*4165]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 35, Read into Record
The Court: Maybe there will be an FBI man subpoenaed by you and you can ask him the question.
Mr. Gordon: I am going to offer the letter without those file numbers, since the matter came up, your Honor.
Mr. Gladstein: The document is immaterial, (T–2647) outside the issues of this case, and I object to it.
The Court: The paper will be received.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 35 in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: This is a mimeographed letter on the, what appears to be the stationery of the Communist Political Association, Massachusetts State Committee, Boylston Street, Boston, Mass.; telephone number; over on the left appears a list of names, and Burlack, president; James J. Green, secretary–treasurer; five vice–presidents, Otis A. Hood, first vice–president, Daniel B. Schermer, William Harrison, Justine O’Connor and Robert Goodwin; dated July 13, 1945. It reads:
“Dear Friend: This is to extend to you a personal invitation to attend the special Convention of the Communist Political Association of New England to be held in Boston on Saturday and Sunday, July 21 to 22. This special Convention has been called for the express purpose of considering and acting upon the draft resolution of the National Committee to review the present work and responsibility of the District Committee and to elect delegates to the National Convention of the CPA.”
And then it gives the special District Convention sessions, Saturday, July 21st, 8.00 p. m.; Sunday morning (T–2648) at 10 a. m., and Sunday afternoon.
“Fraternally yours, David P. Bennett”—
B–e–n–n–e–t–t—
“Secretary.”
Mr. Sacher: Does it mention the hall where it is to be held in Boston?
Mr. Gordon: Well, I shall read that last part there then.
[*4166]
“The special district convention sessions are as follows:
“Saturday—July 21—8 p. m. Charter Room, New England Mutual Hall (225 Clarendon St. corner of Boylston St., near Copley Sq.).
“Sunday—July 22—10 a. m. Panel Discussions (place to be announced).
“Sunday—July 22—2 p. m., Charter Room, New England Mutual Hall.”
Q. I think you testified that you also attended the session as an alternate delegate? A. Yes, sir. I was elected as an alternate delegate from the Malden, Massachusetts, Branch of the Communist Political Association as it was then known.
(Mr. Gordon hands paper to the clerk.)
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 36 for identification.)
(T–2649) Q. Now I show you Exhibit 36 for identification and ask if you recognize that (handing to witness)? A. Yes, sir. This is a directive to the club secretaries outlining—
Mr. Sacher: I object to the statement.
The Court: Sustained, sustained.
You must not read from the paper.
Mr. Gordon: Well, I don’t think he intended to, your Honor, but I will ask a question so that we cover it in legal fashion.
The Court: Yes. You see, the paper speaks for itself and the objection is well founded.
Q. This is a directive to the club secretaries? A. Yes.
Q. Was it received by you? A. This is received at the Malden, Massachusetts, Branch.
Q. Does it pertain to the convention? A. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence, except for what appear to be some file symbols in the upper righthand corner (handing to Court).
[*4167]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 36, Read into Record
The Court: All right (handing).
Mr. Gordon: I am passing the exhibit to defense counsel, your Honor (handing to Mr. Sacher).
(Defense counsel examine.)
Mr. Gladstein: Hearsay, immaterial; objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(Government’s Exhibit 36 for identification received in evidence.)
(T–2650) The Clerk: Does your Honor want to look at it?
The Court: I have looked at it already.
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 36 is what appears to be a mimeographed letter, July 13, 1945, to all clubs’ secretaries.
“Dear Brothers and Sisters”—
Q. By the way, that term “brothers and sisters”, was that form of salutation used during the period of the Communist Party? A. No, sir, it was not. During the period of the Communist Party and in the after period since 1945 the term used is “Comrade.”
Q. Comrade, and during the Communist Political Association the term was “Brothers and Sisters”? A. That is right.
Mr. Gordon: “Dear Brothers and Sisters:
“The convention arrangments committee elected by the district committee of the CPA urges that you take careful note of the following information and guarantee that all delegates receive a copy of this communication.”
And the words “and guarantee that all delegates receive a copy of this communication” are under–lined.
“We have worked out these additional details in regard to the convention:”—
then there is a subheading, “Housing” and then a subheading (T–2651) “Credentials and Visitors” [*4168] and then “Resolutions, amendments, etc.” and “Place of sessions”, “Panel sessions Sunday morning” and “Preparations for discussions.”
Under “Credentials and Visitors” it says:
“Marc Alper, at this office, has been placed in charge of credentials prior to the convention. Credentials should be sent to him not later than July 19th. Visitors from the greater Boston area only will be admitted (unless persons from out of town happen to be in Boston near the date of the convention and wish to stay over to attend). All greater Boston clubs are urged to inform their membership that they may attend as visitors, and to especially urge trade unionists, veterans or other especially important members to attend. The names of persons who will attend as visitors should also be sent to Marc Alper as soon as possible so as to avoid confusion at the door; however, persons will be admitted as visitors in so far as possible if they present themselves at the door and can be identified as members.”
Mr. Sacher: Now I should like counsel either to read or permit us to read those portions of the letter which have been omitted and which indicate the nature of the proceedings to take place, such as the offering (T–2652) of amendments to resolutions.
The Court: You may do that. You know I said at the very beginning of the trial, and I thought it would be helpful for everybody, if as exhibits were received some modus operandi could be worked out so that the parts that each side wanted to refer to were indicated so you may read those parts to the jury now.
Mr. Sacher: May I have that, Mr. Gordon, please?
The Court: As soon as Mr. Gordon is finished.
Mr. Gordon: Down at the bottom it says, “Fraternally yours, Dave Bennett, Secretary.”
[*4169]
“P.S.—Please send in all convention assessments as soon as possible and bring those which are not mailed to the convention.”
I would be glad to read any portion he points out or he may read.
The Court: I think such parts as he desires to read he may read now.
Mr. Sacher: This is a section which reads:
“Resolutions, amendments, etc.: Otis Hood has been placed in charge of all resolutions, amendments, etc. proposed by the clubs until such time as the convention meets. Please send in all of your club proposals, together with a record of the vote on them, at the earliest possible moment, and not later (T–2653) than July 19.”
And then:
“Place of sessions: The address of New England Mutual Hall where the Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon sessions will be held is 225 Clarendon Street, corner of Boylston, Copley Square, Boston. Sunday morning panel sessions will be held in the Little Building, 80 Boylston Street, Boston. Room numbers will be announced Saturday evening.
“Panel sessions Sunday morning: The panels will be: 1. Work among Negro people. 2. New problems in trade union work. 3. Problems of our Communist organization. 4. Press and literature. Delegations are urged to plan in advance which of their delegates will go to the different panels so that the club can have a report on each panel meeting if necessary.”
Then the final item reads:
“Preparations for discussion: Every delegate who plans to particpate in the discussion is urged to organize his contribution in advance. A strict time limit will be necessary, probably seven minutes. Please bear this in mind.”
[*4170]
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, did anybody attend the convention (T–2654) who was not a member of the Communist Political Association? A. Not that I know of, sir.
Q. In connection with these discussions tell the Court and jury how these discussions are run. A. Well, No. 1, before you can—
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Isserman: I object to this question.
The Court: Overruled.
This is at the convention?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You may proceed.
A. (Continuing) Well, No. 1—
Mr. Isserman: The question is general and it wasn’t indicated it was at the convention or any other place.
Mr. Gordon: I will ask a first question.
The Court: But his mind is directed to the convention now, Mr. Gordon. Let’s let him go right ahead.
A. (Continuing) Well, first before you can participate in any of the discussions if you wanted to present some major issue as indicated in the directive that you have before you there you had to send in a resume or a copy or an outline of what you intended to say in advance.
(T–2654–A) Mr. Sacher: I object to this statement as being contrary to Exhibit 36.
The Court: Let me see it.
Mr. Sacher: What is that?
The Court: I say let me see it. I can’t tell whether it is contradictory or not until I read it.
T–2655) The Court: Now, Mr. Philbrick, are you referring to the panel meetings?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Well, Mr. Philbrick, it says here “Every delegate who plans to participate in the discussions is urged to organize his contribu– [*4171] tion in advance,” and then, up above, under the heading of “Resolutions and Amendments,” it says, “Please send in all of your club proposals together with a record of the vote on them at the earliest possible moment and not later than July 19th.” Where do you see anything in this Exhibit 36 that requires the submission in advance of the matter to be discussed in the panel?
The Witness: That is what it means, when it says to organize your material ahead of time for the panel discussion.
The Court: It means—somebody told you that?
The Witness: Yes, sir. At the Malden meeting there was one member of the group, a girl by the name of Alice, who wanted to participate in the panel discussion and she organized her material in advance and sent it in. The panel discussions are different from the resolutions and amendments.
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Now—
(T–2656) Mr. Isserman: I ask that that answer be stricken, if the Court please.
The Court: The part about Alice?
Mr. Isserman: The entire answer which this witness has given, as hearsay, no time has been fixed, and in answer to the Court’s question as to whether anyone told him, the person who told him was not given.
The Court: Well, perhaps I should ask you, in view of the objection: Do you remember who made the statement there this material was to be organized in advance and submitted?
The Witness: I don’t recall who the chairman of our group was at that time, sir.
The Court: Do you recall that the statement was made by the chairman?
The Witness: Well, I remember very definitely how this thing was set up, how it was organized and arranged, and the arrangements were that, if you had any discussion to come up concerning a major issue of the draft resolution, see, of the National Committee, that that had to be prepared in advance and, [*4172] of course, the reason given there was that there was a time limit and so forth.
The Court: You mean the reason given in this Exhibit 36 or the reason given at the meeting?
(T–2657) The Witness: I believe that’s all. In other words, this particular leaflet, or flyer or letter was always at the Malden meetings before we went to the convention.
The Court: All right, I will overrule the objection. I deny the motion.
The Witness: Now, in the matter—I believe the question also included the matter of the amendments, and so forth. Could you ask again that question? I wanted to get it straight.
Q. Let me put it this way. Did you go to the convention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at the convention did anybody from the audience or the delegates make a speech? A. Yes, quite a few of the members attending the convention made speeches. These could only be the alternates or the delegates. The visitors were not allowed to speak.
Q. Was there any procedure adopted for those persons indicating that they wished to speak? A. Yes, before you could speak you had to write out your name on a card. The card was sent to the front of the room, to the chairman conducting the meeting, and in that way, you see, they could select the names of those who they wished to have speak.
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike out the last (T–2658) remark of the witness.
Mr. McCabe: I object.
The Court: Did they do that?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right, allowed.
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question and answer; and ask that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Well, I will strike out the part that they could do it and leave in the part that they did it.
[*4173]
Mr. Sacher: That is a pyrrhic victory, your Honor.
The Court: It seemed to me not to be very much substance in the objection.
Q. Now, from what you have said—
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to the Court’s remark as to the character of the objection. The objection to your Honor’s question was well taken because it called for—it suggested the answer, it was a leading question, if the Court please, and, beyond that, it called for a—the answer, which was given, as hearsay. The Court said, did they do it, without saying who and where and what was said. I object to the Court’s characterization of the objection.
(T–2659) The Court: Very well. Overruled.
Mr. Gordon: I am having a hard time keeping my mind on the question.
What did I start to say, Mr. Reporter?
The Court: I think I remember what he has been talking about all right. We are up to the point where he has described sending these cards up, and then the man who was the chairman, he picked around and picked which ones he wanted to call on and he called on those.
Isn’t that it, Mr. Witness?
The Witness: That is true, sir.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that and move to strike out your Honor’s attempted summarization of the testimony as not being correct and as not being what this witness said.
The Court: This time I would like to hear you at length, Mr. Sacher. What is the difference between the way I summarized it and the way the witness testified?
Do you care to answer the Court’s question?
Mr. Sacher: Yes, your Honor. I think your Honor clearly put the answer of the witness right in his mouth and put it there—
[*4174]
The Court: Your objection was that I had stated it differently from the way it was testified by the witness.
(T–2660) Mr. Sacher: Yes.
The Court: What is the difference?
Mr. Sacher: Well, I think if we just read it—I don’t want to commence to quote your Honor and find I have muffed a word, but your Honor said the chairman picked whomever he wanted, et cetera, and then the witness said yes, and I say that that was not the testimony as previously given.
The Court: All right, we will have it read back.
(To reporter) Read back what the witness said about that.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I object to this entire procedure and should like to state the reasons.
The Court: I will sustain the objection and we won’t read it.
Mr. Crockett: My objection also—
The Court: I rather suspected you were going to do that, so it is all right.
Mr. Crockett: My objection also goes to the Court’s persistence in summarizing the testimony of witnesses and thus giving the impression that more importance should be attached to that testimony than ordinarily or otherwise might be attached to it.
(T–2661) The Court: All right. Go ahead. Now we won’t have the question read, so you ask the next question.
Q. When you went into this convention in July of 1945 was there a literature table? A. Yes, sir, there was a literature table just inside the door of this convention.
Q. Do you recall what was on the literature tables? A. Well, the interesting feature of the literature table was that all of the previously—
Mr. Gladstein: I move to strike that, your Honor, as not responsive.
The Court: Take out the word “interesting.” Strike that out. What you observed was as follows, to wit—now, go ahead and tell us.
[*4175]
A. All right. Well, I can remember it because the material of Earl Browder, which up to that time had always been used and exhibited at Communist Political Association meetings, was not present on this literature table.
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike it out, your Honor.
The Court: Just a moment until I listen to Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike out the answer. He has testified what was not on the table. The question was, what was on the table.
(T–2662) Mr. Gordon: That is a picayune objection.
Mr. Sacher: That is a picayune observation.
The Court: He may also state what was not on the table. The objection is overruled. You say the Earl Browder literature that on former occasions was very prominent was out?
The Witness: That is true.
Mr. Sacher: I object to your Honor’s statement as to what the witness said.
Mr. Gordon: I will ask him.
Q. Was the Earl Browder literature that was or had been prominent on former occasions out at this time?
Mr. Crockett: Objection, as leading.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. What were the books which were on the table? A. Well, the traditional Marxist–Leninist literature was and—
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that out, your Honor.
(T–2663) The Court: Strike it out.
Tell us what the books were.
The Witness: Well, among the books that were exhibited and on sale there on the literature table at this convention were “Foundations of Leninism”, “Historical and Dialectical Materialism” by Stalin—
The Court: “Materialism” by who was that—Stalin?
[*4176]
The Witness: Stalin, yes, sir.
“The Communist Manifesto” by Marx.
Did I mention “Foundations of Leninism”?
The Court: Yes, “Foundations of Leninism” was the first one that you mentioned.
Q. Do you remember the titles of any of the others?
The Court: Just take your time.
A. “Imperialism, The Highest”—I am waiting—
Mr. Sacher: What is that?
A. (Continuing) “Imperialism, The Highest Stages of Capital” or “The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin.
“The Worker” and the “Sunday Worker” were there; the magazine “Political Affairs” was there and the particular issue, I believe, carried the plenum discussions. I think there was a plenum issue that was there at that time,
Mr. Sacher: What is that?
(T–2664) The Witness: A plenum issue.
Mr. Sacher: Of what?
Mr. Gordon: Of “Political Affairs”.
The Witness: Of “Political Affairs”.
Q. Now let me restate the question—
* * *
(Short recess.)
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now, Mr. Philbrick, on this literature table at the convention were three books by Marx and Engels? A. Yes, there were.
Mr. Crockett: I object.
Mr. Gordon: I think there was an objection.
The Court: Oh, I did not hear that. Nobody rose.
Mr. Crockett: Well, I object to the question being leading.
The Court: It is leading and if I had heard the objection I would have sustained it. I will strike out the answer.
[*4177]
(T–2665) He hasn’t yet exhausted his recollection as to what was on the table. If he had done that I would permit some reference to some specific matters but I think his recollection should first be exhausted.
Mr. Crockett: I must object to that statement, your Honor, as suggesting to Mr. Gordon how he can get what he seems to be troubled about getting out of this witness.
The Court: Mr. Crockett, it is the function of the Court here to administer justice which I am trying to do to the best of my ability. Now you must know that such comment as you just made is not right.
Mr. Crockett: But I think the Court appreciates the fact—
The Court: Now I have been standing for all kinds of picking on me by the lawyers for the defense here and I am not going to raise any great issue about this one, but I really—I really think if it gets to a point where the Judge may not indicate what he thinks is the proper thing to do, it has reached a strange and pitiful state of affairs.
Mr. Crockett: I wish to disclaim any intent to pick on your Honor, but I think it was pretty obvious that Mr. Gordon was puzzled how to get from the witness what he wanted and the Court suggested that if the (T–2666) witness had established that he had exhausted his recollection.
The Court: You see, the intimation in what you say is that I am suggesting it from some improper motive, not from the motive of doing justice but of taking sides in the controversy, which I do not do, and I really don’t think there is any basis for your making such an insinuation, and that is why I comment on it.
Mr. Crockett: I had no intention of impugning your Honor’s motives. I simply object to the Court making such a suggestion at that time.
The Court: All right. I made the suggestion, if you call it such—I didn’t think of it in that light but however it may be, on numerous occasions here [*4178] I have explained to counsel for the defendants when I thought it proper to do so, why I sustained certain objections and how the questions could be reframed. I really do not see why I should not do that. I think it is proper to do it.
Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: I took it as a ruling, your Honor, not as a suggestion.
The Court: Well—
Q. Mr. Philbrick, what are the authors—what are the names of the authors of the books that you have told us you remembered seeing? A. The names of the authors (T–2667) of the books which were on the literature table at this convention were “Marx”—
Mr. Isserman: I object, if the Court please, unless the name of the book is mentioned in connection with the name of the author.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) The authors were Marx and Lenin and Engels. I don’t recall the names of some of the others.
Q. I think you mentioned “Foundations of Leninism”. A. Oh, and Stalin, that is right.
Q. Were there any books by Earl Browder? A. No.
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Now, Mr. Philbrick, in Exhibit 35 I find the following in the second paragraph: “This special convention has been called for the express purpose of considering and acting upon the Draft Resolution of the National Committee”.
Did the convention do that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was a report made by anyone? A. Yes. A—the main report was given by Anne Burlack of the Massachusetts State Committee.
Q. Is that the woman who is listed on the top upper lefthand corner of Exhibit 35 as president of that Committee? A. That is true.
[*4179]
(T–2668) Q. Give us your best recollection of the substance of the main report by Anne Burlack.
Mr. Isserman: I object, if the Court please.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, Anne Burlack restated that she accepted all of the Draft Resolution. She stated that she agreed with the Duclos article that had appeared earlier in the year. She stated that this was an important turning point of the Communist Political Association. I recall that she stated in general words that the Communist Political Association had forgotten many of the Marxist–Leninist regulations or laws or conduct, and she called for a return to the Marxist–Leninist principles, and she—
Q. Well, I take it that is your best recollection of the substance? A. I think so.
Q. Now I think in this Exhibit 35 it says that the special convention was called “to elect delegates to the National Convention of the C.P.A.”
Was that done? A. Yes. At this convention three delegates were elected to represent the New England group at the National Convention.
Q. Was any vote taken on the question of dissolving the Communist Political Association and reconstituting the Communist Party? A. It was voted, so voted to (T–2669) reconstitute the C.P.U.S.A.
Q. After the delegates for the National Convention were elected, what did this state convention do? A. Well, the state convention then voted to adjourn this morning, this convention to be called together again the following month after the National Convention or to reconvene, I guess was the terminology used.
Q. Was it reconvened? A. Yes, it was reconvened in August of 1945.
Q. What happened at that reconvened session?
Mr. Isserman: I object, if the Court please.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, at the August meeting the State Committee and the State Organization was set up; the officers were elected. I believe there was the by–laws—the by–laws of the state group were voted upon and accepted and plans were made [*4180] for the program and for the activities of the newly organized Communist Party.
Q. Was there a literature table at this adjourned session? A. Yes, there was a literature table at this adjourned session.
Q. And do you recall the names of the authors of any of the books? A. Yes, sir. The same books as were on exhibit at the July meeting were on display and on sale at the August meeting, consisting of the works of (T–2670) Lenin and Engels and Marx and Stalin and some others.
Q. I think you said that there were by–laws adopted. A. Yes.
Q. Now, was there anybody there from the National Headquarters? A. Yes, I believe Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the National Headquarters spoke at the August meeting.
Q. Were there any reports made on the subject of the organization of the new State Communist Party? A. Yes, there were several reports given by the newly elected officers of the State organization.
Q. Do you remember whether a report was made by a Justine O’Connor?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the leading question again.
The Court: I will allow it.
Q. (Continuing) Was such a report made? A. Yes, there was a report made by Justine O’Connor.
Q. Give us your best recollection of the substance of the report.
The Court: Who is Justine O’Connor?
The Witness: Justine O’Connor is or was a member of the State Committee—
The Court: All right.
The Witness: —of the Communist Party.
Q. Do you also find her name listed among the vice–presidents (T–2671) of the State Committee of the Communist Political Association on Exhibit 35? A. Yes, she is listed as one of the vice–presidents in this letterhead.
Q. One of the five vice–presidents? A. Yes.
[*4181]
The Court: Are those the five vice–presidents of the Communist Political Association of New England or the main body?
Mr. Gordon: Of Massachusetts.
The Court: Massachusetts?
The Witness: Well, this—
Mr. Gordon: I will show your Honor Exhibit 35.
The Court: Very well.
The Witness: I might explain, sir, that although the convention was called by the Massachusetts Convention, the delegates were there from all over New England and that they participated in this rather than holding separate state conventions.
Mr. Crockett: I object and move that that remark be stricken as inconsistent with the, I believe it is, Exhibit 36, your Honor, that was read in evidence, and it indicated that it was a convention of the New England—entire New England group.
The Witness: That is what—
The Court: That is what he is saying.
(T–2672) The Witness: This letterhead says Massachusetts, but actually it was New England that was meeting.
The Court: I think that is just what he is saying, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: That was not my understanding of what he said, but if that is his testimony now, I will withdraw my objection.
The Court: I think so. I think he is saying that the people who were there were not merely from Massachusetts but were there from other parts of New England as well. Is that not what you said?
The Witness: That is true, sir.
Q. Give us your best recollection of the substance of the report by Justine O’Connor. A. Justine O’Connor at the reconvened session in August called for the organization and setting up of an educational commission to carry out an elaborate program of educational work in Marxism–Leninism. She called for the production of leaflets and pamphlets and booklets; she called for a speakers’ bureau; [*4182] she called for a series of training classes; and I don’t recall just what, but she had quite a long program, a complete program, calling for educational work to be carried out by the newly organized group for purposes of educating the members in Marxism–Leninism.
(T–2673) Q. Do you know whether or not such an educational commission or department was thereafter established? A. Yes, an educational department was established shortly after.
Mr. Gordon: Will you mark this for identification.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 37 for identification.)
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 37 for identification. Do you recognize that? Yes or no. A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive it? A. Yes.
Q. Does it pertain to the educational commission? A. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence.
Mr. Borman, would you hand that to the Judge?
Clerk hands paper to the Court.)
Mr. Gordon: In this case, your Honor, I think the file numbers are in pencil and I will erase them.
The Court: Oh, I don’t think you need to do that. They are not part of the offer and they are not part of the exhibit as before me here now.
Show it to counsel.
Mr. Gordon: Do you care to see this, Mr. Sacher?
Mr. Sacher: Thank you.
Mr. Crockett: There is no objection.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Crockett: No objection.
(T–2674) (Government’s Exhibit 37 for identification received in evidence.)
Mr. Gladstein: I wish to record an objection for my clients on the ground that it is hearsay and dis– [*4183] connected in any way from the defendants I represent.
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 37, Read into Record
Mr. McCabe: I adopt that objection. Objection, your Honor.
The Court: I had written down here “No objection.” I will rub it out. Objection overruled.
Mr. Isserman: In view of the fact, your Honor, that an objection has been made and one attorney did not object, I think I would like to state my position, that I object, and to state my reasons, if I may.
The Court: Even though one of your colleagues has said he did not object?
Mr. Isserman: Well, your Honor—
Mr. Crockett: If your Honor please, the fact that I did not object does not mean that the other defense attorneys have no objections also.
The Court: No, but you see, if you take opposite positions here, as Mr. Isserman says in effect, it is time I ought to hear full argument, so I will listen.
Mr. Isserman: I haven’t said that, your Honor. I said, in view of the fact that there were opposite (T–2674–A) positions, I thought I should record my position.
The Court: That, it seems to me, to mean the same thing. As Mr. Crockett says one way, and you and Mr. Gladstein and Mr. McCabe say the other way, I will be very glad to hear your reasons.
(T–2675) Mr. Isserman: My reasons are that this document is not addressed to the witness, no testimony that it was received by him, it is hearsay, it is not connected with any issue in this indictment, and while it is of relatively small importance and we are not objecting to the contents, we are objecting to bringing it into this case where it doesn’t belong.
The Court: I am sorry to disagree with your statement of facts. It will be received.
Mr. Gordon: (To jury) This is a letter dated September 21, 1945.
“Dear Comrade: This is to invite you to a meeting of a selected group of people which we [*4184] have called for this coming Thursday, September 27, at 8 p. m. at Dave Bennett’s apartment, No. 405, 295 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Mass., nearest subway stop is Symphony Station.
“The purpose of the meeting will be to establish an educational department of the Party to handle all educational problems of the district such as the preparation of outlines, the teaching of classes, and the training of teachers, the establishment of a speaker’s bureau, and the preparation and training of speakers, educational programs for the clubs, (T–2676) establishment of an actively functioning cultural group, etc.
“We hope that you will make every effort to attend this meeting as it is imperative that we begin plans to say systematic attention to this problem and believe that you can make a real contribution to our work in this field.
“Comradely yours, Dave Bennett, Secretary.”
Q. Now did this letter, Exhibit 37, invite you to a meeting to consider the matters which had been in the report of Justine O’Connor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And thereafter what was your connection with this educational department or commission? A. Well, I attended the meeting and at that time became a member of the educational commission in the State of Massachusetts.
Q. And subsequently were you given any particular function on that commission? A. Yes, at a later date—I believe in December of that year—I was placed in charge of leaflet production as a member of the educational commission.
The Court: Leaflet production?
The Witness: Yes, sir. In other words, I helped to prepare and design leaflets and booklets and other material. It was either mimeographed and so forth.
Q. Now this letter speaks of preparation and training—(T–2677) speaks of the preparation of outlines, the teach– [*4185] ing of classes and the training of teachers. Thereafter, did you participate in any of that work? A. Yes, sir. In addition to serving on the educational commission helping to plan this program I also attended a special—well, let’s see now—I attended two special events. One was to start a training program for the young Communists and later on I attended a session, a training session for teachers in Marxism–Leninism.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 38 for identification.)
The Court: May I have that second one read.
(Record read.)
Q. Now I show you Exhibit 38 for identification and ask you if you recognize that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you receive it? A. Yes, I received this.
Q. Does it pertain to this training session for teachers that you speak of? A. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gordon: I offer that in evidence.
While your Honor is looking at that may I have something else marked?
The Court: Yes.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 39 for identification.)
(T–2678) By the Court:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, you have referred two or three times to young Communists. How young were they? A. I would say anywheres from high school age up through, oh, 25, 27, perhaps 30 as a maximum.
Q. What do you mean by high school age? A. Well, from 18.
Q. 14 or 15? A. No, from about 18 on.
Q. 18 on? A. Yes. Of course, there was no Young Communist League at this period of time, at this particular time.
Mr. Isserman: I didn’t get this last statement of the witness.
[*4186]
The Court: He said there was no Communist League at this particular time.
Mr. Gordon: No Young Communist League.
The Court: Yes, no Young Communist League.
Q. But 18 was about as young as they took them? A. That is true.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now Mr. Philbrick, I show you Government’s Exhibit 39 for identification. Did you say to us that you attended a course? A. Yes, I attended a training course for Marxist teachers—that is, a training course to instruct and train a group as to the teaching of Marxism–Leninism.
(T–2679) Q. Now what is Exhibit 39 for identification? A. Well, this exhibit is an outline of that course that was given to us at the first session of this training course.
Q. Now aside from the pencil notations which appear to be file numbers, do you find in the upper lefthand corner an ink notation? A. Yes, I find an ink notation in my hand–writing.
Q. And does it pertain to the matter of when you received this exhibit? A. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gordon: I include that Exhibit 39 for identification in my offer; so I offer both 38 and 39 for identification in evidence.
* * *
(T–2680) By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Was Exhibit 39 the outline given to you as a teacher or as a student? A. It was given to me as a student being trained as a teacher.
Mr. Gordon: Thank you.
The Court: (To witness) When were you born?
The Witness: May 11, 1915.
Mr. Crockett: May I have the question and answer?
[*4187]
The Court: I asked him when he was born.
Mr. Crockett: And what was the answer?
The Court: May 11, 1915.
Mr. Sacher: Mr. Gordon, can we have copies of these exhibits?
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher asks if they can have copies of the exhibit, and in view of the circumstances we will have photostats made tonight and give them to him in the morning.
The Court: Very well.
Is there any objection to 38 for identification?
Mr. Gladstein: It is immaterial.
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
(T–2681) The Court: I don’t know that I heard what you gentlemen said. It sounded as though you said you objected to it as immaterial. Did I hear you right?
Mr. Gladstein: There are other grounds but I won’t state them.
The Court: All right, objection overruled. They may be marked.
(Government’s Exhibit 38 for identification received in evidence.)
Mr. Gladstein: I think in the cold record what I said may be subject to misinterpretation.
The Court: You are scratching your head.
Mr. Gladstein: I was thinking.
What I meant to say when I said I won’t state the grounds was not a refusal to answer the Court’s question.
The Court: No, I didn’t interpret it as a refusal to answer my question at all. You need not concern yourself about that at all.
(T–2682) Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I would like to object to Exhibit 39 for identification and also in respect thereto to plead unfair surprise because of the vagueness of paragraph 10 of the indictment and the denial of the bill of particulars in respect thereto as well as unfair surprise because [*4188] the matter did not occur in the Southern District of New York.
The Court: Overruled.
(Government’s Exhibit 39 for identification received in evidence.)
* * *
Q. At this class that you attended and received this outline, Exhibit 39, was any definition given of revolution? I direct your attention to the middle of the second page, where it says “Define revolution.” A. Yes, sir, there was a definition of revolution given in the first session of this course—training course.
Q. Will you tell the Court and jury what the definition was?
(T–2683) Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Is this by the teacher?
The Witness: This is by the teacher.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Gladstein: No foundation has been laid, who, where or when, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
What did the teacher say?
The Witness: The teacher defined revolution as a violent revolution to be carried out by bands of armed workers against the existing state government.
Q. Do you recall where it was?
Mr. McCabe: I move to strike that out, your Honor.
The Court: Denied.
A. Yes, sir, this meeting was held at 3 Hancock Street in Boston. It is a little brick building. West End Communist Club headquarters on the second story of this brick building at 3 Hancock Street. The date was some time in October, I believe—around October—the latter part of October 1945.
[*4189]
Q. And the person wha was conducting the class? A. Fanny Hartman conducted the first session of this particular meeting.
The Court: Fanny Kaplan?
(T–2684) The Witness: Fanny Hartman, H–a–r–t–m–a–n. And they had sort of some guest teachers there, I guess you would call them. There was—one of the teachers was a man named Sam; and another of the instructors was a woman by the name of Helda McGarvey.
Mr. Gladstein: Let us have that name, please?
The Witness: McGarvey. I believe it is M–c–G–a–r–v–e–y. The name is also in the Sam Adams School of Boston, if you want to check the spelling.
The Court: What was that other name besides Fanny Hartman?
The Witness: Sam.
(T–2685) Mr. Gladstein: Have we been told who is supposed to have made this statement, your Honor? I am not clear.
Mr. Gordon: It was told very plainly, your Honor. He said the teacher made it and the teacher was Fanny Hartman.
The Court: That is what I thought.
Mr. Gladstein: I didn’t hear it.
The Court: I think so.
Mr. Gordon: It is 4.30.
The Court: Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury—
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please,—
The Court: —remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at 10.30.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, in respect to the last answer, I move to strike that answer. I would like to state my grounds, if I may.
[*4190]
The Court: Motion denied.
(T–2686) Mr. Isserman: May I state my grounds?
The Court: Well, you know, you have been stating several grounds here. If this is a different one I will permit you to state it.
Mr. Isserman: Well, it may not be different from some grounds I have stated in the past week or ten days, your Honor; I cannot give your Honor that assurance.
The Court: Oh, I didn’t refer to the last week or ten days; I referred to about two minutes ago; but perhaps I can’t repeat exactly what you said and it is better to let you put it your own way.
Mr. Isserman: All right. My ground is that, in addition to the grounds previously stated, this is highly prejudicial to the defendants, and prejudices them before the jury, and it is unrelated to any issue in this case.
The Court: Very well. Motion denied.
The Court: Court and trial are adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
(Adjourned to April 7, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.)
(T–2687) New York, April 7, 1949;
10.30 o”clock a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
HERBERT A. PHILBRICK, resumed the stand.
* * *
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, during the testimony yesterday a question came up as to whether or not the Court could or would take judicial notice of the legislation introduced by Congressman Mundt.
The Court: Yes.
[*4191]
Mr. McGohey: And I have now the records from the Congressional Record which give the title of the bill and period at which it was introduced.
You recall that the witness attempted or did in fact fix the time as to some events as to which he testified in relation to the Mundt–Nixon Bill.
The Court: I recall that.
Mr. McGohey: If I may, your Honor, I will state the time as it appears in the Congressional (T2688) Record and ask the Court to take judicial notice.
The Court: Is it contended by the defense that that is not a proper subject of judicial notice?
Mr. Gladstein: (Shaking head.) No.
The Court: Very well, you may do so.
Mr. McGohey: Now House Resolution 4422. It was introduced by Congressman Mundt on July 26, 1947, as appears in the Congressional Record for the first session of the 80th Congress at page 10523 of the Congressional Record.
The resolution introduced at that time was entitled “A Bill to Provide that all Members of the Communist Party and organizations controlled by it must register as agents of a foreign principal.”
Thereafter there were hearings held upon the bill and finally on March 15, 1948, in the second session of the 80th Congress there was introduced by Congressman Mundt as appears on page 2892 of the Congressional Record of the second session of the 80th Congress a bill which ultimately was passed under the title—that is, passed by the House—a bill which in its final form was entitled “A Bill to protect the United States against un–American and subversive activities.”
(T–2689) That appears in the Congressional Record for the second session of the 80th Congress on page 6150. That bill passed the House on May 19, 1948. It had been the subject of hearings in the early part of 1948 and was reported out by the Committee on Un–American Activities for action by the House on April 30, 1948.
[*4192]
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, we would like to supplement this statement with one which would indicate the time that the Bill was under discussion in the Senate and what happened to it in the Senate. We think that would complete the time period covered by the Legislative action and cover the activity around this bill. As your Honor knows, it was defeated, or at least, was not voted upon in the Senate.
The Court: Yes, it did not become law; and, at the same time, the only purpose the purely formal date has now been stated for, is to identify the time referred to by the witness. If it should develop that there was some feature of that that may become relevant later, I will consider the application of the defense to make some further statement.
Mr. Isserman: Yes, and the point I was making is that the time period in the Senate goes beyond the time period in the House and we would like to put those facts (T–2690) on the time period into the record as soon as we obtain them.
The Court: I think I shall allow that. I will pass on it when you have the date ready for me, but my present thinking is that I shall allow it.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I just noticed that I omitted to make one statement with respect to it. The hearings on the bill which was introduced by Congressman Mundt in 1947, namely, on July 26, 1947, that is, the bill that was introduced in the first session of the 80th Congress came up for hearings in the House on February 5, 1948.
The Court: Very well.
It seems to me that that leaves it a little vague as to what was the time referred to by the witness in his testimony and I think it would be well to attempt to clarify that because, you see, this period extends from July 26, 1947, on, at least, to May 19, 1948. So, Mr. Gordon, I think you had better, perhaps, try to have the witness identify a little more closely, if you can, the time when these events occurred that he has testified about yesterday.
[*4193]
Mr. Gordon: I shall do that, your Honor. If your Honor will bear with me for a moment.
(T–2691) Mr. Sacher: I should like to ask a question, as to whether the witness is referring to written notes of any kind?
The Witness: I brought a diary with me this morning. I was waiting until the opportunity came to, if it was necessary, to bring the question up.
The Court: You did not have it here yesterday, did you?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Very well. He has his diary in his hand.
* * *
Direct examination continued by Mr. Gordon:
Q. With respect to the date of February 5, 1948, as the date upon which hearings were begun in the House on this bill we have been talking about, can you fix more closely the time when you said at a meeting Martha and Pete gave certain instructions? (T–2692) A. Well, the security measures were supposed to have been completed, you see, before this bill would be able to pass in Congress, which would be as quickly as possible. If you wish, as I say, I have brought my diary for 1947 and, according to the diary, there is a notation there which indicates the first night that Pete came around to our meeting, when we were still in a large group.
Q. You are talking about the time when Pete, as you told us, the first time— A. The first time he introduced the subject about initiating security measures. As a matter of fact, it took, I would say, a period of perhaps three months to put this into action and get the new organization set up, you see.
(T–2693) Q. Well, would referring to your diary refresh your recollection? A. It would, sir, if I may.
Q. Will you refer to it and tell us when that first conversation with Pete took place? A. (After examining) Well, the indication in the diary—
The Court: No. What you are going to do is to refresh your recollection—
[*4194]
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: —and tell the jury and myself now what your recollection, as refreshed, is as to the first date that Pete appeared.
The Witness: The first date that Pete appeared at our professional group meeting was on February 14—I mean November 14th, Friday,—Friday, November 14th.
The Court: 1947?
The Witness: 1947.
Q. Now will you tell us, if you can, what your best recollection is of the date that you got these instructions from Pete and Martha? A. Let me see if I have any further indications. (Examining.)
The Court: Remember, you are refreshing your recollections now and not reading from the diary.
The Witness: No.
(T–2694) A. (Continuing) There are no indications here of further appearances by Pete in any of our meetings then, so it must have been in January 1948.
Mr. McCabe: That is objected to, your Honor, as a conclusion, not warranted by the mere fact that his name does not appear in the balance of the diary for 1947.
The Court: It does seem to me that you are just giving us indirectly the contents of the diary which I don’t want you to do at this time, and so I will put it differently.
Having looked at the diary and refreshed your recollection from it, what is your best present recollection as to this fact about Pete?
The Witness: My best present recollection is that at this November meeting the subject of security measures was introduced by Pete and at that time he laid down—this was at a meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts—and at that time he specified and gave us the instructions as to these groups of five. In other words, all of the instructions as to how this was to be carried out was given at that meeting; [*4195] the actual business of breaking our group down and deciding who would belong to which group and who would go into Boston and who would stay in Cambridge, and so forth, as I say, took a period of time, from that period, and it was not actually completed (T–2695) until January of 1948.
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 38, Read into Record
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gordon: I don’t think I read Exhibits 38 and 39 to the jury, your Honor, if I may do that.
October 8, 1945 is the date on Exhibit 38, a mimeographed sheet. It says, “Dear Comrade:
“On next Monday night, October”—(examining)
The Court: 1, isn’t it?
Mr. Gordon: No, sir, it is either “13th” or “15.” The “3” or the “5” is hard to see.
The Court: As I read it I thought it was October 1. Let me look at it.
(Mr. Gordon hands to the Court.)
The Court: (After examining.) Oh yes, yes, it looks like the “15th.” That second figure is almost too light to be readable but it is there.
Mr. Gordon: “On next Monday night, October 15th, we are holding a meeting of discussion group leaders to prepare a course of study on principles of Communism. You have been suggested as a person who has taught or is interested in teaching Marxist study groups. From all sections of our membership is coming a healthy demand for Marxist education. We are in the process of organizing an education (T–2696) committee to meet these demands. The immediate, most pressing need is an elementary course in principles, a draft outline for which is being prepared. There will be needed at least fifteen teachers for these classes. The meeting is Monday, October 15, 8.00 p. m. at the West End Headquarters, 3 Hancock Street, Boston. If you have time reread the Communist Manifesto before the meeting. Comradely, Fanny Hartman”,
and underneath the name Fanny Hartman in parenthesis “For the District Board.”
[*4196]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 39, Read into Record
Exhibit 39 is a two–page mimeograph sheet entitled “Five Session Introductory Course on Principles of Communism. Draft Outline.”
“1. Purpose of the introductory class: The purpose of these five sessions is to introduce some of the elementary Marxist–Leninist principles to our new members and those who in the past few years have not had the advantage of such training. These sessions can help to deepen the understanding of our members of the problems faced by the working class and the nation. Such an understanding will increase the ability of our members to contribute to the solution of these problems, and will speed the transformation of our organization into a (T–2697) truly Marxist–Leninist party.
“As an introductory course these sessions can only highlight some aspects of Marxist theory. They do not, for example, treat separately such basic questions as the role of the state, the national question, the nature of Fascism, etc., but refer to them under general topics. Thus the role of the state will enter into all sessions. The national question and specifically the question of the Negro people in the United States is dealt with in all sessions. The struggle against revisionism and social democracy in sessions 3 and 5. It should be kept in mind that the class should serve as a stimulus for self–study and for the organization of more advanced classes after these introductory sessions are completed.
“2. Method of using outline: The outline is meant to serve only as a guide to instructors. It should be adapted or changed to the level of the students in the group with particular aspects of a problem stressed based upon the group’s activities. The suggested reading list given below is for the instructors. Reading assignments for the students should be determined by the character of the group.”
[*4197]
(T–2698) Then it says 2 again. I guess that should be “3”.
“Proposed session, topics and reading material: Session 1: Marxist method of studying social and economic problems. Reading material: Communist Manifesto.”
Q. Did you have a copy of the Communist Manifesto? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. I show you this pamphlet and ask you if you recognize that? A. I recognize this pamphlet as the one that was used at this leadership training course in September 1945.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence.
* * *
(T–2699) The Clerk: Government’s Exhibit 40 received in evidence.
Mr. Gladstein: Is this being offered in evidence?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: I would like to record an objection not to the contents, your Honor, but to the receipt in evidence of a document that is over 100 years old and is regarded as a classic of economic and political discussion and which upon receipt in evidence simply places the ideas of Karl Marx as expressed 101 years ago on trial.
Mr. Gordon: May I answer that?
The Court: I am inclined to think you raised the question, particularly yesterday, but you remember I have ruled that counsel is to merely say “I object”, unless the Court requested a statement of the reasons. I don’t want to keep saying that or to appear to be unpleasant about it. I felt that I had to make such (T–2700) a ruling and I hope counsel will bear it in mind.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I would like to object and request the Court to be allowed to state my reasons.
The Court: You see, Mr. Isserman, you have said that several times. I don’t want to again re– [*4198] iterate the reasons why I felt impelled to make such a ruling. But I did feel that I had no alternative and it is my ruling. Your objection is noted.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I move that the Court indicate to the jury by whatever instructions you deem appropriate that the little summation of Mr. Gladstein in the guise of an objection be considered by them merely as a summation and not proof.
The Court: Well, I have already told the jury, Mr. Gordon, probably several times, that the statements of counsel are not evidence, and members of the jury, you will remember that. You will get the proof here from the witness stand and from the exhibits. Statements by counsel on either side are not evidence at all. They do not constitute proof, and I think you heard me say that sufficiently often so that you have it definitely in mind.
I will overrule the objection. Exhibit 40 may be received in evidence.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 40 in evidence.)
(T–2701) Q. Mr. Philbrick, I direct your attention to what might be called the copyright page of Exhibit 40, which says, “All rights reserved 1932. 11th printing, April 1939. 100,000 copies. Printed in the U. S. A.” And on the title page, “International Publishers, New York.” This particular manual, Exhibit 40, was used by you when, did you say? A. This was—
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I object to the question.
The Court: As leading?
Mr. Sacher: No, assuming a state of facts not in evidence.
The Court: Counsel may be—
Mr. Isserman: I would like to state my reason. It is natural for me to do so. I have never been in a court where I haven’t been allowed to do so.
The Court: You see, you are in a court now where you are not allowed to do so.
Mr. Isserman: May I answer your question?
The Court: Did I ask you a question?
[*4199]
Mr. Isserman: I believe you did.
The Court: Well, if I did, you may answer it.
Mr. Isserman: My answer is, No, but it—may I go further?
(T–2702) The Court: No, I am merely ruling here that Mr. Gordon may read from an exhibit in evidence, a privilege which is similarly open to any of the counsel for the defense. That is all that he has done.
Mr. Isserman: He has improperly described the exhibit, your Honor.
The Court: Well, one of the reasons that I have had here has been the eternal wrangling over what I consider to be mere minutiae, which gets everybody’s mind off the evidence. It is impossible to follow the context, it is impossible to follow the proof with all these objections and all this wrangling, and I have determined that, if I am physically able to keep up long enough, I will stop it, but I don’t intend to stop it by shouting at you or thumping away or making a rumpus, but merely telling you, as I now say again, that I don’t desire further argument.
Mr. Isserman: I desire then to object to your Honor’s statement of Mr. Gordon’s characterization of the exhibit as being minutiae.
The Court: As being a what?
Mr. Isserman: Minutiae.
The Court: Well, when you said that he had misdescribed it, when he was reading from one or two of the pages there, I suppose, in a technical sense, I should not decide it was minutiae without looking at it, but I am (T–2703) pretty sure I am going to find it so. Let me look at it, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor—
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, the portion that I objected to is not in the exhibit.
The Court: The word “minutiae” was my word and the question is what I meant by it, not what you meant by something different.
Mr. Isserman: And he used the word “manual” which isn’t in the document.
[*4200]
The Court: Ah! Well, I find the part that was read by Mr. Gordon appears to have been read accurately. Perhaps there was some word omitted here or there, but I find no substantial difference. The objection is overruled.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I think the record should indicate that there was no one who questioned the accuracy of Mr. Gordon’s reading, but Mr. Gordon then put a question to the witness to the effect “that was this manual,” and the objection is to his characterization of that document as a manual.
The Court: Well, perhaps so. Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
Q. Was Exhibit 40 used by you in any class? A. Exhibit 40 was used by me in the Marxist training class, which took place in October of 1945 at 3 Hancock (T–2704) Street in Boston.
* * *
Q. On the cover of this document I see some pencil notations and what appears to be a date. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how those got on there? A. Yes; the pencil notations say “G L September 1945,” and I will explain what those meant.
Q. No, I asked you if you knew how they got on there. A. I placed them there, sir.
Q. What does the date September 1945 mean? A. September 1945 indicates the date that I obtained this manual or this book.
Mr. Gordon: I am going to read the end of the Manifesto, Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, on page 44.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that method of reading.
The Court: What was the part of the method of reading that you objected to?
Mr. Isserman: The fact that he is reading—
The Court: I don’t understand.
Mr. Isserman: He is reading the end of the (T–2705) exhibit without reading the rest of it, your Honor.
[*4201]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 40, Read into Record
The Court: But I have ruled here that either side may read any part of an exhibit; and if there is some other part that the adversary side thinks should also be read I have ruled that they may read it.
Go ahead, Mr. Gordon. Objection overruled.
Mr. Gordon: Excuse me, a moment.
I will, before getting to the end of the book, your Honor, read the section or chapter headings.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gordon: No. 1 is “Bourgeois and Proletarians.”
Mr. McGohey: What was the page number?
Mr. Gordon: That was on page 9.
2, on page 22, “Proletarians and Communists.”
3, on page 32, “Socialist and Communist Literature.”
4, “Position of the Communists in relation to the various existing opposition parties.”
And it is from 4 that I am reading. That starts on page 43, and on page 44 we find this, “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”
Mr. Sacher: What year are those?
(T–2706) The Court: This witness said he received that September 30, 1945, in connection with the leadership training course.
Mr. Sacher: Oh, I meant the year of the existing conditions that Mr. Gordon is talking about.
The Court: I think it better not to interrupt the reading of an exhibit.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, were you ever taught in class when the Manifesto was written? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you ever taught that it was out of date? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you ever taught that you were to pay no attention to it, that it was just a historical document?
[*4202]
Mr. Sacher: I object to that question.
The Court: I don’t quite understand the ground. What is the ground?
Mr. Sacher: The ground is that it’s just putting the words into the witness’s mouth; leading it is called.
The Court: Well, I suppose that as the arguments of counsel made in their objections constitute no proof, perhaps they might be disregarded, but sometimes the impression may rise in the minds of some here, and counsel is perhaps stimulated into trying to counteract (T–2707) some of the objections by questions, but I think you are right; I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Gordon: Page 44: “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
“In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each case, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
“Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
“Workingmen of all countries, unite!”
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I should like at this time, in order to keep us on the same document, to read certain portions from the Communist Manifesto to the jury.
(T–2708) The Court: Certain portions of the same exhibit?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: You may do so. And I hope some time soon somebody will explain the meaning of this [*4203] “bourgeois” and “bourgeoisie” that we keep hearing about. I am beginning to suspect that what I learned in college about the meaning of that is a little different from the way it seems to be used in these documents, and I think it would be well to have somebody explain that.
Mr. Sacher: I move to—
The Court: Not right now.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike your Honor’s observation from the record and ask you to instruct the jury to disregard them.
The Court: Well, I won’t do it.
Mr. Gordon: While Mr. Crockett is getting the pages, perhaps I could ask the witness whether he was ever taught the meaning of the terms “bourgeoisie” and “proletarian”.
The Court: I think that is a good idea.
Br. Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, in your work in the Communist Party and in this class were you ever taught the meaning of the “bourgeoisie”? A. Yes, sir.
(T–2709) Q. And will you tell us what it is? A. Well, I have been taught—
Mr. McCabe: I object unless that is brought down to a time and place.
The Court: Well, he is talking about the time he was in this school that they were teaching him.
Mr. McCabe: No, he did not say that.
The Court: He said that is one of the things they taught.
Didn’t you say that, Mr. Philbrick?
The Witness: Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. McCabe: The question is, was he ever taught.
Mr. McGohey: In these schools.
The Court: Well, I thought he said he was taught this right in these schools.
And do you now say that, Mr. Philbrick?
The Witness: Well, this particular school was attended by what you might call disciplined Com– [*4204] munists. In other words, these had been people who had been in the Party for a long time, and this course was a review for bringing up to date, a re–establishment of the Marxist–Leninsit program and principles, so all during my period of time in the Party I have been taught these (T–2710) things, and of course at this particular course that subject was reviewed. I think it may show up in the outline we used at that time.
The Court: All right. It was right in there that they told you about it again. Now what did they tell you?
The Witness: They told me that the term “bourgeoisie” means the ruling class, the capitalist class, those who own and control the means of production, the factories and the plants and so forth, the railroads and the banks.
Q. And the “proletariat”? A. The “proletariat” consists of the working peoples, those who earn their living and their sustenance by means of their labor power. The working class works in the plants and the factories all over the world. A proletariat does not designate an American or an Englishman. It defines the class of people throughout the world who earn their living by their labor power.
The Court: Is a bourgeois anybody that owns property?
The Witness: Not in the strict sense of the word, sir, as I have been taught it. Those are more or less referred to as the petty bourgeoisie, those who have a small parcel, or as I have been taught who more or less (T–2711) imagine that they have a part of the capitalist—capitalist production and ownership.
Q. So that the bourgeoisie is divided into the bourgeoisie and into the petty bourgeoisie? A. That is true.
Q. Depénding upon how much property they own.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
[*4205]
The Court: Didn’t you just tell us, Mr. Philbrick, that such a person who is a little storekeeper is a petty bourgeoisie?
The Witness: That is correct, sir.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Depending upon how much property they own. A. In general, and as I have been taught, it more or less depends upon the person’s own feelings in the matter, too. A small shopkeeper, for instance, may consider himself a member of the proletariat.
Mr. Crockett: I am reading to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury the “Preface” to the “Communist Manifesto”, being Government’s Exhibit No. 40:
“Preface By Friedrich Engels
“The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist League, a workingman’s association, first exclusively German, later on international, (T–2712) and, under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a congress of the League, held in London in November, 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare for publication a complete theoretical and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January, 1848, the manuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French revolution of February 24th.”
And then there is a footnote. Footnote 1—and I am reading now from page 45:
“King Louis Philippe was deposed and a republic proclaimed as result of the revolution in Paris, February 22–24, 1848.”
Continuing from the text:
“A French translation was brought out in Paris, shortly before the insurrection of June, 1848.”
[*4206]
Then there is a footnote “2” which reads:
“The rising of the Parisian workers, June 23–27, 1848. The insurrection was suppressed by General Cavaignac with great slaughter.”
Continuing from the text:
“The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney’s Red (T–2713) Republican, London, 1850. A Danish and a Polish edition had also been published.
“The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 1848—the first great battle between proletariat and bougeoisie—drove again into the background, for a time, the social and political aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth, the struggle for supremacy was again, as it had been before the revolution of February, solely between different sections of the propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow–room, and to the position of extreme wing of the middle–class Radicals. Wherever independent proletarian movements continued to show signs of life, they were ruthlessly hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board of the Communist League, then located in Cologne. The members were arrested, and, after eighteen months’ imprisonment, they were tried in October, 1852. This celebrated ‘Cologne Communist Trial’ lasted from October 4th till November 12th; seven of the prisoners were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, varying from three to six years. Immediately after the (T–2714) sentence, the League was formally dissolved by the remaining members. As to the Manifesto, it seemed thenceforth to be doomed to oblivion.
“When the European working class had recovered sufficient strength for another attack on the ruling classes, the International Workingman’s Association sprang up. But this association, formed with the express aim of welding into one [*4207] body the whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in the Manifesto. The International was bound to have a programme broad enough to be acceptable to the English trade unions, to the followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, and to the Lassalleans in Germany. Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes of the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men’s minds the insufficiency of their various favourite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions of working–class (T–2715) emancipation. And Marx was right. The International, on its breaking up in 1874, left the workers quite different men from what it had found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany were dying out, and even the conservative English trade unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their president could say in their name ‘continental Socialism has lost its terrors for us.’ In fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the workingmen of all countries.
“The Manifesto itself thus came to the front again. Since 1850 the German text had been reprinted several times in Switzerland, England and America. In 1872, it was translated into English in New York, where the translation was published in Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly. From this English version, a French one was made in Le Socialiste of New York. Since then at least two more English translations, more or less mutilated, [*4208] have been brought out in America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian translation, made by Bakunin, (T–2716) was published at Herzen’s Kolokol office in Geneva, about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulich, also in Geneva, in 1882. A new Danish edition is to be found in”—
* * *
“Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek, Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French translation in Le Socialiste, Paris, 1886. From this latter, a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid, in 1886. Not counting the German reprints there had been at least twelve editions. An Armenian translation, which was to be published in Constantinople some months ago did not see the light, I am told, because the publisher was afraid of bringing out a book with the name of Marx on it, while the translator declined to call it his own production. Of further translations into other languages I have heard, but have not seen. Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects, to a great extent, the history of the modern working class movement; at present it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most (T–2717) international production of all Socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of workingmen from Siberia to California.
“Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a Socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems; Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working class movement, and looking rather to the ‘educated’ classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the [*4209] insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, roughhewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful amongst the working class to produce the Utopian Communism of Cabet in France, (T–2718) and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, Socialism was a middle class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the continent at least, ‘respectable’; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself,’ there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
“The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, (T–2719) ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoisie—without at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.
[*4210]
“This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory has done for biology, we, both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it, is best shown by my Condition of the Working Class in England. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in spring, 1845, he had it already worked out, and put it before me, in terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here.
“From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote:
‘However much the state of things may have altered during the last 25 years, the general principles laid down in this Manifesto are, (T–2720) on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of modern industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details become antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, namely, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready–made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.’ (See The Civil War in France; Address by the General Council of the International Workingmen’s Association, 1871, where this point is further (T–2721) developed.) Further, it is self–evident, that the criticism of Socialist litera– [*4211] ture is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also, that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
“‘But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter.’
“The present translation is by Mr. Samuel Moore, the translator of the greater portion of Marx’s Capital. We have revised it in common, and I have added a few notes explanatory of historical allusions.”
And this is dated, “London, January 30th, 1888.”
Mr. Sacher: Who is the author of that?
Mr. Crockett: The author of the preface is Friedrich Engels.
Now, on the following page, which is page 9 (T–2722) of this exhibit, appears what purports to be an introduction. It is entitled “Manifesto of the Communist Party By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels”.
“A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police–spies.
“Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
“Two things result from this fact:
“I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
[*4212]
“II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
“‘To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, (T–2722–A) German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.”
* * *
(T–2723) Mr. Gordon: In Exhibit 39, I think I had read the first book that was in the reading material under section 1.
The next is Engels’ Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, section 3;
And then Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical Materialism, pages 34 to 39, or any history of CPSU.
Q. Did you have in your possession at this course Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical Materialism? A. No, I did not. Most of the class members did use that particular book but I had on hand—I had already in my possession the history of the CPSU, and that particular section is covered in that book, and I used that during the—during the particular course.
The Court: That is, Communist Party of the Soviet Union?
The Witness: Yes, sir, CPSU, and there is a parenthesis (B), Bolsheviks.
Mr. Gordon: I ask to have this marked for identification.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 41 for identification.)
Q. I show you Exhibit 41 for identification. Is that the book which you have reference to? A. Yes, sir.
(T–2724) Q. It appears to have a paper cover. I show you Exhibit 30 for identification, which is also entitled “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [*4213] (Bolsheviks), and ask you if, aside from the cover, that appears to be the same book? A. Well, I am familiar with this book and it is the same book.
Q. I direct your attention to the page where the copyright information is contained, and on Exhibit 30 for identification and on Exhibit 41 for identification, on the copyright page, do you find any difference? A. Yes, there is one difference in the paper–bound volume as against the well–bound book.
Q. What is the difference? What appears on the paper–bound volume that does not appear on the other? A. On the paper–bound volume it says “second hundred thousand,” in addition to the other material.
Q. Will you look at Exhibit 30 for identification and tell me whether the section on Dialectical and Historical Materialism begins at page 105? A. Yes, about one–third of the way down on the page, on page 105, is section 2 of this particular chapter, entitled Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
Q. And does it run through to the bottom of page 131? A. Yes, it is completed at the bottom of page 131.
(T–2725) Mr. Gordon: I offer that in evidence as—that is, those pages, your Honor—as Exhibit 30–B.
Do you care to see those (to Mr. Sacher)? Page 105. Mr. Sacher, to the bottom of page 131, is the section.
The Court: Let me see that paper–bound book, Mr. Borman.
(The clerk hands book to the Court.)
Mr. Gladstein: What is the last page?
Mr. Gordon: End of the section, Mr. Gladstein. I think it is 131.
The Clerk: No objection?
Mr. Gladstein: Same objection upon constitutional grounds for the receipt in evidence of any printed matter of this character.
The Court: Objection overruled.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 30–B in evidence.
[*4214]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–B, Read into Record
Mr. Gordon: I am going to read from Government’s Exhibit 30–B, pages 110 and 111, starting with the last paragraph on 110.
Mr. Isserman: I object to the method of reading that way, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–2726) Mr. Gordon: “In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken, for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first–rate historical and political force.
“Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.
“Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.
“Hence the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only (T–2727) by a qualitative change of the capitalist system by revolution.
“Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.
“Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.
[*4215]
“Hence we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.
“Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers’ policy of ‘the growing of capitalism into Socialism.’
“Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.”
Mr. Sacher: May we have a moment to look at this (examining).
(T–2728) I read from page 109, about the middle of the page, your Honor.
This is a passage, ladies and gentlemen, which appears on the preceding page immediately preceding what Mr. Gordon has just read. It reads as follows:
“The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes places not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a ‘struggle’ of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.
“‘In its proper meaning,’ Lenin says, ‘dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.’
“‘Development is the “struggle” of opposites.’
“Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.
“It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.
[*4216]
(T–2729) “If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of ‘eternal justice’ or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
“The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.
“The demand for a bourgeois–democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia, in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand, for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois–democratic republic would be a meaning–less and counter–revolutionary (T–2730) demand, for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.
“Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.
“It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of the most absurd mistakes.
“Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no ‘immutable’ social systems, no ‘eternal principles’ of private property and exploitation, [*4217] no ‘eternal ideas’ of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.
“Hence the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.
“Hence we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer (T–2731) developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.”
I now read from page 114. It reads as follows:—it begins about the latter part of the page.
The Court: Yes, I have the other book here, but I can find where you are reading very quickly.
Mr. Sacher: “It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.
“If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental.
“Hence social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of ‘accidents,’ and (T–2732) becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.
“Hence the practical activity of the party of the proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of ‘outstanding individuals,’ not on the dictates of ‘reason,’”—
in quotation marks—
“‘universal morals,’”—
in quotation marks—
[*4218]
etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.
“Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic data having the validity of objective truths.
“Hence the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical (T–2733) purposes.
“Hence the party of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.
“Hence Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.
“Hence the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.
“Further, if nature, being, the material world, is primary, and mind, thought, is secondary, derivative; if the material world represents objective reality existing independently of the mind of men, while the mind is a reflection of this objective reality, it follows that the material life of society, its being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary, derivative, and that the material life of society is an objective reality existing independently of the will of men, while the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being.
“Hence the source of formation of the spiritual (T–2734) life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, [*4219] views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.
“Hence, if in different periods of the history of society, different social ideas, theories, views and political institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others still, this is not to be explained by the ‘nature,’ the ‘properties’ of the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the material life of society at different periods of social development.
“Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views and political institutions of that society.
“In this connection, Marx says:
(T–2735) “‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.’
“Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract ‘principles of human reason,’ but on the concrete conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force of social development; not on the good wishes of ‘great men,’ but on the real needs of development of the material life of society.”
That, your Honor, concludes the reading.
(T–2736) The Witness: Pardon me, your Honor, would you care to have that interpreted as it was done in this class?
The Court: You answer the questions. I have no wishes about any interpretations. You just listen to what Mr. Gordon asks you.
[*4220]
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Sacher read you from page 110: “Everything depends on the conditions, time and place. It is clear that without such an historical approach to social phenomena the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents, and a conglomeration of most absurd mistakes.”
Now you told us yesterday that you were taught in this course in the fall of 1945 that revolution meant violent revolution. A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now were you taught anything about the historical time of such a revolution in any country or in the United States? A. Yes, we spent some length of time in taking up that particular subject and I believe, as a matter of fact, it was in the discussion of this particular part of the course, this particular book that we took up this discussion. In the first place we were taught that (T–2737) the time of revolution takes place or can take place in any country in the world but that the time that it takes place depends upon the particular capitalistic development of that country, the stage, the capitalistic stage in which it is in, and that the time of the revolution or the period would take place at the time of capitalism in its highest stage which is imperialism. Imperialism was described to us as the highest stage of capitalism and the final stage of capitalism is sometimes described as moribund capitalism or dying capitalism.
At that point therefore the whole society is described as being pregnant with revolution and the revolution can take place under two circumstances. In the case of the United States we were instructed that the United States is in a period of capitalism described as imperialism or the highest stage of capitalism and that the time of the revolution in the United States will not take place next week or next month or two o’clock Wednesday afternoon but will take place under two circumstances:
1. In case of a depression, a heavy depression, and
2. In case of a war, in which case the war would be converted into a civil war, and under either circumstance [*4221] it would result in the overthrow of the capitalist class (T–2738) and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Q. Were you taught whether or not the overthrow of the capitalist class in the United States meant the overthrow of the Government of the United States?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, that particular subject came up later on in this course under the subject of “the State,” and in the definition of “the State” and so forth, and I don’t know whether we can take it up at this time, but if you want me to explain it I will.
Q. Yes, what were you taught about it?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Will you state the question?
Mr. Gordon: I didn’t have a chance to finish the question.
The Court: The witness said that he wasn’t taught that particular subject until later on, and if you want him to explain it now he will do so, and you said explain it now.
Mr. Isserman: And I objected to the question.
The Court: Yes, and I overruled the objection.
The Witness: Will you repeat the question (T–2739) so I will understand it?
Q. The question is, in connection with the capitalist government which was to be overthrown, as you have described, was the United States Government described or included or referred to? A. The United States Government was included.
Q. What was included in this discussion of the State? A. Well, the definition of the State was taught to me as being an organized system, a system of oppression which consists of the government, the State government, the police force, the Army, and so forth; and this State, this description of the State is the thing that must be over– [*4222] thrown, this medium of oppression. Therefore the complete Government must be smashed, must be destroyed, and in its place—in other words, it cannot be taken over, simply taken over as is, but must be completely destroyed and in its stead must be established a dictatorship of the proletariat or a Socialist state which was not or was taught to us would not be a state in the pure Marxist sense of the word.
Mr. Gordon: Now continuing from Exhibit 39, session 2. These are the proposed session topics, and reading material.
“Session Two: Fundamental features of Capitalist Society. Reading material: Marx, (T–2740) value, price and profit,” and some chapters are indicated.
“Leontiov: Political Economy,” and the chapters are indicated.
“Session III. Imperialism:
“Reading Material:
“Lenin: Imperialism.” The chapters are indicated.
“Monopoly in the USA. TNEC Pamphlet.”
Mr. Sacher: What is that TNEC?
Mr. Gordon: Would you like me to give my guess at it? Maybe you will agree?
Mr. Isserman: I object. I think the witness should be asked if he knows. I don’t think Mr. Gordon’s testimony is admissible.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher has just asked me.
The Court: Get it from the witness. Maybe he knows.
The Witness: What was the question?
The Court: The letters “TNEC,” what does that stand for?
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Sacher asked me and Mr. Isserman wants you to tell us what that means. A. What was that in connection with?
Q. I will show it to you (handing).
[*4223]
(T–2741) The Court: It is under “Session III: Imperialism, reading material:
“Lenin, Imperialism.
“Monopoly in the USA. TNEC Pamphlet,” indicating that that was part of the reading material.
All they are asking you is what the TNEC means.
Q. Let me ask you first, did you have the pamphlet? A. I didn’t have this particular pamphlet.
Q. Do you know what TNEC stands for? A. I don’t recall at the moment.
Mr. Gordon: “Session IV: Socialism: Reading material:
“Constitution of the USSR.”
Q. Did you have that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is the USSR? A. Soviet Russia. The United Socialist Soviet States or something like that.
Mr. McCabe: I didn’t hear that.
The Court: USSR—
The Witness: The USSR refers to Soviet Russia.
Mr. McCabe: Then he said United—something—I don’t recall at the moment.
The Court: I think pretty near everybody knows what USSR means.
Mr. Crockett: The question, your Honor, is whether or not the witness knows.
(T–2742) The Court: Did you ever hear of—
Q. The Constitution of the USSR was a pamphlet that you had? A. That is right, sir.
Q. And USSR stands for Russia? A. That is right.
Q. And you don’t know what the particular initials stand for?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that statement by Mr. Gordon on the ground that it is wrong. It doesn’t stand for Russia.
The Court: No, not Russia in the time of Catherine the Great.
[*4224]
What do you understand USSR to mean in connection with what these people were teaching you in those classes?
The Witness: They stand for the Soviet Republic in Russia.
Q. The Soviet Union? A. Yes, sir.
(T–2743) Q. The next reference is Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, Chapter 4. Now, did you have Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gordon: Will you mark this for identification?
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 42 for identification.)
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 42 for identification. Do you recognize that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it? A. This is the text book on the Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, which was used in this course in October of 1945.
The Court: You mean that very book was used by you in that course?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence.
Mr. Crockett: Let me see it.
Mr. Gordon: I did not like to interrupt the private conversation between Mr. Sacher and whoever was talking to him.
The Court: Isn’t that the same as Exhibit 6?
The Clerk: It is, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: I don’t dare say anything, your Honor, but—
The Court: Well—
(T–2744) Mr. Gordon: —it is.
The Court: I mean, it isn’t the same book. This particular one is the one he says he used but exhibit 6, I see from my notes, is Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, and I suppose that except for some little differences that may appear on the title page the text is the same.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, Exhibit 6, which is in evidence, is the 1932 edition. Exhibit 33—
[*4225]
The Court: All right.
Mr. Gordon: —which is in evidence is the 1939 edition, which is indicated as a new translation.
The Court: 1939, that is?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
The Court: That is in the Little Lenin Library?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, and the book which I have passed to counsel, which is Exhibit—41 for identification?
The Court: 42.
The Clerk: 42 for identification.
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 42 for identification appears to be printed from the same plates as Exhibit 33 except that the cover material is different. Perhaps I could just—
(T–2745) The Court: I think it is unnecessary to give further detail.
Is it objected to?
Mr. Isserman: May we have a moment?
Mr. Gladstein: May we have a moment?
The Court: Yes, you may examine it.
Mr. Isserman: All right (handing to Mr. Gordon).
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, on the constitutional grounds already stated.
The Court: Overruled.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 42 in evidence.)
The Clerk: Do you wish to see it?
The Court: No, I don’t need to see it.
Mr. Gordon: May I point out to the jury, your Honor, the difference between 42 and 33?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 33, in the righthand, Foundations of Leninism by Joseph Stalin; the Little Lenin Library edition, and on the back it says, “35 cents.” Exhibit 42, “Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism. International Publishers.” The same publishers. This is a 10–cent edition.
The material opposite the title page differs, (T–2746) as you can see. In the Little Lenin [*4226] Library edition, Exhibit 33, there is nothing opposite the title page; and in this edition, 42, while the title page appears to be from the same plate—that is, I show you—opposite is additional material and I will read that to you because it is pretty small print: “Books by the same author: Leninism, 1; Leninism, 2; Problems of Leninism; the October Revolution; Marxism and the National Colonial Question; the Russian Revolution, with V. I. Lenin, editor; History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; History of the Civil War in the USSR.”
And then on the back the books differ in that there is a different listing of other volumes available from International Publishers, that is, there are some duplications and some changes.
Another change, the difference is that on this copyright page both books say “copyright 1939 by International Publishers, Inc.”
Exhibit 42 has the additional wording “Second hundred thousand.”
Now Exhibit 39 gives as a reference to Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, chapter 4, and turning to chapter 4 we find that is a chapter headed “The dictatorship of the proletariat.”
I will not read from that chapter, your Honor, (T–2747) for this reason: It is the same chapter that Mr. McGohey read from, from Exhibit 6, which was the earlier translation of the same work.
Mr. McGohey read that portion which was indexed under “Violence” and is found I think in Section 2, in this edition that begins at page 51 and finishes up with the statement, “Therefore Lenin is right in saying the proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeoisie machine and the substitution for it of a new one,” citing “Selected Works, volume 7, page 124.”
The Court: Now is that Chapter 4 the same in Exhibit 33 and in Exhibit 42?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
[*4227]
Mr. Sacher: No, your Honor, the language that Mr. Gordon has just read is somewhat different from the language—I am sorry—which appears at page 53 in Exhibit 6.
Mr. Wallace: That is not the question.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I think there is some confusion. You asked if 33 and 42 is the same.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Sacher: And Mr. Sacher said it is different in Exhibit 6.
(T–2748) The Court: Well,—
Mr. Gordon: I agree with that, it is a little different because that is the earlier translation, and I will read that if you would like.
The Court: Well, what I am interested in at the moment is getting down in my notes the differences between the two, which is what we are explaining to the jury.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
The Court: And I thought you started to say that the chapter heading of this chapter 4 that is referred to in Exhibit 39 was different in the book they used in the course from the earlier book which is Exhibit 33, and that is what I am addressing myself to, and so I ask you now, is there any difference in those two chapters between Exhibit 42 and Exhibit 33?
Mr. Gordon: No, your Honor.
The Court: No.
Mr. Gordon: Those two books are identical except for the covers and the fact that 42 is—
The Court: Yes, and the various things that you pointed out—
Mr. Gordon: On the covers.
The Court: You did not intend to indicate that there was any difference in the chapters having to do— (T–2749) well, the chapters which are referred to as chapter 4 in Exhibit 39.
Mr. Gordon: That is right, your Honor, and then I was pointing out that chapter 4 in that ex– [*4228] hibit, which is what was recommended in this introductory course, which is Exhibit 39, is the same chapter from which Mr. McGohey read portions earlier in the case when we were dealing with the earlier translations of Stalin’s work—
The Court: Exhibit 6.
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 6. —and I will read that, which I just read, which Mr. Sacher pointed out was a little different in the earlier book.
This is from Exhibit 6, page 53:
“Lenin is therefore right in saying the proletarian revolution is impossible without the violent destruction of the machinery of the bourgeois state and its replacement by new machinery (the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky).”
Now continuing with Exhibit 39, the outline—
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, we would like a minute. We may want to read a portion of that exhibit.
The Court: You may, you may give a little consideration to that. It is perfectly all right.
(T–2750) Let me see that Exhibit 6 for a minute while they are looking at that, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
(The clerk hands to the Court.)
Mr. Gordon: I see Mr. Gerson passing out some papers to the press section, your Honor.
Mr. Sacher: Now that is absolutely wrong, your Honor. I asked Mr. Gerson to be good enough to speak to someone for me. This is another instance of surveillance.
The Court: Well, if Mr. Gerson is passing out press releases in the courtroom, please stop it.
Mr. Sacher: Well, there are no press releases.
The Court: All right. Then that settles it, that is the end of it.
Mr. Sacher: But it is uncomfortable, your Honor, to be under observation. Can’t we move freely in the courtroom without having our movements remarked upon?
[*4229]
The Court: Well, if you haven’t been moving freely in the courtroom, Mr. Sacher, then my eyes and ears have been deceiving me.
(Mr. Gordon hands paper to the Court.)
The Court: Now let us see what this paper is that Mr. Gordon produces.
(After examining) Why, it is a press release,—doing just what you said was not being done.
(T–2751) Mr. Sacher: I asked Mr. Gordon—Mr. Gerson to see someone for me on the outside, and it had nothing to do with press releases, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I have in my hand a press release which it appears was just handed out by him and which you deny.
Now I don’t want to get into any collateral controversies here and we will just let it rest with this direction: I do not want any press release handed around here in the courtroom or anything of that kind. Now this isn’t a propaganda place here. This is a court of justice where people are on trial and I direct that no more of that be done.
Mr. McGohey: May I address your Honor for a moment?
The Court: Yes, Mr. McGohey.
Mr. McGohey: I shan’t press the thing since your Honor said you wished it dropped, and I shan’t ask to have that particular paper marked for identification, but I would ask your Honor to direct that it be kept in the custody of the clerk of the court.
The Court: This paper (indicating)?
Mr. McGohey: Yes.
The Court: Yes, that may be kept in the custody of the clerk and he will identify it in some way so that (T–2752) if we want it again we can get it.
Mr. McGohey: Thank you, your Honor.
(The Court hands to the clerk.)
Mr. Gladstein: I think the record should show, your Honor, that I know nothing about it and I did not know that there was a release being issued—
The Court: I think that is fair.
[*4230]
Mr. Gladstein: I think that is true of Mr. Sacher—
The Court: That you had nothing to do with it, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: And I think it is true that the defendants and all the lawyers here at the table, so far as I know, did not know that any press release was being given out.
The Court: Well, that is scarcely consistent with what we just had on the record. It seems that some did have.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I must rise to object to your Honor’s remark. I must state that I did not know that there was a press release. I consulted with my client—with the clients sitting behind me and they say that they know nothing of any press release, and it is entirely independent of what some other person may have done, and I object to your Honor’s remark.
(T–2753) The Court: Well, why don’t you let it drop instead of blowing it up into controversy? My only desire—
Mr. Isserman: Well, your Honor has made some remarks which I consider as prejudicial and therefore it compelled me to stand up and object to them. I do not think this is a matter that is the concern of the jury in this case, and I think your Honor’s remarks have been prejudicial.
The Court: Well, you see, it happened in the presence of all of us—
Mr. Isserman: I did not see anything given out. I do not know but it might not have been given out at some other time. We have no facts to indicate it.
The Court: Well, I do. I saw what was going on myself. Now let us just drop the subject instead of keeping chewing it over and blowing it up. It is nothing that has any effect on the case and the jury will simply disregard all this and pay attention to the evidence.
Mr. Gordon: Are we waiting while counsel determine whether they wish to read anything from chapter 4, your Honor?
[*4231]
The Court: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Gladstein: I think perhaps Mr. Gordon should just go ahead now, your Honor, so that we won’t (T–2754) take any time.
The Court: I think it will disturb the continuity here. Go ahead.
Mr. Isserman: No, I would like to have another minute.
The Court: You can have another minute. Now don’t worry about that. It is perfectly all right.
Mr. Gordon: I didn’t mean to hurry counsel at all, your Honor. I thought I would sit down here. (Sitting down.)
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, we won’t read it at this time.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. McCabe: If your Honor please, I wonder if it would be out of point to call your Honor’s attention to the fact that during this interlude Mr. Gordon is apparently in consultation with members of the press.
The Court: Mr. Gordon is doing what?
Mr. McCabe: Apparently in consultation with members of the press over in the corner of the room.
The Court: You know, Mr. McCabe, if Mr. Gordon chooses to speak to someone in the courtroom, I see no reason why he should not do that, and I see no reason why you should not speak to someone in the courtroom if you decide to.
(T–2755) You know, earlier in this trial, the preliminary stages, we had a good deal of that sort of thing, wanting to interrogate people to see what they were talking about and who was doing this and that, and I just won’t have that. Now if you or any of your co–counsel or Mr. Gordon or Mr. McGohey or anyone else here chooses to speak to someone else in the courtroom, that is their private affair. I cannot see that it has anything to do with these proceedings as long as there is no disturbance of what is going on. So you will please go ahead with the case. Now go ahead, Mr. Gordon. There is no occasion for you to say anything.
[*4232]
Mr. Gordon: This is on the subject matter of the evidence, your Honor. Do I understand that counsel—I am a little confused at the moment—do I understand that they do not wish to read from chapter 4 at this time?
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
The next book is—
The Court: Now before you go on, I wonder if there is going to be some enlightenment later on the differences between the concluding part of one of the sections of that chapter in Exhibit 6 on the one hand, and the language as used on the other hand in Exhibits 33 and 42. You remember Mr. Sacher called your attention to that (T–2756) difference. The earlier one, which I won’t need to repeat it, apparently refers to a quotation from the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, and the other two referred to what apparently is Lenin’s Selected Works, volume 7, page 124. Now it may be merely a difference of translation.
Mr. Gordon: Isn’t it volume 8, your Honor?
The Court: 7—yes, volume 7.
Mr. Gordon: 7.
The Court: Yes, volume 7, page 124, but the reference to Selected Works may not be to the same thing as the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.
Mr. Gordon: I think there is some evidence in the case from the witness who preceded Mr. Philbrick that that book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky was included in the Selected Works of Lenin.
The Court: Yes. Well, the difference perhaps is just verbal and a matter of translation.
Mr. Gordon: I think it will be cleared up later.
The Court: All right, then we will just drop that for the time being. I merely mentioned it because Mr. Sacher had reference to it, and there is a difference there but the difference was brought out in reading them all to the jury.
[*4233]
Mr. Gordon: The next book under Session IV under (T–2757) Socialism, Fischer, Ernest, What is Socialism?
The next one, Dean of Canterbury, Soviet Power.
Session V. The Communist Party, Reading material: Stalin: Foundations of Leninism, Chapter 8.
Mr. McGohey read from chapter 8 at an earlier time. It is entitled The Party, and I believe he read the portion under Section 1 entitled “The Party as the vanguard of the working class,” which concludes:
“only”—this is on page 110—“Only the revolutionary party of the proletariat can serve as this general staff. The working class without a revolutionary party is an army without a general staff. The party is the general staff of the proletariat.”
May I wait now to see if they wish to read from chapter 8 any other portion?
The Court: I don’t think so. I think they will indicate if they do.
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: Mr. Isserman, you do not desire to read from that chapter?
Mr. Isserman: I will be able to answer that in one second.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Isserman: We would just like to have a moment.
(T–2758) The Court: That is all right.
(Mr. Isserman confers with clients.)
Mr. Isserman: We are ready to proceed, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gordon: Nothing further, Mr. Isserman, on that?
Mr. Isserman: I said we are ready to proceed.
Mr. Gordon: Well, I don’t understand whether he is ready to proceed or not ready.
The Court: It means he doesn’t want to read anything at this time from that exhibit.
[*4234]
Mr. Gordon: The next one is Bittleman’s Milestones in the History of the CPUSA.
Then E. Dennis, America needs the Communist Party, Political Affairs, October 1945, and finally Constitution of the CPUSA.
Now the second page of the exhibit is entitled Session I, and I will read that through.
“This session is an over–all introduction to the sessions that follow. It introduces certain of the Marxist principles of historical materialism in analyzing political and economic problems. It emphasizes the fundamental role of production and production relations in the class struggle as the principal motive force (T–2759) in the development of human society.
“1. History discloses the existence of several forms of society, primitive Communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism and socialism. What are the basic causes of this development? What are the moving forces of history?
“In order to live, man has to get a living from nature; to produce.
“(Marx and Engels first to show this as basic.)
“In getting his living, man always enter into social relations, never in isolation.
“Form of society corresponds to mode of production.
“(Define mode of production; productive forces: instruments, man; production relation).
“As level of productive forces changes, production relations change.
“a. Primitive communal society.
“What was level of productive forces? What were production relations? Introduce idea of division of labor. Were there any classes? What is a class?
“b. Slavery.
“How did it arise? Development of instruments of production, creation of surplus.
[*4235]
“Private property, classes, exploitation. Class struggle and its forms.
(T–2760) “Beginnings of the State. What is the State? Form of the State (democracy, monarchy, etc., as opposed to content) (Dictatorship of ruling class). Was slavery progressive?
“c. Feudalism.
“What were the main means of production, the main classes? Why was serf labor more productive than slave labor? Who got the surplus?
“Form of class struggles. Nature of the State.
“Rise of Bourgeoisie within feudalism.
“Bourgeois revolution. Define revolution.”
The word is underlined.
“d. Capitalism.
“Main means of production and class relations. Key position of wage–labor.
“Who gets surplus? Form of class strugggle.
“The capitalist state—forms: democracy, fascism, etc.
“e. Socialism.
“Means of production; social ownership; abolition of exploitation. Is there a surplus?
“Socialist State: dictatorship of proletariat, widest democracy.
“2. Co–existence of old and new forms of society. Old forms don’t disappear all at once. (T–2761) For example, capitalism and socialism today. Feudal relations in China and Eastern Europe. Slave remnants in USA in South, share–cropping.
“3. Historical development in detail depends on specific conditions in each country. But main features of development the same.
“4. Role of ideas in class struggle. Role of the individual in history.
[*4236]
“Role of Communist Party. Disarming of workers through ideas during CPA period.”
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, I think you have indicated that you read the worker or the Daily Worker in connection with following the proceedings of the National Convention. A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Were there any other periodicals put out by the Party which you read? A. The magazine Political Affairs, a monthly publication, I also read fairly regularly.
Q. I show you what appears to be Political Affairs for September 1946, and ask you if you recognize that? A. Yes, this is the plenum issue. Every year the magazine Political Affairs publishes a report of the National meeting in New York.
Mr. McGohey: Would you spell that word “plenum”?
(T–2762) The Witness: P–l–e–n–u–m.
Mr. Gordon: Would you mark this for identification?
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 43 for identification.)
The Court: What is the date?
The Clerk: September 1946.
Mr. Gordon: I offer in evidence at this time as Exhibit 43–A the page opposite page 771.
I don’t think it has any page number, does it, Mr. Sacher?
Mr. Sacher: I don’t see any.
Mr. McGohey: What is the date of that, September 1945?
Mr. Sacher: 1946.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, 1946. Thanks.
* * *
(T–2763) Mr. Gordon: Just prior to the luncheon recess, your Honor, I had offered in evidence as Exhbit 43–A a page of the September 1946 issue of “Political Affairs”, the page opposite 771.
[*4237]
Mr. McCabe: I object to that, your Honor, in so far as it is offered as proof of any of the factual matters set forth therein.
The Court: Is there any statement you desire to make with reference to that, Mr. Gordon?
I say that because in this case there are numerous exhibits that it seems to me have been offered in support of the charge of conspiracy here which were not intended as proof of the facts stated but for their bearing on the existence or non–existence of the conspiracy, and I don’t know whether there is any comment you care to make as to this particular offer in view of that fact.
Mr. Gordon: I assume that the objection is an objection that the particular page is hearsay with respect to proving the truth of what is reported on it.
(T–2764) The position of the Government, your Honor, is that it is an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an admission by the defendants.
Mr. Gladstein: May I be heard on that?
(The Court nodded.)
Mr. Gladstein: If Mr. Gordon’s theory is correct no witness at all need be put on the stand, but Mr. Gordon might just as well offer these things one after another.
The Court: Well, you see, I recall proof that these defendants at a certain date, which as I remember it,—and I am sure was considerably prior to September 1946—were elected as the so–called Politburo or National Board of the Communist Party and in charge of its activities. Am I wrong about that?
Mr. Gladstein: No, but your Honor will notice—and when I say “no” I don’t want to argue the record—but the document now being offered deals with the year 1946.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Gladstein: I know of no evidence on that subject that is connected with the statements contained in that document and I submit that the only manner in which the contents of that page that [*4238] is being offered could be put before the Court and jury would be through a witness who was present.
(T–2765) The Court: Well, I will take it and instruct the jury later as to the proof relative to the conspiracy and how far they may take one bit of evidence or another against all or any of the defendants.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, the testimony with respect to the defendants that you referred to, I believe—and I think this—I will make the statement subject to correction—was that they were elected to the National Committee in 1945, and some of them to the National Board which had earlier been called the Political Committee of the Politburo.
The Court: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Gordon: Now we wish to show what positions they occupied thereafter during the period of the alleged conspiracy.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: But the point is that no document at this time will tend to show one way or the other the truth of any of the facts on that subject, and I submit that that has to be shown by the Government in calling a witness, dealing with the time and the place involved.
The Court: Well, I cannot tell at this time what the proof, as a whole, will show or what inferences may be drawn as a whole, but there is evidence that this magazine is the official organ of the Party, and without (T–2766) attempting to characterize the evidence in detail, which must come in piecemeal necessarily, I will receive it.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 43–A in evidence.)
The Court: That is 43–A?
The Clerk: A, in evidence.
Mr. Gordon: Before reading 43–A, your Honor, I will offer the top of the reverse side of that page, which contains the title of the publication and the members of the editorial board, in view of the statement by Mr. Gladstein.
[*4239]
The Court: Very well. That is offered as 43–B?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
(Mr. Gordon hands to Mr. Sacher.)
Mr. Gordon: Down to this line, Mr. Sacher (indicating).
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 43–B in evidence.)
The Clerk: Does your Honor want to see this (handing to Court)?
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 43–B, members of the jury, the top of the page, beginning of the magazine, says:
“Political Affairs, A magazine devoted to the theory and practice of Marxism and Leninism.
“Editorial Board: Eugene Dennis, Editor.
“V. J. Jerome, Associate Editor.”
(T–2767) And underneath that there are three names:
“Alexander Bittelman, Max Weiss and Henry Winston.”
Exhibit 43–A reads as follows—
Direct examination continued by Mr. Gordon:
Q. And I think you said, Mr. Philbrick, that this booklet, Exhibit 43 for identification, was the Special Plenum issue reporting the meeting of the National Committee of the CPUSA in July of 1946? A. That is right, sir.
Mr. Gordon: “National Committee named officers. The National Committee on July 17, after discussing the work and functioning of the National Center of the Communist Party, unanimously approved a number of proposals aimed to bring about an all–around strengthening and expansion of the work of the Center. The National Committee, after hearing a report by William Z. Foster and upon his motion, unanimously elected Eugene Dennis as general secretary of the Party; Henry Winston [*4240] was approved as organization secretary and unanimously elected to the National Board; John Williamson was approved as labor secretary.
“The National Secretariat was increased to (T–2768) five to include William Z. Foster, national chairman, Eugene Dennis, general secretary; John Williamson, labor secretary; Henry Winston, organization secretary; and Robert Thompson, chairman of the New York State organization of the Party.
“Other officers approved included, chairman of the education, agitation and publications department, Jack Stachel; editor of Political Affairs and secretary of the education and agitation department, Max Weiss; chairman of the legislative committee, Councilman Benjamin J. Davis, Jr.; secretary of the legislative committee, Robert Minor; and assistant organization secretary, Betty Gannett.
“Other officers remained at their previous posts with Elizabeth Gurley Flynn as chairman of the Women’s Commission; Steve Nelson, chairman of the National Group Commission; Morris Childs, editor of the Daily Worker; John Gates, chairman of the Veterans’ Commission; V. J. Jerome, associate editor of Political Affairs; and Albert Blumberg, Washington legislative representative.
“Pat Tuohy has been given an extended leave of absence because of serious illness.”
(T–2769) The Court: Let me have them as you proceed, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I think you said yesterday, Mr. Philbrick, that in addition to attending this organizational conference to set up the training course, that there were also some meetings which you attended concerning youth groups. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Will you tell us when those meetings took place? A. Well, there was a meeting called in September.
[*4241]
Q. Of what year? A. Of 1945. And they were held at the apartment of Dave and Barbara Bennett, 295 Huntington Avenue, in Boston.
Q. What was the subject matter which was discussed?
Mr. Gordon: I will withdraw that.
Q. Was there more than one meeting? A. I recall just one meeting that I attended, which worked on the planning and the setting up of an educational program for the youth of the Party.
Q. Will you tell us your best recollection of what program was that was set up? A. Well, the program followed in principle that laid down by the Educational Commission (T–2770) and by Justine O’Connor, who was the chairman of that particular project, and it called for the setting up of Marxist–Leninist courses and training courses for the young Communists. The term Young Communist League or YCL was used at this particular meeting in September of 1945.
Q. Was the Young Communist League in existence then? A. No, the Young Communist League had gone out of existence and had been replaced—or there was an organization called American Youth for Democracy.
Q. Well, when you say “replaced” do you have any reference to the status of the persons who had been in the Young Communist League? A. Well, in this—at this particular meeting the young people who attended it were all members of the American Youth for Democracy, including myself, but they were also Communists. In other words, non–Communist members of the American Youth for Democracy did not attend this particular meeting.
Q. Did you go to any of these classes for the youth movement? A. I believe I attended only two of the classes which were started and inaugurated for the youth movement and then at that time I was called into this teacher training course that we discussed this morning, which took place in (T–2771) October.
Q. Now you have referred to the Bennetts by their full name, Dave and Barbara Bennett. Was there any time when you were known by your full name in the Party? A. Yes, to some of the people I am known by my full name.
[*4242]
Mr. Gordon: Will you mark this for identification.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 44 for identification.)
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 44 for identification and ask you if you recognize it? A. Yes, I recognize this as my membership card for 1946.
Q. From whom did you receive it? A. Well, I received this card from Frank Collier in Melrose who brought it around to my home in Melrose, at which time I paid my dues and so forth and received the card.
Q. Was Collier one of the people who knew you by your full name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was his position in the Party? A. Well, at that time he was the head of the Melrose Chapter or the Melrose Club of the Communist Party, and I don’t recall if at that time he was the manager of the Progressive Bookshop in Boston, which was the Communist literature center.
Q. Well, was he ever the manager of that bookshop? (T–2772) A. He is now, sir.
Mr. Gordon: I offer the card in evidence, Exhibit 44 for identification.
By the Court:
Q. What is that bookstore? A. The name of the bookstore is the Progressive Bookshop and I believe the address is 10 Beach Street in Boston. I am not absolutely certain.
Q. I just wanted to get whether it was in Boston or in this smaller place. It was in Boston? A. Yes.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Is that a Party bookshop? A. Yes, that is exclusively a party bookshop and it is the main center to which all of the directors go to obtain their Party literature.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps while counsel are looking at Government’s Exhibit 44 for identification I could pass Exhibit 39 to the jury, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, you may do that.
[*4243]
(Mr. Gordon hands Exhibit 39 to the jury.)
(Government’s Exhibit 44 for identification received in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: Does your Honor have Exhibit 43?
The Court: I have.
(T–2773) Mr. Gordon: May I have that for a moment?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: While you are making your notes from Exhibit 44 I would like to ask a question.
The Court: Yes, very well.
Q. You said that Frank Collier today is the head of that bookstore? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I show you Exhibit 43 for identification, the issue of Political Affairs for September 1946. Do you recall where you got that from? A. I obtained this from the Progressive Bookshop in Boston.
Q. And was the subject matter of that book discussed at any meeting? A. Yes, the subject matter of that book was discussed at one of the club meetings in the Eighth Congressional District.
Q. Perhaps you could tell us in general how those meetings were conducted?
Mr. McCabe: Objected to as irrelevant.
The Court: Is the time fixed of these meetings? How long a period did these meetings continue over, Mr. Philbrick?
The Witness: Now which particular—
The Court: I mean the meetings that you (T–2774) were just asked about.
The Witness: This is the meetings concerned with this Special Plenum issue of 1946, is that correct?
The Court: No, I don’t think that is what Mr. Gordon is asking about.
Mr. Gordon: I will reframe the question.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
[*4244]
Q. In general did you attend meetings of the Melrose Branch or Club? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that went from when to when? A. Well, from the period of 1940—the latter part of 1945 through the year 1946 and up until 1947 when I became a member of the pro group. I was educational director for the Eighth Congressional District in Massachusetts which had to do with the Malden, Melrose, Wakefield, and so forth, Communist Clubs, and in connection with this particular issue that—with this club—all right, I will hold it.
The Court: You see, you are covering a pretty wide area here.
Q. Take this—
The Court: Try to get down to the meetings of this Melrose Club.
Mr. Gordon: That is right.
Q. Take the meetings of the Melrose Club. That would be from the fall of 1945 until when? A. From the (T–2775) fall of 1945 until the fall of 1947.
Q. Now in connection with those meetings how were they conducted?
Mr. Crockett: Objection. The witness still has not testified whether or not he attended any of the meetings, your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: And when.
The Court: Were you there?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: So that what you are going to tell us is what you actually witnessed personally?
The Witness: That is true.
The Court: You may go ahead.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps I should ask him how often they met.
A. On the average every other week.
Q. Now tell us how they were conducted.
[*4245]
Mr. McCabe: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, generally speaking, the meetings all followed the same format or the same procedure.
Q. Well tell us that procedure. That is what I want you to tell us about. A. Well, I see. Well, the (T–2776) procedure would be as follows: The meeting would be broken up, generally speaking, into three different sessions or periods of time. There would be one period of time which would discuss current activities of the club, current events, the current activities of that particular organization and of the members in it.
Second, a period for the collection of dues and for the sale of literature.
And, third, an educational period during which some particular educational topic was—was taken up.
Q. Were any textbooks or reference books used in that educational period? A. Yes.
Q. Were the books that were used books which included the ones which you have identified here in the courtroom? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that unless the witness specifies—
The Court: It is a little vague.
I think you had better be more specific. Which particular ones—can you tell which particular ones were used?
The Witness: No, sir, I don’t think I’ll be able to definitely name exactly and precisely the books that were used at particular meetings. As I say, I was educational director of all these clubs and therefore (T–2777) each club, you see, were using different volumes, and so.
The Court: I think you misunderstood the question. Mr. Gordon is not seeking to elicit, as I understand him, which particular books were used at any particular meetings, but taking the meetings all in all, can you say which of these books that you spoke of before were used at those meetings.
[*4246]
The Witness: Well, I would hesitate to try to name them because it might possibly be one that would be left out, you see.
The Court: Would you say in general that most of those books were used at one time or another?
Mr. Crockett: I object to the question.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that question.
The Court: All right, objection sustained.
Q. I show you Exhibit 40, “The Communist Manifesto” (handing). Was that used? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
A. (Continuing) “The Communist Manifesto” was used, yes, sir.
Q. I show you Exhibit 41 for identification, which is your copy of the “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Bolsheviks”. Was that used (handing)? (T–2778) A. This particular book has been used many times, generally speaking, just taking one particular section of it, for—for discussion.
Q. I show you Exhibit 42 in evidence, “Foundations of Leninism by Joseph Stalin.” Was that book used? A. Yes, sir, “Foundations of Leninism” has been used.
Q. When you testified that the meetings would be divided up into three parts, as you have described, is that what actually occurred at the meetings that you attended? A. That is what actually occurred.
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 44 is the 1946 membership card, Communist Party of the U.S.A.; name, Herb Philbrick; City, Melrose; State, Massachusetts; Date issued, 12/9/45.
Over the place where there is place for the signature of the State Chairman is the stamp “Anne Burlack.” Perforated through the card or impressed upon it is a seal which reads “Communist Party New England District.”
There is a place inside for dues stamps and on the third page the dues rate: “Income over $60 per week, $2 a month; income $25 to $60 per week, $1 per [*4247] month; income under $25 per week, 35 cents; unemployed, 10 cents.”
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 44, Read into Record
(T–2779) And underneath that it says, “Read the Daily Worker and The Worker. Read our monthly magazine Political Affairs.” And on the back, “Rights and duties of Party members: To attend club meetings; read the Party press and literature; pay dues regularly and be active on behalf of the program and policies of the Party; to at all times loyally defend the interests of the working class against the force of fascism and reaction; to fight against all forms of national oppression; discrimination and segregation and all ideological influences and practices of racial theory; to fight for the full social, political and economic equality of the Negro people, for Negro and white unity; to participate in working out all policies and tasks of the club; and to regularly examine the execution of such policies; to vote for all officers, committees and delegates, and be elected to any office or committee in accord with the provisions of the Constitution; to appeal any decision with which there is disagreement to the next higher body, carrying out the decision while appeal is pending.”
Finally, “To strive to master the program and policies of the Party, the principles of Marxism–Leninism.”
At this point, your Honor, I wish to offer (T–2780) as Exhibt 43–C pages 816 and 817, 818 and 819 of Exhibit 43 for identification, which are part of an article by John Williamson. 816, 17, 18 and 19.
* * *
(T–2781) Mr. Isserman: I have an objection, if the Court please, on constitutional grounds which I would like to state.
The Court: Let me see what is being offered.
Mr. Gordon (Handing to Court): 816, 817, 818 and 819.
The Court: Very well, Mr. Isserman, I will hear you.
[*4248]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 43–C, Read into Record
Mr. Isserman: The testimony of the witness in respect to this Exhibit 43–A was as to the booklet as a whole without reference to any particular article. Moreover, what is offered now are four pages of a particular article and not even a whole article.
The Court: Yes, by Williamson.
Mr. Isserman: There is nothing in the testimony to distinguish those four pages from any other portion of the book.
Furthermore, the material is not relevant, it is hearsay, and its introduction violates the defendants’ rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The Court: Overruled. It may be received.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 43–C in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: Would Mr. Isserman like to have the whole article marked?
The Court: Well, I don’t think so. He has (T–2782) expressed his objection. He has a right to object to the part. I haven’t read the article but it seems to me from what I glanced at there that this is properly received.
Mr. Gordon (To jury): This is from an article entitled “Improve and build our Communist press.”
“The next step in Party building by John Williamson. Report delivered July 18th at the plenary meeting of the National Committee CPUSA 1946.”
At page 816 it says:
“Recommendations:
“In addition to the suggestions made in the statement which has already been presented to you, the National Board recommends action at this meeting of the National Committee on the following proposals:
“1. That each district undertake to overcome its outstanding weakness in the campaign, for example, in the recruiting of textile workers in New [*4249] England and New Jersey; steel workers in Illinois; auto workers in Ohio and Wisconsin; coal miners in the Anthracite areas, and Western Pennsylvania; lumber workers in the Northwest; long–shoremen in Philadelphia, Seattle and New Orleans; railroad workers in Ohio, Minnesota and Connecticut; and that we reach the (T–2783) original goals we set for ourselves in the concentration industries by Labor Day.
“2. That we undertake to extend our influence and organization during the next months, especially among AFofL workers.
“3. That the National Committee and the State Committees pay even greater attention than previously to the cities which are selected for concentration work. Leading comrades have already been sent to such key areas as Flint, Youngstown, Toledo, Chester, and Kansas City. However, we must learn how to give much more well–rounded assistance to those working in this field, and in turn we should expect still better results.
“4. That we approve the decisions of our comrades in the maritime industry to continue their organized recruiting activities; and that we urge the leading comrades in the auto, steel, electrical–radio, and leather industries to re–examine their work and outline immediate tasks for themselves in Party building.
“5. That during the next period, including that of the election struggles, we conduct another Party building campaign, with the aim of recruiting 10,000 more members.
(T–2784) “6. That since the percentage of dues payments for the first half of this year was only 68 per cent due to neglect during the first quarter—special measures be adopted to maintain a high percentage of dues payments during the third quarter.
“If we combine consistent recruiting with ever increasing independent activity with greater [*4250] initiative in participating in mass struggles; if we apply correctly our tactical line of simultaneously developing the independent political activity of the Party and cementing more firmly our working arrangements with all non–Communist forces in the trade unions and the political mass movements—we will be able to look forward with confidence to the further building of our Party in the period which lies ahead.”
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now Mr. Philbrick, did you after this attend any conference concerned with Party building?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question.
The Court: What do you mean by “after this”? Do you mean after the date of that, which is September 1946?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
(T–2784–A) The Court: Very well, I will overrule the objection.
A. The answer is yes.
Q. Will you tell us when the conference was held? A. Yes, the conference was held—a Party building conference was held on February 2nd of 1947 on a Sunday in Boston.
(T–2785) Q. Do you remember how many people were there? A. I would judge there were about 100 people there.
Q. And who was in charge of the conference? A. Well, the main speaker was Manny Blum, who was the district organizer of the Communist Party in the State at that time. I think his full name was probably Emanuel, but I am not sure.
The Court: B–l–u–m?
The Witness: B–l–u–m.
Q. You say—what did you say the main what was given by him? A. Manny Blum.
Mr. Sacher: He said he was the main speaker.
A. He gave the main address at that meeting.
Q. Can you tell us your best recollection of what the address concerned, what the steps were? A. Well, the [*4251] entire conference was concerned with the building of the Party, with the increasing of membership, with the recruiting of new members, with the building of the sale of the Daily Worker and the Sunday Worker.
Q. Did it concern itself at all with what is referred to in Exhibit 43–C as Concentration Industries?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Have you told us all you remember about what he said?
(T–2786) The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Go ahead and tell us what else you remember.
The Witness: Well, in addition to pressing the urge and the need and so forth of building the membership, Manny also outlined the plans as to how to go about recruiting members, and so forth. Among the plans, for instance, was to build the sale of the Daily Worker and the Sunday Worker, and after getting the readers for those papers then to—after making contact with them through the paper, to go around and try to recruit them as Party members.
Also we were told to adopt a policy of what Manny called colonizing. And colonizing he termed was that of taking jobs in key industries, going into the large key industries of the United States, such as the automobile business, the steel business, the railroads, and so forth, and to take jobs within these plants as Party colonizers.
He described the position of a colonizer, that is, the status of a colonizer as a position of high honor. It was a task of honor to perform for the—for the party, and in the New England States or in Massachusetts particularly the textile industry was mentioned. I believe a man by the name of Figurito was—I don’t know how to (T–2787) spell it—was the key man in that particular instance; and also the leather industry was mentioned, which was rather large in Boston, and the railroad—the Boston & Maine Railroad, and the railroad yards, and the General Electric plant in Lynn which is specifically engaged in the production of jet engines.
The Court: Where is that?
[*4252]
The Witness: The General Electric plant in Lynn, Massachusetts.
The Court: Yes.
Q. Jet airplane engines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those places were places where these colonizers were to work? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Were you a subscriber to the Daily Worker or the Worker? A. No. At this time I was still an underground member of the Party and so, rather than being a subscriber on the subscription list here in New York where my name would appear on the list, I obtained the Daily Worker and The Worker through the Progressive Book Shop.
Q. Now I show you what appears to be The Worker for July 13, 1947. Do you recognize that (handing)? A. Yes, sir, I recognize this issue of the—of the Sunday Worker.
The Court: What is the date?
(T–2788) Mr. Gordon: July 13, 1947, your Honor.
Q. Now I direct your attention to an article which appears on page 7, and is apparently continued on page 10. Was that article the subject of any discussions at any meetings which you attended? A. Yes. This was discussed at the Eighth Congressional district clubs and it concerns itself with the National Committee meeting held here in New York.
Mr. Gordon: I offer that portion of the article which appears on page 10, your Honor, beginning—well, it is the last portion of the article and it begins with—capital letters—“The National Committee,” and I will ask leave to substitute a photostat which I will pass to counsel for the defendants (handing to Court).
(T–2789) The Court: Let me get this meeting straight. Did you say this meeting of this Eighth Congressional District club was held in New York?
The Witness: No, no. This is in the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts.
The Court: So the meeting was held somewhere in Boston?
[*4253]
The Witness: No. Let’s see, July. I believe at that time I was in Malden—at that particular period. That was during the summer of 1947. I believe it was the time that Gene Dennis was up before—
Mr. Gordon: Uh, huh.
The Witness: —the House Un–American Committee.
The Court: Anyway, it was in Malden, in the—
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: —summer of 1947?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You may show this to counsel (indicating).
Mr. Gordon: Counsel has a photostatic copy, your Honor.
The Court: Very well. Let me have it so I can be looking at it while they are doing the same.
Mr. Gordon: I have pointed out to Mr. Sacher, at his request, the section which I was interested in, (T–2790) the part beginning “The National Committee,” column 3 of page 10 of the issue.
Mr. Gladstein: What do you want?
Mr. Gordon: On page 10, Mr. Gladstein, column 3, the bottom. It concerns the appointments by the National Committee. I think that is the full portion of the article which pertains to it. The white circle is around a portion of what I am offering. It starts “The National Committee.” Do you see that?
The Court: Mr. Gordon, will you let me see that book that had those proceedings in?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
The Court: It is a larger book than that. I don’t mean these proceedings at that time. The earlier ones.
The Clerk: Exhibit 7, your Honor?
Mr. Gordon: Oh, yes, yes. Exhibit 9, your Honor?
The Court: Yes. I would like also to see whatever exhibit there may be that shows, after they reconstituted the Communist Party of the United States of America, according to the testimony, those who were elected to the National Committee and the National Board.
[*4254]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 45–A, Read into Record
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
The Court: Then we will take our recess for (T–2791) ten minutes, and I can take that into my chambers with me.
Mr. Gordon: I give your Honor the original. It might be easier to read.
(Short recess.)
Mr. Gordon: I had offered—
The Court: Yes, page 10 or part of page 10 of this Sunday Worker of July 13th, 1947.
Is there objection to that?
Mr. McCabe: Objection.
The Court: The same as before?
Mr. McCabe: Yes.
The Court: Objection overruled.
The Clerk: The paper is marked Government’s Exhibit 45 for identification; the article on page 10 45–A in evidence.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 45 for identification.)
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 45–A in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: 45–A is the end of an article in the Worker for July 13, 1947. The article is entitled “National Committee”—Well, “Communist National Committee Confers”—
Q. The reference here on page 7 to the date of the (T–2792) session of the National Committee meeting of the Communist Party is what? A. Is June 30th.
Q. 1947. A. 1947.
Mr. Gordon: “The National Committee reorganized the National Board, in order to assure greater political efficiency, to facilitate a more national viewpoint on all problems, and the execution of policy by those who are responsible for making it.
[*4255]
“The State leaders of Illinois, Michigan and Ohio—Gil Green, Carl Winter and Gus Hall—”
That is indicated, your Honor, by the punctuation apparently as the respective State leaders—
“—Illinois, Michigan and Ohio—Gil Green, Carl Winter and Gus Hall—were elected to the Board. Hall will replace Arnold Johnson as the Ohio State Chairman, with Johnson taking the post of chairman of the National Legislative Commission. John Gates was also elected to the National Board.
“The size of the National Board remains the same, with nine of the twelve members in residence. All twelve members will have at least one full meeting a month. It was not considered advisable to enlarge the Board, and it was therefore necessary that some of the old Board members, while remaining in their present leading Party posts, serve as co–workers (T–2793) of the Board rather than as members.
“The new National Board consists of: William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis—the two leading officers who are also to constitute the new Secretariat—plus Benjamin J. Davis, John Gates, Gil Green, Gus Hall, Irving Potash, Jack Stachel, Robert Thompson, John Williamson, Carl Winter and Henry Winston.”
Those names are the names of the defendants on trial, your Honor, plus William Z. Foster.
“The National Committee, at this united and democratic meeting, decided to call a National Party Convention in 1948, so that the Communist Party can make its final decisions concerning the 1948 elections at the time when other political parties will be making theirs.”
Q. I direct your attention to the masthead of Exhibit 45 for identification, the Sunday Worker for July 13, 1947, and ask you whether there is a name there ahead of the title “Editor”?
[*4256]
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor. That page is not in evidence and he is asking the witness to read from a paper not in evidence.
The Court: Sustained. Objection sustained.
Mr. Gordon: I will offer the masthead in (T–2794) evidence.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: You better wait until you look at it.
(Mr. Gordon hands to Mr. Sacher.)
Mr. Sacher: I know what you are offering.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher says he knows what I am offering.
The Court: Very well, I will look at it.
Mr. Sacher: I object to it.
(Mr. Gordon hands to the Court.)
The Court (After examining): Objection overruled.
Now what are we going to call this, 45–B?
The Clerk: 45–B.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 45–B in evidence.)
The Court: Now while the clerk is marking that there is something I want to get straightened out here. In 1945, according to the proof so far, all of the defendants, including Foster, were elected to the National Committee; is that not correct, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, that is shown in one of those Daily Workers.
The Court: Yes. This is the one right here, which is—
(T–2795) Well, we needn’t give the number because I have the original instead of the photostat which was marked.
As I read that—
Mr. Gordon: I believe that is 24–A, your Honor.
The Court: 24–A?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: And in that same exhibit, 24–A, it seems to me that Foster, Dennis, Williamson, Thomp– [*4257] son, Davis, Stachel and Potash were elected to the National Board.
(T–2796) Now it further appears in this exhibit that you just read to the jury that in 1946—no, 1947—was it 1947 that Green, Winter, Hall and Gates were added to the National Board?
Mr. Gordon: In 1947 in the exhibit I just read which was—
The Court: 45–A.
Mr. Gordon: —45–A, all of the defendants were put on the National Board and no one else.
The Court: Well, I do remember Winston being named in that part you read. Maybe I better look it over again.
Mr. Gordon: In 1946 the defendant Winston was added to the National Board.
The Court: Oh yes, yes, he was. So that means as shown by this exhibit here, 45–A, after that—what do they call it?
Mr. Gordon: Plenary meeting of the National Committee?
The Court: Anyway they made this change on or about June 3rd, 1947, after which each and every one of the defendants including Foster became members of the National Board.
Mr. McGohey: That is correct, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
(T–2797) Mr. Gordon: One correction. June 30th.
The Court: June 30th?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: I desire to bring that out, members of the jury, because a few moments ago through inadvertance I mentioned that all of the defendants were part of the National Board or the Politburo at an earlier date; so that you now hear that the testimony shows that in 1945 they were all members of the National Committee, but as to the National Board which was the inner board called the Politburo, by at least one witness, there were Foster, Dennis, Williamson, Thompson, Davis, Stachel and Potash in 1945 and then at the later period just on or about [*4258] June 30, 1947, Green, Winter, Hall, Gates and Winston were added, so that from that time, as long as the evidence shows it continued, they were all members of the National Board.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I object to the colloquy between the Court and Mr. Gordon and I object further to the Court’s most recent remark to the jury.
Mr. Sacher: I specifically object—
The Court: If there is something specifically I said that was wrong I desire to correct it.
(T–2798) Mr. Sacher: You said the National Board was an inner board and there is no such thing as an inner board, and no one in the case testified to any such thing. The National Board is described in Government’s Exhibit 26, which is the Constitution of the Communist Party.
The Court: Very well, just eliminate the word “inner” board. I thought I heard Mr. Budenz a number of times describe it as the Politburo. Whether his testimony is to be credited by the jury or not of course is for them to say, as I shall instruct them in my charge. But I do not attempt to characterize what was the duty or duties of that National Board but merely so that you ladies and gentlemen of the jury will identify as to the different defendants which were on the National Committee and which were on the National Board in 1945 and which ones later became members of the National Board. That was my sole purpose. Anything that I may have said in addition to that may be disregarded.
(T–2799) Mr. Crockett: My objection goes to this instance as one of a series of instances in which your Honor has undertaken to, in effect, summarize the evidence that had been previously presented by some witness. This attaches to that evidence greater importance than might otherwise be attached to it if it did not come second–handedly from your Honor’s position.
The Court: Well, I am afraid that you are unduly sensitive about that, Mr. Crockett. I inad– [*4259] vertently, a little while ago, said that they were all members of the Board and I decided that I should correct that, which I have done, and I cannot see what there is about my doing that that you should criticize. But, however, you have done so, and whatever effect that may have, you have noted.
Mr. McCabe: If your Honor please, I had the further objection that your Honor’s statement, a categorical statement, that they were members of the Board after—
The Court: I did not make it categorically. I said the evidence indicated that. Whether this evidence is to warrant an inference of one kind or another is solely the function of the jury. I do not state any of these things as facts. I simply indicated that the (T–2800) evidence showed that thus far. And if anything I have said seems to indicate that those are positive facts and that the jury is not to pass on it, why, I now make that quite clear by indicating that it is absolutely for the jury to decide what the facts are, as I will tell you later when I come to charge you.
Mr. Gordon: In connection with the term Politburo or poleetburo in the letter by William Z. Foster to the National Committee, which Mr. Sacher read at length from yesterday, which was Exhibit 17, Foster refers to it several times as the Polburo—p–o–l–b–u–r–o.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: That was the letter.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that statement on the ground that Mr. Foster’s letter was written on January 20, 1944, and the National Board, under the constitution, which came into existence in 1945, was not referred to and could not have been referred to in Mr. Foster’s letter of January 1944, and I respectfully submit—
The Court: We leave it all for the jury to say.
Mr. Sacher: Well, I would simply respectfully submit that if statements did not emanate from the Court in the first instance which were not correct, there (T–2801) would be no need for a second one, which was not correct.
[*4260]
The Court: Well, you see, sometimes one may inadvertently make a statement which is not entirely accurate and people who have some sense of honor proceed at once to correct such a statement, and that is just exactly what I did. I should have felt it was wrong for me to do otherwise.
Mr. Gordon: 45–B, the masthead of The Worker has editor, John Gates, on July 13, 1947.
Now, continuing to read from Exhibit 43–C, on page 817:
“Our Party Press.
“In accord with the broad concept of Party building outlined at the last meeting of the National Committee, we wish this committee meeting to center its attention on two other aspects of Party building. The first of these is the role and effective building of our press; the second is the struggle for the extension of the Marxist–Leninist education of our membership and leadership, the energetic struggle for Marxist–Leninist ideology among the workers. This latter question will be dealt with in detail in a separate report by Comrade Weiss.
“Why do we place the question of the press on our (T–2802) agenda? Because there is a great need for our Party to learn once again what Lenin meant when he said”—
this is from the report by John Williamson, I should have said—
“when he said that ‘a Communist newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and collective agitator, but also a collective organizer.’
“Our press is an important aspect of the independent, vanguard role of the Communist Party. The fight to build the circulation of our press is part of the fight to bring forward the face of our Party in the public political life of our country. The press is our chief propaganda weapon in the struggle against the imperialist policies of monopoly capitalism in the field of foreign and domestic policy.”
[*4261]
On page 818, under the heading “The Role of Our Press”:
“Since the Daily Worker is our central organ, the paper that sets the political line, the unifier of all our activities, it is necessary that we establish a common approach and understanding on the role of the Daily Worker, indicate its major (T–2803) weaknesses and show how it must be further improved.
“The first and main point to be established is that the Daily Worker is the official organ and spokesman of the Communist Party.
“What does this mean?
“The Daily Worker must interpret events, through its editorials and columns, on the basis of the Party’s analysis and estimate of developments. But that in itself is not enough. It must also become a fighting crusader on the burning issues confronting labor, the people, and the nation at each given moment. In this connection, the paper must learn to develop more consistently such crusades to new and higher levels, setting ever larger sections of the working class and the people into motion, indicating the most effective methods, and forms of struggle. Above all, the Daily Worker must learn how to become an organizer of the daily struggles and mass campaigns. It is the main weakness of the Daily Worker that it often does not fulfill its organizing role of helping to tie together isolated actions into general struggles, of providing the necessary guidance, not only to our Party clubs and members, but to the many (T–2804) non–party militants who look to us for leadership in their shops, local unions and communities.
“In the words of Lenin, the Daily Worker must more and more become ‘a part of an enormous pair of smith’s bellows that would blow every spark of class struggle and popular indignation into a general conflagration.’”
[*4262]
Q. Mr. Philbrick, I think you have told us earlier that there came a time when you no longer were a member of the Malden branch or club, and that you became a member of the professional group, is that right? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Now, as a member of the professional group did you have a Communist Party membership card? A. No, as a member of the professional group I did not have a Communist Party membership card.
Q. Was there any reason for that? A. Well, the professional group, although today large sections of the Party are underground, the professional group has always been an underground group. It is composed of business men, of teachers and lawyers and so forth, and other people who, by the nature of their professions and their jobs, are unable to reveal their membership in the Communist Party and, therefore, as members of this professional group we don’t carry any membership (T–2805) cards.
Q. Did you ever become an officer of that group? A. In, let us see—I believe I became a member of the group in September and it was in October that I became the educational director, at first, and after serving in that capacity for quite a short period, I became literature director of that group.
Q. That would be what year? A. This is in 1947.
Q. 1947? A. This period covers the fall of 1947, from September through December.
Q. Were you transferred from this Malden Branch? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you were transferred from the Malden Branch to the professional group, did you then attend meetings of the professional group? A. Yes, I attended meetings of the professional group.
Q. Were those meetings conducted similarly to the meetings you have previously described or differently? A. You mean so far as the conduct of them?
Q. The three portions. A. Yes, exactly the same, sir.
Q. So that there was a portion devoted to Party business? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And dues? A. Yes, sir.
[*4263]
(T–2806) Q. And to an educational class or educational work? A. That is correct.
Q. When you joined the pro group and attended its meetings did you attend, as part of the meetings, any educational classes? A. Yes, I attended the educational classes in the pro four group of the—that I belonged to at that time.
Q. When you joined that group do you recall what it was that they were engaged in studying? A. At the time I became a member of the group they had just begun, and I believe they had, perhaps, covered the first chapter, or part of the first chapter of the book called “State and Revolution.”
Mr. Gordon: Mark this for identification.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 46 for identification.)
Q. I show you Exhibit 46 for identification and ask you whether you recognize that manual? A. Yes, I recognize this manual as the one that I used during this course on the State and Revolution in the pro group.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that question and answer be stricken on the grounds previously urged with respect to Government counsel’s description of the Communist Manifesto as a manual.
The Court: Let me look and see if it is a (T–2807) manual.
Mr. Gordon: I think the dictionary, your Honor—
The Court: No.
Mr. Gordon: —definition of manual would support my use of the term. However, I am perfectly willing to call it a pamphlet.
The Court: I don’t think we ought to have characterizations by the witness.
Did the person who was teaching you in that class refer to this as a manual?
The Witness: I don’t recall that it was referred to under any particular name, sir.
[*4264]
The Court: Very well, I will strike it out. I will strike out the description of it as a manual and sustain the objection and grant the motion.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 46 for identification and ask whether you recognize that pamphlet? A. Yes, sir, I recognize this pamphlet.
The Court: That is a different one now?
The Witness: No, this is the same one. This is the pamphlet which we used in the study course on State and Revolution in the pro group.
Q. Is this one the one that you yourself used? A. This is the one that I myself used.
(T–2808) Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, it appears to be a duplicate, in all respects, as far as I can see, to an exhibit which is already in evidence, which is Exhibit 32, except for certain pencil marks upon it, which—
The Court: Made by this witness?
Mr. Gordon: Well, I was going to ask him that.
Q. The pencil marks which are on the exhibit, 46 for identification, aside from the clerk’s stamp, do you know who made those? A. Yes, I made these marks in this pamphlet.
Q. Would it assist you in telling us of the classes which you attended at this pro group if you had that exhibit before you? A. It would, sir.
Q. Will you tell us what the discussions were at these meetings of the pro group after you joined it in September, 1947?
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, I think the witness should first be asked to state his own recollection and then, after having had it exhausted, he can refer to the document.
The Court: I was going to instruct him not to read from any of the pencil notations and, also, if he found occasion to refresh his recollection from the book, to indicate in his testimony when he is thus [*4265] refreshing his recollection. Would you think that sufficient?
(T–2809) Mr. Gladstein: Well, that would be, partly, but I think that we, perhaps, should first have the witness state whether he has any recollection and give it.
Mr. Gordon: I wasn’t asking it that way. I will reframe the question.
The Court: I don’t think it is necessary for you to reframe the question. I think it perfectly proper to bring out what his recollection is, but perhaps it is easier to reframe it. You may suit yourself about that, Mr. Gordon.
Q. Well, Mr. Philbrick, tell us your best recollection of what was said at these meetings, who the instructors were, and what passages of the book were referred to at the time. Use the book in connection with the question of the passages that were referred to but not in connection with your recollection of what was said.
Mr. Gladstein: I don’t like to interrupt, your Honor, but it will be impossible for me to keep notes intelligently if this covers that big a subject, I would suggest.
The Court: You might get the thing so complicated we couldn’t understand what he was telling us.
Mr. Gladstein: Very possibly.
(T–2810) Mr. Gladstein: Very possible, but I think it would be better if the witness’s attention were directed to some particular time and place and we had him testify about that occasion and proceed—
The Court: I think I can probably meet the objection and have it all done in a way that will be intelligible.
Now Mr. Philbrick, we don’t want to have those notes of yours come into evidence as though they were recollection when really they are notes. And so I tell you in describing what you recall you may refer to the printed words there in the book in so far as you desire to illustrate what you are telling us. But [*4266] where your recollection does not serve you, I do not want you to look at your pencil notes and testify, but rather to indicate that there is something else that you can’t recall about until you look at the book.
And so for that purpose I would suggest that he be given another copy of this.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, there aren’t any notes in there. There are just marks of the pages and passages.
The Court: Oh, well, then I misunderstood.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Gladstein’s objection is not based on fact.
(T–2811) The Court: I misunderstood. I thought he had penciled memoranda here. But now I see it is simply the fact that he has placed a little line along certain passages, and so you may proceed with your questioning.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I object to anything that is marked. Whether it be by lines or words, they convey something to the witness or they wouldn’t be there.
The Court: I think that is perhaps slicing it a little too thin. You may proceed, Mr. Gordon. I overrule the objection.
Mr. Isserman: I also object to the question on the ground it is a compound question. It refers to a number of meetings and a number of instructors and is not specific.
Mr. Gordon: I will separate it as best I can.
The Court: Yes, let’s get it piecemeal.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Look at Government’s Exhibit 46 for identification and tell me when the marks were put in the book. A. The marks were put in the book during the course of the study at these classes in the professional group.
Q. Now I direct your attention to the period from September 1947 through July 20, 1948. Can you tell us who you recall as being among the instructors or discussion (T–2812) chairmen at these meetings?
[*4267]
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question as based on facts not in evidence.
The Court: Overruled.
(To witness) What are the names of the people who were teaching there in that course?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question as based on facts not in evidence.
The Court: That is the same question.
(To reporter) Read me that question. Maybe I am going crazy.
(Question read.)
The Court: That sounds like the same question to me.
(To witness) Now give us the names.
Mr. Isserman: I press my objection to your Honor’s question.
Mr. Gordon: Maybe, Mr. Isserman, we didn’t ask whether there were any such people. We can ask that first.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Were there such people?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that remark.
The Court: I object to both remarks, so we have an objection all around and we get back now to (T–2813) listening to the names of the people who were doing the teaching there.
The Witness: Well, in the course of the study of “State and Revolution,” almost all of the members of this pro 4 group participated in conducting the classes. In other words, we went about it this way: at one meeting one of the members would be in charge of conducting the discussion of that particular chapter, so many pages. And then at the next meeting another member would be assigned to be the discussion leader, and in addition to having the responsibility to conduct the discussion on that particular evening he or she would have the responsibility of bringing in parallel material from [*4268] other sources—examples, and so forth. Among those—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this on the ground it is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial, and I respectfully submit that if this witness is going just to name people who were in his group then all he is doing is now acting in fingering people, and since that has no relevancy of any kind to the case on trial, I think it ought to be excluded.
The Court: Now Mr. Sacher, do you remember a little direction that I have given, not once, not twice, but a number of times, that when a lawyer either for the prosecution or for the defense wants to object he (T–2814) was to merely say “I object” and not argue unless I requested it?
Mr. Sacher: I apologize. I am sorry. I didn’t intend to violate it.
The Court: That is all right. I thought you didn’t.
Mr. Gordon: I wonder if Mr. Sacher could withdraw the little summation about fingering people.
The Court: Well, it is probably one of those things that it is hard for him to avoid saying. I think we may just pass it over.
Now I will overrule the objection.
Now I have forgotten where we were.
Mr. Gordon: We were about to have the names.
The Court: I guess, instead, we will take a little recess and I will now instruct the jury.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
(Adjourned to April 8, 1949, at 10.30 a.m.)
[*4269]
(T–2815) New York, April 8, 1949;
10.30 o’clock a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
HERBERT A. PHILBRICK, resumed the stand.
* * *
(T–2817) Mr. Crockett: I should like, if the Court, please, to suggest a correction on the record that has been agreed to by Mr. McGohey and counsel for the defense, at page 2441.
The Court: Just a moment until I get that. 2441? Yes?
Mr. Crockett: The 13th line, the first word, which is “jury”, should read “witness”.
The Court: Yes, I have noted that, and I may say—I think I said it before but I will say it now anyway—whenever there are corrections to be made, it is my hope that counsel will do just as they have done now, agree upon the change, and when that is done, it is not necessary to make any statement in open court but simply have the correction made in my copy of the minutes as well as the others.
Very well.
* * *
(T–2818) Direct examination continued by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now will you tell us, Mr. Philbrick, who were the teachers at these class sessions of the pro group in the fall of 1947?
Mr. Sacher: I object.
Mr. Gladstein: An objection was made to this general question yesterday. I would like to call your Honor’s attention to the fact that unless it is claimed that one or another of the defendants was present speaking (T–2819) on this occasion, or unless there is established a good deal more than any pretense of foundation so far, this is prejudicial, immaterial, and simply means that some persons outside this court may suffer some economic or other re– [*4270] prisals. I suggest that your Honor reconsider this objection of mine because the value, if any—and I put the word “value” in quotes—of this testimony that is sought to be elicited, unless there is a claim that one of the defendants was there speaking is highly prejudicial.
The Court: I see no necessity in the case of a conspiracy charge such as this of having the physical presence of each of the defendants on each occasion. It depends on the way in which the proof connects up. And I have already indicated that I shall charge the jury fully on that and I shall adhere to my rulings made yesterday. I overrule the objection.
Mr. Sacher: If the Court please, my recollection is that yesterday at the close of the session the witness testified that such discussion as took place in regard to Exhibit 46 for identification was led by so–called members of the group and that there were no teachers as such. I think that is the testimony, your Honor. And the question now is addressed to teachers.
The Court: Well, I think if there were individuals (T–2820) who were teaching there it is admissible and I so allow him to proceed.
Mr. Sacher: May I call to your Honor’s attention the testimony at page 2813.
The Court: I remember the portion you refer to. I remember that.
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor, I would like to make the further objection that the fall of 1947 is indefinite and permits testimony to come in without specifying the time in order to enable the defendants, if they care to, to meet that in a way provided by law.
The Court: Well, Mr. McCabe, I really am puzzled as to what I should do here. Now I have given repeated instructions that counsel should not argue objections to evidence, and yet no one pays the slightest attention to what I say. You go ahead arguing just the same, each of you, and I suppose the sensible thing for me to do is not to make a rumpus about it but to simply again tell you that it is my [*4271] desire that there be no argument on objections to evidence unless I seek some enlightenment which I will do when I think it necessary.
You may go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
(T–2821) By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Who were the teachers at the classes? A. Well, it was common at many of the Communist clubs—
Mr. Gladstein: I move that be stricken.
The Court: Strike it out.
Who were the teachers?
The Witness: The teachers in this class in State and Revolution, in this professional group, included a girl named Helen—let me see, it was Helen, Jackie, Dick—
Mr. Gladstein: What is the last?
The Witness: Dick—
Henry and Butch among the teachers who took turns in teaching this particular course.
Q. You started to say something about what was common in the clubs up there. Did you have any position which brought you in contact with more than one club? A. Yes, sir. Well, previous to my—
Mr. Gladstein: It has been answered. I move that the witness be admonished not to volunteer, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: I suggest that counsel be admonished.
The Court: Well, I have already indicated to counsel that I did not desire argument and that they should merely state they object. I have reasonable intelligence; I can follow the proof pretty well but I am afraid that it is (T–2822) becoming increasingly difficult. However, I shall consider what further steps I may have to take in the matter.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, I made a motion. I did not argue an objection. I asked your Honor to admonish the witness not to volunteer.
[*4272]
The Court: Well, I will make no admonition.
Read me the answer. Perhaps I should strike it out.
(Answer read.)
The Court: Yes; the answer is “Yes.”
Mr. Gordon: Might I suggest that we have the question read, your Honor?
May I state my position?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Mr. Gordon: I am on direct examination. If I had asked a question which specifically pinpoints the subject which would call for a yes or no answer in the form of a leading question, counsel object. If I ask a question which doesn’t do that, which is to elicit information from the witness and which is perfectly, I submit, relevant and material, then they get up and object. Now I think, as I understand the law, I could say to the witness “Tell your story,” and if he just told his story and told nothing (T–2823) that wasn’t relevant, it would be perfectly proper, and I cannot understand, your Honor, how I can proceed if counsel keeps popping up.
The Court: Well, you see, you get unduly disturbed by the objections. They are confusing, and, however, when counsel desire to object, that is their right, except in the matter of adding argument which I have finally been compelled to rule out except where I desire to have it, so I think you had just better go ahead and ask another question.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: I object to the Court’s statements that the objections made by counsel are quote “confusing” unquote.
The Court: Well, how any sane person can think otherwise is difficult for me to see. The continuity here is naturally disrupted by this continual objecting and without my mentioning it, everybody would understand that; but your objection is noted.
Mr. Sacher: I am constrained, your Honor, to object to this last statement of yours.
The Court: Very well.
[*4273]
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I believe you testified that there was a practice (T–2824) followed in the clubs that you were a member of? A. That is true, sir.
Q. And that included the Malden Club or Branch, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the pro group when you first joined it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now in addition to those two groups or branches were there any others which you visited or attended in connection with your membership in the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir. I attended club meetings which included educational work in Melrose and in Wakefield, Massachusetts.
Q. Of other clubs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you attended those clubs did they or did they not follow this same procedure which you have described?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
Mr. Gladstein: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. They followed the same procedure that I have described.
Q. Of dividing up the meeting into three parts? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now you have given us the names of the instructors or the people who led the discussion at these—at these meetings of the pro group in the fall of 1947, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
(T–2825) Q. And where were these meetings held? A. These meetings were held in the homes and the apartments of the various members of this particular professional group, professional club.
Q. Now I think you said that when you joined them they were discussing “State and Revolution.” A. That is true.
Q. And do you have that exhibit before you, which is Exhibit 46 for identification; is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now what were the pages in that book which were under discussion when you first joined? A. I believe, as I testified yesterday, the class had already begun at the time when I joined this particular group, and on the first [*4274] evening that I attended they were discussing the last part of the first chapter of this book on State and Revolution, and my recollection is that that particular discussion covered a section starting in on pages 17 and 18 of the book and running through to the end of the chapter on page 20.
Q. Now will you please give us your best recollection of the discussion there in that class?
Mr. Gladstein: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Can you remember who was the leader at that particular (T–2826) class? A. No, I cannot remember who was the leader of this particular class.
Q. Was it one of the people that you mentioned? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now tell us your best recollection of this class. A. Well, the discussion centered around the nature of the State and criticism of—of what is called social democracy which built up the possibility of a free people’s State or something of that nature—I can’t remember the exact term—and it emphasized this definition of the State as a special repressive force, and it went through to the end of the discussion in which it was taught to us and explained to us that this particular State, the nature of the State required that the capitalist state be overthrown, and that the State be destroyed and be replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I notice that the witness is testifying from notes, I believe; is that right?
The Witness: No, there are no notes.
The Court: I didn’t notice any such thing. I am closer to him than you are.
Mr. Gordon: The witness, your Honor—
The Court: Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
(T–2827) Mr. Gordon: —has the book in front of him.
Mr. Crockett: I believe he has a book before him.
[*4275]
The Court: He may have a book before him.
Mr. Crockett: Well, I merely want the record to indicate what book he has before him.
The Court: Well, the record will not indicate that he is testifying from any book because he is not.
Now go ahead.
There must be an end to this nonsense.
(T–2828) Mr. Crockett: I object to the Court’s remark.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Were there any passages quoted from the book? A. Yes, sir, there were.
Q. Can you tell us what they were? A. I remember particularly that the passage on page 20 was quoted from the book.
Q. Will you read the passage to the Court and jury? A. The passage that is in the book reads:
“The replacement of the bourgeoisie by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., all states, is only possible through withering away.”
Q. Now, did you go to the next class? A. Yes, I did, sir.
Q. What pages were covered at that time?
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, I think the witness should be asked to put away the book that is before him and testify—
The Court: You may think so, Mr. Gladstein, but he is not going to be directed to put away the book. This is the book in which he placed certain marks on the margin when he was right up there in these classes and he is now relating what occurred there. And if the (T–2829) book is before him, I consider it entirely proper that it should be before him.
Q. What were the next pages which were discussed, do you recall? A. At the next class of the—of this particular course, Chapter II was discussed, which had to do with the [*4276] lessons drawn, I believe, from the Paris Commune, if my recollection is correct.
Q. That chapter is headed “The Experiences of 1848 to 1851”? A. That is right. You are right, sir.
Q. Do you remember the discussion in the class?
Mr. Gladstein: That is objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The discussion, as I recall at this time, I won’t even look at the chapter, therefore—
The Court: Don’t worry. You have a right to look at the book, if you want to.
The Witness: Well, thank you, sir.
A. (Continuing) This particular discussion in Chapter II concentrated around the discussion of the conditions just preceding a revolution, possibility of a revolution, and I recall that a passage was quoted from page 27 in the discussion at this second session of this class.
Q. What was the passage? A. The passage which was quoted reads as follows:
(T–2830) “Such a course of events compels the revolution to concentrate all its forces of destruction against the state power and to regard the problem as one not of perfecting the machinery of the state but of breaking up and annihilating it.”
Q. Do you recall the discussion that centered around that passage? A. The discussion was a refutation of Kautskyism—
Mr. Gladstein: I object to it.
A. (Continuing) —who was defined to us at that time as the Browder of his period, and Kautsky’s particular thesis was that it was possible to take over the existing state machinery and to run it for the purposes of the proletariat, and the distinction was made that this could not be done.
Q. Do you recall whether Chapter III was discussed?
The Court: This is at this second session?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir.
A. Chapter III was not discussed at the second session.
[*4277]
Q. When was Chapter III discussed, if at all? A. Chapter III, as I recall, was divided into at least two or three meetings, and I don’t recall at this time whether it was two or three, but I do recall that the chapter was broken up and parts of it was discussed at each one.
(T–2831) Q. At the next two or three meetings? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Will you tell us what the discussions were?
Mr. Gladstein: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. At the time of this discussion we were taught the lessons of the Paris Commune, which I believe was a revolution which took place in 1871, and we were taught that there were certain aspects of the Paris Commune which were in error, and I don’t remember very much more from that particular class.
Q. Do you remember what took place at the next one? A. Well, after the discussion on this particular chapter, we went on to Chapter IV in the booklet and, as I recall, this particular Chapter IV was discussed only in the section which had to do with the argument—with the anarchists and the differences between the anarchists’ position and the Communists’ position. There was also in this chapter a section on housing but there was no discussion on housing at this class.
Q. What was the discussion about the anarchists? A. The discussion concerning the anarchists—
Mr. Gladstein: I object to that.
A. —was that the Communists—
The Court: Just a minute. Was there an objection?
(T–2832) Mr. Gladstein: Yes.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Go on, the discussion about the anarchists. A. The discussion about the anarchists, in short, very briefly, was that the Communists had no quarrel with the anarchists in so far as their position as to the destruction of the state. [*4278] In other words, we were taught that the Communists agreed with the anarchists in the necessity for destroying the state and for breaking it up and annihilating it. However, we were taught that the difference was—concerned itself with the situation after the revolution, in which the anarchists were described to us as Utopians—they thought a situation of Utopia would exist at that time, whereas the Communists teach that the old state must be replaced by a new state and that the new state is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Q. Were there any additional classes?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
Mr. Gordon: I think Mr. Crockett said “Objection,” your Honor.
The Court: What’s that?
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Crockett said objection to this question.
The Court: Read the question.
(T–2833) Q. (Read.)
The Court: Overruled.
A. The next session in this particular class had to do again with the discussion of the transition from capitalism to Communism, and I would say that it was more or less a repetition of what I have already testified to, that is, that the revolution must take place first, that the old state must be replaced by a new state. And then, in this particular chapter was a discussion of the situation in which the new state—which was described not exactly as a state in the true sense, Marxist sense of the word—this new state would gradually wither away and in time there would exist a condition of Communism.
Q. By the new state— A. A Communist society.
Q. By the new state do you refer to the dictatorship of the proletariat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was what was to wither away? A. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to wither away.
Q. Were there any additional classes on this book? A. There was an additional class which took place in Decem– [*4279] ber of 1947, which took in the last chapter of the book and, again, this particular chapter and the discussion was devoted to an answer to the various critics—various critics of this particular Communist theory, and this included a discussion of what is called (T–2834) right deviation, that is, opportunism, such as Kautsky, and Plekhanov and Browder as against the left deviationists, which would be the anarchists.
The Reporter: “Kautsky and Plekhanov”?
* * *
Q. Do you recall any particular sections of that chapter which were read out? A. Yes, I recall that on page 88 and page 89 that there was specific passages which were read and which were emphasized to put across the point as to the differences between the right deviationists, the left deviationists and the Communists; and at the bottom of page 88 and top of page 89—and at the bottom of page 89 are three passages which were quoted there.
(T–2835) Q. Will you read those for us? A. The bottom of page 88. I will read the whole sentence:
“Bernstein pays particular attention to Marx’s conclusion, emphasized by him in 1872 preface to the Communist Manifesto, to the effect ‘that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready–made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.’
“We have seen what Marx means—that the working class must shatter, break up, blow up the whole state machinery.”
At this time again the aspect of Browderism was brought in and opportunism and a warning against the danger—not to be afraid of excessive zeal in looking forward to the necessity of revolution.
At the bottom of page 89 this passage was quoted:
“Marx and Engels,” it reads, “from 1852 to 1891–for 40 years—taught the proletariat that it must break up the state machinery.”
[*4280]
(T–2836) Q. After the conclusion of these classes was there a class held in the nature of a summary? A. Yes, there was, sir.
Q. And who was the instructor at that time or the leader? A. The leader of the—
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) The leader of the discussion at this particular class was Professor Dirk Struik of the Sam Adams School of Boston,—I believe he is on the board of trustees of the Sam Adams School of Boston—and of the Jefferson School here in New York.
Q. Is he a professor of some university? A. I believe he is professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Q. Do you know how to spell his name? A. His first name is D–i–r–k, and his last name is S–t–r–u–i–c–k.
By the Court:
Q. When was this class held that he spoke before? A. This was in December or the latter part of the year. I don’t remember the exact date, sir that Professor Struick prepared for the class a very broad summary which covered the entire question of the state and the revolution and in his discussion he brought in a (T–2837) very complete discussion of current events, that is, the present world situation. He mentioned almost every country in the world I guess—Greece, Spain, Italy, China and so forth.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Did he say anything about the situation in the Pacific?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to that as leading.
Mr. Gordon: It wasn’t intended to be leading. It was framed so that it wouldn’t be.
The Court: His recollection of what this professor said should be first exhausted.
[*4281]
By the Court:
Q. You told us all that you can remember about that? A. No, sir. As I said, the discussion, which took about two hours to cover, included a discussion of the various states, capitalist states, all over the world, and in particular I do remember that he emphasized and dwelt upon the situation in the Dutch East Indies in the Indonesian Revolt, and he pointed that up as an example of a people’s revolution, of a socialist revolution in which the armed workers, the armed proletariat were carrying out a revolution against the existing imperialist power there and attempting to overthrow it in that particular state.
(T–2838) By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I want to go back a moment to the spelling of his last name. My notes indicate that it is spelled S–t–r–u–i–k. Without any “c” in it. A. I believe that is right, sir.
Mr. Sacher: What was the witness’s answer?
Mr. Gordon: I believe that is right.
Q. Now in 1948 did any of these classes continue in this pro group?
The Court: Where was this meeting at which that professor gave that summary?
The Witness: This meeting was at Cambridge, Massachusetts, sir. I don’t remember the name of the street, the address. I know where the house is.
The Court: You mean a private house?
The Witness: Yes, this was a private house. The name of the member—well, I will wait until I am asked about it.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. Whose house was it? A. To help further identify the house the name of the member whose house it was was named Peg.
Q. Now were there any classes in 1948? A. Yes, sir, there were classes continuing through 1948.
[*4282]
(T–2839) Q. I think you told us that it was early in 1948 that the process of breaking the group up into groups of five was completed. A. That is true, sir.
Q. After that process was completed how many people attended the sessions that you went to? A. At these sessions after the break down of the pro group there weren’t more than five people at any particular session.
Q. Now do you recall any of the meetings of five people that you attended? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when they took place? A. I recall a meeting in February—well, I will say at this time I believe it was in February, of 1948, at the apartment of the member whose name was Martha.
Q. Is that the same Martha that you mentioned before as being a member of the pro council? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was there a class at that time? A. Yes, there was a class at that time.
Q. Do you remember who led the class? A. In this particular instance the one that I recall was the one which Martha led.
Q. And will you tell us your best recollection of what was said?
Mr. Gladstein: The same objection.
(T–2840) The Court: Overruled.
A. I recall at this particular class session a discussion was made of the possibility, feasibility and so forth of turning the—the whole discussion of turning a war into a civil war through the medium of civil disobedience, and I recall that Martha said that we must arm the workers for the struggle against the capitalists.
Q. What country was she talking about? A. She was talking about the United States, sir.
Mr. Gordon: You may examine.
Mr. Gladstein: I have some motions to make, so I suggest you recess at this time or—
The Court: If it is a motion like that one I heard from Mr. Isserman which he took some considerable time to make and took the direct testimony piecemeal and merely renewed the objections that had [*4283] been made during the taking of the testimony I should think it would not be necessary.
Mr. Gladstein: It is not a motion of that kind.
The Court: Very well, the jury may retire.
(The jury and the witness leave the courtroom.)
Mr. Gladstein: Would your Honor be good enough to call a five or ten–minute recess now?
The Court: Well, no—what do you want the (T–2841) recess now for?
Mr. Gladstein: I would prefer it, if your Honor pleases.
The Court: Well, if you indicate some reason. Why didn’t you say that before the jury went out? We would have taken a recess then.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, the jury is in recess anyway.
The Court: Well, what do you want the recess for?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I desire it for my convenience. I want to confer with counsel.
The Court: Very well.
(Short recess.)
(T–2842) (The jury absent from the courtroom.)
(The witness not in the courtroom.)
(Mr. Gladstein enters the courtroom.)
Mr. Gladstein: I apologize for the delay, your Honor.
The Court: That is all right. Well, you may proceed with your motions, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: I beg your pardon, your Honor?
The Court: I say, you may proceed with your motions. That is what you wanted to have the jury out for.
Mr. Gladstein: May I have a moment?
(Examining.)
[*4284]
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I ask permission to defer the making of this motion until after the completion of cross–examination.
The Court: You mean you ask permission on behalf of Mr. Gladstein so that he may make his motion later?
Mr. Crockett: I ask permission on behalf of myself and on behalf of my clients, and I assume based on the Court’s ruling previously made that any such motion made by me would inure to the advantage of all the other defense attorneys and their clients.
The Court: Well, am I to understand that you have a motion, too, in addition to Mr. Gladstein’s motion?
(T–2843) Mr. Crockett: I have a motion that I would like to make but I would not care to make it until the conclusion of cross–examination.
The Court: Well, you may make your motion whenever you choose.
Mr. Crockett: Thank you.
Mr. Gladstein: I think your Honor wants to hear from me. I believe I said that we have a motion to make. I was advising the Court that there was to be a motion made. I didn’t intend to convey that I personally was going to make one. I will join in the motion that Mr. Crockett makes when he does make it and ask leave to have that motion deferred.
The Court: Very well.
Bring the jury back.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, while the jury is being brought in I hand up to the Court a copy of the stipulation concerning Mr. Isserman’s absence which has been signed, apparently, by all of the defendants and by all counsel and by myself (handing to Court). I should think that might be marked and made part of the record.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: I don’t mean part of the transcript.
The Court: I know.
[*4285]
(T–2844) Mr. McGohey: I mean filed and made part of the case.
The Court: That is right. That is all I mean, too.
(The jury enters the courtroom.)
The witness resumes the stand.
Cross examination by Mr. McCabe:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, you were asked on direct examination—
Mr. McCabe: I believe this is at page 2615, Mr. Gordon.
Q. —“By whom at this time are you employed?”
Do you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you told us yet by whom you are employed? A. I believe I stated at the time that I was employed as the assistant advertising director of a chain of motion picture theatres.
Q. Yes. Now will you kindly tell me by whom you are employed? A. The name of the company, sir?
Q. Is there any reason why you shouldn’t give us the name of the company? A. No—
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. —none at all.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–2845) A. (Continuing) The name of the company, sir, is the A.T.C. Theatre Chain in New England. It’s a chain of motion picture theatres, an independent chain.
Q. What does “A.T.C.” stand for? A. “A.T.C.” stands for the American Theatres Corporation.
Q. American Theatres Corporation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I believe you said that you had been employed by them for 15 years? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn’t say that? A. I do not believe so.
Q. You were asked, “What is your occupation?”
Your answer is, “Well, for the past 15 years I have been in the advertising business.” A. That is true.
[*4286]
Q. Do you recall that?
Then you were asked:
“Q. By whom at this time are you employed? A. I am working for a chain of motion picture theatres, a large independent chain in Massachusetts and the New England States.
“Q. As part of the advertising business do you work for them? A. Yes, I am the assistant advertising director of that firm.”
Those were the questions and those were the answers, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been employed by this theatre chain that you have now mentioned by name? A. I have been employed by this theatre chain since January of Nineteen—of this year.
Q. January of 1949? A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom were you employed previously to January 1949? A. Previously to January 1949 I was employed by the M. & P. Theatre chain.
(T–2847) Q. What does M. & P.— A. The M. & P. stand for Mullin & Pinanski, the names of the partners who owned and operated this circuit. The name stands for Martin J. Mullin and Samuel Pinanski, who are partners, or who were partners at that time.
Q. Did that firm go out of business? A. Yes, sir, it did.
Q. Or were they absorbed by the firm for which you now work?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did that firm go out of business, the M. & N.? A. The what?
Q. The M. & P. A. The M. & P. firm was dissolved, sir.
Q. Did your occupation change in January of 1949? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As to the nature of the duties which you were performing? A. I would say that the nature of the duties was approximately the same. I am—I was the assistant adver– [*4287] tising director of the M. & P. Theatre circuit and in this new firm I am again the assistant advertising director.
Q. When you were working for the M. & P. firm where did you carry out the duties of your position? (T–2848) A. At—the address of the business, sir?
Q. Yes. A. 60 Scolley Square, Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. Where do you now carry out the duties of your position with the new firm? A. The present address is 646 Washington Street in Boston.
Q. Are any of the officials of the M. & P. concern connected with your present employers?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. When did you enter the employ of M. & P.? A. I believe it was in 1942, sir.
Q. And you worked for them steadily from 1942 until 1949? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where had you worked previously to 1942? A. Previously to 1942 I worked in Cambridge.
Q. And for whom had you worked previously to 1942? A. I worked for the Holmes Direct Mail Service in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Q. For how long did you work for them? A. I worked with them, as near as I can recall, about two years.
Q. That would be from 1940— A. Approximately 1940.
Q. Approximately 1940 to 1942? A. That is true.
Q. Where had you worked previously to that? A. Previously to that I had worked for the Boston (T–2849) Council of Social Agencies in Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. What was your employment there? A. I was the production manager of the Boston Council of Social Agencies.
Q. What did you produce? A. Advertising material, leaflets, and pamphlets, and direct mail.
Q. When did you enter their employ? A. Well,—
Q. Supose, Mr. Philbrick, we go back to the time you left school and took your first job.
Mr. Gordon: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
[*4288]
Q. Did you go to college? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What college? A. I went to Northeastern University, sir, where I studied an evening course in Civil Engineering.
Q. When did you—
Mr. McCabe: Excuse me. Strike that.
Q. While you were attending the evening courses did you have employment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your employment? A. Well, my first employment, at least in the advertising business, was for the Dickey Raymond Company, mail advertising company, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. You said your first employment in the advertising business. Had you been in some other business before (T–2850) that? A. I wouldn’t say so, sir.
Q. Is there any reason why you wouldn’t say so? A. Well—
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Well, previous—
Mr. Gordon: May I be heard on that, your Honor?
The Court: I think not, Mr. Gordon. I cannot see any necessity for arguments on this.
Go ahead.
A. Well, I am trying to recall all the various jobs I had before I started in on the advertising field. There were many of them. I worked as a plumber’s assistant, I worked as an assistant to an interior decorator—
Q. All that while you were going to school? A. Yes, sir. I worked as a laborer, heavy construction laborer, for the Warren Brothers Road Company on a breakwater job on Hampshire Beach, New Hampshire, and so forth.
Q. That was all up in the New England States? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any financial interest in the organization with which you are now working? A. No, I don’t, sir.
[*4289]
Q. Do you have any other employment now? A. No, sir.
(T–2851) Q. Do your employers know of any association or communication you had with the FBI?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. By the way, is this firm for which you are now working a corporation? A. Yes, sir, it is a corporation.
Q. Was the M. & P. concern a corporation or a partnership?
Mr. Gordon: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was the M. & P. association a member of any national trade association?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was it a member of any state or local trade association?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Are your present employers members of any national or state association?
Mr. Gordon: Same objection.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. Philbrick, you stated—
Mr. McCabe: This is page 2616, Mr. Gordon.
Q. Do you recall being asked this question and giving (T–2852) this answer:
“Q. Will you tell us, tell the jury, tell his Honor and the jury, the circumstances under which you joined the Communist Party?”
[*4290]
And then your answer was:
“Well, some time in the spring of 1940 I became interested in a group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, known as the Cambridge Youth Council, and I helped to organize that group, and I subsequently became the chairman of that organization.”
Do you recall that question and answer? A. Yes, sir.
(T–2853) Q. Now Mr. Philbrick, when and under what circumstances was the Cambridge Youth Association called to your attention? A. The Cambridge Youth Council.
Q. The Cambridge Youth Council? A. Well, as I stated in the testimony yesterday, sir, I helped to organize the Cambridge Youth Council.
Q. I call your attention to the fact that you said you became interested in a group which was known as the Cambridge Youth Council.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I object, and I call your Honor’s attention to page 2616, and I suggest that the question is deliberately unfair.
The Court: Well, he hasn’t finished the question yet, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: I thought he had.
The Court: No, he just read the part. I don’t think he asked the question yet.
Mr. McCabe: No, I was calling his attention to it and I think Mr. Gordon wil see there is nothing unfair about the question.
Mr. Gordon: Well, he has twisted some of the questions.
The Court: Go ahead with the questioning. Don’t start another one of these argument sessions.
(T–2854) Q. Did this group have a name when you became interested in it?
Mr. Gordon: Now I press my objection, your Honor. That is exactly it. The witness said—
The Court: I think the witness can take care of himself, Mr. Gordon. I don’t think there is anything [*4291] about that that there can be any trouble about. I will overrule the objection.
Mr. McCabe: Will you repeat the question, Mr. stenographer?
(Question read.)
A. Did the Cambridge Youth Council specifically have a name when I became interested? Is that the question?
Q. Yes. A. The answer is No.
Q. So that when you said, “I became interested in a group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, known as the Cambridge Youth Council,” you were referring to a name which it subsequently acquired, were you?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. As I recall, yesterday, sir, there were several objections at that time and we were trying to explain the beginnings of the Cambridge Youth Council and the circumstances under which it was organized and so forth. If you want I will give you that complete story now.
(T–2855) Q. Suppose you just answer the questions, Mr. Philbrick. A. What was the question again?
Mr. McCabe: We will have the stenographer repeat it.
The Court: You just wait until he asks another question.
Q. Who was the first one through whom you became interested in the Cambridge Youth Council? A. There were two persons through whom I became interested in the Cambridge Youth Council. One was a girl by the name of Toni who was head of a Harvard—I don’t know just what title she had. There was an organization called the Harvard Students Union or some such name like that, which was in Cambridge, and then there was another individual known as Nat Mills who was head of an organization known as the Massachusetts Youth Council which was, I think, at 7 Water Street in Boston when I first contacted them.
Q. At the time you contacted them this organization had no name? A. I don’t remember the exact details, sir, [*4292] but I do remember that the beginnings of the Cambridge Youth Council involved Toni—I think her name was Toni Cross, and Nat Mills; and it was through them that I became interested in this movement of Youth Councils which apparently was some sort of statewide program.
(T–2856) Q. Well, there is no question that at the time you became interested in it it was not yet known as the Cambridge Youth Council? A. That is true.
Q. What was your employment at the time? A. At that time I worked for the Holmes Direct Mail Service in Cambridge.
Q. Did the Cambridge Youth Council put out any literature? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you turn any of that literature over to the FBI?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall the first time you turned—the date when you first turned over any literature of the Cambridge Youth Council to the FBI? A. I don’t know. I do not, sir.
Q. How long after the Cambridge Youth Council was organized did you first turn over any literature to the FBI? A. Oh, it was a matter of several months, sir.
Q. Have you seen that literature since? A. No, sir.
Q. You have never seen it since? A. No.
Q. How many pieces of literature did you turn over to the FBI? A. I don’t recall that either, sir. There was quite a bit of material we turned out because at that time we were working on a peace program and I think (T–2857) there was a Cambridge Committee for Equal Opportunities program and a National Youth Administration program—is that what it was? The NYA—and a great deal more.
Q. Do you recall the titles of any leaflets which you turned over to the FBI? A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. I believe you testified that about this time you became acquainted with a Mr. Healy of the FBI. Is that correct? A. That is correct.
[*4293]
Q. What is Mr. Healy’s first name? Do you know? A. I believe his first name is Larry or Lawrence.
Q. Had you known him previously to that? A. No, sir.
Q. At the time you met Mr. Healy did you meet any other agents of the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. During the course of your association with the FBI have you met other agents besides Mr. Healy? A. During the course of my association with the FBI I have—of course, up till the present moment—my contact was with—pardon me—was with Mr. Healy, Special Agent Larry Healy, for the first period, and then during the latter period Special Agent Dick Dow.
Q. For how long did your association with Mr. Healy continue that you describe as the first period? A. Well, I don’t remember the exact date, sir, but it seems—
Q. How many years? A. Well, I have been in contact with Special Agent Dick Dow for the last two years.
(T–2858) Q. Dick Dow? A. Dick Dow—D–o–w.
Q. The last two years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is since the beginning of 1947? A. Approximately, sir.
Q. Now when did you join the YCL, the Young Communist League? A. I joined the Young Communist League in the spring of 1942, sir. I believe it was in March but I am not exactly sure.
Q. At the time you joined the Y—the YCL, was the Cambridge Youth Council still in existence? A. I believe it was, sir.
Q. Now I believe you testified that when you joined the YCL you talked to an FBI agent named Healy. A. That is correct, sir.
Q. That’s correct. You talked to him before you joined the YCL? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it at his instruction or suggestion that you joined the YCL? A. Not specifically, sir, no.
Q. Is that the most specific answer that you can give to that question?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Where did you join the YCL? A. I joined the YCL in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[*4294]
Q. Do you recall where you went to join? (T–2859) A. I was recruited at my home, sir.
Q. Did you join at your home? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you sign an application? A. I don’t recall. I didn’t apply for membership in the YCL, sir. I was asked to join it.
Q. You were invited to join the YCL? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now before you were invited into the YCL had you discussed with Healy the question of whether or not you should join it if invited? A. Before I was invited to join?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Before you were invited to join had you ever discussed the YCL with Mr. Healy? A. Not that I can recall, no sir.
Q. But during that period you were turning over to Mr. Healy literature put out by the Cambridge Youth Council? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now how long after you were asked to join the YCL did you talk to Mr. Healy? A. How long after?
Q. Yes. A. Immediately after.
Q. The same day? A. I don’t recall the exact period of time.
Q. What time of the day was it that you were invited to join? A. I don’t recall, sir.
Q. You don’t recall whether it was in the afternoon (T–2860) or evening? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you working at the time? A. No, sir, I was at home at the time.
Q. You were employed?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Read me that question, Mr. Reporter.
Q. (Read.)
Mr. McCabe: Excuse me, Mr. Stenographer, did you say “where you were employed”?
(Question re–read.)
Q. The question is, did you have employment at the time that you were invited to join the YCL? A. Yes, I had.
[*4295]
Q. Where were you working then, if you recall?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that, your Honor. I thought we went all through this before; repetitious.
The Court: Well, it it a little repetitious but I will allow it.
Do you remember where you were employed then?
The Witness: I can’t remember specifically, sir. It was about that time. I am afraid to pin it down because it was about that time that I changed my position and moved from the Holmes Direct Mail Service in Cambridge and took up my position with the M. & P. Theatres, and it was approximately at the same period of time but (T–2861) beyond that I can’t specify which—I was still living in Cambridge.
Q. Did you accept the invitation to join the YCL at the same time that it was extended to you? A. I—no, sir. You mean the first time?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. How much interval elapsed between the first time you were invited to join the YCL and your acceptance of it? A. I would say it was about a week or two weeks.
Q. During that week or two weeks did you consult with Mr. Healy? A. I did, sir.
Q. Was it at Mr. Healy’s instructions or under—or at his advice that you joined the YCL?
(Mr. Gordon stands.)
The Court: Do you object, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir; the same grounds as urged just a moment ago in another objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. By that question am I to understand do you mean was I instructed by Mr. Healy to join the YCL? If that is the question, the answer is “No.”
Q. Were you advised to join the YCL?
Mr. Gordon: Objection; objection to characterization.
[*4296]
The Court: Well, it is cross–examination. I (T–2862) will allow it.
A. No, sir, I was not advised specifically to join the YCL.
Q. Was any discussion had with Mr. Healy at that time regarding continuing the relations which you had previously had with the FBI? A. Could you give that question again, sir?
Mr. McCabe: Will the stenographer repeat it?
Q. (Read.) A. The answer to that is “Yes.”
Q. Did you have one discussion or more than one discussion? A. I had just one discussion on this specific question as to whether to join the YCL.
Q. The question was whether you had—anything was said about continuing the relations which you previously had had with the FBI. A. Could I—I am getting confused now. What is the question again now?
Q. Well, I will put a new question if it is confusing at all. A. All right, sir.
Q. During the discussion that you had with Mr. Healy—A. Yes, sir.
Q. —was anything said by Mr. Healy or by you, one to the other, regarding whether or not you would continue, during your membership in the YCL, the relationship which had existed between you and Mr. Healy with regard to your membership in the Cambridge Youth Council? (T–2863) A. Yes, sir, we did discuss that.
Q. Did you agree to continue those relations? A. I agreed to continue those relations, sir.
Q. Was anything said to you by Mr. Healy regarding the course of activities which you should pursue in the YCL? A. No, sir.
Q. After joining the YCL did you attend a meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall when the first meeting was? A. It so happened that—as I recall, the first meeting was at my home in Cambridge.
Q. How many persons were present at that meeting? A. I would say there were about a dozen or fourteen persons present at that meeting.
Q. Who suggested having the meeting at your home? A. The name of the person, sir?
[*4297]
Q. Yes. A. It was either Arthur or Sidney Solomon of Cambridge—brothers.
Q. How soon after that meeting did you make a report to Mr. Healy? A. I don’t recall exactly, sir.
Q. Well, you recall that you reported immediately to him when you were invited to join the YCL; that is correct, isn’t it? A. That is correct.
Q. Was it a month later that you reported to him? A. No, I would say it was at the next opportunity I had (T–2864) to so report the activities of it.
Q. The next opportunity you had? A. Yes, sir, which would probably be in a matter of two or three days or perhaps a week’s time.
Q. Is there any recollection which you have which makes you say that it probably was in the next two or three days or within a week’s time? A. Because that has been—that has been the procedure, sir.
Q. That has been the procedure of your reports to the FBI? A. My reports to the FBI, sir, go in as quickly as possible.
Q. These written reports? A. Some of them.
Q. And the reports which aren’t written, how are they made? A. The reports are made—were made during the course of time by three different ways.
Q. Name them. A. First was the—was by typed—typewritten reports; second was by dictated reports, and third was by personal reports.
Q. Typewritten reports you made yourself? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you deliver them to the FBI or to—or did you mail them? A. Well, for the most part these were mailed, sir.
Q. And those which weren’t mailed? A. Those which were not mailed, which were very seldom, were delivered, sir.
Q. By whom? A. By myself.
(T–2865) Q. Where? A. Well, no specific place, sir.
Q. You just went out and delivered them some place?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
That is Mr. McCabe’s way of asking you what you did.
[*4298]
The Witness: Well, in other words, he wants me to tell him the whole system of how I reported to the FBI.
The Court: No. He is concentrating now on the written reports that you did not mail but that you delivered in some other way, and he wants to know just how you delivered them, so far as you remember.
The Witness: Well, from time to time there would be a personal contact with Special Agent Healy.
Mr. McCabe: I missed that.
* * *
Q. Now do you mind giving that answer again? A. Well, as I repeated before, sir, from time to time I met with Special Agent Healy.
(T–2866) Q. Where did you meet with him?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Well, as I answered before, I never met him at any particular spot or place. It was usually arranged ahead of time as to where I would meet him.
Q. You would meet him on a street corner, in a store? A. I am trying to recall all the different places. I would say, for the most part—I don’t recall having met him on a street corner or in a store—
Mr. Gordon: That is an answer to the question.
The Court: All right. You want to pursue—
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor is accepting Mr. Gordon’s—
The Court: I said, you want to pursue the thing further and find out exactly where he met him?
Mr. McCabe: Yes, indeed I do.
The Court: Go ahead and do it.
Mr. McCabe: I didn’t know whether your Honor had accepted Mr. Gordon’s statement that that is an answer.
The Court: I heard what he said. It seems to me that if you want to pursue the subject further, [*4299] I am going to let you do it. You want to know exactly where he met him?
Mr. McCabe: That is correct, your Honor.
(T–2867) Mr. Gordon: Well, I haven’t heard any question. The question which he asked was, “Did you meet him on a street corner or in a store?” And the witness said “No.”
The Court: I know, and now perhaps with my assistance, it is focused down to where he did meet him.
Mr. McCabe: Yes.
Q. Mr. Philbrick, can you tell me one place, one specific location, where you ever delivered personally to Mr. Healy a typewritten report which you had prepared? A. Thank you for making it easy. Yes, I can recall one spot, the corner of Memorial Drive and—the name of the street—by the Electric Light Building in Cambridge, Memorial Drive and—near the main artery that goes from Central Memorial, Cambridge, across—past the Harvard Stadium—Harvard Football Stadium.
Q. You just recalled that now? A. What?
Q. You just recalled that spot now?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. You asked me to name one spot. That is one particular spot where I was picked up one day by Special Agent Healy.
Q. By appointment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How had the appointment been made? A. The appointment was made by telephone, sir.
Q. Where, at your home or place of business? A. I would say it was from a pay station, sir.
(T–2868) Q. You called him? A. This particular instance, let’s see, now. Now you are getting to—
Q. Let us see. Would he call you at a pay station? A. That is what I am getting to. I don’t recall, on this specific meeting place, I don’t recall a date. I don’t remember. I remember that one particular occasion where I can name a specific place, and this is one place at which, one day, I met with Special Agent Healy. I don’t recall if he called me or if I called him. If he called me, he called me at the office. If I called him, it was from a pay station.
[*4300]
Q. You don’t recall which it was on this day which now stands out in your recollection? A. No, sir, I don’t, sir.
Q. Do you recall when this occurrence took place? A. No, sir.
Q. That now stands out in your recollection?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that “now.”
The Court: Yes. He said distinctly that you had helped him and his recollection was refreshed and he suddenly remembered it. No use trying to make out as though he remembered it all the time because he just said that he recalled it on the witness stand here.
Mr. Gordon: It was the first time he had asked the question, your Honor, for this specific place.
(T–2869) The Court: That’s all right. Your objection is sustained, Mr. Gordon.
Q. Can you tell us the year when this occurrence took place? A. No.
Q. You don’t know whether it was 1940, or 1941, or 1942, or 1943 or 1944?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. The only thing I can recall of this particular time was it was in the spring, warm weather, and that is about all.
Q. This is about the ninth spring since you have been reporting to the FBI, Mr. Philbrick? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it this spring? A. Eh? Oh, no, this was during the—now, wait a minute. Let us go back. Are we still in Cambridge, referring to this period?
The Court: I thought you were talking about the YCL.
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. McCabe: Yes, the inquiry started when he was a member of the YCL.
The Witness: Well, the YCL does not cover a period of nine years, sir.
Q. My question, Mr. Philbrick—
[*4301]
(T–2870) Mr McCabe: And your Honor will recall it.
Q. —regarding the reports you made to the FBI was not directed specifically to the YCL period because when you said that you could not recall specific instances, I pressed you for one specific instance. A. Oh, I see. Well, I can pin it down therefore—
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. I object to that summary by Mr. McCabe as not being a true reflection of what took place.
The Court: I don’t think it matters much. It seemed to me, as I listened, that he was talking and the witness was talking about this period of the YCL, but Mr. McCabe says now he is talking about the whole period of nine years, and we will let him clarify it.
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor, I was giving him a greater range of recollection, that was all.
(T–2871) The Court: Well, you see, it isn’t the question of a greater range. When you ask a man a question he is supposed to answer that question. It isn’t a question of who has the range or not. Now you have inquired about this one time when he got this record. Go ahead and ask him anything you want about it.
Q. What did this report concern? A. I don’t recall, sir.
Q. You had typed the report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can’t tell us one paragragh that was in the report? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall whether the first report you made after joining the YCL was a typewritten report or an oral report? A. The first report was a typewritten report.
Q. Typed by you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When? How long after the meeting, let us say? A. Well, I would say sometime within the week after the meeting.
Q. Typed at home or at your place of business? A. Typed at my home.
Q. You remember that, do you? A. Yes, sir.
[*4302]
Q. You have a distinct recollection of typing that report at home? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you do with that report? A. That report was mailed in, sir.
(T–2872) Q. By registered mail or just put in ordinary mail? A. By ordinary mail, sir. By ordinary mail.
Q. Now do you recall when the next report was made following that one? A. No, I do not.
Q. How often did the YCL meet? A. Every other week.
Q. Did you make a report following every meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make reports between meetings, that is—
Mr. McCabe: I will withdraw that question.
Q. In addition to the report which you had made following every meeting, did you have occasion between meetings to make reports to the FBI? A. Not unless there was some special activity which came up outside of these meetings.
Q. If some special activity came up you would report immediately? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now then, in view of the fact that the YCL met every two weeks, does that suggest to you that you made reports at least every two weeks barring, of course, times when there was no meeting? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now let’s see. How many reports in all would you say—strike that.
Q. Are you able to tell me how many reports in all you made to the FBI during your association with them and while you were a member of the YCL?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
(T–2873) The Court: Overruled.
A. I wouldn’t be able to say accurately, sir, no.
Q. How many years were you in the YCL? A. For two years, sir.
Q. And the part—that is, if you met every two weeks you would have had approximately 52 meetings in the two years, would you not?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4303]
Q. Do you recall any periods during the two years you were a member of YCL during which you did not have meetings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What periods were they if you recall? A. I think they were largely during the summer months, sir, during periods of vacation when many of the members were away on vacation, and so forth, and my recollection is that at such times the meetings were skipped for the time being, that is, regular meetings.
Q. During approximately nine months of the year, nine and a half months, you had meeting every two weeks? A. Generally speaking, sir. Sometimes more often than every two weeks.
Q. That covered the period during the war, the 1942–1944 period? A. That is right.
Q. Did you engage at that time in any of the war (T–2874) effort drives, such as bond drives?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you report to Mr. Healy any activities of the YCL in furtherance of bond drives?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I don’t think I understand that question, Mr. McCabe. How could he be reporting to the FBI about bond drives, unless it is your way of getting back around to the question I just excluded? I don’t think it is material here whether he had to do with bond drives or not, but as to his reports to Mr. Healy I think they are material. Now is there some point about the connection between that and the bond drives?
Mr. McCabe: When your Honor sustained Mr. Gordon’s objection to my question, it was called to my attention that I had asked the question in a manner which might indicate that I was inquiring whether Mr. Philbrick personally engaged in any bond drives, and I was reframing the question to include the organization, of which he says he was a member, the YCL. May I reframe it? I think that will clear it up.
The Court: I will allow you to ask the question.
[*4304]
Q. Did the YCL during the period when you were a member of it, engage in war bond drives?
(T–2875) Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, didn’t they constantly engage in pressing the sale of war bonds?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did the YCL engage in any other activities in support of the war efforts of the United States during the period when you were a member—any other in addition to or except war bond sales?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Yes, as I recall the period just prior to my joining the Party—
Q. And when you say that, you mean the Communist Party? A. The Communist Party. This was just prior.
Q. Suppose you fix the date now so the jury will have it in their mind. A. I have to fix the date of my early experience with the YCL. My first experience was that we keep out of the war. I don’t want to get confused—I don’t confuse that period with this next period.
Q. Just a moment. You say your first experience with the YCL in 1942 was that the United States keep out of the war?
(T–2876) Mr. Gordon: He didn’t say that.
The Court: He certainly did not.
Mr. Gordon: And Mr. Sacher’s saying “Go after him on it” doesn’t help.
Mr. Sacher: I didn’t say that and I suggest that Mr. Gordon’s remark be stricken from the record.
The Court: I heard that phrase “Go after it” on some previous occasions that I had occasion to mention.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: I don’t know whether it happened now or not but I think we better just disregard the incident and forget it.
[*4305]
Mr. McCabe: Beyond any suggestion from Mr. Sacher in that respect—
The Court: He said he didn’t say it.
Mr. McCabe: May I have the stenographer read that answer which Mr. Philbrick gave which referred to a policy of keeping out of the war?
The Court: Yes, the witness’s answer may be read.
Mr. Gordon: How about the question?
The Court: Yes, the question and answer.
Mr. McCabe: Yes, of course, the question and the answer.
(Record read.)
(T–2877) By Mr. McCabe:
Q. You joined the YCL in 1942, is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. I think I asked you to fix the date of your joining the Party. Am I correct in saying it was 1944? That means the Communist Party. A. I joined the Communist Party in 1944, sir, yes, sir, in the spring.
Q. Now to get back a moment to these reports, you mentioned a second kind of report which you made to Mr. Healy as a dictated report, I believe. A. That is true, sir.
Q. What is a “dictated” report? A. It is a report made on a dictating machine.
Q. Did you have a dictating machine? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your home? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would make a report to the dictating machine? A. That is true, sir.
Q. And what would you do with the record? A. And I would place the record in a special carton and this would be mailed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q. Have any of those records ever been played back to you? A. No, sir.
Q. Never heard from them since? A. No, sir.
Q. During the preparation of this case you have never had any recourse to those records? A. I have never had (T–2878) any recourse to those records, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen any report that you made? A. Yes, I have seen—I have seen a few of these reports, sir.
[*4306]
Q. When is the last time you saw one of those reports? A. This morning, sir.
Q. Since you have been on the witness stand you have been shown a report which you made?
Mr. Gordon: I didn’t get that, your Honor. I am sorry.
The Court: The question is—I think the meaning is, since he started to testify yesterday and while his testimony is still pending he looked at a report. That is the question.
Mr. Gordon: I thought it was while he was on the witness stand.
The Court: No, it didn’t mean while he was on the witness stand. He meant that he looked at it somewhere else in the building or elsewhere.
(To witness) You did look at one while your testimony was pending?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. When did you see that report? A. This is the report this morning?
Q. This is the report that you saw this morning. (T–2879) A. Well, I don’t know whether it was—
Q. In whose office did you see it?
The Court: Give him a chance to answer. Let’s not get back into this twitchy business.
Mr. McCabe: I am not twitchy; maybe the witness is.
Mr. Gordon: There, your Honor, he said maybe the witness is twitchy. He shouts at him and doesn’t let him answer a question—
The Court: Did you say that, Mr. McCabe?
Mr. McCabe: I did.
The Court: That will be stricken out. Please don’t do that again. It is just the kind of thing I want to keep out of here. I have tried my level best to keep this courtroom dignified and the proceedings calm so we can do our jobs, the jury and the lawyers and the witness and myself. That is the sort of thing that always touches off trouble. Please don’t do it again.
[*4307]
Now let’s get back. You asked him about this report. The question is where was it that he saw it. That means a room in some building.
(To the witness) Where was it that you saw the report?
The Witness: This morning in the office of Mr. Gordon.
(T–2880) Q. Did Mr. Gordon show you the report? A. No, sir.
Q. Who showed you the report.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. I don’t recall exactly, sir. I will tell you the circumstances if you want to hear about it.
Q. Did anyone in this room show you the report?
Mr. Gordon: There is no proof that anybody showed him a report. He said he looked at a report.
The Court: Well, I think it is fair to assume that somebody had it there.
(To witness) Now do you see anybody in the courtroom that had possession of that report this morning just before you looked at it?
The Witness: No, sir.
Q. Have you looked all around the courtroom?
The Court: Well, there are a lot of people here.
(To witness) Was it an FBI man that showed it to you?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the FBI man?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I don’t know, sir.
Q. Did you ever see him before? A. Yes.
(T–2881) Did he identify himself to you as an FBI man? A. No.
[*4308]
Q. Did he ever identify himself to you as an FBI man? A. No.
Q. How did you know he was an FBI man? A. I believe I assumed so, sir.
Q. When was the first time you saw this man who you assumed to be an FBI man?
Mr. Gordon: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Well, I don’t recall which gentleman it was, sir, that responded to my request this morning.
Q. You made a request? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of whom?
The Witness (To Court): Well, may I give him the story? May I tell him?
The Court: He doesn’t want the story; he just wants the answer to a specific question. Now who was the man that you spoke to when you asked to see that report?
The Witness: Well, as I say, sir, I do not know the name of the man.
Q. This is a man you had seen before? A. This is one of the men who is affiliated with Mr. Gordon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this building.
Q. Is this the man whom you say you had seen before (T–2882) and whom you assumed to be an FBI man? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say that he never showed you an identification card bearing his name or photograph or both? A. No.
Q. What was the date of the report which you saw this morning?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. The date of the report that I saw this morning was January 1946.
Mr. McCabe: Do you have the report here, Mr. Gordon? I call for the production of the report.
Mr. Gordon: Before I respond to that I would like to hand your Honor a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
[*4309]
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: The case is Goldman vs. United States. It is in 316 U.S., beginning at page 129, and the particular portion that I have reference to begins in the middle of page 132 where I have put the piece of paper.
The Court: I take it you object to the production of the document?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, and I might say that the Goldman case started in this court and went through our circuit to the Supreme Court.
(T–2882–A) Mr. Sacher: Is that 316 U.S.?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
I object to a fishing expedition through our files.
(T–2883) Mr. McCabe: Of course, I move that Mr. Gordon’s characterization of my question, and demand that the “fishing expedition” be stricken out, and the jury instructed to disregard it.
The Court: He was making a legal argument in response to my request. But let’s hear everybody on it. We might just as well take our time. You go ahead and explain—I want to see that later—you have your turn first, Mr. McCabe, and then I will hear from Mr. Sacher and Mr. Gladstein.
What have you to say?
Mr. McCabe: I did not know that anyone expressed a desire to be heard, your Honor.
The Court: I saw them getting up. I assumed that. Now they have resumed their seats again.
Have you anything to say in this connection?
Mr. McCabe: I would say this, your Honor, and I don’t want to comment on the incident of a witness’s being interviewed while he is—or during the course of his testimony on direct examination.
Mr. Gordon: I suggest if he doesn’t want to comment on it, he leave it out.
The Court: I think you have commented on it, Mr. McCabe.
Mr. McCabe: Let us see—
(T–2884) The Court: It is, in your judgment, improper for a witness to refresh his recollection between sessions of court on matters that he thinks he may be questioned about?
[*4310]
Mr. McCabe: I think if he has to refresh—
The Court: If you think so, you may say so.
Mr. McCabe: Well, your Honor, I believe—
The Court: I don’t. I think it perfectly proper. That disposes of that. What is the next point?
Mr. McCabe: Where a witness has refreshed his recollection, your Honor, I think that I am entitled to see the document from which he has refreshed his recollection to test not only his recollection but his credibility.
The Court: Well, there is nothing before me to indicate that he has given any testimony whatever relative to the matter on which he desired to see that paper, and I will hear the argument, however, of Mr. Sacher and Mr. Gladstein, and then I will read this book. I cannot read the book and listen to people at the same time.
Yes, Mr. Sacher?
Mr. Sacher: I was not going to make an argument, your Honor. I was going to ask you for permission to state a ground in support of overruling the objection.
The Court: You may do that.
(T–2885) Mr. Sacher: The ground on which I would urge your Honor to overrule the objection is that here is a witness who is an admitted spy for the FBI—
The Court: Now!
Mr. Sacher: I mean, he has been doing that.
The Court: I think you could have—
Mr. Sacher: Is that an improper characterization?
The Court: —perhaps—
Mr. Sacher: Is that an improper characterization?
The Court: Well, it seemed to me that it was a characterization, that perhaps, could have been avoided. But, however, you like to do those things.
Mr. Sacher: No.
The Court: So you may—
Mr. Sacher: I don’t know how else he is to be characterized. But be that as it may—
[*4311]
The Court: As I remember it, one of the other witnesses was called a Judas, and a renegade, and a liar, and all that bandying about that went on. I suppose it is all right. You may think it helps you.
Mr. Sacher: No. I wish to object to your—
The Court: All right.
Mr. Sacher: —to object to your Honor’s statement. I am referring to statements made by this witness.
(T–2886) The Court: Go ahead, I won’t strike it out.
Mr. Sacher: The point I wish to make is: this man has been in the service of the FBI for nine years, he has been brought here to testify concerning what transpired, and it seems to me that the best evidence at the moment as to what he really reported to the FBI, and presumably did so in an effort to report accurately, would be to see what the report is. I don’t see that he was even truthful in regard to them, but the point is that if we desire to see his reports, I can see—
The Court: Now it is “reports”? You add an “s” now, do you?
Mr. Sacher: If I—
The Court: You mustn’t say it so you think I don’t notice it.
Mr. Sacher: Won’t you forgive me for an occasional slip?
The Court: Was it a slip?
Mr. Sacher: Do you charge—
The Court: All right.
Mr. Sacher: —I was deliberate about it?
The Court: But you are still talking about one report?
Mr. Sacher: Precisely. I am talking about this report. It is the one which he said he made—
(T–2887) The Court: Very well.
Mr. Sacher: —in January 1946, and I think that in view of the fact that all sorts of writings, which none of the defendants has ever made have been introduced in evidence here, in view of the fact that [*4312] this witness has been permitted to testify about conversations and writings of people other than the defendants, why it is improper to ask that a paper which he himself wrote should be produced in court?
The Court: There is nothing improper in asking for it. The question is whether you are going to get it.
Mr. Sacher: I am not the son of a prophet, your Honor. All I am suggesting is why I think your Honor ought to permit us to get it, but I think that in all of the circumstances—
The Court: Is there something else you want to say?
Mr. Sacher: Well, your Honor indicates you have no desire—
The Court: No, no, I have indicated on the contrary.
Mr. Sacher: I think I have stated the ground in support of the request.
The Court: And I will hear you, but I don’t (T–2888) want you to repeat unless it is necessary.
Go ahead, Mr. Gladstein. What have you to say?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, your Honor, I think what I have to say—I am sorry I don’t have some law to support the statement with me that there is such law, but I came here unprepared to have this discussion this morning.
The Court: Well, every question of evidence, you know, we cannot always take a couple of days off while everybody looks up the law.
Mr. Gladstein: This is not a question of evidence, and I think it ought to be put in proper perspective.
Your Honor, the thing that made me rise was Mr. Gordon’s suggestion that the request for the January 1946 report was a fishing expedition. I urge your Honor to consider this: The nature of the testimony here given is such that it deals with assertions of what was said by various people years gone by. Your Honor will bear in mind the [*4313] difficulty of the human mind to recall exactly what was said many years ago, quite apart from the ability of one to remember or to recount. We are, nevertheless, being given that kind of testimony. Now, it seems that concurrent with these observations the witness has been making written reports.
The Witness: That is not true, sir.
The Court: Now!
(T–2889) Mr. Gladstein: What did the witness say?
The Court: You see, he felt inclined to say that some of the things you said weren’t so, and I indicated to him—
Mr. Gladstein: I didn’t hear him.
The Court: —not to inject anything without being asked a question, but, of course, that does happen here. People do say things that aren’t so.
Mr. Gladstein: I have just had several interjections here.
Now, as I remember, the witness said this morning that very shortly after each meeting that he reported on he would prepare a report and send it in. When I use the word concurrently, I mean within the immediate vicinity in terms of time. So that, in other words, he is here testifying about events which he says took place years ago, and he has already said he wrote reports about them.
This is the point that I make—
The Court: Ah, that is what I want to hear.
Mr. Gladstein: I would think that the Government of the United States is not interested, should not be interested in following a policy of refusing to open the reports and make them public for whatever they contain, that this man wrote, and that—
The Court: Well?
(T–2890) Mr. Gladstein: —and that a policy of refusing to disclose can only be prompted, under these circumstances, by a feeling of fear at disclosing whatever those reports may be.
The Court: You see, it is the old story. Instead of arguing law you make a speech.
Mr. Gladstein: It is not a speech. It is a legal point.
[*4314]
The Court: It sounded like it to me.
Mr. Gladstein: I am making a statement of law there.
The Court: Answer me this, Mr. Gladstein—
Mr. Gladstein: Yes?
The Court: —there being no proof that this particular had any bearing on anything that the witness has testified to—
Mr. Gladstein: Perhaps.
The Court: —how can that fail to be a mere fishing expedition, as charged by Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, perhaps—
The Court: Just answer that. Keep your mind on that.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, he did testify concerning this period of January 1946.
The Court: Well, he hasn’t testified, nor have (T–2891) I heard any testimony, to the effect that his looking at that paper this morning had anything to do with questions that were actually put to him.
Mr. Gladstein: Then I cannot imagine what they were showing him a report for, if it wasn’t—
The Court: Because he asked for it, and he had a right to ask for it.
Mr. Gladstein: I beg your pardon?
The Court: Because he asked to see it and he had a right to ask to see it because he thought they might ask him this or that question.
Mr. Gladstein: I am not—
The Court: Let us be done with it.
Mr. Gladstein: —disputing his right to see it. I am raising the question of the right of the jury to see it.
The Court: Let me look at this case. Let me look at that report myself.
Mr. Gordon: It isn’t here, your Honor.
The Court: Oh!
Mr. Gordon: I might say that it has nothing to do with any evidence that the witness has given.
The Court: That is what I will look at myself.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that. Mr. Gordon is, if he is referring to the report of January 1946 by saying it has nothing to do with the evidence that [*4315] (T–2892) the witness has given, then I say he is making a testimonial statement which is improper.
The Court: Well, you see, you object. Then, when I say, as I did say, and as I now repeat, that I am going to look at it myself, then you may say that, even when I say it doesn’t have anything to do with it, you want to look at it. And if that happens, you won’t look at it.
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, I object to your statement and the manner in which you are speaking to counsel here this morning on the ground it is prejudicial and does not reflect the kind of reciprocal treatment of respect that we are extending to your Honor.
The Court: I recall making no statement that justifies any such remark.
Mr. Sacher: I respectfully request your Honor to instruct the jury to disregard Mr. Gordon’s statement as to whether or not this report of January 1946 contains anything or nothing in reference to the subject matter of the witness’s testimony.
The Court: I will give no instructions about it. I will look at it myself, and if I see that it has nothing to do with any testimony that the witness has given, that is going to be an end to the matter.
It is my ruling that the defense counsel have (T–2893) no right to look through the Government’s files and the FBI files and seek out what they may find later to be to their advantage. It would be a queer state of affairs to have, in a criminal prosecution, the Government suddenly put on trial, and that is not going to happen here.
Mr. Gladstein: That is not the point, and I object to your Honor’s conversion of the argument in a manner which conveys to the jury exactly the opposite of that which is involved.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor has, in effect, said something which is clearly off the point. If, however, your Honor wishes—
[*4316]
The Court: I do wander sometimes. I can’t help it. I didn’t think I did now. What did I do that was wrong this time?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, certainly, here in saying that it was improper for the defense to place the prosecution on trial.
The Court: I say, if they did that, that it would be putting the Government on trial, and I won’t have it, and I am not going to have it.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, surely, I think, the question of these reports is properly on trial, and I think the request is appropriate, and it can only (T–2894) be, if your Honor determines that some sort of official policy of concealment must be followed, that we would not be entitled to have access to such records.
The Court: That is what I call attacking the Government and this is a case where the defendants are on trial and not the Government.
Mr. Gladstein: I don’t—
The Court: So, please avoid these references to policies of concealment and other things, that the Government doesn’t do this and the FBI don’t do that. They aren’t on trial here. It is these defendants who are on trial.
Mr. Gladstein: But I object to your Honor’s saying that my request for a report constitutes an attack against the Government.
The Court: It wasn’t your request for the report. It was the argument that you have been making. So please let us drop it and get back to the testimony.
Mr. Gladstein: I want to assign your Honor’s remarks in that respect, in characterizing what I said, as misconduct, and I ask your Honor to charge the jury—
The Court: You claim that practically everything I did here was misconduct.
Mr. Gladstein: —ask your Honor to charge the jury to disregard your Honor’s remarks concerning (T–2895) the nature and characterization [*4317] which you gave of my request in connection with the whole question of the policy of concealing or revealing reports which the witness looked at.
The Court: I will only say this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: you will remember when you were being interrogated before you were selected as jurors and I told you then, “Don’t pay any attention to legal arguments and what lawyers say and discussions between the Court and the lawyers on matters of law.”
They are none of your concern. So just, when they go on, why, think of something else and concentrate on the testimony that comes from the witness stand and the exhibits. As I have told you so often, those constitute the proofs on which you are to decide this case. No amount of discussion—what I may say or what the lawyers may say—has any bearing. Those comments and discussions are not proof at all, and I will instruct you later when you come to retire, if you do come to retire for a verdict, more fully on that.
Mr. Gladstein: I object to your Honor’s last remarks. I asked the Court to instruct the jury to disregard the Court’s remarks, instead of which the (T–2896) Court suggested to the jury that they disregard the remarks of counsel.
The Court: Well, I said both the remarks of counsel and the Court, but maybe you didn’t hear that.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, the emphasis in any case was certainly the reverse.
The Court: That is a little more of that head scratching business. Might just as well leave that out, so–called inflection of the voice, and scratching my head, and doing this and that. You had better leave that out.
Now let us get ahead, Mr. McCabe.
(T–2897) Mr. McCabe: I did not mind that rest, your Honor. Over in Philadelphia they make us or they have us examine sitting down, and if we get to our feet we are bounced back right away, and I was beginning to get a little tired.
[*4318]
The Court: Well, it may be fun for some people but it is no pleasure to me.
By Mr. McCabe:
Q. By the way, you mentioned dictated reports, reports dictated to a recording machine. Is that your machine?
Mr. Gordon: Objection; repetitious.
The Court: Overruled. Maybe it is one that the FBI gave him; let us see.
A. No.
Mr. Crockett: I should like the record to record my objection to the last remark made by your Honor.
The Court: When I said maybe it is one that the FBI gave him?
Mr. Crockett: Precisely. The Court is not testifying. The question was intended to elicit testimony from the witness.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it as irrelevant.
The Court: Well, everybody objects and I object, too, and the jury will disregard the Court’s (T–2898) remark, to the effect that maybe he got it from the FBI. Just disregard that entirely.
Now where does he say he got it from?
The Witness: I rented a dictating machine for a period of time.
Q. You rented it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the period of time that you rented it? A. I can’t place a specific date except to say it was during a period of time when I was the treasurer of—the state treasurer of the American Youth for Democracy in Massachusetts.
Q. Do you have the recording machine now? A. No, sir.
Q. How many reports in all did you make to the FBI through use of the recording machine?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. That’s impossible to say, sir.
[*4319]
Q. Well, for how long a period did you have a recording machine?
Mr. Gordon: Just asked and answered; objection.
The Court: Well, I will allow it.
A. As I recall—it was a period of, say, from six to eight months.
(T–2899) Q. Does that coincide with your activities in, I believe you said, the AYD? A. No, I was the State treasurer of AYD for two years.
Q. At whose suggestion did you get the recording machine? A. Nobody’s suggestion, sir.
Q. Was it for the purpose of making these reports to the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Well, he said “No, sir,” didn’t he?
Mr. Sacher: He said “Yes.”
A. Well, nobody suggested it.
Mr. McCabe: The second question—
Mr. Gordon: I objected to the second question.
The Court: I thought before I had a chance to rule on it he had said “No, sir.” Let us have it read back and we will see.
(Record read.)
The Court: Did you say “Yes, sir,” that you got that for the purpose of making these reports?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Who paid the rental for the machine?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
(T–2900) A. Well, I am wondering whether to answer just that question or answer the whole question, that all expenses were paid for by the FBI.
[*4320]
Q. All your expenses were paid for by the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That includes your dues? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Literature you purchased? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were a volunteer worker, of course? A. That’s right.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Mr. McGohey: Keep your voice up, please, Mr. Philbrick.
The Witness: Thank you.
Mr. Gordon: I didn’t hear the answer.
(Answer read.)
The Court: He says he was a volunteer worker.
Q. You received no remuneration outside of your actual expenses? A. No, sir.
Q. How were your expenses paid, or how were you reimbursed for expenses, let me put it. A. You mean in what form, by check or by cash?
Q. Well, yes. A. By cash.
Q. Who gave you the cash? A. The special agent with whom I was in contact at the time.
Q. Did you have to render a voucher? Did you render (T–2901) an account of your expenses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you furnish the FBI with receipts for your expenditures?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. You don’t get the receipts.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will sustain that. You will get down to what papers were handed him and all that. I can’t see what importance that is.
Q. Now you mentioned a third form of report? A. Yes.
Q. Did you not? A. Yes, sir.
[*4321]
Q. What was the third form? A. A third form was by personal contact.
Q. When did you make your first report by personal contact? A. My first report by personal contact was when I first met Special Agent Healy—
Q. How many— A. —if you can call that a report.
Q. Were these oral reports reduced to writing? Is the question clear, Mr. Philbrick? A. No.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it; it is not clear to me, your Honor.
Mr. McCabe: All right, we will rephrase it.
(T–2902) Q. By these personal reports do you mean oral reports? A. Oral reports, sir.
Q. And where were they made? A. At various places.
Q. At the office of the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever make a report at the office of the FBI? A. I believe the only time I was in the office of the FBI was at—in the instance of the first contact with special agent Healy. I don’t recall at the moment if I dropped back there on one occasion later or not.
Q. Can you give us any estimate as to the proportion of your reports which were oral? A. Most all the reports were in typewritten fashion.
Q. The big majority you say were typewritten? A. Almost all of them typewritten.
Q. Did you keep copies of those reports? A. No, sir.
Q. In addition to the report which you consulted this morning, have you seen other reports since this trial started? A. Did you say reports that I saw this morning?
Q. Oh, no, no. I was very careful, Mr. Philbrick. A. I thought I heard an “s” on it.
Q. My teeth slip a little once in a while there. The dentures aren’t too good. A. The answer to that is “No, sir.”
Q. Is the report which you saw this morning the only report which you have ever seen after it was turned over to (T–2903) the FBI? A. Well, I have seen the various material turned in here as exhibits, sir.
Q. I don’t mean during the trial.
[*4322]
The Court: No, no. He says he has seen the various exhibits.
Mr. McCabe: Yes.
The Court: But you are not talking about exhibits.
Mr. McCabe: No. I am speaking of reports.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see any written transcription of any report which you had made by means of a record? A. Never, sir.
Q. Did you testify before the grand jury which rendered the indictment in this case?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you have a membership card in the YCL? A. My recollection fails me at that point, sir; I don’t recall.
The Court: Well, now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess until Monday morning at 10.30.
(Adjourned to April 11, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.)
(T–2904) New York, April 11, 1949;
10.30 a. m.
HERBERT A. PHILBRICK, resumed the stand.
* * *
The Court: * * * Now I have examined that report that came up for discussion at the end of the session on Friday, and I find that Mr. Gordon’s statement about it is correct, and accordingly there is no occasion for me to exercise the discretion referred to in the Supreme Court case cited by Mr. [*4323] Gordon. I sustain the objection and refuse to direct the production of the paper.
Mr. Gladstein: May I ask—
The Court: Which incidentally, is part of the Government’s file.
Mr. Gladstein: May I ask whether the ground that your Honor is referring to is the statement that Mr. (T–2905) Gordon made that the document examined by the witness did not bear on testimony that he had given? Is that the statement?
The Court: That is right, and I also understood that to be the testimony of the witness.
Mr. Gladstein: I beg your pardon?
The Court: I also understood that to be the testimony of the witness, but as there seemed to be some dispute about it I felt that I should examine the document, which I did.
Mr. McCabe: Shall I proceed.
The Court: Yes, Mr. McCabe, you may proceed.
Cross examination continued by Mr. McCabe:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, on Friday last I asked you a question—
Mr. McCabe: This is at the bottom of page 2900 and the top of 2901, Mr. Gordon.
Q. —whether you rendered an account of your expenses to the FBI for the purpose of procuring reimbursement. That wasn’t in the question. I asked you whether you had rendered an account and I believe your answer was, “Yes, sir”; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Do you have a copy of the account? A. Do I have a copy of the account?
Q. Yes. A. No, I do not.
(T–2906) Q. Do you have a copy of any account? A. A copy of any account that has been rendered?
Q. Yes. A. To the Bureau? No, sir.
Q. How frequently did you render such accounts? A. Once a month.
[*4324]
Q. And that was regularly over the period from 1940? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Did you keep a copy of those accounts? A. A copy of the accounts?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Did you keep a copy of any such account? A. No.
Q. Did you account for those receipts and expenditures in your income tax returns? A. No, sir.
Q. You made no accounting whatsoever? A. No.
Q. You received this cash from the FBI, did you? A. Yes.
Q. And you made the expenditures which you described here? A. Yes..
(T–2907) Q. Did you receive instructions from Mr. Healy that you were not required to report those receipts and expenditures in your income tax return?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you receive instructions from anyone to the effect that you are not required to account for those receipts and expenditures in your income tax return?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You mentioned that in 1940 you entered the employment of the Holmes Direct Mail Service at Cambridge.
Mr. McCabe: That appears at about 2848, Mr. Gordon.
Q. (Continuing) Is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Was that before or after you became associated with the Cambridge Youth Council? A. That was before, sir.
Q. How long before? A. I don’t recall exactly, sir.
Q. A month or a year? A. I would say a few months, but I am entirely unsure.
Q. Prior to that you had been working as production manager of the Boston Council of Social Agencies, is that correct? A. Yes.
[*4325]
(T–2908) Q. Just what was the Boston Council of Social Agencies? A. Pardon me?
Q. What did the Boston Council of Social Agencies do? A. Well, the Boston Council of Social Agencies was a group of volunteer—a volunteer association of various social agencies in Boston, such as the hospitals or Children’s Air Society and so forth.
Q. Had you helped prepare advertising and literature for them? A. That is right.
Q. Now what was the particular business of the Holmes Direct Mail Service? A. Direct mail advertising.
Q. Was that direct mail advertising confined to any one particular branch of merchandising? A. No, they covered direct mail advertising for any type of business.
Q. For instance? A. Well, among the various accounts we had were the Waltham Watch Company, the Necco Candy Company, various companies in and around Cambridge, oh, WEEI Radio Station, and—I don’t know— a great many more. There were hundreds of accounts.
Q. Now you were employed by them I believe you said from 1940 to 1942? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was in 1942 that you joined the YCL? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the same time that you became employed (T–2908–A) by the M. & P. Theatre Chain? A. That is right.
Q. Did you join the YCL before or after you became employed by the M. & P. Theatre Chain? A. I don’t recall except that both of these occurrences happened in the spring in and around March of that year.
(T–2909) Q. Did your employment with Holmes Direct Mail Service terminate on your own volition? A. Pardon me?
Q. Did your employment with the Holmes Direct Mail Service terminate of your own volition? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a better job with M & P? A. That is right.
Mr. Gordon: I object—well.
Q. Through whom did you procure employment with M & P?
[*4326]
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. I object to this line of examination.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you procure employment with M & P through the intervention of any individual in your behalf? A. No, I did not.
Mr. Gordon: Same objection.
The Court: Objection sustained. Strike the answer out.
Q. You testified yesterday—
Mr. McCabe: And this is at page 2899, Mr. Gordon.
Q. —that you were State treasurer of AYD for two years, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. From when until when? A. From 1943 until 1945.
(T–2910) Q. Just prior to becoming State treasurer of the AYD you had been a member of the YCL, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any connection between the YCL and an organization known as The Youth for Victory or Youth for Victory? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the connection? A. Well, as I recall, and my memory is a little vague in that instance, but—I cannot recall accurately, sir, except that the same people involved in American Youth for Democracy were also working with Youth for Victory.
Q. The same people who were in the YCL were also working for Youth for Victory? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Was Youth for Victory a sort of coordinating organization? A. That is right.
Q. Have you ever seen that program before? A. (Examining) Yes, I have, sir. May I look at this for a moment?
Q. I will ask you if you helped prepare it? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCabe: Suppose I have it marked for identification? Then we will come back to it.
[*4327]
Q. I will show you also a 4–page newspaper. Do you recognize that? A. Yes, sir.
(2911) Mr. McCabe: May these be marked for identification, your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibits CC and DD for identification, respectively.)
* * *
Q. Mr. Philbrick, I believe that you said that you helped prepare CC? A. Yes, I helped to work on the preparation of this particular book.
Q. And that was a rally in which YCL participated? A. Oh, yes. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was during the period when you were—well, I will let you look at it for a while. That was during the period when you were making bi–monthly reports to the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you report to the FBI on those activities?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–2912) A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCabe: I should like to read from the dedication.
Mr. McGohey: It is not in evidence yet.
Mr. McCabe: I will offer this in evidence.
The Court: Those were marked for identification.
Mr. McCabe: I will offer this in evidence.
Mr. McGohey: Which, CC?
Mr. McCabe: CC, first.
The Court: CC.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it, your Honor. I take it you don’t want the reasons stated unless you ask for them.
The Court: No.
(T–2913) The Court: Let me see it.
* * *
[*4328]
The Court: (After examining.) Do you offer merely the dedication or the entire thing?
Mr. McCabe: I propose to offer the entire document.
The Court: Objection sustained at this time.
Mr. McCabe: I will offer the dedication at this time.
Mr. Gordon: I would like to look at the dedication in particular, if there is some point about it.
* * *
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Mr. McCabe, I do not see anything there that is such as to affect the credibility of the witness. Is there some other ground on which you think it admissible?
Mr. McCabe: I am offering this, your Honor, as part of the material and activities on which this witness reported to the FBI. I offer it to supplement the matter drawn out on direct examination.
Mr. Gordon: May I be heard on that, your Honor, briefly?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: This document does not pertain to any organization about which the witness was questioned (T–2914) on direct; therefore it is not germane to the direct testimony. It pertains to a period of time which he was questioned about not at all, except possibly “When did you join” some organization, and since it does not pertain to credibility—
The Court: I have a recollection about his testifying that there were two periods when, as he described various activities, they fell into two separate periods, and I am wondering if this perhaps has not some bearing on that.
Mr. Gordon: Well, it may have, your Honor. My feeling about it is that it is just another piece of paper that is going to be irrelevant to the issues and clutter up the record. I don’t think it helps or hurts one side or the other.
The Court: Well, I will allow it.
[*4329]
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit CC–1 in evidence.)
Mr. McCabe: I shall read from the dedication of this program of the rally, which was held Sunday, October 11, 1942, at the Hotel Bradford, Boston. The dedication is as follows:
“This program book is dedicated to the brave youth of the world who fight in the cause of freedom.
“As the world struggle reaches out to engulf each individual more completely in its grip, there (T–2915) commences to dawn the grim realization of what this war means to every single person who prizes freedom and democracy. We who abhor the vicious ideals and goals of Hitlerism are faced with the immediate threat of enslavement by the forces which fight to enforce that ideology. We will not let this happen!
“The complete defeat of the Axis will require greater effort, sacrafice and sheer heroism than we have ever dreamed possible. In this task American youth will not be found lacking. At home and abroad young Americans will be found in the fore–front of the United Nations’ offensive for freedom. For the cause of victory and freedom, this Youth For Victory Rally is being held on Youth For Victory Day proclaimed throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Governor Leverett H. Saltonstall and throughout the City of Boston by Mayor Maurice J. Tobin.
“Youth for Victory Council
“316 Huntington Avenue, Room J, Boston, Massachusetts. Telephone: Commonwealth 3052.”
Mr. Gordon: Was that the whole page? I am just asking you—
Mr. McCabe: Yes. I might add that there is at the bottom the slogan—
(T–2916) The Court: Well, the dedication is all you offered and all I allowed.
Mr. Gordon: I just asked if he had read the whole exhibit.
[*4330]
The Court: Yes, he did.
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor, I should like to read the Statement of Aims and Purposes—Youth for Victory Statement of Aims and Purposes—and I should also like to read—I will hand it up to your Honor at once—the list of sponsors on two pages headed “We are all boosting Youth for Victory.”
Mr. McGohey: Will you tell us the pages, please?
Mr. McCabe: This book is not paged.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, I see, all right.
Mr. McCabe: It doesn’t have any pagination.
I offer those two sections in evidence (handing to Court).
The Court: Well, it is a question of the degree to which I should permit you to go into these matters and I think I shall sustain the objection. The substance of what you have is in the dedication. I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McCabe: Then I make a separate offer, your Honor, of the list of sponsors.
Mr. Gordon: The same objection to this material (T–2917) as made before, your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Have any of them been referred to in the testimony of the witness?
Mr. McCabe: Yes, I believe on the second list, your Honor, in the second column to the right you will recognize one name which was mentioned, about the fifth from the top as I recall it.
The Court: I shall permit you to refer to that particular name as one of the sponsors. The list itself is excluded.
Q. I will show you, Mr. Philbrick, the name of one of the sponsors. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you read that name. A. The name is Professor Dirk J. Struik, sir.
Q. Is that the Professor Struik to whom you referred in your testimony as having addressed a summary class meeting? A. The same, sir.
Q. I show you Exhibit DD for identification. I believe you have said that you recognize that. A. Yes, sir.
[*4331]
Q. Did you participate in the preparation of that paper? A. No, I didn’t participate in the preparation of this paper, sir.
Q. By whom was that paper put out?
(T–2918) Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Q. (Continuing) If you know.
The Court: Overruled.
A. This was put out by the Youth for Victory, sir.
Q. In your capacity with the AYD did you participate in the Youth for Victory program? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you had nothing to do with putting out that particular paper? A. Not in this particular instance. I don’t exactly recall the circumstances surrounding this particular edition. Let’s see what the date is. I remember it but at the moment I can’t remember personally participating in the preparation of it.
Q. Were there other issues of that paper put out? A. I have been trying to recall that, too, sir. I don’t know.
Q. Does the paper contain a volume? A. Yes, this is Volume 1, No. 1. My recollection is they were going to have subsequent issues but I don’t remember if any came out or not.
Q. I call your attention to a schedule of activities of Youth for Victory which appears on the first page. Will you read that schedule to yourself. A. (After reading.) All right.
Q. You have read the list? A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. Do you recall now some or all of the events set (T–2919) forth in that catalogue of events? A. I recall some of them, sir.
Q. Did you make reports on those events to the FBI? A. Well, in my activities with the YCL I reported on all the activities of the YCL.
Mr. McCabe: I offer it in evidence, your Honor, as the summary of the activities called “What We Have Done To Date” on page 1 of DD.
Mr. Gordon: I have an additional ground.
The Court: You object to it, do you?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
[*4332]
(T–2920) The Court: I will hear you.
Mr. Gordon: A newspaper is normally considered to be hearsay with respect to the events reported in it unless you are concerning yourself with the people who published the newspaper. So that, in addition to the other grounds, the newspaper is hearsay, and I again press my objection that it is irrelevant.
The Court: The witness has said that he had some personal knowledge of some of these things.
Let me ask him a question. Were these people with whom you were engaged in these activities that you have described at this particular time, in March 1943, supporting the war?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: I will exclude the document.
Mr. McCabe: The witness has said, you know, your Honor, that he reported to the FBI on these very activities.
The Court: Well, I must concern myself here at all times with the exercise of discretion which will prevent the issues from so multiplying as to make the case unmanageable. I said that in the beginning, and I have been continually alert to allow the defense to show what I thought was proper without going to such a length as to (T–2921) as I said before, multiply the issues and broaden the horizon of the case so as to make it out of all reasonable bounds.
I think you have brought out sufficiently the basic fact here; and embroidering the details seems to me not to have any sufficient probative force in the case to allow you to go further.
Mr. McCabe: I should like to ask the witness this question:
Q. Did you report to the FBI that on March 15, 1942, a Youth for Victory Conference was held at Sanders Hall, Harvard University?
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor sustains an objection to an exhibit and Mr. McCabe stands there and reads from it. I object to that.
[*4333]
The Court: He may, perhaps, think that that particular feature of it is not within my ruling. As a matter of fact, the whole general subject matter here has a certain bearing and I have attempted to rule in such fashion as to allow the substance of it to come out in a way that I think is sufficient.
If you have some particular feature of that that you wish to probe into further, I will allow it, Mr. McCabe.
Mr. McCabe: I do not wish to put myself on (T–2922) record, your Honor, as stating, in response to your Honor’s question, that there is one particular feature of the activities of the Youth for Victory which stands out above all others. I wish to bring out through this witness the fact that this witness, in the course of his—
The Court: I don’t want to have any more of these offers of proof. I have had enough of those. And if there is no particular incident which you desire to stress, I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McCabe: I object to your Honor’s refusal to allow me to make an offer of proof on that particular point.
The Court: No, I am not going to have any more of these offers of proof. They are made in such fashion here that I have had enough of them.
Q. I believe you testified that you joined the Communist Party in March 1944, is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Had you had a conversation with Mr. Healy immediately before you joined the Party? A. I had a conversation with Mr. Healy after I was asked to join the Party.
Q. Did Mr. Healy give you any suggestion in regard to your joining the Party or not joining it?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
(T–2923) The Court: Hasn’t he already testified to that under your examination?
Mr. McCabe: I believe not, your Honor. I believe that referred to his joining either the YCL—
[*4334]
The Court: I will overrule the objection. My recollection may be at fault. I will overrule the objection.
The Witness: What was the question again, sir?
Mr. McCabe: Will the stenographer read it?
(Question read.)
A. This is not an instruction, this is a suggestion. He suggested that I would be doing a patriotic duty by continuing on with my work, my connection with the FBI.
Q. Did he tell you whom to see in the Party? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he tell you there was anyone else besides you reporting to the FBI from the Communist Party?
Mr. McCabe: I see an objection.
The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Gordon: I certainly do, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. When you joined the Communist Party in 1944 did you tell the members of the Party that you were working for the FBI? A. Certainly not, sir.
(T–2924) Q. Did you tell them that you proposed to report all their doings to the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you fill out an application blank for the Communist Party? A. No, I did not, sir.
Q. How long was it before you were notified that you were in the Party? A. I don’t recall any period of time especially. I don’t recall the exact lapse of time, sir.
Q. Well, would it be a month, two months? A. No. I would say it was a matter, of this business of whether to join or not to join, that went on for maybe a couple of weeks.
Q. During that couple of weeks did you talk to other persons who stated they were members of the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They discussed with you your qualifications for membership in the Communist Party, did they? A. I don’t recall specific discussion as to the qualifications at that time.
Q. The persons to whom you talked during that period, were they persons with whom you had been active in the YCL? A. For the most part, yes, sir.
[*4335]
Q. Were you asked by anyone concerning literature which you had read, concerning social, economic and political questions? A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I think that (T–2925) was generally known by the persons concerned. I mean, they knew my history and so forth.
Q. Did they ask you concerning any specific literature? A. No, I don’t recall of any specific literature.
Q. Were you asked concerning your views on discrimination against Negroes, Jews, working people? A. I think my views were generally known, sir.
Q. Were you asked concerning them? A. No.
Q. You say during all this—during this period when you were being interviewed by members of the Communist Party, no one asked you concerning your attitude regarding discrimination against Jews and Negroes? A. Well, as I say, sir, these views were already known to the—
Q. That is not the question, Mr. Philbrick. A. The answer is No.
Mr. Gordon: I object to the argumentative question and repetition.
The Court: He says the answer is No.
A. (Continuing) No.
Mr. Gordon: That is the second time, your Honor.
Mr. McCabe: If your Honor please, I would like to have an answer to my question.
The Court: He did answer.
(T–2926) The Witness: The answer is No.
The Court: He said the answer is No, once, and then he said it again, and Mr. Gordon says that you asked it before. It is hard for me to remember all these questions and how many times they are asked, but he definitely said quote “The answer is No,” close the quote.
Mr. McCabe: I think counsel inadvertently repeats questions too, your Honor. I assure you it is not intentional, if I did.
The Court: Maybe there is something in the way I spoke that gave you a wrong impression. I meant nothing critical at all.
[*4336]
Q. Were you given a copy of the Constitution and by–laws of the Communist Party at that time? A. I think it was the practice of the Party at that time to—
Mr. McCabe: Just a moment. If your Honor please, I would like to have an answer to my question. It is obvious the witness is going off on to something else, a practice.
The Witness: I am trying to refresh my memory, sir.
Mr. McCabe: I would ask that the witness be instructed to go through his period of mental refreshment (T–2927) of recollection to himself and not to the jury.
The Court: If he does that, he would be the first witness I ever saw that succeeded completely, Now, let us have—
Mr. McCabe: Hope springs eternal.
The Court: —the question read.
(Question read.)
A. I do not recall, sir.
Q. Were you a member of any union at that time? Any labor union? A. No, I was not, sir.
Q. After you joined the Communist Party when was the first time that you made a report to the FBI? A. I would say again, sir, very shortly thereafter, a period of two or three days, or within a week.
Q. Do you recall how that report was made, which of the three methods of reporting that you used? A. I believe in that period of time I was typing all the reports.
(T–2928) Q. By the way, in addition to the three methods that were used: the typing, the dictation, and the oral personal reports, did you have any other method of reporting to the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. You are sure of that? A. Repeat the question now. I want to make sure.
Q. My recollection is that you stated that you had three methods. A. Yes.
Q. The first was the type written report which you described. A. Yes.
[*4337]
Q. The second, a dictated report which you dictated on a recording machine? A. Yes.
Q. And the third was an oral report given directly to the—to one of the agents?
(Mr. Gordon rises.)
The Court: Well, the question is, did he have any other ways.
Mr. Gordon: Well, I object to that summary by counsel, particularly as to the third method. Perhaps I could state my recollection, Mr. McCabe—it is very brief.
Mr. McCabe: I will be glad to be corrected.
Mr. Gordon: Well, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. McCabe, but I thought he said the third method was oral reports which were made either face to face or (T–2929) over the telephone.
Mr. McCabe: I think you are correct on that.
Mr. Gordon: All right.
A. Well, in that case the list is complete, sir.
Q. Now you received a card, did you? I believe it is Exhibit 44.
Mr. McCabe: May I have that exhibit?
(Mr. Gordon hands to Mr. McCabe.)
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 44 (handing).
The Court: Now that is 1946.
The Witness: Yes. This is not the first card that was handed me.
Q. How many cards had you received previously to this card? A. Let me see; that was 1946. One in 1945—
Q. It is dated December 9, 1945— A. Yes, it is a 1946 card.
Q. And bears the stamp that it is for 1946? A. Yes.
Q. Although—
Mr. Gordon: It bears the printed stamp.
Mr. McCabe: Printed “1946.”
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
[*4338]
Q. And may I also call your attention to the fact that it bears a place also for 1945 quarterly dues; is that correct, Mr. Philbrick (handing)? (T–2930) A. That is true, sir.
The Court: Doesn’t it say on the printed part “Membership Card for 1946, CPUSA”—for Communist Party of the United States of America?
Mr. McCabe: Yes, 1946 membership card.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McCabe: And I was calling his attention—I do not know whether your Honor noticed it or not; I don’t know what significance it has, but there is also a place for the 1945 dues (handing to Court).
The Witness: Well, this—
Mr. McCabe (To witness): I will come to that.
The Court: Well, it does have that on there.
Mr. McCabe: I wil ask him about it, your Honor, so that there won’t be any confusion.
The Court: But apparently the date it was issued is December 9, 1945, and it is plainly called, as I had in my notes “1946 Membership Card, Communist Party, United States of America.”
Mr. McCabe: I say there is no question about that, your Honor.
Q. Had you had a card for 1945? A. I believe so; let me see—yes.
Q. You joined the Communist Party in March of 1944, I believe? A. Yes.
(T–2931) Q. And you received a card then, did you? A. I did, sir.
Q. Was that a card for 1944? A. Let me recollect now. Well, may I answer? As closely as I—this is the situation—
Q. Well may I ask you first, do you recollect whether you did receive a card when you joined the Communist Party in about March of 1944? A. I don’t recall, sir. I am under the impression that I did.
Q. You have no distinct visualization of a card such as this? A. No, sir.
[*4339]
Q. In your mind at the present time, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Now did you receive a card for the year 1945? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall when you received that? A. I received that in—oh, it was in around July or so—July, August, in that period; but that was not a Communist Party card; it was a Communist Political Association card. It was a different card, a big green thing.
Q. Well— A. It was flat, all in one piece.
Q. And then toward the end of 1945 you received this card, which is Exhibit 44? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your occupation at the time you received this card in December of 1945? A. I was still in the advertising business, sir.
(T–2932) The Court: Referring in the last question to Exhibit 44?
Mr. McCabe: Exhibit 44, yes, your Honor.
Q. And what was your salary? A. I think it was around fifty or fifty–five dollars a week, sir.
Q. Do the three dues stamps which are attached to Exhibit 44 and pasted on in the blanks for January, February and March represent all the dues which you paid to the Communist Party? A. No, sir.
Q. In 1946? A. No, they do not, sir.
Q. When was it that you were transferred to what you designated as a professional group? Do you recall? A. That was in September 1947.
Q. And you refer to the group as pro four? A. That is right.
Q. That is an abbreviation, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Presumably the “pro” is for “professional”? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is the significance of the numeral 4? A. It was some designation which was given to that group by the State Headquarters.
Q. And how many persons were in that group? A. I will say at that time when I became a member of it there were either 12 or 14 members.
[*4340]
Q. How many of the 12 or 14, if any, had you known (T–2933) previous to this time? A. As Party members or as non–Party members?
Q. No, how many had you known as individuals? A. How many had I known?
Q. Yes. A. I think three or four is all that I had known previously personally.
Q. Now this professional group, was that restricted to doctors, teachers, writers? A. And business men, sir. The designation might be specified as white collar people above, say a secretarial job. These would be executive people.
Q. Now you knew three or four out of this group. You knew them by name? A. I knew four people, sir, by name.
Q. And they knew you by name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you introduced to the others by name? A. I was introduced to the others by first name, sir.
Q. Did you ever learn their last names? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you learn their last names? A. I made it my business to find out their last names, sir.
Mr. McCabe: I ask that that answer be stricken as not responsive, your Honor.
The Court: It seemed very responsive to me. I will let it stand.
Q. What was the manner or method you took to learn the last names of these persons to whom you say you were (T–2934) introduced by their first names?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, I would say that the method I used was being a good Party member and taking part in all the activities of the Party.
Q. And in taking part in the activities their full names were revealed to you? A. In time, sir, many of them.
Q. You called them “Comrade,” did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They called you “Comrade”? A. Right, sir.
Q. You went to their homes, some of them? A. That is right.
[*4341]
Q. You were entertained at their homes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You rendered little mutual assistances to one another? A. Occasionally.
Q. Mr. Philbrick, during the entire nine years of your reporting to the FBI did you ever report any act of force or violence on the part of a member of the Communist Party or the YCL or the AYD?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. No, I don’t believe I did, sir.
Q. Did you ever report to the FBI the possession of any firearms by members of the Communist Party, the YCL, (T–2935) or the AYD? A. No, I did not, sir.
Q. Now before you joined the professional group and while you were still a member—was that of the Malden Branch? A. At that time I was a member of the Malden Branch, yes, sir.
Q. And had been for how long? A. Since the—well now, I don’t know. My recollection is—I am trying to recall. I can’t recall, sir, accurately.
Q. Wel, let’s see. In March 1944 you became a member of what branch? A. In March of 1944?
Q. Yes. I am speaking about the Communist Party of the United States. A. I became a member of the Boston Branch on Beacon Hill.
Q. And how long did you remain a member of the Boston Branch? A. I remained a member of the Boston Branch until the State Convention in 1945.
Q. Well now, just do a little recollecting, Mr. Philbrick, as to whether those dates are accurate. Did the Boston Branch contniue throughout the entire year of 1944? A. Let me see.
Q. I am referring to the CPA, in case you have difficulty recollecting. A. There were so many changes between the Party and the Political Association and back to the Party again.
Q. That is why I was helping you to refresh your (T–2936) recollection. It is in evidence, the fact that the CPA was formed at a certain period. Now I asked you whether you remained a member of the Boston Branch of [*4342] the Communist Party of the United States until the formation of the CPA? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now after the Communist Party was reconstituted following the dissolution of the CPA of what branch did you become a member? A. I believe I became a member of the Malden Branch first, sir.
Q. Now how many persons were in the Malden Branch? A. I don’t know as I was ever given the exact number, sir, as I have difficulty in recalling. There were a great many members in the Malden Branch.
Q. You attended meetings of the Malden Branch? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were the attendances at various meetings approximately the same or would they vary? A. They would vary, sir.
Q. From what to what?
The Court: We will take our recess now for ten minutes.
(Recess.)
* * *
(T–2937) By Mr. McCabe:
Q. I believe when we recessed we were discussing something about the number of persons in the Malden Branch. A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe I had asked you whether the attendance at the meetings varied considerably or whether it was within a certain range. What was your answer? A. The attendance at the meetings varied, sir.
Q. From what to what, do you recall? A. Well, the average would be a house full of people. These were held in homes. I would say up to about 25 persons attended a meeting.
Q. Now, were these persons in one general age group or did their ages vary? A. Their ages varied, sir.
Q. From what to what? A. Well, I don’t know. I don’t know how young the youngest one was or how old the oldest one was at the moment, but I would say they started out around the age of 25 or 30.
[*4343]
Q. What would the older range brackets reach? A. I haven’t the faintest idea. I wouldn’t be able to (T–2938) say whether it was 50 or 60.
Q. It would go up as high as 50 or 60? A. Oh, yes, yes, sir.
Q. Some of these men were family men? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some of them were at an age when it would be very hard to find employment if they lost their employment?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did some of these men express concern over whether they would lose their employment if their membership in the Communist Party became known? A. No, sir.
Q. Not one of them ever expressed any concern as to whether or not he would lose his position if his affiliation with the Communist Party became known? A. This is in the neighborhood club in Malden?
Q. In Malden, yes. A. No. Many of these people were more or less open Communists, sir. This was not the pro group.
Q. About what percentage would you say were open Communists? A. I don’t recall, sir.
Q. Were you an open Communist? A. No, sir.
Q. I believe you said that you did not even wish to have your name on the subscription list of the Daily Worker, is that correct? A. Those were my instructions, sir.
Q. Who gave you those instructions? A. This is what (T–2939) period of time now? I had those instructions repeated to me.
Q. When was the first time you received the instructions? A. The first time I received very specific instructions that I was not to reveal my membership in the Communist Party.
Q. I am not talking about that at the moment, sir.
The Court: That is just what you were talking about.
Mr. McCabe: No, I asked him when he received instructions not to have his name appear on the subscription list of the Daily Worker.
[*4344]
Mr. Gordon: That is what he was talking about, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, I thought so.
When did you get these first instructions?
The Witness: In 1943, sir.
Q. What part of 1943? A. Summer of 1943.
Q. That was after you had been a member of the YCL for approximately a year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Up to that time you had received no instructions concerning having your name or not having your name on the subscription list of the Daily Worker? A. I don’t recall, sir.
(T–2940) Q. Had you subscribed to the Daily Worker prior to the summer of 1943? A. No, the Daily Worker was brought to my home, sir.
Q. By whom? A. By a member of the YCL in Cambridge.
Q. They had a regular delivery route, did they? A. That is right.
Q. Then in the summer of 1943 how did there come to be a discussion concerning whether or not you should have your name on the subscription list of the Daily Worker? A. In the summer of 1943 I became the State Treasurer of American Youth for Democracy in Massachusetts.
Q. Yes? A. And in that connection I was given specific instructions as follows: not to let it be known that I was a member of the Communist Party in any way, shape or manner. If anyone asked me whether I was a member of the Communist Party to swear I was not such a member.
Q. Were those the instructions you had got about not revealing your membership in the Communist Party? A. These were the first serious instructions, sir.
Q. And that was in the summer of 1943? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You weren’t a member of the Communist Party then, were you? A. 1943? No.
Q. Then why would anyone give instructions to you (T–2941) not to reveal your membership in the Communist Party if you weren’t a member of the Communist Party? A. Well, I am using Young Communist League and the [*4345] Communist Party simultaneously, sir. I meant the same thing in my terminology.
Q. You say the YCL and the Communist Party were identical in your terminology? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, weren’t there a great many people in the YCL who not only weren’t Communists but never became members of the Communist Party? A. That might have been, sir.
Q. At any rate, you were a member of the Young Communist League for a little over a year before anyone gave you instructions to conceal your membership in an organization of that sort, is that correct? A. Well, if I might put it this way, at the time—
Q. Just answer me truthfully. I don’t want you to put it your way.
The Court: He has indicated he has to make some explanation.
A. Well, there is a difference between “instructions” and “discussion,” I would say.
Q. Well, during this period did you not—
Mr. McCabe: Well, strike “during this period”; that is indefinite.
(T–2942) Q. When did you first visit the Progressive Bookshop? A. I would say my first visits to the Progressive Bookshop were some time after July and August, 1945.
Q. How do you fix that date? A. Well, it was before that time I had no particular duties, in so far as literature was concerned, in the Party.
Q. You had never gone there yourself to make purchases of literature? A. I am trying to recall, sir.
Q. Do. A. I don’t recall having gone to the bookshop, sir, you see, because we had literature that was brought direct to the club meetings.
Q. During the period when you were a member of the Communist Party, including the interval when you were a member of the CPA, were there various party fund drives? A. I believe so.
Q. Did you participate in those fund drives? A. I don’t recall.
[*4346]
Q. Did you contribute to the fund drives? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To what extent did you contribute, do you recall? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Was there any discussion between you and Mr. Healy or Mr. Dowd—Dow, if he came in then, concerning the amount which you would contribute to these drives? A. No, sir.
Q. Just used your own judgment and made your contribution and then reported to the FBI how much you had paid? A. That is right.
(T–2943) Q. Did you have to make any affidavit as to the accuracy of your expense account? A. An affidavit?
Q. Yes. You were getting money from the United States Government for alleged expenditures. I am asking you now whether you ever had to make an affidavit as to the accuracy of your alleged expenditures. A. I don’t know what you mean by “affidavit.” Some sort of a statement that what I say is the truth?
The Court: An affidavit is a statement under oath. Did these FBI men require you to make a sworn statement as to your expenses at any time?
The Witness: No, sir.
Thank you.
Q. How much were your expenses in your first year in 1940? A. I don’t recall.
Q. How much were they in 1941? A. I wouldn’t be able to say how much my expenses were during those periods.
Q. Well, would it be a hundred dollars a month?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor, I ask leave to probe further concerning the witness’s recollection by asserting or setting forth bounds within which the expenditures might or might not have been comprised.
(T–2944) The Court: Well, in the exercise of my discretion I believe that probing into that detail after what he said wouldn’t be worth enough to permit you to do it.
[*4347]
Mr. McCabe: I think, your Honor, I will ask one of my colleagues to take over the examination. We have reached a break here.
The Court: Very well.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, did I understand you to say that your wages in 1946 were fifty to fifty–five dollars per week? A. Approximately.
Q. And at that time you were employed by the M & P theatre chain, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had your wages been approximately that during the entire period you had been employed by the chain? A. No.
Q. When did they increase? A. Well, there were various increases over the period of seven years that I worked for them, sir.
Q. How much were they when you went to work for them in 1940?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–2945) Q. How much were you receiving per week when the chain was dissolved?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was receiving in the neighborhood of $90 a week, sir.
Q. And how much were your membership dues in the Communist Party at that time? A. Two dollars a week, sir—two dollars a month.
Q. Were the same theatres who were associated with the M & P chain at the time it dissolved—are they now associated with the American Theatre Chain? A. Say that again, please.
Q. Are the same theatres— A. The same theatres?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. This is a different group of theatres? A. Partly.
Q. Partly. Most of them are the same? A. Well, no. The old circuit was broken down into two new companies, approximately.
Q. And what were the names of the two new companies?
[*4348]
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(To Mr. Crockett) You know I have sustained an objection or a series of objections to similar questions in the past. I don’t think the internal affairs of that corporation (T–2946) or series of corporations is material.
Q. Do you know, Mr. Philbrick, of your own knowledge, whether or not special agent Healy was related to any of the officers of the M & P? A. I am fairly sure he was not, sir.
Q. At the time you were employed by M & P you were living in Cambridge, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. You were living in Cambridge, is that right? A. Yes, I was living in Cambridge then.
Q. Were you originally employed by them as assistant advertising manager? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were your duties as assistant advertising manager? A. Well, that would go into quite a discussion as to the field of advertising and what you would do.
Q. Just tell me briefly what your specific duties were? A. My specific duties were to assist the advertising director in his responsibilities; and in the motion picture company for which I worked that included all types of promotional work for the motion pictures, such as screen advertising, radio advertising, newspaper advertising, lobby cards in the front of theatres, subway posters, and so forth; and, in addition to that, of course, the publicity and promotional work.
(T–2947) Q. How many employees did you have under your immediate supervision? A. What period of time, again? When I began?
Q. In 1940 when you were employed as assistant—A. When I was employed as assistant—
Q. Advertising manager. A. I had one person working for me at that time.
Q. Did you have the right to fire him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Subsequently did you have additional employees working under your immediate supervision? A. Yes, I did, sir.
[*4349]
Q. During this period, period from 1942 down to July 20, 1948, you had quite a bit to do with the educational work and the distribution of literature for the various organizations you have mentioned, YCL and AYD and the Communist Party? A. From 1942?
Q. That is right. A. Quite a bit to do with what, the educational work?
Q. 1942 you turned out quite a bit of literature for the Young Communist League? A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Subsequent to that you turned out some literature for the AYD? A. That is right.
Q. And since that time you have been turning out literature for the Communist Political Association and (T–2948) the Communist Party? A. Right.
Q. Now, you drew cartoons for some of that literature also? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And some of it was mimeographed? A. Yes.
Q. What portion, if any, of that work was done at your place of business? A. Well, I don’t recall what portion, but at least part of it was done at my place of employment.
Q. Would you say most of it was done there? A. No, part of it.
Q. Where did you do the remainder? A. At home—well, no. Now, wait a minute. Let me make it accurate. Some of it was done at home. A large part of it was done at the State headquarters of the Communist Party in the Little building in Boston.
Q. Most of the mimeographing work was done at your place of employment? A. No, I didn’t say most of it was done there.
Q. I am asking you. A. Most of it was done there?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. But quite a bit of it was done there? A. I wouldn’t even say quite a bit, sir.
Q. Where did you prepare the cartoons? A. I prepared those at home, and at the office, and at State headquarters.
(T–2949) Q. During the time— A. And—well, various other places.
Q. During the time when you were working on the various literature at your office did your employer know you were working on that literature? A. No, sir.
[*4350]
Q. Do you know Anne Burlack? A. Yes.
Q. Did Anne Burlack ever visit you at your office? A. I think she visited me once or twice at my office.
Q. Did you— A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you not introduce her to your employer as the State director for the Communist Political Association? A. Did I introduce Anne Burlack to him?
Q. That is the question. A. To my employer?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. What was the occasion of her visit to your office? A. Well, it was a long time ago, as I recall. I don’t remember. It was probably in connection with something I was doing for the Party at that time.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Philbrick, that your firm at that time had control or had concession—or had constructed a platform in Boston Commons for the sale of bonds? A. Yes, I know what instance you are referring to, too, sir.
The Court: For the sale of what?
Q. And in connection with the—
(T–2950) The Witness: Sale of war bonds.
Mr. Crockett: Sale of war bonds.
Q. It was in connection with the use of that platform that Anne Burlack came to your office? A. I remember now, sir.
Q. You carried her in and introduced her to your employer at that time? A. My recollection is vague on the introduction.
Q. You would not say you didn’t do that? A. I don’t recall of having introduced her. I don’t know, sir.
Q. But you wouldn’t say now that you did not introduce her as the— A. I wouldn’t dare say either way, sir, but I do remember the occasion.
Q. Did any of the leaflets or pamphlets which you prepared for the Communist Political Association or later for the Communist Party contain any language which, according to your understanding, advocated or taught the duty or necessity of overthrowing the United States Government by force or violence? A. No, sir. All of my literature that I turned out was for public consumption, sir.
[*4351]
Q. All the literature you turned out you sent copies, or you gave copies to the FBI, did you not? A. That is right, sir.
(T–2951) Q. Let us go back to the time of your first employment with M & P Corporation. I think you testified that you were living in Cambridge. A. In Cambridge, yes.
Q. Where in Cambridge were you living? A. 213 Bank Street, Cambridge, I believe, was the address.
Q. Did you own the house there? A. No, sir, it was a four–room cold water flat.
Q. Is that address near the Harvard yard or Harvard campus in Cambridge? A. It is right on the edge of the Harvard campus.
Q. Sort of a working class section of Cambridge, isn’t it? A. Yes, I would say so.
Q. You lived there with your wife and how many children did you have at that time? A. Had one child at that time.
Q. You have four now, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you move to Melrose? A. 1949? I think some time in 1944. I base that on—I believe I have been there about five years, which would make it about 1944.
Q. Where do you live in Melrose? A. What?
Q. Where do you live in Melrose? A. I live at 246 Tremont Street, Melrose.
Q. I believe you own that house? A. That is right, sir.
(T–2952) Q. How far is your home in Melrose from that part of Boston where you usually had to go to attend Communist affairs? A. How far, the distance?
Q. About how far? A. Oh, perhaps seven miles.
Q. I think you testified that you, or did you, that your transportation expenses to and from these Communist Party meetings were paid by the FBI? A. All expenses were paid by the FBI.
Q. What means of transportation did you use? A. Mostly street car—mostly trains—we live—the house in Melrose is right by the Melrose Highland Depot. Railroad train. So practically all my transportation is by train to North Station and then from there by street car and bus.
(T–2953) Q. Did you ever drive in? A. Yes, I drove in.
[*4352]
Q. When did you purchase your present automobile? A. 1947, sir.
Q. How much did you pay for it? A. I believe I paid $2400, sir.
Q. And how much did you pay for your home in Melrose?
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. Now, your Honor, the implication that the FBI has set this man up in luxury I think has gone far enough. I object to that.
Mr. Gladstein: If the Court please, I object to Mr. Gordon making a statement of this kind—
The Court: Well, what else could the question be asked for?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, if your Honor please, I thought that the rule that you were imposing on both sides, as I recall it, your Honor, was that if there was to be an objection—
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Gladstein: —the objection was not to be argued.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Gladstein: Not only did Mr. Gordon not make his statement in the form of an objection but what he said was clearly objectionable and intended to be objectionable.
The Court: You see, Mr. Gladstein, you always (T–2954) put your charges in such curious language, nothing is ever done in good faith, there is always some sort of intentional, malicious wrong. Now I think it is just better to eliminate that. There were many times when you and your colleagues have objected, and perhaps inadvertently, perhaps otherwise, they made little arguments and I said nothing until the other day there was so much of it that I made a mild remonstrance. I don’t think it is up to you to tell me what I should do if Mr. Gordon should add a word or two to his objection.
Mr. Gladstein: I—
The Court: Let me take care of the running of this court.
[*4353]
Mr. Gladstein: Now, if your Honor please, I think it is not only my right but my duty, with all due deference to the Court, to make an objection when I feel that, as an officer of the Court and I also represent two men—
The Court: All right, what is this objection?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to the remarks of Mr. Gordon and ask that they be stricken and the jury be advised to disregard it.
The Court: Motion denied, and I will overrule Mr. Gordon’s objection.
You may proceed, Mr. Crockett.
(T–2955) Mr. Crockett: Will you read the question?
The Court: The question is, How much did you pay for your house.
The Witness: I believe I paid $5000 for it, sir.
Q. You have a motion picture camera? A. Yes.
The Court: What is that?
(Record read.)
Q. Was that furnished to you by the FBI? A. No, I saw the newspapers, too.
Q. Was it purchased at the suggestion of the FBI? A. No, sir, there is no truth in those newspaper reports.
Q. What newspaper reports are you referring to? A. Well, I may have a—
The Court: Well, don’t bring in the newspapers here. The question is, do you own a motion picture camera.
The Witness: Yes, sir, I have a hobby, I take motion pictures.
Q. When did you commence that hobby?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Crockett, is it your intention to follow through all the things that the witness may own and find out how much he paid for them and then draw certain inferences from that?
[*4354]
Mr. Crockett: I think your Honor realizes that (T–2956) I couldn’t possibly have any such intention.
The Court: Well, I have to consider the question of collateral issues here. You know, if you bring out all that, then of course that means that somebody else might have to inquire into where he got the money from and inquire into his family and his resources and various things of one kind or another, and I am wondering if you have some point here that you are working up to or whether it is just generally going through all those things that he may own and how much they may cost.
Mr. Crockett: No, I do not propose to go through all of these things that he may own and how much they may cost. I did want to find out when he suddenly or—strike “suddenly”—when he took on this hobby of motion pictures.
The Court: Well, I don’t think you need to strike the “suddenly.” I think I get the drift of what you are working up to, just as Mr. Gordon did, and it is perfectly proper. If this man has been receiving large sums of money from the FBI or from the Government I think it is perfectly proper to bring that out, and I will allow you all the latitude you desire to do so. Now go ahead.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Now when did you commence your motion picture hobby? A. When my—I believe about a year after my first (T–2957) daughter was born, sir.
Q. And when was that? A. 1940.
Q. Now I think you also have a projector, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how much did you pay for that camera?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. I paid $20 for the camera, sir.
Q. And how much for the projector? A. I paid $90 for the projector for which I took out a loan from the bank so that I could get it.
[*4355]
Q. You frequently took motion pictures of YCL and AYD and Communist Party outings or picnics, did you not? A. Oh no.
Q. You never took any pictures of any— A. I didn’t say “never”; but not frequently, sir.
Q. Well, did you take any such pictures of outings of those organizations? A. Any such pictures of outings?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, we took pictures one time of an outing up in Wakefield, Massachusetts, of the American Youth for Democracy.
Q. And you took pictures of dances and persons who were present at dances? A. On one occasion, yes.
Q. What outings were those, and dances? A. You have an “s” on there, sir. There was one outing.
(T–2958) Q. You say there was just one? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the one in Wakefield, you say? A. Yes. I don’t recall exactly when it was but I recall the American Youth for Democracy sponsored an outing which took place up in Wakefield, Massachusetts, at Lake Quannapowitt.
The Reporter: How do you spell it?
The Witness: Q–u–a–n—I don’t know; I know it ends with p–o–w–i–t–t.
Q. Now you also said you took pictures of dances sponsored by these organizations. A. Yes, we had in the course of AYD activities a canteen, a servicemen’s canteen which was an interracial canteen.
Q. All of these meetings were interracial, weren’t they? A. Yes, that is right, that is right.
Q. When was this dance of which you took pictures? A. Oh, I don’t remember now. It was at the AYD headquarters—
Q. Did you ever take any pictures of the Communist Political Association outings or picnics? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever take pictures at Communist Party outings or picnics? A. I never saw a camera at the Communist Party outing.
Q. Did you ever show these pictures to the group after they were developed? A. Yes. That was the purpose of (T–2959) taking the pictures.
[*4356]
Q. Did you furnish copies of the films to the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any of the people who attended the Wakefield picnics and whose pictures you took have subsequently lost their employment? A. Nobody, sir.
Q. So far as you know? A. So far as I know.
Q. Are you a member of any labor organization! A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of it? A. I am a member of the United Office and Professional Workers Union.
Q. When did you join that union? A. Oh, about a month ago I guess. I don’t recall.
Q. It was during an organizing campaign, wasn’t it? A. What is that?
Q. Wasn’t it in the middle of an organizing campaign? A. Yes.
Q. And you came in and volunteered to do some publicity work? A. I was asked to do some publicity work.
Q. You were asked to do it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they gave you— A. I was asked to help on the distribution of leaflets and material at the gates of the building, yes.
Q. And after you prepared that material it was (T–2960) approved by the union? A. Yes.
Q. And then it was distributed? A. I believe so.
Q. Then you sent copies of it to the FBI? A. No, in that particular instance the job was run—and this is what I was getting to before when you asked where this job was done—this job was run down at the office of the UOPWA.
Q. And you sent nothing of this to the FBI? A. No.
Q. Now coming down to the State CPA Convention, I think you testified it was in July 1945? A. The State CPA?
Q. That is right. Do you know what CPA means? A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t you testify to that? A. Yes, yes. OK. I am again confused with the Association Party. That is right.
Q. CPA means Communist Political Association? A. Association, right, sir.
[*4357]
Q. In connection with that convention were there any news items in the Boston papers that you can recall?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was there any publicity in the Boston newspapers concerning the convention? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Any publicity in the Daily Worker about the (T–2961) convention? A. I believe so.
Q. The Daily Worker has general circulation in Boston, has it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the items in the Daily Worker give the time and the place of each convention?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you recall reading the items in the Daily Worker? A. I don’t recall anything specific about the items, no.
Q. Do you recall that the Daily Worker at that time carried a report of what happened at the convention? A. It might have—I imagine it did, sir, but I do not have any recollection, it being so long ago now as to just what the item was or what it said.
Q. If it did you do not remember reading it, is that what you are saying? A. Well, since I read the Daily Worker regularly I probably did read it but I don’t recall.
Q. How many people attended that CPA July convention? A. As near as I could estimate about 250, sir.
Q. Did you know personally everyone there? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know whether or not everyone there was a member of the Communist Party?
The Court: Do you mean the Communist Party?
Mr. Crockett: The Communist Political Association.
(T–2962) A. Well, I know that those who were delegates or alternates to the convention, as I recall them, had to be members—that is, you had to be members of a local group [*4358] in order to be an alternate or delegate. There were some visitors and I do not know what status they held, sir.
Q. So far as you know there may have been persons present who were not members?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know if there were any persons present who were not members? A. No, sir, I don’t know of any persons there who I do not know as a member.
Q. Do you know of any member there who was a member of the Communist Political Association?
Mr. Gordon: The last answer I thought was completely unintelligible.
The Court: Well, I understood him to say that as far as he knew there wasn’t anybody there who wasn’t a member of the Party.
Isn’t that what you meant to say?
The Witness: That is what I meant, sir, yes.
The Court: Yes.
Q. Now I believe you testified, Mr. Philbrick, that no one spoke at that convention unless his name had (T–2963) previously been sent up to the chair, is that right? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Did you ever attend any conventions of any other political parties? A. Yes—I don’t know as you call them conventions—no, I don’t know as I ever attended a convention in the sense of the word that these meetings were conventions at which officers were elected and so forth.
Q. Did you ever attend any conventions of fraternal organizations? A. Yes, I have attended meetings and so forth.
Q. Did you ever attend any conventions of religious denominations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn’t it the general practice that no one speaks at such convention unless he is recognized by the chair?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to as not being what he said.
[*4359]
The Court: The jury will remember what the witness testified. I will allow the question.
A. I have been chairman at many meetings myself.
Q. I am not talking about meetings; I am talking about conventions.
The Court: No, you are talking about fraternal and religious organizations.
Mr. Crockett: I am talking about political (T–2964) conventions and conventions of fraternal bodies and conventions of religious denominations.
The Court: He said he never attended any conventions except this one he has described and he went on to say he attended fraternal meetings and religious meetings and I understood you to ask whether it was not the custom at those meetings to be recognized by the chair before you spoke.
Mr. Crockett: Let me go back.
Q. Did you ever attend any conventions of fraternal bodies? A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Any conventions of religious denominations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Conventions I am talking about. A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it the general practice at such conventions that in order to speak you have to first be recognized by the chair? A. Usually recognized from the floor, sir.
Q. But you have to be recognized by the chair, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And if the chair wants to know your name the chair has a right to find out your name, hasn’t it? A. I would have to refer to Robert’s Rules of Order to see.
Q. Are you acquainted with Robert’s Rules of Order? A. I used to be. It has been a long time since I read it.
(T–2965) Q. Doesn’s Robert’s Rules of Order provide that no one shall speak until he has been recognized by the chair? A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Tell me, it is true, is it not, at your branch meeting immediately before the CPA July Convention a member of your branch, which I think was the Malden Branch, at that time— A. Yes.
[*4360]
Q. —was delegated to prepare a resolution to be submitted on behalf of the branch at that convention, isn’t that right?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Let me hear the question.
Q. (Read.)
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Yes, that is true, sir.
Q. And the person who was to prepare that resolution was named Alice, is that right? A. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember? A. (Shaking head.) No. I don’t remember who it was that was selected from our particular Malden group to prepare that resolution at the time. I know—I recall the question coming up, I recall us discussing it, and I do recall that each club, as I understand, sent in a communication.
Q. Didn’t Alice prepare the resolution? A. I don’t recall, sir.
(T–2966) Q. Didn’t she work on the resolution? A. She probably did, sir, if you say so, but my own recollection—I was trying to recall her status. I don’t know if she was chairman then or not, but she might very well have worked on the preparation of that particular resolution.
Q. So that when you testified concerning Alice preparing something that had to be sent in beforehand it might have been this resolution? A. I don’t think I testified to that.
Mr. Gordon: That is the basis of my objection, but he has so answered.
Mr. Gladstein: I didn’t hear Mr. Gordon’s objection.
Mr. Gordon: I withdrew it.
The Court: Read me that last answer. He said, “I don’t think I said that,” is that right?
(Answer read.)
[*4361]
Q. I will ask you if you didn’t make that statement at page 2655 of the record—
The Court: 2655?
Q. —“At the Malden meeting there was”—
The Court: Wait until I get that.
A. I can remember the testimony now, sir.
The Court: I know, but counsel is going to read (T–2967) it to you just the same. 2655. Go ahead, Mr. Crockett.
Q. —“At the Malden meeting there was one member of the group, a girl by the name of Alice, who wanted to participate in the panel discussion and she organized her material in advance and sent it in. The panel discussions are different from the resolutions and amendments.”
Now I ask you, as a matter of fact wasn’t it the resolution that Alice was working on and that she showed to you? A. My recollection was it was part of panel discussions, sir.
Q. It was not the resolution? A. I don’t remember of its being the resolution, sir.
Q. What panel discussion was it? A. I don’t even recall that, sir.
The Court: Were there different panels?
The Witness: Yes, there were many different panels.
The Court: That had names?
The Witness: There were many different panels.
Mr. McGohey: Would you keep your voice up a little more, please.
The Witness: Yes.
(T–2968) Q. And did you make a report of that meeting to the FBI? A. Yes, I did, sir.
Q. Would that report, if you had it before you, refresh your memory as to whether that was a resolution or a panel discussion that was being prepared? A. It would probably be definitely part of that report, yes.
[*4362]
Mr. Crockett: Mr. Gordon, do you have that report?
Mr. Gordon: No. And if I did, I would refuse to turn it over.
The Court: Isn’t that part of the Government’s files, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: It is, your Honor, and it has much material which has no relation to the questions here.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection.
Q. I believe you testified, Mr. Philbrick, that you were invited to attend a meeting of a select group at the apartment of Dave Bennett to establish an educational department, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. And that invitation was in the form of a letter, is that right? A. I believe so, sir.
Mr. Crockett: May I see that exhibit, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
(T–2969) Mr. Crockett: I will give you the number in just a minute.
The Court: It is Exhibit 35, isn’t it?
Mr. Crockett: No, I believe it is 37, your Honor.
The Court: Is it the one from Dave Bennett or—
Mr. Crockett: It was a group to form an educational committee.
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. I believe I can find it.
The Court: Oh, it may be 37. 37 is dated September 29, 1945.
Mr. Gordon: 35, 36 and 37 were all signed by Dave Bennett.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: But I think this is the one, Exhibit 37.
The Court: I think 35 was just the invitation to attend that convention of the Communist Political Association of New England.
[*4363]
Mr. Gordon: That is correct, sir.
The Court: 36 was the directive concerning the delegates, and 37 had to do with this educational part, which I think is—
Mr. Crockett: That is the one I am inquiring about.
(T–2970) The Court: Yes.
Q. Did you receive this invitation in the mails? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you turn over the envelope to the FBI? A. I was trying to remember that, sir, when the exhibit came in. Usually the envelope went in with the exhibit, yes.
Mr. Crockett: Mr. Gordon, do you have the envelope that this exhibit came in?
Mr. Gordon: I don’t think so. My recollection is that I don’t have it.
Mr. Crockett: That is subject to later correction, I take it?
Mr. Gordon: Well,—
Mr. Crockett: You will check and see?
Mr. Gordon: I don’t think so, but I don’t see the relevancy of it, your Honor.
The Court: All Mr. Crockett is saying is that he would like to have you examine and see if you have it, which you will please do.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Then you can report to me later.
Q. There was another communication that was sent to you, which you testified was an invitation from Dave Bennett to attend the State Convention of the Communist Political (T–2971) Association? A. That is correct.
Q. Did that come to you in the mails also? A. As I recall, sir, it did.
Q. You were already an alternate delegate at that time, were you not? A. I don’t remember which happened first, whether I was an alternate delegate first, or whether the letter came first.
Q. Did you turn the envelope, in which the letter came, over to the FBI? A. As I say, it was a general practice to do that.
[*4364]
Q. You don’t know whether you did in this case or not? A. No.
Q. This exhibit 36, which I believe had to do with the convention instructions, you testified that that was sent to you by Dave Bennett; is that right? Was it sent to you by Dave Bennett? A. This was to participate in—the instructions? Which instructions?
Q. No, these were instructions as to convention committees, credentials, and housing, and so forth. Did you get that communication from Dave Bennett? A. I think that the club, the Malden Club, got those instructions directly rather than myself personally.
Q. How did you get that? A. As I recall it, the instructions were that each member of the club was to be (T–2972) given one of these full and complete instructions as to the convention, and so forth.
Q. You were given a copy by the club secretary, is that your testimony? A. That is my best recollection.
Q. Who was the club secretary at that time? A. I don’t recall.
The Court: Exhibit 36 is addressed quote “to all club secretaries” close the quote. Is that the one, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
Q. You testified that after you joined the professional group it was broken down into smaller groups. Was that for the purpose of those mobilizations that you referred to? A. No, the breakdown was for the purpose of security.
Q. For the purpose of security? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also spoke of two mobilizations, did you not? A. That is right.
Q. One was in July of 1948? A. Yes.
Q. Doesn’t “mobilization,” as you used it there, mean the getting together of a group of people, getting them together to do some work? A. Yes.
Q. That is what you mean by mobilization? A. Well, I don’t know. That is the term that was used, that was given to me.
Q. Isn’t that what you understood it to mean? (T–2973) A. Yes, yes.
[*4365]
Q. What was the nature of this July mobilization? A. Well, there were two mobilizations, in my best recollection, and one—
Q. I am only concerned about the one in July. I think you said the other one was in August, which is after the date of the indictment in this case. A. Yes. I don’t recall.
Q. You don’t recall what the July one was about? A. No.
Q. It had to do with getting people together to send letters and telegrams in opposition to the Mundt–Nixon Bill? A. It was in that connection, sir, and I think there was something to do with fund raising in there too, getting money.
Q. Fund raising in connection with the campaign to rally protests against the Mundt–Nixon Bill?
The Court: Don’t shake your head, but give an answer and keep your voice up.
Q. This fund raising was in connection with a campaign to rally opposition to the Mundt–Nixon Bill, is that right? A. I believe so, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, the Party in Boston had ads in the local newspapers in opposition to the Mundt–Nixon (T–2974) Bill? A. At your mention, I do remember those ads, yes.
Q. And there were several other organizations in the Boston area who opposed the Mundt–Nixon Bill besides the Communist Party, that is right? A. That is right.
Q. CIO Unions were among them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And some AFL Unions? A. I believe so.
Q. Isn’t there an organization in Boston known as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? A. Yes, there is.
Q. Weren’t they also opposed? A. Yes.
Q. There is also an organization in Boston known as American Jewish Congress, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Weren’t they also opposed to it? A. I don’t remember them.
Q. Also about that time the Party was raising funds, in connection with this so–called mobilization you are talking [*4366] about, to get people to express opposition to the statement that had been issued by Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach, is that right?
The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, your Honor. I object to terming all these things under mobilization. That is not what he testified to.
Mr. Crockett: He testified to mobilization, (T–2975) your Honor. I am trying to bring out what—
The Court: Don’t argue. Just object.
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Crockett: Will you pardon me a minute?
The Court: Certainly.
Q. Did you make a report to the FBI of this July mobilization? A. I reported, sir—as I stated before, I reported everything I knew to the FBI.
Q. Did you tell them in that report about these other organizations whom you now state were associated with the Communists in opposition to the Mundt–Nixon Bill?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you prepare the leaflets—
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. I move that the jury be again instructed to disregard the statements of counsel where they conflict in any way with their recollection of the evidence as testified to.
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor, Mr. Gordon—
The Court: Is there some statement made just now, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, in the form of the question.
The Court: Well, I don’t think I need to make some special instruction about that. Of course, the testimony (T–2976) comes from the witness stand and the mere fact that counsel puts his question in a certain way does not mean that that is the fact. I am sure everybody understands that.
[*4367]
Q. As a part of this mobilization, as you call it, this July mobilization—
The Court: He says he was told that. You keep putting it that he says it and he said—
Mr. Crockett: Told what?
The Court: —and he said that is the phrase that the person used that told him about it.
Mr. Crockett: He said he understood it to mean getting together for the purpose of carrying on some campaign.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor—
The Court: I don’t think that that is quite what he said. It seems to me that you have been trying to get him to say that, but that he has been insisting that he got that word mobilization from the man that told him about it.
Who was it used that phrase?
The Witness: Well, in this particular instance, I believe it was Martha who used that practicular phrase in talking about this mobilization.
Mr. Gladstein: It was this witness and not Martha who testified on direct, using that expression mobilization, not once but several times.
(T–2977) The Court: I understood him to say that that is what he was told and that the word mobilization did not originate from him; but that is the word that was used by the people that spoke to him. Isn’t that what you said?
The Witness: That is right, sir.
Q. But you do understand that mobilization means a getting together?
Mr. Crockett: You have an objection, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: When you are finished with the question.
Mr. Crockett: I was going to ask the same question I asked a while ago and got the answer which the Court apparently now does not recall.
Mr. Gordon: May I be heard very briefly, your Honor?
[*4368]
The Court: Well, I think everybody understands this situation, Mr. Gordon. The word mobilization has a very common meaning that I suppose everybody understands. If there is something different about this, why, I feel I should permit Mr. Crockett to bring it out, but I don’t think that he should do the testifying. So I don’t know just what question we have before us now, but I don’t think there is any, Mr. Gordon.
(T–2978) Q. In connection with these teacher training classes that you mentioned, you attended the meeting that was called to form the State educational commission, is that right? A. I attended several meetings in that connection, sir.
Q. This was in September 1945, I believe you said? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also attended the meeting that was called to plan the teacher training course? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, there were people at each of those meetings who were not members of the Party, is that right? A. Not that I know of, sir. My recollection is that they were all very much members of the Party.
Q. All of the people there were members of the Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also attended the meeting that was called to plan the Youth educational program in September 1945, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. There were two Youth classes, I believe you testified, that you attended subsequent to that? A. My recollection is that that is all, I think, that I got to personally.
The Court: I did not quite hear that.
The Witness: My recollection is that all I managed to get to is one or two of them after this first meeting to plan.
(T–2979) Q. There were people at each of those three meetings, that is, the planning meeting for the Youth classes and the two Youth classes that you attended; isn’t it a fact that there were people there who were not members of the Party at each of those meetings? A. Not that I know of, sir. To my best recollection these were all people [*4369] who were all definitely Party members. I cannot recall of anyone being there who was not.
Q. You testified that you attended branch and group meetings at which classes or courses were taught dealing with the writings, I think you said, of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin? A. Right.
Q. Weren’t all of those meetings that you attended, at which various classes and courses were given, weren’t they open to the public? There were non–Party members? A. Public?
The Court: Which question are you asking him, were they open to the public—
Mr. Crockett: If there weren’t non–Party members.
The Court: Let us stick to the first one. Were they open to the public?
Mr. Crockett: O.K.
Q. Were they open to the public? A. Not in the (T–2980) generally accepted sense of the word, no. These were not public meetings. They were not public, no.
Q. These were meetings of the branch? A. Yes.
Q. So you did not have anybody present who was not a member of the Communist Party? A. Occasionally there would be a new person there who would be in the process of being recruited as a member, yes.
Q. At these meetings that you attended, though, where these classes were given, are you prepared to say that there were no persons present who were not members of the Party? A. I didn’t say that.
Mr. Gordon: Objection. I object unless the period of time is fixed.
The Court: Does this refer to the time when you just said a minute ago that there were some people there who were being recruited to be members of the Party?
Mr. Crockett: This refers—I will break it down.
Q. You testified, I believe, that some of these classes were conducted during the time that you were a member of the Malden Branch? A. Yes.
[*4370]
Q. And they were conducted as a part of the Branch meetings? A. That is right.
Q. Weren’t there persons present at those Malden Branch meetings who were not members of the Communist (T–2981) Party? A. Yes.
Q. And they participated in these discussions while the classes were going on? A. You could not train them very well to be Marxists, if they did not, sir.
Q. What about the meetings that you attended of the pro group at which these classes were held? Weren’t there persons present there who were not members of the Party? A. There were no members in the pro group who were not members of the Party and not definitely vouched for as being members of the Party.
No non–members could possibly get into a professional group.
(T–2982) Q. You mean to say that a person had to be a member of the Party in order to get in the branch meetings at Malden?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: He just said the opposite to that, Mr. Crockett. You have been over this two or three times and then you go right back and seem to say that he said just the opposite to what he did say.
Mr. Crockett: I am asking him—
The Court: Now as to these Malden Branch meetings he said that there were some persons occasionally present who were not members. He added “how could they train them to be Marxists unless they permitted them to come in with us?”
Then you went over to the pro 4 meeting and he said as to that positively none got in there who wasn’t vouched for as a party member.
Isnt that what you said?
The Witness: Correct, sir.
Q. Where were the Malden Branch meetings held? A. Well, there were several addresses. I can’t recall all of them at the present time.
Q. They were held at the homes of the various members? A. Yes.
[*4371]
(T–2983) Q. And the pro meetings were held at the homes of the various members? A. Right.
Q. And all of these classes that you attended as a Party member of the Malden Branch meetings and also a part of the pro group meetings were held at the various homes of those members of that group? A. I can’t recall of meetings being held any place else, sir.
Q. Did you ever attend any schools any place else in connection with these courses that were given? A. Marxist training schools?
Q. Yes. A. No. This is 1945. No, that was the only Marxist training school.
Q. Now you testified also, I believe, that it was the common practice at these schools or at these branch meetings to divide the agenda into three parts, the first part having to do with the activities? A. Yes.
Q. You were referring to the activities of the members in connection with the Communist Party programs, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how much time was usually spent in discussions of those activities? A. Well, they varied from time to time. The big complaint of the members were that these meetings were always too long and we tried to keep the time of the (T–2984) meeting within a couple of hours, say, and the period devoted to each one would depend upon the circumstances at that time.
Q. Now among the activities discussed at the Malden Branch meeting were activities of the Party members in connection with the election of Communist Party candidates for office, is that right?
Wasn’t the discussion during the period of the elections?
The Court: Give him a chance. He is thinking.
A. Now where are we now? What period of time?
Q. I am talking about the Malden Branch meetings. A. The Malden Branch meetings?
Q. Yes. A. And you are speaking of a period, say, before a State Convention, something like that?
Q. No, election of Communist candidates to public office. A. Oh, yes, yes.
[*4372]
Q. And that was discussed at one of the meetings? A. Oh, certainly.
Q. And you would also discuss union organization drives at the meetings? A. That is right.
Q. And you would take up the Party’s position on wage increases? A. That is right.
Q. And you also discussed the Party’s opposition to instances of police brutality against minority groups, (T–2985) wouldn’t you? A. We would discuss in general the entire—
Q. But all of that was a part of the Party’s program, is that right? A. At times.
Q. And it was discussed as a part of the activities at these meetings? A. At times.
Q. At other meetings you would discuss the Party’s position on rent and price controls, wouldn’t you? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. That was part of the program? A. For a time.
Q. You also discussed the Party’s position in favor of public housing? A. Yes.
Q. And in favor of FEPC? A. Correct.
Q. As a matter of fact you had an FEPC law enacted in Massachusetts, didn’t you? A. That is right.
Q. The Party was very active in connection with that law, wasn’t it? A. Right.
Q. And the support of that campaign was a topic of discussion at all of these Party meetings, is that right?
The Court: At every one of the meetings did you say?
Mr. Crockett: That is what I am asking him.
A. Not at every one of the meetings, no.
Q. Well, it was a topic of discussion at some of the meetings which you attended? A. Right.
(T–2986) Q. Did you report all of these discussions to the FBI? A. Oh, no, not in general, sir—not in detail, I would say. In general, yes; the program of the Party as we went along, the various points of emphasis and so forth, were reported.
Q. What was the nature of the discussion at the Party meetings which you attended during the time that they were trying to get an FEPC bill enacted in Massachusetts? [*4373] A. Well, I can’t recall the exact conversation and so forth. I am trying to recall my particular work that I conducted myself. We were working for the FEPC enactment.
Q. You were working for FEPC—
The Court: Wait let him finish his answer.
A. Why certainly, sir.
Q. As a member of the Communist Party? A. As a member of the Communist Party and as a personal—
The Court: I suppose you have forgotten what you started to say a minute ago.
The Witness: Well—
The Court: I was following you and I suggested that you be permitted to finish your answer but there were a couple of other questions got in, and so we will forget it.
Q. Now you had a similar discussion of similar activities of the Party or those same activities of the (T–2987) Party at the time you attended meetings of the pro group, is that right? A. Yes, definitely.
Q. Tell me about how long the average length of time of a Party meeting—how long did it take. A. For this discussion or for the work?
Q. No, to go through the entire agenda.
Mr. Gordon: He said two hours, your Honor.
A. We tried to keep it in two hours but sometimes it went to three hours.
Q. Was that just a period alloted for the discussion of current activities of the Party? A. No, this was for the whole meeting.
Q. The whole meeting? A. It would run between, say, eight o’clock in the evening until 11 o’clock, as a sample.
Q. But the whole—about how much time of that two–hour period was given over to a discussion of the Party’s program and the activities in connection with that program? A. Oh, I would say probably 45 minutes although I wouldn’t say that either because, as I say, it depended upon what happened to be on the agenda at the moment, [*4374] and sometimes a greater period or a lesser period would be required.
Q. And how much time was given over to the teaching of these classes? A. Well, that was generally around between 45 minutes to an hour’s time devoted to the (T–2988) educational.
Q. And during that period of time they covered all of this literature that you have testified to here on your direct examination? A. That is right.
Q. How frequently were these Party branch meetings held? A. About every other week.
Q. And how frequently did you go to those meetings? A. Now I think they varied over the period of the years, sir.
Q. Would you say that you were a faithful Party member in terms of attending meetings? A. Very.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
Were you pretty regular in your attendance?
The Witness: Well, I was regular in my attendance except under special conditions, such as, for instance, when I was State Treasurer of AYD, my—I was too much involved in that work, you see, to be able to get to all of the Malden Branch meetings, at the Malden Branch at that time, so under regular circumstances, yes, I got to meetings as regularly as possible.
Q. Now you were in the Melrose Club, I think you said, from the fall of 1945 to the fall of 1947, is that right? A. From the fall of 1945 to the fall of 1947? In Melrose?
(T–2989) Q. That is right. A. No.
Q. Well, what club were you a member of during that period? A. During that period of time I was a member of the Malden Branch most of the time. Then I was transferred to the Melrose Branch for a part of the time and there was a period in which the Melrose and the Wakefield branches were combined, and I think there was a period in which the Melrose and Wakefield branches attended the Malden group. There were several changes in that period of time.
[*4375]
Q. But you were a member of the Melrose Club in October 1945, were you not? A. I believe that was Malden’s—let me see—October—that is right. I don’t recall it. It was either the Melrose or the Malden group in October of 1945.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Philbrick, didn’t you testify as follows—the question was:
“Q. Take the meetings of the Melrose Club. That would be from the fall of 1945 until when? A. From the fall of 1945 until the fall of 1947”? A. Well, I must have not listened to the question, sir. This was in the cross–examination?
Q. No, that was on your direct examination. That is on page 2774 to 2775.
The Court: Well, what is the fact?
(T–2990) The Witness: The fact is that in the period from October of 1945 until the time I became a member of the pro group I was active in Malden, Melrose and Wakefield in the 8th Congressional District, and during that period of time my membership was from time to time shifted from one club to the other as conditions changed.
Q. In other words, you don’t recall exactly what club you were attending during what period of time? A. I wouldn’t be able to itemize the list, no.
Q. So when you testified about what you were taught at these various club meetings you are unable to say what club meetings it was, is that right?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. About how many meetings did you attend of the Melrose Club? A. This is over the whole period of years.
Q. Over the whole period that you belonged to the Melrose Club? A. Oh, I haven’t the faintest idea.
Q. Do you remember how many meetings you attended of the Malden Club? A. No.
Q. Now when did you transfer to the pro group? A. In September of 1947.
[*4376]
Q. Now do you remember how many meetings of the pro group you attended between September 1947 and January 1948? A. September 1947 to January 1948? Well, I wouldn’t (T–2991) be able to say the exact number of meetings but in general the meetings were conducted every other week.
Q. Well, did you attend every other week? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is the period when you had these lectures on “State and Revolution”, is that right? A. That is right, sir.
Q. And you attended each one of those meetings? A. Right.
Q. You are sure about that? A. Well, except for the first—the first discussion of the “State and Revolution”, I was not then a member. I couldn’t get to the meeting, that was the idea. When I first started in they had already begun a discussion of this book “State and Revolution.”
Q. You were not present then at the meeting at which they first discussed “State and Revolution”? A. No.
* * *
(Recess to 2.30 p. m.)
(T–2992) AFTERNOON SESSION
HERBERT A. PHILBRICK, resumed the stand.
* * *
Cross examination continued by Mr. Crockett:
Q. I believe, Mr. Philbrick, we were talking about these classes that you say— A. Yes, sir.
Q. —were held in connection with branch meetings. Tell me, during the period that you were a member of the Malden Branch were there any schools conducted by the Communist Party of Boston? A. By that you mean Marxist (T–2993) training schools?
Q. Schools where you received instruction such as you have been testifying to here. A. That was during the—
[*4377]
Mr. Gordon: I am going to object to that.
The Court: Yes, you see, that shifts the meaning of the question in the middle. Evidently you do mean Marxist training schools.
(To witness) Were there Marxist training schools?
The Witness: During the period of Browderism I don’t know of any, sir, no.
Q. Now when you speak of the courses that were taught to you in classes you are referring to the educational period at the membership meetings, is that right?
Mr. Gordon: Objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know if the course outline which was presented here, I believe as Exhibit No. 39—
Mr. Crockett: Is that right, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment, Mr. Crockett, we will get it for you.
Q. That is the course outline that was used at membership meetings, is that right?
(T–2994) Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: That is Exhibit 39 you refer to, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Gordon: That is right.
The Court: Now what is the question?
Mr. Crockett: I asked him if that was the course outline that was followed at membership meetings.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. May I see the exhibit, please.
Q. (Handing exhibit.) A. Well, following—this is not—yes, OK, this particular outline was used following the instructions of our Marxist training teachers. This outline was used by the teachers in the local clubs. That was the instructions of the teachers at that time, yes.
Q. But the only clubs that you know of in which it was used were the clubs that you attended?
[*4378]
Mr. Gordon: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Well, he is asking him whether that is so. It seems at times as counsel puts the question as though he were stating it himself but the witness understands that he was being asked as to whether this is an accurate statement.
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor, this is cross–examination I have a right to—
(T–2995) The Court: I was endeavoring to say I agreed with you, that I thought your question was all right.
Mr. Crockett: Thank you.
Would you read the question?
Q. (Read.) A. That is correct.
Q. So when you were testifying concerning the various books mentioned as part of the course of study there in Exhibit 39, you were testifying that those books were used at those clubs where you were present, is that right?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was there any school for the study of Marxism operated by the Communist Party in Boston during the period of your membership in the Party and prior to June 20, 1945–1948? A. I don’t understand the question.
Mr. Crockett: Will you read the question?
Q. (Read.) A. Prior? Yes, there were many—now, these are schools? I think we are getting confused on which is a school and which is a class.
Q. Tell me what you understand the difference to be. A. I attended school in 1945, a training school, a Marxist training school, that trained teachers who in turn would teach Marxism. That was 1945.
Q. Where was that school held? A. That school was held at 3 Hancock Street in Boston.
(T–2996) Q. And there were only Party members present at that school? A. Only disciplined Party members were there, sir.
[*4379]
Q. Were there any other schools besides that school that you attended? A. No, there were not, sir.
Q. So when you speak about classes you are talking about the education period at membership meetings?
The Court: Just a moment, Mr. Crockett. I don’t understand that last question. Did you ask him, in effect, whether he attended other schools or whether there were other schools to his knowledge?
Mr. Crockett: I asked him if there were other schools and he said there weren’t.
The Court: I think if you listen to the question you will find it is open to a double interpretation. Will you read it?
(Record read.)
The Witness: That I attended.
The Court: Schools that you attended?
The Witness: That is correct.
Mr. Crockett: I will accept it.
Q. When you speak then of classes at which you studied this Marxist literature, you are referring, are you not, to the education period which was conducted at membership meetings?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
(T–2997) The Court: Sustained.
Q. Where did you study the books that are mentioned there in Exhibit 39? A. Where did I study them?
Q. Yes. A. The books? Well, let’s see what books we have here. In this particular—in October of 1947 we studied the Communist Manifesto, we studied Dialectical—
Q. No, where did you study the Communist Manifesto?
The Court: Let him finish his answer. Go ahead. keep your mind on what you were doing there. You continue your answer.
The Witness: We studied Dialectical and Historical Materialism, we studied Value, Price and Profit, we studied the Foundations of Leninism, and that is all I recall at the moment. And these books [*4380] were used in the conduct of this course in October and November 1947 at this Marxist training school.
(T–2998) Q. It was two months, October and November 1947? A. I think as a matter of fact, it ran into December.
Q. And December 1947? A. That is not—not certain about that but my recollection is that for the period of three months there was this intense drive to get back to—to get rid of the opportunism and the Browderism influences in the Party, to get back to the lessons of Marxism–Leninism.
Q. But you remember what was studied? A. Why, certainly, sir.
Q. But you don’t remember the period of time they were studied? A. I say the period of time was October, November and December.
Q. 1947? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are sure about that. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now how many times a week did you have these classes on these books during this period, October, November and December 1947? A. I believe we went once a week to 3 Hancock Street.
Q. Once a week? A. Yes.
Q. Was that the membership meeting that you— A. Oh, oh, oh, oh; now we are getting confused. Did I say October, November and December 1947?
Q. That’s what I understood.
The Court: Yes, that’s what you did say.
(T–2999) A. I am very sorry. I am speaking of this particular exhibit which was used in October, November and December of 1945—1945.
Q. Does the remainder of your testimony hold true that you only studied then once a week during this period? A. In 1945, as I recall these courses, as I say, it is general practice in the Party to hold meetings every other week, and it is my recollection that this particular function, at this particular course the meetings were held every week.
Q. Every week for the three months period? A. I wouldn’t say so, sir.
[*4381]
Q. Now where were these meetings held? A. These meetings—
The Court: Do you mean by that that it might have been short of three months?
The Witness: That is right, and there may have been occasions when a meeting was skipped for some reason or other, either a holiday or something like that. It is quite a while ago and it is difficult to remember the exact details.
Q. Yes, but where were the meetings held where you attended these— A. These meetings were held in 1945 at 3 Hancock Street in Boston. That is a brick building on the corner (T–3000) near Bowdin Square, and the meetings are on the second floor and—
Q. These are regular party meetings? A. This was a Marxist training course. It was not a regular party meeting, no.
Q. This was a Marxist training course? A. This was a Marxist training course which was open only to selected individuals who were chosen to take part in it.
Q. Now when next did you attend classes on Marxism? A. Well, following this period of getting rid of Browderism, which extended from the 1945 Convention, as a matter of fact, right through—and I would say perhaps it is still going on—following that period of 1945 through then, I guess continuously. It is my knowledge that these various discussions of the various books as outlined in this course have been used from time to time and in various clubs and neighborhood groups over the entire period from that time—
Q. What do you mean by “classes”? A. —from that time up until, as a matter of fact, two weeks ago is the last time.
Q. What do you mean by “classes”? A. What?
Q. What do you mean by “classes” now? A. I mean educational classes, the educational period devoted to—(T–3001) in the course of the club meetings.
Q. Is it true, Mr. Philbrick, that at one of your branch meetings—or isn’t it true that at one of your branch meetings you made a motion that the members each take a false name? A. I made a motion?
[*4382]
Q. Yes, you made a motion. A. No, sir.
Q. You never made such a motion? A. I never remember making of such a motion. I mean—
Q. Well, did you make a suggestion? A. I remember at various times the subject has come up of the possibility of the use of false names—
Q. No. I asked you, did you at any membership meeting make a suggestion that the members use a false name? A. I don’t recall of making such suggestion, sir, no. That would come from above some place. It wasn’t up to us to decide that.
Q. Subsequent to your transfer to the pro group, I will ask you is it not true that you suggested to the members of the pro group that they each take a false name? A. This is after I became a member of the pro group.
Q. That is right. A. No, sir.
Q. You did not? A. No. The subject was certainly discussed.
Q. Didn’t you offer a motion in connection with it? A. No, no.
(T–3002) Q. You were a member of the Malden Branch of the Communist Party at the time of the CPA Convention in July 1945, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any discussion at your branch meetings of the draft resolution? A. Yes, there was, sir.
Q. A very thorough discussion, is that right? A. I would say so.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Yes. I don’t know quite what that means; but did he answer it?
(Answer read.)
The Court: Very well, I will allow it to stand.
Q. Did the membership propose any amendments to that draft resolution? A. Not that I recall, sir.
Q. Did the membership authorize the submission of a resolution supporting the draft resolution? A. The delegates who attended the convention were so informed to support the draft resolution. That is my recollection.
* * *
[*4383]
(T–3003) Q. You are familiar with that draft resolution, are you not? A. No.
Q. You were present at the time it was discussed? A. Yes.
Q. And you reported that discussion to the FBI, did you not? A. I imagine so, yes.
Q. Tell me, did the FBI furnish you with a pocket dictaphone to take to these various meetings?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I didn’t hear it.
(Question read.)
The Court: I will allow it.
A. No, sir.
Q. Who made the principal report at the July Convention of the Communist Political Association, do you remember? (T–3004) A. I believe that Anne Burlack gave the main report at the July meeting.
Q. And did she also make the main report at the reconvened session in August? A. No, I don’t believe so—well, it is not my recollection that she did.
Q. Following the reconvened session in August did the State office of the Communist Party in Massachusetts send to each of the delegates and alternate delegates a statement of the decision reached by the convention? A. I don’t recall.
Q. You were an alternate delegate at that convention, I take it? A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification, please.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit EE for identification.)
* * *
Q. Mr. Philbrick, I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit EE for identification, which purports to be a report of the decisions of the district convention, and attached to that “Decisions on organizational measures to execute these tasks,” and I ask you if you have seen that before (hand– [*4384] ing)? A. I don’t remember it vividly, sir. I do remember (T–3005) the program in general as outlined here.
Q. Is that a true and correct statement of what happened at the convention?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Can you tell us whether or not you received a copy of that as an alternate delegate following the convention? A. I don’t remember of receiving that, sir.
Q. Well, I will ask you if at that convention, in the course of the convention, if you did not have a discussion of the struggle for an adequate reconversion program, and if in the course of that discussion there was not general agreement on committing the Party to the support of the Murray Full Employment Bill? A. Well, let me be perfectly frank, sir: that convention took place over a period of two days, it lasted about all day long each time, there were a great many speakers, there were a great many issues came up, and my testimony here on the stand has been what I could remember of that meeting, and there is a great deal that happened at that meeting that I can’t possibly remember at this time.
Q. But you do remember precisely what books were on the literature table? A. No, no.
Q. Didn’t you testify here as to what books were on the literature table?
(T–3006) Mr. Gordon: I object to the word precisely.”
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. So you don’t know what the program was that was adopted at that convention?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know what the program was that was adopted at that convention? A. I remember that the major issue, the major issue before the convention and the major [*4385] program was to get back to Marxism–Leninism and to get away from Browderism.
Q. That was major in terms of what you yourself regarded as major?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Mr. Crockett: Well, the witness has characterized—
The Court: What else can it be except his own view?
Mr. Crockett: I think I am entitled to have him admit that that is what it is.
The Court: He has said so several times. If you think it will help to put the question again I will allow you to do it.
(T–3007) Q. That was your idea of what was the major issue at the convention? A. Anne Burlack as the main speaker, dwelt the major part of—portion of her speech upon that particular issue.
Q. But didn’t she also discuss trade union work and the interests of the Party and increasing the wages for textile workers in Massachusetts? A. The only thing I can remember—
Q. Tell me, did she discuss the wage conditions among the textile workers in Massachusetts? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did she discuss a more intensified program on behalf of—on the part of the Party in connection with discrimination against Negroes? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. And didn’t she discuss a more intensified program on behalf of the Party in connection with combatting anti–Semitism? A. No. You see, these—have been the platform of the Party for years.
Q. Do you recall her discussing that?
The Court: Just a minute, Mr. Crockett. Go ahead with your answer.
The Witness: These points in the Party program have been the same for many years, and the fact that they might have been mentioned at this particular time would not have made any particular impression upon my mind.
[*4386]
(T–3008) Q. You mentioned this morning that there were some leaflets that you worked on that were for public distribution. A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Did you work on any leaflets that were not for public distribution? A. Let’s see. I cannot recall of any at the moment, no.
Q. Did you send any Communist Party leaflets to the FBI that were not for public distribution? A. Let me see if I can recall. Of course, my Party membership card.
Q. That was not a leaflet, was it? A. No. No, I cannot recall of any leaflets.
Q. So that all the literature you sent to the FBI was the literature that was freely distributed among the public in Boston?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Objection sustained—objection sustained. I don’t consider that an accurate statement of his testimony.
Q. I believe, in answer to a question by me this morning, you testified that you did not send any leaflets that you worked on for the United Office and Professional Workers to the FBI, is that right?
The Court: Do you object to that, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir. I am trying to find my note on that. I thought it was one particular leaflet. (T–3009) Wasn’t it, Mr. Crockett?
The Court: Is the basis of your objection—
Mr. Crockett: I asked him if he worked on any leaflets and he said yes.
The Court: —that the statement contained in the question is inaccurate?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, it just doesn’t meet my recollection.
The Court: There have been so many instances where that has been so, it is hard to remember each one. I will allow you to put the question to him.
Mr. Crockett: Will you read the question?
Q. (Read.)
[*4387]
The Court: He is asking you whether that is so. He puts it as though it were so, but he is asking you if it is so.
Mr. Gordon: I have an additional objection. I would like to be heard.
Mr. Crockett: I take it this is—
The Court: I will hear you.
Mr. Crockett: —a petition to your Honor to reconsider your ruling because my recollection is that you had already ruled on it.
The Court: Perhaps that is so. I will hear Mr. Gordon. What have you to say?
(T–3010) Mr. Gordon: His testimony was that he joined the UOPWA one month ago. I object to it—
The Court: I think it is proper to probe the witness to see if perhaps his recollection may be different than it was before, but I don’t like to have questions that put things as though he said them when he didn’t say them. I don’t remember, as to this particular matter, whether he did or not, and I will permit Mr. Crockett to ask him whether he so testified. That is, in effect, what he is asking him.
Let us have the question repeated.
(Question read as follows: “Q. I believe, in answer to a question by me this morning you testified that you did not send any leaflets that you worked on for the”—)
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
The Witness: That was not the answer.
The Court: You cannot put in questions that way. You put them as though they are positive facts and then, in effect, you are really asking him whether he so testified. Why not put it that way?
Q. Did you testify this morning that, one, you had worked on leaflets for the UOPWA? A. This morning, sir, let me—I can answer you factually and give you the truth, if you will let me answer it now. This morning I believe (T–3011) you were questioning about joining the UOPWA—right?—in which we discussed the date I joined it, just about a month ago, and in the course of the organizing cam– [*4388] paign I prepared that leaflet for distribution. I haven’t turned in that leaflet to the FBI. Now you are asking if I turned in any leaflets for the UOPWA over the period of years to the FBI, is that right?
Q. No, I didn’t say over the period of years. A. The question—
Q. Did you turn in—forget it.
Mr. Crockett: I will reframe the question.
Q. Have you sent any leaflets to the FBI with reference to the UOPWA since you joined the UOPWA? A. No.
Q. Have you made any reports to the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the UOPWA since you joined the UOPWA? A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk with the FBI before you joined UOPWA? A. No.
Q. Obviously you did. My next question is, did you talk with them with reference to UOPWA?
The Court: Strike that out.
Mr. Crockett: It is obvious, your Honor. The witness has testified to conversations with the FBI over a period of years.
(T–3012) The Court: It may be obvious to you but it is not obvious to me, and I don’t think that we get anywhere by counsel arguing that things are obvious. When you come to make your summation, that will be a good time for argument. Not now.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification.)
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit FF for identification.)
Q. Did you have any conversation with any member of the FBI on or about the time you joined the UOPWA? A. No.
Q. Was there a publication put out by the Communist Political Association of New England in 1945 known as “Spotlight on New England”? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that put out by the Education Commission? A. I don’t know if that was a specific responsibility of the Education Commission or the State Headquarters as a whole.
[*4389]
Q. You are familiar with that publication, are you not? A. Yes.
(T–3013) Q. Have you seen this May–June—what purports to be the May to June 1945 issue of “Spotlight on New England”, being Defendants’ Exhibit FF? Have you seen that before (handing)? A. (Nodding.) Yes.
Q. Have you seen it before? A. I believe I have, sir.
Q. Did you do any work in connection with this publication? A. I don’t recall, no.
Q. Did you send a copy of this publication to the FBI as a part of any report which you made concerning activities of the Communist Political Association?
The Court: You mean that particular issue?
Mr. Crockett: This particular issue May–June 1945.
A. I may have.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: I object to Exhibit FF for identification.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I should like to offer at this time the column on the righthand side of Exhibit FF for identification.
Mr. Gordon: (After examining.) The righthand column is the one he pointed to, your Honor.
(Handing to the Court.)
The Court: Do you object to it?
(T–3014) Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: Does the record show which page?
Mr. Crockett: The first page.
The Court: The front page righthand column, the column on the extreme right.
Q. Did you testify here, Mr. Philbrick, with reference to a West End Club of the Communist Party? A. I stated that in the—in the conduct of the courses at 3 Hancock Street, Boston, that I believed that that was the headquarters of the West End Communist Club.
[*4390]
Q. But you are aware that there is a West End Club? A. I am not aware that there is now, but at that time—
Q. Well, was there in May–June, 1945?
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Crockett—
A. I can’t tell anything about the West End Club.
Mr. Gordon: That is the fall of 1945.
The Court: He says he can’t tell anything about the West End Club.
Mr. Crockett: You say it was the fall of 1945?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit FF for identification and call your attention to a piece that appears on page 4 thereof that purports to be a report concerning the West End Club. I would like for you to look at it and see (T–3015) if this refreshes your recollection concerning the existence of a West End Club at that time? A. Well, the exhibit mentions—
The Court: Just whether that refreshes your recollection as to the existence of the West End Club.
A. I don’t know quite how to answer that question, sir, but my recollection is that there was a West End Club and this doesn’t help me to be any more sure of it.
Q. Is your recollection also refreshed concerning the activities of the West End Club as reported there?
The Court: He said his recollection wasn’t refreshed at all.
Mr. Crockett: His recollection concerning the existence of the West End Club. I am asking now about the activity.
The Court: You asked him, “Is your recollection also refreshed” just as though he said it was refreshed when he had said it was not.
Q. After reading the paragraph which I pointed out to you do you have any present recollection of the activities mentioned therein having been carried on in Boston by any [*4391] club of the Communist Party? A. Yes, I can recall vaguely this particular program of—
Q. Now did you include reference to that activity in (T–3016) any report that you made to the FBI? A. I can’t recall, sir.
Q. In no report to the FBI did you discuss the Party’s efforts to get public housing? A. I didn’t say that, sir.
Q. But you didn’t refer to this particular activity? A. I can’t recall that, sir.
Q. I believe you said that you were in charge of leaflet production and helped prepare and design leaflets and booklets for the Party around December, 1945, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. And prior to that time in September, 1945, you were a member of the State Education Committee, is that right? A. That is true.
Q. Now was the State Education Commission the same thing as the Education Commission for the New England district Communist Party? A. I don’t think so.
Q. You think it was a different organization entirely? A. Yes, because the Educational Commission to which I participated—in which I participated, didn’t concern itself particularly with educational problems of New England but just of Massachusetts.
Q. But wasn’t there a sort of overlapping in some of the literature between the use of “New England” and the use of “Massachusetts” in speaking about the Communist (T–3017) Party around Boston? A. In some instances there was, yes.
Q. So that it might have been the Education Commission for the New England district of the Communist Party that you were a member of? A. More likely it was not. My impression is that the New England Educational Commission consisted of a few people at the State office—
Q. Did you ever— A. —whereas this Educational Commission to which I belonged to was a broader committee.
Q. Did you work with those two people who you say composed the Educational Commission for New England district in the preparation of any pamphlets or leaflets?
The Court: Did he say two people or a few people?
[*4392]
Q. Did you say two people or a few people? A. A few people. Few, few.
Q. Oh, I am sorry. I meant a few people who constituted the Education Commission for the New England district of the Communist Party—did you ever work with them in the preparation of pamphlets? A. At times, sir. I am still a bit uncertain as to which of these people belonged to which group, you see, but I will say at times I worked with Justine O’Connor, Otis Hood, Fanny Hartman and Alice Gordon, and so forth, but I don’t know exactly what their status was as to being on this New England Commission or this State Education Commission. I don’t know.
(T–3018) Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification.)
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification which purports to be a study outline and ask you have you seen that before? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you work on that? A. I sure did.
Q. Did you include that in your report to the FBI? A. Yes, I believe I did.
Q. Does that represent a true statement of the outline that you prepared for the Communist Party in Massachusetts. A. This is the actual job that I worked on. I cut all these stencils.
Q. What about the cartoons in this? Did you draw the cartoons? A. Yes.
Q. So you are familiar with it?
The Court: Did you get up all of it or did you just cut the stencils and draw the cartoons?
The Witness: I cut the stencils and drew the cartoons.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: May I ask one preliminary question?
The Court: You may.
Mr. Gordon: When was this prepared, Exhibit GG for identification?
[*4393]
(T–3019) The Witness: I don’t remember exactly now.
Mr. Gordon: Don’t you remember the year?
The Witness: I believe it was 1946 but I am entirely unsure. There may be a date on the very last page where it is signed.
Mr. Crockett: Maybe I can help you, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: Under the present state of the record I object to it, your Honor.
The Court: Are the cartoons supposed to have any particular significance, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: They are part of the exhibit.
The Court: You say they are a part of the exhibit, but apart from the exhibit they have no significance?
Mr. Crockett: No; just for illustration.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
(T–3020) Q. I show you page 4, Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification, and call your attention to the reference near the middle of the page to the Civil Production Administration, and ask you if that refreshes your memory so that you are able to state now approximately when this document was prepared (handing)? A. Could I ask for one of my diaries to refresh my memory, sir?
The Court: Well, I think if you will just answer the question you will do better.
A. No, it doesn’t help very much, no.
Q. You are unable to state whether it was after this report in July 1946? A. Well, it had to be after that report in July 1946.
The Court: It would have to be so if that statement is accurate, but the question is, what do you remember?
The Witness: I can’t remember exactly, sir. There were so many leaflets and so forth at the times that aren’t very clear to me.
[*4394]
Q. What section of the Party were you a member of at the time you worked on this pamphlet? A. I was still a member—by “what section” do you mean—
Q. What club? A. What club branch?
Q. Yes. A. I was still in the Eighth Congressional District, sir.
(T–3021) Q. What club were you a member of? A. I can’t recall. It would be either Malden, Melrose or Wakefield.
Q. You were educational director for the Eighth Congress District of the Party in Massachusetts from 1945 to 1947, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. So you had to work on this some time between 1945 and 1947, is that right? A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. Now did you work on it subsequent to April 1, 1945? A. Yes.
Q. You did? A. Yes.
Q. And before—
Mr. Crockett: Well, strike that.
I renew my offer, your Honor. Would the Court care to see it?
The Court: Yes.
(Mr. Crockett hands to the Court.)
The Court: Is there any objection, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: The fact or the basis, your Honor?
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Gordon: The fact—just the fact or the basis? Just the fact?
The Court: Well, the entire exhibit is offered again now by Mr. Crockett, and I am inquiring whether you object as you did before.
Mr. Gordon: I was obtuse, your Honor. I meant, (T–3022) do you want any reason?
The Court: No. I just wanted to know whether you were objecting.
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. The contents of this exhibit—that is exhibit GG for identification—were used by the Communist Party in Massa– [*4395] chusetts during the period of time that you were education director for the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Did you use it in connection with your work as education director for the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts? A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you testified that you included it in part of your report to the FBI? A. Yes.
The Court: What did you say?
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I renew my offer, your Honor.
The Court: Let me see it again.
(Handed to the Court.)
The Court: You are not offering just this page 4 but the entire pamphlet?
Mr. Crockett: I am offering the entire pamphlet.
The Court: You make the same objection. Mr. Gordon?
(T–3023) Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. So that Exhibit GG for identification sets forth what you understood to be the program of the Communist Party in Massachusetts at the time you worked on the preparation of Exhibit GG? A. No.
Q. It does not? A. No.
Q. Will you point to whatever part there is in there that does not in your judgment represent a part of the program of— A. A part of the program? You said “the program” before.
Q. Take it as a part of the program.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Crockett: May I inquire the reason for the Court’s ruling?
The Court: I don’t think there is any occasion for me to get into an argument about it.
Mr. Crockett: I just wanted to know, your Honor, so that if there has been any deficiency in the lay– [*4396] ing of the foundation that may have occurred, I can at least attempt to cure it while the witness is on the stand.
The Court: Yes, I understand.
(T–3024) Mr. Crockett: I take it the Court declines to inform counsel?
The Court: Well, I don’t see there is any occasion to do that. It seems to me the document is self–explanatory. We have been over the same thing several times before, and I dislike very much getting into a discussion. It seems unnecessary.
Mr. Crockett: Wil the Court hear me in support of a renewal of the offer?
The Court: No.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Was the matter contained in Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification advocated and taught by the Communist Party in Massachusetts during the period from the date of your preparation of this outline down to July 20, 1948?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. I believe you testified, Mr. Philbrick, that the Progressive Book Shop in Boston is the main center to which all the directors go to obtain their party literature? A. That is right.
Q. Were Communist leaflets obtainable at that book store? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever obtain any leaflets from there? A. Yes.
Q. Leaflets on what subjects were obtainable at that (T–3025) book store? A. Practically every subject imaginable, sir, to do—that is, with—that is, to do with society, and so forth, and wages—well, the general program of the Communist Party.
Q. And that covered just about every subject imaginable? A. Well, I mean, except, of course, how to treat measles or something, but you know what I mean.
[*4397]
Q. You mean all the major social and economic problems? A. Right.
Q. Were there any leaflets available there at the time you were there on textile workers? A. From time to time there have been leaflets on textile workers and steel workers and railroad workers—
Q. And let me—pardon me? A. (Continuing) Railroad workers and a great many others.
Q. Did you, as part of your activities, while part of the educational activities for the Party, ever prepare any leaflets or flyer with reference to textile workers? A. I probably did, sir, but I can’t remember a specific leaflet at the moment.
Q. Suppose you look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection. Did you prepare that leaflet? A. No, I did not prepare this one.
Q. You are sure you did not prepare that? A. The only thing I can remember is that I helped to work on the (T–3026) design and layout of it but I did not reproduce it, or set up the type, or do any of that work on this leaflet.
Q. But you did help prepare it?
The Court: Did you write the material?
The Witness: No, I did not write the material.
Q. But you did some work on it. A. Well, I don’t want to gyp anybody else out of credit here.
Q. I don’t think you need worry about it. I just want to know, did you do any work on it? A. I believe I made the design and the layout of this.
Q. That is a sample of some of the leaflets that were put out at that time? A. Yes.
Q. By the Communist Party with reference to textile workers, is that right? A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I ask to have this marked for identification.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit HH for identification.)
The Court: Very well. When you said design and layout, you did not mean the composition of the writ– [*4398] ing? You mean the design at the top and the way the type was set up?
A. That is right, sir.
The Court: But you did not compose any part of this written matter here, write it yourself?
The Witness: No, sir.
(T–3027) Q. But it was composed as a publication of the Communist Party of Massachusetts, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. At the time that you were a member? A. During the period of service on the educational commission.
Q. And did you submit a copy of that leaflet to the FBI as a part of any report that you made? A. I probably did, sir.
Q. This leaflet, then, supplements your discussion of the activities of the Party during this period, is that right? A. I would say so.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it in evidence, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: Excuse me, your Honor.
The Court: Certainly.
Mr. Gordon: I object to its admission in evidence, your Honor.
Did you say you have a copy for me?
The Court: Objection sustained.
* * *
(T–3028) By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Was it your testimony, Mr. Philbrick, that you did not remember whether or not in 1945 there was a West End Communist Club in Boston? A. My testimony I did not remember?
Q. Yes. A. No, I know that there was a West End Communist Club in Boston at that time.
Q. And your reports to the FBI covered the activities of that club also, did they not? A. No, they did not.
Q. They did not. In making these reports to the FBI did you discuss or did you take up in the reports that was [*4399] discussed at the various meetings on which you were–reporting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You made reports to the FBI on the UOPWA, I think you said? A. Yes.
Q. Did you report on any of the union meetings of the UOPWA? A. Well, none that I had been to, sir.
Q. Did you report on any of the meetings of the UOPWA? A. On the very recent meetings of the UOPWA, yes.
The Court: You mean what somebody told you?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Who told you? A. Let’s see if I can remember her name now. Carol Levy or Carol Levey, I guess her (T–3029) name is.
Q. Was she the person through whom you got your information concerning the meetings of the UOPWA? A. Well, I have been working with Carol Levey—this is after the period of the indictment, this is in the present period—on UOPWA work in connection with the John Hancock Life Insurance campaign in Boston.
Q. Now on Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification, the study outline that you worked on, was this study outline used at any of the discussions during the educational periods at any clubs while you were attending such club meetings? A. I believe it was, sir, yes.
Q. What period of time was it used? A. My recollection is that it would be, as I thought of it—that this period would be some time perhaps during the summer of 1947 and a period therafter. It took quite a while, you see, to produce that thing, and then there was a period in which this was used in the local clubs.
(T–3030) Mr. Crockett: Again I offer Defendant’s Exhibit GG, in evidence.
I believe you have a copy of this, have you not, Mr. Gordon?
[*4400]
Mr. Gordon: Yes, I have the copy that Mr. Philbrick turned into the FBI.
Mr. Crockett: Does your Honor care to look at it again?
The Court: No. I have a very distinct recollection of it.
Do you object?
Mr. Gordon: I would like to change the ground of the objection.
The Court: Well, I don’t remember your stating any ground before, Mr. Gordon; I hadn’t asked for a statement of grounds, as I remember it, but perhaps I did; but if you desire to say something now about it I will hear you.
Mr. Gordon: I thought I had objected on the ground that no foundation for it had been laid, and therefore to its competency, and I object to its relevancy at this time.
The Court: Well, I may say that the chief reason that I have been excluding it, and the reason I am going to exclude it again, is, it seems to me, one of those multitude of collateral issues which may have some place in the case (T–3031) but which I am going to try my best not to have them exaggerated or blown up into undue importance. This seems to me to have only a remote bearing upon the testimony given by the witness. It is quite consistent with what he says that there might have been a number of things; there might have been a lot of talk about various policies of the Communist Party as to youth and women and anti–Semitism and working for the Negroes, working for the unions, and working for laboring people generally, and I feel that those issues should not be placed into a matter where they are given undue importance.
Mr. Crockett: May I be heard before your Honor makes his ruling?
The Court: Yes, I will hear you.
Mr. Crockett: The bulk of the testimony given by this witness has had to do with what was taught at these various membership meetings and training [*4401] classes which he says were carried on by the Communist Party of Massachusetts. Now he has also testified—I just brought it out from him—
The Court: Just a second.
(To Witness) Did any of those come in with these pro 4 meetings? This pamphlet, GG—
The Witness: No, sir. We have not used that in any of the pro meetings.
The Court: That is what I thought.
(T–3032) Mr. Crockett: But he did testify that they were used at meetings which he attended subsequent to the dates set forth in the indictment, and that they were part of the course of study that was offered during the educational portion of these meetings. Now if the witness has made a report, the substance of which he has testified here, and which deals exclusively with what was said at these meetings with reference to Marxist–Leninist literature, I submit that the jury is entitled to know the entire story of what was taught or what was discussed at these meetings, and in order to get that entire story we need this document in evidence to supplement the testimony of the witness. It is not contended primarily here that this document is offered to contradict his testimony; it is offered to supplement his testimony.
The Court: You see, it is always that way when a person is charged with a specific crime. It often comes up that they would like to go into other matters, to get the full picture, and the first thing you know there is so much to the picture that you get your mind off of what is the central feature of the case. Now I don’t think this case has to do with whether the Communist Party or these defendants, or any of these individuals, were in favor of these various things that they said they were in favor of. That comes into the picture to some extent, but I felt that (T–3033) it was my duty here to see that it didn’t suddenly expand the case to the point where we would never be through.
[*4402]
You see, if you get this pamphlet in, then there will be another one and another one and another one, and they will all get into these other matters which doubtless were part of the program, as the witness has testified.
Mr. Crockett: But the witness has testified, your Honor, that he was taught something about revolution—
The Court: Yes, he has.
Mr. Crockett: —and that there was supposed to be—the ideal time for revolution was if there was a depression. Now this pamphlet has to do with the position of the Massachusetts Communist Party on the question of depression, and I think that becomes very relevant as a supplement to the testimony which the witness has given.
The Court: Well, I am sorry that I can’t agree with you.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I would like to object to your Honor’s characterization about “the bulk of the witness’s testimony,” and of the exhibit, and I would like to be heard—
The Court: Did I characterize the testimony?
(T–3034) Mr. Isserman: I believe your Honor did, and I would like to be heard on the question of relevancy of the document which—
The Court: No, I do not desire to hear you, Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Sacher: I should like an opportunity to call your Honor’s attention to specific testimony and to a specific portion of this exhibit that I think will have a bearing on it. I would like to invite—
The Court: Would you like to have the jury excused so that we can take an hour or so with this?
Mr. Sacher: No, I think it will take a moment. I don’t even have to mention it; I will hand the page—
The Court: If it will take a moment, you can go ahead.
Mr. Isserman: Before Mr. Sacher does I make objection to the character of your Honor’s comment.
[*4403]
The Court: Then I will change my mind and I will not hear him. We will just get into another wrangle and I want to avoid it.
Mr. Gladstein: May I call your Honor’s attention to the fact that because you just took umbrage at an objection which Mr. Isserman made as a lawyer—
The Court: I took no umbrage.
Mr. Gladstein: —you then reacted—
(T–3035) The Court: I suppose you begin—
Mr. Gladstein: May I finish, your Honor?
The Court: —to talk about my inflection of voice—
Mr. Gladstein: No, I am not talking about your inflection.
The Court: But I am not taking any umbrage at all.
Mr. Gladstein: But, your Honor—
The Court: But I am not going to have a long–drawn–out discussion of something that is perfectly clear to me.
Mr. Gladstein: No, but—
The Court: Now I don’t desire to hear you on it, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: I am not arguing the point because your Honor hasn’t said you would hear me but I am pointing out that apparently your reaction to Mr. Isserman’s objection was very manifest, was that you immediately reversed the ruling that you had previously announced concerning the right of Mr. Sacher to make an argument concerning a document.
The Court: I saw a very definite possibility of prolonged discussion which I desired to avoid.
(T–3036) Mr. Gladstein: Well, I submit that you were visiting a reprisal upon one lawyer and the men he represents because your Honor reacted unfavorably to the fact that another lawyer made a legal objection.
The Court: I suppose that I have been doing some very bad things and I am accustomed to your [*4404] telling me so, and I take no umbrage at it at all but I must say that I can’t agree with your characterizations.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I hadn’t attempted to make any characterization.
The Court: Well, you said two or three things about me that seemed as though you were characterizing what I did but I bear them patiently and I shall continue to do so.
Mr. Gladstein: May I say something in connection with the exhibit that has been offered?
The Court: No; I don’t want to hear any argument about it.
Mr. Gladstein: Very well.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. You were—
Mr. Isserman: Just a minute. I would like to make it clear, your Honor, that I did not intend to argue but I did want an opportunity to state grounds for sustaining the offer of this exhibit.
(T–3037) The Court: Very well, we will let the matter drop.
Q. Mr. Philbrick, do you recall seeing any reports in the Massachusetts papers—any of the Boston papers, I should say, concerning the Massachusetts State Communist Party Convention in August 1945?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I get so confused with all these objections and so on, I can hardly keep my mind on this.
Read that question to me, please.
(Question read, as follows:)
“Q. Mr. Philbrick, do you recall seeing any reports in the Massachusetts papers—any of the Boston papers, I should say”—
The Court: Yes; I sustain the objection.
[*4405]
(T–3038) Q. News items or items or notices concerning the August 1945 CP Convention in Massachusetts were carried in the Daily Worker, were they not? A. I believe they probably were. I recall no reporters being at the Convention from the Boston papers or from the Worker.
Q. But the Worker carries reports sent in by Party members, does it not? A. Yes.
The Court: You are speaking generally or—
The Witness: In general, the Worker carries articles at times which are sent in by local members.
Q. After this Convention in August 1945 the proceedings or a summary of the proceedings of that Convention were carried in the Daily Worker, were they not? A. I have a vague recollection that there was a summary of some kind and I imagine that there probably was, following the usual practice of the Worker to do so.
Q. How many people were present at the August 1945 Massachusetts CP Convention? A. My recollection is that there were a few less people than were at the July Convention.
Q. About how many people were present at the Convention, Mr. Philbrick? A. I would say around between 200 and 250.
The Court: That is in August?
(T–3039) The Witness: That is in August.
Q. You were not personally acquainted with all those people, were you? A. No.
Q. So you are unable to say whether or not there were any non–Party members present? A. I believe I have already testified that—
Q. You testified concerning the CPA Convention in July. A. Oh, oh, oh, I see. Well, at the Communist Party Convention in August the same alternates and same delegates attended. So far as I know, the same rules for visitors were applied at the August Convention too.
Q. So far as you know, there may have been persons present there as well as at the CPA Convention in July who were not members of the Communist Party? A. There could have been but, if so, I did not know that.
[*4406]
Q. Well, as an alternate delegate would you know every one who was there? A. No.
Q. You also testified that there was a Party Builders Conference held in February 1947, in Boston, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. I show you what purports to be the agenda for that conference and ask you if you recognize it?
The Court: Mr. Reporter, will you let me have the name of that conference?
(T–3039–A) The Reporter: Party Builders Conference.
Q. (Continuing) Do you recognize that? A. I don’t recognize this, sir, but—
Q. Were you at this conference? A. Yes.
(T–3040) Q. Were you at the conference? A. Yes.
Q. And this doesn’t refresh your recollection as to what went on at the conference? A. It refreshes my recollection—
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
The Court: Has he been asked about that conference?
Mr. Gordon: He was asked whether he recognized that paper.
Mr. Crockett: I don’t think that was his Honor’s question, Mr. Gordon.
The Court: I asked whether he has testified about this conference.
Mr. Gordon: On direct examination he has, yes, sir.
The Court: The question is now whether after looking at that paper it refreshes his recollection, in just that way, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I asked him first if he recognized that as the agenda for the conference.
A. I don’t recognize it as the agenda for the conference, no.
Q. Were you present at the conference? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were those matters discussed at the conference? A. I remember some of them being discussed, yes.
[*4407]
(T–3041) Q. Do you see any on there that were not discussed? A. Do I see anything on here that was not discussed?
Q. That is right. A. I don’t believe so, sir. The only thing I remember in addition to my testimony of yesterday or whenever I gave it—
Q. Don’t volunteer anything. Did you send a copy of this agenda to the FBI? A. I don’t recall having received that. Was that generally distributed or was it given to the Party leaders?
Q. Does it indicate that it was? What does it say? A. It says, “Dear Comrades,” but this might have been just to the club secretaries. That was sometimes common.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit II for identification.)
Mr. Crockett: I offer it.
Mr. Gordon: I am not sure whether the witness said he ever saw this or not, your Honor. Would you ask him that question?
The Court: The witness said he had no recollection of seeing it before.
The Witness: No.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it.
The Court: I will allow it. It may be marked.
(Defendants’ Exhibit II for identification received (T–3042) in evidence.)
Q. Now this is the Party Builders Conference at which you said that they sent out colonizers, is that right? A. This is the meeting at which Manny Blum—
Q. This is 1947? A. 1947 in February.
Q. The Party Builders Conference? A. In February, and this is the meeting at which Manny Blum called for colonizers.
Q. You said they sent out colonizers to the General Electric plant. Do you remember that? A. I didn’t so testify to that.
[*4408]
Q. Didn’t you say that they sent organizers into the General Electric plant? A. Well, my recollection is that I told only about the call for colonizers and the call for organizers.
Q. Didn’t you say that they sent colonizers to the General Electric plant in Lynn, Massachusetts?
The Court: Just a second.
A. I said that the General Electric was mentioned as a major point of concentration. Now I am not a laborer and I wasn’t sent out to go to the GE plant myself but I know that that was the emphasis that Manny Blum laid on that point at that time.
Q. The Party conducted these Party Builders Conferences every year? A. I don’t recall there being one every year.
(T–3043) Q. Well, they had them for more years than the one year of 1947, did they not? A. I can’t testify as to that.
Q. Was the purpose of the Conference to begin a recruiting drive for new members into the Party? A. As I recall the purpose of the Conference was to begin a recruiting drive for members into the Party and also to increase the sale of the Daily Worker.
Q. That is right, and also to raise funds? A. I have forgotten that part.
Q. Now the Party during the period that you were a member—
The Court: Well, the increasing of the members would raise funds, wouldn’t it?
The Witness: Well, the Party is always raising funds, sir.
Q. The Party during the period of your membership concentrated on getting members from among workers, did it not? A. During the period of my membership?
Q. That is right. A. In the Party?
Q. The big concentration for new members was among working people? A. Well, my own experience for a long time was that they wanted to recruit members among the youth.
[*4409]
Excerpts from Defendants’ Exhibit II, Read into Record
Mr. Crockett: Will you answer my question?
Will you read it to him?
Q. (Read.) A. I would say that is true, yes.
(T–3044) Q. And you find working people in plants, do you not? A. That is right.
Mr. Crockett: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is Exhibit II in evidence. It reads:
“Party Builders Conference.
“Ritz Plaza Hall, 218 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Sunday, February 2nd, 1947, 10 a. m. to 1 p. m., 1 p. m. to 5 p. m.
“Agenda: Program for 1947 Recruiting Campaign.
“Report by Fanny Hartman, Special sub–report by Joe Figureido on Communist work in the shops.
“Those invited:
Members of District Committee, Members of shop and industrial branches, Key individual shop workers, Executives of all neighborhood branches, Individual leaders of neighborhood, civic, language, and youth organization.
New England Greets The National Recruiting Drive
“Dear Comrades:
“March 15th opens the 1947 National Party (T–3045) Building Campaign. The National goal is a membership of 100,000 by the Party’s 28th Anniversary in September.
“We in New England are in a good position to participate in this recruiting campaign. Our high re–registration proves that our members support the Party program and are eager to participate in work. Our experiences in the Worker Drive show that when we reach the workers with our program we get excellent response.
[*4410]
“The results in New Bedford, the beginnings in Lawrence and Worcester, well show the effectiveness of a policy of concentration among the basic industrial workers.
“Labor and the people are facing a bitter onslaught by big business and its representatives in Congress. The very viciousness of these attacks is a sign of the weaknesses of the capitalists, not of their strength.
“The capitalists know that in their drive for super–profits they are heading the American people towards a disastrous crisis of untold unemployment and misery. They are driving to crush the resistance of the people to this offensive by putting over a fascist regime.
(T–3046) “The capitalists are afraid that the American people will look to the Communists for a way out. Alarmed over the growing strength and influence of the Communists in Europe and among the Colonial people, they’re afraid it will happen here, too.
“Hence the unprecedented Red–baiting, the attempt to divide the democratic and labor camp from within, the witch hunts and intimidations.
“Our Party has a program to meet the needs of the people. We can give the people courage, direction and strength to defeat this fascist threat. Our Party, the Party of Socialism, alone points to the ultimate solution against crisis, unemployment, war.
“So the rapid building of our Party is the No. 1 job of every Communist in the course of the mass struggles of the people, in the course of giving leadership to the most urgent problems of the workers. This means the Building of the Party among the decisive industrial workers, among the veterans, youth, etc.
“We greet this Recruiting Drive with enthusiasm, knowing that it will further direct our attention and activities towards becoming a Party rooted among the decisive workers of New England.
[*4411]
(T–3047) “Outline of Proposed Program for the Drive.
“1. Quota
“Accept a minimum goal of 600, with 300 to be recruited during February, March and April.
“2. District Concentration
“a. Specific shops with goals of building Party shop clubs.
“b. Roxbury (Negro concentration area); Dorchester (Jewish).
“3. Independent Party Campaigns and Mass Education
“a. Housing major independent Party campaign. 10,000 signatures on Party petition in period of month.
“b. Weekly leaflets on current issues.
“c. Lincoln–Douglass meetings in February in major cities.”
Q. What were these Lincoln–Douglass meetings? A. I can’t recall now. I remember vaguely helping on leaflets on those occasions too.
Q. Did “Douglass” refer to Frederick Douglass? A. Yes.
Q. He was the Negro friend of Abraham Lincoln, was he not? A. Yes.
Q. And this meeting was held in February. Is that about the time that both Lincoln’s and Douglass’s birthdays occur? A. Yes.
(T–3048) Q. And they are celebrated in that month in Massachusetts? A. On various occasions the Party held many celebrations.
Q. I am speaking about Lincoln–Douglass celebrations in Massachusetts. A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: “d. Series of house–meetings with contacts; speakers to be assigned.
[*4412]
“4. Conferences on Specific Phases of Work
“a. Industry–wide conferences
“b. Comrades in mass organizations
“c. National Groups.
“5. Special Brigades of Recruiters
“a. Brigade of 25 who will recruit a minimum of 10 members
“b. Larger Brigade who will recruit a minimum of 2 members.
“Importance of the February 2nd Conference.
“The success of our Recruiting Drive will depend upon:
“The degree with which our whole membership is convinced and determined that the job can and will be done.
“The degree with which the Party gives leadership to the struggles in the shops and neighborhoods.
(T–3049) “The detailed organization and follow–thru; drawing up lists of contacts in shops and organizations; Worker readers, etc.
“Full participation of our entire leadership—section, branch, key workers in shops and mass organizations will guarantee the democratic adoption of a rounded out program and the guaranteeing its fullfillment.”
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Now then—
Mr. Gordon: Excuse me. Did you read this (indicating)?
Mr. Crockett: I read all the way through.
The Witness: Did you mention the “Brigade,” sir?
Mr. Crockett: I certainly did.
[*4413]
Q. By brigades they meant membership teams? A. Yes.
Q. That would go out to recruit new members? A. Yes.
Q. But they used the term “brigade,” is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe you testified that at the August 1945 Communist Party Convention they voted upon and passed by–laws for the newly–formed Communist Party of Massachusetts, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Do you recall sending a copy of those by–laws to (T–3050) the FBI? A. I believe I did, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification, Mr. Clerk.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit JJ for identification.)
Q. Will you look through those by–laws, Mr. Philbrick, and let me know if that represents a copy of the by–laws of the Communist Party as enacted at the August 1945 Convention, at which you were an alternate delegate? A. Yes, I recognize this as the—well, I don’t know. Wait a minute. Nope. Correction. This was a suggested set of by–laws and there were some corrections made to this before they were accepted, sir. I don’t remember what the corrections were, but I do know that there were some corrections.
Q. What do you mean by a suggested set of by–laws? A. Well, at the August meeting these by–laws were presented—well, I don’t remember exactly—I imagine by a committee appointed to draw up the new by–laws, and it was presented to that convention.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that a copy of those by–laws in mimeographed form, just like that, were sent to you and all the other delegates and alternate delegates after the convention? A. A set just like this?
Q. That is right, mimeographed set. A. I believe that the set that we received was (T–3051) different from this one.
Q. Different in what respect? A. Well, that is what I cannot recall. I recall this as the by–laws which we had [*4414] at the meeting itself and there was a discussion of them, and here and there there was a change or so.
Q. What is there about those by–laws that makes you think that those were the ones that were the basis of discussion? Can you point to any particular section? A. Well, I notice, for instance, at the top of the page it says “Draft of By–laws, Communist Party of Massachusetts,” and I do remember such a draft was given to us for discussion at the meeting. The changes were not important, sir.
Q. Isn’t it customary in the Communist Party for a committee, in making a report, resolution, by–laws and so forth, to head it “Draft” and, after it is adopted, it is also sent out with the same heading? A. I wasn’t aware of that, sir, no.
Q. Do you remember the draft resolution of the National Committee? A. Yes.
Q. After that was adopted by the National Committee, is it still referred to as the draft resolution? A. I guess it was at that.
Q. And it is still sent out at a draft resolution, is it not? A. I don’t remember getting one.
(T–3052) Q. Can you point to any other one—
Mr. Gordon: I object to that form of argument because, after that resolution was adopted by the Convention, the word “draft” was left off.
The Court: I understood to the contrary from what Mr. Crockett has been saying.
Mr. Gordon: Isn’t that right, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: The resolution is generally referred to as a draft resolution.
The Court: You see, Mr. Crockett, you have been giving me the impression here that they used the one with the word “draft” in and, after it is passed, it is used just the same with the word “draft.”
Mr. Crockett: I want to disclaim any intention to give the Court any impression. I am on cross–examination of this witness. I may have intended to give the witness an impression.
[*4415]
The Court: Oh, I had not realized that you were putting in your questions things that weren’t so.
Mr. Crockett: I never put in my questions things that I don’t regard as so. I may frame my question in such a way as to test the witness’s veracity when he testifies to the contrary to the way in which I have put it in the question.
The Court: I think it is so easy here to blow (T–3053) up the most trivial thing into a matter of consequence. Now, the point here is whether the by–laws as actually passed were different from the paper that you showed the witness. He is not supposed to have drafted them. He says, because he sees the word “draft” there that he thinks there were some changes made, and he thinks he has some recollection of it. Now, let us not just chew that over for a half hour or so, but find out.
Mr. Crockett: I think I have a right to cross–examine this witness as I see fit as long as I stay within the bounds of the law, your Honor.
The Court: Then you go ahead and cross–examine him just exactly the way you want to, and I will permit you to do it.
Mr. Crockett: Will you pardon me for a minute?
The Court: I will.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to your Honor’s characterization of the cross–examination by Mr. Crockett as being prejudicial to his conduct of the defense—
The Court: More misconduct on my part?
Mr. Isserman: —and to the conduct of the defense by the other attorneys in this case. It is demeaning the cross–examination.
(T–3054) The Court: All right; your objection is noted.
Mr. Gordon: In support of my objection to Mr. Crockett’s statement about draft resolution, I hand you Exhibit 25 for identification, and refer you to page 816.
The Court: But Mr. Crockett tells me now that he was just testing the witness’s recollection and [*4416] that he feels that he is entitled to cross–examine him in his own way, and if some discrepancies come out, to take advantage of that, and I think he is right. So I will let him do so.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. You recognize this as the draft of the by–laws, is that right, Mr. Philbrick? A. That is true.
Q. And that was the subject of discussion at the Convention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall any of the proposed changes that were offered at the Convention? A. I have been trying to and I can’t remember.
Q. But there was a complete discussion of all proposed changes in these by–laws? A. These by–laws, that is, the proposed by–laws, were read section by section, or article by article—I forget now. It was broken down.
(T–3055) Q. You did send a copy of this draft to the FBI? A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: No objection.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit JJ in evidence.)
The Court: Would you prefer to read that in the morning, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I think it would be better, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember the admonition I have heretofore given you: Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
(Adjourned to April 12, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.)
[*4417]
(T–3056) New York, April 12, 1949;
10.30 o’clock a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
HERBERT A. PHILBRICK, resumed the stand.
The Court: Is everybody here?
The Clerk: All present.
The Court: Let the record show that the jury is present and the defendants, and the attorneys for the defendants and for the Government are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Crockett:
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, on yesterday I think it was Mr. Gordon who asked me, or Mr. McGohey, for a copy of Defendants’ Exhibit II. I have a photostatic copy of it which I will hand him.
Mr. McGohey: Thank you.
Mr. Crockett: And here is one for the use of the Court (handing).
Mr. Gordon: Excuse me, Mr. Crockett.
Yesterday morning your Honor asked me to look for the envelope?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: In which some of those instructions (T–3057) or the invitation pertaining to the 1945 State Convention was enclosed when sent to the witness. I have looked through the files and I do not find any envelope which would be connected with the particular exhibits which came in, although there are envelopes in the file.
The Court: Very well.
Cross examination continued by Mr. Crockett:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, you are acquainted with the by–laws adopted by the Communist Party of Massachusetts at the convention in August, 1945, are you not? A. I know of them, sir.
[*4418]
Q. I believe you testified yesterday that they were taken up section by section at that convention? A. That is right, sir.
Q. And then a vote was taken, I understand, on each section, is that right? A. I don’t recall if the vote was taken on each section or if they just discussed the section and then went on to the next one.
Q. But the by–laws were eventually approved by a majority of the people at the convention? A. That is right, sir.
The Court: By a majority?
The Witness: Unanimously, I should say.
Q. It was unanimous? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everyone there approved of the by–laws, is that (T–3058) right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you notice anything undemocratic about the method in which the by–laws were adopted?
Mr. Gordon: Objection. I object to the characterization.
Mr. Crockett: I will reframe it.
The Court: There are so many different interpretations of what is democratic, Mr. Crockett, I think perhaps you can reframe the question.
Q. Was there anything in connection with the adoption of these by–laws which in your opinion was undemocratic?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you satisfied as an alternate delegate at this convention that the by–laws were adopted in a democratic manner?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Crockett: I should like to read to the jury certain sections of the by–laws which were introduced in evidence yesterday and I think they constitute Defendants’ Exhibit JJ.
[*4419]
The Court: I think if you will indicate, Mr. Crockett, what you mean by the word “democratic” perhaps (T–3059) the question would be more intelligible.
Mr. Crockett: No, I have no desire to do so.
The Court: The objection was sustained simply because I have heard so many views of what “democratic” may be that I thought it a little ambiguous.
Mr. Crockett: I put the question as a routine simple question, but Mr. Gordon had objections to it, and I have no desire to pursue it any farther.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: I am reading the introduction:
“This organization having been formed at a convention which met for the purpose of setting up a state organization of the Communist Party for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and having accepted and endorsed the preamble and Constitution of the Communist Party does hereby adopt these by–laws pursuant to and in accordance with the same Constitution and the resolution of the National Convention of the Communist Party. All points not covered by these by–laws shall be governed by the National Constitution.”
Q. Mr. Philbrick, this reference to “resolution” was that a reference to the draft resolution of the National Committee? A. I believe it was, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Do you have that exhibit, Mr. (T–3060) Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Which one?
Mr. Crockett: 13–A.
Mr. McGohey: The National Constitution?
Mr. Crockett: The resolution.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, the resolution.
Mr. Gordon: I have 13–A, Mr. Crockett, but this is the draft resolution of the National Board. In fact it is called—
Mr. Sacher: Of June 2nd, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, adopted on June 2nd and is called—
[*4420]
Q. Will you look at Government’s Exhibit 13–A, Mr. Philbrick, and let me know if that is the resolution that is referred to in the preamble of the by–laws which I just read (handing)? A. Could I hear the reading of that again, sir?
Q. The question? A. Could I hear the specific reference to the resolution? A. Oh yes; “does hereby adopt these by–laws pursuant to and in accordance with the same Constitution and the resolution of the National Convention of the Communist Party.”
Mr. Gordon: That is not the resolution of the National Convention.
(T–3061) A. I don’t think this is the one.
Q. You say you don’t believe that is the one? A. Well, does not that refer to the resolution of the—of the National meeting—National Convention?
Q. That is what I am asking you. A. Well, this is the National Board meeting.
Q. Was there a difference between the two? A. Well, I am trying to—
Q. Between the two resolutions? A. I believe there was, sir. I believe there were some changes between those two.
Q. You testified that you were familiar with the publication known as Political Affairs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I show you Political Affairs for September 1945—I believe it is Government’s Exhibit No. 25 for identification—and I call your attention to pages 816 through 832, an article which purports to be Resolution of the National Convention of the Communist Party USA, adopted July 28, 1945, and I ask you if this is the resolution to which the preamble to the by–laws refers? A. I am fairly sure, sir, that this is the resolution which is referred to in this particular set of by–laws.
Q. And this is the resolution that was approved by the delegates at the Massachusetts convention in August, 1945? A. That is correct, sir.
* * *
[*4421]
(T–3062) Q. Now, you recall, do you not, Mr. Philbrick, that in this resolution a program was outlined for the Communist Party of the United States? A. I recall that it was a very complete program, sir.
Q. That is right. Among other things the resolution called for speeding up the defeat of fascist militarist Japan, is that right? A. I don’t recall all the specific details, sir, no.
Q. Suppose we look at this Exhibit 25 together. It does call for speeding up the defeat of fascist militarist Japan, is that right?
The Court: Militaristic?
Mr. Crockett: Militarist Japan.
(T–3063) The Court: Japan?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
A. That is right, sir.
Q. That was part of the Party’s program for that year? A. Yes.
Q: Further down it calls for strengthening the United Nations cooperation to guarantee postwar peace in the Pacific and the world and to ensure a free democratic Asia with the right of national independence for all colonial and dependent peoples, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. That was considered and approved by the convention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then it called for the complete destruction of fascism and to build a durable peace, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. And among other things it said, to cement American–Soviet friendship and unity to promote an enduring peace and to carry through the destruction of fascism, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of which was approved by the delegates after discussion at the convention? A. That is right.
Q. It also called for carrying out in full the decisions made by the Big Three at Teheran, Crimea and Potsdam, is that right?
(T–3064) Mr. Gordon: I would like the record to show that these are not the things in the order that they appear here, but that Mr. Crockett is just [*4422] going along, taking them not necessarily one after another.
The Court: Is that right, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I am discussing the resolution, your Honor, and I took—
The Court: You don’t care to say whether they are skipping about or taken consecutively?
Mr. Crockett: I should like to state now that I am refreshing my memory from page 822. Do you have that page, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: And I think you will notice that to some extent I am summarizing it, but I am getting approval of the witness that my summation is correct.
Isn’t that right?
The Court: The question is whether you are taking them consecutively or whether you are skipping about. If you don’t care to say, that is all right, we will let it rest at that.
Mr. Gordon: Whether he is taking all of it.
Mr. Crockett: There may have been one or two words in each paragraph that I did not quote. If that is what Mr. Gordon is making the point about, that, (T–3065) certainly, I admit that that happened.
Do you want me to read it word for word, Mr. Gordon? I will be glad to do that.
The Court: No.
Mr. Gordon: No, I am not going to suggest that. It is your cross–examination.
Mr. Crockett: I am glad you realize that at last.
The Court: You don’t need to make remarks like that, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Gordon: We are getting on pretty well, your Honor: I am not trying to spoil it.
The Court: I know, but it is so easy to start something in this trial, and I try to avoid that.
Mr. Gordon: As long as Mr. Crockett says that he is giving a summary and not purporting to give all the points that are in there, why, I have no objection.
[*4423]
The Court: Very well. It so appeared.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, may I ask that the Court please invite Mr. Gordon to state this, whether or not he claims that the manner in which the witness is being examined distorts in any way any portion of the resolution? Because the implication, I think, that Mr. Gordon intends to convey is that Mr. Crockett is picking and choosing for the purpose of giving some erroneous impression, which (T–3066) is not so. And I think the least that can be done is to have Mr. Gordon state once and for all that he doesn’t make that claim, otherwise it is quite obvious that we will go through the entire resolution word for word.
The Court: Please proceed, Mr. Crockett.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Suppose we go back, Mr. Philbrick. I have a copy of the resolution before me so that you may retain the one that you have there. I should like for you to begin on page 822 and read beginning with the heading “Speed the defeat of fascist–militarist Japan,” to the end of that section.
(Witness examines.)
Q. Do you see that? A. Yes, sir. Well, this is headed under the “Slogans of Action”—
Q. I ask you to begin at page 822. A. Yes.
Q. And read “Speed the defeat of fascist–militarist Japan.” A. Well, there is a number 1 there.
Q. I know it. A. OK.
“1. Speed the defeat of fascist–militarist Japan!
“Prosecute the war against Japan resolutely to unconditional surrender.
“Rout and defeat the advocates of a compromise peace with the Japanese imperialists and war lords. (T–3067) Curb those who seek American imperialist control in the Far East.
“Strengthen United States cooperation to guarantee postwar peace in the Pacific and the world and [*4424] to ensure a free democratic Asia with the right of national independence for all colonial and dependent peoples.
“Press for a united and free China based upon the unity of the Communists and all other democratic and anti–Japanese forces so as to speed victory. Give full military aid to the Chinese guerillas led by the heroic Eighth and Fourth armies.
“Continue uninterrupted war production and uphold labor’s no–strike pledge for the duration. Stop employer provocations.”
Q. Now this resolution was adopted on July 28, 1945, is that right? A. In Massachusetts?
Q. No, in the National Convention. A. The Massachusetts resolution was formally approved in August.
Q. In August? A. Yes.
Q. And it referred to current affairs as of that time, did it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And each of the provisions which you have mentioned constitutes a portion of the program which was approved (T–3068) by the delegates at that convention, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Now will you begin reading from the second point. A. Section II reads:
“Complete the destruction of fascism and build a durable peace!
“Cement American–Soviet friendship and unity to promote an enduring peace and to carry through the destruction of fascism.
“Carry out in full the decisions made by the Big Three at Teheran, Crimea and Potsdam.
“Punish the war guilty without further delay including the German and Japanese staffs and monopolists. Death to all fascist war criminals. Make Germany and Japan pay full reparations.
“Strengthen the World Labor Congress as the backbone of the unity of the peoples and the free nations. Admit the World Labor Congress to the Economic and Social Council of the World Security Organization,”—
[*4425]
Q. May I interrupt you one moment? What was the World Labor Congress?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: How is that material, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I want to test the witness’s (T–3069) understanding of what happened at the convention. He says he was an alternate delegate.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. You don’t recall offhand, Mr. Philbrick? A. I do not—
The Court: I sustained the objection, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: Oh, I am sorry.
Q. Continue with your reading. A. Let me say again—
Q. No, just go on with your reading. The objection was sustained. A. If this is supposed to bring my recollection as to—
Q. Will you go on with your reading, Mr. Philbrick? The Court has made a ruling. A. All right. Let me see where we stopped. (Examining.)
“Support the San Francisco Charter for an effective international security organization, based upon the unity of the Big Three.
“Guarantee to all peoples the right to determine freely their own destiny and to establish their own democratic form of government. Put an end to Anglo–American political and military intervention against the peoples, such as in Greece, Belgium and Italy. Admit Italy to the ranks of the United (T–3070) Nations.
“Grant the right of self–determination to Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Support the Puerto Rican and Filipino peoples in their demand for immediate and complete independence.
“Break diplomatic relations with fascist Spain and Argentina. Full support to the democratic forces fighting to reestablish the Spanish Republic. Support the struggles of the Latin American peoples [*4426] for national sovereignty and against the encroachments of American and British imperialism.
“Remove from the State Department all profascist and reactionary officials.
“Help feed and reconstruct starving and war–torn Europe. Reject the Hoover program based on reactionary financial mortgages, and political interference.
“Use the Bretton Woods Agreement in the interests of the United Nations to promote international economic cooperation and expanding world trade. Grant extensive long term loans and credits, at low interest rates, for purposes of reconstruction and industrialization. Expose and combat all efforts of monopoly capital to convert such financial aid into means of extending imperialist control in these (T–3071) countries.”
Q. Now the matters referred to in that section were discussed at that convention, were they not? A. That is true.
Q. And they were approved by the delegates? A. Yes.
Q. Will you read Section III now. A. Section III—I hope my voice holds out—
“Push the Fight for Sixty Million Jobs—Meet the Human Needs of Reconversion!
“Make the right to work and the democratic aims of the Second Bill of Rights the law of the land. Support the Murray Full Employment Bill.
“Increase purchasing power to promote maximum employment. No reduction in weekly take–home pay when overtime is eliminated.
“Revise the Little Steel Formula to increase wages so as to meet the rise in the cost of living. Pass the Pepper 65–cent Minimum Hourly Wage Bill. Support the Seamen’s Bill of Rights, H.R. 2346. Defend the wartime gains of the Negro workers in industry.
“Establish the guaranteed annual wage in industry.
[*4427]
(T–3072) “Establish a shorter work week except where this would hamper war production.
“Increase the right to work”—
Q. That was “enforce,” was it not?
Mr. McGohey: “Enforce the right to work”, that paragraph you just started. You said “increase” instead of “enforce”.
The Witness: Oh, I am sorry.
A. (Continuing):
“Enforce the right to work and to equality in job status for women. Guarantee the exercise of this right by adequate training, upgrading, seniority rights, as well as by providing day nurseries and child–care centers to aid all working mothers. Safeguard and extend existing social legislation for women, as workers and mothers, and abolish all discriminatory legislation against women.
“Support President’s Truman’s proposals for emergency federal legislation to extend and supplement present unemployment insurance benefits as a necessary first step to cope with the current largescale cutbacks and layoffs. Start unemployment insurance payments promptly upon loss of job and continue until new employment is found. Provide adequate severance pay for laid–off workers.
“Prevent growing unemployment during the (T–3073) reconversion and postwar period by starting large–scale federal, state, municipal and local public works programs—(rural and urban)—slum clearance, low rental housing developments, rural electrification, waterway projects (such as the St. Lawrence and the Missouri Valley), the building of new schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
“No scrapping of government–owned industrial plants. Guarantee the operation of these plants, at full capacity for peacetime purposes.
“Establish public ownership of the munitions, power and utility industries to place them under democratic control.
[*4428]
“Support all measures for full farm production. Defeat the advocates of scarcity. Extend and strengthen the farm price support program. Establish low–cost credit and adequate crop insurance. Safeguard the family–sized farms.”
The Court: Mr. Philbrick, do you remember all those things being talked of there?
The Witness: No, sir.
Mr. Crockett: I must object to the Court’s interference with my cross–examination.
The Court: That is all right. I am going to (T–3074) direct that the witness need not read any further. It is an exhausting process. He has been on cross–examination for several days. If you desire to read any parts you may read them yourself.
Mr. Crockett: May the witness complete the reading of that section?
The Court: He may not.
Mr. Crockett: I shall begin then where the witness’s reading has terminated.
“No scrapping of government–owned industrial plants. Guarantee the operation of these plants, at full capacity for peacetime purposes.
“Establish public ownership of the munitions, power and utility industries to place them under democratic control.
“Support all measures for full farm production. Defeat the advocates of scarcity. Extend and strengthen the farm price support program. Establish low–cost credit and adequate crop insurance. Safeguard the family–sized farms. Help tenant farmers to become owners. End the semifeudal sharecropping system in the South.
“Maintain and rigidly enforce rent and price control and rationing. Strengthen the law enforcement powers of the OPA. Smash the black market.
(T–3075) “Prosecute the war profiteers. No reduction or refunds in corporate, excess profit and income taxes for the millionaires and big corporations. Lower taxes for those least able to pay.
“Pass the Wagner–Murray–Dingell social security bill.”
[*4429]
Q. Those matters were discussed at the convention, were they not, Mr. Philbrick? A. The whole thing, the entire thing was discussed.
Q. And the delegates voted their approval? A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: Section IV:
“Keep Faith With the Men Who Fight for Victory!
“Raise substantially dependency allotments to families and relatives of men in the Armed Forces.
“Extend and improve the system of democratic orientation and discussion in the Armed Forces. Draw more personnel from labor’s ranks into orientation work. Eliminate all anti–labor and anti–democratic material and teachings from the education services conducted in the Armed Forces.
“Guarantee jobs, opportunity and security for all returning veterans and war workers, regardless of race, creed or color.
“Extend the scope and benefit of the GI Bill of Rights and eliminate all red tape from the Veterans’ (T–3076) Administration. Guarantee adequate medical care to every veteran.
“Press for the speedy enactment of legislation providing for substantial demobilization pay, based on length and character of service, and financed by taxes on higher personal and corporate incomes.
“Insure full benefits of all veterans’ legislation to Negro veterans.”
Q. That section likewise was discussed? A. I don’t remember of the discussion, as I say, specifically on this section.
Q. But you know it was approved by the delegates? A. Yes.
Q. And it became a part of the Party’s program of Massachusetts? A. Right.
[*4430]
Mr. Crockett: Section V:
“Safeguard and Extend Democracy!
“Enforce equal rights for every American citizen regardless of race, color, creed, sex, political affiliation or national origin.
“End Jimcrow. Establish a permanent FEPC on State and National scales. Abolish the poll–tax and the white primary. End every form of discrimination in the Armed Forces. Protect the rights of the foreign–born.
(A–3077) “Outlaw anti–Semitism, one of the most pernicious and damaging of fascism’s ideological weapons. Support the just demands of the Jewish people for the immediate abrogation by the British government of the imperialist White Paper. Support the upbuilding of a Jewish National Home in a free and democratic Palestine in collaboration with the Arab people, on the basis of the agreement of the Big Three in the Near East.
“Protect and extend labor’s rights, especially the right to organize, strike and bargain collectively. Repeal all anti–labor laws such as the Smith–Connally Act. Defeat the Ball–Burton–Hatch anti–labor bill.
“Outlaw and prohibit all fascist organizations and activities and every form of racial and religious bigotry.
“Rescind all anti–Communist legislation.
“Curb the powers and policies of the monopolies and trusts which jeopardize the national welfare and world peace. Prosecute and punish all violations of the anti–trust laws. Demand government dissolution of all monopolies and trusts found guilty of attempting to restore the Anglo–German–American cartel system. Revoke their patent rights and prosecute their (T–3078) officials. Enact new legislation subjecting the monopolies to a greater measure of public control with labor, farm and small business representation on all government bodies exercising such supervision.
“Protect and extend federal aid to small business.”
[*4431]
Q. That section was approved by the delegates? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And became a part of the Party’s program in Massachusetts? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: It was all approved?
The Witness: The whole thing was approved.
Q. And the attainment of each of these objectives is the sum of what the Party advocated in Massachusetts, is that not true?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Mr. Philbrick, this resolution, this program was adopted by the Massachusetts Convention to serve as a guide for Party activities until the next convention, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. I think you testified that you were very much interested in youth movements up in Massachusetts—the Cambridge Youth Movement and the Young Communist League and the American Youth League for Democracy? (T–3079) A. This was previous to 1945.
Q. That was when you were interested, previous to 1945? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did your interest continue after 1945? A. After 1945 I was given different responsibilities in the Party.
Q. I am not talking about the Party; I am talking about youth movements generally. A. Yes.
Mr. Crockett: This is Section VI of the resolution and is headed “Safeguard the Future of America’s Youth!”
“Guarantee full and equal opportunity for education and jobs for all youth.
“Establish an adequate program of training and retraining in new and higher skills during the period of reconversion.
“Fix adequate minimum wage standards and guarantee equal pay for equal work to young men and women workers.
[*4432]
“Reestablish and strengthen minimum working standards for working minors which have been relaxed during the war. Abolish child labor.
“Pass legislation for adequate federal aid to schools and students especially in the (T–3080) South. Establish full and equal opportunity for schooling, including college education. Guarantee full academic freedom.
“Enact federal legislation to safeguard the health and well–being of the youth. Develop adequate recreational, cultural and social programs for democratic citizenship in schools and communities as a means to prevent juvenile delinquency.
“Establish the right to vote at 18 by State legislation.
“Establish a federal government agency, including representation of youth and labor, to develop and coordinate planning to meet the nation’s responsibility to youth.
“Adopt special safeguards for guaranteeing education, vocational training and job opportunities for Negro youth.”
Q. All of which was approved by the delegates at the Massachusetts Convention in August 1945? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3081) Q. And became a part of what the Party advocated during the following year? A. That is right.
Mr. Crockett: Now I should like to read to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Article 5 of the by–laws, or, I should say, Article 5 of the by–laws to which I just read the introduction.
“Section 1. The officers of the State Organization shall be a president and as many other officers as the State Committee by majority vote decide to elect. The State Committee shall be elected by a majority vote of the State Convention. The State Board shall be elected by the State Committee from among its members, the number to be determined by the State Committee. It shall carry [*4433] out the decisions and work of the State Committee between its meetings and shall be responsible for all its decisions and actions to said Committee. The State Board shall decide on the frequency of its meetings. The officers shall perform the duties usually associated with their offices and/or as may be required of them or assigned to them by the State Committee.”
Then I shouldl like to read Section 3 of Article 6, the title to which is “Local Organizations.”
“Section 3. Regular minutes of the proceedings (T–3082) of clubs or city, county or regional councils shall be taken and read at said meetings. Copies of such minutes shall be forwarded on request to the State Secretary.”
And then Article 7—
The Witness: May I interrupt?
Mr. Crockett: —under the heading “Finances,”
“Section 1. The State, county, club or any other organized subdivision of the Communist Party of Massachusetts shall be required to have regular semi–yearly audits of their financial reports which shall be made available to the membership under their jurisdiction.”
And then Article 8, “Local Officers and Committees”—one section:
“Section 1. Every club of the Communist Party shall elect an executive board and as many officers as they may decide. These officers shall be members of the executive board of the club, the size of which should be decided by each club. Other members of the club executive board who may be in charge of certain phases of the work of the club may be considered heads of committees but not necessarily as officers of the club.”
Mr. Gordon, did you wish to read any portion (T–3083) of these by–laws to the jury at this time?
Mr. Gordon: No, sir.
[*4434]
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, where were you born? A. Born in Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. What does your middle initial stand for? A. Arthur.
Q. Were you ever a student at Harvard University? A. No—wait a minute. Was I ever a student at Harvard? Yes, sir.
Q. When? A. Well, again, I cannot remember the dates, but I did take two or three special courses at Harvard in salesmanship. Well, the only one I can recall specifically was a course in salesmanship that I took at Harvard.
Q. But you were not a regular student? A. No, I was never a regular student.
Mr. Crockett: I should like at this time to offer in evidence page 1 of Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification, containing the title and box on that page and the first and second paragraphs of the text, which deal with depressions, about which the witness has testified.
The Court: Do you object to that, Mr. Gordon?
(T–3084) Mr. Gordon: Would your Honor give me a moment?
The Court: Certainly.
Mr. Gordon: I won’t object to the first page if the offer will include the last page.
Mr. Crockett: May I see the last page?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir (handing).
Mr. Crockett: You mean all on the last page or just beginning—
Mr. Gordon: Starting with the fourth line.
(Mr. Crockett examines.)
Mr. Gladstein: Since the Government is willing to have the first and the last page in, why don’t we have the whole thing in so that we can have the entire picture?
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, Mr. Crockett and I get on beautifully. Why does Mr. Gladstein have to keep on doing this?
The Court: Well, it is just Mr. Gladstein’s disposition. I don’t think you need worry about that.
[*4435]
Have you and Mr. Crockett got together on page 4?
Mr. Crockett: We will even agree on the last page, your Honor.
The Court: The first page and the last page?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: That means the cover?
(T–3085) Mr. Crockett: No, I am not talking about the cover. Well, let me amend my offer to include the cover.
Mr. Gordon: No objection to that.
The Court: I am just clarifying your agreement with Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Crockett: Thank you.
The Court: Which, as I understand it, covers the cover, the first two paragraphs of page 1 and—
Mr. Gordon: Why don’t we make it the whole first page; is that all right?
The Court: The whole first page and the whole last page, beginning with—
Mr. Crockett: Well, let me amend it to include the whole first page.
Mr. Gordon: That is as far as I go, Mr. Crockett (indicating).
Mr. Crockett: Over here (indicating)?
Mr. Gordon: No.
The Court: Well, you must not be greedy, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: Well, can you very well understand it without that, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Well, we will leave out the last three lines on the first page—the first page including the first two full paragraphs.
(T–3086) Mr. Crockett: Well, let me do this, your Honor, let me ask the witness one question.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. On page 2 here did you prepare these cartoons (indicating)? A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Crockett: I should like to amend my offer, your Honor, then, to include on page 2 down to the [*4436] heading “Earnings for Workers in Manufacturing Industry.”
Mr. Gordon: No, I am going to object to going into the details of that.
The Court: All right, I will exclude it all.
Mr. Crockett: Well, in that case I offer—
The Court: You know, we have had a lot of discussion of this exhibit. My own feeling is that in the exercise of my discretion here as to how far to permit the defense to go, that this exhibit has such a remote bearing as a whole that I have repeatedly excluded it. I was inclined to go along if counsel were in agreement on the same part.
Mr. Crockett: Well, we are, your Honor, in agreement on two pages here.
The Court: I know, but I don’t consider it entirely the thing to do, to have all this discussion. One thing provokes another, and the first thing you know we will be back where we were a few days ago which I (T–3087) don’t desire to have happen, and I shall exclude the entire exhibit.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps if your Honor gives us a moment together we can get an agreement so that there will be no more discussion about it.
The Court: Well, I will tell you what you do: you two go out in my chambers out there and take a couple of minutes and we will all rest here peacefully until you come back, because I know how it is with counsel, you get trading around and one thing leads to another, so go out there and see if you can’t agree and then I will go along with you.
(Mr. Crockett and Mr. Gordon leave the courtroom and then return.)
Mr. Crockett: I think your Honor said that I could renew my offer in terms of what Mr. Gordon and I have agreed to.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Crockett: We have agreed to the cover page of Defendants’ Exhibit GG for identification, the first page of the text down to but not including the last three lines and the last page beginning with the [*4437] first full paragraph on that page and not including the first three lines of the page.
The Court: The exhibit may be received (T–3088) as thus limited, and that will be called GG—
The Clerk: GG–1.
The Court: GG–1.
The Clerk: And we will mark the last page GG–2.
The Court: GG–1 and GG–2.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibits GG–1 and GG–2 in evidence.)
Mr. McGohey: GG–1 and GG–2.
Mr. Crockett: Will your Honor pardon me one minute?
The Court: Certainly.
(Mr. Crockett examines.)
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. You testified, did you not, Mr. Philbrick, at page 2737 of the record as follows, and I will read it to you, beginning near the middle of the page:
“At that point therefore the whole society is described as being pregnant with revolution and the revolution can take place under two circumstances. In the case of the United States we were instructed that the United States is in a period of capitalism described as imperialism or the highest stage of capitalism and that the time of the revolution in the United States will not take place next week (T–3089) or next month or two o’clock Wednesday afternoon but will take place under two circumstances:
“1. In case of a depression, a heavy depression.”
Isn’t that what you testified to? A. That is right, sir.
Q. You also testified, did you not, that Defendants’ Exhibit GG—
Mr. Gordon: I am sorry, would you read the rest of that sentence, because you stopped in the middle.
[*4438]
The Court: Well, all Mr. Crockett read was the first occasion, and then there was another one right after that that probably the jury will remember, in the case of war.
That is what you were about to read, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I did not get the question, your Honor.
The Court: I say this little question you had with Mr. Gordon was about the second circumstance, which was war, so I don’t think you need to repeat that.
Mr. Crockett: Well, I am sure I need not repeat it now because your Honor has already repeated it, but it happens not to be germane to the subject that I want to take up with the witness at this time.
The Court: No, but when you say he testified thus and so—
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
(T–3090) The Court: —and you stopped in the middle of it, it might leave the impression that the only circumstance that he testified is at a depression, whereas he testified to two.
Mr. Crockett: No, I had no intention of doing that.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Crockett: Because I read “two circumstances’ and I only referred to one.
The Court: No, there is no dispute about it. I merely interposed to avoid unnecessary discussion, so you go right ahead with your questions.
Q. Now you also testified, Mr. Philbrick, that Defendants’ Exhibit GG, which I hold in my hand, which is the “Study Outline” on “Prosperity and Depression in Capitalist Society” was taught and advocated by the Communist Party in Massachusetts during the period of your membership in the Party and subsequent to April 1945, is that right? A. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Crockett: I am reading to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the portion of this document [*4439] marked Defendants’ Exhibit GG–1, which portion has been admitted in evidence. The title page, as you will see, is “Study Outline Prosperity and Depression in (T–3091) Capitalist Society.”
Excerpts from Defendants’ Exhibit GG–1, Read into Record
Then there is a diagram on there, “Weighing the Facts of Capitalist Economy Prepared by the Education Commission New England District Communist Party Price 10 cents.
“Prosperity and Depression in Capitalism”—I am reading now from the first page:
“Prepared by the Education Commission New England District Communist Party,”
and then there is a box and a title in the box is “Purpose of This Outline” and underneath that heading is the following:
“This outline is meant to provide a guide to individual study about the causes of periodic crisis in capitalism and how these factors are developing today. The outline can be adapted for leaders of discussions in clubs and in classes.”
And then the following:
“The Theory of ‘underconsumption’”—that is in quotation marks—“as a cause of crises”, and then following that in parenthesis is the word “depression.”
“The most common answer to the cause of crisis and depression—the answer given by the CIO, by Wallace and those of the New Deal, and by many (T–3092) others with variations, runs as follows . . . Workers can not buy back what they produce because wages are too low. Too large a proportion of the national income goes into the hands of big business and thus is drained away from mass purchasing power. Since commodities are not bought, they are piled up on store shelves and in warehouses; industry stops production, workers are thrown on the streets and crisis occurs.
[*4440]
“Marxism goes further than this.
“Marxism agrees with the above ‘theory’ in so far as it goes. But the science of Marxism analyses capitalism more deeply to find out just why workers can not buy back what they produce. The ‘theory of underconsumption’ describes a condition that exists, but does not explain why it exists. Marxism proves that crises are inevitable under capitalism.”
And then, on the last page, is the following:
“The Communist Party, and the Science of Marxism.
“In this outline we have tried to provide examples to show how the science of Marxism provides the fundamental answers to such contradictions as poverty in the midst of plenty, wars in spite of the overwhelming desires for peace. On the basis of this understanding of what capitalism is, (T–3093) the Communist Party works out a program of struggle against the trusts, putting forward demands for immediate improvement of every–day conditions ... on such issues as wages, housing, taxation, labor rights, etc.
“Through organizing the people for this struggle to meet immediate problems, the Communist Party points out the next step that needs to be taken in order to reach the final solution—socialism. The Communist Party needs you. Won’t you join in the fight?”
Then the last full paragraph:
“Follow Daily Worker and Political Affairs closely for current figures and illustrations. From time to time we will put out supplementary material. We will be glad to help anyone who undertakes to lead discussions on this subject.
“Material in this outline prepared by Frances Smith.”
[*4441]
Now, if your Honor please, there are other sections of this Defendants’ Exhibit GG that I should like to offer at this time. I don’t want to do a useless act. If the Court feels that no matter what portion of this I might offer, it will not be received, then I will not make the offer.
(T–3094) The Court: I will make no blanket rulings in the dark. You may offer such parts as you desire to offer and I will rule upon the offers as they come up.
Mr. Gordon: May I make a suggestion? Perhaps if Mr. Crockett will pass the exhibit to your Honor, and he and I can look at my copy of it—
Mr. Crockett: I shall be glad to do that.
Mr. Gordon: —that will speed up the discussion, and he can point out to both of us at the same time the portions that he is offering.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: I offer at this time the last two lines on page 1 and the text which follows, to the top of page 4, including the cartoons—let me amend that, including the cartoons that are included in there but on page 4, coming down to the line “This condition will lead”.
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Crockett: I offer beginning at the line previously mentioned on page 4, “This condition will lead”, down to the end of page 5.
Mr. Gordon: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Crockett: I offer pages 6 and 7.
(T–3095) Mr. Gordon: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Crockett: I offer pages 7 and 8.
Mr. McGohey: 7 has already been passed on.
Mr. Crockett: The two together.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, I see.
Mr. Gordon: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Crockett: I offer page 8, beginning with the heading “Socialism Eliminates” down to but not including the last line on the page.
[*4442]
Mr Gordon: Down to but not including the last line?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Crockett: I offer page 9 to the top of page 15.
The Court: Well, if you are just going to go through the whole paper that way—I thought you had some particular portions you were going to offer—I sustain the objection.
Mr. Crockett: I am offering particular portions but I understand I am not permitted—
The Court: You have started in, as we have had (T–3096) on so many occasions before, and then you take it piecemeal, step by step right down through the whole document, and I feel, if that is the way you are going to do it, I am going to adhere to the ruling I made before when you offered the entire paper.
Mr. Crockett: I am prepared to point out the relevancy of each particular item—
The Court: I understand that.
Mr. Crockett: —I have mentioned but I understand—
The Court: I don’t think I require any argument about this.
Mr. Crockett: So I need not continue making the individual offers?
The Court: The entire paper is excluded except the parts which have been received heretofore.
Mr. Crockett: May I offer the cartoons in Exhibit GG as a separate and distinct offer?
The Court: Didn’t you do that yesterday?
Mr. Crockett: No, I said all the cartoons. Your Honor asked me yesterday—
The Court: Are they objected to?
Mr. Crockett: —if I was just offering the cartoons, and I said no, I was offering them as part of the entire document. Now I offer just the cartoons.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor. I am on my (T–3096–A) feet to object to it.
The Court: You object to it. I sustain the objection.
* * *
[*4443]
(T–3097) By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, was the program of the Cambridge Youth Council one of pacifism? A. I would say that the program of the Cambridge Council as a whole and of the majority of the members in it was one of pacifism, yes, sir.
Q. And during the time that you were a member of the Cambridge Youth Council you were a pacifist, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And you held those same beliefs while you were a member of the Young Communist League, did you not? A. I don’t recall, sir, how long I maintained those beliefs.
Q. Are you a pacifist now. A. No, I am not.
Q. The program of the Communist Party in Massachusetts included opposition to war, did it not? A. No, sir.
Q. During the period of your membership? A. No, sir.
Q. It did not. The program of the Communist Party in Massachusetts since the conclusion of the Second World War down to the time of the indictment was one of opposition (T–3098) to war, was it not? A. No, sir.
Q. It was not. The Party put out quite a bit of literature in favor of peace, did it not? A. This is public literature, yes, sir.
Q. And you distributed quite a bit of that literature? A. Yes.
Q. And you prepared some of that literature, did you not? A. I helped to prepare some of it, yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit KK for identification.)
Q. The Party’s position on peace and war was discussed at the meetings you attended of the pro group? A. Yes, the subject was discussed, sir.
Q. As a part of the activities of the Party? A. That is right.
[*4444]
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit KK for identification, and I ask you to read it and then tell me if that to your knowledge represented the position of the Communist Party of Massachusetts at that time on the Question of War and Peace.
The Court: What is the time?
Mr. Crockett: I didn’t see a date on it.
The Court: Does it have a date?
Mr. Crockett: I believe it does refer to it.
(T–3099) I will reframe my question.
Q. After reading that, tell me whether or not that statement is in line with what the Party advocated on the question of war and peace during the period of your membership in the Party and subsequent to May 1945 and before July 20, 1948. A. Let’s see. May I have those dates again?
Q. Those dates are the periods covered by the indictment. A. Oh, I see. Well, let me read it carefully.
I would give my answer in this way—
Q. Is that what the Party advocated during that period? A. Publicly, sir.
The Court: What is this you say?
The Witness: Publicly.
Q. And this is the type of literature they were putting out? A. That is the type of literature that was issued to the public at large, sir.
Q. Do you recall seeing this document, Defendants’ Exhibit KK for identification, before? A. I don’t recall seeing this one specifically, sir. I do recall and my recollection is that there were several leaflets of this particular issue that were circulated at that time.
Q. Similar to this? A. Very similar to that leaflet and the program or policy as stated there would be very much the same in content.
(T–3100) The Court: What is the date?
Mr. Crockett: This leaflet does not have a date.
The Court: But you gave two dates before.
[*4445]
Mr. Crockett: I gave the dates covered by the indictment—April 1, 1945, to July 20, 1948.
I offer this in evidence.
Mr. Gordon: I think that the last time Mr. Crockett mentioned the dates he said May 30, 1945.
The Court: Well, he has amended it now to April 1, 1945, to July 20, 1948.
Mr. Gordon: Well, I think he ought to be asked about that period as long as it has been amended. Maybe it is the same thing, I don’t know, but he was asked about a certain period, and then the period was amended after he has given his answer. I think he ought to be asked that.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I think the record is clear on that, your Honor.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Crockett: I told the witness that the period I was referring to was the period covered by the indictment and I gave him the dates.
The Court: Well, you also mentioned some dates and it is a question of whether you first said May 30th (T–3101) and whether you later said April 1st, so I am going to clarify that now.
Would your answers be any different if the date was May 30th instead of April 1st, or vice versa?
The Witness: I don’t think so, sir, no.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gordon: No objection.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit KK in evidence.)
* * *
Mr. Crockett: This is Exhibit KK which I am reading to you now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
It is entitled:
“PEOPLE WANT PEACE DRAFT MEANS WAR!
“President Truman has called upon Congress for the speedy enactment of peacetime draft and Universal Military Training.
[*4446]
“Truman is preparing the ground for landing marines in Italy to rob the Italian people of a fair election and their right to determine their own affairs.
“Truman is trying to underwrite a military alliance with the bankrupt states of Western Europe, the new anti–Comintern Axis.
(T–3102) “A President who can’t win the confidence of his own people this November, and knows it, is trying to panic the world and bulldoze America.
“He wants to put over military training. He wants to supermilitarize the country. He wants to take attention and criticism from the failures and betrayals of his foreign policy.
“Every American who resists this bulldozer drive toward War is a patriot defending the true national interest.
“Tell your Congressman and Senator that you don’t want the draft and UMT.
“Read the Daily Worker.
“Issued by Communist Party, Little Building, Boston, Mass.”
Q. The Communist Party headquarters in Boston is located in the Little Building, is that right? A. That’s true, sir.
Q. Is that an office building? A. That is an office building.
Q. How long has the Party’s headquarters been in that building? A. I don’t know but ever since my experience with the Party they have been in Room 546 in the Little Building.
Q. Is the name of the Party on the door of the office? (T–3103) Yes, it is.
Q. Is the name of the Party on the building directory? A. Yes.
Q. There is a telephone? A. Yes, there is a telephone.
Q. And the Party is listed in the telephone directory in Boston? A. It is, sir.
[*4447]
Q. Is there someone on duty at all times during office hours in that office?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Have you ever been to the office of the Party in the Little Building? A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. That was during the daytime? A. Occasionally.
Q. Whenever you went, was there someone there? A. This is during regular office hours?
Q. I say, whenever you went during regular office hours, did you find someone there? A. I think I have found someone there each time during regular office hours, yes, sir.
Q. Is there a table there for literature? A. Yes, there is, sir.
Q. And they have literature on the table? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do they have literature for sale there? A. I do not know if they sell the literature there.
(T–3104) Q. But they have free leaflets and pamphlets? A. Yes, there are many free leaflets and pamphlets.
Q. Will you tell the jury some of the subjects covered in that literature?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Have you seen any of that literature? A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, you distributed some of it, did you not? A. That is, from the—this is literature—
Q. Some of the same literature that was displayed at the Party headquarters? A. That is rather hard to say, sir. I wouldn’t know if—I wouldn’t know for sure if all the material which I helped to distribute it was on display there or not, sir.
Q. But everyone who went to Party headquarters and desired to get some literature could pick it up there, could he not?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4448]
Q. The literature was for free distribution to whoever wanted it, is that right? A. Quite a bit of it was, sir.
Q. Did you ever read any of that literature? A. I don’t recall specifically of spending any particular time reading literature obtained from the main (T–3105) office, no.
Q. Was it a part of your duties as literature director for the pro group to distribute Party literature to the membership? A. Yes, it was, sir.
Q. Did you ever read any of that literature that you distributed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell me, did you report to the FBI the information you have just given me with reference to the location and the character and the openness of the headquarters of the Communist Party?
Mr. Gordon: I object to the word “openness.”
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you ever tell the FBI that the Party headquarters could be reached by simply picking up the telephone? A. I believe they already knew that, sir.
Q. Did you ever tell them that anyone could go directly to the Party headquarters? A. I believe that was known, sir.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Gordon or Mr. McGohey? A. No.
Q. And I believe you testified that you took part in all the activities of the Party, is that what you meant to say? A. I took part in all of the activities?
Q. Yes. Let me read to you what you said in answer to a question at page 2934. You said,
(T–3106) “Well, I would say that the method I used was being a good Party member and taking part in all the activities of the Party.”
A. I should have added to that, all of the activities in the Party to which I was assigned or asked to participate in.
Q. But your primary function was the distribution of the literature? A. For a period, yes.
Q. And prior to that time it was working in connection with the educational program of the Party? A. Well, these periods more or less overlapped, sir.
[*4449]
Q. But continuously from, say, December 1945, when I believe you testified that you were put in charge of leaflet production, down to July 20, 1948, you have been connected with the Party literature and educational program? A. That is right.
Q. During that period would you say that the Party put out a considerable amount of literature? A. A tremendous amount, sir.
Q. They put out literature calling for wage increases for workers, did they not? A. Yes.
Q. And they advocated wage increases, did they not? A. That is right.
Q. And they put out literature calling for organization of workers into unions, did they not?
(T–3107) Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Haven’t you been all over that several times in a different form, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I don’t think I have with reference to literature put out, your Honor. I may be mistaken on that, but I don’t want to trust my memory.
The Court: If it is at all possible to shorten it somewhat and not go over each item in detail, I think it is sufficiently evident that the Party was in favor of a large number of these things that you have been over and over, and I think, perhaps, you might put them into a question or two instead of taking each one up separately.
Q. The Party put out literature in the form of pamphlets, throwaways, encouraging the sale of war bonds to aid the war effort during the period of the war? You can just say yes or no. A. For a time during the period of the war, yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, it was in connection with that that Anne Burlack came to your office to get the use of that stand in Boston Commons? A. That is right.
Q. That was a Party sale of war bonds, was it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was advertised as such, was it not? A. I don’t remember whether—
(T–3108) Q. Weren’t there placards on the stand? A. I don’t recall placards specifically.
[*4450]
The Court: You don’t recall what?
The Witness: I don’t recall placards either, specifically.
Q. Did you assist in the sale? A. No, I did not, sir.
Q. There was literature dealing with anti–discrimination, FEPC, anti–lynching, anti–poll tax and civil rights? A. Right.
Q. There was quite a bit of that? A. Yes.
Q. And there was literature against Semitism—anti–Semitism—literature condemning anti–Semitism, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. That was part of what the Party advocated? A. I believe the Party distributed literature in that respect, not only their own, but some other organizations’, too.
Q. Was there not also literature for distribution and that was distributed calling for the enforcement of child labor laws in Massachusetts? A. That is right.
Q. There was literature advocating more public housing?
The Court: You know, Mr. Crockett, I tried to suggest to you that perhaps you could put those in a question or two instead of taking them up one by one.
(T–3109) Mr. Crockett: I only do that—may I explain why?
The Court: If you do it one by one, I am not going to stop you from doing it but—
Mr. Crockett: I am taking them up one by one, otherwise there may be an objection I am asking two or three questions in one.
The Court: I thought possibly you might defer to my wishes in the matter.
Mr. Crockett: I shall be glad to do so.
The Court: But if you don’t choose to do so—
Mr. Crockett: I am glad to defer to your Honor’s wishes whenever I can.
The Court: You say you do but then you proceed—
Mr. Crockett: I am prepared to do that right now with the Court’s permission.
The Court: I think that is a good idea.
[*4451]
Q. There was literature calling for greater subsistence aid to veterans, literature calling for continuation of price control, literature in opposition to the Mundt–Nixon Bill, literature in opposition to the Taft–Hartley Act, literature in opposition to the Marshall Plan, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall any literature, Mr. Philbrick, put out by the Party, which advocated the overthrow of the (T–3110) United States Government by force and violence?
Mr. Gordon: May I have that question?
(Question read.)
A. Oh, yes, sir, I believe we have already covered that in the direct testimony.
Q. I said, literature put out by the Party in Massachusetts. A. Oh, literature put out—oh, oh!
The Court: That “put out by the Party” might mean a variety of things.
Mr. Gordon: The question has been changed, your Honor. He did not say “put out by the Party in Massachusetts.” He said “put out by the Party.”
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: And the publishing houses were in New York.
The Court: You may proceed, Mr. Crockett.
Q. How was the literature put out by the Party in Massachusetts distributed? A. Well, let me see. There were a great many ways that we used. It was distributed at club meetings, and at the club meetings the various members of the clubs would take them into the neighborhoods and into the shops. Some literature was distributed in connection with the sale and delivery of the Worker and the—Daily Worker and the Sunday Worker.
The Court: When you say “shops,” you mean retail (T–3111) stores?
The Witness: Oh, no, in—
Mr. Crockett: I think he means plants, your Honor.
[*4452]
Q. Isn’t that right?
The Court: You see, when you say “shop” around New York, a person thinks of an ordinary retail store, and I didn’t think that is what he meant, but he has explained it.
The Witness: Well, in the terminology of the Party, at least in Boston, the term “shop” generally refers to a factory or industrial plant.
Q. Weren’t there various campaigns in connection with the items that I have just mentioned to you, as to which you said literature was put out, various public demonstrations? A. I don’t recall campaigns for all of them, sir, in the sense of action, no. In some cases the Party talked about them but it was impossible because you just couldn’t take specific action on all of these hundreds of things that were listed that ought to be done.
Q. But there was a vigorous campaign in support of the State FEPC, is that right? A. Yes, there was. That was a very active campaign.
Q. There were parades, mass meetings, is that right? A. I don’t remember the parades.
(T–3112) Mr. Gordon: I object to the repetition.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I think this is the first time I have inquired about public demonstrations. I have been asking about literature.
Mr. Gordon: I thought you brought out from him that the Party succeeded in getting that law passed?
Mr. Crockett: I brought out the Party supported it but now I am trying to bring out how they supported it.
The Court: You used one of these alphabetical things. They always go right over my shoulder.
Mr. Crockett: Let me ask the witness what the alphabetical thing is.
The Court: Let me know a little more of what you are talking about. What was that expression you used?
Mr. Crockett: I said FEPC.
[*4453]
Q. Does that mean Fair Employment Practices—
The Court: Let me get that. FEPC? Everybody knows all about that but me.
Mr. Crockett: Except your Honor.
The Court: And I don’t. And what is this FEPC?
(T–3113) By Mr. Crockett:
Q. What does FEPC refer to? A. FEPC refers to the Fair Employment Practices laws which we were endeavoring and finally did succeed—
The Court: All right.
Q. What do those laws refer to? You see, if the Court hears it is a law—
The Court: I am not ashamed to say I don’t know.
Mr. Crockett: I am not suggesting you are, your Honor.
The Court: It is something I can’t help. I do my best to keep informed, but there are lots of things I don’t know, and I much prefer to ask than sit here and look as though I do know when I don’t. Now what you want to know is whether there were parades in support of this FEPC law and he says he doesn’t remember the parades.
Q. What Fair Employment Practices were referred to in this law you are talking about? A. I believe the law as it was finally enacted by the State Legislature in Massachusetts calls for the employment—the fair employment of persons in the offices and the industries of the State without any discrimination as to their race, as to their color, as to their religion.
Q. That is what the Party was advocating, is that (T–3114) right? A. A great many people including myself were advocating that, sir.
Q. Yes, there was sort of a united front support for that measure, isn’t that right? A. It was a very broad movement, yes, sir.
[*4454]
Q. The American Jewish Congress supported it? A. I believe so.
Q. The Catholic Church in Boston supported it? A. Yes.
Q. Various trade unions supported it? A. I believe so.
Q. Various nationality groups? A. Yes.
Q. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supported it? A. Yes.
Q. Do you belong to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Boston? A. I don’t believe I became a member of that group.
Q. What other civic groups are you a member of? A. The Progressive Party, the Civil Rights Congress. I believe those are the only two organizations you can call civic groups.
Q. Did your work for the FBI include making reports on those organizations? A. I would say that my work for the FBI did not include making reports on those organizations as such, sir. They did include (T–3115) reports as to Communist activity within those organizations and what the Communists were doing in those organizations.
Q. You attended the various meetings of affairs of those organizations? A. A great many of them, sir.
Q. As well as the meetings of the Communist Party? A. Well, that was part of the job that was given to me by the Party, to participate in these organizations.
Q. And you made reports on these activities to the FBI? A. In so far as they related to Communist participation in them, sir, yes.
Q. Did the Party during the period of your membership have a legislative representative at the State Legislature? A. Yes, I believe a State legislative agent has always been in existence in Massachusetts during my recollection.
Q. And in Massachusetts they are required to register, are they not? A. I did not know that, sir.
Q. But it was generally known that the Communist Party had a legislative representative? A. Oh, yes, that is known quite well, sir.
[*4455]
Mr. Gordon: I move to strike that out as the question is vague.
The Court: Well, I am a little at a loss to see how you know what everybody else knows, Mr. Philbrick. As far as your experience went you found that others (T–3116) knew about that rather widely?
The Witness: It was published in the newspapers, sir.
The Court: That is what you meant?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this for identification, please.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit LL for identification.)
* * *
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit MM for identification.)
Q. Do you recall, Mr. Philbrick, if there was a national convention of the Communist Party in 1948? A. In 1948?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, there was a national convention in 1948.
Q. That was in August, was it not? A. I believe so.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit NN for identification.)
Q. Preceding that convention was there any discussion in your—
(Mr. Gordon stood.)
Mr. Crockett: Strike that.
(T–3117) Q. You were a member of the pro group in July 1948? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Down to July 20th, at least, 1948? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell me, was there discussed at any meeting of your pro group prior to July 20, 1948, a draft resolution that was to be considered at the 1948 Convention of the Communist Party?
[*4456]
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it. This is in 1948?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: Convention.
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: Massachusetts.
Mr. Crockett: That is right—no, National Convention.
The Court: Oh, National Convention.
Mr. Crockett: Yes.
The Court: All right. What was the question?
Mr. Crockett: Will you read the question.
(Question read.)
Mr. Crockett: I am speaking of the 1948 National Convention.
A. Yes. I would not be able to say with exactness if that discussion—if any discussion took place before July 20th. That is a little too close to tell and I am (T–3118) trying to recall what the circumstances were surrounding that draft resolution.
Q. Well, suppose I show you Defendants’ Exhibit LL for identification, which is a copy of Political Affairs, for June 1948, and call your attention to the article beginning on page 4483. A. Yes.
Q. And tell me if you recognize that as the draft resolution. Look at it first. A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Was that resolution discussed at your membership meeting? A. Now the one we discussed was published in the paper rather than this particular one in the magazine, and I am trying to recall why. I don’t know. I believe the one that we worked from in the club group was in either the Worker or the Sunday Worker, and I would not be able to say that these were exactly the same except that I do remember, for instance, the opening paragraph of the text and that appears to be the same, and I do remember the general headings being discussed.
Mr. Crockett: I offer in evidence, your Honor, the opening paragraph of the text and the general headings.
[*4457]
(After pause.) May I amend my offer to include the entire resolution, Mr. Gordon?
(T–3119) Mr. Gordon: I object to it, your Honor. May I state the grounds? Not argument, just the grounds.
The Court: Let me look at it first and I will see if I require argument.
(Handed to the Court by the clerk.)
The Court (After examining): This is after the indictment, isn’t it?
Mr. Crockett: No, your Honor, that is before the indictment. The convention was held after the indictment.
The Court: I thought it was July 20, 1948.
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: It says this meeting was to be held August 3 to 6.
Mr. Crockett: Yes, but we are talking about the discussion in his club of this resolution, the resolution as you can see from the date of the exhibit, in existence—
The Court: In June 1948?
Mr. Crockett: Yes.
The Court: I will hear you, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it, your Honor, first on the ground that it may not be relevant to the issues in the case because the witness is not sure whether it was discussed before or after the date of the indictment, but on the main ground that is, 1, not germane or (T–3120) related to the direct testimony in any way; and, two, can have no bearing upon the witness’s credibility so that for counsel to question about it they would have to adopt Mr. Philbrick as their own witness.
The Court: What do you say about that, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: Well, first I believe it is germane since it has to do with what the Party taught and advocated during a period covered by the indictment, which has been the basis for this witness’s testimony.
[*4458]
Secondly, I think Mr. Gordon also said that it did not go to the witness’s credibility. As I understand the purpose of cross–examination is not primarily the purpose of the credibility of the witness but to bring out admissions. This document would constitute an admission that this—that what was advocated by the Party was discussed in the presence of this witness at these club meetings and in order to find out whether or not that was done, I have to have the document in evidence.
The Court: Well, if that is the purpose I sustain the objection.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, may I add a ground for the admissibility of this document? The witness has testified to certain meetings—
The Court: Do you care to wait until I—
(T–3121) Mr. Gladstein: Excuse me.
The Court: Yes, you may go ahead.
Mr. Gladstein: Thank you. The witness has testified on the direct to the holding of certain club meetings of the group that he designated as the pro 4 group, and he includes in that period of time the period of June and July, 1948. He has also discussed in his direct examination the things that were discussed and took place at those meetings, that is, a portion of the things; we therefore are entitled, on the basic principles to bring into evidence, through cross–examination, the balance of the discussion, the balance of the matter that was discussed and particularly the written resolution which the witness concedes was discussed in his group. We are not bound on cross–examination merely to ask concerning precisely the same conversation or a portion of a meeting that the prosecution brings out but we can go into the entire discussion of that meeting. I submit, your Honor, that on that basis—
The Court: Well, I must have a certain discretion as to the extent to which that may be done, and it seems to me that this is a point beyond which I do not care to go. I will sustain the objection.
[*4459]
Mr. Gladstein: Well, would your Honor recall that we objected during the direct examination of this (T–3122) witness, we objected to the prosecution asking questions concerning the discussions that took place in his group in the year 1948, and your Honor overruled those objections. Now it seems to me that in fairness we should be permitted now during cross–examination to bring out the balance, the things that the Government has suppressed and kept out—
Mr. McGohey: I move to strike that out.
The Court: Yes. There we go, it is the same old story. I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McGohey: Will your Honor strike that characterization, suppression?
The Court: Yes, strike it out.
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, may I be heard for a brief moment on this question?
The Court: I suppose we are off again. You know, as soon as we get into a little discussion each one of you comes in and then it does seem disturbing of the whole proceeding here, but I will hear you, I will hear you.
Mr. Sacher: I wish simply to make this observation, that this witness has testified to what people have said who have not been shown in any way to be authorized, empowered or instructed to express the teachings and advocacy of the Communist Party. On the other hand, (T–3123) here is a document offered in evidence which is authentic and official and which expresses the position of the Communist Party on the very issues to which this witness has testified, and it therefore seems to me, your Honor, that the list to which the jury is entitled is something which shows what the Communist Party of America, which in the indictment is said to teach and advocate certain things, actually teaches and advocates at or about the period of time covered by the witness.
The Court: Yes. You see that shows the wisdom of my rulings in these matters because we can’t seem to discuss any of these questions without getting into a long discussion of it and which I really think should not be. In any event—
[*4460]
Mr. Sacher: I think that is the common sense of it. The question is what the Communist Party teaches.
The Court: You see, Mr. Sacher, the more I indicate my displeasure the more obstinate you are to continue. Now I wish you wouldn’t do that. It seems to me that this paper here that has been offered is not admissible and I rule it out.
Mr. Isserman: Now if the Court please, I do not want to speak on the admissibility of the document, but I do want to note my objection to your Honor’s several remarks characterizing the action of counsel (T–3124) when they rise to speak, either to state a ground or an objection. I believe that your Honor’s remarks in that respect is a demeaning of the defense counsel and obstructs them in carrying out their duties on behalf of their clients.
The Court: Well, it would be easier for counsel if I remained silent and let you carry on as you desire, but I am not going to do that.
(Defendant Dennis stands.)
The Court: Yes, Mr. Dennis?
Defendant Dennis: I would like to call to the attention of the Court that this particular draft resolution was issued approximately on May 15th. It comes within the confines of the indictment. It was discussed in all branches and clubs of the Communist Party for 60 days prior to the indictment—
The Court: Who says that, Mr. Dennis?
Mr. Dennis: I think even the matter marked for identification will bear it out. The June issue of Political Affairs—
The Court: You see, you are not a witness, Mr. Dennis.
Defendant Dennis: But I may—
The Court: The witness has not testified to that effect. I am not going to sit here and let you tell me (T–3125) that such and such a thing is a fact whereas you merely mean to assert it as a fact. Now your turn will come as a witness in due course, perhaps, [*4461] but that is not the question here. Now there is no testimony before me to that effect that you just stated.
Mr. Dennis: I would just like to conclude, your Honor.
The Court: You may.
Defendant Dennis: The document on its face, which is dated June, indicates that it was issued prior to the date of the indictment, but most important, and really what I rose to state to the Court, is that this document, this draft resolution exhibits the practical application of the principles of Marxism–Leninism. It shows like other documents what we actually believe, what we actually advocated and taught, and it is the most relevant testimony and it could only be a—a denial of due process and an unfair procedure, I submit, if we are not permitted to bring in this testimony and to deal with that which it refers to.
The Court: The paper is excluded.
You may proceed, Mr. Crockett.
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Do you recall—
Mr. Crockett: Strike that.
(T–3126) Q. I think you testified that Defendants’ Exhibit LL was a subject of discussion in meetings which you attended prior to July 20, 1948, is that right?
The Court: You are asking him whether he said that?
Mr. Crockett: I am asking him.
A. I don’t believe I said that, sir.
Q. Well, was it? A. Well, as I have already explained I do not recall using that particular book, the issue of Political Affairs first. I remember distinctly as a matter of fact that we used from newspaper copy and told—I am not sure—that this took place before July 20th.
[*4462]
Q. You are not sure that the discussion was before July 20th? A. That is right.
Q. Now you testified concerning the pamphlets, the leaflets that had been put out by the Party advocating various economic and social advocating, rather, the Party’s position on various economic and social issues that I enumerated; you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this, please.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit OO for identification.)
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit MM for identification and I ask you if you recognize that as one of the leaflets put out by the Communist Party of Massachusetts (handing)? (T–3127) A. I don’t recall this—this particular leaflet, sir, no.
Q. Do you recall the meeting to which that leaflet refers—oh, this doesn’t refer to a meeting? A. There is no meeting—
Mr. Crockett: Strike my last comment. This leaflet does not refer to a meeting; that is what I said.
Q. Do you recall the campaign in connection with—to which this leaflet refers? A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Is this a sample of the literature used in that campaign? A. This is a sample of the type of literature used in that campaign, yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it in evidence (handing to Mr. Gordon).
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I have seen it; objection sustained.
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit NN for identification and ask you if you recgnize that, those two as leaflets put out by the Communist Party of Massachusetts (handing)? A. Yes, I recognize these as put out by the Communist Party of Massachusetts.
Q. Did you work on those leaflets? A. I did, sir. Both of those leaflets are my work, sir.
[*4463]
Q. Did you submit copies of these leaflets to the FBI in connection with any report on the Communist Party of (T–3128) Massachusetts? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crockett: I offer it in evidence. Has your Honor seen it?
The Court: I have seen it. Let Mr. Gordon look at it.
(Mr. Crockett hands to Mr. Gordon.)
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Gordon: I object to this (handing to Court).
The Court: I will allow it.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit NN in evidence.)
(Defendants’ Exhibits PP, QQ, RR and SS marked for identification.)
* * *
(T–3129) Q. Mr. Philbrick, to your knowledge did the Communist Party or any—
Mr. Crockett: Strike that.
Q. To your knowledge did any branch of the Communist Party in Massachusetts ever put out any literature referring specifically to your employer during the period of your employment?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you working for Samual Pinanski—
Mr. Crockett: Strike that.
Q. Samuel Pinanski was one of the partners in the M. & P. Theatre Chain where you were employed, is that right? A. That is right, sir.
Q. That is located at 60 Scolley Square, Boston, Massachusetts?
[*4464]
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, this is cross on cross. I object to it.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I am not cross–examining. I am just calling his attention to something that I am (T–3130) leading up to, your Honor.
The Court: It seemed to me you have led up to that same thing four or five times, you and Mr. McCabe. If you intend to inquire into the private affairs of that corporation, I shall not allow it.
Mr. Crockett: I object to the Court anticipating my line of cross–examination.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Crockett: I would like to point out that this is not the first time that the Court has done that. I think I have a right to refresh the witness’s memory by calling his attention to what he has been asked about before.
The Court: I was ruling and indicating to you what I had ruled before. Now, I wish you would try to avoid making comments that are not proper. When you speak of me as though I were some colleague, perhaps, or some member of the bar, I don’t think it is quite the proper way to speak.
Mr. Crockett: I was stating an objection, your Honor, and I think I used proper language in doing so.
The Court: It may seem so, and I shan’t be drawn into any personal controversy over it. So you may go ahead.
Q. During the period of your employment with M. & P. (T–3131) Theatres, Mr. Philbrick, did they circulate a film called “Song of the South”?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was the Communist Party in Massachusetts opposed to the film “Song of the South”?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4465]
Q. Do you recall the period of time when the film “Song of the South” was being shown in theatres in Boston?
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps I should not object, your Honor.
The Court: No. I think, Mr. Crockett, if you continue to repeat the thing in these questions you will have perhaps circumvented my ruling, and I hope you won’t do that. I cannot see that this has any bearing on the case at all. What that concern did, what pictures it published, what opposition there might have been one way or another I consider not relevant here and having no bearing upon the case or upon the testimony of this witness. I indicated a few moments ago, when you challenged me with anticipating, as though there was something wrong in my doing that, that you and your colleague Mr. McCabe have come up to the question of the private affairs of this corporation a number of times, and each occasion (T–3132) I have sustained objections to it. A moment ago I told you that I did not desire you to pursue that subject, despite which you have asked a series of questions which carry certain implications. I wish you would not do that again.
Mr. Crockett: I wish to object to the Court’s use of the term “challenge” in characterizing the objection previously made.
The Court: You said, “it is not the first time your Honor has done this or that.” I think I understand the dignity of my office, and that sort of talk does not impress me favorably. Perhaps you think that you may provoke me into saying something that will, perhaps, have some effect on the case, but I can assure you that that will not take place.
Mr. Crockett: I should like to assure the Court that I have no desire to provoke the Court. I desire to do nothing other than to perform my duty, to represent the interests of my clients.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: And if, in doing so, it meets with the Court’s displeasure, I shall desist.
[*4466]
The Court: No, your duty to your client does not meet with any displeasure on my part at all, but I (T–3133) will ask counsel to be respectful.
Mr. Crockett: May I proceed?
The Court: Yes, you may, but not with the repetition of the questions that you just put.
Q. I show you, Mr. Philbrick, Defendants’ Exhibit SS for identification, and ask you if you recognize that as a leaflet put out by the Communist Party of Massachusetts—Communist Party of Roxbury, Massachusetts? A. Yes, I recognize this leaflet as one being put out by—issued by the Communist Party of Roxbury in Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Q. Did you work on that leaflet? A. No, I did not work on this leaflet, sir.
Q. Is there any reference in that leaflet to M. & P. Theatres?
Mr. Gordon: May I look at it for a moment?
Mr. Crockett: Yes.
(Mr. Gordon hands paper to the Court.)
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I object to the line of questions and to further references to the allegation that the Communist Party put out a leaflet opposed to Mr. Philbrick’s employers as being contrary to the fact, as shown in that document I have just shown you, Exhibit SS for identification.
The Court: Yes, yes. You will kindly refrain from (T–3134) any further reference to Exhibit SS.
Mr. Gladstein: Will your Honor please strike from the record Mr. Gordon’s remarks that Mr. Crockett made a statement contrary to a written document, or implying the incorrectness of the statement, contrary to a written document, and I would submit that if Mr. Gordon is ready to have the jury pass on whether Mr. Crockett has correctly or incorrectly stated the fact, that he withdraw the objection to the document and allow the jury to have it.
[*4467]
Extract From Defendants’ Exhibit NN, Read into Record
The Court: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence you will take from the witness stand and from the exhibits; and the comments of counsel on both sides you will disregard.
Mr. Crockett: I offer SS for identification in evidence, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Crockett: May I have it?
* * *
(T–3135) Mr. Crockett: I should like to read, if the Court please, portions of Exhibit NN to the jury.
The Court: You may do so.
Mr. Crockett: The first portion, ladies and gentlemen, says, “Stop the GOP Labor Haters!
“The Republican majority in Congress is out to destroy organized labor with the anti–strike Case Bill. Murderous amendments to the Wagner Act, etc.
“Truman, surrendering to the demands of big business, proposes anti–labor legislation of his own . . .
“Only united action can stop this attack!! . . .
“Rally to defend labor’s rights!!”
Then there is:
“Attend the Lenin Memorial meeting. Speaker: Robert Minor, veteran labor leader.
“The date—Tuesday, January 21st, at 8.00 p.m.
“The place—Jordan Hall, corner Huntington Avenue & Gainsborough.
“Admission—Only 60 cents, tax included.
“Auspices Communist Party of Massachusetts.”
(T–3136) The second page has a drawing in bold relief at the top of which are the words “For Peace—Jobs—Security!
“Attend the Lenin Memorial meeting.”
And underneath the picture—
[*4468]
Q. Pardon me. Did you draw this picture, Mr. Philbrick? A. Yes, that is a reproduction—I don’t recall where the original came from but I drew that on a stencil.
Q. This is supposed to be a picture of whom? A. That is Lenin.
Q. That is the Lenin you have been referring to in your testimony in reference to the various books? A. That is right. Incidentally, that is a good drawing.
Mr. Crockett: We won’t pass judgment on that.
“The peoples of America, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain want a lasting peace. . . .
“Lenin taught that the international solidarity of all working peoples was the road to peace. All economists talk of the coming capitalist crisis—the bust after the boom; one of these, Stuart Chase, predicts ‘twenty million unemployed’ in the next depression!! Lenin showed the workers of Russia and of the world the way out of the crisis, misery (T–3137) and war which capitalism brings to every generation.
“Hear what the American people can learn from the teachings of Lenin! Come to the Lenin Memorial meeting, Tuesday evening, January 21, 8.00 o’clock, Jordan Hall, Gainsborough Street, Boston.
“Speaker: Robert Minor, Veteran Communist Leader.
“Movie: ‘The Liberation of Europe’.
“Admission 50 cents, tax 10 cents, total 60 cents.”
At the bottom of the page you see “Auspices Communist Party of Massachusetts,” (handing to the Foreman).
Let the record show that I handed the exhibit from which I just read to the jury.
The Court: Very well.
[*4469]
By Mr. Crockett:
Q. Now I asked you about leaflets put out by the Communist Party in Massachusetts with reference to opposing the Taft–Hartley Bill, did I not? A. That is right, sir.
Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit RR for identification and ask you if you recognize that as a leaflet put out by the Communist Party and circulated by the Communist Party in Massachusetts in opposition to the Taft–Hartley Bill (handing)? A. Yes, I recall—I recall seeing this (T–3138) leaflet before, sir.
Q. Do you recall when you saw it? A. No. I was trying to remember more about it.
Q. Did you work on that leaflet? A. No, I did not work on this one, sir. This is the work of another gentleman, another member of the Party.
Q. But it was circulated in Boston? A. That is right, yes.
Q. During the period of your membership in the Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to July 20, 1948? A. Well now, I don’t remember just when that Taft–Hartley—what that time of the Taft–Hartley discussion was. I recall that this was put out very shortly before action on the Taft–Hartley Bill and that is about all I can remember. Now when that—that would pin the time down a bit.
Q. It was before the enactment of the Taft–Hartley Bill? A. Oh, yes, yes, this was put out very shortly before that bill was voted on.
Mr. Gordon: Do you want to state a date?
Mr. Crockett: I would hesitate to guess but I am—
Mr. Gordon: Around 1947?
Mr. Crockett: Well, suppose I state for the record subject to later correction that since the (T–3139) exhibit was put out before the passage of the Taft–Hartley Bill it had to be before July 20, 1948.
The Court: I think there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Crockett: Thank you. I offer it.
Mr. Gordon: I object to it, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
* * *
[*4470]
(T–3140) Cross examination continued by Mr. Crockett:
* * *
(T–3141) Q. I show you, Mr. Philbrick, Defendants’ Exhibits QQ for identification, OO for identification and PP for identification. I would like to have you examine them and tell me if you recognize either one or all of those as leaflets put out by the Communist Party of Massachusetts (handing to witness)? A. Well, I remember the Negro History Week leaflet. That was one that I produced—that was one I produced for Boone Schirmer.
The Reporter: How do you spell that?
The Witness: B–o–o–n–e S–c–h–i–r–m–e–r—I am not at all sure as to the spelling.
The Court: That is PP for identification, is it not?
The Witness: That is for identification PP.
Q. That is one you put out? A. Yes. I remember, as I say, speaking with Boone Schirmer concerning that one.
Q. And it was circulated in Boston? A. Yes, it was.
Q. By the Party? A. Yes.
(T–3142) Q. During the time you were a member? A. And also during the time that I was a member of the Education Commission.
Q. And subsequent to April 1945? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you include a copy of that Exhibit PP for identification in any report to the FBI? A. I believe I did, sir.
Q. Now we go to Exhibit QQ. A. Well, this particular exhibit is, of course, marked “Communist Party” but I don’t recall—I don’t recall having any particular period in mind when I saw this leaflet.
Q. But you did see it? A. Yes, I remember seeing this leaflet, but I haven’t the faintest idea if it was within the period that you have been specifying or not.
Q. It was circulated by the Party in the Boston area? A. Yes, I remember seeing that as having been circulated but—
Q. I wonder if you can, by looking at the language in Exhibit QQ for identification, state approximately when it was you saw it? A. Well—
[*4471]
Q. That is, what year? A. Yes, I recognize that (indicating) but that doesn’t help me.
Mr. Crockett: I point to a part of the exhibit.
A. (Continuing) I would take a guess that this was in the year 1946, 1947, but that again is—
(T–3143) Q. But that is your recollection? A. Yes, sir, yes.
Q. And it was circulated in Boston? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall if you included a copy of Exhibit QQ with any report that you submitted to the FBI? A. No, I don’t recall including that in a report to the FBI, no.
Q. Let us consider Exhibit OO for identification. Do you recognize that as a leaflet put out by the Lynn Communist Club of Massachusetts? A. This exhibit is labeled as sponsored by the Lynn Communist Club but I haven’t seen it before this time, sir.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I offer in evidence Exhibits PP and QQ for identification—no, my mistake. That is OO. It looks like a Q.
* * *
(T–3144) Mr. Gordon: I object to both OO and PP (handing to the Court).
The Court: Objection sustained as to both.
Q. You testified this morning, did you not, Mr. Philbrick, that you had seen the draft resolution of 1948 in an issue of the Daily Worker, is that right? A. Either the Daily Worker or the Sunday Worker, sir.
Q. Well, I show you what purports to be the Sunday Worker or the Worker for May 30, 1948, and call your attention to page— A. I think that would be in the Discussion section.
Mr. Gordon: I wonder if there is some way to keep the witness and counsel from having a little tete–a–tete. Maybe if we just have questions and answers that would help. I think this time it was the witness who was mumbling to Mr. Crockett. I would like to hear what is said.
The Court: Yes, so would I.
(T–3145) The Witness: I just—
[*4472]
The Court: The only question is not to get whispering there.
Q. I call your attention to the section marked section 3, and containing the heading “Draft Resolution,” and ask you if you can identify that as the copy of a draft resolution to which you referred this morning in your testimony? A. Yes, sir, this is the copy of the draft resolution to which I referred this morning.
Q. And it was discussed in your presence at the pro group meetings that you attended in Boston? A. This was a pro group meeting in Cambridge.
Q. In Cambridge? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now that meeting was when? Do you recall? A. No, I do not, sir, except that it was in the early summer, I would say, of 1948 and—
Q. Is it your recollection that it was shortly after this issue of the Worker came out? A. No, it is not, sir.
Q. Have you any notes to which you can refer to refresh your recollection as to when it was discussed? A. I might have, sir.
Q. Do you have those notes with you? A. I have a diary in my pocket for 1948.
Q. I wonder if you will look at that and see if you have a notation to that effect? (T–3146) A. (Searching) I thought I had it. Here it is (producing notebook).
(After perusing) I am sorry, this only goes back to September of 1948. No, I have no help here.
Q. Do you recall when the Massachusetts State Convention of the Communist Party was held in 1948? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Was there any discussion—strike that.
Mr. Crockett: I offer this, your Honor—the resolution which appears in the section marked Section 3, and is entitled “Draft Resolution submitted by the National Committee for the National Convention of the CPUSA August 3–6.”
I will show it to Mr. Gordon (handing).
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: What did you say, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: I said “objection,” your Honor.
[*4473]
The Court: Let me see Exhibit LL for identification, please. That is the copy of the issue of “Political Affairs” of June 1948.
Mr. Crockett: Yes, I have it right here (handing to Court).
The Court: Objection sustained.
(T–3147) Q. Do you have a diary, Mr. Philbrick—
Mr. Gladstein: Just a minute. May that exhibit be marked so that the record will be clear as to what it is that your Honor sustained the objection to?
The Clerk: It is marked Defendants’ Exhibit TT for identification.
The Court: Double T for identification?
The Clerk: Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Isserman: And may the particular section be marked TT–A, your Honor; part of it was offered.
The Court: I think the record is sufficient to indicate now what part of the issue was offered.
Q. Do you have a diary, Mr. Philbrick, that will refresh your recollection concerning the time when this draft resolution of 1948, which has just been marked for identification, was discussed? A. I do not have it with me, sir.
Q. Where is that diary? A. I believe that Mr. Gordon may have it.
Mr. Crockett: Mr. Gordon, can the witness have the use of the diary?
Mr. Gordon: I will see if I have it (examining).
Here is the one that is marked “1948.” That is the year, wasn’t it?
Mr. Crockett: It was 1948, yes.
(Mr. Gordon hands to witness.)
(T–3148) A. (After examining) According to my diary, sir—
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
The Court: You were just asked to refresh your recollection.
The Witness: Oh!
The Court: Don’t read what is in the diary.
The Witness: No.
[*4474]
The Court: But look at that and see if it refreshes your recollection so that you can fix the time when that resolution or draft resolution was discussed.
The Witness: Yes, sir. The time would be Thursday, July 22, 1948.
Q. Is that the first entry in your diary concerning the discussion of the 1948 draft resolution? A. Yes, it is, sir.
Q. Do you recall attending— A. I will look again just to make absolutely sure. (Examining.)
Q. Will you also look through your June entries, Mr. Philbrick? A. Yes; I started back in May, as a matter of fact.
(After examining.) That is the first indication, sir, in the diary, on Thursday evening of July 22nd.
Q. Do you recall any Communist Club meetings in the Boston area that you attended at any time during May (T–3149) or June of 1948? A. Yes, I recall the meetings.
Q. Was there any discussion at any of those meetings of Exhibit TT for identification, the Daily Worker? A. There is no indication here, sir. The indications are that each night a different topic than that of the exhibit was discussed.
Q. What was the discussion at each of those meetings? A. Well, let’s see. This is during what period?
Q. May and June 1948.
Mr. Gordon: Objected to as not germane to the issue.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. I think you mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Philbrick, a person whose name was Arthur Solomon, is that right? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Was he a member of the Young Communist League at the time you were a member? A. Yes, he was, sir.
Q. How long had you known him at that time? A. Well, at the time I became a member of the Young Communist League I had known him then for a period of, say—from 18 to 24 months in that—say, from a year and a half to less than two years.
[*4475]
(T–3150) Q. Were you close friends? A. Not particularly, sir.
Q. Didn’t he invite you to become a member, according to your testimony, of the Young Communist League? A. Yes, I believe it was he and his brother Sidney Solomon who visited the house to recruit me as a member of the Young Communist League.
Q. Did Arthur Solomon hold any office in the Young Communist League while you were chairman of the Young Communist League?
Mr. Gordon: Objection. I object to the word “chairman.”
The Court: Let me hear the question.
(Question read.)
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you at any time chairman of the Young Communist League? A. No, sir.
Q. Was Arthur Solomon an officer in the Young Communist League in Boston at any time during the period of your membership in that organization? A. I believe that he was, sir, although the nature of his office I cannot recall.
Q. When you became a member of American Youth for Democracy was he a member of that organization? A. No, sir, he was not.
Q. Was he at that time a member of the Communist Party? A. I do not know.
(T–3151) Q. Was he at any time a member of the Communist Party? A. I don’t know if he joined the Communist Party or not, sir.
Q. He did not attend any meetings at which you were present? A. Well, I don’t recall of his attending meetings from a period from 1944, that is, from March 1944 until July of, say, July or August of 1944, which was the first period in which I was a member of the Party. I don’t believe that he attended any of those particular meetings, sir, no.
Q. Was he a member of the Communist Party at the time he was a member of the Young Communist League?
[*4476]
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know if he was at any time a member of the Communist Party in Boston?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was Arthur Solomon active in any of the Communist activities about which you testified here in this case?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you ever send in any reports to the FBI in which you mentioned Arthur Solomon? A. I think that my very first report, sir, mentioned the name of Arthur (T–3152) Solomon.
Q. Do you recall any later reports when you mentioned Arthur Solomon? A. During the period of the Cambridge Youth Council, I do so remember.
Q. Did you mention him in any reports to the FBI during the period of your membership in the Young Communist League?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, I believe I did, sir.
Q. Did you in any of those reports express an opinion—
Mr. Crockett: Strike that.
Q. Did you in any of those reports state that Arthur Solomon was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did Arthur Solomon enter the armed services?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4477]
Q. Did you report to the FBI when Arthur Solomon entered the armed services?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
You know, Mr. Crockett, when you put a question like that, after I have just sustained an objection to (T–3153) such a question as immediately preceded it, certain inferences might be drawn. I don’t really think you should do that.
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor, so long as I do not know the basis for the Court’s ruling, I think it is a legitimate assumption that perhaps the framing of the question was wrong.
The Court: When you ask such a question as you put and I sustain an objection, and then you ask the question that you next put, it seems to me that you should not do it.
Mr. Crockett: Well, the first question—
The Court: Perhaps you would rather—I am just telling you what I think. You see, you are stating as a positive fact in your second question the very fact that you tended to elicit by your previous question that I sustained an objection to. Don’t you think it is better not to do that?
Mr. Crockett: It is my understanding—
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: —that that is perfectly permissible in the course of cross–examination. If I am in error, then I shall accept a ruling from your Honor to that effect.
The Court: That I think you had better do.
(T–3154) Mr. Crockett: I shall do that.
Q. Where is Arthur Solomon now, Mr. Philbrick?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Has the Communist Party in Boston at any time held memorial services for Arthur Solomon?
[*4478]
Mr. Gordon: I thought all of this was irrelevant, but if Mr. Crockett wants to get out the fact that Arthur Solomon, a member of the Communist Party, was in the war and was killed in the war, why doesn’t he do so? I thought he was just questioning on some irrelevant issue. I think that is irrelevant but he has brought that out. Let us have it out flatly, despite all the rulings.
Mr. Crockett: Do I understand you are withdrawing your objections to my line of questions, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: I am practically giving up, your Honor, because the objections were sustained and counsel has now asked a question which seems to me to be highly improper.
The Court: Well, of course, the repeated questions along the same line might tend to give some wrong impressions but I think the jury will disregard that; and when I sustain objections to the questions, they will eliminate the questions from their minds.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor,—excuse me?
(T–3155) The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: I construe Mr. Gordon’s statement as an offer to stipulate the fact, and I desire to accept that stipulation and place it in the record as a fact.
Mr. Gordon: I made no offer to stipulate, and I object to the question, and I will have no stipulation with Mr. Gladstein, who seems to have no portion of this affair, as far as I can see.
The Court: Well, I didn’t understand Mr. Gordon to make any such offer, Mr. Gladstein, and in any event the objection as made is sustained.
Mr. Crockett: That closes my cross–examination.
The Court: You will, of course, notice the difference between what Mr. Gordon said and what you offered to stipulate.
Mr. Gladstein: Would your Honor have the reporter read back Mr. Gordon’s statement?
[*4479]
The Court: No, I think no matter how slight the matter may be the minute discussion starts it is difficult to terminate it. I think we just better let it rest. Your suggested stipulation was rejected by Mr. Gordon, and that is an end of the matter.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Crockett said he was finished with cross–examination.
The Court: Is there any further cross–examination?
(T–3156) Mr. Gladstein: Apparently not.
The Court: Perhaps I had better ask each one separately.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Gladstein said “apparently not,” your Honor. I don’t think you heard him.
The Court: Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon: May I have Exhibit JJ, draft of the by–laws.
Redirect examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, I show you Exhibit JJ which is headed “draft of the by–laws of the Communist Party of Massachusetts.” I think you testified that you thought there had been some changes made to that? A. That is true, sir.
Q. Now Mr. Crockett read from article VI, section 3, this morning, which provides that minutes of meetings were to be taken. Do you find that in there? A. Yes, I do, sir. Section 3 in Article VI.
Q. Minutes of club meetings? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not that section was amended? A. My recollection is, sir—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, on the ground that the final draft is the best evidence.
Mr. Gordon: That would be—
The Court: Overruled, unless he was not there.
(T–3157) (To witness) You were at this convention where they passed on this matter, were you not?
The Witness: Yes, I was, sir.
The Court: You were present, you heard what occurred?
[*4480]
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: I will allow it.
Mr. Crockett: Objection on the further ground that the witness is about to state his recollection.
The Court: That is all any witness can do.
Mr. Crockett: Not his recollection. You are asking now, I take it, whether he can state now that that section was amended.
The Court: If a witness’s recollection is excluded, I don’t know what will remain.
Go ahead and tell us your recollection.
The Witness: Well, I believe, sir, that among the changes that were made to this draft of the by–laws, and there were two or three also included in those, section 3 of Article VI requiring that regular minutes be sent in to the main office was stricken out.
Q. Now after the convention in August of 1945, at any club meeting which you attended did you ever see anyone taking minutes? A. No, sir, at no meeting in my experience in the Party since this convention have I ever seen minutes (T–3158) being taken of the meeting.
Q. Have you ever heard minutes read at any time at the meetings? A. No, sir, I never heard minutes read at the meetings.
The Court: You mean in that period?
The Witness: In that period.
Q. Now in connection with the subject of mobilization and the mobilization which took place in July of 1948, did any member of the Communist Party tell you what the purpose of that mobilization was? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who was it that told you? A. Martha who is—
Mr. McCabe: Objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Martha? A. The comrade named Martha who was chairman of that particular group at that time.
Q. And what did she tell you the purpose of that July 1948 mobilization was?
[*4481]
Mr. Gladstein: I object to that as hearsay, not binding on the defendants. Moveover, in the absence of the fixing of time, July ’48 may very well be a time after the return of the indictments in this case.
The Court: Do you recall, Mr. Gladstein, my direction as to the stating of objections and argument?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, your Honor, I thought I (T–3159) would be helpful to the Court by pointing out that it had not—
The Court: I say, do you remember?
Mr. Gladstein: I do remember, yes.
The Court: Don’t you think it would have been a little better if you had said that you desired to be heard?
Mr. Gladstein: I am sorry. I thought—
The Court: You thought if you made the argument and asked me afterwards that would be better.
Mr. Gladstein: No, your Honor; it is simply that after you have practiced in courts for many years and you find that Judges all over the country permit you to state the reasons for your objection it becomes difficult for a man to find that all he can say is “Objection.” Period. The Court—
The Court: Then lawyers had better avoid doing the things that made it necessary for me so to rule. You will kindly desist from argument now.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to your Honor’s last remark.
The Court: Very well, objection overruled.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I am talking about the mobilization in July of 1948 about which you were questioned by defense counsel (T–3160) in cross–examination. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did Martha tell you the purpose of that mobilization was? A. Martha told me that the purpose of this mobilization was a practiced mobilization to test this system of getting together quickly at any time and at any hour of the day for a sudden emergency.
[*4482]
Q. I think this morning you told us that you made some reports on the Progressive Party and the Civil Rights Congress? A. That is right.
Q. And I think you said that you didn’t report on the organizations but you reported on the Communist activities within the organizations? A. That is true, sir.
Q. What sort of reports did you make on the United Office Public Workers of America.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: I don’t quite understand the relevancy of that, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: Well, the witness was asked yesterday two or three times about joining the UOPWA and whether he made reports to the FBI. I just want to find out whether he reported on the UOPWA or on some members.
The Court: Yes, I will permit it.
(T–3161) The Witness: What was the original question again, sir?
Q. Well, when did you join the UOPWA? A. I joined the UOPWA in March of this year.
Q. Did anybody tell you to join the UOPWA? A. Yes, sir, I was instructed to join the UOPWA by two persons directly.
Q. Well, before you tell us who they were, was either of them an employee of the Government or of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. No, sir, neither one of them were employees of the Government.
Q. Was either one of them a member of the Communist Party? A. Both of them were members of the Communist Party.
Q. And who was it that gave you these instructions? A. Well, Jackie, who was a member of the pro group in Cambridge, so instructed me, and Carol Levey also brought the same instructions to me.
Q. And I think you have told us that you were to work with Carol Levey in organizing the John Hancock Company? A. These instructions as given to me by Jackie and by Carol came from Manny Blum, and the instructions were that I was to work with the other Communists in the [*4483] pro group in this organizing campaign for the John Hancock Insurance Company. My job again was to work on leaflets and pamphlets and flyers, and as such I was to join the UOPWA as a non–Communist.
(T–3161–A) Mr. Sacher: I move to strike this testimony out and ask that you be good enough to instruct the jury to disregard it.
The Court: Motion denied.
(T–3162) Q. Who is Manny Blum? A. Manny Blum is at the State—an officer at the State Headquarters of the Communist Party in the Little Building in Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. Now did you report to the FBI since you joined the UOPWA in March of this year on the activities of the UOPWA or the activities of some of its members?
Mr. Sacher: I object to the question. I would like to be heard briefly on the grounds, your Honor.
The Court: I will hear you.
Mr. Sacher: I think that this calls for the contents of a written document of which the best evidence is the document itself.
The Court: Well, without stating what the report was just tell us whether it had to do with the activities of the UOPWA or had to do with some of the members of that organization.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that question, your Honor, and respectfully suggest that the vice has not been cured by that form of question. It still calls for—
The Court: Well, it seems to me that the questions that were put upon cross–examination made it necessary to make some explanation on redirect.
Mr. Sacher: But may I observe, your Honor, that at no time was counsel permitted to elicit from the (T–3163) witness the contents of any of the reports. As a matter of fact, the prosecution repeatedly objected to questions directed to elicit the contents.
The Court: Yes. This isn’t bringing out the contents of the reports as I see it; as I recall the character of the cross–examination, it led perhaps [*4484] to the inference that the witness was in there with the UOPWA, getting information about the UOPWA for the Government, and if that be not the fact it seems to me that the Government is entitled to show it, and the best way to show it would be to ask him whether in the reports that he made to the FBI there was contained something relative to the UOPWA or merely something with reference to the doings of certain of its members.
Mr. Sacher: I respectfully suggest, your Honor, that the report is still the best evidence and since it is in the possession of the Government it ought to be produced, and also I would like to—
The Court: Well, I will not permit the cross–examination of this witness to be turned into a general fishing expedition into the various files of the FBI so as to see what the Government may have learned here, and I won’t allow that.
Mr. Sacher: I would like to make the (T–3164) observation, your Honor, that under the pretext of reporting on so–called Communist activities, FBI agents, as in this case, may in all likelihood be spying on legitimate, straight–out trade union activities, and therefore I think that the report ought to be—
The Court: That is what was intimated in the cross–examination.
Mr. Sacher: No, but I suggest—
The Court: But whether that is the fact or not, the witness knows better than you do.
Mr. Sacher: No. The report is the best evidence of what it contains and it is for that reason that I am suggesting that this report be allowed before the jury, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I understand the desire of counsel to look into all these reports to the FBI but I am not going to direct that that be done.
You may proceed, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to state on the record my objection to your Honor’s remarks about fishing activities in the FBI files.
The Court: Very well.
[*4485]
Mr. Gladstein: I want to add, if I may, your Honor, my objection to your choice of language, repeated, that our desire is to look into the files of the FBI (T–3165) and ascertain what they have learned. That is not the request. The request is that these reports dealing with the UOPWA be produced before the jury to look at.
The Court: I have heard what you said, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: Is that clear, your Honor?
The Court: I hear what you say, Mr. Gladstein, and I still have my own notions of what you desire to do.
Mr. Gladstein: But considering what I have said, will your Honor please regard my request as the request, that is, not a request of me to look at them.
The Court: You want to see the report?
Mr. Gladstein: No, your Honor; the request is that the report dealing with the UOPWA be brought in here and offered to the jury.
The Court: Well, it can’t be offered to the jury without your first seeing it; you know that, so I think perhaps—
Mr. Gladstein: The Government can bring it here.
The Court: Well, I know.
Mr. Gladstein: The Government probably has it.
Mr. Sacher: We are willing to let the jury see it without our seeing it.
The Court: Yes. I know how much you gentlemen (T–3166) desire to let in the light, and that is all right. Everybody is desirous here of letting in the light and we can bandy words about and have a little fun, but we come right back to the question, which I will allow.
Mr. Sacher: I am very serious about that, your Honor. I am not being funny about it in the least.
The Court: Well, a little humor now and then does no great harm as long as it isn’t made habitual, so that I take no offense at it; and if you meant it [*4486] quite seriously, why that is all right, but I am going to adhere to my ruling on the question.
Now the question is whether in the reports you reported on the activities of the UOPWA or upon certain of its members.
The Witness: The answer to that question is that at no time have I ever reported upon the activities of the UOPWA union or any other organization or union in the entire nine years, but in that period of time I have reported only upon the activities of the Communist Party as it has to do with those organizations in its existence. I have reported only the activities of the Communist Party as relates to the professional group which is to organize the entire professional group behind an organizing drive concerned with the John Hancock Insurance Company in Boston and, incidentally, which (T–3167) is being done through the UOPWA but the comrades will appear to be non–Communists in that activity.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that answer, your Honor.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Sacher: I state no grounds, in deference to your Honor’s direction that we state no grounds in support of such motion.
The Court: I think I understand the situation very well. Where I feel that I need enlightenment, I shall ask for it, and I have often done so.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, Exhibit 44 is the membership card for 1946 in the Communist Party that was issued to you, that Mr. McCabe questioned you about on cross–examination some time ago, and I think that it was pointed out that there was a place on page 3 for some 1945 dues. He said he was going to come back to it but he did not. Can you tell us about those 1945 dues spaces? It says, “Third quarter,” “Fourth quarter.” “Initiation stamp,” and “Assessment stamp.” A. Yes, sir, these—the spaces on there for the 1945 dues were for delinquent dues.
[*4487]
Q. This was a 1946 card? A. This is a 1946 card, and if you were delinquent in your 1945 dues you paid (T–3168) them before you could get this card.
Q. Were you delinquent in your 1945 dues? A. No, sir, in my instance I was completely paid up in my 1945 dues.
Q. In 1946, Mr. McCabe pointed out that there were three dues stamps for January, February and March for a dollar apiece but none for the rest of the year. Did you pay the dues for the rest of the year? A. Yes, sir, I did pay the dues for the balance of the year 1946.
Q. Will you tell the Court and jury why there aren’t stamps in the book? A. Well, early in the year 1946 I became active again, after a lapse of time—I had become active again and was instructed to participate in certain political campaigns as an underground member of the Communist Party, that is—
Q. Who gave you those instructions, the FBI? A. No, the FBI did not give me those instructions. Those instructions were given to me by Nat Mills, who was then chairman of the Malden Branch.
Q. Go ahead. A. And as such, and as was the usual practice for underground members of the Party, I was told to destroy my card and not to carry one or to use one.
Q. Did you destroy the card? A. No, sir, I sent it in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(T–3169) Q. There was some testimony—some questions on cross–examination—about a house that you said you owned. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I think you said that you paid—how much was it? A. $5000 for the house, sir.
Q. Would you tell the Judge and the jury where that $5000 came from? A. Well, I will have to go back first to the house we had in Wakefield. Is that all right?
Q. I think you also were asked about that time when you lived in a cold water flat. A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Cambridge. A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that? A. That was in 1942, sir.
Q. Did you move from there to the house in Wakefield you have just mentioned? A. Yes, I did, sir.
Q. Tell us about that. A. Well, the question was apparently where did I get the money with which to buy the house and, I think, later on, the car—we will get to that.
[*4488]
In 1942 my wife and I bought a house in Wakefield, Massachusetts. We bought it from the bank. It was one of these houses that had been repossessed or something. And we paid for that house $300 in cash and the rest of the money was in a mortgage, a large mortgage. We paid, I think the price on the house was, $3500.
Then we kept the house for a period of two (T–3170) years. I painted the outside of the house and repaired it and put in shape and we sold it and at that time we picked up enough aditional money to pay off a lot of old debts that we had and left me with a thousand dollars. The thousand dollars I put down on this $5000 house, that we told you about, and the $4000 is a mortgage on the house.
The Court: So that there is still a $4000 mortgage on the house?
The Witness: No.
The Court: There was then?
The Witness: There was then, yes, sir.
Q. I think you said that the car cost $2400? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Where did you get the money to pay for the car? A. We increased the mortgage on the house, sir. We renewed the mortgage with the Wakefield Cooperative Bank—and you can check with the records—we renewed the mortgage with the Wakefield Cooperative Bank, we increased the mortgage from $4000 to $6000, and with that money we purchased the automobile. I think they mentioned a camera.
Q. Well, you have told us that you spent $20 on a camera and also borrowed money for the projector? A. That is right. I had forgotten.
Q. The FBI did not buy the house for you? (T–3171) A. No, sir.
Q. Or your car? A. I never received any funds from the FBI, sir, except those to cover my actual expenses. There has been no additional money of any kind received from any source for my work in the service of my country, sir.
Q. You were asked this morning about some pamphlets and, in response to a question, I think you said that the [*4489] Party’s position on peace and war was discussed at pro group meetings as part of the activities of the Party. A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Take the 1948 period, that is, between the 1st of January, 1948 and July 20, 1948, when the indictment was filed: were there any discussions during that period about the Communist Party position on peace and war? A. Yes, there was, sir.
Q. Do you recall when it took place? A. Yes, there was a discussion that took place early in the year of 1948, I would say either in the month of January or February, and there was a discussion which was held at the apartment of Comrade Martha—spot—and all one evening this particular subject of the Communist Party’s position on war was discussed.
The Reporter: Did you say “Martha spot”?
The Witness: Well, just Martha.
Q. Do you know Martha’s last name? A. Yes, sir, I do.
(T–3172) Q. What is it? A. Her name is Martha Fletcher, sir.
Q. Where does she live? A. She lives on a street on Beacon Hill, going up from Cambridge Street and Bowdin Square. It is on the righthand side about half way up the hill.
Q. Beacon Hill in Boston? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In this discussion on the Party’s position on peace and war was any Party literature referred to? A. Yes, sir, there was Party literature referred to that evening.
Q. What was it?
Mr. Sacher: I object, your Honor, to any conversation at this meeting that the witness is speaking about. If your Honor wishes to hear me—
The Court: Weren’t there several things brought out on cross–examination which would indicate that the intentions were always peaceful and that the Communists were always in favor of peace and things of that kind?
Mr. Sacher: That may be, your Honor, but I cannot see how the conversation of any handful of [*4490] people, who are not shown to be the agents of the defendants, authorized to make—
The Court: The Government cannot prove all the links in the chain at once.
Mr. Sacher: Well, your Honor, I wish to except (T–3173) to the Court’s observation in regard to this item. There is absolutely nothing here to show that this testimony would have any binding quality on any of the defendants.
The Court: But the defendants were shown to be members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the United States of America, were they not?
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, this witness is not testifying about any members of the National Board being present at this meeting he is testifying about.
The Court: No.
Mr. Sacher: So, I say to your Honor that I do not think that the National Committee of the Democratic Party, for instance, or the Republican Party could be held to be bound by what some individual members in a club on 14th Street or anywhere else might say concerning the programs of those parties. And it is for that reason that I say, if there is nothing more in the record then that certain people, purporting to be members of the Communist Party, got together and discussed its program, that that discussion cannot possibly be any more binding on the leaders of the Communist Party than a corresponding discussion could be on the leaders of the Democratic or Republican Party. That is the point of my objection.
The Court: Well, you see, I have allowed (T–3174) a good many of these conversations to come in, and I shall allow this one to come in, anticipating that other proof will be produced, and I will cover the matter in my charge to the jury or, perhaps, by some supplementary instructions, as I have on various occasions indicated.
Mr. McCabe: If your Honor please, I have a different objection to this.
The Court: Do you desire to be heard on the subject?
[*4491]
Mr. McCabe: Yes, I should like to.
The Court: I don’t think I care to hear you, Mr. McCabe.
Mr. McCabe: May I call your attention to the page—
The Court: I say, I don’t think I care to hear you on this. This particular matter has been objected to—not this particular conversation but many other ones—again and again, with many reasons stated, and I think I am thoroughly conversant with the situation and I do not desire to have any more argument now about it.
Mr. Gladstein: May I make an objection to the Court’s language? Your Honor talked about links in the chain and said something about the Government not being able to produce all the links in the chain at one time.
(T–3175) The Court: That is right.
Mr. Gladstein: I assign your Honor’s remarks as misconduct and I ask your Honor to admonish the jury to disregard those remarks; and particularly do I urge that, your Honor, in view of the fact that, as this Court has said, it is supposedly not the Communist Party that is on trial but these 11 men who are charged with advocating something, and I submit—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: —that any theory of links of chain, and particularly the use of that language by the Court, cannot help but be prejudicial to these men in the face of an effort here to saddle upon them what anyone might say at some meeting, God knows where or when, when the charge is something that these men are supposed to have advocated and, therefore, if the Court—as a matter of fact, not even advocated, conspired to advocate.
Mr. Gordon: I wonder if I could continue with my examination?
The Court: No, Mr. Gordon. I will patiently listen to this. I have been charged with so much misconduct, a little more I can bear readily. And go ahead.
[*4492]
Mr. Gladstein: I simply wanted to assign your Honor’s remarks as misconduct and ask your Honor to (T–3176) admonish the jury—
The Court: Yes; you see, you could have done that in so many fewer words than you did, but that is perfectly all right. Your objection is noted and we will let the matter rest there.
Go ahead, Mr. Gordon, with the question.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I think you said it was in early 1948—did you say January or February? A. This was in a period of January and February, 1948.
Q. At the home of Martha? A. At the home of Martha Fletcher, or the apartment of Martha Fletcher.
Q. On Beacon Hill? A. On Beacon Hill.
Q. And a meeting of what? A. It was a meeting of the pro group—one of the pro groups.
The Court: The pro 4 group?
The Witness: By that time the name had been changed, sir. We had broken it down into these five—units of five.
The Court: This was one of the little groups of five?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. At what portion of the meeting did this discussion take place? A. This discussion took place during the educational portion of the meeting, which was led by (T–3177) Martha Fletcher.
Q. What book or publication of the Communist Party was referred to in the discussion?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question.
The Court: Well, you started to ask what was said on the subject of peace and war. Let us have that.
Mr. Gordon: I think, your Honor, that he had asked—that before the long series of objections, he said that they had discussed the matter and that there was reference to a book, and I had asked him what [*4493] the book was, and that is what started all the objections. So I was trying to get the book.
The Court: I thought the objections were started by asking about peace or war—but let us not do that, let us not talk about what the objections were. If you choose to first ask what the book was, you may do it. I am thinking merely about the time for our recess and I wanted to have this conversation come out so that we could remember what was going on and then have the recess. So if you want to get the book first, get that; if you want to get any conversation first, get that, but we will only have one of them and then we are going to have our recess.
Mr. Gordon: Well, I will ask him what the book was.
(T–3178) The Witness: The book referred to, sir, was History of the CPSU (B).
* * *
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Philbrick, you said that the book or document referred to by Martha Fletcher was the History of the CPSU? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Now I show you Exhibit 41 for identification. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which is a duplicate except for the cover of Exhibit 30 for identification. Is that the book you are referring to? A. This is the book I am referring to, sir.
Q. And Exhibit 41 for identification I think you told us was your own copy? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Now was there references made to any particular section of the book? A. Yes, sir, there was a reference made to the section in this book which had to do with, according to Marx’s theories, the different types of wars which it was told us at that time and taught that there were two types of wars—just wars and unjust wars. In a section—
Mr. McCabe: Objected to, your Honor.
(T–3179) The Court: Overruled.
Mr. McCabe: May I state my ground.
The Court: No.
[*4494]
A. (Continuing) And the section referred to in the book—I don’t remember the page numbers—but it had to do with that part which discusses this subject. It is in the period of discussion of the Second International and it runs on for I believe 10 or 12 pages.
Q. Well, let me show you Exhibit 30–A which is in evidence, which starts on page 167 of the book “Theory and Tactics of the Bolshevik Party on the question of war, peace and revolution.” Is that any portion of the section you are talking about?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: The sections that Martha was talking about?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
Q. That you are testifying about? A. Yes, this is the section that I am testifying about and to which Martha referred.
Q. And where does it begin? A. Well, in the—in the discussion with Martha it began on page 160.
Q. That is the beginning of Chapter 6? A. The beginning of Chapter 6.
Q. And it ran through to what? A. And it ran (T–3180) through to the bottom of page 172.
The Court: Which Exhibit is that he is referring to?
Mr. Gordon: This is—these are pages in Exhibit 30 for identification, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Gordon: A page and an eighth of that is already in evidence as 40–A. I am going to ask that pages 160 to 172 inclusive be marked as Exhibit 30–A in evidence.
Mr. Isserman: I object, if the Court please. I would like to state my grounds.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Isserman: Before I object I would like to get the witness’s answer as to the pages on which he said the discussion was.
[*4495]
The Court: I will tell you what they are. He said they started at page 160, Chapter 6, to the bottom of page 172.
Mr. Isserman: I object on the ground that only a portion of the book is offered and not all of the book, and that the use of the book under the circumstances indicated by the witness, the testimony of that use is a violation of the First Amendment and denies due process.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3181) Mr. Gladstein: May I add a ground of objection, your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: I object because the portion that is being offered is a history of something that took place between 1914 and 1917, and to that extent what is being offered by the Government is a part of a history book, events that occurred 25 years ago. I submit that that bears no relationship to the issues upon which the defendants are being tried.
The Court: But here is this Martha in January or February of 1948 making these statements about it—
Mr. Gladstein: Why, your Honor—
The Court: —to a group of five of which she was the leader and evidently teaching them.
Mr. Gladstein: Why, your Honor, if I make statements about this history book today, in April 1949, I submit it makes no difference so far as the issues in this case are concerned.
The Court: I think you are right; what you said about it today probably wouldn’t make any difference, but what Martha said in January or February 1948 may make a good deal of difference.
Mr. Gladstein: I think it makes no more (T–3182) difference to the issues that the defendants are being tried on and to the rights of the defendants as to whether it was someone called Marthat who talked of the contents of a history book last year—it makes no more difference to this case than if I talk about this history book today. I submit they are both—
[*4496]
The Court: Well you see, If that were so then even those who, in defiance of this statute, taught and advocated the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence would be immune from prosecution.
Mr. Gladstein: Why no, your Honor. You are posing an entirely different case. We are content to be tried on the issue, the issue that is charged here, that is, a so–called conspiracy to advocate certain things. Let the jury see what we do advocate, what the defendants advocate and by no means allow the prosecution—
The Court: You mean hear the defendants’ side only?
Mr. Gladstein: I beg your pardon?
The Court: You mean hear the defendants’ side only?
Mr. Gladstein: No, I do not say that. Let the Government put in evidence—to the contrary—what the defendants have said. Let the Government do that. Let (T–3183) them put in the resolutions of the defendants. Let them put in the writings of the defendants in so far as they deal with the issues that are relevant, but let us not have somebody, somewhere in the United States, at some time, talk with a group of people about the contents of a history book and pretend that the defendants are really being tried on the charge against them.
The Court: Well, I suppose you mean that in reference to my ruling, and I must take it like I do everything else. I don’t intend to do any pretending but I do intend to rule very definitely that the conversation is admissible and that this part of the book to which Martha referred may be read. I will overrule the objection.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I am constrained again to note my objection on the record to your Honor’s remarks concerning the contents of the book in that your Honor has prejudiced the meaning of the section which is being offered and also to your Honor’s remarks re hearing only the defend– [*4497] ants’ side of the case. I think both of these remarks are prejudicial.
The Court: Well, you see, Mr. Isserman, when counsel make these statements the only way to satisfy them is for me to remain silent and let them take over the courtroom. Now I don’t intend to do that, so (T–3184) that I really am at a loss to understand what there is about my engaging in colloquy with counsel that you seem so persistently to assign as judicial misconduct. However, your objection is noted.
Now let us have the book—
Mr. Crockett: Will the Court also note my objection to the last remarks re taking over the courtroom?
The Court: I said I didn’t intend that counsel should take over the courtroom, and I don’t. I may be quiet and mild about what I say but I intend to be firm.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 30–C in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon (To clerk): Put the page numbers on there, will you, pages 160 to 172.
The Clerk: Pages 160 to 172 inclusive (writing on slip).
The Court: 160 to 172?
The Clerk: Yes, your Honor.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now will you tell us what the discussion was that was led by Martha Fletcher concerning these pages?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: She did say something concerning those pages, did she not?
The Witness: Yes, she did, sir.
The Court: I will allow it.
(T–3185) A. The subject under discussion that evening concerned itself with, as I say, the two kinds of wars, and Martha Fletcher told us and taught us at that lesson, at that educational session that evening that there are two [*4498] kinds of wars according to Marxism–Leninism. There are such a thing as a just war, in other words, that the Communist Party is not against warfare but there is such a thing as a just war and there is such a thing as an unjust war, and as a—as a—pointing out as to the unjust war, a war between the United States and Soviet Russia was pointed out to us and mentioned specifically as an unjust war—yes?
The Court: Go ahead.
The Witness: I thought he was going to ask a question.
The Court: No.
A. (Continuing) And in such an instance it was the duty of the Communist Party to fight against such an unjust war which that evening she described would be an imperialist war on the part of the United States, and this section was referred to in pointing out the imperialist war should be converted into a civil war.
Mr. Isserman: May I ask that the answer be stricken?
The Court: Motion denied.
(T–3186) Q. Did she make any reference to the portions of the book which state—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this question as leading, your Honor. The witness’s recollection has not been exhausted.
The Court: Yes. I think it better if you exhaust the recollection of the witness before you direct his attention to any particular matter.
Q. Do you recall any provision of the book which she quoted? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gladstein: May the record show that the book is in front of the witness and is open and he is purporting to read it.
The Court: Yes, he is looking at the parts that she quoted and he is going to read it.
[*4499]
Mr. Gladstein: I understand that, but I understood your Honor stated a moment ago about the witness’s recollection being exhausted and I think the record should show that the witness is looking at the book.
The Court: Yes, but I don’t think he is looking at the book in the way that you indicate. Mr. Gordon started to—
Well, you go ahead and let us not get our minds off the subject. You go ahead.
Mr. Gordon: Well, that is apparently what Mr. (T–3187) Mr. Gladstein wanted us to do.
The Court: Yes, you go ahead.
Q. The question I put to you—
Mr. Crockett: Now, if the Court please, I move to strike that remark by Mr. Gordon. I think it was intentionally prejudicial.
The Court: Well, Mr. Crockett, you and your colleagues seem to charge that everything is intentionally and maliciously done. I do think it is better if you avoid making those characterizations. I see no basis for them. I will tell the jury again, ladies and gentlemen, as I have before, please disregard the comments and discussions of counsel on either side. You will take evidence from the witness stand and the exhibits and the instructions from me.
(T–3188) Q. Now Mr. Philbrick, with Exhibit 41 for identification before you which you have told us is your own copy of the history of the CPSU Bolsheviks, referring to pages 162 to 172, which have been marked in evidence as Exhibit 30–C, tell us what sections Martha Fletcher referred to or quoted from. A. Martha Fletcher in her course that evening quoted from page 167, as follows: She mentioned the subject, she quoted the phrase, “Converting the imperialist war into a civil war,” and she quoted the phrase that the Bolshevists advanced, the policy of the defeat of one’s own government in the imperialist war, and she said that that program in the United States would involve one of civil disobedience.
[*4500]
Motion to Strike Out Testimony of Witness, Philbrick
Q. In the event of a war between the United States and the Soviet Union? A. That is true.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: That is what he just said.
Mr. Sacher: That is what Mr. Gordon said.
The Court: I heard the witness say it before and I don’t see how you can say he didn’t say that. If you desire it read back, we may read it back. That is my recollection.
Mr. Gordon: No further questions, your Honor.
(T–3189) Mr. Crockett: No further questions to the witness.
Mr. Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Philbrick.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I have a motion to make to strike the testimony of this witness and all exhibits introduced by the Government through him. I would like to be able to state the grounds for the motion.
The Court: You may do so.
Mr. Isserman: I move to strike out the testimony of the witness—
Mr. Gordon: Excuse me a moment. Perhaps the jury shouldn’t be here.
The Court: Well,—
Mr. Gordon: Even just as a matter of convenience to them. The last time we took a long time.
The Court: Perhaps they may remain. Do you desire the jury to retire?
Mr. Isserman: No, your Honor.
The Court: You don’t expect to take very long?
Mr. Isserman: No, I do not.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Isserman: I move to strike out the testimony of the witness and all the exhibits introduced by the Government through the witness Herbert A. Philbrick, on the (T–3190) following grounds: That the information that forms the basis of the testimony and all the exhibits introduced by the Government were fraudulently obtained by the witness as a spy at the behest and in cooperation with the FBI, an agency of the United States Government, [*4501] which agency financed his said activities. He obtained this information and the exhibits through attendance at meetings in the homes of members of the Communist Party and meetings elsewhere to which he obtained admission solely upon his fraudulent and false representation that he had become and remained at all times a bona fide member of the Communist Party and as such bound by the Constitution and by–laws to advance the objectives of that Party, and as such member at these meetings he participated and influenced decisions on various matters including matters of petition, assembly, matters of supporting or opposing legislative policies and candidates for municipal, state and federal offices. Such activity by this witness was unconstitutional, undemocratic, and incident to a police state which seeks to exercise control over ideas, thoughts and political activities. It curtailed and abridged as to the defendants and all those associated with them in the Communist Party in Massachusetts the rights of speech, press and petition, assembly and (T–3191) political activity, and also invaded the security of their homes, persons, papers, and effects, which security is guaranteed and which rights are guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Therefore, to allow this testimony into evidence and these exhibits introduced by the Government to remain in evidence, destroys the defendants’ rights to a fair trial and denies them due process of law under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Sacher: I have something that I would like to call your Honor’s attention to in support of this motion if I may.
The Court: Very well. Is it of the same general tenor as Mr. Isserman’s motion?
Mr. Sacher: Yes. I do not intend to repeat what he said but I should like to call your Honor’s attention—
The Court: As I understand it, you and your colleagues take the view that if someone with knowl– [*4502] edge of the FBI or the police is in places where they observe persons who are later charged with crime, that what they see and hear is protected by the Constitutional provisions and may not be proven?
(T–3192) Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, if I may say so, with all due respect, there is no resemblance between what your Honor says and the position of the defendants as expressed by Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I merely stated my grounds. I didn’t argue.
The Court: You see, when you state grounds you have a very curious way of making it sound like argument.
Mr. Isserman: Well, grounds are a part of argument. They indicate the argument but they are not the argument.
The Court: Well, you might put them in a different form than argument, but now let’s hear the ground by Mr. Sacher.
Mr. Sacher: I just wanted to call your Honor’s attention to the observations of Federal District Judge Anderson in the case of Collier vs. Skeffington.
The Court: I thought you wanted to state grounds?
Mr. Sacher: I said I wanted to read something in support of Mr. Isserman’s motion. This appears in 265 Fed 17.
The Court: Just a second.
Mr. Gordon: I was going to suggest that since it is a matter of law from a law book that counsel could (T–3193) hand it to your Honor.
The Court: Well, I think I will listen to it, but I suppose, of course, if I say anything after you read it, some objection will be made.
Mr. Sacher: I don’t think your Honor ought to be inhibited by anything but the proprieties.
The Court: Well, I try not to be.
Mr. Sacher: Shall I proceed?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Sacher: Here is what Judge Anderson said in the case of Collier vs. Skeffington:
[*4503]
“I cannot adopt the contention that Government spies are any more trustworthy or less disposed to make trouble in order to profit thereby than are spies in private industry; except in time of war when a Nathan Hale may be a spy. Spies are almost necessarily drawn from the unwholesome and untrust–worthy classes. A right–minded man refuses such a job. The evil wrought by the spy system in industry has for decades been incalculable. Until it is eliminated decent human relations cannot exist between employers and employees or even among employees. It destroys”—
The Court: I think the jury will have to pass on the question of Mr. Philbricks’ credibility, and I can see no useful purpose in your reading something like (T–3194) that unless it be to just argue the matter of spies. We have heard so much about it I suppose we might as well get used to it. I see nothing about calling a person like Mr. Philbrick as a witness which presents anything more than the usual question of credibility.
Mr. Sacher: I just read this because it was part of a determination by a Judge in which he said that he would not believe these spies under oath who had done precisely what Philbrick did—in other words, under the guise of being members or adherents of a political party had wormed their way into the confidence of their colleagues under false pretenses and then proceeded to testify against them.
The Court: I was afraid that you would get into a summation which seemingly you have done. Now the question of Mr. Philbrick’s credibility is one which doubtless will be handled by counsel in their summation to the jury at the conclusion of the case if I find that the case is one to be submitted to the jury. I don’t think it is proper under the guise of objecting to his testimony to launch into an argument about spies and whether they are to be believed and so on. That is something for the jury to say.
Mr. Sacher: All I am suggesting is that Judge Anderson sitting as a Judge—
[*4504]
(T–3195) The Court: You see, you repeat, as you always do. If I intimate that it is better not to do it, you repeat it. If I tell you not to do it you still repeat it, and I am utterly at a loss what to do. You seem to pay no attention to my directions. Now please, just thoughtfully consider the matter for a moment and then, if you insist on proceeding I will do as I have before, merely remain here quietly and endure it.
Mr. Sacher: I shall not require that.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor, I should like the record to indicate in view of the statement that I made before that I would like to make a motion that I join in the motion made by Mr. Isserman.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: And furthermore, the Court will notice at page 2687 Mr. McGohey brought to the Court’s attention a matter from the Congressional record that had to do with the Mundt–Nixon bill. I believe your Honor will recall that.
The Court: I do.
Mr. Crockett: And then at page 2689 Mr. Isserman pointed out that we should like to bring to the attention of the Court the progress of that bill in the Senate.
I would like to request at this time that the (T–3196) Court take judicial notice of the fact that according to the Congressional record of May 12, 1948, the Bill HR5852, which was the Mundt–Nixon Bill, was referred by the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee and that hearings on that Bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee occurred on May 27th, 28th, 29th and 31, 1948, all of which is of record in the Congressional Record.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: May I amend that, your Honor, by pointing out or asking the Court to take judicial notice that there was a special session of Congress which opened on July 26, 1948, and ended on August 7, 1948, at which time the Mundt–Nixon Bill was still pending before the Senate.
[*4505]
Motion to Strike Out Testimony of Witness, Philbrick—Denied
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Crockett: Or before a Committee of the Senate.
The Court: I will take judicial notice of those facts.
Mr. Gordon: I take it that the motion to strike the testimony of the witness was denied, your Honor?
The Court: Yes, I denied the motions.
Mr. McGohey: That includes all the motions that were made, I think, your Honor?
The Court: Yes, I have denied them all.
* * *
(T–3198) New York, April 13, 1949;
10.30 o’clock a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
* * *
FRANK S. MEYER, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. McGohey:
* * *
Where do you live, Mr. Meyer? A. Woodstock, New York.
Q. You are a citizen of the United States, are you not, Mr. Meyer? A. I am, sir.
Q. You were born in the United States? A. I was.
Q. Will you tell us when and where you were born? A. On May 9, 1909, in Newark, New Jersey.
Q. What is your present occupation? A. I am writer and a lecturer.
[*4506]
Q. Are you now a member of the Communist Party of the United States? A. I am not, sir.
Q. Were you at any time in the past a member of the Communist Party? A. I was.
Q. And will you tell us during what period you were a member of the Communist Party? A. Beginning with the (T–3200) Communist Party of the United States in 1934 and until my entry in the Army in 1942.
Q. Then were you ever a member of the organization known as the Communist Political Association? A. I was.
Q. And how long were you in that association? A. Technically from its foundation until December 1945. Actually, I was associated with it somewhat longer.
Q. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any time in 1945? A. No, sir.
(T–3201) Q. Now, you say you first became a member of the Communist Party in 1934, I think you said? A. In this country, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell me where it was that you joined the Communist Party of the United States in 1934?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question, if your Honor please.
Mr. McGohey: Well, I will withdraw it, your Honor, and save discussion about it.
Q. You have testified that you joined the Party in 1934? A. I did.
Q. At that time, that you joined the Party in 1934, did you have a conversation with any of the defendants now on trial? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which of the defendants? A. Mr. Stachel.
Q. Where did that conversation take place? A. At the National Headquarters of the Communist Party in New York.
Q. Will you please tell us where that is, please? A. On East 12th Street. The National Headquarters is on the 9th floor.
Q. Do you know the address? A. I believe it is 35.
Q. Was it on the 9th floor that you had the conversation with Mr. Stachel? A. Yes. sir.
Q. Will you tell us the substance of that conversation (T–3202) as well as you recall it?
[*4507]
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
The Court: I understand, Mr. McGohey, this is offered simply against the defendant Stachel as were the other preliminary conversations previously offered?
Mr. McGohey: At this point, yes, your Honor.
The Court: Very well. I will overrule the objection.
Mr. Crockett: I object, and I should like permission to state the grounds of my objection.
The Court: Well, Mr. Crockett, we have had a considerable number of identical proofs offered with numerous objections, arguments, discussions. I see no occasion to hear anything further as to this time. I am receiving this only against the defendant Stachel.
Q. Now will you tell us your best recollection of the conversation that you had with the defendant Stachel? A. I discussed with him my previous experience in the Communist Party of Great Britain and told him that I had with me a letter of introduction to the Communist Party of the United States.
Q. From whom had—
Mr. McGohey: I withdraw that.
Q. By whom was the letter signed?
Mr. Isserman: I object, if the Court please.
(T–3203) The Court: Yes, let us have the discussion, what was said. I will sustain the objection and will not permit the witness to state the contents of the letter unless the contents were discussed with the defendant Stachel.
Mr. McGohey: May I ask a question on that, your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: Even under the posture of the testimony, that it was—well, I withdraw it, your Honor.
The Court: You see, it seems to me, Mr. McGohey, that the question, in substance, calls for the contents of this written document which—
[*4508]
Mr. McGohey: Oh, I had no intention of doing that.
The Court: That is the reason I sustained the objection.
Mr. McGohey: May I ask this question then?
Q. Did you deliver this letter to Mr. Stachel? A. I did, sir.
Q. Did he read it? A. He did.
Mr. McGohey: Now, your Honor, I think I might be permitted to ask him who signed it. It was delivered to Stachel and he read it.
Mr. Crockett: I object.
(T–3204) The Court: Were you both looking at it together there?
The Witness: In the same room, your Honor, yes.
The Court: But after he had it open did you see the signature of the letter in the possession of Mr. Stachel?
The Witness: The letter was not in an envelope, your Honor. Therefore, I knew what was in it to begin with.
The Court: I am not asking you that, what you knew to begin with, but I am asking you whether, after Mr. Stachel opened that letter and was looking at it, you had occasion to see the signature as he was looking at it?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: I would say, your Honor, that I saw the letter simultaneously with Mr. Stachel looking at it, as best I remember.
The Court: Very well. I will allow the question.
(T–3205) By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now will you tell us by whom was that letter signed? A. By the Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Mr. Harry Pollitt.
[*4509]
Q. Will you continue now to tell us the conversation with Stachel? A. As best I remember it he asked me what I had been doing in the British Communist movement. I told him that I had been active in the student movement over several years. I wouldn’t remember any more details of the conversation at this time except that we—he then spoke to me about what sort of work I was doing in the Communist movement in this country and—
Q. Well, did you tell him where in Europe you had been active in the Communist movement? A. In—
Mr. Crockett: I object.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. In England, sir.
Q. Did you tell him with any more precision than that where you had been active? A. At the Universities of Oxford and London in particular, and generally in the British student movement, that is to say, traveling to other universities, and so forth.
Q. Were you a regular student at Oxford? A. I took my degree at Oxford.
Q. And when did you take your degree at Oxford? (T–3206) A. In 1932, in the spring of the year—in the summer of the year.
Q. Thereafter did you attend any other university in England? A. The London School of Economics of London University.
Q. And it was your work at Oxford and London Universities that you discussed with Mr. Stachel, as I understand your testimony? A. Briefly, sir.
Q. Yes. Very well. Now will you continue with the conversation? A. He told me that since the student work of the Communist Party in this country was under the leadership of the Young Communist League—under the leadership of the Party in turn but directed by the Young Communist League, that he would refer me to the Young Communist League itself, and as far as I remember that’s all there was to the conversation.
Q. Did you subsequently meet anyone from the Young Communist League on the day that you were having this conversation with Mr. Stachel?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4510]
A. I wouldn’t remember whether that very day or the next day whom I met but I certainly met someone from the League that day. I went to the YCL office.
Q. Where was the YCL office? A. On the same floor.
(T–3207) Q. You mean the ninth floor at the Party headquarters in East 12th Street? A. That is right.
Q. Were you accompanied to that office by anybody when you went to it the first time? A. I don’t remember in detail but not knowing my way around the secretary or someone probably took me there.
Mr. McCabe: Objected to.
The Court: Sustained; strike it out.
Q. Well, were you accompanied to that office by any defendant now on trial? A. I don’t think so, sir.
Q. But you did go to the office of the Young Communist League? A. Directly from Mr. Stachel’s office, yes, sir.
Q. And without telling me about the substance of any conversation, did you have a conversation with anybody there that day? A. I did, sir.
Q. Did you subsequently come back to that office? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Now at any time after you first made your first visit to the Young Communist League did you thereafter in that office meet any of the defendants now on trial?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Who does the objecting here?
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Isserman objected.
Mr. Isserman: I said I objected.
The Court: Will you please fix the time as (T–3208) to when this happened before you testify further, and give the time as closely as you can.
Mr. McGohey: Maybe I can straighten that out, if your Honor pleases.
The Court: Very well.
Q. You have testified that you subsequently met one of the defendants now on trial without mentioning the name of that defendant. Can you tell us when, with respect to your conversation with Mr. Stachel, you met this other defendant that you have referred to? A. As well as [*4511] I can remember it, I came back to the United States and had the first conversation some time in July of 1934, fairly early, and I believe that I met the defendant you are asking me about within a week or two of my first arrival in the country.
(T–3209) Q. And where was it that you met him? A. Again as well as I remember it in the 9th floor Young Communist League office again.
The Court: I am getting a little confused here, Mr. McGohey.
By the Court:
Q. This first conversation that you testified you had with the defendant Stachel was not in the Young Communist League office, was it? A. No, your Honor.
Q. That was in the National Headquarters. Now you are evidently referring to two conversations in the office of the Young Communist League. Am I right about that? Yes, your Honor. The first—
Q. All right now, yes. Now the first of those was in July? A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And the second one about two weeks later? A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And we don’t know yet with whom the conversations were had? A. Precisely.
The Court: Very well.
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now calling your attention to the second conversation which you said you had at the office of the Young Communist League on the 9th floor—you just testified to that, did you not? A. Yes.
(T–3210) Q. When you say the 9th floor do you mean the 9th floor of this Party headquarters on East 12th Street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now which of the defendants did you have the conversation with?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Green.
[*4512]
Q. Now will you tell us your best recollection of the substance of that conversation.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that, if the Court please.
The Court: Was anyone else there?
The Witness: I don’t really remember, your Honor.
The Court: Very well, I will allow it. Now go ahead and tell us.
A. During that time I had several conversations with Mr. Green and I would not be able to tell which of the conversations which occurred in, but they were concerned with—
Q. Pardon me. You said—
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that answer be stricken, your Honor.
Q. You said you had several conversations—
(T–3211) The Court: Just a minute, Mr. McGohey, until I pass on the motion.
What is it you move to strike out?
Mr. Isserman: The answer of the witness.
The Court: He hasn’t said anything.
Mr. Isserman: Well, the questions were directed to a particular conversation.
The Court: Very well, I will strike out the answer as it now stands.
Q. Mr. Meyer, you said that at that time you had several conversations. Did you mean conversations with this defendant Green? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now when you say “at that time,” will you fix that time with some definiteness? A. I mean in the mid–summer of 1934 within three or four weeks of my return to the United States, perhaps July.
Q. Would the conversations have extended over into August? A. They could very well have done so.
Q. Do you recall the first time you met him? A. Yes.
Q. And you had a conversation with him at that time? A. Yes, sir.
[*4513]
Q. And that occurred on the 9th floor at the building on East 12th Street? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3212) Q. Now will you give us your best recollection of that conversation? A. That conversation to the best of my recollection was one in which I told him of what I had been doing in England previously and in which he talked to me about that work and talked to me again about what work I would be doing in this country.
Q. Now you say you had other conversations with him subsequent to that during this period up to mid–summer of 1934? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were the subsequent conversations similar to the initial conversation?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Did somebody object?
Mr. Crockett: I did, your Honor.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw it, your Honor.
The Court: That is a characterization; I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor, and I will withdraw it.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Do you recall the second conversation you had with him? A. I am afraid that my memory of the conversations which were several in number are more or less mixed up together. They all were on the same theme and my memory of them at this date cannot separate a single (T–3213) conversation from another one, but I am fairly clear on what was discussed in the group of conversations.
Q. In the group of these several conversations did you receive any instructions from the defendant Green?
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. As a result of these conversations—I withdraw that.
Q. After these conversations did you undertake any work in the Communist Party?
Mr. Isserman: Object to that, please.
The Court: Overruled.
A. At the end of this series of conversations I was assigned to go to Chicago to work in the preparation and [*4514] organization of the Second United States Congress against War and Fascism then about to be held.
Q. You say you were assigned. From whom did you receive your assignment? A. From Mr. Green.
Q. And that was when? Was that in 1934? A. During that summer.
The Court: I want to get that name, Mr. Reporter.
(Record read.)
The Court: Second United States Congress against War and Fascism, all right.
Q. Did you go to Chicago? A. I did, sir.
Q. Did you work in the organization of this Congress?
(T–3214) Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I did, sir.
Q. Did you attend the Congress?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I did, sir.
Q. Now during the preparation for the Congress or during the Congress did you meet the defendant Green? A. I did, sir.
Q. In Chicago? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the Congress held? A. Late summer, as I remember it. Perhaps September.
Q. And at the conclusion of the Congress did you undertake any other activity in the Communist Party? A. I remained in Chicago and first served as secretary to the Illinois section of the—Illinois Youth Section of the Second United States Congress against War and Fascism, also working in the Communist Movement on the campus. Later I became—
Q. When you say the campus what campus are you referring to? A. The University of Chicago, sir.
[*4515]
Q. Did you enroll as a student at the University of Chicago? A. I did graduate work there for a number of years.
(T–3215) Q. Very well. A. Then—
Q. What else did you do? A. Then I continued in Chicago for some years, up until 1942, during which I was educational director of the South Side section of the Communist Party, later director of the Chicago Workers School and in charge of the educational work of the Illinois–Indiana district of the Communist Party.
Mr. Isserman: I move to strike all the answers relating to the defendants’ activities in Chicago.
The Court: Did these activities have anything to do—
Mr. Isserman: Any connection with the defendants—
The Court: —in connection with the Communist Party?
The Witness: They were, some of them, actually officers in the Communist Party.
The Court: That is what I thought you said.
Mr. Isserman: I object also on the ground of unfair surprise.
The Court: Motion denied.
Let me hear what those various positions in the Communist Party were.
(Record read.)
The Court: Very well, go ahead, Mr. McGohey.
Q. I think you said you continued on up until the time (T–3216) you entered the Army in 1942, was it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you join any particular branch of the Army when you joined in 1942? A. I went in as a volunteer officer candidate, sir.
Q. How long did you remain there? A. Not very long. I was washed out at Fort Benning on account of lack of sufficient physical agility in late February 1943.
Q. I think you told us that in 1944 you became a member of the Communist Political Association. Do you recall when that was in 1944? A. In May, I believe. It was May [*4516] when the convention was held and shortly thereafter that I joined, a week or so.
Q. Did you attend the convention? A. I attended it as a visitor, sir.
Q. Do you know what was done at the convention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Well, that is a little comprehensive. I think I will sustain the objection to that. It is too broad.
Mr. McGohey: Well, I will withdraw it and reframe it.
Q. The convention, called in May 1944, was a convention of what Party? A. The Communist Party.
(T–3217) Q. Was there any action taken by the Communist Party with respect to the Communist Party at that convention? A. It dissolved itself.
Q. Were you there? A. I was there.
Q. Then what happened after the Communist Party was dissolved?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The delegates, as I remember it, reconstituted themselves into a founding convention of the Communist Political Association.
Q. You say that it was shortly thereafter that you joined the Communist Political Association; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Meyer, have you ever been associated in any way with the Jefferson School of Social Science? A. Yes.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. The answer is Yes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us, where is the Jefferson School of Social Science? A. In New York City, on Sixth Avenue.
Q. Do you know what street? A. I ought to. It is just above 14th. 16th, I believe.
[*5417]
Q. 16th and Sixth Avenue. And what was your connection (T–3218) with that school? A. I taught there.
Q. When did you begin teaching there? A. The autumn term of 1944.
Q. How long did you remain there as a teacher in the school? A. I taught in the autumn term of ’44; in the winter term of ’44—’45; in the spring term of 1945, and in the autumn term of 1945, up to December 1945, in other words.
Q. Prior to the time that you joined the staff of the Jefferson School as a teacher, did you have a conversation with any of the defendants now on trial? A. I had a conversation some time before that, a couple of months or so, with Mr. Green.
Q. Can you fix that time? When was it that you joined the school? A. September or so 1945 and, therefore—
Q. 1945? A. 1944. I am sorry, sir. 1944, and—
Q. With respect to that date will you try to fix the date that you say you had a conversation with Mr. Green? A. I would think about mid summer of that year, that is to say, mid summer, July, August of 1945—1944, this conversation.
Q. Will you tell us where you had this conversation? A. I don’t really remember, sir, though I had a couple of conversations at that time.
(T–3219) Q. With the defendant Green? A. With the defendant, and one of them at least was in the national office of the Party, another may have been in a restaurant, perhaps in a private home. I saw him a few times at that time.
Q. Did you have a conversation with the defendant Green with respect to your going to the Jefferson School? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: It is a little leading but—
Q. Well, will you tell us—you say you had a conversation with the defendant Green at the office of head– [*4518] quarters in East 12th Street, Party headquarters in East 12th Street. A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you say you had a conversation—another conversation with him in a restaurant. Will you tell us what was the conversation that you had with him in the office of the headquarters of the Party in 12th Street?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. It was to do with—I had just recovered from a series of operations on my feet and had not been in any activity of any kind—
(T–3220) Q. Would you please, Mr. Meyer, tell us what the conversation was? That is all I want to find out. A. I am sorry, sir.
The Court: He brings his feet in because that led up to it. Isn’t that the idea, Mr. Meyer?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Well, now, just leave the feet out now and go right into the conversation.
The Witness: The conversation itself was with regard to the work which I would do or might be willing to do; whether I was going back into activity of a full time kind in the movement; and it was suggested to me by Mr. Green that I should go into Jefferson School in an executive capacity. We discussed it a bit and later I begged off of it. I did not want to go into full time activity at all at that time.
Q. Is that your recollection of the full conversation? A. Yes.
Q. But thereafter did you become a member of the faculty of the school? A. Yes, sir, as a teacher.
The Court: Mr. Green suggested that you go in as a full time executive?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. During the period that you were a teacher at the (T–3221) Jefferson School were you a reader of the Daily Worker and the Sunday Worker? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGohey: May I have Exhibit 12–A?
[*4519]
Q. I show you Exhibit 12–A in evidence, which is a part of the Daily Worker for Thursday, May 24, 1945, and ask you if you read the article on page 7 there? A. I did, sir.
Q. That is an article entitled “On the dissolution of the Communist Party of the United States” by Jacques Duclos, is it not? A. It is, sir.
Q. After the publication of this article in the issue of May 24, 1945, of the Daily Worker, was that article discussed by the faculty at the Jefferson School?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. It was.
Q. Was it discussed on one occasion or more than one occasion?
Mr. Gladstein: Same objection.
Mr. McGohey: It is preliminary, your Honor.
A. On a couple of occasions.
Q. On either of the occasions that it was discussed by the faculty at the Jefferson School, was any of the defendants present? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3222) Q. At which of the discussions? A. The second of the discussions that I was referring to.
Q. And can you tell us when the discussion was held at which one of the defendants was present and where the discussion was held? A. As near as I can date it, it was about ten days to two weeks after the publication of the resolution of the National Board of the Communist Party, and as I remember it, before the publication of the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. I don’t remember the exact dates.
The Court: Ten days to two weeks after the publication of what?
The Witness: Of the resolution of the National Board.
Q. Now I show you Government’s Exhibit 13–A, being the Daily Worker for Monday, June 4, 1945, and call your attention to what appears on page 4 (handing). Do you recognize that? A. Yes, sir.
[*4520]
Q. That is the resolution of the National Board, is it not? A. It is.
Q. And it appears from that that the resolution of the National Board was adopted on June 2, 1945, does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I show you Government’s Exhibit 20–A in evidence, being The Worker for June 24, 1945, and (T–3223) call your attention to the article at the top of page 7 of this document, and ask you if you recognize that (handing)? A. Yes.
Q. That is the resolution of the National Committee of the Communist Political Association which was adopted at its meeting held June 18 to 20, 1945, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now you say that at this second discussion which was had on this Duclos article at the Jefferson School the defendant Stachel was present? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gladstein: Just a moment.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question and ask that both the question and the answer be stricken.
The Court: Read me the question and answer. I was just noting something.
(Question read as follows: “Q. Now you say that at this second discussion which was had on this Duclos article at the Jefferson School the defendant Stachel”—)
The Court: Yes. I will strike it out; sustained.
Mr. McGohey: I must apologize—
The Court: He didn’t say anything about that—
Mr. McGohey: I thought I was correctly and honestly summarizing the testimony.
(T–3224) The Court: I don’t think he has told us who was present of the defendants.
Mr. McGohey: I accept your Honor’s view of that and I apologize if I seem to have anticipated.
The Court: Yes.
Q. You have told us that at the second discussion there was one of the defendants present at the discussion. A. There was, sir.
[*4521]
Q. Who was that defendant? A. Mr. Stachel.
Q. Now where was that meeting held? A. In the conference room at the Jefferson School.
Q. And that is the meeting that you say was held subsequent to the publication of the resolution of the National Board of the Communist Political Association and prior to the meeting of the National Committee of the Communist Political Association? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Besides the defendant Stachel who else was at that meeting? A. About 30 or 40 of the teachers of the Jefferson School.
Q. Now will you tell us as well as you can recall what was said at that meeting while the defendant Stachel was present?
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled; received as similar testimony has been before.
(T–3225) Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, there is a further objection which from your Honor’s answer seems not to have been considered by your Honor—I mean from your Honor’s ruling.
The Court: Very well; I will hear you.
Mr. Isserman: The question is, what was said by any one of 30 or 40 persons present, and furthermore, the matter is not at all revelant to any issue in this case.
The Court: You mean that it is hard for a man to remember what every one of 40 persons said?
Mr. Isserman: I don’t mean that, your Honor, and I must object to your Honor’s characterization of my objection. My question is directed—
The Court: Wait a second; I will clear it up.
(To witness) Did all 40 of these people keep talking there?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Were there remarks by a large number of people or just by one or two?
The Witness: Quite a few people spoke in the discussion after the main speaker.
The Court: Do you think you have a pretty good recollection of what was said?
[*4522]
The Witness: In general, yes.
(T–3226) The Court: I will allow it.
Q. At this meeting at which you say the defendant Stachel was present did the defendant Stachel talk? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to the time that he talked
Mr. McGohey: I withdraw that.
Q. Who was presiding, or was there somebody presiding at the meeting? A. There was, sir.
Q. Who was presiding? A. The director of the school.
Q. And prior to the time that the defendant Stachel spoke did he speak? A. Yes.
Q. And what did he say?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He said that at a previous meeting—the previous meeting which had been held a week or so before—that a perhaps hasty and ill–considered discussion had taken place—
Q. A discussion of what? A. Discussion of the issues raised by the Duclos letter.
Q. Very well. A. (Continuing) —that a perhaps hasty and ill—
Mr. Sacher: I object to the witness’s characterization.
The Court: No. That is what he says the (T–3227) director said.
Am I not right, Mr. Meyer?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Sacher: I see. There is no Duclos letter, your Honor knows by this time.
The Court: Well, that isn’t what he was talking about.
Mr. Sacher: That is just what he said.
The Court: Was it?
Mr. Sacher: Yes.
The Court: Well, perhaps you will take advantage of it then.
[*4523]
Mr. Sacher: May I interpose an objection to that observation.
The Court: Well, you see you sum up as we go along, Mr. Sacher, and you expect that I will simply sit quiet here and let you get away with it, which I haven’t the slightest intention of doing.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that. My objection was directed to the witness testifying to something that is contrary to the record—
The Court: Well—
Mr. Sacher: —and it is not a summation.
The Court: Well, it seemed to me it was a minor summation. Now let us go ahead.
(T–3228) A. (Continuing) The director having said that a hasty discussion had taken place about the Duclos article, went on to say that perhaps also it had been a rather hasty action to call the meeting altogether before those best qualified to speak on such issues had spoken, and that therefore he had invited to the meeting a leading Marxist–Leninist, Mr. Stachel, to discuss the question. Mr. Stachel took the floor and spoke. What he said, as I remember it in substance, was this, that the people present had by this time had time to read the resolution of the National Board of the Communist Party—of the Communist Political Association, that as they knew he and all other members of the National Board except Mr. Browder were in agreement with its contents, attacking the position of Mr. Browder and supporting the position of Mr. Duclos; that the most important problem that we had to consider was how had it been possible to sink into such a swamp of revisionism; that the Duclos letter’s main good features—the main thing that it had done was to shock us out of that swamp of revisionism, that what had to be done was to examine how such a situation had occurred in the American Marxist movement, and he proceeded to say that if we looked back far enough we (T–3229) would find that it wasn’t just in the few months of existence of the Communist Political Association that these errors had been founded, but over the course of almost ten years; he didn’t think, as others did, that everything that the Communist Party had done in that period was wrong but he certainly felt that the Marxist movement in general had been on the wrong path [*4524] throughout. He said that we hadn’t seen either as yet the end of a course which we were following, that it was a policy of liquidationism which would not have stopped without the warning of the Duclos letter, would not have stopped short of the complete liquidation of the American Communist movement.
(T–3230) In fact, that Mr. Browder had already carried it to its logical conclusions in the South where there no longer existed any Communist movement.
He said that it was necessary to look also for the foundations or the roots, the reasons for this sort of thing happening in the American movement and that they could be found in the earlier theory of American exceptionalism of which this was a repetition, could be found in American life, that the years of Roosevelt had dampened or cut off the sharpness of understanding of the class struggle character in the United States, that one of the first things that had to be done was to kill the Roosevelt myth, that he himself hoped that the entire movement would unite around the new policies or rather the return to the basic policies of Marxism–Leninism enunciated by Duclos, that he hoped that there would be really a united party on that account, and he ended it, as I remember it, by stressing in particular the role of Marxist educators, teachers in eradicating the ideas—the revisionist ideas, and going back to the fount of Marxism–Leninism, stressing the need of a restudy of the basic materials which he said that Mr. Browder had put into the cellar and in particular the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Bolsheviks.
(T–3231) When he concluded there was a discussion.
Q. Did you take part in that discussion? A. I did, sir.
Q. Will you tell us the substance as best you can? What you said. A. I said that the line brought forward by Duclos was a line which in the circumstances of postwar, after the democratic peoples of the world had already spilt their blood in a struggle against tyranny, was one that was bound to lead inevitably to a war between the United States and the Soviet Union, a war for which the Communists themselves would be responsible if that line became the line of the International Communist Movement; that peace [*4525] was possible and that all democratic and progressive people should attempt in every possible way to create a peaceful world.
Q. Did Mr. Stachel reply to that? A. He said it was provocative.
Q. Did others speak in the discussion? A. Yes, a large number. Most of those present.
Q. Did anybody at the meeting speak at its conclusion to sum up the meeting? A. Mr. Stachel summed up in conclusion.
Q. What did he say there? A. He said he was, as I remember it,—that he was happy to see the general unanimity of opinion, particularly in view of the fact (T–3232) that he had heard that a week or so before there was a good deal of disagreement, he was happy to see that those present understood the correct line of the Duclos article, and he repeated the essential points that he had made in his original statement. He said he certainly hoped that Mr. Browder would clarify himself, that Mr. Browder always took a long time in a situation of this kind, that he had remembered at the time of the outbreak of the war in 1939 that Mr. Browder had been the last man to admit it was an imperialist war and that in any event no man was indispensable and that it was essential to move forward on the new line—something to that effect—particularly stressing the role of teachers, educators in clarifying the line of the Party, line of the movement. I think that is about all.
Mr. McGohey: Will your Honor pardon me just a minute, please?
The Court: Certainly.
Q. At the meeting that you have just described, Mr. Meyer, do you know whether there was any other member of the National Board or the National Committee of the Communist Political Association present besides the defendant Stachel? A. I think, but I am not absolutely sure, that Mr. Trachtenberg was there, I remember, at the National Committee.
(T–3233) Q. Now there was a discussion period provided for in the resolution of the National Committee, was there not? A. Before the convention?
[*4526]
Q. Yes. A. In preparation of the convention?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was such a discussion period provided for, was there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I call your attention to Government’s Exhibit 14–A in evidence and direct your attention to page—7, isn’t it? A. Yes, page 7.
Q. Page 7 and page 6 also. There appears on there an article submitted—the resolution, and then over here the article “Browder’s position on the resolution”? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now during that discussion period did you write a letter to the Daily Worker expressing your views on the question? A. I did.
Q. Did you make a copy of the letter? A. I don’t remember, but I haven’t got a copy today anyway.
Q. Was your letter ever published? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever get it back? A. No.
Q. After you had sent the letter to the Daily Worker did you communicate with any of the defendants concerning that letter? A. I did, sir.
(T–3234) Q. With whom did you communicate? A. With Mr. Thompson who referred me to Mr. Dennis.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Dennis? A. On the telephone.
Q. Did you have a conversation with him? A. On the telephone.
Q. Well, did you have a conversation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did have a conversation on the telephone? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had known the defendant Dennis previous to the time you had this conversation, did you? A. Yes.
Q. You had talked to him? A. Yes.
Q. Did you recognize his voice? A. Yes.
Q. You recognize it as his voice on the telephone? A. Yes.
Q. Now will you tell us what that conversation was—first of all where did you call? A. National Headquarters of the Communist Party.
Q. And can you tell us with some—as much definiteness as you can about when you made this telephone call? A. It was within, I would say, about a week before the dis– [*4527] cussion was due to end because I was getting annoyed at not having it in the—
Mr. McCabe: I object.
The Court: Strike out about his getting annoyed.
(T–3235) Mr. McGohey: I will consent to that.
Q. When was the discussion to end? A. I believe it ended a few days before the National Convention was called. I don’t know the date of that. Maybe—
Mr. McGohey: Well, there are exhibits in evidence, your Honor, indicating that the convention was held in July.
The Court: What did you say was the date of the meeting, of the convention, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: According to Government’s Exhibit 24–A in evidence the National Convention was held July 26 to 28, 1945.
(T–3236) The Court: So that is the Communist Party Convention, isn’t it?
Mr. McGohey: Communist Political Association.
The Court: Let me see that exhibit. I must have an erroneous memorandum here. I have got, under 24–A, “The Communist Party Convention.” That is a Worker of August 5, 1945.
Mr. McGohey: That is correct, your Honor. It may seem confusing, but what occurred was that it was the Communist Political Association, as the evidence shows, that called the convention to occur on July 26–28, and at that they changed their name back to the Communist Party and adopted their new Constitution.
The Court: That is all right. Then that clears up what I had in mind, and that is the one that the witness is talking about?
Mr. McGohey: That is the convention that the witness is talking about, your Honor.
Q. Now, will you tell us, as well as you can, the conversation that was had between you and Mr. Dennis on the telephone at this time? A. I told him that I would like to [*4528] know when my contribution to the discussion would be printed; that in my opinion there had been nothing printed against the position of the Duclos article (T–3237) except a couple of small letters without any theoretical substance, and Mr. Browder’s own article, own letter or contribution, and over the course of some weeks all of the other contributions had been rigged the other way. I said that, before it ended, “I would like mine to be printed, and I know of one or two others that exist that ought to be printed to make it a discussion” which I did not believe it had been until then, as I told him.
He said, “Don’t worry. Browder can speak for himself.”
I said, “I don’t care personally whether Browder can speak for himself or not. I have a position on this discussion which is, perhaps, not identical with Mr. Browder’s, but is certainly in opposition to the line of the Duclos article.”
Mr. Dennis said, “Don’t worry, he can take care of himself.”
That was the end of the conversation.
Q. Thereafter, did your letter—was your letter published? A. It was not.
* * *
(T–3238) Mr. McGohey: Your Honor, I desire to inquire of the Court something about the ruling that was made in connection with some of the testimony. I was confused in my recollection until I refreshed it during the recess as to what your Honor’s ruling was in connection with objections that were made to the testimony of this witness when he described the conversation or the discussion, rather, by the defendant Stachel at this meeting of the Jefferson School in the summer of 1945. There were objections made to that, and my recollection now is that your Honor said that that was being received only against the defendant Stachel.
The Court: Well, I didn’t mean that as to testimony within the period described in the indictment.
Mr. McGohey: That is what concerned me, your Honor, because that appeared during the period charged in the indictment.
[*4529]
The Court: Yes. Well, I was laboring under a misunderstanding as to the date, then. Within the period of the indictment the proof is received generally, subject to my instructions later on.
Mr. Sacher: I wish to note an objection to that ruling.
The Court: Very well.
(T–3239) By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now I think you told us, Mr. Meyer, that you had been—that you taught at the Jefferson School of Social Science in the spring of 1945; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you teach during the summer of 1945? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Had you been scheduled to teach at that time? A. I had.
Q. What courses were you to teach? A. A course called “The Social and Political Philosophy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”
Q. Was that course eliminated? A. It was.
Q. Did you teach in the fall of 1945? A. I did.
Q. And what course did you teach then?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. “History of Modern Political Thought.”
Q. After 1945 did you continue to teach at the Jefferson School? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you resign from Jefferson School? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you discharged from the Jefferson School?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. My name was left out of the catalogue without (T–3240) explanation, as a matter of fact, and that’s all.
Q. After 1945 have you had any connection with the Jefferson School? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had any connection with the Communist Party? A. Certainly not.
[*4530]
Q. Now I think you told us this morning that while you were in Chicago you became director of the Workers School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that a school conducted by the Communist Party of Chicago?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Was that a school conducted by the Communist Party of Chicago? A. Technically not; in actual fact, yes.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that answer out, your Honor.
The Court: What do you mean by that—
I will strike it out if I feel warranted in doing that.
The Witness: I mean, your Honor, it was incorporated separately as a separate institution. It paid its taxes, Social Security taxes separately. In actual fact it was run by the Communist Party.
(T–3241) Mr. Isserman: I ask that that answer be stricken.
The Court: (To witness) How do you know it was run by the Communist Party?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
(Laughter.)
Mr. McGohey: May I ask a question?
Mr. Sacher: May we have a ruling, your Honor?
The Court: I better keep my nose out of this for the time being.
Mr. Sacher: May we have a ruling on those objections?
The Court: Yes. I will sustain the objection to my question.
(Laughter.)
The Court: Go ahead, Mr. McGohey.
Mr. McGohey: May I have the last answer read or the last question?
The Court: I asked how do you know it was run by the Communist Party?
[*4531]
The Reporter: (Reading) “How do you know it was run by the Communist Party?”
The Court: Yes, and I sustained the objection to my question.
Q. Who appointed you to that school? (T–3242) A. Morris Childs.
Q. When?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Who is this man?
Mr. McGohey: I was trying to fix the time and then get to who he was.
The Witness: He was an organizer of the Illinois District of the Communist Party.
Q. And when was it that he appointed you? A. 1938.
Q. Now I think you told us this morning that in his discussion at the Jefferson School Mr. Stachel said something about the history of the Communist Party, being a book that had fallen into disuse. Is that what you said?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that as assuming a state of facts not in evidence.
Mr. McGohey: Well, I will ask the witness.
Q. What was it you told us this morning that Mr. Stachel said about the history of the Communist Party? A. I said that the—
Q. That is, the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. A. I said that that book—I said that he said that that book among other Marxist classical works (T–3243) had been neglected, more or less left in the cellar during the Browder period.
Q. Now is that one of the books that was used when you were in the Workers’ School in Chicago when you were the director of that school?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. After its publication, yes.
[*4532]
Q. And when was that? A. My memory would be 1939. I am not sure of the exact part of the year. It had been heralded before 1939 but I think it came out in 1939.
(T–3244) Q. I show you this book, marked Government’s Exhibit 30 for identification, and ask you if that is the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to which you refer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. While you were the director of the Workers School in Chicago were there courses taught from this book?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. After its publication, fundamental courses in Marxism–Leninism were revised in such way as to make it the main text for those courses.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. What was done with this book in connection with the courses that you have just indicated?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: This is in the Chicago Workers School?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Perhaps the time had better be fixed.
Mr. McGohey: He said, shortly after its publication, I thought, your Honor. I thought we had that time fixed.
The Court: Well, he, as I have it down here, (T–3245) he said the book came out in 1939 and it was shortly after that that this course was reorganized.
The Witness: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Very well. I will allow it.
The Witness: What was the question?
Q. I asked you, what was done in the school, Chicago Workers School, in connection with this book? A. It was, so far as the school was concerned, made the central text– [*4533] book for, particularly, the courses that went at that time under the name of Marxism–Leninism 1, 2 and 3—later were changed, I believe, to the name of Scientific Socialism 1, 2, 3—and what was done was to take the central theoretical sections which existed in each of the chapters, or each of the more important chapters, and use them as the center around which the principles taken up there were discussed. For example, in the, I think it is, the second chapter, it is one of the earlier chapters, there is a discussion of the role of the Communist Party. When the problem of the role of the Party was to be discussed, that was used as the basic material, with side reading from the older classic. When the question of tactics of the Communist movement in situations previous to a proletarian revolution, that is to say, in a democratic transformation from an older and more feudal situation, was discussed, the (T–3246) fourth—the third chapter, one of the earlier chapters, I am not sure of the exact number, was used. So that what was done was, we said, “This was the experience of a Communist Party in a given situation. In the course of meeting these problems, the Russian Communists, Lenin and so forth, solved them in this and this manner; what sort of general conclusions for the working class movement in general can be drawn from these conclusions.”
And since these chapters themselves were based on decisive and important material, drawn out of other and earlier writings of Lenin, Stalin, and so forth, it became a kind of compendium in one volume of what otherwise existed only in a whole series of scattered books here and there. Hence, it was stated at that time, in general, in the Communist Movement, in articles of all kinds and in conferences, in all the educational work, that this book—
Mr. Crockett: I object to this.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection. Strike out the last part.
Mr. Isserman: I move that the entire answer be stricken on the ground that the witness is allowed to testify to the contents of a book, chapter by chapter, on what was done with specific chapters, and the book itself is not in evidence.
[*4534]
(T–3247) The Court: Well, he says what his recollection is of what he observed there. What I struck out was the part about all the books everywhere said this and that. I struck that out, but I will leave in what he said about the teaching in the school.
Mr. Isserman: But he is referring to the various chapters of the book and describing their contents and the book is not in evidence, and that is the best evidence of the contents.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, this book was marked Government’s Exhibit 30 for identification and offered as a book. Thereafter certain passages of it, which were read, were offered.
Mr. Isserman: It was not, if the Court please; my recollection is it was offered as a book. It was allowed. At the Court’s suggestion the offer was withdrawn. And at this point the book is merely marked for identification and certain pages were marked in evidence.
The Court: That is just what Mr. McGohey said.
Mr. Isserman: He said it was offered as a book. It was not offered as a book.
The Court: It was offered—
Mr. McGohey: It was offered as a book and the Court declined to allow it.
(T–3248) The Court: —as an object. We mustn’t use the word “book,”—as an object, and I was the one who suggested that if the whole book was put in evidence we might be trying all kinds of things until kingdom come.
Mr. Isserman: That is precisely—
The Court: And I didn’t want to have that done, and the result was, just as Mr. McGohey has said, that certain pages were received in evidence. I am going to permit to stand what this witness has testified about what he observed in that school, and the objection is overruled.
Mr. Sacher: May I respectfully call your Honor’s attention to the fact that the only pages in this [*4535] volume in evidence are pages 130 to 172? And the witness has described the contents of Chapter 2 of Exhibit 30 for identification, which consists of, I think, about a hundred pages.
The Court: Mr. Sacher, I don’t know how I am to stop you from arguing.
Mr. Sacher: I am not arguing. I thought I was of help to the Court.
The Court: I try every way I can to be pleasant about it, but firm, but you get up and you say over again the very same thing Mr. Isserman has just said, and you go right on about it. Now, I understand the situation here, and I will allow the answer to stand.
(T–3249) Go ahead, Mr. McGohey.
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Was there a resolution by the Communist Party concerning—adopted—concerning this History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. There were a number of resolutions adopted. Large sections of various publications carried them from time to time. I remember, oh, detailed resolutions or statements from the Central Committee, or the National Committee, I think it was then.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor. The witness is stating the contents of a written document.
The Court: This last part is sort of lumping things in a way that I will sustain objection to.
Now, I will permit to stand the part where he said that there was some resolution passed, and we shall inquire—or I will suggest that you produce, if you have it, the text of the resolution.
Mr. McGohey: May I have this book marked for identification, please?
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 47 for identification.)
[*4536]
(T–3250) Q. Now I show you Government’s Exhibit 47 for identification, which is a copy of “The Communist” for January, 1940, and call your attention particularly to pages 72 through 84, and ask you to look at it and tell me if that is one of the resolutions which you referred to in your testimony just a few minutes ago (handing)?
* * *
A. (After examining.) Yes, sir, this was the May resolution I was thinking of. It isn’t a resolution of the National Committee as I thought it was; it was signed by a number—
Mr. Isserman: I object to any reference to it.
Q. Don’t characterize any reference to it unless it is in evidence.
The Court: Strike out the characterization.
Mr. McGohey: I offer it in evidence.
* * *
(T–3251) Mr. Crockett: If your Honor please, we object to the introduction in evidence of this document, However, we have no objection to the content of the document. I should like with the Court’s permission to state the basis—
The Court: You object to the introduction but not the contents?
Mr. Crockett: We do not object to the content. We do object to the receipt of this document in evidence.
The Court: Well, I will sustain the objection to the outward form and overrule the objection to the contents, which may be marked.
Mr. Crockett: What is that, your Honor?
The Court: Well, the contents, as I understand it, are offered. I do not understand the distinction between the paper and the contents.
Mr. Crockett: May I state my grounds?
The Court: Well, I think it would just get into a futile discussion, Mr. Crockett, and I will overrule the objection and permit it to be marked.
[*4537]
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 47–A in evidence.)
* * *
(T–3252) Mr. McGohey: May I have this book marked?
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 48 for identification.)
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor’s ruling on the objection I trust does not foreclose all the other objections which legally might be urged against this, such as materiality and lack of foundation and so on. I do not want to urge those if, as I understand, it is correct to assume that the mere statement of the word “objection” encompasses all the objections.
The Court: Well, Mr. Gladstein, I think from my experience I have a pretty good notion of when there is something on which I desire to hear discussion in connection with this evidence points. Usually I enjoy discussion by lawyers, but I found in this case that it got absolutely intolerable and such a burden that I never could physically continue through to the end of the trial if I permitted it to continue, and so I was required to rule that the lawyer should simply say “I object,” and then I would call for argument where I thought I required it. In this instance I do not.
(T–3253) Mr. Gladstein: Does your Honor understand I am not offering a discussion but I simply ask the Court to state whether I have the benefit of all legal objections which might be urged on behalf of my clients simply by stating the word “Objection,” and to have the record show that.
The Court: I think your objection will suffice. I am not going to make any blanket ruling of any kind. You have already stated the grounds despite my repeated request that the grounds be not stated. You have nevertheless stated them and there they are on the record. I take it you need no further protection than what you have stated.
Mr. Gladstein: Very well.
[*4538]
Mr. Isserman: I would like to take exception to your Honor’s statement concerning argument by counsel in this case which, if I quote your Honor correctly, made consideration or listening to it intolerable.
The Court: Yes, I thought you were about the worst offender in the courtroom.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that remark and the previous one as bound to have a prejudicial effect upon the jury and as an interference with counsel in this case in their right and duty to defend the defendants.
(T–3254) The Court: I don’t think counsel have been unduly intimidated. The repeated disregard of my instructions rather indicates the contrary.
Mr. McCabe: I object to the admission of Exhibit 47.
The Court: Objection overruled.
(Government’s Exhibit 47 for identification received in evidence.)
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. I show you this Government’s Exhibit 48 for identification which is “The Communist” for June 1941, and direct your attention to the article beginning on page 536 and continuing through to the bottom of page 545, and ask you if you recognize that article? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGohey: I offer it in evidence.
(T–3255) Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I wonder if it might conserve some time if, while counsel are looking at Exhibit 48–A, that I have offered, I might read from 47–A?
The Court: It is an excellent idea unless objection is raised.
Mr. McCabe: I don’t think it is an excellent idea to have evidence going into this jury while we are examining other evidence which is about to be—
Mr. McGohey: The point is—
The Court: I notice—
[*4539]
Mr. McGohey: —this is in evidence. The whole thing is in evidence.
The Court: And I have noticed that the examination of these last two exhibits has been very deliberate, and I think, perhaps, it might not be a bad idea, as I have observed that six of you have already read it through and it remains only for the seventh to do so, that, perhaps, while Mr. McGohey reads from Exhibit 47, the other counsel could be alert to see if he read correctly—while you read Exhibit 48 for identification, Mr. McCabe. Don’t you think that is sensible?
Mr. McCabe: Is your Honor speaking advisedly when you Honor says that six of the counsel have read the article through?
(T–3256) The Court: I should have said five.
Mr. McCabe: That anyone has read it through, your Honor?
Mr. Isserman: I wish to state that I did not have—
The Court: I cannot seem to make even the simplest comment without arousing a storm of objections. I see Mr. Isserman again on his feet.
Mr. Isserman: Yes, but there is no storm. I am merely rising to state that I haven’t read the article through and could not have done so in the short time in which I had to look at it.
The Court: Perhaps you were just fingering it.
Mr. Isserman: I was looking at it and skimming over it but I did not read it, and I object to your Honor’s remark.
The Court: I cannot say you read it through—one never knows—but I can testify to the length of time it took.
Don’t you think it is a good idea to let Mr. McGohey go ahead and read from Exhibit 47 while Mr. McCabe examines, to the extent that he finds it necessary to examine Exhibit 48 for identification?
What do you think about that, Mr. McCabe?
(T–3257) Mr. McCabe: Well, if your Honor is—you are restricting my opinion on the conduct of the case to this one element, I take it?
[*4540]
The Court: It doesn’t seem to be a vital point but perhaps we have used as much time talking about it as we would have used if you had gone ahead.
So, Mr. McGohey, you will please refrain from reading that exhibit until all of counsel for the defense have concluded their examination of the one now under consideration.
Mr. McGohey: Of course, I think the record—pardon me, Mr. Crockett—I think the record should show that what I have asked the Court to read from is a document which, at the time it was offered, was passed to counsel for the defendants, that they had read it and that it is admitted in evidence.
The Court: I understand their point, it is that they cannot tell whether you are reading it accurately while their mind is on another exhibit. So, for the time being, and without intending to make it a ruling for the balance of the trial, I shall sustain their objection.
Mr. McCabe: Of course, your Honor—
The Court: And I ask you not to read until they have finished glancing at what they are looking at.
Mr. McCabe: I object to your Honor’s characterization (T–3258) of the reasons for my objection. It had nothing to do with accuracy—
The Court: What were your reasons?
Mr. McCabe: —with the accuracy of any reading.
When evidence is being presented to a jury, your Honor, material is being read to a jury, counsel representing a defendant has not only the right but the duty to pay strict attention to the reading of it for the purpose, among other things, of determining whether other portions of the evidence should be read for the purpose of trying to determine whether the material read, excerpts from the article, properly represents the contents of the article, or whether it is torn from context. Sometimes an ex– [*4541] pression from the jury, an expression of particular interest from the jury, may indicate that they are getting a wrong impression of the article. So that I think—
The Court: Maybe scratching their heads or something like that?
Mr. McCabe: Well, I haven’t noticed any of the jury doing that, your Honor, not that there is any harm in that.
The Court: You have commented on all sorts of trivial things I don’t think you are apt to find, by looking at the jury, as Mr. McGohey reads to them, anything which would indicate to you whether you ought to (T–3259) do something or another, but I have sustained your objection. Mr. McGohey will not read until you and your colleagues have entirely concluded your perusal of Exhibit 48 for identification.
Mr. Crockett: Now, if the Court please, I wish at this time to interpose an objection to the Court’s initial comment concerning the amount of time used in examining Government’s Exhibit No. 48 for identification, and I should like to state that, on behalf of myself, there has been no undue delay in examining that exhibit, and neither have I noticed any undue delay on behalf of any of the other attorneys who represent the defendants here.
(T–3260) The Court: Well, you see, Mr. Crockett, you and your colleagues have a way of thinking that when you say something that makes it so, and I think we will have to leave it perhaps to someone else to draw conclusions. Now what you have been doing you have been doing in the full and open view of every one here, and I think perhaps we can let it go until Mr. Gladstein, who is now taking another look at that 48 for identification, can consider it together with Mr. McCabe sufficiently to conclude the perusal.
Mr. Gladstein: Let the record show that I had not had a chance to really look at it, and I tried to listen to what your Honor was saying as a matter [*4542] of fact, which gave me no opportunity to study the document.
The Court: Well, you didn’t miss much, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to your Honor’s remark as the document had nine pages in it, I believe, and it took time to study, and whether Mr. Gladstein missed much by reading it or not, is certainly not a comment for the Court to make.
The Court: These objections are reaching a new low.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, this has been offered in evidence.
(T–3261) Mr. Crockett: And I wish to object to the receipt in evidence of Government’s Exhibit No. 48, and to interpose a special objection in so far as the defendants whom I represent are concerned.
The Court: Let me look at it, Mr. Borman, please.
(Clerk hands to Court.)
The Court: Is it this article by Williamson, is it, that is offered, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: (After examining) I will allow it.
(Government’s Exhibit 48–A received in evidence.)
Mr. McGohey: Now your Honor, I propose to read from Exhibit 47–A in evidence—
Mr. Gladstein: Will you pardon an interruption, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: When your Honor said you were allowing the last exhibit, which purports to be an article by one of the defendants, 48, what is your Honor’s ruling as to whether that is allowed with respect to all defendants?
The Court: As to all these preliminary matters previous to the dates specified in the indictment, I am (T–3262) allowing the proof only against the particular defendant or defendants who are connected therewith.
[*4543]
Mr. McGohey: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am reading for this issue of “The Communist,” dated January 1940, and—that is, from an article which appears in that issue of that publication. The article is entitled “On the Distribution and Study of the History of the C.P.S.U. (B) and a propagation of Marxism–Leninism in the world Communist movement Resolution adopted August 10, 1939”—
I propose to read all on page 73 and down to the end of the carry–over paragraph on 74 at this time.
Mr. Gladstein: May I interrupt, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: There is no question about this article. I was referring to 48 when I asked your Honor about the ruling. Now 47 appears to be even earlier and is not designated with respect to any particular defendant; no foundation laid.
The Court: Well, let me consult my notes, if you will. I think I have some recollection that Mr. Green—(examining)—had a conversation with the witness here—now let me see. That is that Jefferson School, and we are talking now about the Chicago Workers School; am I right about that, Mr. McGohey?
(T–3263) Mr. McGohey: That is correct, your Honor.
The Court: (After examining) Well, I will admit this only against those whom the testimony—that defendant or defendants whom the testimony connects with it and leave it to the jury’s recollection as to that, so as to save the time of going back over a considerable number of pages of testimony.
Mr. Gladstein: But that is just my point, your Honor. I don’t think any foundation has been laid, any connection whatsoever with respect, as my recollection goes, to any of the defendants so far as this Exhibit 47 is concerned.
The Court: Let me hear from Mr. McGohey on that. What do you say, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: Well, it is my recollection that the witness testified that he went to Chicago at the direction of one of the defendants.
[*4544]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 47–A, Read into Record
The Court: Well, that is the defendant Green, isn’t it?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor. That he conferred with Green after he went to Chicago.
The Court: Yes. I don’t, however, remember his saying anything specifically about Mr. Green and this Chicago Workers School. I take it, it is your theory that the inferences to be drawn from what he did testify (T–3264) to were such as to cover all matters of this character after he got to Chicago.
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Very well, I will allow it.
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor pleases, if there is any doubt about it I will ask the witness.
The Court: You may do so if you care to. I was going to rule that the evidence is admissible, this paper, this particular paper you are reading now, against the defendant Green.
Mr. McGohey: Very well, your Honor.
(Reading to jury) “On the Distribution and Study of the ‘History of the C.P.S.U. (B).’”
Q. Does that (B) stand for something, Mr. Meyer? A. Bolsheviks.
Mr. McGohey: (Reading) “—‘Bolsheviks,’ and the propagation of Marxism–Leninism in the world Communist movement.
“Resolution adopted August 10, 1939.
“The appearance of the history of the Communist Party Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)’ for the Communist world movement, the international proletariat and the working people of all countries:
“The appearance of this history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) is one of the (T–3265) greatest events in the life of the Communist world movement and of the international labor movement, in the struggle of the working people of all countries for emancipation. Written with the immediate participation of Comrade Stalin and authorized by the Central Committee of the CPSU (B), the history occupies an extraordinary place among the classic works of Marxism–Leninism. The history is intended to play—and will undoubtedly play—a very import– [*4545] ant role in the successful mastering of Bolshevism by the Communists of the capitalist countries, in the consolidation of the sections of the Communist International, and in raising their ideological and political level.
“The special importance of the history of the CPSU (B) to the working people of the capitalist countries consists in the following:
“The History shows them the way to create and consolidate the Party of a new type, the Party of Lenin and Stalin, which is the model for all other Communist Parties.
“In the History, the close inter–action of revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice is shown from the experience of the long years of struggle conducted by Lenin and Stalin on the political, economic (T–3266) and theoretical field against the bourgeoisie, the land owners, against imperialism and against all agents of the class enemy within the labor movement and also inside the Party.
“The History shows the path of struggle traveled by the Bolshevik Party in solving the general democratic tasks, in transforming the bourgeois–democratic revolution into the Socialist revolution; it shows the path of revolutionary overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the land owners and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
“The History gives the exceedingly rich experience of the first victorious, great Socialist revolution in the world, which has opened a new epoch in the history of humanity; it conveys the experience of three revolutions, in the fire of which Lenin and Stalin forged and tempered the invincible Party of the Bolsheviks.”
And then continuing over on the same page, the righthand paragraph on that page, beginning with the second full paragraph, I shall read the second full paragraph and the third full paragraph in that column:
[*4546]
“By its masterly exposition of the history of the CPSU (B) and the revolutionary movement in Russia, the history represents for the Communists (T–3267) in other countries a living example of how the dialectical method must be correctly applied to the study of the history of their Parties and the labor movement of their countries, how the tasks confronting the working class of their own countries must be correctly put and solved.
“The History of the CPSU (B) is a definite proof of how invincible is the Party of the working class, if it is guided by the theory of Marxism–Leninism. The History opens clear perspectives, and strengthens the confidence of the International Working class in the ultimate victory of Communism throughout the whole world.”
Then going over to page 80, beginning with the section marked Roman numeral IV with the subtitle “The Study of the ‘History’ in the Party Schools”:
“For the more rapid and more basic education of strong Marxist–Leninist cadres, it is necessary to extend the network of schools, transform their curriculum, and critically to examine all literature used by the schools, in accordance with the viewpoints given in the history.
“The most important measures with regard to the schools are as follows:
“(a) To introduce in the Central Party schools (T–3268) a course ‘Foundations of Marxism–Leninism,’ as the sole course for the study of the science of Marxism–Leninism. The History and Comrade Stalin’s ‘Leninism’ to be used as the basis of this study program. The course on ‘History of the Working Class’ of the particular country in question is to be maintained as an independent course in the school’s program, and must be most closely related to the History of the CPSU (B) and to Leninism.
[*4547]
“(b) Wherever conditions of legality permit, care should be taken to establish evening courses for the study of the history to the widest possible extent throughout the lower and middle cadres of the Party.
“(c) In the short–term schools the chief effort should be directed towards enabling those Party cadres who have been through the schools to continue independently a more thorough study of the History and of the other works of Marxism–Leninism.”
Then, your Honor, going over to page 84 of the exhibit in evidence, beginning with the first full paragraph on the lefthand column of that page down to the end of the exhibit:
“The most important criterion of the Bolshevik maturity of the Communist Parties and their Central Committees will be as to how they fulfill the task of (T–3269) the mass distribution and organization of the study of the History, the task of correctly estimating the teaching of Marxism–Leninism, the task of mastering the most advanced theory of the working class movement.
“The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union teaches us that:
“‘Only a Party which has mastered the Marxist–Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class forward.’”
That is the end of the quotation, the citation for which is “History of the CPSU (B), page 355. International Publishers, New York.”
Then continuing the text of the exhibit:
“Only such a party will be capable of defending the interests of the proletariat and of the toiling masses, of fusing the forces of the anti–Fascist front, of repelling Fascism and the Fascist incendiaries, and of bringing about the overthrow of [*4548] the hated Fascist dictatorship. Only such a Party will be capable of leading the working class in the attack upon capitalism, of standing at the head of the struggle of the toilers for their liberation from capitalist slavery, and leading them, through the achievement and consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the gleaming summits (T–3269–A) of the Communist society.
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 48–A, Read into Record
“Signed by the Communist Parties of France, Great Britain, the U.S.A., Germany and Italy.”
(T–3270) Reading from Exhibit 48–A, beginning at page 536, the title in the first full paragraph on that page, the title is “Earl Browder—Molder of Party Cadres,” by John Williamson:
“The Leninist view of building the Communist Party as the vanguard and leader of the working class evaluates the question of cadres—their selection, distribution and training—as one of primary importance. This view has been tested in the rich experience of the Party of Lenin and Stalin. Similarly, in the growth and development of our Party toward a mass Party, with strong roots among the American workers, the problem of cadres has occupied an important place. Our Party’s ability to meet the numerous and difficult tasks before the American working class, and to influence and guide its development into a decisive force in the life of the American people, has been intimately connected with its ability to develop, promote and train new Party leaders.”
Then I go over to page 542 of the exhibit, beginning with the last paragraph on the lefthand column and continuing through there to the bottom of the righthand column of the exhibit on page 542:
(T–3271) “So important did the Party consider this question of improving the quality of the work of the entire membership and especially its [*4549] leading cadres, that the Tenth Convention adopted a detailed plan for intensive political training, aimed particularly at reaching the hundreds of new, local, working class comrades in the branches and section. This included numerous full–time schools on a district and national scale, and special schools for Negro and youth workers. It covered the organizing of hundreds of week–end schools and evening classes, and of thousands of study circles, many of which were connected with the Workers Schools. Emphasis was also given to the need of acquiring the habit of self–education through planned reading and self–study.
“Of great assistance in this campaign was The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. One hundred thousand copies of this classic work were sold and have been and are being systematically studied for the lessons that it teaches the American Communists.
“A pamphlet of Comrade Browder written at that time, to help dramatize and organize this campaign to improve the quality of our work through better (T–3272) mastery of Marxist–Leninist theory, should be read and reread today, for the guidance it gives. In this present period of great historical changes, one passage of this pamphlet is especially worth quoting:
“‘It is in moments of crisis, of great changes, of historic turns, when there is revealed especially the utter inadequacy and harmfulness of all anti–Marxian theory ... Today all of the old landmarks are drifting, breaking up, disappearing ... For those with foundations only in the old order of things, it is a period of pessimism and despair ... Our theory guides us through crisis, through moments of great change, because it is a science of social development, it is the generalization of all past history and forecasts future history ... For those ... armed with the understanding of [*4550] Marxist–Leninist theory, the way is lighted up through the deepest chaos, pessimism is dissolved, courage and enthusiasm inspire to struggle, with calm confidence in the certainty of victory.’”
And the citation is “Theory as a Guide to Action, pp. 9–10.”
* * *
(T–3273) AFTERNOON SESSION
FRANK S. MEYER, resumed the stand.
* * *
Mr. Isserman: May I inquire if Mr. McGohey had finished reading from Exhibit 48?
The Court: You may.
Mr. McGohey: I was looking at 47. 48? Yes.
Mr. Isserman: Well, there is a portion of that that I would like to read.
The Court: Very well, you may do so.
Mr. Isserman: May I have the exhibit, please?
(Mr. McGohey hands to Mr. Isserman.)
Mr. Isserman: I am reading from Exhibit 48, Government’s Exhibit 48, which is an article by John Williamson, which was written—which was published in the June 1941 issue of the Communist:
“To strengthen the democratic front movement”—
Mr. McGohey: Would you indicate the page, please?
Mr. Isserman: I am reading from page 541, the second whole paragraph.
(T–3274) Mr. McGohey: All right, thank you.
Mr. Isserman: “To strengthen the democratic front movement and help influence it toward a real [*4551] people’s front movement with a clear–cut political program it was above all necessary to infuse the working class and labor movement with political understanding of its role as a unifying force and leader of the general movement against reaction and for genuine democracy. This was especially necessary because of the efforts of monopoly capital to divide the middle class from the labor movement and even to divide the labor movement itself around the issues of the militant strike and sit–down struggles, and a wave of union organization that swept the country. Emphasis on improved quality of our work simultaneously aimed at developing fully and frankly the Party’s independent political position at all times and in relation to all groups and enabling it to combat effectively all ideas harmful to the cause of the people and the developing democratic front unity. Such criticism far from harming the unity of the movement contributed to its strengthening. In carrying out this line political astuteness was necessary on the part of the Party cadres everywhere (T–3275) in order to clarify and steel the Party to present its independent position to the masses and yet maintain proper, friendly and working relations with the other forces within the democratic front movement. To the extent that the Party forces within the mass organizations, especially the trade unions, improved the quality of their work, they were able to organize political mass education and develop the class consciousness of the trade union members in such a way that they understood the need of defeating every red scare and anti–Communist move, not only from the viewpoint of defending civil rights and maintaining their own unity against reactionary attacks but also from the more basic viewpoint of defending the Communist Party as a genuine working class and democratic force. In short, the emphasis on the improved quality of the work of our cadres aimed at enhancing our Party’s contribution to the development [*4552] and consolidation of the progressive mass movements and of enhancing its role as vanguard of the working class of securing on this basis closer and firmer ties with the workers and with the toiling masses generally and of thus strengthening the Communist Party itself numerically, organizationally and as a political force.”
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 48, Read into Record
(T–3276) Direct examination continued by Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now Mr. Meyer, this resolution which was read this morning from Government’s Exhibit 47–A in evidence, this resolution on the distribution and study of the history of the Communist Party Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), and the propagation of Marxism–Leninism in the world Communist movement was adopted according to the exhibit on August 10, 1939. Now I direct your attention to that date and that time and ask you if you know whether or not any of the defendants now on trial were members of the National Committee of the Communist Party at that time?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Whether he knew any of them at that time? Isn’t that the question?
Mr. McGohey: Whether he knew whether any of the defendants now on trial were members of the Communist Party at that time.
Mr. Sacher: 1939, your Honor.
Mr. McGohey: At the time of this resolution which on its face states it was adopted by the Communist Party of the United States and other countries.
The Court: Well, that may involve a conclusion. I don’t know just how he would know. I will sustain the objection.
(T–3277) Mr. McGohey: Well, may I get the answer without naming who was there? Whether or not he knows that?
Mr. Sacher: He knows what?
Mr. McGohey: What I asked, whether any of the defendants were members at that time.
[*4553]
The Court: Was there some—
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw it and ask this:
Q. Do you know whether or not there was a convention of the National—a National Convention of the Communist Party in 1938? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attend that convention? A. I did, sir.
Q. Was there a National Committee of the Party elected at that convention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were any of the defendants now on trial among those elected to the National Committee at that convention in 1938?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: You were present, were you?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Who of the defendants? A. As well as I remember, at least these: Mr. Dennis, Mr. Stachel, Mr. Green, Mr. Williamson.
Q. You told us this morning, I think, that you were (T–3278) assigned—
Mr. McGohey: Now, if your Honor please, with respect to the exhibit that was offered this morning, I now offer that exhibit as against all the four defendants now named by the witness as having been on the National Committee at that period.
The Court: This is Exhibit 47–A?
Mr. McGohey: Exhibit 47–A. I ask your Honor to look at it, to see the date at which it was adopted.
The Court: It is August 10, 1939, isn’t it?
Mr. McGohey: That is correct.
The Court: That is what I have in my notes here.
I will allow it.
Mr. Crockett: I should like to object to the Court’s ruling.
The Court: Yes; the objection is overruled, and I will take it that the objection was made before the ruling was made.
You may proceed, Mr. McGohey.
[*4554]
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. I think you told us this morning that you had been assigned as educational director of the Workers’ school in Chicago by Morris Childs? A. As director of the (T–3279) Workers’ school and also as educational director in I & I.
Q. What was the Party position or positions, if you know, of Morris Childs?
Mr. McCabe: Objected to.
Q. At that time?
The Court: This is 1938?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. He was organizer of the Illinois–Indiana district and was a member of the National Committee also.
Q. I think you told us this morning that you had taken your degree at Oxford in England and that you had studied at the London University there, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell us also that you had taken post graduate work at the University of Chicago? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in addition to that, have you studied at any other American University? A. Princeton.
Q. When were you a student at Princeton? A. 1926 and 1927.
Q. That was prior to your going to Oxford? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From 1938 through 1935 what was your activity in the Communist Party, generally?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
(T–3280) The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Gordon: You misspoke. You said 1935.
Mr. McGohey: 1945, I meant.
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. From 1938 to 1942, when I went into the Army, it was, in general, educational work in the Illinois–Indiana dis– [*4555] trict, with some organizational work in the very latter part of that period. From 1942 to the last date, 1945, part of the time I was completely inactive, and I also taught in Jefferson School and wrote for publications in the movement.
Q. On the basis of your experience in educational and organizational work, are you able to tell us how the educational work and how the schools were conducted in the Communist Party during that period?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us, please. A. In general the—
Mr. McCabe: That is objected to.
The Court: You may proceed. Objection overruled.
Mr. Crockett: May I submit that the question seemingly calls for a general statement concerning the (T–3281) witness’s knowledge of schools all over the country, and the foundation, seemingly, was made, if at all, only with reference to his experience in Illinois. That is the basis of my objection.
The Court: He also taught at the Jefferson School, did he not?
Mr. Crockett: The question did not embrace that.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, yes, I think it did.
The Court: In 1945?
Mr. McGohey: And if there is any doubt about it, it was certainly intended to include that because it included the period up to 1945. The witness had testified this morning he had taught at the Jefferson School in that period.
Mr. Isserman: My objection was based on the inclusion of the ten–year period in one question.
The Court : Well, yes you will only testify to the operation of the schools in so far as it came within your personal knowledge.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
[*4556]
A. In general, the educational work with which I was acquainted was divided into a number of parts, the educational work of the Communist movement. I would say one part was not strictly speaking educational; it is what the Communist (T–3282) movement calls agitation and propaganda, that is to say, in my work as director in charge of district education, included supervision of leaflets issued throughout the district, publication of the leaflets on a district scale, mass meetings both large and small, in many cases directed through branches or sections of the Party and, in some cases, directly handled on a city–wide scale. General supervision of shop and community papers issued by various units of the Party; wherever—whatever publicity work was done in the sense of releases to the press and so on, was involved in that part of the work.
The educational part, strictly speaking, consisted of a number of sections or groupings of work. In the first place, all meetings of units of the Party were divided into two parts, really, one, that which carried out the—
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike out that portion of the witness’s answer.
The Court: I don’t quite understand the part you object to Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: The reference to all meetings of the Communist Party.
The Court: But he is only talking about the ones he had to do with personally.
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor, I don’t think there (T–3283) has been any testimony as to any meetings of the Communist Party that this witness attended other than a convention.
The Court: I think if we stop to have him describe each and every one of the meetings and schools and things of one kind or another that he attended, we would lose the whole train of what he is saying.
It is understood here, Mr. Meyer, is it not, that you are testifying only about what has come within your personal knowledge?
The Witness: That is right, sir.
The Court: Very well, you may proceed.
[*4557]
Mr. McGohey: May I ask just one question here, your Honor?
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Did you attend meetings of the Communist Party clubs or branches during the period as to which you are testifying? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are including your experiences of what you observed and what you saw in this—in those meetings in your answer? A. I am including both what I observed and saw and what I directed through the educational apparatus to have done.
Q. Very well. Will you proceed with your answer? A. I was—
The Court: You said that meetings of units were (T–3284) divided into two parts, and that is when Mr. Crockett made his objection.
A. One part devoted to the organization, the business of the meeting, and another part to educational discussions. Those discussions are led by a member of the branch, sometimes by some one from a higher position in the organization, and the type of thing discussed in them varies from a discussion of the Communist position on current questions to more fundamental discussion of texts of one kind—of Marxist–Leninist texts, and one kind or another of discussions of the latest speech of the Secretary of the Party at the time, which develops the line for the Party—it developed it a good deal. For example, when the CPUSA history was published, we conducted in Chicago an eight or nine–week series of discussions in all branches with the preparation of the leaders of that discussion in those branches, the preparation of those who were going to lead those discussions in teachers’ groupings, conducted on a section basis, and the teachers in a section school on a district basis. Therefore the education in the branches themselves occupies another aspect of Communist Party work in the educational field in Chicago, in Illinois and in Indiana.
The second major part of—the third major part (T–3285) of what I am speaking—the second major part [*4558] of education proper is supervision of schools, such as the workers’ school, the only school of its kind in Chicago, as a matter of fact.
Q. Supervision by whom? A. By the educational department of the Party, of the work of the Communist teaching and directing and executing in that school, that is to say, a general supervision and attention to the details of the work—of the general line of the work of the school, that is, the method of getting students, its curriculum, et cetera, et cetera.
A school which was not limited to Party members was an open school for both Party and non–Party members. It was, so to speak, integrated in the general policy of training Party members as well as utilized in drawing people towards the Party in teaching Marxism–Leninism to non–Party people.
The third part of the educational work proper was a series of schools of a specifically closed Party kind, that is to say, training schools for Party members conducted in a variety of ways from a series of classes perhaps that might be arranged, were arranged in various branches, sections, sometimes, let us say, four or five evenings running, in which an intensive study would be (T–3286) given to a number of people running up to section training schools which would be conducted on a Party section basis, on a more elaborate basis, sometimes a week’s school work, sometimes two or three weeks of evenings running up to specialized full time schools for various groups of people who were involved in a different kind of work, let’s say, in some field of general labor activity where they would draw together the members in that particular organization. Perhaps there might be a group of that kind for housewives active in community work, a whole series of specialized things conducted by the Party sections for the people concerned, and from my experience ending at the level of the section training schools so far as my own direction and teaching is concerned. However, I know directly from my own experience of the existence of national training schools because of having been involved in preparing lists of candidates to go from my school to those training schools.
[*4559]
Q. Do you know where those national training schools were held? A. Of the national ones, no, sir.
Q. Where was this workers’ school in Chicago? What was its location? A. It was in the Loop and we moved it a couple of times. It was once on South Dearborn Street and once on South Wells near Jackson, (T–3287) I believe.
Q. Do you know whether or not the schools that you told us about were supervised? A. Were supervised, sir?
Q. Yes. A. By whom?
Q. That is what I want to find out from you.
* * *
Q. Were they? A. Oh, the educational work in the schools definitely, sir.
Q. Do you know by whom or by what agency they were supervised?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. On a State school level it was supervised by the organization with which I was associated. On a national level the organizational set–up changed. Sometimes there was an organization in existence and sometimes it seemed to go out of existence, the organizational set–up changed. (T–3288) In general it was supervised by Commissions of the National Committee in both cases.
Q. During this period—
By the Court:
Q. I am not sure that I got this straight. There was one kind of supervision on a State scale, you say? A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. What was the name of the body that you were a part of in doing that supervision? A. The Educational commission.
Q. Was that the educational commission of Illinois? A. That is right, sir.
Q. Now you also said that there was some supervision on a national scale? A. Yes.
Q. What was the body that to your knowledge was in charge of that supervision?
[*4560]
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question, your Honor. I would like to state my grounds.
The Court: I will withdraw the question and leave the matter as it is. I was merely trying to get my notes straight. Perhaps I should refrain from doing that.
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. You have testified that there was supervision on (T–3289) a national scale, have you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether that supervision was conducted by some agency of the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell us what that agency was?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that and I would like to state my grounds.
The Court: Overruled. I don’t care to hear the grounds. Go ahead.
A. At different times under different organizational or reorganizational adjustments and/or shufflings by bodies of different names; in all cases Commissions of the National Committee. Sometimes it was directly under the leadership of a Committee called an educational commission. At other times to the best of my recollection it was under the leadership of the organizational commission directly. There were changes and shifts in the ways in which the organizational business was set up and I don’t remember the exact period which each was in existence. I know in my work which was under the supervision of the Illinois educational commission, was in turn supervised by the National Committee.
Q. Did any of the defendants now on trial participate in your work that you have described? A. At one point certainly Mr. Williamson.
Mr. Isserman: I thought we could get a yes (T–3290) or no answer first so there would be an opportunity to object.
The Court: Yes, strike out the answer and just say yes or no.
A. Yes, sir.
[*4561]
Q. Now will you tell us who of the defendants participated in that supervision of the work that you did which you just described?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Now what is the ground?
Mr. Isserman: The ground is that there is a ten–year period being covered with no distinction in what has been called that preliminary period or background period, and the period covered by the indictment. There is no time, the question is not directed to bring out any specific time, and consequently the question is improper and irrelevant.
The Court: Is it not reasonably clear that the witness is referring to the time that he was in Chicago, Mr. Isserman?
Mr. Isserman: It is not clear from the questions and answers, your Honor.
The Court: The time you have been testifying to about this supervision by you as a member of the education commission of Illinois, was that with reference (T–3291) to the time you were in Chicago?
The Witness: Yes, sir, and only so.
The Court: You will kindly take the question Mr. McGohey just asked you as applicable to the same period, and he is now asking you, which, if any, of the defendants supervised your work there in Chicago at that time, and I will overrule the objection.
A. As best I can remember there were two of the defendants involved in supervising specific aspects of that work at different times during that period.
The Court: To wit?
A. To wit, Mr. Williamson and Mr. Dennis.
Q. Now you have been testifying, have you not, in connection with this supervision of the schools, with respect to the period that commenced in 1938 when, as you testified previously, you took on your work in the Chicago Workers’ School. A. I have been testifying with respect to educational work in general; not specifically schools during the period referred to.
[*4562]
Q. Will you give us the period that is covered by what you have just told us? A. With regard to the defendants or with regard to the description of the work generally?
Q. With regard to the supervision. A. By the (T–3292) specific defendants?
Q. Yes. A. In the case of Mr. Williamson I have a definite memory of a couple of discussions with him in specific regard to new members’ classes in the period, I would say, of about 1940.
In the case of Mr. Dennis I have a specific memory of a long discussion or two with him regarding Party agitation in connection with a 1938 election campaign.
Mr. Gladstein: Now, if your Honor please, I move to strike out the testimony of this witness with respect to the two defendants named in so far as discussions and supervision are concerned because it would appear that both of those things occurred long prior to any of the charges in the indictment and even prior to the passage of the law under which this case is proceeding, and I submit therefore that since the matter being sought by the United States Attorney is not specifically charged in the indictment as having been something which these defendants are charged with having decided or agreed to advocate commencing April 1945, that it is therefore wholly improper to have 1938—
The Court: I have ruled on that several times already and it was my ruling that even though certain things might be done before the statute became effective (T–3293) on June 28, 1940, they might nevertheless be admissible, and I shall allow these questions.
Mr. McGohey: I have no further questions.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, at this time in respect to the testimony of this defendant—I am sorry—the testimony of this witness, I desire to plead unfair suprise on the ground, first, that the indictment itself does not allege any facts from which the testimony of this witness and the exhibits introduced through him could have been anticipated, and also from the fact that no bill of particulars was furnished, also from the fact that he has made refer– [*4563] ence and testified to matters outside of the Southern District including matters particularly in the State of Illinois in relation to various activities of his over an extensive period. Because of that and having no opportunity for consultation with my clients in respect of this testimony I am not prepared at this time to cross–examine and would ask the Court at this time to adjourn the cross–examination until Monday morning, which would give me a fair measure of opportunity to look into the matters outside of this district concerning which this witness has testified so that an adequate cross–examination may be prepared and my clients given an opportunity to meet through cross–examination the testimony of this witness.
(T–3294) The Court: You speak for yourself and your clients, or for the other defendants?
Mr. Isserman: I do at this time. I have had no opportunity to consult since the direct examination was terminated.
The Court: It is desired by all counsel that the cross–examination be postponed for several days?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, your Honor, it isn’t a matter of several days; it is a question of several hours, but it would turn out to be that.
The Court: There is Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, that is five days.
Mr. Gladstein: It will turn out to be that because we are not meeting tomorrow or Friday.
The Court: Perhaps I better take my question back, but I saw nothing about it that should make any trouble. I wanted to find out whether what Mr. Isserman is asking is what all counsel desire.
Mr. Isserman: May we have a moment to confer?
Mr. Gladstein: Perhaps we better take a recess.
The Court: You better get busy.
Mr. Gladstein: It is kind of difficult to do.
The Court: You can get in there too.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, may we have (T–3294–A) an adjournment for five minutes? It is impossible to confer under these conditions.
[*4564]
The Court: Well, you seem to be getting along pretty well, but I will give you five minutes. That seems to me very reasonable; so you may have five minutes to confer.
(Short recess.)
(T–3295) Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, counsel and some of the defendants have conferred, and it is felt desirable that we have an overnight check. The cross–examination will be—such as we would make would be more effective and more to the point in the sense of the issues on which this witness has testified, and that is why in my first request, when I suggested that the matter be adjourned until Monday, it was only because I did have a consciousness of the adjournment of the court session until Monday.
The Court: Yes. Well, I have been thinking as I have been out in my chambers there, if I should set such a precedent here with this witness, then every other witness that comes there will perhaps be some more delay, and this is going to be such a long trial anyway that I don’t know that I would be justified in doing that. You have rather indicated to me, Mr. Isserman, that even with the additional time you would still feel that you would be under some difficulties.
Mr. Isserman: As a result of my check I feel that it would take not much additional time, and I think with the additional time I would be under no difficulties; in fact, if the trial were continuing tomorrow I think we would be ready by tomorrow with as much of the cross–examination (T–3296) as we wanted to have of this witness.
The Court: What do you say, Mr. McGohey?
Mr. McGohey: Well, if your Honor please, I don’t know how often this kind of thing is going to come up; I see no reason why the adjournment of this cross–examination ought to continue now because it would certainly mean taking a recess now—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: —until Monday morning.
[*4565]
The Court: Of course, you would have that same thing in practically every criminal case; a witness came that the defense will say they hadn’t anticipated, why then the matter would be held up.
Mr. McGohey: Exactly.
The Court: I think I shall deny the request, Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Isserman: In view of your Honor’s ruling there will be no cross–examination.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. McGohey: If you will give us about five minutes we will have another witness, your Honor.
The Court: Yes. Maybe we can all sit quietly here and I will continue my reading of the Communist Manifesto.
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor.
(Short recess.)
(T–3297) (A pause.)
Mr. McGohey: We are ready to proceed, your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: Mr. Bailiff, will you call Mr. Eugene Stewart.
EUGENE H. STEWART, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Stewart, what is your occupation? A. Special agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q. To what city are you assigned? A. Detroit, Michigan.
Q. How long have you been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. Since August the 11th, 1941, as special agent.
Q. In connection with your work in Detroit, Michigan, have you ever attended any meetings held by the Communist Party? A. I have.
[*4566]
Q. Specifically, have you attended any meetings—did you attend any meetings in 1946? A. I did.
(Mr. Gordon hands a paper to the clerk.)
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 49 for identification.)
The Court: Yes (handing paper to clerk).
(T–3298) Q. Mr. Stewart, I show you Exhibit 49 for identification and ask you whether you recognize it? A. I do.
Q. What is it? A. It is a program that was distributed at a meeting on January 31, 1946.
Q. And is that one of the meetings which you said you attended? A. That is right.
Mr. Gordon: I offer it in evidence.
* * *
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I object to the receipt in evidence of Government’s Exhibit 49 and, with the permission of the Court, I should like to state my grounds.
The Court: I will hear you.
Mr. Crockett: I object, first, because the contents of this document in no wise support the charge in the indictment and, secondly, because the use of this document under the circumstances indicated by the Government is protected by the First Amendment, and to receive it in evidence would be a denial of due process, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court: Overruled.
(Government’s Exhibit 49 for identification (T–3299) received in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: Exhibit 49, which is a program for Lenin Memorial, Thursday, January 31, 1946, has on the back the following, “The Human Race is passing through great and difficult changes which have a world liberating significance. The world is passing to the war of the oppressed against the oppressors. In this new war the oppressed are struggling for [*4567] liberation from the yoke of capitalism, from the abyss of suffering, torment, hunger and brutalization. They desire to pass onward to the bright future of Communist society, to universal well–being, and a secure peace. Outside of socialism there is no deliverance of humanity from hunger, from the destruction of millions and millions of human beings,” apparently quoted from V. I. Lenin in the Chief Tasks of Our Times 1918.
Underneath that it says, “Read and study Lenin’s teachings,” and down below—I will pass this to you in a few moments—“Join the Communist Party,” and you can check off, “I want to join the Communist Party,” “I want more information about the Communist Party,” “Mail me a copy of the Daily Worker,” “My name is,” and so forth, and it says, “Tear off and mail to 902 Lawyers Building, Detroit, 26.”
(T–3300) Q. Mr. Stewart, did you fill out one of these forms? A. I did not.
Q. Were you present during the entire meeting? A. Yes, I was.
Mr. Isserman: Are you through with the exhibit, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Well, I will pass it to the jury, your Honor, so that they can see the whole exhibit.
Mr. Isserman: That is what we would like to have you do.
The Court: Perhaps Mr. Isserman wanted to read some part that you had not read. Is that the case?
Mr. Isserman: No, my request was to have the jury examine the entire leaflet.
The Court: Very well.
(T–3301) By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now I think you said that you attended this Lenin Memorial meeting on Thursday, January 31, 1946, at the St. Andrews Hall in Detroit, Michigan, is that right? A. That’s right.
[*4568]
Q. Was that an open or a closed meeting? A. It was an open meeting.
Q. Did you have a ticket for the meeting? A. I purchased a ticket at the entrance to the hall.
Q. Do you have any recollection of how many people were present? A. Approximately 300 people.
Q. Do you have any recollection of who was on the dais? Was there such a thing as a dais? A. Would you say a stage?
Q. Yes. Was there a raised portion of the hall? A. Yes, there was.
Q. There is in that hall? A. That’s right.
Q. Now do you remember who was on that stage, yes or no? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you remember whether any of the defendants on trial were included among the people on that stage?
Mr. Crockett: Objection. I object, your Honor.
The Court: I will hear the ground, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I object on the ground that it is (T–3302) a leading question.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Crockett: It is a leading question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, one of the defendants was on that stage.
Q. One of the defendants seated here in the courtroom was on that stage? A. That is right.
* * *
Q. Which one? A. Mr. Winter.
Q. The defendant Carl Winter? A. Carl Winter.
Q. He is seated where? A. Directly behind the gentleman with the hornrimmed glasses. (Indicating.)
The Court: The man that is chewing there?
The Witness: Yes. He is smiling at the moment.
The Court: Yes. I guess that is Mr. Winter.
Q. Now behind the stage was there any sort of a banner or decoration of any kind? A. I don’t recall—
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: What is that?
[*4569]
Mr. Crockett: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) I don’t recall a banner directly behind (T–3303) the stage. I do recall a banner was sort of off to one side of the stage and up near the balcony.
Q. Were there any enlarged photographs of anybody? A. Yes, there was.
Q. And of whom? A. There was a photograph of Mr. Lenin and was referred to during the course of the meeting, as being his photograph.
Q. Now what time did the meeting begin? A. Approximately 8.15 that evening.
Q. And at the time it began was Mr. Winter seated on the stage? A. Yes, he was.
Q. Now will you tell us who the first person was who spoke? A. An individual by the name of Byron Edwards.
Q. He is listed on the program, Exhibit 49, is he not? A. That is right.
Q. As giving the opening remarks? A. That is right.
Q. And after Mr. Edwards spoke did he introduce anybody? A. He introduced the chairman for the evening, Jack White.
Q. Now down there on the program, the fourth name listed appears to be that of Carl Winter, Michigan State Chairman, CPUSA. Did Mr. Winter speak? A. Yes, he did. He appears as the third name on the program.
Q. Of speakers? A. Of speakers.
(T–3304) Q. And was he introduced by anybody? A. He was introduced by Jack White.
Q. By the chairman? A. By the chairman of the meeting.
Q. Will you give us your best recollection of the substance of what Mr. Winter said at that Lenin Memorial meeting? A. Well, the opening remarks were in the nature of a tribute to Lenin and I specifically recall Mr. Winter stating that the time was soon to come when Lenin’s teachings would be put into action.
Q. Do you remember what else he said? A. Yes. He continued during the course of the talk which lasted about 30 to 40 minutes dealing with a strike situation which was then in progress in Detroit. The General Motors Cor– [*4570] poration was out on strike and Mr. Winter was very critical of the strategy that was employed by the union and he specifically mentioned Walter Reuther in that connection and—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this and ask that the witness be required to state what was said.
The Court: That is what he is doing.
Mr. Sacher: No; he said Mr. Winter was critical and that is stating his conclusion I submit.
The Court: Well, if you can be more specific, do so, as far as you can recall.
(T–3305) Mr. Gladstein: I have another objection. I move to strike the answer—
The Court: Try to keep your mind on what you were about to say.
(To Mr. Gladstein) Yes?
Mr. Gladstein: —strike out the answer so far as it has gone dealing with the strike of General Motors and remind your Honor of the fact that I was not permitted in cross–examination to go into any of the facts concerning the Allis Chalmers strike some years before although the Government went into it on direct examination, and I wish to point out to your Honor that the reason your Honor wouldn’t permit me to examine on that subject was, as I recall it, that you felt it was remote from the issues in this case; and I therefore suggest that such portion of what is claimed to have been said there concerning such strike or any such matter concerning issues not in the indictment has no place in the case.
The Court: You see, Mr. Gladstein, you illustrate so well the wisdom of my ruling that there should be no argument on objections. I don’t know how I am going to enforce these rulings without being disagreeable. I will just let it go and at the present time I will just overrule the objection.
Q. Mr. Stewart, you were telling us about the (T–3306) portion of the defendant Winter’s talk in which he talked about a current strike situation at the General Motors plant and criticized Mr. Walter Reuther. A. That is right.
[*4571]
Q. Go ahead. A. Mr. Winter compared this strike with the strike that had taken place in the steel industry and indicated that the union and the auto industry should have followed the pattern and struck against all of the automobile companies rather than isolating the strike to one manufacturer. During the course of this discussion or the talk on the strike situation Mr. Winter stated that the Communist Party had been accused of being behind all the strikes that were then in progress, and as I recall, he stated that the Communist Party was behind all the strikes—auto, steel, electrical and meat. Those strikes were in progress about that time.
Q. Now I notice that further down on the program the name of Tim Buck, National Leader Labor Progressive Party of Canada, appears. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Were you present when Mr. Buck addressed the audience? A. I was.
Q. And was the defendant Winter still there at that time? A. He was.
(T–3307) Q. Who introduced Mr. Buck? A. Mr. White.
Q. The chairman? A. The chairman of the meeting.
Q. Did he state who Buck was when he introduced him?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to this as immaterial.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Buck was introduced as the leader of the Labor Progressive Party of Canada.
Q. Is that the name of the Communist Party of Canada?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question as leading.
The Court: I don’t know how else one is to bring out the fact.
Mr. Isserman: No foundation has been laid, your Honor.
The Court: You object on the ground that perhaps the witness does not know?
Mr. Isserman: I have stated my objection. I don’t know what the witness knows or doesn’t know.
The Court: If you desire to have a preliminary cross–examination as to his knowledge of the fact I shall permit it.
[*4572]
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question as leading, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3308) Q. The question, Mr. Stewart was, is the National Labor Progressive Party of Canada the Communist Party of Canada?
Mr. Sacher: I object to the question on the ground that no proper foundation is laid for that question.
Mr. Gordon: Well—
The Court: What makes me pause, Mr. Gordon, is the matter I referred to in my statement to Mr. Isserman. I don’t want to permit this witness to merely make a characterization which may be beyond his knowledge, and I think perhaps you could ask it in a different way so that I may be assured that he is not merely repeating some idle gossip that he may have heard in the street.
Q. I withdraw the question at the moment, Mr. Stewart.
After White introduced Mr. Buck as the leader of the National Labor Progressive Party of Canada did Buck address the audience? A. He did.
Q. Now I think you said that the defendant Winter was there while Buck addressed the audience? A. He was.
Q. Did the defendant Winter interrupt Mr. Buck? A. No, he did not.
Q. Did he at the conclusion of Mr. Buck’s speech get up and criticize it or say that it was wrong? (T–3308–A) A. He did not.
Q. Now will you give us your best recollection of—well, perhaps before we get what Mr. Buck said—how did Mr. Buck address the group who were assembled there? A. Well, during the course of his speech he addressed the gathering by using the term “We Communists.”
Q. “We Communists”? A. (Nodding.)
Q. Is your answer yes? A. That is right.
(T–3309) Q. Will you give us your best recollection of the substance of what Mr. Buck said to the meeting?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to giving what Mr. Buck said to a meeting. I object that it is immaterial. I [*4573] call your Honor’s attention to the fact that the sole basis on which this is now offered is that somebody sat there, present, and did not get up to criticize.
The Court: Are you making these arguments just to force me to use some measures to stop you?
Mr. Gladstein: No; but your Honor, Mr. Gordon—
The Court: You see, so often I mention the circumstance to you that lawyers here, both for the Government and for the defense, on matters of evidence will merely say they object, and you always look at me pleasantly and then you proceed to disregard my instructions.
Mr. Gladstein: May I have permission to say something on this?
The Court: No, you may not.
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor. I should like to state the reasons for my objection.
The Court: I will hear you, Mr. Crockett. I hope they are good.
Mr. Crockett: I object to this testimony as (T–3310) being irrelevant and incompetent. I think it has no more connection with this case than the assumption that President Truman, for example, was responsible for being present when Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke out in Fulton, Missouri.
Voices: Churchill.
Mr. Crockett: Churchill,—I beg your pardon.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Winston Churchill spoke at Fulton. He wasn’t the—
The Court: I know, but that is just a slip, and it is perfectly all right.
Mr. Gordon: I wasn’t criticizing, sir.
The Court: Anybody might do that.
Mr. Gordon: I wasn’t intending to criticize Mr. Crockett.
The Court: That is all right.
Mr. Gordon: May we have the question?
(Question read.)
[*4574]
A. Mr. Buck’s—the majority of his remarks were directed towards the praise of Lenin, and stated that his teachings were being realized by the trend of the current events. He went on to describe the United States as the last or sole remaining imperialist nation, and that this country desired to make the Pacific Ocean another American (T–3311) lake. He said the time was soon coming when the Communists would smash their way to victory. He also expressed, in line with the remarks that Mr. Winter had made on the strike situation, he said that—or, didn’t say, but expressed gratification at the success that the strikes were having and the gains that labor was making as the result of the strikes.
Q. After Mr. Buck said—
Mr. Isserman: Before that question, your Honor, I would like to move to strike the answer of the witness, and, in connection with my motion, plead surprise. This occurred outside the Southern District of New York.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. After Mr. Buck said that the time was soon coming when the Communists would smash their way to victory, what happened to the meeting? A. There was a collection that was taken from the audience.
Q. Did anybody else speak? A. That was the concluding speech.
Q. And about what time did the meeting adjourn? A. A few minutes after eleven o’clock.
Mr. Gordon: You may examine.
Mr. McCabe: As to the defendant Winston, your Honor, I should like to move to strike all of this witness’s (T–3312) testimony from the record.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Sacher: Will you indulge us just a moment, your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Gordon: Will you get me Exhibit 47–A?
Mr. McGohey: It is right here (handing to the Court).
[*4575]
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, there is no cross–examination of this witness.
The Court: Very well.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. McGohey: Mr. Bailiff, will you call Mr. Fred Cook.
(T–3313) FRED G. COOK, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Cook, what is your occupation? A. I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q. Where are you employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. Detroit.
Q. During the course of your duties have you had any occasion to attend any meetings held by the Communist Party in Detroit? A. I did.
Q. I direct your attention specifically to the year 1946. Did you attend any meetings in 1946? A. I did.
Mr. McGohey: Would you keep your voice up, please, Mr. Cook?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attend any meetings in January 1946? A. Yes, I attended a meeting on January 31, 1946.
Q. And what was the name of the meeting? A. That was the Lenin Memorial meeting of the Communist Party of Michigan.
Q. Now I show you Exhibit 49 in evidence and ask (T–3314) whether you recognize that (handing)? A. Yes. That is a program which was handed out at the meeting.
Q. Down in the lower righthand corner I see some pencil initials or notations. Do you recognize those (handing)? A. Those are my initials.
Q. “FGC”? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there appear to be five Arabic numerals following those. What do those stand for? A. That is the date, January 31, 1946, when the program was handed out.
[*4576]
Q. And this meeting, according to the program, was under the auspices of the Michigan State Committee, CPUSA? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall whether or not any of the defendants on trial in this case were present at the meeting?
Mr. Crockett: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Crockett: And plead unfair surprise in connection with the testimony of this witness.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Do you recall—answer yes or no—do you recall whether— A. Yes.
Q. —any of the defendants on trial— A. Yes.
Q. Yes? A. Yes.
Q. Which one? A. Carl Winter was there.
(T–3315) Q. Now aside from the fact that the name Carl Winter appears on the program before you, do you remember seeing him at the meeting? A. Yes, I saw him at the meeting.
Q. And where was he seated at the meeting? A. He was seated on the stage.
Q. Do you see him seated in the courtroom? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Will you point him out, please? A. Mr. Winter, sitting down there (indicating).
Mr. Gordon: Apparently still the gentleman chewing gum, your Honor.
The Court: Well, is there some desire that the witness make his identification more specific?
Mr. Gordon: No; just to be sure.
The Court: It seemed to me that he was pointing at Mr. Winter, but if there is any question about it, why do whatever you care to.
Q. Well, if you will count across the row in which Mr. Winter is seated from your left, what number is he across in that row? A. Mr. Winter is the fourth gentleman from the left in the second row.
Mr. Gordon: That is Mr. Winter in this case.
[*4577]
Q. Now do you recall whether or not during the course of the evening the defendant Winter made any speech? A. He did.
(T–3316) Q. Was he introduced by anybody? A. He was introduced by Jack White.
Q. And Jack White was acting in what capacity? A. He was acting as the chairman of the meeting.
Q. Will you give us your best recollection of the substance of what Mr. Winter said at that meeting?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Winter praised the teachings of Lenin and he stated that the time was soon to come when the teachings of Lenin would be translated into action. He referred to the current strike situation, and in connection with the accusation that the Communists were behind the strikes he stated that he wished to acknowledge that the Communists were with and behind all the strikes in steel, auto, meat and electrical.
Q. Now in connection with the praise of Lenin was there any photograph in the room?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. On the right of the stage up front there was a large colored drawing or painting of Lenin.
Q. Do you recall the size of it? A. I would estimate that it was at least three by four feet.
Q. Do you remember anything else that Mr. Winter said (T–3317) besides what you have told us about translating the ideas of Lenin into action and the acknowledgment that the Communists were behind all strikes?
Mr. Sacher: I object to the question, your Honor.
The Court: You mean because it repeats the testimony just given?
Mr. Sacher: No, it doesn’t repeat it; it misstates it.
The Court: Well, there must be some awfully small differences in this case. I think it is better, however, not to repeat it, unless it is necessary to direct the attention of the witness to something.
[*4578]
Q. Do you remember anything else that the defendant Winter said? A. Mr. Winter criticized the strategy of the United Automobile Workers—
Mr. Isserman: I object to that, your Honor, clearly calling for a conclusion.
The Court: Yes. The word “criticism” or “criticize” is what they call in law a conclusion, and it is better, if you can recall, to tell us just what he said, the substance of what he said.
The Witness: He referred to the strategy of the United Automobile Workers in the current strike—
Mr. Isserman: I object to it. The word (T–3318) “referred” is subject to the same criticism.
The Court: Well, that is slicing it a little too fine for me. Go ahead.
Q. Go ahead. You referred to the strategy. A. And pointed out that he felt that they could have got a more advantageous settlement by striking the entire industry instead of settling separately with Chrysler and Ford.
Q. Do you remember whether or not there was a man by the name of Buck at the meeting? A. Yes, a gentleman by the name of Tim Buck was introduced as the national leader of the Labor Progressive Party of Canada.
Q. Do you happen to know anything about the Labor Progressive Party of Canada?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
(To witness) Just say yes or no without telling us all you know about it.
A. I would say yes.
Mr. McGohey: I did not hear the answer.
The Court: He says yes.
Mr. McGohey: Thank you.
Q. Do you know whether or not it is the Communist Party of Canada?
[*4579]
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question,
(T–3319) The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gordon: Well, then, we will get back at it the way we did before, your Honor.
Q. In addressing the meeting, did he describe himself in any way? A. Mr. Buck referred to himself and those there as “we Communists.”
Q. Do you remember the substance of what Buck said in his address? A. Mr. Buck likewise—
Mr. Isserman: Just a moment. May we have the yes or no answer first?
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Isserman: May we have the yes or no answer first? Otherwise I want to object now to the question.
The Court: Read me the question, please.
(Question read.)
The Court: That just calls for a yes or no answer.
A. Yes.
Q. And during the time that Mr. Buck addressed the meeting where was the defendant Winter, if you know? A. He was on the stage.
Q. During Mr. Buck’s address did Winter say anything? A. No, he did not.
Q. At the conclusion, did Mr. Winter get up and say (T–3320) what Buck had said was wrong? A. No.
Mr. Isserman: I object, your Honor, and move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion granted, the answer is stricken, and I will sustain the objection to the question as leading.
Q. Did Mr. Winter at the conclusion of Mr. Buck’s address make any remarks referring to Mr. Buck’s address? A. No.
Q. Did anybody else? A. Not that I recall.
[*4580]
The Court: You better speak up so we can hear you.
The Witness: Not that I recall. I am sorry.
Q. Now will you give us your best recollection of the substance of what Mr. Buck said at the meeting?
Mr. Isserman: I object to it and plead surprise.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Buck likewise—
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, may I state the grounds of objection?
The Court: I rather suspect it is what I have already heard but you may do so.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, I object because this calls for statements not made by any defendant but statements supposed to have been made by some other person,, the theory of its being offered against the defendants being that the (T–3321) defendant happened to be in the same room—same room in a public meeting.
The Court: At a Communist meeting.
Mr. Gladstein: Any meeting, and didn’t get up afterwards—open public meeting, and because he didn’t get up afterwards and say anything by way of disagreement or otherwise, the theory is it is admissible against the defendant.
The Court: That is what you say the theory is.
Mr. Gladstein: May I know then the theory upon which it is received?
The Court: You see, it is the same old story. You get up to state grounds of an objection and argue, argue, argue. You ask me questions and then you begin to ask Mr. Gordon, and then we forget all about what we are doing and we have to start all over again.
Mr. Gladstein: No, my point is it converts the charge from one of supposed advocacy by a defendant into something that somebody else said.
The Court: It is the old story. You want to get up and argue to the jury, and perhaps others, [*4581] when all you do is object and you continually insist that you are stating grounds of an objection when all you are doing is just making a little speech which you should reserve for your summation. The witness may answer the question.
(T–3322) Mr. Crockett: I object to the tone of voice of your Honor and to the Court’s statement—
The Court: You object to my tone of voice, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I certainly do.
The Court: I am very sorry, there was nothing about my tone that should give rise to any criticism whatever.
Mr. Crockett: I further object to the Court’s statement with reference to Mr. Gladstein’s statement in which your Honor said it was a Communist meeting, as being contrary to the testimony that has been given in this case.
The Court: And what do you say it was?
Mr. Crockett: It was a public meeting.
The Court: But it was a Communist meeting, was it not?
Mr. Crockett: It was a public meeting, according to the record in this case.
The Court: I recall no statement by me that there was anything secret about it. It is bandying words over nothing. It seems to me the witness has said it was a Communist meeting.
(To Mr. Gordon) Let me see that leaflet.
Mr. Gordon: The leaflet says—
(T–3322–A) The Court: Doesn’t the leaflet say it was a Communist meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Show that to Mr. Crockett. I don’t understand your point.
(T–3323) Mr. Gordon: This is offered not against the defendant Winter but against all the defendants as being in 1946.
The Court: I know, but there is some criticism by Mr. Crockett of my using the words that it was “a Communist meeting.”
[*4582]
Mr. Crockett: I submit—
The Court: What do you say it was?
Mr. Crockett: I submit, your Honor, that the testimony in this case has been to the effect that this was a public meeting, open to the public.
The Court: Who said it was not?
Mr. Crockett: Your Honor said “a Communist meeting,” with special emphasis on the word “Communist.”
The Court: Well, that is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard, Mr. Crockett. I wish you wouldn’t do that. There is just no sense in that at all.
Mr. Crockett: There has been some testimony in this case, your Honor, about meetings held by Communist clubs—
The Court: There sure has.
Mr. Crockett: —and persons who were not members were not supposed to be present—
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Crockett: —similar in all respects to (T–3324) Young Democratic Club meetings which I attended.
The Court: Did not sound similar to any meetings I have had anything to do with, as long as we are talking personalities.
Mr. Gordon: I must take exception to Mr. Crockett’s statement that Young Democratic Clubs are attended by Communists and only Communists.
The Court: It is the old story—
Mr. Crockett: I don’t recall making any such statement, your Honor.
The Court: —you were telling us about the meetings you have attended—
Mr. Crockett: Yes.
The Court: —and you said these meetings which are described here were similar to the ones you attended. I say I never went to any meetings like that, as long as we are talking personalities about it. What difference does it make what meetings you went to or what meetings I went to?
[*4583]
Mr. Crockett: I am concerned with Mr. Gordon’s last remark in the record, and I submit that he misquoted me, and that is what I got up to object to.
The Court: Then, let us have it all out. Let us have the quotation from Mr. Gordon and we will see whether he misquoted you. We may find a comma missing (T–3325) or something.
It is a further demonstration that cutting off these arguments has been, at least, effective.
Mr. Crockett: I object to that observation on the part of the Court.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, maybe we had better get on with the questioning of the witness.
The Court: No, we will see, now that Mr. Crockett has raised the question, whether you misquoted him or not. Let’s not leave everything up in the air so we just jump from perch to perch and never alight anywhere. This time we will stop and see what it is. Find the place where Mr. Crockett made a statement and where Mr. Gordon made a statement.
(Mr. Gordon’s statement read by the reporter.)
Mr. Crockett: I submit that I made no such statement.
Mr. Gordon: Now let’s see what Mr. Crockett said, Mr. Reporter.
(Mr. Crockett’s statement read by the reporter.)
Mr. Gordon: Let’s get that straight.
(Mr. Crockett’s statement re–read by the reporter.)
Mr. Gordon: I must interrupt. That is not what Mr. Crockett said.
The Court: Well, I guess we will—
(T–3326) Mr. Gordon: As long as it is the subject of laughter let me finish it, please, your Honor.
[*4584]
The Court: It gets so after a little while I won’t remember what this about. But go ahead and tell me.
Mr. Gordon: As I understand it he said there was some testimony about Communist Club meetings. He didn’t say persons were present who were not Communists. He said no one was present who wasn’t a Communist.
The Court: Maybe you misunderstood him. That is something we all may do. It looks like this time Mr. Crockett may have been right.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher says it is possible that is what he said.
Mr. Sacher: Oh no, no.
The Court: It just shows how you can get to waste a lot of time. But everybody is in a good humor now and I have an idea this is a good time to adjourn.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember the admonition I have heretofore given you: Do not (T–3326–A) discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess until 10.30 Monday morning.
(Adjourned to April 18, 1949, 10.30 a. m.)
[*4585]
(T–3327) New York, April 18, 1949;
10.30 a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
FRED G. COOK, resumed the stand.
* * *
Direct examination by Mr. Gordon (continued):
Q. Mr. Cook, when we recessed last Wednesday, you were telling us about a Lenin Memorial meeting in Detroit on January 31, 1946, and I believe that I had just gotten to the point where I was asking you about your best recollection of the substance of a speech made by one Tim Buck whom you described as having been introduced as national leader of the Labor Progressive Party of Canada, and all you gave us of what he said was—this is on page 3319 of the record—“Mr. Buck referred to himself and those there as ‘we (T–3328) Communists’.” Now will you tell us, please, Mr. Cook, your best recollection of the substance of what Mr. Buck said at that meeting in addition to addressing the people as “we Communists”?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection, if your Honor please.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Gladstein: Is this against Mr. Winter only or against my clients who weren’t within hundreds of miles of this so–called meeting?
The Court: I think I have ruled sufficiently on that already.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor has ruled as far as what the defendants said. We are now about to hear what somebody else—
The Court: You have already heard, Mr. Gladstein, testimony of Mr. Stewart as to this same incident. There were numerous objections, considerable argument, and I ruled. I now make the same ruling that I made before.
[*4586]
A. Mr. Buck spoke concerning the teachings of Lenin which he praised and he stated that those teachings were being put into effect by current events. He stated that Lenin had predicted some of these events which were occurring at that time. Buck expressed elation over the current wave of strikes as he described the United States as the—
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, I don’t (T–3329) care to interrupt but I move to strike that portion which expresses a conclusion.
The Court: Motion denied.
A. (Continuing) Buck described the United States as the last main remaining imperialist power. He stated that it was apparent that the United States desired to make the Pacific into another American lake. He concluded his speech by stating that the time was soon to come when the Communists would smash their way to victory.
(T–3330) Mr. McCabe: I move to strike that testimony in so far as it relates to the defendant Winston, your Honor.
The Court: The testimony has been received—this is 1946, is it not? I will deny the motion.
Cross examination by Mr. Crockett:
Q. Mr. Cook, what are the general duties of an FBI agent?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I am afraid I was making a note. What was the question?
Q. (Read.)
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Is it a part of the duties of an FBI agent, Mr. Cook, to spy on meetings of workers? A. It is not part of the duties of an agent of the FBI to spy on workers inasmuch as they don’t do that.
Mr. Gordon: Meetings of workers, I think you meant to say.
A. (Continuing) Meetings of workers.
[*4587]
Q. You testified with reference to the General Motors strike in Detroit in January 1946. What was your general assignment with reference to that meeting? A. I attended the meeting in the course of my official duties, to report on what took place at the meeting.
Q. What was your overall assignment that included (T–3331) attending that meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Which meeting are you talking about, this January 1, 1946—
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
The Court: —Lenin Memorial meeting?
Mr. Crockett: That is right.
* * *
The Court: I don’t think I know just what you mean by “overall assignment.” If you want to get his orders with references to this meeting, I will allow it.
Q. What were your orders with reference to the meeting? A. My orders were to attend the meeting and to report on what took place at the meeting.
Q. Did your orders include taking notes of what was said at the meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take those notes in shorthand or in longhand? A. I made notes following the meeting in longhand.
Q. You did not make any notes during the meeting? A. No, sir.
Q. Following the meeting did you make a report to your superior? A. Following the meeting I made notes of what took place at the meeting and I made my report from those notes the following morning.
(T–3332) Q. Who else accompanied you to this meeting? A. Special Agent Eugene H. Stewart.
Q. The two of you had identical assignments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you prepare a joint report or were there individual reports? A. That was a joint report.
Q. Have you seen that report since you came to New York in connection with this trial? A. I have.
Q. When last did you see that report? A. I reviewed that report prior to testifying.
[*4588]
Q. When was that? A. This morning.
Q. You also reviewed it on Wednesday of last week, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see that report? A. In the office of the United States Attorney.
Q. Who showed you the report? A. Mr. Gordon.
Q. That was a typewritten report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were your notes that you made following the meeting attached to that report? A. No, sir.
Q. Were there any exhibits attached to that report? A. There was.
Q. What were they? A. That was the program which was distributed at the Lenin Memorial meeting.
Q. That’s all? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know if the FBI received a request to have (T–3333) someone cover that meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know what occasioned your assignment to that meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Is the testimony you have given on your direct examination based upon the report which you made to the FBI? A. My testimony is based on my recollection, which was refreshed by reading that report.
(T–3334) Q. Your testimony is the same as the data included in that report? A. It is my recollection as refreshed by the data.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether or not the Detroit office of the FBI received a request to cover the Lenin Memorial meeting on January 31, 1946? A. I don’t understand your question.
* * *
The Court: Do you know what the words “of your own personal knowledge” mean?
The Witness: I understand, sir. What I didn’t understand was from whom this request came or what Mr.—
[*4589]
Q. I did not ask from whom the request came.
The Court: He asked you if you know of your own personal knowledge. The only way you could have personal knowledge would be to receive the message yourself—
Mr. Crockett: I must object to the Court’s—
The Court: —or you were there when it was received.
Mr. Crockett: I must object to the Court’s interpretation of the question to the witness. I think the witness has a common understanding, as I do, to the words.
The Court: Do you think the words “personal (T–3335) knowledge” means something different from what I said, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: No, but I do not think the Court has to inform the witness as to the meaning of the words. They are so generally known.
The Court: Well, if you object to my stating what the conceded fact is because you hope that the witness might misunderstand the words—
Mr. Crockett: I object to that statement.
The Court: Well, you may object all you want. I am here to see that justice is done. Now go ahead with the question.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, since there is some question about the meaning of it, I object to the question.
The Court: Well, I will allow it anyway.
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know if the FBI in Detroit ever received any report, any request to cover the meetings of workers during the G.M. strike?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Is it not true, Mr. Cook, that the Auto Manufacturers Association requested the FBI to cover this Lenin Memorial meeting? A. Definitely not.
Q. Did you cover any other meetings of workers around (T–3336) the date of this Lenin Memorial meeting?
[*4590]
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection. You say “other meetings of workers.” Was this a meeting of workers?
Mr. Crockett: I think it was.
The Court: I didn’t understand the testimony to refer to that.
Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Cook, that you covered the Olympia meeting in Detroit on February 15th— A. No.
Q. —1946. You did not? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Stewart covered that meeting? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know if anyone from the Detroit FBI office was assigned to cover that meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection:
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What is the usual procedure followed by you as an FBI agent in covering meetings such as the meeting to which you testified? A. The procedure would be to attend the meeting and to report on the facts of that meeting to the best of our knowledge.
Q. Were you sent to this meeting because the FBI wanted to learn more about Lenin and Lenin’s teachings?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
(T–3337) The Court: Sustained.
Q. When you got to the Lenin Memorial meeting did you state who you were? A. No, sir.
Q. Isn’t it the customary procedure of the FBI agents to identify themselves? A. Not under all circumstances.
Q. Did you feel that any identification of yourself at this time might prevent your admission? A. No, sir.
Q. You knew that you would be admitted just like any other member of the public, is that right? A. I made no inference.
Q. You made no entrance? A. I made no inference as to whether I would be admitted or not.
Mr. Gordon: Was the word “inference”?
The Court: “Inference”; he made no inference.
[*4591]
Q. Just what were your specific instructions with reference to this Lenin Memorial meting? A. The instructions were to attend the meeting and to obtain facts as to what took place at the meeting and what was stated there.
Q. You were told to report the speeches, were you not? A. We were told to report on any significant statements which might take place at the meeting.
Q. And by “significant statements” you mean whatever you personally regarded as significant; that is right, isn’t it? (T–3338) A. Statements tending to indicate that the Party was advocating the overthrow of the Government—
Q. You mean personally—
The Court: Just a second, Mr. Crockett.
How far did he get, Mr. Reporter?
Mr. Crockett: I am trying to get a direct answer.
The Court: No, you interrupted the witness.
Read what he said, Mr. Reporter.
(Answer read.)
The Court: Finish that.
A. (Continuing) —by force and violence.
Q. Those were your specific instructions? A. Those were my instructions.
(T–3339) Q. To take down all statements that indicated that the Party was trying to overthrow the Government by force and violence?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that as not what the witness said.
Mr. Crockett: I am asking a question.
The Court: If you are just asking him what he said before—and Mr. Reporter, you wait a minute. You better stay around. There may be a question that you will have to read.
If you are just asking him what he said a second ago I will sustain the objection.
Q. Have you in the course of your direct examination here testified as to any facts that are not included in written reports to the FBI? A. No, sir.
[*4592]
Q. How do you know that the Auto Manufacturers Association did not request the FBI to cover this meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained—no, I will change that ruling. I will allow the question.
A. Such a request most certainly would not be acted upon.
Q. Isn’t it the policy of the FBI to investigate whenever a request for an investigation is made of a public meeting? A. No, sir.
(T–3340) Q. Only when there is a public meeting in connection with a strike do they investigate, is that right? A. No, sir.
* * *
Q. There were handbills distributed in connection with this meeting prior to the meeting, were there not? A. There was some literature being distributed at the door.
Q. Weren’t there handbills distributed in Detroit prior to the date of the meeting announcing the meeting? A. The literature that I saw distributed was apparently being distributed in opposition to the Communist Party.
Q. There was also literature being distributed supporting the Communist Party, isn’t that right? A. It was not handed to me. I didn’t see it.
Q. It was not handed to you or you weren’t interested in it? Which one? A. It was not handed to me.
Q. How did the FBI learn about this meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Your first knowledge that the meeting was to be held was when you were told by your superior? A. I do not recall exactly how I was informed of the (T–3341) meeting.
Q. As a matter of fact wasn’t this meeting announced in the newspapers of Detroit? A. It was announced in the—
Q. And you saw the announcement, did you?
Mr. Gordon: Wait a minute.
The Court: Just a second.
Answer the question. Complete your answer, if you will.
A. (Continuing) It was announced in the Communist press.
[*4593]
Q. You mean by the Communist press the Daily Worker? A. I did not see the Daily Worker.
Q. How do you know it was announced in the Daily Worker?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that. He didn’t say that.
The Court: No, he certainly did not. I wish you wouldn’t do that, Mr. Crockett.
Q. What do you mean by the Communist press? A. It was announced in two issues of the Glos Ludowy, the Polish Communist paper published in Detroit.
The Court: How do you spell it?
The Witness: G–l–o–s L–u–d–o–w–y.
Q. Glos Ludowy is a Polish language newspaper in Detroit, isn’t it? A. It is a Polish Communist newspaper.
(T–3342) Q. It is a Polish Communist newspaper?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(To witness) It is in Polish, is it not?
The Witness: It is published in the Polish language.
Q. Do you read Polish? A. It is published in both English and Polish.
Q. Do you read Polish? A. No, sir.
The Court: You mean that one page has Polish and another page has English in the same issue?
The Witness: There is an English section.
Q. That paper usually runs about eight pages? A. I do not know.
Q. Have you ever seen a copy of it? A. I have.
Q. If you have seen a copy of it you know that the English section is limited to two pages, is it not? A. I do not know.
Q. I show you what purports to be the January 29, 1946 issue of the Daily Worker and call your attention to the [*4594] lower righthand column on page 8 which purports to be an announcement of a Lenin Memorial meeting in Detroit on January 31, 1946, and I ask you if that isn’t the announcement you saw of this meeting?
The Court: You mean in this issue of the Daily (T–3343) Worker?
Mr. Crockett: This issue of the Daily Worker.
* * *
Q. Was the notice in the Polish newspaper to which you referred similar to this notice in the Daily Worker? A. The notice in Glos Ludowy state that this meeting was to commemorate the memory of Lenin.
Q. And that was in Polish? A. I do not recall whether it was in English or in Polish.
Q. Well, if it was in Polish you couldn’t read it? A. It was brought to our attention.
Q. Who brought it to your attention? A. I do not know.
Q. The Daily Worker has general circulation in Detroit?
(T–3344) Mr. Gordon: I object.
A. It has.
Mr. Gordon: Well—
Q. As a matter of fact you can buy it at the newspaper stand right on the corner of Woodward and Michigan Avenue? A. Not at Woodward and Michigan.
Q. That is an out of town newspaper stand right at the corner? A. I have never seen it there.
Q. How long have you been in Detroit? A. I have been in Detroit since February 1945.
Q. Where do you buy the Daily Worker in Detroit?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. I do not buy the Daily Worker.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
Q. Where does the Federal Bureau of Investigation buy the Daily Worker in Detroit? A. Pardon me?
[*4595]
Q. Where does the Fedural Bureau of Investigation buy the Daily Worker in Detroit?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. During the period covered by this meeting, that is, January 31, 1946, the Communist Party in Michigan was sponsoring regular weekly broadcasts, were they not? A. They were sponsoring broadcasts every other (T–3345) week.
Q. Was it every other week? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those broadcasts were being monitored by the FBI, were they not? A. We were following the broadcasts.
Q. And is it not a fact that at the broadcast on January 19, 1946, at 11.15 p. m. announcement was made of the Lenin Memorial meeting to be held on January 31, 1946, wasn’t it? A. I do not know.
Q. You listen to radio station WWJ in Detroit, do you not? A. I do at times.
Q. That is one of our largest stations, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those Communist broadcasts came out over that station, did they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now you walked up to the window at the time of this meeting and purchased a ticket just like everyone else, didn’t you? A. I did.
Q. And you paid 78 cents, including Federal tax? A. I believe that was the amount.
Q. And no one questioned your right to be at the meeting, did they? A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact they were selling tickets to everyone who came?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3346) Q. Well, you didn’t see them refuse to sell at the time to anyone, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. They didn’t ask you for any identification? A. No, sir.
[*4596]
Q. And they didn’t ask anyone else in your presence, did they? A. No.
Q. About what size is that hall, St. Andrews Hall? A. This is purely an estimate: I would estimate it must be between 200 and 300 feet long, possibly 100 feet wide.
Q. And what would you estimate the seating capacity to be?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Possibly—this would be purely a very rough estimate—
The Court: Were the seats stationary, screwed into the floor?
The Witness: No, sir; they had folding chairs in the room, so it would be quite difficult for me to say just how many that hall would hold.
(T–3347) Q. About how many people would you say were present? A. I estimated there were approximately 300 there. I made no physical count.
Q. And I believe you said that literature was being distributed? A. Yes.
The Court: Inside?
The Witness: At the entrance. Anti–Communist.
The Court: That is the literature you described a little while ago?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Wasn’t there a petition calling on the Secretary of State to stop American imperialist intervention in China circulated at that meeting? A. There may have been. I don’t recall.
Q. I show you what purports to be such a petition. Tell me if that refreshes your recollection so that you can state now that such a petition was circulated. A. I don’t recall seeing that there.
* * *
(T–3348) Q. Wasn’t there a newspaper report of this meeting published in the Detroit Times on February 1, 1946, Mr. Cook? A. There was.
[*4597]
Q. Did you read that account? A. Several days following the meeting that article came to my attention for the first time.
Q. Did you attach a copy of that article to your report to the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn’t that newspaper account state there were 500 persons present at that meeting?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3349) Q. There was an American flag in plain view at that meeting, wasn’t there? A. There may have been. I don’t recall seeing it.
Q. Isn’t it customary in our State of Michigan, at meetings of this size, public meetings, to display the American flag? A. It is.
Q. Now do you recall whether or not there was an American flag displayed at this meeting? A. There may have been. I don’t specifically recall that.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I should like to have this petition, which I referred to a few minutes ago, marked for identification.
The Court: Very well.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit UU for identification.)
Q. Do you mean to tell this jury that you remember seeing a picture of Lenin but you don’t remember seeing the American flag? A. Yes. It was rather unusual to see a picture of Lenin.
Q. But it was not unusual to see the American flag? A. No, sir.
Q. At a meeting which you said was a Communist meeting?
Mr. Gordon: If that is a separate question, I object to it because it seems to be hooked on to the one before.
The Court: Yes.
(T–3350) Mr. Crockett: All right, strike it out. I won’t insist on it.
The Court: All right.
[*4598]
Q. Was there a press table at this meeting? A. You mean a table of literature?
Q. You know what a press table is, don’t you, Mr. Cook? A. I am trying to understand your question.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I think he means a table with representatives of the press there.
The Witness: Reporters?
The Court: I think he means that. Don’t you, Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett: I do, your Honor, and I think the witness understood that I did.
Q. Was there a press table at this meeting? A. I saw none.
Q. Were there any reporters present? A. I didn’t see any.
Q. This St. Andrews Hall is a privately owned hall in Detroit, is it not? A. I do not know.
Q. It is not a public building? A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you notice any food stuff or canned goods at this meeting? A. I did.
Q. Did you mention that in your report to the FBI? (T–3351) A. I did.
Q. But in describing the meeting here you did not mention that in your testimony, did you?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know how that foodstuff was obtained? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see anyone bringing in canned goods? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you see anyone bringing in packages of food? A. There may have been? I don’t recall specifically.
Q. As a matter of fact, they brought in baskets of food, did they not? A. I do not know.
Q. It was all around the platform in front, wasn’t it? A. No.
Q. It wasn’t? Where was it? A. As I recall, there was a pile of some canned goods in one part there but I don’t recall it being all around there as you described.
[*4599]
Q. Did you ascertain the purpose for that canned goods and footstuff? A. Well, it was announced that that was being collected on behalf of the GM strikers.
Q. How was this meeting opened? A. The meeting was opened, to my best recollection, by Byron Edwards.
Q. How did he open it? A. He made a few brief remarks and introduced Jack White as chairman of the meeting.
(T–3352) Q. Then what happened? A. White introduced the next speaker, who was Abner Berry.
Q. Are you sure you were present at this meeting? A. I was.
Q. Don’t you recall the introduction of some war veterans who were members of the Communist Party? A. That introduction did not take place at that time, as I recall.
Q. When did it take place? A. That introduction took place following the speech which was given by Carl Winter.
Q. Following Mr. Winter’s speech the veterans were introduced? A. To my best recollection.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, wasn’t Jack White introduced as a Navy veteran and then called on as chairman? A. He may have been.
Q. And as each veteran’s name was called, he stood up. didn’t he? A. Are you referring now to the time that the veterans were introduced following Mr. Winter’s speech?
Q. I am referring to the introduction of veterans. A. Following Mr. Winter’s speech—
Q. I am referring to the introduction of veterans. Each time a veteran’s name was called, he stood up, did he not?
The Court: You may continue as you started to, Mr. Cook.
The Witness: Following Mr. Winter’s speech, (T–3353) as I recall, he introduced returned veterans from the stage.
Q. Each one came up to the stage? A. I am not positive on that point. I think that some of them may have been sitting up on the stage during Mr. Winter’s speech.
[*4600]
Q. You did not mention that in your report to the FBI, did you? A. I did.
Q. In direct examination in naming the speakers you did not mention the speech by Abner Berry, but I understand you just called his name. Abner Berry was one of the speakers, wasn’t he? A. He was.
Q. He was the only Negro speaker, was he not? A. As I recall.
Q. Do you recall what his speech was about? A. Abner Berry also referred to the teachings of Lenin, which he related to problems of the Negro race, and, I believe, what he termed the Colonial question.
Q. He spoke about the struggle of the Indonesian people for independence from the Dutch, did he not? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Do you recall his discussion of the people of Burma? A. I made no note of that.
Q. Did he deal with the desires of the people of India to gain freedom from British rule? A. I don’t remember that.
Q. But he did refer to the struggle in China, didn’t (T–3354) he? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did he call for independence of the Philippines? A. I made no note of that.
Q. Did he speak about the plight of the Negroes in South Africa? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. I show you a mimeographed copy of Abner Berry’s speech at this meeting and ask that you read it over and see if that refreshes your recollection to the extent that you can state whether or not that is the speech that was made.
Mr. Gordon: I object to the characterization put on it, your Honor. There has been a lot of testimony about whether people spoke and wrote the same things.
The Court: Yes. I don’t think you should testify, Mr. Crockett: You, in effect, do testify when you say it is a copy of the speech. It is not in evidence.
Mr. Crockett: Well, what purports to be a copy of the speech.
The Court: Yes.
[*4601]
A. He may have made some of these statements here. Others I don’t recall.
Q. Would your notes of the meeting refresh your recollection? A. Nothing which would bear on this. My notes contain some of the things which are in here; there are other things here which I don’t remember. (T–3355) I notice this is dated February 8, 1946.
Q. Tell us what there is that you do remember now as having heard at the meeting of January 31, 1946, by Abner Berry.
Mr. Gordon: I object to the question, if it calls for the witness to read from the document.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Crockett: I am not asking the witness to read from the document, your Honor. My question is for him to tell me now what he remembers having heard Abner Berry say at this meeting.
The Court: That is just what he is going to do.
Mr. Crockett: That is what I want him to do.
The Court: That is what he is going to do.
Mr. Crockett: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps I misunderstood the question, Mr. Crockett. I am a little slow—
Mr. Crockett: Will you mark this purported copy of Abner Berry’s speech for identification?
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit VV for identification.)
A. The copy of the speech contains several—
Q. Forget about the copy of the speech. I want to know how well you remember what you heard at this meeting. A. Yes, that is what I am trying—
(T–3356) The Court: Well, what you asked him in effect was, having read over that alleged copy of the speech, whether or not that refreshed his recollection, and if it did, tell us how his recollection as thus refreshed is.
Mr. Crockett: That is right, your Honor.
The Court: So it is very natural for him to refer to the paper, as you just asked him to read it, and [*4602] your question is based upon his refreshment of recollection.
Mr. Crockett: Perhaps I was wrong in anticipating an objection by Mr. Gordon if he referred to the paper.
Mr. Gordon: I thought he was going to say that the copy of the speech had material that he didn’t hear at the meeting.
The Court: Well, I think there was a little misunderstanding. The witness was not going to go ahead to say what was in the paper at all. He referred to the paper in a preliminary way.
Isn’t that it, Mr. Witness?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Now you go ahead and tell us what your recollection, as refreshed, is.
A. Berry referred to the teachings of Lenin which, as indicated in the paper there, felt were correct and he referred to this Fletcher Mills case.
Q. What did he say about the Fletcher Mills case? (T–3357) A. I made no particular note on that.
Q. Well, what did he say the Fletcher Mills case was about? A. I don’t recall him mentioning the name Fletcher Mills.
Q. Did he say whether or not Fletcher Mills was a Negro? A. He may have.
Q. Did he say anything about extradition to a southern state? A. I believe he may have.
Q. Did he say anything about the possibility of mob violence if he were extradited to that southern state? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Continue. A. That was about as much of it that I recall.
Q. How long did he speak? A. I would estimate he spoke 15 to 20 minutes.
Q. Would the report that you made to the FBI refresh your recollection any more concerning what Abner Berry talked about at this meeting? A. No, sir.
Q. It would not? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you mean by that that the report does not contain any more than you have testified to concerning Abner Berry’s speech? A. Substantially.
[*4603]
Q. I take it that you did not attach very much importance to Abner Berry’s speech, is that right?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that, your Honor.
(T–3358) The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you cover any other strike meetings in connection with the GM strike?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now I believe you testified that Mr. Winter praised the teachings of Lenin and stated that the time was soon to come when the teachings as to Lenin would be translated into action. Is that testimony taken from your report to the FBI? A. It is.
Q. What teachings did Mr. Winter mention? A. I made no particular note—
Q. You just wrote down “teachings”, is that it? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, what did you say in that report? A. Mr. Winter spoke at length, quite a long time. It was impossible for us to write down all that he said.
Q. Did Mr. Winter refer to any books by Lenin? A. He may have.
Q. Have you ever read any books by Lenin? A. Pardon?
Q. Have you ever read any books by Lenin? A. No, sir.
Q. So if Mr. Winter referred only to the teachings of Lenin and did not mention any books you still wouldn’t (T–3359) know what he was talking about, would you?
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I object to this arguing with the witness.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gordon: It may be funny to some of the friends in the courtroom but it is an improper question.
Mr. Gladstein: I move that remark be stricken out, if your Honor please.
[*4604]
The Court: No, I don’t like striking things out. What good does it do?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, that kind of remark by Mr. Gordon has no place in the case. It is not an objection. It is something like the statement he made a moment ago—
The Court: All right, now we are off, now we are off.
Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor remembers—
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cook, didn’t Mr. Winter refer specifically to Lenin’s teachings concerning the behavior of imperialist countries? A. I believe he did refer—he did use the word “imperialist.”
Q. And didn’t he say that those predictions made by Lenin were already being translated into action by Wall Street and the militarists in this country? (T–3360) A. That is not the way I recall it.
Q. Would your report refresh your recollection on that? A. I have reviewed my report.
Q. And all you put down in your report is that he had said that the teachings of Lenin were going to be put into action? A. He stated that the time was soon to come when Lenin’s ideas would be translated into action.
Q. And that is all you put down in your report? A. No, sir.
Q. What else did you put down in your report—
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Q. —concerning Lenin and Mr. Winter?
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. About how long did Mr. Winter speak? A. I would estimate that he spoke approximately 40 minutes.
Q. I believe you testified that he referred to the current strike situation and in connection with the accusation that the Communists were behind the strikes he stated that he wished to acknowledge that the Communists were with and behind all the strikes in steel, auto, meat and electrical, is [*4605] that right? A. He stated that the Communists were behind all the strikes.
Q. Now by “current strike” you meant the nationwide (T–3361) GM strike, did you not?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Yes. You do put in words that seem to assume facts contrary to what has been testified to every once in a while, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I am asking him now, your Honor—and the witness stated at page 3316 of the record “current strike situation.” I am asking him—
The Court: Yes, but you said “nationwide”, didn’t you?
Mr. Crockett: Well, strike the word “nationwide.” I will come to that in the next question.
The Court: Yes.
Q. He was referring to the GM strike, was he not?
Mr. Gordon: Just a moment. That is what I object to. The witness testified his recollection of what Mr. Winter’s words were. Now the witness is being asked what the witness meant by the word. It is what Mr. Winter said and not the witness.
The Court: Yes. I will sustain the objection.
Q. What did you understand Mr. Winter to mean by the “current strike situation”?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. The GM strike was in progress in Detroit at that (T–3362) time, was it not? A. I recall that it was.
Q. And it was a nationwide strike, was it not? A. You might call it that.
Q. Well, it was called by the United Automobile Workers, was it not? A. I believe it was.
Q. Hasn’t the union a nationwide contract with General Motors Corporation?
Mr. Gordon: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4606]
Q. Was it the policy of the FBI at this time to investigate all developments in connection with the strike?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. That strike concerned the demand of the auto workers that there be no reduction in their take–home pay in the reconversion period, didn’t it?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did Mr. Winter in the course of his speech state that the auto workers were demanding that there be no reduction in their take–home pay? A. I made no specific note of that. I don’t recall that.
Q. That wasn’t of interest to you.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3363) Q. Didn’t Mr. Winter in that speech state that the auto workers were demanding that there be no increase in the price of new cars? A. I don’t recall. He made quite a lengthy speech and we weren’t able to take everything down.
Q. You don’t recall making a note of that in your report to the FBI? A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Winter also stated in that speech, did he not, that another issue in the dispute was that there be an end to discrimination against women and Negroes in GM plants, did he not? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. You recall him discussing discrimination against Negroes in GM plants, do you not? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Did Mr. Winter state who it was in making the accusation that the Communists were behind the strike? A. I don’t recall that he did. He stated that the Communists had been accused of being behind the strikes and that he wished to take this opportunity to acknowledge it.
Q. Wasn’t there a National Committee to aid the GM strikers at this time? A. I don’t know.
[*4607]
(T–3364) Q. Did Mr. Winter refer to such a committee in his testimony—in his speech I mean? A. I don’t recall that he did.
Q. You kept abreast with the developments in the strike situation in Detroit at this time, did you not?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Wasn’t former Secretary Harold Ickes chairman of a national committee to aid the GM strikers?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Wasn’t Mrs. Roosevelt a member of that committee?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Didn’t Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas speak in Detroit about this time in connection with that strike?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Didn’t the movie actor Frederic March speak in Detroit about this time in connection with this strike? A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. You didn’t attend that meeting? A. No, sir.
Q. You do recall, do you not, Mr. Cook, that there was an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board under the Smith–Connally Act of GM workers (T–3365) prior to the time this strike occurred?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You do recall, do you not, that a vote was taken by the union itself prior to the time the strike was called?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4608]
Q. Do you know who called the GM strike?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did Mr. Winter in the course of his speech mention that the strike had been called after a Labor Board vote and that it had been called by the International Executive Board of the union?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Not that I recall.
Q. You made no note of that? A. No, sir.
Mr. Gordon: Well, he made no note of that; it wasn’t said.
Mr. Crockett: The witness didn’t say it wasn’t said.
The Court: He says he didn’t recall it being said.
You do have a way, Mr. Crockett, of stating (T–3366) things as facts when you are really asking the witness whether they are so.
Mr. Crockett: They always end up in a question.
The Court: I know, but it doesn’t always seem so. I understand—
Mr. Crockett: This man worked with the FBI. I assume he is intelligent enough to understand a question is not a statement of fact.
The Court: You have asked a long series of questions to which I have sustained objections having to do with this General Motors strike which is not in issue in this case, and you go on asking questions as though you were telling us the facts as if they were so and when I sustain all these objections I would think it would be well to pass on to something else. But in any event when you state something as postive fact there is a question after that and you are merely asking the witness whether these things are so. That is all right.
[*4609]
Mr. Crockett: Well, they happen to be facts but I am merely saying—
The Court: You shouldn’t state that, Mr. Crockett. You know you have no right to do that. Now please do not do that again.
Q. You do not recall Mr. Winter pointing out that the (T–3367) strike was called by the executive board of the United Auto Workers? A. No, I do not.
Q. Did Mr. Winter call attention to the fact that the strike was led by Mr. Walter Reuther? A. He did.
Q. And Mr. Reuther was not then a Communist, was he? A. I do not know.
Q. To your knowledge were there any people other than Communists who were supporting this strike?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now you testified concerning the speech made by Mr. Tim Buck. How long did he speak? A. I would estimate that Mr. Buck spoke for approximately 30 minutes.
* * *
(T–3368) By Mr. Crockett:
Q. I think you said, Mr. Cook, that Mr. Buck spoke for about 30 minutes, is that right? A. That was my estimate.
Q. You took notes on his speech? A. We made notes on certain of his remarks.
Q. Did you make notes on the remarks of any other speaker? A. Yes, we made notes on the remarks of Mr. Winter.
Q. When did you make these notes? A. Immediately following the meeting.
Q. When did the meeting adjourn? A. The meeting adjourned shortly after eleven p.m.
Q. And you went directly to your office? A. No, Mr. Stewart and I went to his car, parked near there.
Q. And you made notes while seated in the automobile? A. We made our notes right there.
[*4610]
Q. When did you prepare your report? A. My report was prepared the next morning.
Q. Now I think you testified that Mr. Winter made no comment on the speech made by Mr. Buck, is that right? A. I don’t recall saying that,— Pardon me, you mean to contradict him? Yes, sir, that was correct.
Q. He did not contradict him? A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone else contradict him? A. No, sir.
(T–3369) Q. You were present; did you contradict him? A. No, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Buck’s speech was received very enthusiastically, wasn’t it? A. That I cannot say.
Q. Wasn’t there quite a bit of applause after the speech? A. There may have been.
Q. You don’t remember that? A. I don’t recall either way.
* * *
Q. Did anything else happen at this meeting that you haven’t testified to? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. There was put on a pageant, which was entitled “Unfinished business; the end of the rainbow.”
Q. Tell us about that pageant. A. We made no particular notes on that pageant.
Q. Forget about the notes. A. Other than that it related generally to something concerning veterans.
The Court: Something concerning what?
The Witness: Veterans.
Q. In other words, you just picked out what you wanted to make notes about and that constituted the basis for your report; is that what you are saying?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
(T–3370) The Court: Sustained.
Q. Tell us about this pageant, what was it? A. That is all I recall about the pageant.
Q. You don’t recall a group of workers posing as Wall Streeters seated around a table, discussing profits? A. I don’t know whether they were workers.
[*4611]
Q. Do you—but you do recall that scene? A. There may have been.
Q. Do you recall a group of veterans, concerning about housing and so forth, and trying to get the Wall Streeters to release their grip on the economy so we could get housing? A. I have no recollection of that.
Q. How long did this pageant last? A. I made no notes of it. My best recollection at this time—
Q. Don’t you recall the scene of a Negro veteran dealing with these—
Mr. Gordon: The witness isn’t even permitted to finish an answer.
Mr. Crockett: The witness answered the question. He said he made no notes at that particular time.
The Court: Had you finished your answer?
The Witness: On the previous question?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: I had, yes.
The Court: Yes, I thought he had.
(T–3371) Mr. Gordon: I am sorry, I thought he was going to say “my best recollection at this time”—
The Witness: Well, on that, I had not, no sir.
The Court: Well, then, go ahead and finish it, if you can remember.
* * *
Q. I am sorry. I thought you had finished. Go right on. A. (Continuing) —is, oh, possibly 15 minutes.
Q. Wasn’t there a scene involving a Negro veteran? A. There was a Negro in the pageant.
Q. But you had forgotten about that scene?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Mr. Crockett: I am asking a question, Mr. Gordon.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You testified that you came to Detroit in 1945. What time in 1945? A. That was about February 1, 1945.
[*4612]
Q. Where had you been stationed prior to that time? A. I was transferred to Detroit from Norfolk, Virginia.
Q. How long had you been with the FBI at the time of your transfer to Detroit? A. I entered on duty December 15, 1941.
Q. What employment had you had immediately prior to (T–3372) your entering on duty with the FBI? A. I had been employed by the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Q. Where? A. In Minneapolis and in Duluth, Minnesota.
Q. Who assigned you to cover this Lenin meeting in Detroit? A. I do not recall the particular person who assigned me to that. It was probably my supervisor.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. John Bugas in Detroit? A. No, sir.
Q. Never met the gentleman? A. No, sir.
* * *
Q. Do you know if he had occasion to visit the FBI office in Detroit subsequent to your appointment to that office? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know who—
* * *
Mr. Gordon: I object to this.
Mr. Crockett: Do you want me to finish the question?
Mr. Gordon: I thought you did.
(T–3373) Mr. Crockett: I did not. I was about to ask him if he knows who John Bugas is.
Mr. Gordon: That is what I heard. I am sorry. Then I object to that question.
Mr. Crockett: I had not finished.
The Court: I will sustain it.
Q. When was the collection taken at this meeting? A. My recollection is that the collection was taken following Mr. Winter’s speech.
Q. Following Mr. Winter’s speech? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you sure about that? A. I am quite sure.
[*4613]
Q. That would be before the speech by Mr. Buck, wouldn’t it? A. Not necessarily.
Q. No? Well, was it? A. I stated it was following Mr. Winter’s speech.
Q. Was it before the speech by Mr. Buck? A. That I don’t recall.
Q. Did Mr. Winter introduce Mr. Buck? A. He did.
Q. Did Mr. Winter take up the collection? A. He did.
Q. Do you remember how much was collected? A. I do not.
Q. Wasn’t it announced? A. It may have been. I don’t recall.
Q. Wasn’t it stated for what purpose the collection was being received? A. I made no note of that.
Q. Did you read any accounts in the newspapers following (T–3374) this meeting as to what disposition was made of the collection?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was there any account in any newspaper in Detroit following this meeting as to the disposition of the collection?
Mr. Gordon: Newspaper accounts are hearsay. I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did not Mr. Winter state at that meeting, at the time of the collection, that the money was being asked to aid the GM strikers and their families? A. I don’t recall that particular statement.
Q. Didn’t he state that the food was being collected to be distributed to GM strikers and their families? A. A statement was made at the meeting concerning the collection of food. I don’t recall who made the statement.
Q. Did the statement say why the food was being collected? A. I don’t remember.
Q. Are you sure this collection was not taken after Mr. Winter’s speech and before Mr. Buck’s speech? A. I have said that to my best recollection that collection was taken following Mr. Winter’s speech. Just where it was in there, I can’t say at this time.
[*4614]
(T–3375) Q. But your recollection is based on the report that you made to the FBI, is it not? A. That was not in that report.
Q. Now there has been some testimony in this case by Mr. Stewart that this collection was taken after the speech by Mr. Buck. Would you say Mr. Stewart is wrong? A. I have no comment.
Q. Mr. Stewart’s testimony appears on page 3311; it is as follows: “After Mr. Buck said that the time was soon coming when the Communists would smash their way to victory, what happened to the meeting? A. There was a collection that was taken from the audience.”
Does that refresh your memory? A. No, sir.
Q. You still adhere then to your testimony as to when this collection was taken?
Mr. Gordon: I do not see any conflict, your Honor.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
* * *
(T–3376) Redirect examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Crockett referred to this January 31, 1946, meeting as a strike meeting. I hand you Exhibit 49, the program for the meeting. Will you tell me whether the word “strike”—
Mr. McCabe: That is objected to, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: Can’t I finish a question, your Honor?
The Court: Yes. You may read from the exhibit if you desire. I sustain the objection as to the contents of the instrument, but you, Mr. Gordon, may tell the jury, if you desire, what is in there, and if there is nothing about striking in there you may say so.
Mr. Gordon: That is so, your Honor. This program describes the meeting as a Lenin Memorial meeting and the word “strike” doesn’t appear in this document in any form or fashion.
[*4615]
Q. Now with respect to Mr. Winter and his speech about the General Motors strike, I think you were asked whether Mr. Winter referred to Walter Reuther as leading the strike, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did Mr. Winter say about Mr. Walter Reuther’s conduct of that strike? A. Mr. Winter stated that Walter Reuther’s one–at–a–time strategy was wrong. He stated that the strike should (T–3377) have been against the entire automobile industry, in the same manner as the steel strike was against the entire steel industry.
Q. Did he praise Mr. Reuther? A. He criticized Mr. Reuther.
Mr. Gordon: Thank you.
Recross examination by Mr. Crockett:
Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Cook, that the General Motors workers got a smaller wage increase than the remainder of the workers in the automobile industry represented by UAW?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
(Witness excused.)
* * *
(T–3378) WILLIAM ODELL NOWELL, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. McGohey:
Q. Mr. Nowell, where do you live? A. I live in Washington, D. C.
Q. And by whom are you employed? A. By the Justice Department.
Q. Are you in any particular division of the Justice Department? A. The Immigration and Naturalization Services.
Q. Are you at the present time a member of the Communist Party? A. I am not, sir.
Q. Were you at any time in the past a member of the Communist Party? A. I was.
[*4616]
Q. And when did you first join the Communist Party? A. In the summer of 1929.
Q. And in what city did you join?
Mr. Isserman: Just a minute. I move that the answer be stricken on the ground that it is not relevant to any issue in the indictment, not within its scope.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. McGohey: Will you repeat the last question, Mr. Stenographer.
Q. (Read.) A. In Detroit, Michigan.
(T–3379) Q. And how long did you remain a member of the Communist Party? A. I remained a member from the summer of 1929 up to the end of 1936.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken on the same ground, your Honor.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. At the time you joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1929 where were you employed? A. I was employed either then or shortly after by the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan.
Q. What unit of the Communist Party did you join when you first became a member?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Unit 3.
Q. Was that a unit in any plant? A. It was.
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. And in what plant was that unit located? A. It was located in the Ford Motor Car Company.
Q. Was it an open unit of the Party? A. No, sir, it was not.
Q. I didn’t hear your answer, Mr. Nowell. A. No, sir, it was not an open unit.
[*4617]
Q. After you joined the Party did you assume any (T–3380) office in it?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. McGohey: I am talking about shortly after he joined in the summer of 1929, your Honor, so as to fix the time.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. I did.
Q. And what office did you assume?
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, and I would like an opportunity to be heard on all this testimony.
The Court: I do not desire argument, Mr. Sacher. The objection is overruled. Go ahead.
A. I became a member, co–opted member of the district bureau and president of the Detroit Chapter of the Anti–Imperialist League and also a member of the District Negro Commission.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken.
Q. Now prior to the time that you assumed—
The Court: Just a minute, Mr. McGohey.
* * *
(T–3381) (Record read.)
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Were you appointed to those offices by anybody?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was.
Q. By whom were you appointed to those offices?
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor. This man’s last connection with the Communist Party was 12 years before this indictment, your Honor. How can it have any relevancy to the case?
The Court: We will see. Objection overruled.
[*4618]
Q. Will you tell us, Mr. Nowell by whom were you appointed to these positions that you have just enumerated? A. The first appointments were made by Norman Tallentire who was then district organizer—that is, the temporary appointment, that is, the co–opting to the District Bureau. The permanent appointments—
Mr. Sacher: Just a minute. I object to this testimony on the ground it is not binding on any of these defendants.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) The permanent appointments were made by Jack Stachel who succeeded Tallentire as district organizer in the Michigan District.
(T–3382) Q. Do you see Jack Stachel here?
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I move to strike out the last answer and I should like to state my grounds.
The Court: I don’t desire to hear argument. I will overrule the objection, and if there is a motion to strike I will deny it.
Now do you see Stachel here?
Mr. Sacher: May I respectfully request that the defendants be referred to as “Mister”?
Mr. McGohey: I have no objection.
The Court: You may request it but I may leave the “Mister” off occasionally.
(To witness) Now do you see Stachel here?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor, I do.
The Court: Now go down there and point him out.
(Witness goes to edge of defendants’ counsel table.)
The Witness: The gentleman sitting there next to the aisleway.
The Court: You better go right over there and point to him.
The Witness: (Proceeding toward defendant Stachel) This is Mr. Stachel here.
The Court: Very well.
[*4619]
(T–3383) (Witness returns to witness chair.)
Q. You said that these permanent appointments were made by the defendant Stachel at the time he became the district organizer in Detroit? A. (Nodding.)
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object and plead unfair surprise in respect to the testimony of this witness.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Will you tell us when the defendant Stachel became the district organizer in Detroit?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The best of my recollection is that it was around the first—in the early part at least of 1930.
Mr. Sacher: If the Court please, I move to strike this out as being altogether too remote. That is almost a generation ago.
The Court: Well, not quite. I will allow it. This is received as similar testimony has been, that is, testimony of a similar kind in the past only against the defendant Stachel.
Mr. McGohey: That is the way it is offered, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, I understand that.
Q. Now prior to the time that the defendant Stachel (T–3384) became the district organizer in Detroit had you traveled as a representative of the Communist Party? A. I had.
Q. And where did you travel? A. I was sent to Russia in 1929—the fall of 1929.
Q. In the fall of 1929—
Mr. Sacher: Just a moment. I move to strike that out as irrelevant and immaterial, outside the scope of the indictment, and too remote.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4620]
Q. Can you fix with some more definiteness when it was you went to Russia? A. We left the United States in September. I don’t remember the exact day. It was sometime in the latter part of September.
Q. And do you recall when you returned? A. The latter part of November.
Mr. Gladstein: What year?
Q. Now did you travel to Russia to attend some event?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that as leading, as well as on other grounds, unfair surprise as well, your Honor.
Mr. Crockett: I object to it.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw the question if it is objected to as to form.
(T–3385) The Court: I overrule the objection.
Q. Well, did you go to Russia to attend some event? A. I did.
Q. What was the event? A. An anniversary.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Will you tell us what the event was, please? A. The event was an anniversary celebration of the Russian Revolution.
Q. You say you returned some time in November of 1929? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. And then thereafter in the early part of 1930 you received these permanent appointments by the defendant Stachel as—will you tell us what those offices were again?
Mr. Sacher: I object to it as having been answered already twice.
The Court: Yes. I will tell you what they are.
Mr. Crockett: That’s the same difference.
Mr. Sacher: That isn’t what I intended to invite, your Honor.
The Court: Very well, I will overrule the objection. You may ask him, Mr. McGohey.
[*4621]
(To witness) Tell us again what those offices were that Mr. Stachel appointed you to.
(T–3386) Mr. Sacher: I object to the question on the ground it has been answered.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was appointed to a permanent membership in the District Bureau. Well, of course, some may say elected, but I was actually appointed.
* * *
A. (Continuing) A permanent member in the District Bureau in the early part of 1930. In addition to this I was made organizer and president of the American Negro Labor Congress, that is, the Detroit Chapter; and also remained as president of the Anti–Imperialist League.
Q. At the time one of the objections was just made now I understood you to say you were appointed or elected. Which was it? Were you appointed or were you elected? A. I believe a meeting of the district committee was called and I was placed in nomination by Mr. Stachel.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this unless the witness says he was present.
The Court: Were you there?
The Witness: I was present.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. (Continuing) It was either the district committee or an enlarged bureau. I remember distinctly it took place (T–3387) in the Party Headquarters at Grand River at Adams Street, and I became a permanent member of the District Bureau.
I said “enlarged” bureau or district committee because members were there other than the regular members of the District Bureau.
Q. Now what were your duties as a member of the District Bureau? A. As a member of the District Bureau—
Mr. Isserman (To Mr. McGohey): I didn’t know your question was finished. I object to it.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4622]
A. (Continuing) As a member of the District Bureau my duties were to assist in the adapting of policy or instructions embodying policy from the Central Committee to the problems of the district and in the formulation of local policy in line with national policy, and generally to supervise the work of the sections and units.
Q. Well, will you tell us what were your duties as president and organizer of the American Negro Labor Congress?
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, I submit that there has been already more than enough of this so–called background and I ask your Honor in the discretion that you possess to require the prosecution to elicit testimony if it has any testimony to elicit from this witness dealing with the period involved in the indictment, (T–3388) April 1945 and thereafter, and not to permit—
The Court: I shall give no such instructions, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: But, if your Honor please, you have already said you will see if there is any connection.
The Court: He has already made the connection.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, he has already said the last time he had any connection with the Communist Party was in the year 1936, and I submit that that not only being several years before the Smith Act, under which this indictment is brought, but ten years prior to the period when the conspiracy was supposed to be formed,—
The Court: Mr. Gladstein, do you remember my saying I did not desire to hear argument.
Mr. Gladstein: But, your Honor, this is highly prejudicial.
The Court: If you insist on going ahead you may do so, but if you do so realize it is against my expressed command.
Mr. Gladstein: I assign your Honor’s handling of my objection as misconduct.
The Court: I am getting used to these charges of misconduct. I don’t think there has ever been a case where so many charges of misconduct have been made with so little foundation.
[*4623]
(T–3388–A) Mr. Gladstein: I assign the present ruling as misconduct.
The Court: All right.
Mr. McGohey: Your Honor, before the objections were argued I had asked the witness if he would tell us what were his duties as president and organizer of the American Negro Labor Congress.
Q. Will you do so, please? (T–3389) A. My duties there, firstly—my duty was to—my appointment was to organize a local chapter. There wasn’t a Detroit chapter of this Congress at the time. So I proceeded to organize the chapter. I was appointed as its president.
The Reporter: Did you say “I was appointed as its president”?
The Witness: I said that, and I said, I was told to assume the presidency.
Q. By whom were you told to assume the presidency? A. By Mr. Stachel.
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
Q. I did not hear the answer, Mr. Nowell. A. By Mr. Stachel.
Mr. Gladstein: Will your Honor rule on my objection first?
The Court: Yes, you may renew the objection, and it is overruled.
Q. Now may I have the answer, Mr. Nowell? A. By Mr. Stachel.
Q. Were you told what your duties were, or were to be, by anybody? A. Generally, I was.
Q. By whom? A. By Mr. Stachel.
Mr. Gladstein: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3390) Q. What was your answer? A. By Mr. Stachel.
Q. Will you continue with respect—if you have not concluded, will you continue to describe to us what the [*4624] duties were that were assigned to you in the American Negro Labor Congress?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. My duties there were to—well, as he explained them to me, that we needed to increase the work of the Communist Party among colored people.
* * *
A. (Continuing) And that this American Negro Labor Congress was the organization, organized by the Party for that purpose, to carry on this phase of its work. He asked me to do my best to build this organization and to recruit members from it into the Communist Party to aid me in carrying out the Party policy within the organization. Generally that—those were the instructions that were given me, aside from more detailed matters of supervising the work of that organization.
(T–3391) Mr. Isserman: I move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. What were your duties as secretary of the Negro District Commission? A. My duties there were to supervise the organizational work among colored people for the entire District.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. You just said something, in connection with your work in the American Negro Congress, about carrying on the Party policy. Do you mean Party policy generally or do you mean some particular policy?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
A. Specific policy.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4625]
A. (Continuing) Specific—some particular policy.
Q. What was the particular policy?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. As Mr. Stachel explained to me, there would be adopted at the coming convention, sometimes in the spring, a new policy, in fact, a new program, or a broader program, on the Negro question in the United States. However, he said, meantime we must begin to build and be prepared to execute this new policy when it is inaugurated. This (T–3392) policy, of course, was what is known in Communist parlance, as the policy of self–determination, that is, the establishing of a separate Negro state in the so–called Black Belt in the South. So at that time this was as much of the policy as he explained to me until certain articles appeared and the resolution embodying the program itself.
Mr. Isserman: I move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Did there come a time later on when this policy was more completely formulated?
Mr. Gladstein: I object.
Mr. Isserman: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. There did.
Q. When did that occur? A. Well, sometimes in January or February.
Q. Of what year, sir? A. Of 1930. A resolution was published in The Communist, I believe, and also one or perhaps more of educational articles, that is, articles designed to explain the new program, so he turned these over to me and asked me to read them preparatory to the coming convention so that I would be able to take part in and discuss the problem intelligently.
Mr. Isserman: I move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
[*4626]
(T–3393) Q. Did there come a time when that policy was formulated with respect to how the program would be carried out? A. There did.
Q. And what was the plan by which the program would be carried out?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
Mr. Sacher: I object to the question, calling for the witness’s conclusion, obviously.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The program was adopted at the Seventh Convention of the Communist Party of the United States in New York in 1930, on June or July.
The Court: Were you present?
The Witness: I was present, sir.
Q. Were any of the defendants present at that convention? A. Mr. Stachel was there, I believe Mr.—I see another gentleman there—Mr. Potash was there; possibly some others. It has been some time—Mr. Williams was there.
The Court: Williams?
The Witness: Yes, I believe I recognize a gentleman among the—there (indicating). That is Mr. Williams.
The Court: Which one do you say is Mr. Williams?
The Witness: It seems to me the gentleman sitting the second from Mr. Stachel (indicating). It has been a long time.
(T–3394) The Court: With that brownish red—
The Witness: Tie.
The Court: —tie and the glasses?
The Witness: Yes, if I am not mistaken, that is Mr. Williams. He was there. I don’t believe I see any others that I recognize that were there.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that testimony.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Now I had asked you whether or not the program formulated any plan for the accomplishment of the program. A. It did, sir.
[*4627]
Q. And will you tell us what that plan was?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The resolution embodied—we were told, however, that there would be a more complete resolution later on, that this one would suffice for the time. The resolution embodied the theory—
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I object. It is quite obvious the witness is summarizing a written document.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: I did not hear you Honor’s observation.
The Court: It seems to me that you are in effect (T–3395) calling for the contents of a written document.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, I am sorry, your Honor, I had no intention of doing that. I thought that I was asking—as I understand the testimony, the witness attended a convention in which the program was adopted.
The Court: Well, he doesn’t seem to have been testifying now as to what he heard but the contents of some paper.
Mr. McGohey: Well,—
The Court: And that is why I sustained the objection.
Mr. McGohey: Very well, your Honor.
Q. Was this program discussed at the convention? A. It was.
Q. And were there speeches made upon it? A. There were.
Q. And were you present while—when they were made? A. I was.
Q. And can you tell us from what was said in the speeches how this program was to be carried out?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4628]
A. In the reports of the Central Committee and the speeches following the program—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, on the ground that it is not—
(T–3396) The Court: Yes. He is prefacing it by “the reports.”
(To witness) Now leave out about the reports; just tell us now what you heard there about this program and what it was and how it was to be put into effect.
Mr. Isserman: And I object to the Court’s question.
The Court: All right; overruled.
Mr. Sacher: May it please the Court, apart from the fact that it was almost twenty years ago, I object to the question on the ground that it is not—to the witness’s testimony on the ground that it does not attribute it to any of the conduct of any of the defendants on trial.
The Court: Well, you see, that just leads to one of these interminable arguments. I take a different view as to the testimony and I overrule your objection.
Mr. McGohey: If it please the Court, may I just ask a question here?
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. When you used the word “report,” Mr. Nowell, are you talking about a written instrument or are you talking about an oral statement that somebody made? A. An oral statement.
The Court: Oh! I thought you meant some written report.
(T–3397) Q. Will you proceed now to tell us? A. The—
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Isserman: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Objection overruled.
[*4629]
A. The oral report and the discussion that followed outlined the program which I will attempt to explain. The discussion, the report outlined the theory of what is called self–determination for Negroes in the Black Belt in the South, that is, the establishment of a separate Negro nation in what is called the Black Belt, extending from Virginia to the Mississippi Delta in which they said that Negroes constitute a majority of the population. This program was to be executed through utilizing the legimate grievances of people there, sometimes called the formulation of a demand, sometimes called a partial demand, as a means of mobilizing them and using them as a part of and preparatory to a proletarian revolution in the United States.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike this out, your Honor.
The Court: Motion denied.
I do not see anything funny about it, Mr. Sacher. You seem to smile so blithely. I can’t see anything funny about it at all.
(T–3398) Mr. Gladstein: No, your Honor; I submit that if the charge here is something that these men are supposed to have conspired to advocate beginning April 1945, that this is most highly prejudicial and has no probative value whatever.
The Court: Mr. Gladstein, I have suspected for some time, and now I am thoroughly convinced, that your insistence upon arguing matters is done to provoke me.
Mr. Gladstein: No, your Honor, that is not true.
The Court: You are just wasting time—
Mr. Gladstein: It is done in an effort to try to persuade you—
The Court: You are simply wasting your time if that is the purpose, and I can conceive of no other because you get up and say substantially the same thing again and again and again, and it has been said before by others. The questions, so far as the record is concerned, are plainly stated there. If it is your point to assign error, the error has been assigned not once, not twice, but many times, and you are just wasting your time if you think you are going to provoke me—
[*4630]
Mr. Gladstein: No.
The Court: Because you won’t.
Mr. Gladstein: May I state the purpose of my objection?
(T–3399) The Court: No—
Mr. Gladstein: I haven’t given up hope and I won’t give up hope—
The Court: Well,—
Mr. Gladstein: —either this court or some court will appreciate the validity of my point—
The Court: You see, Mr. Gladstein—
Mr. Gladstein: May I finish, your Honor?
The Court: —Mr. Gladstein, when the Court, who is in charge, tells a lawyer a certain thing, the lawyer ordinarily will respect the Court’s direction and follow it, but you seem to have a notion that it is better for you and your clients to do otherwise. Now I am not going to resort to any unseemly means of stopping you but from now on I think it must be very evident if you desire to argue without my leave that you are disobeying my commands.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, may I make a suggestion?
The Court: Well, I think you would do better if you sat down; but if you prefer not to you may go on.
(Mr. Gladstein sits down.)
* * *
(T–3400) By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Did you take part in those discussions at the convention? A. I did, sir.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
* * *
Q. Will you tell us in substance what was said at the discussion?
[*4631]
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I disagreed—
(T–3401) Mr. Isserman: I ask that that be stricken.
The Court: That is a conclusion.
State what you said, if you can remember, in substance.
I will strike out the word “disagreed.”
The Witness: I said that it seemed to me that a close cooperation between the colored people of the South and the North without any special, what I had in mind, what I actually attempted to explain, was any separate state. I said I thought that such would tend to separate the whole attempt at improvement of conditions generally, and so in that vein, I, of course, opposed it as I understood the program herein outlined.
Q. Now subsequent to this convention that you have just described, did you have a conversation with the defendant Stachel? A. I did, sir.
Q. And what did you discuss with him?
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
Mr. McGohey: I am talking about a time shortly after the convention.
The Court: Yes, I will allow it.
A. We discussed my speech at the convention and my political development.
Q. And then after the convention did you return to Detroit? A. I did, sir.
(T–3402) Q. And did you continue in the offices that you have described? A. I did.
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I did.
Q. Now I direct your attention back again to the early part of 1930. That was after you had returned from the trip to Russia. Did you attend any school or schools, Communist Party schools in Detroit?
[*4632]
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
A. I did.
Mr. Isserman: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. And approximately when did you attend those schools?
Mr. Isserman: I object to this, and in connection with this examination I wish to plead unfair surprise.
The Court: Overruled.
A. It was sometimes—sometimes around the first part of 1930. I don’t recall whether it was prior to or shortly after the national convention, the Party national convention.
Q. That is the period you have already testified Mr. Stachel was the district organizer for the Detroit district? A. That is correct.
(T–3403) Q. Or the Michigan district? A. That is correct.
Q. Which was it, the Detroit district or the Michigan district? A. It was simply District 7 which embraced Michigan but is usually referred to as District 7.
Q. Were any of the defendants lecturers or teachers at this school?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Stachel was the instructor.
Q. Where were the classes held? A. They were held in the Ferry Hall, sometimes called the Workers’ Hall on Ferry Avenue between Russell and Revard Streets.
(T–3404) Q. Did the Party have headquarters in Detroit? A. They did.
Q. Where was the school with relation to the Party headquarters? A. Well, the school was held in the section of the Party. That was a meeting hall of the Party, a section headquarters.
Q. In the same building? A. In the same building.
Q. How long did this course last?
[*4633]
Mr. Isserman: I object.
A. From three weeks to—approximately three weeks. Possibly longer. About three weeks to a month.
Q. How often were classes held? A. About five days a week.
Q. How many hours a day? A. I should say four or five hours.
Q. Did anybody lecture in those courses on this Negro question?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. They did.
Q. Did any of the defendants lecture on that question? A. Mr. Stachel lectured on the question.
Q. Can you tell us what books, if any, were used in that course—in those classes that you attended?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
(T–3405) The Court: Overruled.
A. We used Marx’s Capital—
* * *
A. (Continuing) We used Capital, that is, Marx’s volume Capital, also a pamphlet by Marx called Value, Price and Profit; another, Wage, Labor and Capital; another pamphlet called Socialism, Utopian and Scientific; and current publications, The Communist, Daily Worker and other Communist publications. We also—
Q. Well—go ahead. A. We also used the resolution on the Negro question that was adopted by the Seventh Convention—or, at least, was presented and adopted. I mean the resolution that was printed prior to the convention.
Q. Did you use books by any other authors in addition to those that you have mentioned? A. We did.
Q. Will you tell us what they were?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We used Left Wing Communism by Lenin, we used The State and Revolution, Proletarian Revolution, and a number of others.
[*4634]
The Court: I did not catch those names.
(Answer read.)
The Court: Proletarian Revolution.
(T–3406) Who were they by?
Q. Who was the author of that? A. Lenin. I believe it is an extension of that title in Kautsky.
* * *
The Witness: Kautsky the Renegade.
Mr. Gordon: May I suggest the witness said “I believe there is an extension of that title,” and then he said something about Kautsky.
The Court: Well, you are talking in terms of when you were back there in that school now. Don’t tell us what there is today. We will get around to that. But now we are talking about the books that were used in that school where the defendant Stachel was teaching.
Mr. McGohey: May I ask the witness a question, (T–3407) your Honor?
The Court: Certainly.
Q. You testified that you used a book or a pamphlet called State and Revolution, and you stated that the author was Lenin. Did you study any other books or pamphlets by the same author? A. I did.
Q. Will you tell us what they were? And if you can, just keep your voice up loud enough so that all of us back here and all around can hear what you say. A. We used the pamphlet Left Wing Communism, Imperialism, and I have mentioned the others we used. I believe those are the pamphlets we used.
Q. Just a few minutes ago, before the question about your voice came up, you mentioned a book called Proletarian Revolution. Is that the full title of the book that you used, or that pamphlet that you used? A. I don’t believe so. As I remember—
Q. What is the full title as you remember it? A. Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade.
Q. And who is the author of that? A. Lenin.
Q. Did you study books by any other author? A. We did.
[*4635]
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3408) Q. Well, will you first tell us who was the author and then what books of his you used?
Mr. Isserman: We are still in the three–week period, I assume. The question seems to be general.
The Court: Are you still talking about the time the defendant Stachel was teaching in that school?
The Witness: I do, sir, have reference to that period.
The Court: Very well. Go right ahead.
Mr. Sacher: I think the witness is speaking of that three or four–week period when he attended the school.
The Court: You may cross–examine him in due course, if you wish.
A. We were given certain supplementary reading to do. Certain other reading materials were pointed out to us. They were given to us for our own reading at home. Naturally, we could not do all of that in the classes.
* * *
The Witness: Among that reading was Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, or excerpts therefrom; and Problems of Leninism, or excerpts taken from the bound work.
Q. Did you at any later time, during your membership (T–3409) in the Party, attend any other school conducted by the Party?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I did, sir.
Q. Where and when?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Same ruling.
A. I attended the International Lenin Institute in Moscow, Russia, from 19—
[*4636]
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that be stricken.
The Court: Yes. How has that any connection with the defendants? Is there some additional proof you are going to bring out?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, there is.
Mr. Isserman: I am pleading unfair surprise.
The Court: I will allow it subject to connection. If it is not connected, I will strike it out.
Mr. Isserman: I am pleading unfair surprise in connection with a reference to any school outside of this country.
A. I attended the International Lenin School in Moscow, Russia, from September 1931 to December 1932.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken.
The Court: Same ruling as before.
(T–3410) Q. Do you know whether or not there was a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party held in 1931?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. To the best of my recollection, there was.
Q. Did you attend it? A. I did.
Q. Where was it held? A. It was held in New York City.
Q. Did any of the defendants attend it?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I recall at least two of the defendants attended, possibly others.
Q. Who were the two that you recall? A. I remember Mr. Stachel and, if my mind serves me correctly, Mr. Williams, possibly Mr. Potash.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that latter be stricken.
The Court: You mean as to Potash?
Mr. Isserman: Yes.
[*4637]
The Court: I will strike that.
You don’t remember whether Potash was there or not?
The Witness: Not distinctly. I cannot be too sure about it.
The Court: Well, without using those words, (T–3411) about being too sure, and this or that, have you any recollection as you sit there today that Potash was there at that meeting?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Well, I will deny the motion then.
The Witness: It is rather vague. I would rather withdraw the answer.
Mr. Sacher: I cannot hear you.
The Witness: I say, it is vague, and I cannot be sure, so I will withdraw that answer, if it is permissible.
Mr. McGohey: I will consent.
The Court: Well, you see, the question is whether you remember that he was there or whether you don’t. If you have a recollection that he was there, then it is going to be for the jury to pass on it; if you haven’t got any recollection that he was there, then I am going to strike that part of it out. Now, which is it?
The Witness: I don’t have the recollection.
The Court: Now, strike it out. The part about Potash goes out.
Q. Do you have a recollection about the defendant Stachel being there? A. I do.
Q. You came from Detroit to attend this meeting in New York, did you?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
(T–3412) The Court: Overruled.
Q. Were you accompanied by anybody from Detroit to New York?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was accompanied by Mr. Stachel and some others whose names I don’t recall at the moment.
[*4638]
Q. At this meeting of the Central Committee, that you have just described, can you tell us about when it was in 1931? A. It was sometimes in the early part, possibly around May or June. I know it was in the warm weather. It wasn’t cold.
Q. Was there a discussion at that meeting about the Party’s program on the Negro question?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled. You mean a discussion at this meeting of the Central Committee?
Mr. McGohey: In 1931, May or June, as the witness said.
The Court: Yes.
A. Not a detailed discussion.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that be stricken.
A. (Continuing) There was some discussion but not a lengthy discussion.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that be stricken.
(T–3413) The Court: Motion denied.
Q. After that Central Committee meeting and before you went back to Detroit, did you have a conversation with the defendant Stachel? A. I did.
Q. Where was the conversation had? A. It was held in the then National Headquarters of the Communist Party.
Q. Do you know where they were? A. I don’t recall the street and number.
Q. Do you know whether they were in the Borough of Manhattan or— A. I don’t know New York too well, but I believe they were in the Borough of Manhattan.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Will you tell us your best recollection of that conversation which you had with the defendant Stachel?
Mr. Crockett: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4639]
A. Well, firstly, he asked me why I didn’t take the floor at the Plenum, and we moved on to other discussions about my work back in the district. In the course of that he told me—well, he had told me previously—he reiterated that he was not going back to the district, he was going to be called in by the Central Committee to head the trade union department of the Central Committee.
Q. Would you try to keep your voice up just a little (T–3414) more, Mr. Nowell. A. He told me he was not going back to Detroit but he was being called in by the Central Committee to take charge of the trade union department of the Central Committee; and there were certain things he wanted me to do when I went back. He also mentioned to me about my further political development and overcoming my political error on the Negro question, but that he would talk to the Central Committee and I would be—and he would see that I was sent into—abroad to school where I would have a chance to study and overcome my political error.
He further, gave me a note to take to Mr. Mills, who was organizational secretary, and told me orally—
Q. Organizational secretary where? A. In Detroit.
Q. Very well. A. And he told me to tell him that he would have things arranged to bring him to New York.
Q. That, you say, was some time in May?
Mr. Isserman: I move that that be stricken, if the Court please.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Isserman: His entire answer.
Q. You say you had this conversation with the defendant Stachel some time in May or June 1931? A. To the best of my recollection is—that is when the Plenum met, and this happened at that Plenum.
(T–3415) Q. And you have told us a little while ago that in September 1931 you did go to the Lenin school? A. I did.
Q. From what port in the United States did you leave? A. New York.
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) New York.
[*4640]
Q. Can you fix with more definiteness when you left? A. We left in the latter part of August.
Q. Of 1931? A. Of 1931.
Q. Did you pay your own expense? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Do you know by—how they were paid?
Mr. Gladstein: Objected to.
Mr. Isserman: I object to it.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw that question.
The Court: You know, that question, whether a person knows something, is one of the most vicious questions in the law because a witness, nine times out of ten, will say he knows something when he doesn’t know it at all, and he just heard it from somebody else.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw it.
The Court: So I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McGohey: I assume that the objection, your Honor sustained is to the question, does he know?
(T–3416) The Court: That is right.
Mr. McGohey: Not to the point that he did not pay his own expenses?
The Court: That is right.
Q. Now, did you travel alone or were you in a group?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Traveled in a group.
Q. Did any of the defendants now on trial travel with you in that group?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which of the defendants? A. Mr. Potash.
Q. Now, when you left the United States did you go directly to Russia? A. No, sir, we did not.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to. I wish to plead unfair surprise in connection with this testimony.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4641]
A. (Continuing) No, sir, we did not. No, sir, we did not.
Q. Where did you make your first stop? A. Our first stop was in London—London, England.
Q. I beg your pardon? A. London, England.
Q. And from there where did you go? A. We sailed to (T–3417) Leningrad, Russia.
Q. Did you sail from London to Leningrad on the same ship that had taken you from New York to England? A. No, sir.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
Was it the same ship?
The Witness: No, sir, it was not the same ship.
Q. Now when you arrived in Leningrad what did you do?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We took a train to—
Mr. Isserman: And in connection with that objection I would like to plead unfair surprise.
The Court: Let me get this thing straight.
By the Court:
Q. Did Stachel tell you to go over there to this school? A. No, sir, he didn’t.
Mr. Isserman: Object to that question.
Q. What did he say about it?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He told me that I needed further political development, that he was going to talk with the Central Committee, and he thought he could get them to send (T–3418) me abroad where I would have a chance to study, improve myself politically.
The Court: I will allow it.
* * *
[*4642]
The Witness: After we arrived in Leningrad we took a train to—
Mr. Isserman: Object to that. The witness now seems to be talking about other persons, not only about himself.
The Court: Was Potash still with you?
The Witness: He was, sir.
(T–3418–A) The Court: All right, go ahead.
The Witness (Continuing): After we arrived—I was traveling in a group that is why I say “we”. In Leningrad we took a train to Moscow.
* * *
(Recess to 2.30 p.m.)
(T–3419) AFTERNOON SESSION
WILLIAM ODELL NOWELL, resumed the stand.
* * *
Direct examination continued by Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now Mr. Nowell, just at the recess, just before the recess I think you said that you traveled—that after you arrived in Leningrad that you got on the train and went to Moscow. A. I did, sir.
Q. Is that correct? A. I did.
Q. Now, did you have your own ticket or did you handle your tickets to the railroad when you took that trip from Leningrad to Moscow?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
A. I did not.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Who handled the ticket for you and the others?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Potash handled the tickets.
[*4643]
Q. And when you were in London, when you first arrived in a port after you left New York, how long did you stay (T–3420) in London? A. About—
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. —two days and a half.
Q. And did you make your arrangements in London for hotel accommodations? A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. Who made those arrangements?
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
A. Mr. Potash made the arrangement.
Q. Wait.
The Court: Did you have any conversation with Mr. Potash about that?
The Witness: I did.
The Court: What did he say?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: He said he was making arrangements—he had made arrangements for a hotel for the delegation, and during the time that we were there he told us—he gave us instructions of secrecy and told us he was arranging—
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, strike out “directions for secrecy,” and tell us what he said.
The Witness: He said he was arranging passage for (T–3421) us to Russia.
The Court: No; on this matter of directions for secrecy, I am striking that out because that is perhaps a conclusion or mental operation of your own, and we must take the witness’s testimony as to what he heard said by one of the defendants, for example.
Now what did Mr. Potash say about that?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4644]
The Witness: He advised us or directed us, rather, not to appear in indoor crowds while in London.
* * *
The Witness: Not to go about the city in groups and not to use our proper names, to be in at a reasonable hour, not to be out too late.
That is in essence the instructions that were given us.
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Now, had you—now when you traveled from London to Leningrad, do you know the name of the ship on which you traveled?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I don’t recall the name. It seems to me it was (T–3422) the Roykov. I can’t be certain about that.
Q. Do you know the name of the steamship company by which that steamer was owned?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: I will sustain the objection to the question in that form.
Q. Do you know the steamship line—do you know the name of the steamship line on which you traveled? A. From London to Leningrad?
Q. From London to Leningrad.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. It was a Russian steamship.
By the Court:
Q. You mean you saw something on the steamer that indicated the name of the line? A. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Isserman: I object to the question.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4645]
Q. What did you see? A. The name was written in Russian.
Q. Well, you couldn’t read Russian, could you? A. I could—that is, enough to know when a word is written in Russian.
* * *
(T–3423) Q. What was the name of the ship on which you traveled from the United States to London? A. The Majestic.
* * *
Q. Your previous testimony, I understood it to be, was that Mr. Potash accompanied you on that voyage? A. That is correct.
Q. From New York to London? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you have a conversation or conversations with Mr. Stachel during the voyage—Mr. Potash?
Mr. Gladstein: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We had occasional conversations, mostly at port, however.
Q. I beg your pardon? A. Mostly at port—mostly in port.
Q. Before you got on the Majestic did you have any conversation with Mr. Stachel—Mr. Potash? A. We did—(T–3424) I did, rather.
Q. Will you tell us what the conversation was? What did Mr. Potash say and what did you say?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: I don’t quite understand what voyage this is. Is it on the one from here on the Majestic?
Mr. McGohey: I thought I had asked that, your Honor, whether before he got on the Majestic, leaving New York to go to London, did he have a conversation with Potash?
The Court: Very well.
Mr. McGohey: Mr. Potash.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
[*4646]
A. I did have a conversation, with others—together with others—with Mr. Potash.
Q. Will you tell us what the conversation was?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
A. He simply outlined—
The Court: Overruled.
A. —a series of instructions he wanted us to follow.
Q. Will you tell us what instructions he gave you?
Mr. Isserman: I move that answer be stricken.
The Court: Strike it out.
Q. Will you tell us what he said, without characterizing it?
(T–3425) Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He told us not to move about the ship in groups, to keep apart as much as possible, not to use our correct names, not to visit back and forth between staterooms, and that is about what he told us.
Q. When you got on this ship at London, which subsequently took you to Leningrad, before you got on that ship did you have a conversation with Mr. Potash? A. The last conversation—yes, sir, we did.
Q. Will you tell us what was said at that conversation?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled. This is before he left London?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, your Honor, just before they left London to go to Leningrad.
Mr. Gladstein: Will you pardon an interruption, your Honor? May I know clearly, by a ruling of the court, whether any of this is being received against either of the defendants I represent?
The Court: I have heard nothing by this witness connecting conversations or acts with Thompson or Hall, who are the two defendants—
Mr. Gladstein: That is correct.
[*4647]
The Court: —whom you represent.
(T–3426) Mr. Gladstein: So that is not being received against either of them?
The Court: It is not being received against them, no.
Mr. McGohey: I think the question was, did he have a conversation with Mr. Potash just before they got on the steamer which took them from London to Leningrad, and he said he did, and I have asked him for that conversation.
A. The conversation I had with Mr. Potash was that I should go to the American Consulate and get an extension of my passport.
Q. The American Consulate where? A. In London.
Q. Very well. A. I got the extension. He gave us the final instructions, in which he said that we were going to sail—
Mr. Isserman: I move that that be stricken.
The Court: Strike out the word “instructions.” Just go ahead and state whatever he said.
The Witness: He told us that we were—
Q. Tell us what Mr. Potash said without characterizing it. A. Surely. He told us to get ready, that we were going to embark for Russia, going to sail, so we did.
Q. When you arrived in Moscow, where did you go? A. We went directly to the Lenin Institute on (T–3427) Voroskia Street.
Q. Did anybody take you there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
A. Mr. Potash took us there.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Potash took us there.
Q. Did you then enroll in the school?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
What is the name of this Institute?
The Witness: The International Lenin Institute.
[*4648]
A. We did not enroll immediately.
Q. When did you enroll? A. On the following day.
Q. On the day that you first arrived did you go any place after—did you go any other place than to the school? A. On the following day we went to the offices of the Comintern.
Q. In Moscow? A. In Moscow.
Q. Did anybody bring you there?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Did anybody bring you there? A. Yes, Mr. Potash took us to the Comintern International offices.
Q. Did you meet anybody there? A. I did.
(T–3428) Q. Whom did you meet?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I first met Clarence Hathaway, who was then American representative from the Communist Party of America.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that as representing the witness’s conclusion.
The Court: Strike out the characterization at this time.
A. I met Clarence Hathaway, Gerhard Eisler, Otto Kussinin and Mangulin.
* * *
(T–3429) Mr. Isserman: I move to strike all these—this answer, and include in my objection a plea of surprise.
The Court: He says Potash was with him. I overrule the objection.
* * *
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. I think you testified that on the second day you enrolled in the school? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. And thereafter I think you told us previously that you attended the school from that time until about the end of 1932, is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.
[*4649]
Q. Now after this first, or second day, rather, when you say Mr. Potash took you to the office of the Comintern, did you thereafter meet with Mr. Potash in Moscow? A. I didn’t meet him in any meeting with them; I saw him in Moscow.
Q. Where did you see him? A. I saw him in the offices of the Communist International.
Q. Now, after you enrolled in the school did you immediately begin to attend classes?
(T–3430) Mr. Gladstein: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. No, sir, we didn’t.
Q. Beg pardon? A. No, sir, we did not.
Q. What was the first thing you did after you enrolled in the school? A. We were sent on a tour.
Q. To where?
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The students’ group—
The Court: What is that?
The Witness: The students’ group was divided into parts, and we toured to factories, the various cities, to make a first–hand study of Russian industry, and the collective farms and how the Russian government functioned and how the Communist Party of Russia controlled the government, that is, the sort of government.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that and ask that it be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. How long did this tour last? A. Approximately a month.
Q. And then you came back to Moscow? A. We did, sir.
Q. After you returned to Moscow from this tour did you thereafter see the defendant Potash? A. I did not.
(T–3431) Q. Did you see him thereafter at any time while you were at the school? A. I didn’t.
Q. Now while you were at the school—
[*4650]
Mr. Sacher: Did he say he did not?
Mr. McGohey: He said he did not.
Q. While you were at the school did you see any other of the defendants now on trial there at the school?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The gentleman on the extreme end there (indicating), I saw him there, and, of course, I saw Mr. Stachel after the school, some time later.
Q. When you say “the gentleman on the extreme end,” are you referring to a gentleman in a blue suit? A. That is correct.
Mr. McGohey: May the record show that that is the defendant Hall?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: Your Honor, while I ask that the record show that, I am not quite clear as to whether or not the witness’s identification of the defendant Williamson was made on the record this morning.
The Court: Well, he called him Mr. Williams, but he identified him by pointing him out and de scribing him. But he called him Mr. Williams.
(T–3432) Q. Did you call—
Mr. McGohey: It is my recollection, your Honor, that he did not say that—
Mr. Sacher: Oh, he said it several times, not once.
The Court: I thought he did.
The Witness: If I may answer it, your Honor—
The Court: What is that? You had better wait for a question.
Mr. McGohey: May I ask the witness a question?
The Court: Yes.
Q. Who was it that you identified this morning? A. The third—the second gentleman above Mr. Stachel.
Mr. McGohey: May the witness come down and point out the defendant he is referring to?
[*4651]
The Court: Yes, that is the best way.
(The witness walks down and places his hand on one of the defendants.)
The Witness: This is the gentleman I had in mind.
Mr. McGohey: May the record show the witness has identified the defendant John Williamson?
The Court: Yes.
Q. Now will you tell us what courses you took at the Lenin School?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
(T–3433) The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, Mr. Winter is being tried for something alleged to have happened between 1945 and 1948.
The Court: Didn’t the witness testify that Mr. Stachel told him to go over there and see if he couldn’t learn something to overcome his error?
Mr. Gladstein: But that isn’t what the defendants are being charged with. The defendants are being charged with one thing in the indictment and you are permitting evidence on something else. I submit it is not due process of law to be told in a grand jury indictment that you are charged with teaching and advocating something from and after 1945 and then having evidence given that deals with the year 1931.
The Court: Do you realize, Mr. Gladstein, that the intent of these individual defendants is involved?
Mr. Gladstein: I submit it is not legally involved because there was no statute in 1940.
The Court: Do you remember that that point had been argued a dozen times, and I have decided adversely to your contentions?
Mr. Gladstein: But, your Honor, I still had hoped we may be able to persuade you of the error of your ruling.
The Court: I think you have persuaded me continually (T–3434) that you disobey my instructions.
[*4652]
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I submit it is not a fair trial to be presented with this sort of inquiry in the face of the character of the indictment. I object to this line of examination.
Mr. McGohey: I withdraw the question and ask the witness this question:
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Mr. Nowell, you said you saw a man whom you identified as the defendant Hall.
The Court: He didn’t say it was Hall; he pointed him out but he didn’t use the word “Hall,” as I listened to him.
Mr. McGohey: Yes, I—
The Court: He did not use the name “Hall” but he pointed out Mr. Hall as the man whom he saw or one of the men whom he saw in the school in Moscow.
Q. In what connection or where did you see him, Mr. Nowell?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to this.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I saw him about the campus and in the dining halls of the International School at Leningrad.
Q. Did you attend any classes with him? A. I attended meetings with him. Mr. Hall, as you (T–3435) refer to him, was a member—was a student in the Young Communist League section of the Lenin School.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that the answer be stricken, if the Court please.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Where were the meetings which you attended with him held? A. In the school auditorium.
Q. How often did you see him? A. Oh, every day, saw him every day.
Q. During the latter period that you were at the school? A. Except at times when he went on different tours—we went on separate tours, rather.
[*4653]
Q. Well you were in the school from September 1931 until September 1932. Now during the months of 1931 from September to December did you see him from time to time at the school? A. I did, sir.
Q. During the year 1932 from January to December did you see him from to time at the school? A. I believe he left the school. I did see him.
Q. Did he leave before you did? A. He did.
Q. Now will you tell us what courses you took at the Lenin school?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to it.
Mr. McCabe: I object to it.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3436) Mr. McCabe: On behalf of the defendant Winston I should like to state my objections to this line of testimony.
The Court: Very well, I will hear you.
Mr. McCabe: Your Honor is hearing testimony regarding events which started in 1929 and this particular phase lasted up to December 1932. This witness has named four defendants at most as having any contact with him during that period. I submit that the prejudice to be done to the other defendants not named far exceeds in gravity any assistance to the Government’s Case which it will get by involving four defendants in matters which occurred outside of the United States in the years 1931 and 1932. That argument is bolstered up by the fact that Mr. McGohey has referred to a variety of witnesses. I submit that it should not be necessary, if Mr. McGohey has this variety of witnesses, to prejudice the cases of the defendants not in any way involved with this witness by bringing in testimony so remote, as has been said, and prior to the enactment of the statute involved. It can have only one result and that of prejudice.
The Court: Well, I can’t follow that. I have already instructed the jury and I shall instruct them further later to try to differentiate between the defendants, and notice when the testimony comes in as to one or another (T–3437) of them, and I think those instructions when completed will be sufficient.
[*4654]
Mr. McCabe: My point was, your Honor, there will be so many instances necessarily as to which those instructions will have to be given that it is unfair to the defendants and to the jury to involve them in testimony which will require differentiation as to matters which took place 16 and 18 years ago.
The Court: That is, in effect, complaining that there should not be so many people indicted in the same indictment.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I would like to adopt the argument of Mr. McCabe as to my defendants, whether they were named by this witness or not, and add to it the fact that the matter is a matter of unfair surprise in that there was no reference to the time or the place—the time covered by this testimony or place at which the events were supposed to have happened—in the indictment, no indication in the indictment as to the time.
The Court: I would suggest, Mr. Isserman, if it is possible to do it, when you desire to argue some matter of evidence you receive my permission to do so.
Go ahead, Mr. McGohey.
I will overrule the objections.
Mr. McGohey: I think the question I asked, your (T–3438) Honor, was this:
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Will you tell us what courses you took in the Lenin School? A. We studied—
Q. Keep your voice up a little, please, Mr. Nowell. A. Surely. We studied a course in Marxism and Leninism. That is called philosophy.
Mr. Sacher: What is that?
The Witness: Philosophy.
Mr. Sacher: I didn’t get that, your Honor.
The Court: Philosophy.
Mr. Sacher: Marxism–Leninism is called philosophy?
The Court: No, he didn’t say it was called philosophy; he said it was a philosophy.
The Witness: That is right.
[*4655]
Q. Will you tell us what you were taught in that course?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to this.
The Court: That is a pretty broad question, Mr. McGohey. Did this course take him weeks or just a short time?
The Witness: It was a course that lasted throughout the term.
The Court: Throughout the whole term. I think perhaps it would be well if you can make it more specific, Mr. McGohey.
(T–3439) Mr. McGohey: Your Honor, the term “Marxism–Leninism” has been used frequently here.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: And the testimony is that he was sent to this school or escorted to this school, first recommended to it by a defendant and escorted.
The Court: You are in effect asking him to tell what they taught in this particular course during the period of his study?
Mr. McGohey: Yes.
The Court: It seems to me that is a little bit comprehensive. Perhaps you could direct his attention to some particular phase of it. I mention that because, as you remember, from the beginning I have been concerned over the extension of the issues here so that they became so complex and so vast as to be unmanageable, and that is why I thought perhaps you could direct his attention to some particular part of this course.
Mr. McGohey: I will be glad to do so.
Mr. Sacher: I would like to object to the Bowdlerization, so to speak, of the course by simply selecting one item out of a whole course. I would submit if I may have your Honor’s permission—
The Court: Yes, you may.
Mr. Sacher: I respectfully submit when a man (T–3440) has taken an entire course of study for an entire year, the only way, assuming that evidence as to what transpired at the course is admissible, the only way to get the true picture of the matter is to have it given in its entirety.
[*4656]
The Court: That is the position you and your colleagues took about a book, that even though there was a chapter or a section which had to do with this force and violence you have taken the position that unless the whole book is taken that that was not a proper way to proceed. Now, so here.
Mr. Sacher: But, your Honor, in the realm of political ideas every part of a course or a platform or a program takes color and meaning and life from every other part, and if you isolate any portion of it I respectfully submit that it must of necessity be distorted, its meaning, its nature, its weight, all of it is distorted.
The Court: That is where we have a little difference of opinion. It seems to me if there are certain other portions, as in the case of books, that counsel may refer to those portions which qualify or explain the parts relied upon by the prosecution, and even there I must be alert to see that we are not instead of trying this indictment trying the various other matters that have been referred to from time to time which have their bearing but are not (T–3441) the issues.
Mr. Sacher: But, your Honor, that sounds so strange in view of the fact that you admitted things running over a period of 20 years and overruled objections to those matters, it seems to me here when you are dealing with one little compact period of a year, that when you are receiving this evidence against this defendant, one defendant, who he put his finger on—
The Court: Why do you say he put his finger on?
Mr. Sacher: He did it. That is simply a description of a physical fact that happened in this court–room.
The Court: I have heard you say that before. That kind of talk that men use—
Mr. Sacher: But your Honor, I am simply describing a physical fact. That is what he did.
The Court: Well, go ahead and do it.
Mr. Sacher: He misnamed Mr. Williamson and put his finger on him by way of identification.
[*4657]
The Court: Yes, he walked around and pointed him out.
Mr. Sacher: I say he put his finger on him. Isn’t that a fact?
The Court: I see I made another mistake, so I will hear no more of it. I thought I might get some enlightenment.
(T–3442) Mr. Crockett: May I be heard in objection to any questions concerning what this witness was taught in Moscow?
The Court: I am disposed not to let you do it but I suppose it is only fair, as several others have been heard. You may be heard too, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I do not wish to be heard on that basis, your Honor. I wish to be heard on the basis—
The Court: That is the basis that you will be heard on.
Mr. Crockett: —that the original ruling was incorrect.
The Court: That is the basis that you will be heard on. Now, go ahead.
Mr. Crockett: The charge in this indictment includes what is meant by Marxism–Leninism as advocated by these defendants, not by anyone else. The testimony which the District Attorney is trying to obtain from this witness will concern itself with what, if anything, this witness was taught concerning Marxism–Leninism, not what he was taught by any of these defendants or by anyone who was responsible to these defendants, but what he was taught by someone in no wise connected with this case. Your Honor is admitting that testimony in under the theory that it constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule (T–3443) and also on the theory that it constitutes background testimony, going to the question of intent. It seems to me that for the past two weeks or more we have been hearing nothing but so–called background testimony. Most of it has been concerning—
The Court: Did not sound like background to me.
[*4658]
Mr. Crockett: Well, most of it has been related to a period antedating the date of this indictment.
I submit that the charge which the prosecution is trying to establish here concerns itself with the Communist Party as of April 1, 1945, down to July 20, 19 and 48. So what, if anything, this witness may have found out about the meaning of Marxism–Leninism back in nineteen and thirty–two has no relevancy, is not pertinent, and does not come within any exception to the hearsay rule.
I submit all this testimony down to this point should be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. McGohey: Your Honor, I am a bit confused at this time. I had asked the general question as to what the courses consisted of, there was an objection which your Honor sustained, and then when we talked about getting some particular part of the course there was another objection to taking up the science or the philosophy of Marxism–Leninism piecemeal. I understand (T–3444) that objection has also been overruled.
The Court: I overruled that objection, and I think it is better if you will follow my suggestion.
Mr. McGohey: Oh, I intend to. I just wanted to get clear whether—
The Court: That is overruled.
Mr. McGohey: —that objection, as far as the record is concerned, has been passed on and I may now go on.
The Court: That is right. It is my judgment, and I have already ruled at various times here, that when you pursue a certain line, a part of a book, or a part of a course, that you have a right to show the part of the course or the part of the book or the part of the teaching that you rely on as part of the prosecution’s case; and just because that course also had to do with some other subjects also is something that is a matter for me to consider later as to how far it is revelant.
So you may direct the attention of the witness to the particular part of the course you desire to have him testify about.
[*4659]
Q. Did any part of the course on Marxism–Leninism concern itself with the doctrine of the State? A. It did.
Q. Will you tell us what you were taught in that course with respect to the State?
(T–3445) Mr. Sacher: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
A. In State and Revolution by Lenin we were taught that the state is the executive committee of the capitalist class; that, in its very essence, it is an armed force that enforces exploitation of the working class. Therefore, the essential essence of Leninism was the science, that is, the strategy and tactic, of the proletarian revolution, in general, the breaking up of the capitalist state and the instituting of a dictatorship of the proletariat in its stead, which was the science of the proletarian dictatorship in particular. This is the essence of that course.
Q. Did it teach—
Mr. Sacher: I now—just a moment—I now move to strike that out.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. In that course were you taught how the dictatorship of the proletariat was to be established?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We were taught that it would be established by the violent overthrow of the capitalist state and economic system, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Q. Will you tell us what other courses you took at the (T–3446) Lenin School?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We studied Marxian economics, history of the labor union movement, the history of the Communist International, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the organizational structure—history and organizational structure of the Communist International.
[*4660]
Q. Were you taught any other courses?
Mr. Gladstein: I object.
A. We were taught—
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) —we were.
Q. Who were your teachers?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I remember a few of our teachers. I don’t remember all—the names of all of them. In Leninism we had an instructor by the name of Mintz, I don’t recall his first name.
The Reporter: Will you spell the name Mintz?
The Witness: M–i–n–t–z.
A. (Continuing) In Marxian economics Mr. Jacob Mindell, from the United States, was the instructor; and in history of the labor movement, a Mr. Goldberg, a (T–3447) Russian, was the instructor; in the history of the Communist International we had a Russian instructor whose name I don’t recall; and in the practical subjects we had instructors from the Red Army.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken.
The Court: What do you mean by “practical subjects”?
The Witness: We did have certain practical subjects, having to do—
The Court: The objection is made, apparently, on the ground that when you say “practical subjects” that is your inference, that is your mental conclusion. So leave out the conclusion and tell us the facts.
Mr. McGohey: May I ask a question at this point?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: That I think will clear it up.
The Court: I will hold my ruling in abeyance for a moment or two.
[*4661]
Q. Were these practical courses known under a name—by the name of a course?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
The Court: Overruled.
A. They were.
Q. What was the name of the course? A. Science of civil warfare.
The Court: I will deny the previous motion. (T–3448) Science of civil warfare?
The Witness: That is right, sir.
Q. Did you attend class every day? A. I did, except—
Q. I beg your pardon, were you going to say something? A. Except weekends.
Q. Were all the classes conducted at the school? A. They were. The academic classes were all conducted at the school.
Q. Were there some courses that were conducted away from the school? A. Certain parts of the practical study that I mentioned were, instructions in that course were conducted away from that school—only parts of it.
Q. While you were attending the school did you see any of the defendants at the school other than those that you mentioned?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Who were the defendants that you did see? A. Other than those that I have mentioned, the students, I saw Mr. Stachel there.
Q. And can you tell us about when it was that you saw Mr. Stachel? A. To the best of my recollection it was the spring, in the spring of 1931.
Q. When you saw him was he accompanied by anybody? (T–3449) A. Yes, sir, he was.
Q. By whom? A. By Earl Browder, Harry Haywood and Gerhard Eisler.
Q. Did you say that you saw him at the school? A. I did.
[*4662]
Q. And did you see him any place else in Moscow at that time? A. I did.
Q. Where? A. In the offices of the Communist International.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. When you first saw him at the school in the spring of 1931—
Mr. Gordon: 1932.
Mr. Sacher: Now just a moment. I object to this as improper.
The Court: You are quite right, Mr. Sacher. He said 1931.
Mr. Gordon: The witness did?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Sacher: And Mr. Gordon is saying 1932.
Mr. Gordon: Well I apologize.
The Court: Well, I say that is not right. He said 1931.
Mr. Gordon: I apologize. He had said that he went (T–3450) to school from September of 1931—
The Court: No, Mr. Gordon, I do not think this discussion is necessary.
Mr. Sacher: Well, this discussion—his apology does not remedy the wrong.
The Court: We will have no discussion about it.
Mr. Gordon: I was speaking to Mr. McGohey, your Honor, and I do not see why Mr. Sacher should jump on me all the time for nothing.
The Court: Well, I do not see why we should have this.
You may go ahead, Mr. McGohey.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I was addressing myself to this very point.
Q. You said that you had seen him in 1931. When was it that you first went to the the school? A. In 1931.
Q. What month in 1931? A. September, that is, we arrived there in September.
[*4663]
Q. Yes, and you started in school in September. Now my question is, when was it that you saw the defendant Stachel in the Lenin school?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that on the ground that it has been answered.
Mr. Isserman: And it assumes a fact not in evidence.
(T–3451) The Court: I think possibly—well, I will just overrule the objection.
A. I saw Mr. Stachel in the Lenin School in the early spring of 1932. I intended to say that at first. If I stated it otherwise I wish to correct that error.
Q. Now at the time that you saw him in the school in the spring of 1932 did you have any conversation with him? A. Only a few words, not a lengthy conversation.
Q. Did you attend any meeting at which he was present? A. I did.
Q. Who else was present at that meeting?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
This is Stachel you are talking about now?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, sir.
A. At the first meeting Clarence Hathaway was present, Mangulin, whose first name I don’t know, Otto Kussinin, Ossip Pyatnitsky.
* * *
A. (Continuing) And the members of the student body.
Q. All of the members of the student body at the school? A. Of the Anglo–American student group—of the American student (T–3452) group, rather. I wish to make that correction.
Q. Did Mr. Stachel speak at that meeting? A. I don’t believe he spoke at the first meeting.
Q. Was there any meeting at which he did speak? A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. At this first meeting at which you say he was present but you do not recall him speaking, did anybody else speak? A. Yes, sir, I did.
[*4664]
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Will you tell us who it was that spoke?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Earl Browder spoke.
Q. Will you tell us what he said?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I don’t remember in detail what he said, but I remember the—a part of what he said.
Q. Will you give us your best recollection? A. He said that there was crystallizing in the East a group of powers which tended to consolidate themselves as an imperialistic force of reaction which constituted a danger—which necessitated looking into by the Communist International, and he said that the economic depression (T–3453) in the United States was moving ahead, contradictions in American capital were sharpening—sharpening, and his conclusions I don’t quite recall, but I remember those few sentences from his entire report.
Q. Now was there—
Mr. Isserman: Just a minute, Mr. McGohey.
I move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Did you attend any other meetings at which the defendant Stachel was present? A. I did.
Q. Did Mr. Stachel speak at that meeting? A. He did.
Q. Will you tell us what he said?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He said that my unclarity, meaning me—
The Court: He said what?
The Witness: That my unclarity on the Party’s program for a separate state for Negroes in the South, in Communist parlance, self–determination, [*4665] had reached a point where I was actively opposing the leadership of the American Communist Party and the Communist International; that my error should be rejected by the student group, should be rejected by the student group, and that the Party should be united to discipline me for this—this error against the line of the Commintern.
(T–3454) Q. Was there any other meeting—
Mr. McGohey: Pardon me just a minute. (Conferring with Mr. Gordon.)
Q. In the answer that you just gave you used the word “my error” or “my unclarity.” To whom were you referring when you said “my”? Do you mean yourself? A. Myself.
Q. Was Mr. Stachel referring to something that had occurred in the school prior to his arrival, in his speech?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: You mean did he refer to something?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, in this talk that he made.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He did refer.
Q. What did he say about it? A. He said that my errors had not just begun, that I had made errors previously at the Seventh Convention of the Party in 1930 on the same question about establishing a separate state for Negroes in the South.
Q. Did you speak at this meeting at which Mr. Stachel spoke? A. I interposed a few words but could not get the floor. I did speak at a subsequent meeting.
Q. Was this Party program for the Negroes in the South of the United States the subject of a course at the school?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
(T–3455) Q. At the Lenin School?
The Court: Overruled.
[*4666]
A. It was a part of the course on the national question and imperialism.
Q. And that was taught in the school on this question of the Negro in the United States?
Mr. Gladstein: Objected to.
Mr. Isserman: Objected to, your Honor.
A. We were taught—
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) We were taught that it was necessary for the Communist Party to begin the organization of Negroes in the Black Belt in the South, towards the establishment of a separate Negro state and government there, as part of and in order to facilitate the Communist revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship proletariat in the United States; that the development of such a struggle and eventually rebellion would facilitate the Northern industrial workers and would aid the Northern industrial workers in bringing about the revolution in the North and hence throughout the whole country.
That is the essence of what the course consisted.
Mr. Isserman: I move that the answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. And had you expressed yourself in the classes on (T–3456) this question? A. I had.
Q. And what had you said?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I objected to this segregation movement because I asserted it would isolate the Negroes in the South and would use them as a tool merely to create a rebellion throughout the United States which would be, I said, a sacrifice of these unsuspecting people for a cause for which they had the least understanding.
Q. And did Mr.—
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken out.
The Court: Motion denied.
[*4667]
Q. And did Mr. Stachel refer to your expression of your view in this talk at the meeting?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He referred to my erroneous view on this matter in general because naturally it covered my position, as I have stated.
Q. Did you thereafter continue on as a student at the Lenin School? A. I did, sir.
Q. And you remained at the school until December 1932, is that correct? A. I did.
(T–3457) Q. Now in December 1932 did you receive a certificate of any kind from the school? A. I did.
Q. And at the conclusion of your course there did you come back to the United States? A. I did.
Q. In what port of the United States did you arrive? A. New York.
Q. And was that in December 1932 or was that in 1933? A. That was in December.
Q. Of 1932? A. That is right, sir.
Q. And when you arrived in New York did you see any of the defendants?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I saw Mr. Stachel.
Q. Where did you see him? A. In the national office of the Communist Party of America.
Q. And where was that?
The Court: In New York?
The Witness: In New York City.
Q. Do you know whereabouts in New York City that was? A. At that time that was on 12th Street.
Q. Now do you know whether it was East 12th or West 12th Street? A. I am not so sure. I don’t know New York too well, but it is near Union Square.
Q. And did you have a conversation with him at that (T–3458) time? A. I had a short conversation.
Q. Well, what was said?
[*4668]
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Well, there were a few people in the office.
Q. Who else was there during the conversation? A. Mr. Weiner.
Q. Do you know Mr. Weiner’s full name? A. I believe his first name is William Weiner, and there was one other person who I don’t recall exactly—I think he was Mr. Bittelman.
Q. Mr. Bittelman? A. Mr. Bittelman; I am sure Mr. Weiner was there.
Q. Well, will you tell us what was said? A. Oh, we talked briefly about my trip over and back, and I think Mr. Stachel jibed briefly with, how was I getting along politically, and whatever he told me—he said something about what I was going to do when I got back to Detroit, and I said that I was going to see Browder and then I would know. He said he thought I would make out all right educationally if I was straightened out and corrected—they may not be his exact words, but this is the essence of it—and at that point, of course, I gave Mr. Weiner this certificate, an oblong piece of paper, if I recall, and I—
(T–3459) Q. You mean the certificate that you had received at the Lenin School? A. That is right.
Q. You gave that to whom? A. I handed it to Mr. Weiner. I believe Mr. Stachel looked at it and they kept it.
Q. Did you ever get it back? A. I did not.
Mr. McGohey: Pardon me just a moment. (Conferring with Mr. Gordon.)
* * *
(Short recess.)
By Mr. McGohey:
Q. Mr. Nowell, just before the recess I think you were telling us about this meeting at the National Headquarters in New York. Mr. Stachel was there and Mr. Bittelman. Did you mention somebody else? A. Well, some other people came in the room and left shortly.
[*4669]
Q. Did any of the other defendants come into that room while you were there? A. Yes, sir, they did.
Q. Who of the defendants? A. Mr. Green there came in for a moment and left.
Q. Do you see Mr. Green here in the courtroom? A. I do see him.
Q. Will you indicate where he is sitting? A. He is sitting to the left of Mr. Stachel directly next to him.
(T–3460) Mr. McGohey: May the record show that that is the defendant—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: —Gilbert Green.
Q. And after you had this conversation did you go back to Detroit? A. I did.
Q. After you got there did you hold some office in the Communist Party there?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I did hold an office there.
Q. What office did you hold?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Director of Education—District Director of Education.
Q. And what were your duties—in what year was that? Was that in the year 1932, 1933? A. The appointment took place in 1932, in December.
Q. And when did you assume your duties? A. I assumed my duties immediately.
Q. And how long did you continue in that office? A. Until the Eighth Convention of the Communist Party in 1934.
Q. Well now, what were your duties as District Educational (T–3461) Director?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. My duties were to direct agitational propaganda, that is, to prepare appropriate agitational and propaganda ma– [*4670] terials for distribution, and leaflets to be taught in the units and—
Q. When you say to be taught in the units do you mean the units of the Communist Party? A. The units of the Communist Party, and also to direct the Workers School, a Central Workers School, a District School.
(T–3462) Q. Was that a school conducted by the Communist Party? A. It was.
Q. Where was that conducted? A. This was on Erskine and Broad Streets, in the city of Detroit.
* * *
The Witness: Erskine and Broad Street, I think.
Q. Where was that located with respect to the Party headquarters which you told us about this morning? A. It was some distance away.
Q. Did you teach any courses in that school? A. I did.
Q. What courses did you teach?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I substituted in almost all the courses taught. My regular course was on the Negro question.
Q. Did you teach that to any particular group of students? A. I did.
Q. Who comprised that group?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. They were mostly party functionaries.
Q. Can you tell us what books were used at the Workers’ School?
(T–3463) Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The basic text that I used was the resolution of 1931—the Comintern resolution of 1931.
Q. Referring— A. For the final text.
Q. Referring to this course that had to do with this Negro question? A. That is correct.
[*4671]
Q. Do you know, besides that, what books were used generally in the Workers School? A. I do.
Q. What were those books?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. We used Foundations of Leninism, we used Capital, we used State and Revolution, we used Proletarian Dictatorship, Proletarian Revolution, and Kautsky the Renegade, we used Left Wing Communism. We used a number of other books as supplementary reading. Those were essentially the books that we used. Imperialism is another.
Q. Did you yourself use those books in the courses which you taught? A. I did.
Q. You say you held this position as district educational director from the end of 1932 up to the Convention in 1934? A. That is correct.
Q. When was that convention held in 1934? A. I believe it was around April or May in 1934. I don’t remember (T–3464) exactly the month but I believe it was in April.
Q. And where was it held? A. In Cleveland, Ohio.
Q. Did you attend the convention? A. I did.
Q. Were any of the defendants now on trial at that convention?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. There were a large number of delegates. I remember Mr. Stachel. I won’t state definitely whether I recognized any of the others because I cannot remember the context in which I met them.
Q. But you do know that Mr. Stachel was at that convention? A. I do know that he was there. I met him personally.
Q. Did you speak at that convention? A. I did.
Q. Did Mr. Stachel speak at the convention?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. He did.
Q. Was Mr. Stachel there when you made your speech to the convention? A. He was there.
[*4672]
Q. Will you tell us what you said at your speech?
Mr. Gladstein: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I said that I agreed with Haywood’s report that I was at variance with the Party on its program.
(T–3465) Before you made your speech was there a speech made by Haywood?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
A. There was.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Was the defendant Stachel there while that speech was made? A. That I cannot say but I think he was, because I was in the back of the hall.
Q. Were you there? A. I was in the back of the hall and that is—
Mr. Isserman: I move to strike out the answer.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Will you go ahead and tell us what your speech was? A. I didn’t see him—oh, my speech?
The Court: You did not see Stachel at the time Haywood spoke?
The Witness: Not at the time he was speaking, no, sir.
Q. Tell us what you said.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
A. I said that—
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
A. (Continuing) I was in general agreement with Haywood’s criticism of me in his report. However, I disagreed with some of the specific charges made; I felt that they were (T–3466) unjust charges; I felt that my work had proved that, although I had the right to contend for a change in Party policy, that extraneous matters should not be used—should not be introduced to condemn me polit– [*4673] ically merely because I was in disagreement with something which I did not think was correct.
Q. Did you state what your disagreement was?
Mr. Isserman: Just a minute.
A. I did not very definitely.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that answer be stricken as self–serving among other grounds.
The Court: Motion denied.
A. I did not state very definitely what the disagreements were. They had already been aired in Haywood’s report, in his speech, so that the Central Committee and the delegates all understood what I had reference to.
Q. What was the subject of your talk?
Mr. Crockett: Objection and I move, further—
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Crockett: That all testimony with reference to that 1934 convention be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Crockett: And I should like to state my grounds.
The Court: I don’t think I need to hear them.
(T–3467) Q. What was the subject of your talk, Mr. Nowell?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. My speech was in answer—had no particular title. You may say it dealt with the Party’s policy on the Negro question and my work, my activities, and the accusations brought against me by the Central Committee, and that is what my subject dealt with. It was—
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether at that time the defendant Stachel was a member of the Central Committee? A. He was a member of the Central Committee at that time.
Q. You say charges had been brought against you by the Central Committee? A. There had been charges brought against me.
Q. Were they the subject of the speech by Haywood?
[*4674]
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
A. They were.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Will you tell us what the charges were?
Mr. Isserman: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was charged with petty bourgeois Negro nationalism and with instilling this nationalism into other Negro Communists and misleading less developed Communists along (T–3468) the lines of my thinking, as regards the establishment of a separate Negro state in the South, that is, in opposing the establishment of such a state, which I contended, in my discussions wherever permissible, that it was a wrong tactic to organize a segregate movement that would be used as a catspaw and a guinea pig in a cause that could be of no benefit, immediate benefit, to these people that were being so used. So the charges, therefore, took on the character of opposition to the national leadership—factionalism.
Q. You mean that you were charged with opposition to the national leadership?
Mr. Isserman: Just a minute. I move that that answer be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
A. I was so charged.
Q. Did the convention take any action with respect to you? A. They did.
Q. What was the action?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I was removed from office.
Q. From what office? A. As educational director for Michigan district, and all other offices.
(T–3469) Q. Were you at that time holding any other office? A. I was a member of the District Bureau and the District Secretariat.
Q. The District Secretariat? A. That is correct, sir.
[*4675]
Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness, Nowell—Denied
Q. Were you removed from those offices also? A. I was.
Q. Were you expelled from the Party? A. I was not.
Q. After the convention did you go back to Detroit? A. I did.
Q. And thereafter, up to the time you left the Party, did you ever hold any office in the Party? A. No elective office.
Q. Did you hold any appointive office? A. I did.
Q. What office did you hold? A. I was placed in charge of a city–wide faction to organize the Detroit chapter of the National Negro Congress.
Q. How long then did you remain a member of the Party? A. I remained a member until the end of 1936.
Q. Were you expelled from the Party at that time? A. I was not.
Q. Did you resign from the Party? A. I resigned.
Mr. McGohey: You may examine.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, I desire and now do move to strike all of the testimony of this (T–3470) witness upon the ground that it neither tends to prove nor disprove any issue whatsoever set up in the indictment in this case; has no relationship whatsoever to the issues involved in this case; and, under the guise of background, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing here matters not of probative value in this case but which are intended to be and cannot help but be prejudicial to the rights of my clients and the other defendants here.
There has been no connection and cannot be any connection between the testimony given by this witness and any of the issues involved in this case, and I ask your Honor to strike this testimony from the record at this point.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I move to strike it out on the grounds urged and also that because of unfair surprise in the testimony of this witness.
The Court: Motion denied.
(T–3471) Mr. Isserman: Now may we have a short conference, your Honor, between the attorneys for the defendants?
The Court: No.
[*4676]
Mr. Gladstein: Well, if your Honor pleases, we have just been advised by the United States Attorney concerning the close of cross–examination. There are six attorneys in this case including Mr. Dennis representing defendants and I think courtesy if not our rights—
The Court: You certainly are not going to finish his cross–examination this afternoon. You can at least start it. It is four o’clock now.
Mr. Gladstein: I understand Mr. Isserman to ask for a recess for the purpose of conferring.
The Court: Well, that is what I understood too.
Mr. Gladstein: I am asking your Honor to grant that.
The Court: I understand. Is it because you don’t know which of you is to proceed first?
Mr. Gladstein: That may be one of the reasons. There are others. Each particular attorney represents particular defendants.
The Court: I will permit you to confer a few minutes in court.
Mr. Gladstein: I would prefer you to allow us to confer in recess, not while the court is in session.
(T–3472) The Court: How long do you want? Ten minutes?
Mr. Gladstein: I think that would be adequate. Yes. Do I understand by the nod your Honor is granting it?
The Court: Well, I am thinking about it.
Very well, you may have a ten–minute recess.
The Clerk: The court will take a ten–minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I move that the cross–examination of this witness be deferred until a future date. I would like to state my grounds for this motion.
The Court: No. Motion denied.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I now move that the cross–examination of this witness be deferred until tomorrow morning. An additional conference between counsel for the defendants would [*4677] facilitate the examination and would in the long run save time instead of taking additional time.
The Court: I think not. There must be some things that you can cross–examine him on now, between now and the close of the day. That will give you plenty of time to confer over night and in the succeeding days.
Mr. Isserman: I merely wish to point out it is now 4.15.
(T–3473) The Court: It isn’t 4.15.
Mr. Isserman: Only 15 minutes left of the day, and on similar occasions the Government was granted an early adjournment when it requested it.
Has your Honor ruled?
The Court: I have ruled it wasn’t 4.15. If you wait a little while it will be.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to your Honor’s statement that it isn’t 4.15. If it isn’t 4.15 it is 4.13.
Mr. Gladstein: I have a little disagreement; it is 4.14.
The Court: Yes, and if you wait a little while it will be 4.15.
Cross examination by Mr. Isserman:
Q. Mr. Nowell, where were you born? A. In the State of Georgia, the County of Walton.
Q. Did you go to school there? A. I did.
Q. And when were you born? A. July 11, 1904.
Q. That makes you how old, now? A. 44 years old.
Q. And how long did you go to school in Georgia? A. I went to school there until I was about 18 years old.
Q. And how long did you live in Georgia? A. I lived in Georgia until 1922.
(T–3474) Q. And where did you go after you left Georgia? A. I came to Detroit, Michigan.
Q. And what year was that? A. That was 1922 or the first of 1923.
Q. Did you go to school in Detroit, Michigan, after you got there? A. I did.
Q. What school did you attend? A. I went to evening school and Central High.
[*4678]
Q. And how long did you go to Central High School? A. Oh, possibly two terms. I don’t recall. Possibly two terms evening school.
Q. Did you go to school in the daytime or in the evening? A. Evening.
Q. And did you work at the time you were going to school? A. I did.
Q. And what did you work at? A. I worked at Dodge Brothers Motor Company.
Q. In what capacity? A. As a janitor.
Q. Did you ever take a Civil Service Examination for the Federal Government? A. If I remember correctly, I did take a clerk’s examination sometimes around ’26.
Q. You mean 1926? A. 1926.
Q. And did you pass that examination? A. I don’t believe I did. I have never heard from it.
Q. And where did you take that examination? (T–3475) A. I took it in a building—
Q. I mean in what city? A. In Detroit.
Q. You are now employed by the Department of Justice, aren’t you? A. I am.
Q. In the Division of—in what division? A. Immigration and Naturalization.
Q. In what capacity are you employed? A. I am a clerk.
Q. How long have you had that position as clerk? A. Approximately four months.
Q. And what are your clerical duties? A. Oh, the general duties of a clerk—filing, sorting, answering the phone, typing forms.
Q. And your work is in Washington, D. C.? A. I am assigned to Baltimore, detailed—
Q. But you live in Washington, D. C. now? A. I live in Washington, D. C., that is correct.
Q. When you say you are assigned in Baltimore just what do you mean by that? A. That is the district office—central district office.
(T–3476) Q. Do you have any classification in your employment? A. Yes. So far as I know now it is just a number of letters. It is—I suppose it would amount to a junior clerk, maybe a senior—I don’t know; there is a classification.
[*4679]
Q. And—what is that? A. There is a classification.
Q. And did you make application for work in the Department of Naturalization? A. I did.
Q. Under what circumstances did you make that application? A. The circumstances are I asked for a job.
Q. Whom did you ask for a job? A. I asked Mr. Noto.
Q. Is he an official of the Immigration and Naturalization Services? A. He is some official there.
Q. Do you know what official he is or what position he holds? A. I believe he is an inspector or an investigator.
Q. In Baltimore? A. No, he is in the national office in Washington.
Q. And he is an inspector or investigator? A. One of the two.
Q. And he didn’t give you this employment, did he? A. No.
Q. What happened after you asked Mr. Noto? A. He sent me to the personnel man.
Q. And who was that? A. That was Mr.—Mr. Wiggin, I believe.
(T–3477) Q. Wiggin? A. I believe it is Wiggin.
Q. Did you have any letter or communication from Mr. Noto when you went to see Mr. Wiggin? A. I know that Mr. Noto talked to him on the phone.
Q. In your presence? A.—yes, in my presence.
Q. You have no distinct— A. In fact I think he went down with me, if I remember correctly; he went over with me and had a talk.
Q. Now did he talk over the phone first or did he go with you? A. He did talk over the phone first, and he went over with me.
Q. And did you fill out any kind of an application form when you saw Mr. Wiggin? A. I did.
Q. And did Mr. Wiggin then tell you that you would be employed? A. He didn’t say that I would.
Q. Did he tell you that you would have to take any kind of a Civil Service examination to get employment as a clerk? A. No, he did not.
Q. And what did he tell you? A. He said these appointments are made in 30, 60 and 90–day appointments without Civil Service examination. Permanent employment you must submit to—you must take a Civil Service examination.
[*4680]
Q. And were you subsequently notified that you had received an appointment? A. I was.
(T–3478) Q. And who notified you about that? A. The—my appointment papers came to—no, the Baltimore office notified me I was detailed to the Baltimore office.
Q. And was that the first you knew that you were going to work in the Baltimore office as a clerk? A. No, I was called and told to report to Baltimore.
Q. And who called you? A. Someone in the national office.
Q. You do not know who called you? A. Someone in the personnel office.
Q. And you do not know who it was? A. I don’t recall for the moment.
Q. Did that person tell you what kind of an appointment that you had received? A. Yes.
Q. What did he say? A. He told me that—to proceed to Baltimore, that they had recommended or it had been agreed that I have a 90–day appointment, to proceed to Baltimore and pick up the appointment.
Q. And you were told definitely that this was an appointment for 90 days? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you take any kind of an examination, any informal examination in respect to your duties as a clerk? A. Not at all.
Q. You have been there for four months now? A. That is correct.
(T–3479) Q. And what happened at the end of your 90–day period? A. I was reappointed.
Q. For how long? A. For 90 days.
Q. And you are now under a second temporary appointment of 90 days? A. That is correct.
Q. Have you made application to take a Civil Service examination in connection with your present job? A. I have not.
Q. Did you apply for an extension—for a second appointment of 90 days? A. Well, it was mutually agreed, as I mentioned, an extension—and of course the personnel agreed—
Q. You mentioned an extension at the time of your original employment, or was it later than that? A. It was at the end of that appointment.
[*4681]
Q. And to whom did you mention the question of an extension? A. I mentioned it to Mr. Wiggin and Mr. Dugan.
Q. Mr. Dugan was that? A. Mr. Dugan, and also Mr. Wiggin.
Q. Did you see Mr. Noto again in connection with that second appointment? A. Not on the second, no.
Q. Well, haven’t you seen Mr. Noto since the first appointment— A. Yes, I have seen him.
Q. —when you talked with him? A. Yes, I have seen him.
* * *
(T–3480) Q. What did you see Mr. Noto about? Was it the job in Baltimore or about something else?
Mr. McGohey: I object.
The Court: Sustained. It is not clear. Is it the second conversation with Mr. Noto you are inquiring about, Mr. Isserman?
Mr. Isserman: I am, your Honor, inquiring about the second conversation with Mr. Noto.
The Court: Yes. You may reframe the question.
Q. Now your second conversation with Mr. Noto was before the expiration of the 90–day period, was it not? A. That is correct.
Q. And it was not in connection with your job in the Baltimore office that you had this converseation with Mr. Noto? A. No, it was not.
Mr. McGohey: Object.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. In the second conversation, that was the second conversation you had with Mr. Noto? A. As I recall, the conversation I had with him was brief. I had told him that I should like—it has been quite some time since I have been home in Michigan, and that if possible I should like (T–3481) to go over to Michigan on a detail for a couple of weeks and work there.
Q. Well, at the time you were working as a clerk in the Baltimore office, were you not— A. In the Washington office.
[*4682]
Q. You just said Washington office, is that what you mean, or did you mean Baltimore office? A. You see, the Baltimore office is the district office of the whole district. The Washington office is under the Baltimore office. They detail you to whatever part of the district they want to, so the detail was made to Washington.
Q. So that your whole period of 90 days, of the first 90–day period of employment while under the Baltimore office was actually in Washington? A. In Washington, that is correct.
Q. Well, did Mr. Noto have any connection with the Baltimore office? A. No; he is located in the national office.
Q. And he was not your supervisor in the Baltimore office, was he? A. No, he was not.
Q. And you did not go to your superior in the Baltimore office and ask for leave to go to Michigan, did you?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3482) A. I did go to my superior.
Q. Did you speak—to whom did you speak? A. I spoke to Mr. Ward.
Q. Was that after you spoke to Mr. Noto about going to Michigan or before? A. It was before.
Q. And what did Mr. Ward say? A. He said it might be possible, for me to keep in touch with him, it might be possible.
Q. And did you keep in touch with Mr. Ward? A. Well, that is what I wanted to see Noto about.
Q. Well, Mr. Ward did not tell you to go to see Mr. Noto, did he?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. Well, he said “Notify someone and they will get in touch with me.”
The Court: Well, I will overrule your objection.
Mr. Crockett: I did not get that answer.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to have it repeated. It did not sound very clear to me.
(Answer read.)
[*4683]
A. (Continuing) “Some of the boys and they will get in touch with you.”
Q. Some of the boys? A. Well, he knew—he knew some of the inspectors or investigators.
Q. Now as I understand it, then, Mr. Ward, your (T–3483) superior in the Baltimore office— A. Not in the Baltimore office.
Q. In the Washington office—told you to get in touch with some of the boys about you going to Michigan? A. Not in the Baltimore office. Mr. Ward is in the national office.
Q. Yes. A. He is assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner.
Q. And he told you—
The Court: Wait. He is just going on and telling us, and then you interrupted him.
Mr. Isserman: Well, I thought he had finished.
A. (Continuing) Well, he is executive administrative assistant to the Commissioner. He told me to keep in contact with some of the fellows—he said boys or fellows, so I had a talk with Mr. Noto.
Q. How did you get to Mr. Noto for this talk? A. Well, I was already employed by the department and I just walked in and saw him.
Q. Well, he didn’t work in the Baltimore office, though, did he?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I am puzzled, Mr. Isserman, as to just what the drift of this is. Perhaps I had better let you go ahead for a while. I will overrule the (T–3484) objection. You have something in mind, I take it?
Mr. Isserman: Yes, I have.
The Court: Yes, all right. Go ahead.
Mr. Isserman: May I have the question?
Q. (Read.) A. Mr. Noto worked in the national office.
Q. And Mr. Noto had no supervision over your work as a clerk? A. Mr. Ward did.
Q. Would you answer my question? A. No, he did not.
Q. You had some other connection with Mr. Noto, isn’t that so? A. There was no other connection that I know.
[*4684]
Q. How did you come to see Mr. Noto in the first place?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. Oh, I met him several times before.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. You met him in connection with your testifying in some cases, did you not? A. That is correct.
Q. What’s that? A. That is correct.
Q. What kind of detail did you tell Mr. Noto you wanted to go on when you said you wanted to go to Michigan?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. I wanted to ship my—pardon me?
The Court: Well, what did he say?
* * *
(Record read as follows: “A. I wanted to ship my—”)
(T–3485) The Court: All right, I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Noto the kind of detail you wanted to get in Michigan? A. No, I did not.
Q. What do you mean by “detail”? A. Detail is an assignment.
The Court: We will take our adjournment now. Just a second until I make my statement to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Remember the admonition I have heretofore given you: do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you. You will express no opinion of the merits of the controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
Bear in mind, Wednesday and Thursday of this week, being Jewish holidays, we will have no sessions of court but we will have a full session of court on Friday. So that Wednesday and Thursday there will be no sessions of court, and we will now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10.30.
(Adjourned to April 19, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.
[*4685]
(T–3486) New York, April 19, 1949;
10.30 o’clock a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
WILLIAM ODELL NOWELL, resumed the stand.
* * *
Cross examination continued by Mr. Isserman:
Q. At the close or shortly before the close of yesterday’s session you were testifying about your work for the Department of Justice in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and I believe your testimony was that you did a variety of clerical duties there? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you ever work as a clerk before, Mr. Nowell? A. Some years ago, yes.
Q. Where? A. On a United States Health project.
Q. Will you tell us when and where you performed that work? A. That was 1937—part of 1936 and 1937 in (T–3487) Detroit, Michigan.
Q. Part of the year 1936; was it the latter part of 1936? A. The latter part of 1936 and the first of 1937.
Q. That was a WPA project, was it not? A. That is correct.
Q. And you worked there as a coder? A. As a coder.
Q. What did you do there as a coder? A. Well, we coded medical case histories.
Q. Will you tell us what that means? A. We put them into a code and that code was shipped, of course. I don’t know whether we translated it.
Mr. Sacher: I can’t hear the witness, your Honor.
The Court: Well, it is a little difficult for me to hear him, too.
Just try to keep your voice up a little bit.
The Witness: Surely.
The Court: I think what Mr. Isserman is trying to have you explain is what is this coding. You see, you know what it is but none of the rest of us do.
[*4686]
The Witness: That code is a method of condensed materials. Instead of the actual figures and letters and the writing of the analysis and diagnosis and prognosis, they write it in code. That enables the condensation, the condensation of the material to save space. Then (T–3488) it is shipped elsewhere and the code is translated.
Q. Now specifically in connection with that work which you did on the WPA, what did you yourself do? A. I was a coder.
Q. Well, what did you do? Did you write, did you type or did you dictate? What did you do?
Mr. McGohey: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
You understand what Mr. Isserman is asking you?
The Witness: I understand it.
A. As a coder I wrote code. You have a manual, you select the appropriate code, and you use it to spell out the data in the case histories. You turn that code sheet in to your supervisor and the supervisor compiles these in book form and they are stored away.
Q. And in making this compilation did you use a type–writer or did you write in longhand? A. No, I wrote long–hand.
Q. How long did you do this work? About how many months? A. Oh, I should say about four, five months.
Q. Did you work at it full time? A. Yes, full time.
Q. Now wasn’t it in 1936 that you started to work with United Automobile Workers Union A.F. of L? A. No, it was not in ’36.
The Court: Keep your voice up.
(T–3489) Q. When was that? A. It was in ’37.
Q. And that was with a man named Homer Martin? A. That is correct.
Q. That is not a CIO union, is it? A. That is UAW CIO.
Q. And did you while working there—I am sorry—did you while working with that union work in an automobile plant? A. I was not in the plant at the time.
[*4687]
Q. How long did you work with Homer Martin? A. From July ’37 until the latter part of ’38—about the end of ’38 I believe.
Q. And in that period from the latter end of 1937 to 1938 did you work in any automobile plant? A. No, not during that period. I spent full time as a labor organizer.
The Court: What is that?
The Witness: Not during that period.
Q. Did you at any time after that commence working in an automobile plant? A. I did.
Q. And when was that? A. The latter part of ’39, around the first of 1940.
Q. And in what plant did you work? A. Ford Motor Company.
Q. How long did you work for the Ford Motor Company in this stretch of employment? A. Up to 1944.
(T–3490) Q. Did you work continuously from 1939 to 1944 at the Ford Motor plant? A. I did.
Q. There was an organizing strike there in 1941, wasn’t there? A. There was.
Q. You continued to work during that strike?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. No, I did not.
The Court: Sustained. Strike out the answer.
Q. That was not the first time you worked for the Ford Motor Company, was it? A. No, it was not.
Q. When did you start working for the Ford Motor Company? A. In 1928 or ’29.
Q. Were you working for the Ford Motor Company when you joined the Communist Party in 1929? A. I believe so.
Q. Were you a member of a union when you worked for the Ford Motor Company in 1929?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
A. I later joined—
The Court: Sustained.
* * *
[*4688]
Q. You testified that Mr. Stachel, after being organizer (T–3491) in—for the Communist Party in Detroit, left Detroit, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. Didn’t you testify that he left to take over some trade union work? A. He told me that he was going to take over trade union work.
Q. Didn’t you know that he went to New York to take over trade union work?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did he do trade union work in an organization of which you were a member?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
* * *
The Witness: You mean Mr. Stachel?
Q. That is right.
The Court: This refers to the period after Mr. Stachel left Detroit?
Mr. Isserman: That is correct.
A. I presume he did. I saw him at trade union conferences prior to that.
Q. Weren’t you both members of the Trade Union Unity League? A. Yes, we were.
Q. Didn’t he go to New York to become the assistant (T–3492) to the secretary of that League?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Mr. Stachel told me he was going to New York to take charge of the Party Trade Union, that is, the Trade Union—Trade Union Commission or Committee of the Central Committee, which wasn’t the TUUL.
Q. Mr. Foster was the head of the TUUL, wasn’t he? A. I believe he was at the time.
[*4689]
Q. Isn’t it a fact that in 1930, December 1930, Mr. Stachel went to New York to become the assistant of Mr. Foster in the Trade Union Unity League? Isn’t that the fact? A. I cannot be sure about that. What I understood was that his assignment was with the Central Committee on trade union affairs.
Q. Weren’t you — A. It is quite possible that he did, but the matters we were discussing were internal policy matters not relating to TUUL.
Q. Weren’t you a member of the National Committee of this Trade Union Unity League? A. I was.
Q. Wasn’t that in the period 1930–1931? A. It was.
Q. Didn’t you know, as a member of the National Committee that Mr. Stachel became the assistant to Mr. Foster in December 1930? A. I later learned that he did. We did not (T–3493) discuss that. We discussed his assignment on the Central Committee.
Q. But you did know, as a member of the National Committee of the Trade Union Unity League that Mr. Stachel was working in that League as assistant to Mr. Foster? A. I did, later, yes.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that Mr. Stachel took on those duties in December 1930? A. It is possible that he did. I could not be sure about that.
Q. As far as your recollection— A. As far as my recollection is concerned, it was the early part of 1931.
Q. How early, January? A. It followed the Plenum of the Central Committee of that year.
Q. Can you fix in point of time when Mr. Stachel took that— A. My best recollection is it was the early part of 1931.
Q. By the early part of 1931 don’t you mean January or February 1931? A. Well—
Mr. McGohey: I object to the form.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What part of the early part of 1931, was this, Mr. Nowell? A. I had in mind about the spring, April—or March or April. The time is not too important, to the best of my recollection, as I remember events as they occurred.
(T–3494) Q. Just a minute, please.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that part of the answer related to the importance of time be stricken.
[*4690]
The Court: Yes, the part about the importance of time will be stricken.
I think all the witness meant was that it did not seem important to him and he did not remember it very well, but I will strike it out anyway.
Q. Well, now, your recollection is not very clear as to whether Mr. Stachel undertook these duties in December, 1930, or early in 1931, is it?
Mr. McGohey: I object to the form, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know where the headquarters of the Trade Union Unity League were? A. I have been there but I don’t know the street or the number.
Q. Were they in Detroit? A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Were they in Detroit? A. No, they were not in Detroit.
Q. Where were they? A. In New York.
Q. And you do know that when Mr. Stachel undertook those duties that he was working in New York, do you not? A. I do.
Q. Were you a member of the Trade Union Unity League when you started working in the Ford plant in 1929 or 1928? (T–3495) A. No, I was not.
Q. Did you become a member of the Trade Union Unity League in that period? A. I did.
The Court: In what period?
Mr. Isserman: In the period of his employment with the Ford Motor Company.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Isserman: Commencing in 1928 or 1929.
Mr. McGohey: Well—
Q. Is your answer still—
The Court: That leaves it pretty vague. I don’t understand what you mean by it myself.
[*4691]
Q. When did you become a member of the Trade Union Unity League? A. In the late fall or late summer 1929.
Q. And did that League—
Mr. Isserman: I withdraw that.
Q. Did you, as a member of that League, do any union organizing work in the Ford Motor Company?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. I did.
The Court: Sustained. Strike out the answer.
Q. Did you disclose your membership in the Trade Union Unity League to the officials of the Ford Motor Company?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
(T–3496) The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know the name of the—I withdraw that.
Q. Your membership in the Trade Union Unity League was through a local union branch, was it not?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know a Mr. William Marshall who worked for the Ford Motor Company? A. I don’t know Mr. William Marshall.
Q. Do you know Mr. Donald Marshall? A. I did know him.
Q. And you worked with Don Marshall in 1939, did you not, when you worked for the Ford Motor Company?
Mr. McGohey: What period, please?
The Court: 1939.
Mr. Isserman: 1939.
A. I did.
Q. And he was in the department of Ford’s known as the Ford Service Department, was he not? A. No, he was not.
Q. Didn’t you work in the Ford Service Department or as a member of that department? A. I did not.
[*4692]
Q. Do you know what the Ford Service Department was? A. I do know what it was.
Q. What was the Ford Service Department?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3497) Mr. Isserman: If your Honor please, may I state my ground for these questions?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Isserman: Testing the credibility of the witness and to lead to the point that he was in fact employed in that special department of Ford’s.
The Court: Well, what of it?
Mr. Isserman: Well, first it goes to his credibility; secondly, it indicates—
The Court: It doesn’t indicate to me that the service department of some automobile concern is something affecting the credibility of the witness.
Mr. Isserman: And secondly, by reason of the nature of that department, on which I would like to state an offer of proof, it will show his animus against the defendants in this case.
The Court: Well, I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Isserman: May I state my offer of proof for the record?
The Court: No, I won’t take any offers of proof. I have had enough of those.
Mr. Gladstein: Excuse me; would your Honor permit me to say something about that service department? I think your Honor is under a misapprehension.
The Court: Possibly so.
(T–3498) Mr. McGohey: Now, your Honor—
Mr. Gladstein: I just want to state that the service department—
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, the point I raise here is that Mr. Gladstein in his offer to your Honor wants to testify about this service department.
Mr. Gladstein: No.
The Court: Yes; the jury may retire for the moment. I will listen to this.
[*4693]
(The jury leaves the courtroom.)
Mr. Crockett: May I suggest, your Honor, that the witness retire also?
The Court: Yes, he may.
(The witness leaves the courtroom.)
The Court: Now, Mr. Gladstein, what is all this about the service department of the Ford Motor Company?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, your Honor. I have the impression, from the way in which your Honor spoke, that you felt that the service department at the Ford plant was something like a department that repairs parts of an automobile, service parts of an automobile. I got that impression that that was your understanding. Now it so happens that the service department of the Ford plant in Detroit is the name of that agency which the Ford Motor Company used for years to prevent the (T–3499) organization of its workers into a trade union, and the members of that service department were used as labor spies, as provocateurs, and as agents of the corporation to prevent labor organization—
The Court: Well, I am afraid—you see, it seems to me almost impossible to argue some question of law without getting into all this extravagant talk that you always get into. Now you could have said that in a much different way and got the idea over to me; but let us suppose that he was working in such a department as you say.
Mr. Gladstein: Yes.
The Court: Is that something that affects the credibility of the witness?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, and I want to say in that connection that a sub–committee of the United States Senate, which was popularly known as the LaFollette Committee, conducted investigations, among others, into the goings on of this service plant, into the service department of the Ford Motor Company, of which Mr. Harry Bennett, who was in charge of this—
[*4694]
The Court: Well I certainly am not going to go into that.
Mr. Gladstein: No, but, your Honor, let me finish my statement—
(T–3500) The Court: Well, I think I have your point.
Mr. Gladstein: But your Honor hasn’t let me point out to you that the purpose of that senatorial investigation was to ascertain the manner and extent to which the Ford Company, through this department, the service department, interfered with the rights of working men to organize and to bargain collectively, in violation of the laws of the land; and hence any person with knowledge of the character of the service department at Ford’s, who worked with it or cooperated with it in the carrying out of the functions of that department, was definitely involved in preventing the rightful activities of working men to organize and was also actively engaging in a frustration of the laws of the land.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: And I submit that it—
The Court: To sum it all up you say that doing that kind of work is necessarily immoral and affects the credibility of the witness?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes. I submit that a labor spy and a provocateur—
The Court: All right, let me hear from Mr. McGohey.
(T–3501) Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I am conducting the examination. I would like to state what in effect would have been my offer of proof so your Honor can rule.
The Court: Well, I don’t want to hear any offer of proof. I am fed up on those offers of proof. I got so many of those in the early stages of this case that just turned out to be sheer bombast, something wholly lacking in substance, that I am not going to listen to any more. And now let’s hear you on the law.
[*4695]
Mr. Isserman: Before I do that I must object to your Honor’s remarks on any offers of proof made by counsel on any prior occasion.
The Court: Well, the jury isn’t present now and I remember those offers of proof in the most distinct fashion. I never heard anything so fantastic or absolutely without support and every time I think of those jury challenges I just get sick.
Mr. Isserman: I will rest on the record so far as the offers of proof are concerned.
If there is one thing we can show on cross–examination it is the interest and bias that this witness has against the defendants because in connection with his work for the Ford Service Department and during the Ford strike in 1945 he testified against the defendants in an injunction case which included the United Automobile Workers (T–3502) Union and the Communist Party was mentioned in that case. The testimony will show the anti–Communist bias which this witness has and which we say the jury has a right to consider in weighing his testimony.
The Court: Well, let me hear from Mr. McGohey.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, with respect to Mr. Isserman’s argument, he has just said that this witness testified in some injunction proceeding. It is not represented by Mr. Isserman, and I don’t know it as a fact, that any of these defendants on trial now were in any way involved in that injunction suit.
The Court: Well, I frankly, Mr. McGohey, have never heard that because a man was called as a witness to testify to facts which he has observed, that that was something affecting his credibility in some other case. Just because a witness testified, I don’t think that affects his credibility.
Mr. McGohey: I am coming to that, your Honor, the fact that he had testified there. But the point is that because he testified in some other case which, as far as Mr. Isserman’s statement goes, did not involve [*4696] any of the defendants, that he thereby is biased against the defendants is a bit of logic that escapes me.
The Court: And even if that was so it wouldn’t in any way affect his credibility. With respect to this (T–3503) service department in Ford, whatever it was, this witness has answered the question by saying he did not work for this man Marshall and he did not work for the service department.
Mr. McGohey: That is right, he said he did not, and whether he did or did not is certainly a collateral issue in this case and any testimony further along that line is irrelevant to any issue in this case. I submit the objection is well taken and the Court’s ruling sustaining the objection is sound and I ask your Honor please to adhere to the ruling.
Mr. Isserman: The Court must agree that we are not bound by the answer of a witness on cross–examination but may continue the cross–examination.
The Court: There is a rule on cross–examination that if you get a negative answer on a collateral issue you must stop there. You start a collateral issue, you get a statement on something entirely collateral to the issues, you get a negative answer, and then if you are permitted to follow that further the trial gets into an interminable mess. That is the rule that Mr. McGohey is relying on, isn’t that right?
Mr. McGohey: It is.
The Court: I never thought there was any doubt about it.
(T–3504) Mr. Isserman: May I conclude—
The Court: The point is you ask a question on cross–examination. He says no. You say that is the beginning. Mr. McGohey says that is the end and I agree with him. You just can’t continue examining on a collateral issue indefinitely that way.
Mr. Isserman: Certainly we should have an opportunity to show the witness isn’t telling the truth. One of the objects of cross–examination is to show that and to show his bias.
[*4697]
The Court: Let’s hear what Mr. Dennis has to contribute.
Mr. Dennis: It seems to me, your Honor, that the question being raised here in respect to this witness is a matter of extreme importance. It goes to his credibility and to the credibility of anyone who is an informer, a stool pigeon, whether he works—
The Court: Ah, there goes that informer and stool pigeon. Where do you get that “stool piegon’ from?
Mr. Dennis: I will be glad to make it clear.
The Court: I thought you were referring to testimony that we have already had, not what you are going to say about something you are going to prove. That is not proper.
Mr. Dennis: I am sure Mr. Isserman is allowed (T–3505) to continue his questioning.
The Court: All right, go ahead, tell me about the stool pigeon.
Mr. Dennis: Well, it seems to me, your Honor, that even the Court must take into account that a person who, let us say, works for a Pinkerton Detective Agency and testifies against trade unionists surely cannot be considered an unbiased witness. Nor for that matter could any FBI agent. They are not impartial observers. They are sent into unions, they are sent into workers’ organizations, like our Party, the Communist Party, with a purpose to distort and disrupt and, in fact, to attempt to destroy our organization.
The Court: How are you going to detect crooks and criminals if you don’t have detectives and persons to watch them?
You say that an FBI man is a stool pigeon and a spy and therefore not to be believed?
Mr. Dennis: Apropos of that point I think a very eminent jurist, ex–Attorney General Homer Cummings, made some very pertinent remarks in respect to Mr. Edgar Hoover and the Department of Justice as to their nefarious role during the Palmer raids some 30 years ago, and Mr. Cummings pointed out that the FBI agents who acted there acted not [*4698] as observers but as provocateurs, (T–3506) and I think if we go further here and see the variety of witnesses which the prosecution has said they are going to bring, we will see that they are really bringing one variety, no matter what particular individual is brought, they are all scraped out of one barrel.
The Court: You call these FBI men stool pigeons?
Mr. Dennis: I beg your pardon?
The Court: You call these FBI men stool pigeons?
Mr. Dennis: As far as FBI agents are concerned they are sworn enemies of the Communist Party, of trade unions, of other people’s organizations.
The Court: Are they stool pigeons?
Mr. Dennis: In that sense they are, and I would just conclude—
The Court: I am afraid it is just the old story. We get something started here and it just winds up in the air with a lot of talk about stool pigeons and spies and renegades and Judases. Just a waste of time.
Mr. Dennis: I would just conclude on this point, your Honor: That the testimony of a labor spy, a provocateur, no matter whom he is working for, whether it is a private organization or a governmental agency, has no validity any more than the testimony of the gestapo agent who testified against a Dimitroff—
The Court: You wouldn’t believe him. I think (T–3507) the time to sum up to the jury about the stool pigeons and whether they are to be believed or not and whether the FBI men are to be believed will come later. I don’t consider this legal argument on questions of admission of evidence.
Let’s have your final argument, Mr. Gladstein, and then we will call the jury back.
Mr. Gladstein: I want to argue on something your Honor raised as to whether an FBI agent can be regarded as a stool pigeon.
When a person, no matter whom he works for, goes into an organization of workers, trade unions, [*4699] for example, for the purpose of spying on their activities and bringing the results of that espionage back in a way or in a form which enables employers to use such information against the interests of working men, that person, that labor spy is definitely a stool pigeon, a provocateur, and absolutely unworthy of any credence even though he may be on the payroll of the United States.
The reason I say this, your Honor, is this: Your Honor probably is not familiar with the reports of the LaFollette Committee, which reports unearthed a great deal of evidence to show that not only have employers throughout the country used their own stool pigeons on their own payroll to filter into trade organizations, (T–3508) union organizations, and break them up, but also that FBI agents have done that very same thing. And I say it is an even worse offense, it is a worse crime on the part of a person on the payroll of our government than it is when the employer uses a mere Pinkerton because everybody knows that that is what they do.
The Court: Let me ask you this. The witness was asked whether he worked for the service department and he said he didn’t. Do you take the position that Mr. Isserman takes that when you get a negative answer on collateral matter, that you may continue cross–examining? Didn’t you ever hear of that rule?
Mr. Gladstein: I don’t want to plead ignorance of any rules, even though I have not had occasion to think much about those rules in the last couple of weeks.
The Court: If that is one of those mild darts, it failed to meet its mark.
Mr. Gladstein: It is in fond memory and reverence of rules that used to be applicable.
(T–3509) But, however, and this I think your Honor will concede, that in cross–examination one is entitled to press for an answer and not take no for an answer the first time, to seek to reveal what the truth is otherwise. I give you an illustration that happened in this very case when Mr. Budenz was on the stand—
[*4700]
The Court: Ah!
Mr. Gladstein: I just want to point out what would have happened if your Honor would not have let me continue on the theory that there was a collateral matter—
The Court: I don’t think I want to hear about that illustration from Mr. Budenz. Let us get the jury back here. I understand.
Mr. Sacher: I have one, since your Honor is asking for legal arguments. I would like to make a brief observation on that score. In the first place, I think that the evidence has been stricken from the record as to whether he did or did not work in the service department. I think Mr. McGohey made that objection to it and your Honor sustained that and struck the answer. Be that as it may—
The Court: But that is important.
Mr. Sacher: All right.
The Court: If that is so, why, then, I am going to allow the question, but let’s find out. Let us find (T–3510) out.
If you will get back to where—is that reporter gone?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
The Court: It is the most amazing thing. He is always the one who has just gone.
But I will let him answer the question once more to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Sacher: But I wish to submit that I think there is a misconception on your Honor’s part of the significance of the rule in regard to collateral matters. That rule is simply this, as I understand it, that when you interrogate on cross–examination in regard to collateral matters you may not, on the defendants’ case or the plaintiff’s case, whichever the one may be, introduce evidence to contradict the testimony of the witness in regard to collateral matter.
The Court: No; it further holds that you may not pursue the inquiry. The reason is obvious—
Mr. Sacher: No, no.
[*4701]
The Court: —because you go on and on and there is never any end. Those are collateral matters we are talking about.
Mr. Sacher: I am talking about precisely collateral matters and I think Mr. Gladstein has stated (T–3511) the rule correctly when he says that the cross–examiner is not bound in the first instance to accept no for an answer. As a matter of fact, in many instances the ultimate question is put to the witness on cross–examination with a view to getting a false answer from him and then, under questioning, that answer, by the details which are then called to his attention—
The Court: If that is what you are up to there is a very good reason for me to put a stop to it.
Mr. Sacher: No, your Honor, you are—you are just stopping—if that be the assignment of the reason on your Honor’s part, then I can simply say that the design of the ruling is to simply prevent the eliciting of the facts from this witness, and I wish to submit that—
The Court: You may just as well throw that charge against me in with the others.
Mr. Sacher: But, your Honor—
The Court: I have no intention of excluding the truth here at all.
Mr. Sacher: Very well. Then I wish to make this point, that the spying that has been spoken of, and I do not intend to elaborate on it, is not merely an immoral act, and that in itself would be sufficient to justify the pursuit of the inquiry, but it is an illegal act under the National Labor Relations Act, (T–3512) even under the Taft–Hartley Law, and I respectfully submit that an inquiry into illegal conduct on the part of a witness is one of the most traditional, one of the most effective, and one of the most sacrosanct rights of cross–examination and no stopping of it, at the threshold of cross–examination, can possibly be justified on any theory that there is a rule which says that you are bound by the first answer of a witness on cross–examination, designed to test his credibility.
[*4702]
The Court: I think perhaps we had better hear from Mr. Crockett now and Mr. McCabe, and then we will get the jury back.
Mr. Crockett: I have only one observation to make, your Honor. I submit that the question of the credibility of a witness is never a collateral issue.
Mr. McCabe: I would like to point out just this, your Honor: Your Honor seemed to indicate that when Mr. Isserman asked this man the direct question, whether he was in the Ford service department, and the witness answers no, that we are bound by that. I submit that that—that answer of the witness, no, is to a certain extent a conclusion and is beyond—
The Court: Let me see if I get that: the question is, “Did you work in the service department of the Ford Motor Company?”
(T–3513) Mr. McCabe: Yes.
The Court: And he says No.
Mr. McCabe: He says No.
The Court: You say that is not testifying to a fact; that is a conclusion?
Mr. McCabe: I submit that we are permitted to follow it up by saying, “Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Witness, didn’t you do thus and so?” And if he says—knowing that we probably know that he did it—says, “Well, yes, I did that,” “Now, do you mean to say that was not working for the Ford service department?” I think we are entitled to pursue that line of questioning beyond his negative answer because your Honor is perfectly familiar with the fact that witnesses often give a negative answer and then, when their recollection is prodded a little bit, they recall first a little bit and then a little bit more, and finally they are exposed as having, either deliberately or unwittingly, given a wrong answer to the question.
The Court: Do you say, Mr. McCabe, that it already appears that this witness is a spy and a stoolpigeon?
Mr. McCabe: That it already appears?
The Court: Yes.
(T–3514) Now, the answer is yes, or the answer is no.
[*4703]
Mr. McCabe: Well, I would want to go over his testimony.
The Court: You don’t want to say?
Mr. McCabe: I would want to go over the testimony very carefully before I would characterize it. I think there is a degree by which a person slips gradually down and down from the category of a disappointed person into the category of a stoolpigeon.
The Court: I thought from what Mr. Dennis said that it was claimed that he was certainly already exposed to the world as a spy and a stoolpigeon. Now you won’t even say yes to that. Now, do you doubt that?
Mr. McCabe: As to his being a spy and stoolpigeon?
The Court: No, no, whether it already appears. Because, if it already appears, then, after all, that might make some difference. You don’t want to say?
Mr. McCabe: I would not want to categorize his present status from the testimony as having reached that stage of exposure which would warrant—
The Court: All right. Let me tell you gentlemen something. You think you are helping your clients by all this talk about spies, stoolpigeons, renegades, (T–3515) Judases and so on. I have grave doubt in my mind whether you are helping your clients by doing that, but that is up to you.
Now we will call the jury back.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please—
Mr. Isserman: I don’t have the delicacy of balance that Mr. McCabe has. I believe that this witness has already indicated that he is a stoolpigeon quite clearly.
The Court: All right.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, Mr. Gladstein made a very impassioned argument about the characterization of FBI agents as labor spies. I say that the record in this case belies that. Those questions were put directly to the two agents who testified, and each of them testified that the meeting [*4704] at which—concerning which they testified, was a labor meeting, and when asked directly did they attend any meetings of strikers at the Ford plant or the General Motors plant, or any other strike meetings, the answer directly and immediately was “No.” And there is not one scintilla of evidence in this case that any FBI agent has acted as a labor spy, and the record should be perfectly clear on that. Nothing that Mr. Gladstein said about that is justified by any words in this record.
(T–3516) Mr. Gladstein: Your Honor, I offered to send to Mr. McGohey a copy of the LaFollette Committee report along with the copy that I offered—
The Court: We all thought you were talking about this case.
Mr. Gladstein: This case is included, your Honor, yes.
The Court: We are not to be guided by what was said there but what we here hear from the witness stand, and Mr. McGohey is absolutely right, every time those men were questioned on the subject of whether they spied upon labor meetings, they said no, that they did not; they went there to observe the activities of the Communists and they came in here and testified as to what they heard and what they saw, and it is for the jury to say.
Mr. Gladstein: I have a pretty good recollection—
The Court: When you get to your summation you may call these FBI men spies, and you may call them whatever you choose, as bearing on their credibility, and then, if it ever goes to the jury, which is something I will decide later, at the appropriate time, why, then, you will have your occasion to do all your talking about credibility.
Let us call the jury back.
Mr. Crockett: I recall, your Honor, that I was the one who cross–examined the FBI agents, and I (T–3517) will state for the record that my recollection of the nature of the meetings that they attended, as brought out by their testimony, is not in accord [*4705] with what seemingly is the recollection of Mr. McGohey and your Honor.
The Court: Let us let it drop there and call the jury back.
Mr. McGohey: Just one moment, before the jury comes back. On this question that Mr. Sacher raised as to whether or not the question has been answered, I am quite certain that what your Honor will find is this, that I made an objection, but before the objection was completed, and certainly before your Honor had ruled on it, the witness answered on the record that he was not employed in the service department.
The Court: Yes, but Mr. Sacher’s point was that I then sustained the objection and struck out the answer.
Mr. McGohey: I am coming to that, your Honor. There were two instances where the answer was made, or maybe more than two, but two I am sure of, where the answer was made before your Honor ruled on it, and one of them you did strike out, but I am certain, I am quite certain, and I think the record will bear me out, that with respect to whether or not he was employed (T–3517–A) in the service department the answer was made before the ruling and that your Honor did not order it stricken.
The Court: Let us hear what he said.
Mr. McGohey: And I think the stenographer is here.
Mr. Sacher: I haven’t rested my argument on whether it is or not.
(T–3518) The Court: Well, that is all right, Mr. Sacher, anybody can be mistaken about it. We will hear what the reporter says.
The Reporter: The notes are upstairs. Your Honor, I will see that the record is brought down right now.
* * *
(The jury returned to the courtroom at 11.20 a. m.)
(The witness resumes the witness stand.)
[*4706]
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Mr. Nowell, when you started working again for the Ford Motor Company in 1939, what were your duties? A. I began—I went back to my old job as press operator.
Q. Punch press operator? A. Yes, punch—stamping press.
Q. And was that department 131? A. 131, I believe.
Q. And how long did you remain at that particular punch press work? A. I remained there for about three months—three or four months.
Q. And what was the next work you did in the Ford Motor Company? A. Then I became ill. In the meantime (T–3519) several Communists in the department, in collusion with the superintendent and foreman—
Q. I am asking you what your duties were. What were your duties after you worked for three months as a punch press operator?
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I submit that the question was “What did you do?”
Mr. Isserman: No. I referred to his duties, and the answer was wholly unresponsive. It is very clear—
The Court: I will let it continue.
(To witness) Continue your answer.
A. (Continuing) I had become ill and I was having difficulty with a number of Communists in the department there who, in collusion with the pro–Communist foreman—
Mr. Isserman: I object to that and ask that that be stricken, your Honor, no foundation laid.
The Court: Did you say you were having some trouble with some Communists?
The Witness: Communists.
The Court: Well, leave out the part about the “collusion” and tell us the rest.
Mr. Isserman: I object to the Court’s question.
The Witness: Well,—
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Isserman: I object to the Court’s question.
(T–3520) The Court: Well, put it back in.
Mr. Isserman: I object to your Honor’s ruling.
[*4707]
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Isserman: And to your Honor’s conduct in determining the rules of evidence by whether or not I object to a question.
The Court: Well, you can’t object both ways, you know.
Now go ahead.
Mr. Isserman: I must except again to your Honor’s ruling.
The Court: Very well.
Now go ahead.
A. (Continued) I asked for a vacation because—I explained this difficulty to the employment office. There was no one else to explain it to.
Q. To whom in the employment office—
The Court: You continue your answer.
And just wait a minute, Mr. Isserman.
Continue your answer.
A. (Continued) I explained it to Willis Ward and Donald Marshall. I requested a leave of absence. I told them I was not feeling well and I said to them that “It is obvious to me that there is some collusion between the foreman there and some people whom I know are members of (T–3521) the Party and are hostile to me”—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor.
A. —“because I am”—
Mr. Sacher: Just a moment. I object to all this, being purely hearsay and unresponsive to the question and not binding on anybody.
The Court: Well, what are you working up to? What did you do next?
The Witness: He asked me why did I leave and what were my duties.
Mr. Isserman: I am sorry, I did not ask the witness why he left, your Honor.
The Court: All right, then that—
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, I have a motion. I move to strike the testimony up to this point in this answer.
[*4708]
The Court: Motion denied. Ask the next question.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to ask the same question.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. What did you do? What duties did you perform in the plant after you worked on a punch press for three months? A. Mr. Marshall took me, hired me as a clerk in the Social Welfare Department.
What was Mr. Marshall’s position? A. He was an (T–3522) assistant employment manager.
Q. And what was Mr. Ward’s position? A. An assistant employment manager.
Q. And they both worked directly under Mr. Harry Bennett?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. They did not.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to make an offer of proof as to Mr. Bennett.
The Court: I do not want any offer of proof. I am not going into all these affairs as to the Ford Motor Company, as to various positions and various things of that sort. Now pursue this inquiry.
The Reporter: Your Honor, I have my notes here now. They were just sent down.
The Court: All right, let us hear it.
(Record read as follows:)
“Q. Didn’t you work in the Ford Service Department or as a member of that department? A. I did not.
“Q. Do you know what the Ford Service Department”—
The Court: All right, that is enough; Mr. McGohey was right in his recollection.
[*4709]
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Now how long did you work as a clerk in the (T–3523) Social Welfare Department? A. It was some time in 1941. I don’t remember the exact month.
Q. And what were your duties as a clerk in the Social Welfare Department? A. Well, filing, sorting, answering the phone—the usual clerical work.
Q. And how long did you work as a clerk in that capacity? A. From the first of the middle of 1940 to sometimes in 1941, near 1942.
Q. You hadn’t remembered that job as a clerk when you testified this morning as to what other clerical work you had done, had you? A. I wasn’t asked, if you recall.
Q. Your recollection now is that I hadn’t asked you where else you worked?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What duties did you perform in 1941 after ceasing to be a clerk in the Social Welfare Department? A. I was transferred directly to employment.
Q. To the employment office? A. That is right.
Q. Directly under Mr. Marshall? A. Directly under Mr. Marshall.
Q. Was that before the strike of 1941 or after the strike? A. That was after the strike.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3524) Q. Now because of your transfer or the reasons for your transfer from the punch press work you had—you voiced a complaint against the Communists in your department there, didn’t you?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. I voiced a complaint—
Mr. McGohey: Please; objection.
The Witness: I am sorry.
Mr. McGohey: Has your Honor ruled on it?
The Court: I haven’t ruled yet. If it relates to the matter that he was testifying to a moment ago I will allow it.
[*4710]
Mr. Isserman: That is what it relates to.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
A. I did not say that they were Communists. I said that—
The Court: The question is whether you made a complaint.
The Witness: I made a complaint, surely.
Q. Against men whom you believed to be Communists? A. Personally I believed—in fact, I know they were Communists.
Q. And you made a complaint against them because you couldn’t do your work because of them, is that your story? A. Because they were interfering, in attempting to intimidate and dropping things on me—
(T–3525) Q. Is that the reason—
The Court: Wait a minute—attempting to do what?
The Witness: Well, they were attempting to drop things out of cranes on me and push things off stock piles and all that sort of thing.
Q. And you saw them do it? A. Saw them? Most certainly I did.
Q. And you developed an ill feeling against Communists because of that, didn’t you?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled. You may answer.
A. No, I didn’t develop any personal ill feeling. The matter was any sane person would not want a stock pile pushed over on him.
Q. But you did have ill feeling, whether it was personal or against Communists in general? A. An ill feeling is subjective.
Q. And did you have it? A. As a matter of principle a person doesn’t want to be hurt.
Q. And you say you did not give the names of these men to Mr. Marshall or Mr. Ward or Mr. Bennett, is that true? A. I didn’t know their names. I knew them when I saw them.
[*4711]
Q. Didn’t you in the course of your work for the Ford (T–3526) Motor Company since 1939 supply information about employees in the plant to Mr. Marshall and Mr. Ward?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: You mean about these men—
Mr. Isserman: These and others.
The Court: —that he said attempted to hurt him? I will allow him to say whether he reported that incident.
Mr. McGohey: Yes, but the question is “those and others.”
The Court: Yes, better reframe the question.
Q. Didn’t you give information concerning these men in your department 131, either by name or badge number, to Mr. Marshall or Mr. Ward? A. No, I did not.
Q. Didn’t you give information about persons whom you believed to be Communists in the plant between 1931 and 1941—
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
Q. —to Mr. Marshall or to Mr. Ward?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. I did not.
The Court: Yes, I sustain the objection; strike out the answer.
Q. Were you working in the Ford plant in the fall of 1941? A. I was.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that you, during the strike in the (T–3527) Ford plant in 1941, were assigned the duties at the gate of the factory—at one of the gates of the factory?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Didn’t you during the strike point out to officials of the Ford Company strikers who you believed to be Communists?
[*4712]
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
* * *
(Short recess.)
(T–3531) By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Now Mr. Nowell, your work in the Social Welfare Department took you around the whole plant, did it not? A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. But it did, didn’t it? A. No.
Q. It took you to parts of the plant? A. No, it didn’t ever take me to outside the plant at all.
Mr. Isserman: I didn’t get that answer.
The Court: He said it never took him outside the plant at all.
A. (Continued) Or into the plant. It was confined to the offices there.
Q. When you said “not necessarily,” you meant never; is that right? A. Well, yes, never.
Q. Now wasn’t part of your—I withdraw that.
Q. The employment department was also known as the personnel department, was it not? A. No, it was known as the employment department.
Q. And was there a separate personnel department? A. Personnel controlled employment, but it wasn’t known by the same name, of course.
Q. And employment was part of the personnel department? A. It was controlled, I should say. I think that is the better way to put it, because I think that is what it was.
(T–3532) Q. And isn’t it true that the personnel department, as the name implies, concerns itself with the persons working in the plant? A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Well, what do you— A. The personnel department is concerned with supervision, the hiring and supervising of officials in the plant, the superintendents—in fact, the personnel division did not concern itself directly with foremen. It was only star men—superintendents, from superintendents up.
Below that the superintendents had certain authorities regards foremen.
The personnel never went into that at all.
[*4713]
(T–3533) Q. What did employment go into, employment department? A. Employment was concerned with employing people.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Didn’t you just ask him that a few moments ago?
Mr. Isserman: I am trying to get a distinction between personnel and employment.
The Witness: There is a relationship.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. What were your particular duties in the social welfare department? A. You asked that and I answered that.
Q. You said you filed some material and worked on files of various kind? A. Yes, I did.
Q. What kind of material were in those files? A. Those were records—
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Wasn’t it part of your job for the social welfare department to supply information to the employment department about employes in the plant?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that you supply information about employes in the plant to the employment department?
(T–3534) Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. In 1941 and before that, from 1939 didn’t you supply information about Communists in the plant to representatives or officials of the company?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You testified on behalf of the company, did you not, in an injunction suit brought against the Automobile [*4714] Workers Union CIO and in which the Communist Party was named?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Let me hear the question.
Q. (Read.)
The Court: I will sustain the objection to the question in that form.
Q. You testified in a case brought by the Ford Motor Company, injunction suit, in 1941, brought by the Ford Motor Company against the United Automobile Workers CIO and the Communist Party as defendants, isn’t that so?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Is there certain testimony you want to draw his attention to, Mr. Isserman?
Mr. Isserman: Now, I want to bring out the fact of his testimony and the fact of his supplying information.
(T–3535) The Court: I will sustain the objection. If you have any testimony that you claim is contradictory to anything he said I will allow it.
Mr. Isserman: That isn’t my purpose. My purpose is to show the witness’s bias against the Communist Party and the defendants.
The Court: You say that certain inferences may be drawn from the fact that he was called as a witness. I sustain the objection.
Mr. Isserman: Also it indicates the necessity of supplying information for the people who—
The Court: I can see no inference to be drawn from the fact that he testified as a witness. The mere fact that he testified proves nothing. If you have any testimony that you think is contradictory you may introduce it.
Mr. Isserman: I offer these questions on the credibility of the witness and to show his bias.
The Court: Yes, I sustain the objection.
Q. Now you made some speeches against the Communist Party, did you not? A. I did.
[*4715]
Q. After 1939? A. I did.
Q. They were public speeches, were they not? A. They were.
Q. At meetings? A. At meetings, yes.
(T–3536) Q. And were they meetings conducted by Gerald L. K. Smith? A. Not all of them.
Q. Some of them were, were they not? A. Some of them were.
Q. Didn’t you do research work for Gerald L. K. Smith? A. I looked over his files for him.
Q. And you got paid for doing it? A. Yes.
Q. From him? A. Yes.
Q. And he publicized your name as his race relations adviser, did he not?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that on the platforms when you spoke with Gerald L. K. Smith he introduced you as his race relations adviser?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. That is not true. To the best of my knowledge he has never introduced me as his race relations director.
Q. But you have heard him use that expression in describing your work, haven’t you?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Weren’t you in fact an adviser on race relations to Gerald L. K. Smith? A. No, I was not.
(T–3537) Q. What kind of files did you look over for him?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Weren’t the files that you examined files dealing with union people and members of the Communist Party? A. No.
[*4716]
Q. What was the contents of those files? A. The files I looked over for Smith were mostly newspaper clippings. He wanted to know the most appropriate to be used in speeches. Dealt purely with Communism. There were no names or anything in those files. He asked me to go through them and see what was most appropriate for speeches.
Q. And all these newspaper clippings had no names in them? Is that your testimony? A. There were no names in those clippings—that is, not that I noticed.
Q. How long did you work for Gerald L. K. Smith? A. Oh, I don’t know. Possibly two or three weeks there until I got the files finished and then I quit.
Q. Were your speaking engagements from the same platform with him confined to a period of two or three weeks? A. No; I spoke more than that, longer than that. Perhaps over several months from time to time.
Q. Gerald L. K. Smith was connected with an organization, was he not?
(T–3538) Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Didn’t you speak with Gerald L. K. Smith from the same platform under the auspices of his organization?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, Gerald L. K. Smith was a fascist, was he not?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, I believe it was your testimony that you left the service of the Ford Motor Company in 1929 to take a trip to the Soviet Union, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you apply for leave from your job with the Ford Motor Company for that purpose? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told them where you were going? A. No, I did not.
Q. How much leave did you ask for? A. I believe I asked for a month and a half.
[*4717]
Q. What did you tell them was the reason why you wanted your leave?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I think I told them I was going out of the city, (T–3539) or home, or somewhere. I don’t recall just what I told them.
Q. When you came back you went back to your old job at the Ford plant? A. I did.
Q. Did you not? A. I did.
Q. How long did you continue to work in the Ford plant thereafter? A. Until around April or May, perhaps, 1930.
Q. Isn’t it true that from 1930 down to the time that you returned to the Ford Motor plant in 1939 that you kept in touch with certain officials of the Ford Motor Company? A. It is not true.
Q. Didn’t you supply information in that period to officials of the Ford Motor Company? A. I did not.
Q. Didn’t they know that you were going to the Soviet Union? A. I don’t know whether they knew or not.
Q. When you sought—
The Court: You say you did not tell them you were going?
The Witness: I did not.
Q. When you sought re–employment in 1939 did you fill out an application for employment? A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell them that you had been a member of the Communist Party? A. I did not.
(T–3540) Q. Did you tell them where you had been employed in the ten years last past? A. I did not.
Q. Didn’t they ask you where you had worked before? A. There was a space on the application for previous employment, and my previous employment had been at Dodge Brothers and Chevrolet.
Q. And Ford? A. And Ford.
Q. And you did not put down your employment with the Communist Party? A. I don’t recall that I did, no. I am sure I did not. In fact, they knew I had been in the Communist Party.
The Court: What is that?
[*4718]
Q. Who knew it when you applied?
The Court: I did not hear what you said.
The Witness: He is interrupting there.
The Court: But that is all right. Don’t you pay attention to him for the moment. I am here too. But tell me what you said there, because I didn’t hear it.
The Witness: I said they probably knew that I had been a member of the Communist Party because it was well known throughout. At least I amend it.
The Court: You did not tell them, anyway, you did not put it down on the blank, did you?
Q. Between the time—
Mr. Isserman: I am sorry. Is the Court asking (T–3541) a question?
The Court: Yes. I say, you did not tell them and you did not put it on the blank, did you?
The Witness: That is right, sir.
Q. But when you first started to answer this question you did not have the word “probably” in it, did you? You said they knew it. A. I said I amended it too. You heard me say I amended it, didn’t you?
Q. And isn’t it a fact you were hired because you had been a member of the Communist Party? A. I don’t know why.
Q. Didn’t you discuss that with Mr. Marshall when you sought employment in 1939? A. I think I said previously that I discussed—do you want to know the whole thing, if that is permissible?
Q. I would like an answer to my question.
* * *
(T–3542) Mr. McGohey: I object to that question.
The Court: All right, I will sustain the objection and strike that answer out.
Q. You had some discussion with Mr. Marshall when you took employment in 1939 in the Ford Motor Company, did you not? A. Let’s see. Yes, I did.
[*4719]
Q. What was that discussion.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Did it have anything to do with Communism?
The Witness: Had nothing to do with Communism.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Isserman: I object to your Honor’s question.
The Court: You see, I thought it was relevant if it did have something to do with Communism, otherwise not.
Q. Well, did it have anything to do with spying in the plant?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, you left the plant in 1942, did you not, the Ford plant, that is? A. 1944, I believe, or thereabouts.
Q. Didn’t you leave when Mr. Bennett ceased to be employed in the personnel department—
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
Q. —of the Ford Motor Company?
(T–3543) The Court: Sustained.
Q. What occupation did you go into in 1944 when you left the Ford Motor Company? A. I worked for Pontiac Sales, Fort Pontiac.
Q. Selling motor cars? A. No, I was working there generally as a helper.
Q. Working how? A. Working in the stockroom.
Q. As a clerk? A. No, no, keeping stock.
Q. How long did you have that employment? A. Possibly four or five months.
Q. Then what happened after that with respect to employment? A. After that I went to work for myself.
Q. What? A. I worked for myself.
Q. In what capacity? A. Well, a friend and I began a decorating business.
[*4720]
Q. Decorating? What kind of decorating? A. Painting, decorating.
Q. Did you do any carpentry work? A. I do carpentry work.
Q. Did you work as a carpenter? A. Not very much then. Mostly painting and paperhanging.
Q. When did you work as a carpenter?
The Court: Mostly painting and what?
The Witness: Painting, paperhanging and so on.
The Court: Painting, paperhanging and so on.
(T–3544) Q. Did you later work as a carpenter? A. I did, later.
Q. Until what time did you do that? A. Up to 19–1947, and 1948.
Q. Up to the time you started to work for the Department of Justice? A. Sometimes later than–no, I held an intermediary job between those.
Q. What was the intermediary job you held? A. I was a stationary fireman.
Q. Where was that, in Washington? A. In Washington, D. C.
Q. At what place? A. At the McReynolds Apartments.
Q. How long did you have that job? A. About five months.
Q. Why did you leave the Ford Motor Company in 1944?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Witness: Do I answer?
The Court: I will allow it.
A. The Communist Party entered into collusion with the company to have certain of us dismissed who were anti–Communists.
Q. Were you one of those persons dismissed for that reason? A. That is right.
Q. And you know that of your own knowledge, don’t you? A. Yes, I know that of my own knowledge.
Q. You are still anti–Communist, aren’t you? A. Certainly, I am an anti–Communist.
Q. Were you an anti–Communist in—
[*4721]
(T–3545) The Court: He says, “Certainly, I am an anti–Communist.”
Mr. Isserman: I heard his answer.
Q. Were you an anti–Communist in 1939 when you testified about your trip to Moscow before the Dies Committee? A. I was.
Q. And you were anti–Communist in 1934 at the Convention of the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party, weren’t you? A. Not fully.
Q. But you were—
Mr. McGohey: I object to that.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection.
Mr. McGohey: I move to strike out the comment.
The Court: I don’t think I heard it.
Mr. Isserman: It is questioning in elaboration of the words “Not fully.”
The Court: Reframe your question.
Q. Isn’t it true that in 1934, when you were at the convention, concerning which you said charges were levied against you, that you were anti–Communist then? A. You are misstating what I said the charges were.
Q. I want an answer to the question. A. I won’t answer that question.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I ask that the witness’s remarks on my question be stricken.
(T–3546) The Court: Motion denied. Ask the next question.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Nowell, that in 1934, at Cleveland, at the convention of the Communist Party, you were anti–Communist? A. No, I was not fully anti–Communist.
Q. But you were partly anti–Communist, weren’t you? A. I had certain disagreements with the Communist Party.
Mr. McGohey: I object.
Q. You were partly anti–Communist, weren’t you?
[*4722]
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I object. I submit that that is twisting the testimony of the witness on direct. He said what his position was.
Mr. Isserman: If the witness says “not fully,” he must mean partly, unless he is using Aesopian language.
The Court: Don’t get excited. You get yourself all worked up.
Mr. Isserman: I am not worked up.
The Court: And you shouldn’t do it. Now, you want to ask him what he means by “not fully”?
Mr. Isserman: That is not my question.
The Court: Well, that is what I thought you were trying to find out.
Mr. Isserman: My question is very simple and I think the witness understands it.
The Court: You asked him if he was anti–(T–3547) Communist—
Mr. Isserman: I asked—
The Court: —and he said not fully. Then he went to explain and you said, “No, no.”
Mr. Isserman: No, that is not so. Then I said, isn’t he partly.
The Court: Well?
Mr. Isserman: That is my question, but I will pass it. I think the answer is obvious.
Mr. McGohey: I move to strike out the characterization about his answer, whether it is obvious or not. He didn’t have any chance to answer.
The Court: I am trying to find out whether it is obvious. As it isn’t obvious to me, I will deny the motion. There is a little fog around me here at the moment, and if Mr. Isserman desires to ask him what he means by not being fully anti–Communist at that time, I will allow it.
Mr. Isserman: Your Honor has sustained the objection to my question, is that correct? Is that the state of the record at this moment? I think this time I am confused.
The Court: Well, I think we are all confused, but not very much so.
[*4723]
Mr. Isserman: No, not on a very serious matter either.
(T–3548) The Court: This is just a minor confusion and if you ask him what he means by not being fully anti–Communist then the confusion will be dissipated.
Mr. Isserman: I don’t think I should ask a question—
The Court: Then don’t do it.
Mr. Isserman: —in the form the Court might want me to, or Mr. McGohey might want to do on redirect.
The Court: I have no desire in the matter at all.
Mr. Isserman: Is there a ruling on my question?
Mr. McGohey: My recollection of the record is that I made an objection and that the Court sustained the objection and suggested that the question be reformed.
The Court: Yes, I think that is so. That is, in effect, sustaining the objection.
Mr. Isserman: Yes, I should think so.
Q. Now, your knowledge about the collusion between the Communist Party and the Ford Motor Company, which cost you your job, is as definite as your knowledge about your acquaintance with Mr. Stachel, is it not?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I will sustain the objection. I don’t remember his saying anything about collusion between the Communist Party and the Ford Motor Company.
Mr. Isserman: May we have the record read (T–3549) back on that?
The Court: No; he said there was some collusion between these fellows that were pushings things over on him—
Mr. Isserman: I must—
The Court: Well, all right.
Mr. Isserman: —respectfully object to your Honor’s remark and ask that the record be read back.
[*4724]
The Court: No, I am not going to have the record—
Mr. Isserman: Just a page or two back of this question.
The Court: No, no, I am not going to have the record read.
Mr. Sacher: I think the Court is wrong about the matter and that the record ought to be read back.
The Court: Well, you know, if I am wrong as many times as you tell me I am, I must be a very bad Judge.
Mr. Sacher: No, that is not the point, but I think that in this instance the record will show it, your Honor.
The Court: This is one time, Mr. Sacher, when the record is not going to be read.
Mr. Isserman: I must respectfully except.
Mr. Sacher: I suspected that.
Mr. Isserman: I am in the position that Mr. McCabe was in some time back.
(T–3550) The Court: Why don’t you go ahead?
Mr. Isserman: I would like to get an answer. My next question is based on the witness’s answer.
The Court: All you have to do is reframe that question and put it. If you don’t care to, Mr. Isserman, why, then, we will just proceed to something else.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I can only frame my next question based on my recollection of the witness’s answer, which doesn’t seem to be clear in view of your Honor’s remark. I would like to have it read back to me so I may continue my cross–examination.
The Court: No, I am not going to have it read back.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to object to your Honor’s refusal to allow me to have read back a question and answer which I put about three minutes ago.
[*4725]
The Court: Yes; it wasn’t three minutes ago. It is some little time ago.
Mr. Isserman: It is about three questions back, in any event.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Mr. Nowell, didn’t you testify a few minutes ago—
The Court: I say it is not three questions back.
Mr. Isserman: I except to your Honor’s’ statement on that. The record will show it.
(T–3551) Q. Mr. Nowell, didn’t you testify a few minutes ago that you lost your job because of collusion between the Communist Party and the Ford Motor Company? A. That is correct.
Q. No question about that in your mind, is there? A. In my mind there is no question.
Q. And you know that as well as the information about Mr. Stachel, concerning which you testified?
Mr. McGohey: I object.
A. I do, sir.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, isn’t it true, Mr. Nowell, that in the first year, that is, the year 1929, when you were in the Communist Party, that the first job you had before you had any other was being a member of the Negro Commission, is that right? A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And you held that job for almost a year before you received another one, isn’t that so? A. No, that is not true.
Q. How long was it before you occupied another official position with the Communist Party? A. It wasn’t more than several weeks. Back of the City Hall in the late part of the summer, I became president of the Anti–Imperialist League.
Q. How long was it after you became a member of the (T–3552) Negro Commission in Detroit that you became [*4726] a member of the District Bureau? A. I became a member of the District Bureau after Stachel came there.
Q. Well now, I want to get the time now. A. I cannot be sure about months because that has been quite a while ago. I do know it happened after he came. I testified yesterday that I had been co–opted to the Bureau.
Q. I am not asking you about being co–opted. I am asking you a simple question, if you can answer it: How long was it after you were a member of the Negro Commission, in point of time, that you became a member of the District Bureau of the Communist Party in Detroit? A. I became a member almost immediately after induction into the Communist Party.
(T–3553) Q. Would you say it was only a matter of a few weeks? A. It wasn’t that long. It was only a matter of about a week, truthfully.
Q. Isn’t it true that it wasn’t until some time in 1930 that you became a member of the District Bureau of the Communist Party? A. That is correct.
Q. You joined the Party in the summer of 1929, did you not? A. I did.
Q. Now as a member of the Negro Commission, what duties did you engage in? A. The Negro Commission’s work was to—and I as head of that Commission, was to—direct organizational activities among colored people.
Q. Did you work on certain problems which were known as special problems of the Negro people? A. Yes, we did.
Q. And what did those problems include on which you worked? A. Well, we worked on the question of discrimination, anti–lynching campaigns—a number of partial demands relating to police brutality and several others.
Q. Did you work on the Scottsboro campaign? A. Yes.
Q. And more relief for the Negro people? A. Yes.
Q. And matters of that kind? A. All those partial demands I agreed with; still agree.
(T–3554) Mr. Isserman: May I have a moment?
The Court: Yes.
Q. Now wasn’t it a fact that you received your place on the District Bureau in the early part of 1930 as a result of an election of members of the Communist Party? A. [*4727] No, it was not. I received my permanent appointment to the District Bureau at an enlarged Bureau meeting in the Party offices at Grand River and Adams Street on the suggestion of Jack Stachel, and I can name the people who were present, or most of them.
Q. Weren’t you elected after he made the suggestion? A. Well, of course, the District—there is no election.
Q. Won’t you answer my question?
Mr. Isserman: I think I am entitled to a yes or no answer.
The Court: You interrupt him when he is in the middle of an answer. He has this way of putting it and then he gets about half way through when you interrupt him.
Mr. Isserman: Your Honor, it is an improper way of putting it and I think the question calls for a yes or no answer.
The Court: You say my way is improper?
Mr. Isserman: No; his way.
(T–3555) The Court: It is not always easy to get everybody to just say yes or no, and I am not going to wear myself out trying to get witnesses to say yes or no.
Mr. Isserman: Except that the witness has indicated he wanders far afield when a yes or no will serve the purpose.
The Court: Let’s have the question.
He says he wasn’t elected; Jack Stachel suggested that they do it and they did it.
Isn’t that what you say?
The Witness: That is essentially correct.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Was that in the form of an election? A. No.
Q. You later became a member of the Secretariat? A. I did.
Q. That was in 1931, was it not? A. To the best of my recollection it was.
Q. Weren’t you elected to the Secretariat by the members of the District Bureau? A. I was appointed long [*4728] before it was taken to the Bureau. The district organizer just appoints folks. The Bureau eventually approves it, perhaps. I was serving on the Secretariat long before the District Bureau ever approved it.
Q. In other words, you say you served on the Secretariat of the Bureau and you were not elected to that position (T–3556) by the members of the Bureau?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What is your testimony as to whether or not you were elected to the Secretariat of the Bureau?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you or were you not elected to the Secretariat of the Bureau?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Isserman: May I have the basis for the Government’s objection, if the Court please?
The Court: He has been over it several times.
Mr. Isserman: I have not received the full answer.
The Court: I don’t want to get into an argument about it. I sustain the objection.
Mr. Isserman: And I wish to call your Honor’s attention I am talking about the Secretariat of the Bureau, not the Bureau itself.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Was it your testimony yesterday that Mr. Stachel appointed you to the Secretariat of the Bureau? A. I didn’t testify to that yesterday.
(T–3557) Q. What did you testify about the Secretariat? A. About the Bureau. I don’t recall testifying about the Secretariat other than perhaps—I am not sure that I testified at all—that is, about the Secretariat, yesterday.
[*4729]
The Court: Other than perhaps what?
The Witness: Perhaps to say that I had been a member of the Secretariat.
Q. What is the Secretariat? A. The Secretariat is a small committee—sub–committee of the District Bureau, that presides between Bureau meetings.
Q. And aren’t members of that elected by the District Bureau? A. Supposed to be.
Q. Weren’t you elected in that way? A. No; I was serving with the Secretariat long before I was approved by the Bureau.
Q. How did you become a member of the Secretariat? A. The district organizer co–opted me.
Q. Did Mr. Stachel tell you to serve on the Secretariat and appoint you to it? A. He did.
Q. That was in 1931? A. 1931.
Q. Don’t you know that Mr. Stachel left Detroit in 1930 to work in New York in the TUUL and wasn’t it there that you were placed on the Secretariat of the Bureau?
Mr. McGohey: I object to the form of the question.
(T–3558) The Court: Sustained.
The Witness: Your Honor—
The Court: I sustained the objection.
The Witness: Just an explanation I wanted to make.
Q. You testified on a number of prior occasions, did you not, about your position on the Secretariat of the Communist Party in Detroit? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you in any of those cases say that Mr. Stachel appointed you to that position? A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Didn’t you testify that you were elected to that position? A. I don’t recall that I did.
Q. But you did not mention the name of Mr. Stachel? A. I did not.
The Court: What is this “co–opted”?
The Witness: That is the inclusion of a member that is not officially elected.
[*4730]
By the Court:
Q. The inclusion of a member who is not officially elected? A. Surely.
Q. They do that in the Communist Party? A. Very often.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that question.
Q. Did they do that in your case? A. They did.
(T–3559) By Mr. Isserman:
Q. And you say that is a practice in the Communist Party? A. We did it very often.
Q. Now you testified in—just one moment.
Mr. Isserman: I am sorry. This is a question which would involve the use of a transcript. I wonder—
The Court: Why don’t you get the page and show it to Mr. McGohey? Perhaps you can get this particular part taken care of.
Mr. Isserman: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: (After examining) I raise no question about it, your Honor.
Q. Now you testified on September 2, 1948, in a case in the Department of Immigration and Naturalization against Alexander Stevens. A. I believe that is correct.
Q. And did you testify about your serving on the Bureau and Secretariat of the Communist Party in Detroit in the same period concerning which you testified here? A. Yes, I believe I did.
Q. I call your attention to the following questions and answers, and ask you if you so testified, reading from page 401:
“Q. Did you hold any other office in the Party? A. In the meantime I was a member of the District Bureau and District Secretariat.
(T–3560) “Q. In what city? A. In Detroit.
“Q. Over what period of time were you a member of those organizations? A. Well, for the Bureau from 1929 to 1934. In the Secretariat from 1931 to 1934.”
[*4731]
On page 402, immediately following:
“Q. How did you become a member of the Bureau and the Secretariat? A. I was elected to the Bureau by the District Committee, that is, the enlarged committee.
“Q. Of the Communist Party? A. Of the Communist Party, along with other members of the Bureau.
“Q. And how did you become a member of the Secretariat? A. I was elected to the Secretariat by the Bureau, the District Bureau.
“Q. And was the Bureau and the Secretariat a part of the Communist Party at that time? A. They were.”
Was that your testimony? A. That is my testimony. In fact, I see nothing contradictory in that testimony and what I have maintained. I was co–opted.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that remark of the witness be stricken.
The Witness: May I be heard, your Honor?
The Court: You just answer the questions. Strike the answer out.
Q. Now this testimony in the Stevens case, September (T–3561) 1948, was not the only time you testified about your being on the Secretariat and Bureau of the Communist Party in the City of Detroit in the general period between 1929 and 1934? A. Are you saying that it wasn’t or are you asking me?
Q. I am asking you whether it was or not. A. No, I don’t think it is the only time. I believe there were other times.
Q. You testified on that subject before the Dies Com–Committee in 1939? A. In believe I did.
Q. You testified in other deportation cases on the same subject? A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. I ask you now whether in these cases you mentioned the fact that Mr. Stachel had co–opted you or appointed you or had anything to do with your serving on either the District Bureau or the Secretariat of the Communist Party of the United States?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: The form isn’t very good but I will allow it.
[*4732]
(To witness) Did you mention Stachel’s name in any of these other proceedings in which you testified?
The Witness: Not as having appointed me to the District Bureau. I may have mentioned it once.
Q. In which case do you think that was? A. I don’t know just which one?
(T–3562) Q. You did testify in 1939 before the Dies Committee of the House of Representatives, did you not? A. I did.
Q. And your testimony covered many of the subjects on which you testified here yesterday, isn’t that true? A. I believe it did.
Q. It covered your two trips to the Soviet Union? A. I think it did.
Q. And your activities in the City of Detroit? A. Surely.
Q. Did you before you testified on these matters before the Dies Committee discuss these matters and give information concerning them to the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you give information concerning the defendant Stachel and your relations with him in the Communist Party in the City of Detroit at any time to the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. No, not Stachel.
Mr. Isserman: May I get that full answer?
(Answer read.)
Q. Did you at any time give any information concerning Stachel and his relationships with you in the Communist Party in the City of Detroit to any investigating agency (T–3563) of the Federal Government?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4733]
Q. Did you confer with representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with your testimony in this case?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I conferred with Mr. Gordon and District Attorney McGohey and the other men around. I don’t know who they were. I presume some of them are members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q. And was your first discussion on this question of the testimony in this case with Mr. Gordon? A. Yes, Mr. Gordon.
Q. You didn’t discuss the matter with anybody else before you talked to Mr. Gordon? A. Certainly not.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
* * *
Q. And when did you have your first discussion with Mr. Gordon? A. My first discussion took place some time before Christmas.
Q. What year? A. I believe, if I remember correctly—
(T–3564) Q. What year? A. 1948.
Q. Did you seek out Mr. Gordon? A. Surely.
* * *
Q. You received in connection with your testimony in this case no request from anyone connected with the Federal Government to come and see Mr. Gordon about your testimony, is that correct?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I have a little difficulty in seeing the point of that, Mr. Isserman. Didn’t he say “Yes, surely” to that last question, that he came around to see Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Isserman: Yes. I would like to know how he got to Mr. Gordon.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw the objection. Let him go into it.
[*4734]
The Court: Now the question is, how did you happen to go and see Mr. Gordon?
The Witness: I received word in Washington through a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I was requested to come to New York and he told me who to contact when I got here. He didn’t go into detail.
(T–3565) Q. And prior to coming here, if I understand your testimony correctly, you made no statement about what your testimony in this case would be, is that correct? A. I made no statement, that is correct.
Q. You did tell Mr. Gordon about Mr. Stachel appointing you to the Secretariat and to the Bureau in Detroit? A. Yes, that is correct, I told him all, the whole story.
Q. Isn’t that the first time you mentioned Mr. Stachel’s connection in getting you appointed to the District Bureau and Secretariat in the City of Detroit in the years on which you testified?
Mr. McGohey: I object to the form.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You never gave that information—I withdraw that.
Q. You never gave that information to any other investigating agency of the Federal Government before you gave that information to Mr. Gordon, is that right?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you at any time prior to your talking to Mr. Gordon make any statement to any agency of the Federal Government concerning Mr. Stachel’s appointing you to the District Bureau and to the Secretariat?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
(T–3566) The Court: Sustained.
Q. You talked about your being on the—I am sorry—you testified about your being on the Bureau, District Bureau of the Communist Party in Detroit, and on the [*4735] Secretariat before the Dies Committee in 1939, did you not? A. I did.
Mr. McGohey: Objection. Repetitious.
The Court: Yes, it is repetitious but he has already answered it.
Mr. Isserman: I am just leading on to the next question.
Q. Did you in that testimony make any reference to Mr. Stachel?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
Q. Concerning your appointment?
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You recall your testimony before the Dies Committee in 1939, do you not? A. Generally, yes.
Q. And didn’t you on that occasion furnish the Committee and read into the record a long list of names of National officers of the Communist Party and of Communist Party officers and members in and around the City of Detroit with whom you had worked in the period 1929 to 1936?
(T–3567) Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You testified before the Dies Committee in 1939 on your activities in the City of Detroit as a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(To Mr. Isserman) Do you have any particular part of the testimony you claim is contradictory?
Mr. Isserman: I have a part but it is ten pages and the answer is in the negative. Now unless I am allowed to ask the question that I am asking I have no way of bringing out the contradition.
The Court: Let me see the ten pages.
Mr. McGohey: What pages?
[*4736]
Mr. Isserman: I will give you the pages in a moment.
Page 7,010.
Mr. McGohey: Will you give us the session?
Mr. Isserman: I will give you the actual session. It is the first session of the Seventy–Sixth Congress, hearings before the Special Committee on un–American Activities, volume 11, embracing hearings between October 28 and December 3, 1939.
I call your Honor’s attention to the first question (T–3568) and answer on page 7,010 and to the subsequent testimony of this witness on the same point which goes to 7,020.
The Court: Top of 7011 is where I start reading?
Mr. Isserman: No, 7010, question by Mr. Whitley, and answer by the witness.
The Court: Yes.
(After reading) I will sustain the objection.
* * *
Mr. Isserman: I would like to have the pages marked for identification.
The Court: You may.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit WW for identification.)
Mr. Isserman: That is, pages 7010 to 7020.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Now you have testified on direct that it was Mr. Stachel with whom you conferred who said that he would arrange to have you sent to the Soviet Union in 1931. That is your testimony, isn’t it? A. You are not wording it quite right but—
Q. You tell me how you word it. A. I think I gave this yesterday. That Stachel (T–3569) mentioned to me my political error after the Seventh Convention. He had discussed with me previously about the new program on the Negro question, told me my speech—because of my speech I was removed from a Panel of prospective Central Committee members, that is, who were going to be pre– [*4737] sented for the election to the Central Committee. Subquently along this same line he told me that I needed to study more to correct my error and so at the plenum when he wasn’t going to return to Detroit he said that he would talk to the Central Committee and he thinks he could get me across, abroad to study so that I could have time to rest up and study and improve my political error.
(T–3570) Q. And that is your best recollection of how you went to the Soviet Union? A. That is my best recollection of how the conversation took place.
The Court: What is that—remove your political error? I did not hear that word that you put in there. Was it “prove” your political error?
The Reporter: “Improve my political error.”
Mr. Gordon: No.
The Witness: I don’t think I used that word.
The Reporter: “Improve.”
The Court: I thought he said “correct.” Well anyway, it was “improve” or “correct” your political error?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Now you say that you came from Detroit with Mr. Stachel in 1931 to attend that session of the Communist Party Central Committee in New York? A. August 1931—mind you, I am sticking to the succession of events I mentioned yesterday—
Q. Well, I don’t want to know what you mentioned yesterday. I have asked you— A. Let me finish.
Mr. Isserman: I have asked this witness, if your Honor please, a simple question and I ask for a simple answer. The question is whether or not Mr. Stachel went on a train to the Central Committee meeting in New York with Mr. Nowell in 1931. Now there is no problem about (T–3571) that question.
The Court: Do you understand that question?
The Witness: I understand that question.
The Court: All right. Is that the one you were explaining about a minute ago, or is this another one?
[*4738]
The Witness: No, your Honor, he included this 1931, continuing—you see, in my testimony yesterday I mentioned that the best of my recollection was that Stachel left the district in 1931, the early part of 1931. What I am sticking to here is the succession of events. He left the district at that Plenum and did not return, and that is what I was mentioning to him.
The Court: You know, it is a funny thing, but as I listen to you I don’t understand yet what it is that you are explaining.
The Witness: Well, of course he is imposing—
The Court: I know but—
Mr. Isserman: Now if the Court please, I think the witness should try to answer without disparaging counsel.
The Court: All right, go on.
Mr. Isserman: I don’t object to the Court’s question, but I object to the witness’s remarks.
The Court: Well, I don’t know what you people are talking about, and so it seems to me, Mr. Isserman—it may be if I don’t understand what he is talking about, (T–3572) maybe the jury doesn’t.
Mr. Isserman: Well, I don’t understand either what he is talking about.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Isserman: But instead of trying to give an answer he is talking about perhaps I am trying to confuse him; I am not.
The Court: Well, if there is something to explain Mr. McGohey can bring it out on redirect examination, so we will just go ahead with the next question.
Q. Now I would like an answer to my question, as to whether or not it wasn’t your testimony that Mr. Stachel came with you on a train from Detroit in 1931 to attend the Central Committee meeting of the Communist Party concerning which you testified yesterday. Now did he or didn’t he? A. You are asking two questions.
[*4739]
Mr. Isserman: I am asking one question, your Honor.
The Court: He is asking about eight questions. They are all in there together. You have to think of 1931; you have to think of the train, Mr. Stachel on the train, what meeting he was going to and so on. Now either you know the answer or you don’t, and if you don’t know it you can say so.
Mr. Isserman: Well, that was his testimony (T–3573) yesterday, your Honor.
Mr. McGohey: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I don’t see why you put so much in a question, Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Isserman: All right, I will try to do it with ABCs.
The Court: Just put one little fact here instead of eight of them.
Mr. Isserman: I will give him one little fact at a time.
The Court: All right.
Q. You were in Detroit working with the Communist Party in 1931, were you not? A. That is right, yes.
Q. And you did leave from Detroit to go to a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party early in 1931? A. I did.
Q. And you testified about that yesterday, did you not? A. I did.
Q. And didn’t you testify also that you went to that meeting on a train accompanied by Mr. Stachel? A. I did not.
Q. Is that your best recollection of your testimony yesterday? A. I remember distinctly I did not say that I went to this meeting on a train with Mr. Stachel.
Q. All right. Did you take any train trip (T–3574) with Mr. Stachel in that early period in 1931? A. I—beg pardon?
Q. What is that? A. Go ahead, I cut you off; proceed with your question.
Mr. Isserman: May the question be repeated?
[*4740]
Q. (Read.)
The Court: Now where are we? Are you waiting for something, Mr. Nowell?
The Witness: I am waiting for him to get through so that he will know I am answering the question.
The Court: You see, he appears to be fingering those papers but he is waiting for you to answer the question. Now you have forgotten the question, and the reporter will read it again.
The Witness: I—
The Court: Do you remember the question?
The Witness: I remember the question.
The Court: And you are just waiting politely to see when Mr. Isserman is ready to listen?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Isserman: Now I think Mr. Isserman is ready to listen, so may we have the answer?
Mr. McGohey: Now if the Court please, may I have the question? With all this going on, I don’t know (T–3575) what the question is.
The Court: Yes, we will have a little fun out of this.
Go ahead, read it.
(Question read.)
A. I don’t recall the method of travel. I do know that I went with—when I say “with” I mean it in the sense that we both went from the Detroit District to attend the Plenum and the convention in 1930, or whenever the Plenum took place. I don’t remember whether I traveled with Stachel or whether he went ahead on the train and some of us came by car. I don’t remember whether he traveled along with us or not.
Q. And is that your best recollection? A. That is my best recollection.
Q. Now you testified yesterday at page 3412 as follows—a question by—3411 first, a question by Mr. McGohey:
[*4741]
“Q. You came from Detroit to attend this meeting in New York, did you?”
And there was an objection, and the objection was overruled.
“Q. Were you accompanied by anybody from Detroit to New York?”
Then an objection, the objection was overruled.
“A. I was accompanied by Mr. Stachel and some others (3576) whose names I don’t recall at the moment.”
Now by that you merely meant that you went to New York and Mr. Stachel went to New York? A. That is a delegation of us went to New York.
Q. But you did not go with Mr. Stachel together? A. That does not necessarily connote that. I don’t recall that he went physically with us but we went under his political supervision.
Q. And by the word “accompanied” you didn’t mean that Mr. Stachel was with you, is that right? A. Beg pardon?
Mr. Isserman: May the question be repeated?
Q. (Read.) A. Not necessarily, no. I meant it in the political sense.
Q. And isn’t it a fact, Mr. Nowell, that for three or four months prior to that time Mr. Stachel had already been out of Detroit and was working in New York in the office of the Trade Union Unity League? A. That is still a question in my mind.
Q. Oh, you are not sure about that now? A. I am not sure about that.
Q. Would you like to think about it for a moment—
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
Q. —to refresh your recollection?
The Court: Sustained, sustained.
(T–3577) Q. Well, have you any means of making certain as to this part of your testimony?
[*4742]
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I am sticking to these—these succession—this succession of events, the National Convention in 1930, the Convention of League of Struggle for Negro Rights, the Plenum which may have taken place—I can’t state definitely—in the latter part of 1930. My best recollection is, according to these events as I remember them, is that it took place in the early part of 1931.
I do know, however, that Leo Fischer, Stachel and myself and some other members of the delegation sat in the Party offices and discussed the problem of Fischer’s assignment in Detroit, and Stachel said he would not return. I am basing myself on those events. As to the exact month and so on, I cannot be too sure.
Q. But that might well have been in 1930? A. Well, it is possible, surely.
Q. You are not certain of that? A. I say it is possible. I am not certain.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Nowell, that Mr. Stachel had nothing whatever to do with your taking a trip to the Soviet Union in 1931? A. Well, I only know what he discussed with me. He knows it too. It isn’t secret.
(T–3578) Q. Isn’t it a fact that the question of your going to the Soviet Union in 1931 was settled by the District Bureau in Detroit after Mr. Stachel had left Detroit? Isn’t that the fact? A. It was not settled by the District Bureau.
Q. Were you the only person to go from Detroit to the Soviet Union? A. No.
Q. There were five, isn’t that right? A. Five.
Q. How were they selected?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it the fact that the District Bureau, of which you were a member, received a request to select five persons to go to the Soviet Union some time in 1931, early 1931?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes, we did receive such an instruction.
[*4743]
Q. Wasn’t that request considered by the District Bureau at a time when you were present? A. Yes.
Q. And wasn’t the decision made there that you would be one of the five to go? A. It was.
Q. And it was there decided that your wife would go with you too, wasn’t it? A. It was.
Q. And several other persons were designated at that time? A. That is right.
(T–3579) Q. Were your arrangements for transportation to the Soviet Union made in Detroit or elsewhere? A. They were made in New York.
Q. And who made them for you, Mr. Potash? A. No, they were made by the Central Committee.
Q. Who was— A. The organization.
Q. —the person who made the arrangements, Mr. Potash?
The Court: Which is this Central Committee, is that the one in Detroit?
The Witness: No, sir, the Central Committee of the Communist Party made the arrangements.
A. The person that we talked to as regards our arrangements first, before we talked to Mr. Potash, was Ralph Baker, who was then national organizational secretary of the Central Committee.
Q. Wasn’t it Ralph Baker who made all the arrangements for you to go to the Soviet Union? A. With the consent of the Central Committee, he made the arrangements.
Q. But it was Ralph Baker who did it? A. He is the one I talked with before—
Q. You testified a number of times under oath about your trip to the Soviet Union in 1931, isn’t that true? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you, in connection with any of that testimony, mention the name of Mr. Potash?
(T–3580) Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I am not quite sure, but I believe I did in some previous testimony. I don’t know just which testimony.
[*4744]
Q. Did you do it in the testimony before the Dies Committee? A. I am not sure that I did. If the occasion required me to do so, I did; if it did not, of course I did not.
Q. But you did testify before the Dies Committee about your trip to the Soviet Union, did you not? A. Yes, I testified. Surely, I testified before the Dies Committee that I took a trip to the Soviet Union.
Q. I show you your testimony—
Mr. Isserman: If your Honor please, the witness testified at length. It might be well to let him examine his testimony after I put the question and get the answers.
The Court: No, I think it is better to let me look at it.
Q. I show you your testimony before the Dies Committee—
The Court: The point is whether any of the questions were such as to call forth the mention of Mr. Potash’s name. I can tell that very quickly by looking at them.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please—
Mr. McGohey: It is the basis of the objection (T–3581) to the question just asked.
Mr. Isserman: The witness testified that he testified on this incident and he said he may have used the name Potash. I merely would like to find out if he used the name Potash in this case.
The Court: He has already stated that if there was occasion to use it, he used it, meaning thereby, I suppose, that if somebody asked him a question about it, he mentioned the name.
Mr. Isserman: Well, he was asked questions about the trip and described—
Mr. McGohey: I object to this. If there is going to be any reading from any documents, I think they ought to be offered, and let the Court examine them; and see if we have any objection.
The Court: That is what they are going to be.
[*4745]
Mr. McGohey: I object to this statement by Mr. Isserman, saying he testified about this incident. We are talking about a long period of incidents.
Mr. Isserman: I am talking about his Soviet Union trip.
Mr. McGohey: There isn’t anything in this record to indicate whether he was asked any of those things.
Mr. Isserman: Except his own words a few minutes ago.
(T–3582) Mr. McGohey: He didn’t say that.
The Court: You get yourself so excited this morning.
Mr. Isserman: I am not excited, but it seems to me when a witness—
The Court: You really injure your health. You mustn’t do that.
Mr. Isserman: Your Honor, my health is in perfect shape, although I do find questioning this kind of witness is rather trying. I will admit that.
* * *
(Recess to 2.30 p. m.)
(T–3583) AFTERNOON SESSION
WILLIAM ODELL NOWELL, resumed the stand.
* * *
Cross examination continued by Mr. Isserman:
Q. Mr. Nowell, you recall your testimony before the—or rather you recall the fact that you testified before the Dies Committee in 1939 in the end of October or beginning of November? A. I recall testifying about that time.
Q. And in connection with that testimony did you not submit to that Committee a list of the names of national and local Communist leaders with whom you had worked in the period 1929 to 1936?
[*4746]
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Objection sustained.
You know, you showed me that part of the testimony this morning, Mr. Isserman, and I ruled on that.
Mr. Isserman: I am trying to lay a foundation for it, if the Court please. I don’t understand the basis for the objection and none was given.
The Court: The basis for the objection is the (T–3584) testimony there does not seem to me to be in any way inconsistent with what he is testifying to here. Perhaps you are drawing some unwarranted inference from what is in that list.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to be heard. I am drawing no inference. This is purely a question and answer that was given.
The Court: I understand.
Mr. Gladstein: I think it is unfair for the Court to make that statement. The jury gets the impression, if your Honor please, that the Court having reviewed the testimony of a prior occasion that he did not contradict himself. I submit it should be for the jury to determine.
The Court: What you submit is all very well, but when I look at the written testimony I can read it and I have ruled on it.
Mr. Gladstein: I say if I am wrong, if I make the mistake of offering this man’s testimony on a prior occasion and the jury finds that what I have offered isn’t contradictory, although I say it is, the jury will draw the inference against me. I am willing to take that risk.
The Court: You see, Mr. Gladstein, you may be willing to take that risk, but it is for me to rule first (T–3585) whether there is any inconsistency. I rule there is not.
Mr. Gladstein: I take exception to the ruling as a matter of law.
The Court: That is all right.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to state, if the Court please, my grounds. My grounds are other than inconsistency.
[*4747]
The Court: I don’t want to hear anything further on that, Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to make an offer of proof in connection with it.
The Court: No, I am not going to hear any offers of proof.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to have marked for identification the entire testimony of this witness.
The Court: The entire testimony?
Mr. Isserman: Of this witness before the Un–American Activities Committee.
The Court: You showed me ten pages of it. Now if there is some more you want to show me I will rule on that.
Mr. Isserman: I would first like to mark his entire testimony.
The Court: You may do that.
(T–3586) Mr. Isserman: Starting on page 6984 of Exhibit WW—
The Clerk: Exhibit WW only includes ten pages, from pages 7010 to 7020.
Mr. Isserman: Then I would like to mark as the next exhibit for identification the testimony of this witness beginning on page 6984 and going to page 7036 in the hearings of the Committee, in volume 11 of the hearings of the Committee on Un–American Activities.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit XX for identification.)
Mr. Isserman: And that, I may state for the record, if the Court please, includes Exhibit WW within it.
* * *
The Court: Is there any particular part of this that you want to draw my attention to?
Mr. Isserman: I am now going to ask him a question, if your Honor please, on page 7020.
The Court: 7002?
Mr. Isserman: 7020—
The Court: 7020.
[*4748]
Mr. Isserman: A portion relating to certain records and papers of the witness.
(T–3587) The Court: Just a second.
(After examining.) What is the question?
Q. At the time you appeared before the Dies Committee in November, 1939, you had in your possession certain records and old papers concerning your activities in the Communist Party in the City of Detorit and elsewhere in the period 1929 to 1936; isn’t that so? A. Not quite correct.
Q. Did you have a series of records in your possession concerning that period, concerning which you testified before the Dies Committee? A. I did have.
Q. And what were those records?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did those records relate to your activities in the Communist Party in Detroit and elsewhere between 1929 and 1936?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did those records relate to activities concerning which you—your activities in the City of Detroit and elsewhere in connection with the Communist Party which was covered by your testimony in this court yesterday and today?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
(T–3588) The Court: Sustained.
Q. In your testimony before the Dies Committee you testified concerning your work on the Bureau and Secretariat of the Communist Party in the District of Detroit in the period 1929 to 1934, did you not? A. I don’t recall specifically that I did, but it is possible.
Q. You have no recollection now if you testified on subject? A. I just stated so.
[*4749]
Q. You say you do not recall specifically? A. But I stated that I don’t recall specifically that I did; it is possible that I did.
Q. You have no present recollection of testifying on these matters, is that correct?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. Yes.
Mr. McGohey: Repetition, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it. The question is, do you have some recollection of testifying on those subjects before the Dies Committee on the dates specified by Mr. Isserman.
The Witness: I have some recollection, if that is the formulation of the question, yes.
Q. And does your recollection embrace the fact of whether or not in so testifying you listed and named before the Dies Committee the names of persons in the (T–3589) Communist Party in the City of Detroit and elsewhere with whom you worked in the period 1929 to 1934?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Would your recollection be refreshed by an examination of your testimony before the Dies Committee—
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
Q. —in November 1939?
Mr. McGohey: I am sorry. Objection.
The Court: I will allow it. Refreshed—
A. Yes.
The Court: —in what respect?
Mr. Isserman: With respect to the positions occupied by this witness on the Bureau and Secretariat of the Communist Party in the City of Detroit in the period 1929 to 1934 and his activities in connection with it.
[*4750]
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, he testified to that.
The Court: Yes, he did. I will sustain the objection.
Q. Would an examination of the testimony before the Dies Committee, which you gave in November 1939, refresh your recollection as to the contents of that testimony concerning the District Bureau of the Communist Party and Secretariat of the Communist Party in the City of (T–3590) Detroit during the period you were connected with it?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Nowell, that in that testimony before the Dies Committee you did not mention the name of Mr. Stachel?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Didn’t he already testify on that?
Mr. Isserman: I am not sure, your Honor.
The Court: Didn’t you say, Mr. Nowell, that as far as your recollection went, you did not mention Mr. Stachel’s name in that testimony?
The Witness: To be specific, your Honor, I said I don’t remember mentioning him in any particular connection; it is possible that I did mention him, but not in relation to these appointments.
The Court: That is, in reference to what you testified here, your recollection is that you did not mention his name?
The Witness: In relation to these appointments.
The Court: These things?
The Witness: That is right.
Q. And did you testify before the Dies Committee on your trip to Moscow, did you not? A. I did.
(T–3591) Q. Do you have any recollection of whether or not you mentioned the name of Mr. Potash in respect [*4751] to the trip that you took to Moscow, when you testified before the Dies Committee?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you mention the name of Mr. Potash in connection with the trip which you took to Moscow in 1931, concerning which you testified before the Dies Committee in November 1939?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
You know, you went over that this morning, Mr. Isserman, and I said that it depended, according to the witness’s testimony, on the character of the questions; that if there was a question that tended to elicit the mention of Mr. Potash’ name, I would allow it. If there is such a question here and an answer, you may use it.
Mr. Isserman: The fact is he testified—
Mr. McGohey: Well, if the Court please—
Mr. Isserman: —concerning these incidents.
The Court: I don’t think you need describe the testimony. If you find in the book here any questions and answers that relate to that subject, you may interrogate the witness about them.
(T–3592) Mr. McGohey: About the subject of the—
The Court: Yes, questions which would fairly call upon—call for the mention of Mr. Potash’s name. The testimony of this witness this morning was that, as far as he recalled, he had not mentioned Mr. Potash’s name and that there was no occasion for it; and, as he recalled it, none of the questions elicited that information.
If there is a question that did, you may read it and inquire of the witness concerning it.
Q. Did you, Mr. Nowell—
Mr. Isserman: I withdraw that.
[*4752]
Q. Weren’t you asked the following question before the House Committee on Un–American Activities when you appeared before them in October or November, 1939—
Mr. McGohey: Let me have the page?
Mr. Isserman: Page 7010.
The Court: That looks like that one about that list that I have already ruled on. You remember I read that this morning.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, that is a question which would fairly call for the mentioning of the names of a number of the defendants and I submit I should be allowed to ask the question.
The Court: It didn’t seem so to me.
(T–3593) Mr. Isserman: Is your Honor ruling I may not ask the question?
The Court: Let me see it again. Perhaps my recollection is at fault.
(Mr. Isserman hands book to the Court.)
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did you mention the name of Mr. Hall in connection with your testimony before the Un–American Committee about your trip to Moscow in 1931?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I will allow him to give his recollection as to whether he mentioned Mr. Hall’s name or not.
A. The best of my recollection is that I did not mention Mr. Hall’s name.
Q. Did you mention Mr. Hall’s name in connection with your trip to Moscow, in connection with any testimony you have given prior to this occasion, on the question of that trip to Moscow in 1931?
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, I am objecting to the form of the question because it is placed on the trip, and I submit that there has been no testimony by the witness about the defendant Hall on the trip.
[*4753]
Mr. Isserman: I said in connection with—
Mr. McGohey: Or about his name either.
(T–3594) The Court: It was after he got there that he saw Hall, wasn’t it?
Mr. McGohey: Yes, that is correct.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did you mention the name of Mr. Hall before—
The Court: Yes, he said he saw Hall at the school there.
Mr. Gladstein: No, he did not. He did not say he saw him at the school. He saw him at some meetings but not in classes.
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please—
Mr. Isserman: On the campus.
The Court: My notes show, at the school, saw Gus Hall and later Stachel.
You think they are wrong; I think they are right. Now, go ahead.
(T–3595) Q. Now Mr. Nowell, you have testified before the House Committee on Un–American Activities in November 1939 about your stay in Moscow, did you not, in 1931 and 1932? A. 1931 and 1932 before the Committee on Un–American Activities?
Q. Yes. A. I didn’t testify before the Un–American Activities Committee in 1931 and 1932. I don’t get your question. Make it clear.
Q. You took a trip in 1931 and returned in 1932, did you not? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And it is your testimony that in that period you took some courses? A. That is correct.
Q. Now did you testify about those courses and that period and about your stay in Moscow when you appeared before the Dies Committee in 1939? A. That is better. Yes, I testified about that in 1939.
Q. And did you mention the name of Mr. Hall in connection with that testimony or as part of it?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I will sustain that. It seems to me, Mr. Isserman, that what a man testified to depends [*4754] entirely on what questions were put to him. If somebody asked him a question that tended to elicit an answer about Mr. Hall, then you show it to him. Now you have got the book with all the questions and all the (T–3596) answers, and if there is any question that called for an answer about that and if he didn’t say anything about Hall, you may show that.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, it is precisely this testimony and this list which your Honor won’t let me ask about that shows that.
The Court: That is what you say. I say it does not.
Mr. Isserman: I object to your Honor’s statement.
The Court: You can object all you want. I can read.
Mr. Isserman: I just object, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Isserman:
Q. When did you last see Mr. Hall before yesterday? A. The best of my recollection is the last I saw of him was in Moscow.
Q. In what year? A. In 1932.
Q. You haven’t seen him since 1932? A. That is my recollection.
Q. And was your identification of Mr. Hall made without the aid of any photograph that was shown to you of Mr. Hall before coming into this courtroom? A. I was shown a photograph not of Mr. Hall but of persons constituting the National Committee and I recognized (T–3597) Mr. Hall among those photographs. I did not know him as Hall.
Q. Did anyone point out and show you which of these photographs was Mr. Hall? A. No.
Q. Did you see a photograph with his name on it? A. No, because I had never known him by the name Hall.
Q. Didn’t you see a photograph with his name in the newspapers in connection with this case? A. I had never [*4755] known the man you mean by the name of Hall. I didn’t known his name was Hall.
Q. That isn’t my question. Will you please answer it?
* * *
A. I don’t recall having seen his name.
Q. You may have seen such a photograph, may you not?
Mr. McGohey: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. When you say you don’t recall having seen his name, you mean you have not seen it? A. I don’t recall having seen it. I mean exactly that.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Hall in 1932? A. Oh, lots of them, yes.
Q. Was he heavy–set in 1932? A. Yes, he was quite (T–3598) plump.
Q. And you made the identification not having seen him or any photograph of him from 1932 to 1949, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. When did you make the identification? A. I believe it was yesterday.
Q. Did you make it on any prior occasion before coming into this courtroom? A. I did not.
Q. When were you shown a photograph? A. I think it was day before yesterday.
Q. When? A. Day before yesterday. Day before yesterday.
Q. And that is when you made the identification? A. I recognized this man as one whom I had studied with in Russia.
Q. That is when you made the identification, day before yesterday? A. That is right.
The Court: You see, that word “identification.” He may think it means when he went up and pointed to him in court, and you may mean the time he looked at the photograph.
Mr. Isserman: If your Honor thinks the witness is confused on that simple question, I will ask it over again.
[*4756]
The Court: Yesterday he went up and pointed the (T–3599) man out, and the day before yesterday he identified him on the photograph.
Mr. Isserman: Then he understands. It is quite clear; he said he made the identification the day before yesterday.
The Court: I still say that that expression “made the identification” is equivocal, and as long as we all know what his testimony is you may go right ahead.
Q. When did you last see Mr. Green before coming into this courtroom? A. I believe it was in Nineteen—must be around—sometime in 1933, I believe.
Q. How do you fix it as 1933? A. I said I believe, you remember.
Q. Yes, but how do you fix it? How do you fix your belief as 1933? A. Just a minute, I am going to explain how I fix it. That is why I say I believe.
* * *
A. (Continuing) I can’t be sure but it seems to me that Mr. Green came to Michigan some time in 1933 to speak at a meeting or to attend some meeting.
Q. But you are not certain of this? A. I don’t say this is absolutely certain but the best of my recollection is, oh, sometime in 1933—just let me finish—he came there and I believe I saw him and Mary Himoff (T–3600) and Nydia Barkin in 1933.
* * *
That is the best of my recollection.
Q. But you are not certain of that? A. No, not absolutely certain, but if I remember correctly he was there in 1933 or thereabouts.
Q. When did you see Mr. Green before 1933? A. I beg your pardon?
Q. When did you last see Mr. Green before 1933? A. I saw him in the National offices in New York in 1932 when I was returning from Russia.
Q. He just came in and out of the office at that time? A. I met him in the hall subsequently and had a few words with him.
[*4757]
Q. You make your identification based upon your meeting in 1932 and 1933? A. Not entirely. I had known Mr. Green for a number of years before that.
(T–3601) Q. Where did you see him before that? A. Oh, I had seen him in New York in 1930, and other places, all over, various places.
Q. Did you see a photograph of Mr. Green before coming into this courtroom? A. I think I did.
Q. And you looked at that photograph for the purpose of identifying him here? A. I presume that is the purpose, or was the purpose.
Q. Who showed you that photograph? A. Mr. Gordon showed me the photograph.
Q. Did you also look at a photograph of the defendant Potash before you came into this courtroom? A. I saw the entire eleven.
Q. When did you see Mr. Potash last before seeing the photograph the day before yesterday? A. The last time I saw Mr. Potash was in Moscow in 1931.
Q. And again you made the identification the day before yesterday without any trouble, didn’t you? A. Well, I don’t think it was much trouble.
Q. You had no difficulty with it? A. (No response.)
* * *
Q. Did you ever meet the defendant Williamson? A. Yes, a number of times.
Q. When did you meet him? A. I first met Williamson in the old Party offices, that is, prior to the time—(T–3602) prior to the time they moved to 12th Street—the old offices in 1930, during the Seventh Convention.
Q. When was the last time that you met Mr. Williamson? A. I don’t recall the last time; I saw him a few times—
Q. Did you see him at any time after that, after 1930? A. I am trying to recall now whether I saw him after that. I am sure I saw him between ’32 and ’36. I am not so sure I did.
Q. And you thought his name was Williams, didn’t you? A. Unless it was—no. I wanted to make that correction now. I knew his as John Williamson.
Q. But it was just a slip of the tongue that you called him Williams several times yesterday, is that it? A. Yes, a slip of the tongue.
[*4758]
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor please, may the witness answer? Every time he starts to answer he gets another question.
Mr. Isserman: Well, when he finishes the answer he gets another question.
The Court: Well, Mr. Isserman, every person has certain idiosyncracies. Now it is obvious to me that this witness answers slowly and he on occasion has a little bit to say some more, and it has happened several times that he was just in that way he has of testifying to add something. It is no criticism of you.
(T–3603) Mr. Isserman: I believe he does have some idiosyncrasies, your Honor, so I will wait for his answer.
The Witness: Don’t we all.
The Court: You see, you almost—you almost tempt me to comment. We all have idiosyncracies, and there are some I might point out but I shall not.
Mr. Isserman: Now may we get an answer to the question?
(Record read.)
Mr. Isserman: Well, there is no problem about the answer.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Isserman: I said I thought there was no problem about his answer, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I don’t know just what you mean by that, but if it is something in derogation of the witness, I don’t think there is any justification for it.
Mr. Isserman: I am not saying anything in derogation of the witness; I am just remarking that the question is clear and his answer was clear.
The Court: Well, when you said there was no trouble with the answer, there is a certain inference one might draw from that, and I think it is better to avoid those comments.
(T–3604) By Mr. Isserman:
Q. Now when you were shown the list of photographs of the defendants the day before yesterday, they were all [*4759] in one row, weren’t they? A. No. When I first saw them they were in a package. They were stacked on top of each other.
Q. Individual photographs, were they? A. Yes, they were individual photographs.
Q. And there was nothing on the photograph to indicate their names? A. Not that I saw.
Q. Now between 1929 and 1934 in your activities in Detroit, in the Communist Party, you attended a great many meetings, did you not? A. Yes, quite a few.
Q. Could you give us any estimate of the number? A. No, it would be difficult to give an estimate.
Q. Would you say 20 or 30 or more meetings?
The Court: Keep your voice up. It is gradually getting down. Now get your voice up.
The Witness: Surely.
Q. Would you say there were 20 or 30 meetings a year, Mr. Nowell?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. I wouldn’t set any number—
The Court: Was this over in Moscow, you are talking about?
(T–3605) Mr. Isserman: No, your Honor. I am talking about in Detroit.
The Court: I will allow it.
Mr. McGohey: Well, if your Honor please, the question was from 1929 to 1934 how many meetings; the witness said he couldn’t estimate. Then he asked him if it is 20 or 30.
Mr. Isserman: I think it is quite proper procedure to try to narrow the witness’s testimony down to a number.
The Court: I will allow this.
How many years is this now?
Mr. Isserman: I will withdraw the question, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. McGohey: I will withdraw the objection.
The Court: I will withdraw the ruling. We will make it 100 per cent.
[*4760]
Q. You went to meetings every week when you were a member of the District Bureau in the Communist Party, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. Was it only one meeting a week? A. What question is that?
Q. In 1929. A. You mean was it only one meeting a week that I attended?
(T–3606) Q. Yes, in 1929. A. The question sounds silly to me, but shall I answer it?
Mr. Isserman: Well, I ask that the witness’s comment be stricken out.
The Court: Indicate what meetings you are talking about.
Mr. Isserman: I will follow your Honor’s direction.
Q. In connection with your work with the Communist Party in Detroit in 1929, in the various capacities in which you say you worked, how many meeting did you attend weekly? A. Well, it is no definite number of meetings. There is no fixed or set number of meetings that you attend in a week in the Communist Party.
Q. Is that the best answer you can give me? A. Of course.
Q. Was it one meeting a week? A. Sometimes one, sometimes more, perhaps.
Q. How often did the District Bureau meet? A. The District Bureau met, I believe, as a rule, once every two weeks.
Q. How often did the Secretariat meet? A. The Secretariat met whenever the district organizer wanted to call it.
Q. You also attended trade union meetings, in that (T–3607) period, did you not? A. I am in the trade union in that period. We had that Auto Workers Union.
Q. Did you attend meetings of that? A. Yes, I attended meetings of that.
Q. And did you attend meetings in connection with the Negro Congress concerning which you testified? A. Yes, I did those.
Q. And those meetings were—kept you busy a number of evenings per week, did they not? A. Yes.
[*4761]
Q. As well as a number of afternoons per week? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And then occasionally you attended other meetings, did you not, in connection with your work, that is, connected directly with the Bureau and the Secretariat? A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. And you went to meetings sometimes in connection with the activities of the Negro Commission in Fighting against Discrimination, did you not? A. Yes, at times.
Q. And you spoke at those meetings? A. Sometimes, yes.
Q. You met many people at those meetings? A. That is right.
Q. Did you keep any diary of those meetings, Mr. Nowell? A. No other than the minutes of the meeting that (T–3608) was kept by the secretary.
Q. Yes, but I am talking about the various meetings that you attended. Did you keep a personal diary at any time— A. I said no, I did not keep a diary of those meetings.
Q. Did you keep a diary at any time in the period from 1929 to 1936? A. Not other than the documents required to be kept by me.
Q. Personal documents? A. And records.
Q. Is that right? A. No personal documents, but Party documents.
Q. You did not keep personal notes about the different meetings you attended? A. No personal notes except data that had to do with my speeches or organizational matters. I kept that sort of data.
Q. And isn’t it true to say that you had in the period of any one year, from 1929 to 1934, conversations with hundreds of people in connection with your work? A. Oh, certainly during that period I met hundreds of people.
Q. Now you testified, before, I believe, that the first time you gave some information to the FBI on the matters of your testimony here, or rather—I withdraw that.
Q. I believe your testimony was that you didn’t give the FBI any information on your testimony that you were to give in this case but came directly to Mr. Gordon when (T–3609) you received notice from the FBI, is that correct?
[*4762]
Mr. McGohey: I—
A. Both are wrong.
Q. Well, did you or did you not give information to the FBI on the matters concerning which you testified here, before coming here to testify? A. That is still not the—
Q. Is the answer “No”? A. Repeat that question?
Mr. Isserman: Will the stenographer please repeat it.
(Question read.)
A. There is one other thing which I should like to know, Mr. Isserman. What do you mean by matters about which I am supposed to testify? Do you include in that instructions to proceed and who to see or the contents—or the case itself?
Q. Well, my question was directed to the substance of your testimony. A. No, I did not.
Q. And that is at no time prior to your coming here? A. At no time.
Q. Didn’t you confer with the FBI in 1947 in connection with your testimony in another case on the same subject matter as this case?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
A. In another case? What case?
(T–3610) The Court: Sustained.
Q. You testified about your activities in the Communist Party in Detroit in a trial in the District of Columbia in 1947, did you not? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And didn’t you confer with the FBI before testifying at that time?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. About the contents of my testimony? No, I did not.
Q. You conferred with the FBI then, did you not? A. I did not.
Q. Didn’t you give them information on your aactivities in Detroit in—I withdraw that?
[*4763]
Q. Didn’t you, in 1947 or before, give the FBI information on your activities in Detroit between 1929 and 1936? A. That question is general. You don’t say where—
Mr. McGohey: I object to the question, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did you at any time give the FBI information or a statement on your activities in the Communist Party in Detroit between 1929 and 1934, before coming into this courtroom?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3611) Q. You testified yesterday, Mr. Nowell—
Mr. McGohey: What page?
Mr. Isserman: 3464 and 5.
Q. —about your attendance at a convention of the Communist Party in Cleveland in 1934; that is so, isn’t it? A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You testified also that a Mr. Haywood made a report on activities of yours, did he not? A. You will have to reshape that question. No, I didn’t testify to anything like that, not what your question is.
Q. Let us see what you did testify to. Do you remember testifying about a speech that you made at the convention in 1934, page 3464 and 5 of the record? A. I do remember, yes.
Q. And the question was asked of you—
Mr. Isserman: First question on the top of 3465.
Q. “Q. Before you made your speech was there a speech made by Mr. Haywood?”
And you answered, “There was.”
Is that correct? A. I believe I did answer in the affirmative.
Q. And subsequently you were asked, or, subsequently you answered, in discussing your own—testifying about your own speech—the following, last section of 3465:
[*4764]
(T–3612) “I was in general agreement with Haywood’s criticism of me in his report. However, I disagreed with some of the specific charges made. I felt that they were unjust charges; I felt that my work had proved that, although I had the right to contend for a change in Party policy, that extraneous matters should not be raised—should not be introduced to condemn me politically merely because I was in disagreement with something which I did not think was correct.”
Do you remember stating that?
* * *
A. I remember stating that.
Q. Do you remember the substance of what Mr. Haywood’s report was about you and which you were answering? A. Yes, I remember the substance of it.
Q. And do you remember Mr. Haywood in his speech, just before you spoke, saying that “Your activity,” referring to you, “creates an atmosphere wherein stool pigeons and provocateurs can carry on their best work”? Do you remember Mr. Haywood saying that? A. Haywood said that portion of his speech—I got in on the last part of it. I was told about that later.
Q. But— (T–3613) A. Let me finish, sir, if you please. I was told about that shortly after I came in. I got the latter part of his speech. I did not hear the entire speech. That is why I couldn’t say definitely yesterday that I knew certain people were there because I wasn’t there when this speech started. So I cannot—no, I don’t recall his having said that.
Q. You knew Mr. Haywood was reporting about the charges which had been filed against you, didn’t you? A. While I came in he was speaking. They told me—a lot of people told me—
Q. How much of his speech did you get, Mr. Nowell? About how long did he continue? A. Not too much. Just the latter part of it.
Q. Last five minutes or so? A. Perhaps not that much.
Q. You remember near the very end of his speech Mr. Haywood saying that, in your case, there was also a question of political dishonesty, double bookkeeping, faction– [*4765] alism of the worst sort and of the most unprincipled kind; do you remember him saying that? A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And you were— A. That does not make that true necessarily, what Haywood says, you know.
Q. But you remember Mr. Haywood saying that? (T–3614) A. Yes, I remember him saying that.
Q. You resented his saying that? A. Of course I did. Who wouldn’t resent it?
Q. And when you were removed from office by the convention, as you testified, you resented that, too, didn’t you? A. I resented the smearing and slander, which is typical of certain elements in the Party—
Mr. Isserman: I move that that conclusion be stricken.
A. —in attempts to frame other people a little bit under degree.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that his conclusion be stricken.
The Witness: I ask that all of that be stricken.
The Court: Let us see how much he got down there.
Mr. Isserman: I also—yes, I would like to have it too.
(Record read.)
The Court: What is that last part, “a little bit” what?
(Record read.)
The Court: “a little bit under degree”? We will strike it out.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Nowell, that at that convention you stood up on the floor of the convention and agreed that (T–3615) you had been mistaken and agreed that you would no longer follow out the mistakes which you had carried on; isn’t that true? A. Not the way you put it. I made a speech—
[*4766]
Q. Didn’t you say something to that effect?
Mr. McGohey: If the court please—
A. I made a speech for approximately an hour and I said a number of things. Now, if you want to know anything specific I said among other things, sure, I can name that, but I didn’t only say I agreed, I said I disagreed also.
Q. You made that speech in the period of an hour after you heard Mr. Haywood only talk for a few minutes, although he had been talking about you, is that right? A. I heard that he had talked. Yes, I heard him for only a few minutes.
Q. Hadn’t you heard a report on your activities before the Central Committee of the Communist Party before the convention? A. I had not.
Q. Hadn’t there been a discussion with you of the charges that were made against you? A. There had been no—it was a complete surprise to me.
Q. Hadn’t you had a meeting prior to the convention and also before the Committee on these charges? A. No, indeed.
Q. Didn’t you agree that you had been guilty of (T–3616) disruption and factionalism in the Party? A. I did not, not in the meaning you mention.
Q. In some meaning, didn’t you? A. What did you say?
Q. In some meaning you agreed you had been guilty of disruption and factionalism, hadn’t you? A. No, I had not agreed that I had been guilty of disruption and factionalism. That is one of the portions of Haywood’s report I disagreed with. Now, when I first learned of this the Daily Worker was being passed out in the convention hall, while he was delivering his speech, his report. It had been sent in before I had a chance to answer, and was published, and the delegates were reading the Daily Worker while Haywood was reporting.
Q. And you yourself were present at a meeting before that time at which the charges—you were informed of the charges and discussed them? A. I was not.
(T–3617) Q. Now after you left the convention you had agreed, had you not, that you would follow party policy as decided by the convention?
[*4767]
Mr. McGohey: I object to that, your Honor. The witness has just said several times that he didn’t.
Mr. Isserman: Well, let’s find out.
The Court: Let me just look at what he said here before for a moment.
(After pause.) I will sustain the objection.
Q. In any event you agreed with a portion of the report. You said so, is that right? A. I agreed, surely, with that portion—
Q. You said—
Mr. McGohey: I object to this refusal to let the witness answer.
Mr. Isserman: I don’t think the witness should be allowed to ramble all over the lot. He has that idiosyncracy. I am trying to get him to stick to the question.
Mr. McGohey: There we are back to the idiosyncracy.
The Court: In the meantime we are not getting what part he agreed to and what he disagreed with and you were just about to ask him what was the part of Mr. Haywood’s—or I thought you asked him what part.
(T–3618) Mr. McGohey: I thought that is what the witness was trying to answer. I think he ought to be permitted to finish.
The Court: Maybe the question didn’t quite ask that. You may reframe another question, Mr. Isserman.
Q. The fact is, Mr. Nowell, when you left the convention you had every intention of remaining a member of the Communist Party, did you not?
Mr. McGohey: I object to the question as to form.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. As a matter of fact, wasn’t it true that on the floor of the convention you stated that you had every intention [*4768] of remaining a member of the Communist Party? A. No, that is not true.
Q. Did you determine to quit the Communist Party at that time? A. I did not.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you say anything on the floor of the convention about quitting the Communist Party?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, you went back to Detroit with resentment, did you not?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
(T–3619) The Court: Sustained.
Q. What work did you do in the Communist Party between 1934 and 1936, referring to the period after the convention, if anything? A. I joined—you want me to answer that “if anything” too? Take the tail off the kite. It is not necessary.
The Court: You had better just answer the questions.
The Witness: These little innuendos and things, I protest them.
The Court: You keep your mind on the question. He said, what did you do, if anything? If you did something you go ahead and tell him what it was.
A. When I returned to Detroit I continued to work in the sections and units.
Q. Until when? A. I am not through yet.
Q. You have answered my question. Now until when did you continue that work?
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor please, he has asked him what he did and he just said one thing. Now he says he has not finished. If he is asked a general question what he did he ought to be permitted to continue.
[*4769]
The Court: I think there is something on that.
Mr. Isserman: All right, let him.
A. (Continuing) I worked in the sections and units, (T–3620) taught unit classes, did ordinary, what is sometimes termed, rank and file work.
Q. How long did you continue? A. Later—I am not through, sir. You want to know what I did? Then let me finish. You can’t just cut in and out.
Mr. Isserman: Is Mr. Nowell taking over the prosecution? I ask your Honor to admonish the witness.
The Court: Everybody seems to take the place over but me. But I am perfectly calm and peaceful.
Mr. Isserman: I think your Honor should admonish the witness. His idiosyncracies are going a little too far.
The Court: I was just about to tell him to go ahead with his answer when you got me off on something else.
(To witness) You just answer the questions, Mr. Nowell. You tell him—what was he telling us anyway?
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor please, he had gotten to the point where he said he was doing rank and file work and then in the manner that he has used all the time in his testimony he paused and he was just on the beginning of another word when he was interrupted.
The Court: I guess he was.
(To witness) Did you finish telling us what (T–3621) you were doing?
The Witness: No, sir, I did not.
The Court: You go ahead and tell us the rest of it.
A. (Continuing) Then I got a job in a plant, I entered a shop unit. I got fired from the plant, I changed my name and got another job.
Q. What plant was that? A. That was Chevrolet.
Q. Then you got a job with Homer Martin? A. No, I got fired from that plant, got turned in from peculiar [*4770] sources, and I got a job in another plant. Very peculiar sources turned me in.
Q. What was the second plant at which you got a job? A. Dodge Brothers, and I got let out of there.
Q. What was the third plant you worked in? A. It wasn’t a plant. The next place was on the United States Health Project.
Q. Isn’t it a fact— A. So during that time, of course, I got an assignment from the District to head a city–wide fraction to organize the Detroit Chapter of the National Negro Congress, which I did.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that that chapter was in existence since 1931 in Detroit, Mr. Nowell? A. Not the National Negro Congress.
Q. Is it a fact? A. It is not a fact.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that that was organized long before (T–3622) 1934 when you say you organized it? A. Not the National Negro Congress.
Q. I am talking about the National Negro Congress. A. No; the National Negro Congress was organized officially in 1935.
Q. And there was no organization work— A. We began to work on it in 1934.
Q. What was that statement? A. We began to work on it in 1934.
Q. And you didn’t testify to the contrary in any other previous hearings, Mr. Nowell? A. No.
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now the fact is that the organizational work began in 1934, isn’t that true, of the National Negro Congress?
Mr. McGohey: He just testified to that.
The Court: Yes, he did. I think you meant to say 1931.
Mr. Isserman: I meant to say 1934.
Mr. McGohey: That is what the witness testified to.
Mr. Isserman: He said 1935.
Mr. McGohey: That isn’t what he said. He said he was appointed to organize in 1935 but the work of organizing began in 1934.
[*4771]
(T–3623) The Witness: That is right.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that in 1936 you were expelled from the Communist Party? A. It is not a fact.
Q. And isn’t it a fact that you were charged in 1936 with being a stool pigeon and brought up on charges and expelled? A. That is not a fact. I resigned at the end of 1936 by refusing to take a book from Rifka Misenberg, and you know that, I think.
Mr. Isserman: I move that that latter part be stricken out.
The Court: That will be stricken out.
Mr. Isserman: Now, if the Court please, there was an area of examination of this witness that I was unable to cover because it dealt with matters outside of this country and also because of the long time involved and because of the fact that this matter was absent in the indictment, and because of the absence of particulars this testimony could not be anticipated, and I now move that this witness be recalled at a later time for further examination on other matters on which the defendants are unable to cross–examine because of the unanticipated appearance of this testimony about matters ten years before the indictment and outside of this country, which made it impossible to adequately prepare for cross–examination.
(T–3624) The Court: Let me see if I understand that. As I remember his testimony about his going abroad he said that Potash was with him—was right along with him.
Mr. Isserman: That is not the testimony.
The Court: That is not the testimony, according to you.
Mr. Isserman: He testified Potash was with him part of the time.
The Court: Yes, and he also said that he was over there and saw Hall and Stachel. I take it that at least you have had an opportunity and have had for the past several days to discuss this with the defendants who were referred to by him, but perhaps that is not what you referred to.
[*4772]
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, the Court is accepting the witness’s statements as true. I say because of consultation with the defendants and because the matters occurred elsewhere, it is necessary to have time to complete the examination of this witness on matters which occurred prior to the indictment and in countries other than the United States. I ask that—
Mr. McGohey: If the Court please, this witness has testified that he went to the Soviet Union in September of 1931, that prior to that he had a conversation with the defendant Stachel in which the defendant Stachel said (T–3625) that he was going to recommend to the Central Committee of the Party that the witness be sent there for further development of further education. Then he testified that from the time he left New York until a period some weeks after he arrived at the Lenin school, or some days, at least, after he arrived at the Lenin school, he was in a group which was in charge of the defendant Potash. Then he testified that later on while he was—
Mr. Gladstein: Will you pardon an interruption?
Your Honor, I think we are now arguing a point of law.
The Court: Well,—
Mr. Gladstein: Or we are supposed to be.
The Court: You know, when you are arguing a question of law I seem to hear a good deal about the facts, and then when he—
Mr. Gladstein: Mr. McGohey is making a summation of the evidence and not an argument of law.
The Court: All right. Well, I will deny the motion. I take it, Mr. McGohey, you see no occasion for putting off the cross–examination further?
Mr. McGohey: No, I do not, your Honor, because the cogent things about which the witness testified with respect to this case he testified mentioning the names of defendants who are actually here in the courtroom.
[*4773]
(T–3625–A) The Court: Yes. I will hear you on that subject, Mr. Gladstein:
Mr. Gladstein: I had some questions of the witness. I wasn’t going to address myself to—
The Court: Very well, then, you may proceed to cross–examine.
* * *
(Short recess.)
(T–3626) By Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Mr. Nowell, you stated that you first spoke to Mr. Gordon about testifying in this case some time before Christmas of last year, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. Would you date that a little more specifically, please? A. I can’t be too specific. I think it must have been around—around November.
Q. November of last year? A. Yes, I believe that. I can’t be so sure about the exact month; somewhere—sometime before Christmas.
Q. Well, that was just a few months ago. Can’t you tell me whether it was November— A. Well, I don’t remember whether it was November or December.
Q. Well, was it before or after Thanksgiving, your best recollection? A. To the best of my recollection it was after Thanksgiving.
Q. How much after? A. That I don’t know.
Q. A day or two? A. Well, I can be very specific about that if you want my notes, to get it. I don’t remember the particular date.
Q. Oh, you have a note on this? Do you have it with you? A. I remember the date I came here.
Q. What is the date you came and saw Mr. Gordon here? A. Beg pardon?
(T–3627) Q. What is the date you came and saw Mr. Gordon here? A. Oh, here?
Q. Yes. A. I guess about the 15th when I arrived here.
Q. 15th of when? A. Of this month.
Q. When is the first time that you spoke to Mr. Gordon? A. I spoke to Mr. Gordon on the same day that I arrived.
Q. Now I understood you to say that some time before Christmas you learned that you were going to testify in this case, is that correct? A. No, I didn’t say that.
[*4774]
Q. Well, what was your testimony about an event occurring just before Christmas of last year? A. Mr. Gordon inteviewed me.
Q. Where was that? A. In this building, I presume in the same office. There is a number of offices there.
Q. Did he interview you on the subject matter that we are dealing with here; yes or no? A. He interviewed me—
Q. No; yes or no?
Mr. McGohey: I object to this “yes or no” demand.
The Court: Yes; I will sustain the objection.
That is a pretty broad question. His testimony has covered such a wide range of things.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I will reframe it, your Honor.
(T–3628) Q. When you saw Mr. Gordon here some time before Christmas, did you see him in connection with the possibility of your being a witness in this case? A. I did.
Q. And your discussion with him on that occasion covered in part at least some of the matters that you have testified to here, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. Now what I am trying to get is the date when that occurred. A. I believe to the best of my recollection that was some time in November.
Q. In November; all right. Now how long after—I withdraw that.
Q. And at the time you spoke to Mr. Gordon on that occasion was anybody else present? A. I believe Mr. Gordon and some other gentleman, I don’t know.
Q. How long did that discussion last? A. Oh, it lasted for several hours.
Q. And at the conclusion of that discussion was it agreed that you would be or might be called as a witness here?
Mr. McGohey: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you leave the conference with the understanding that you might be called as a witness?
[*4775]
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3629) Q. How long after your discussion with Mr. Gordon on that occasion in November did you get a job with the Federal Government? A. Oh, it is quite some time.
Q. How much after? A. December the 8th.
Q. What is that? A. I began with the Federal Government on December 8th.
Q. December the 8th. So within a matter of weeks after your discussion with Mr. Gordon you got a job with the Government, isn’t that right? Isn’t that right, sir? A. You are speaking purely—
Q. Isn’t that correct? A. You are speaking purely in the terms of the time?
Q. Yes; isn’t that correct? A. I don’t like the other implications.
Q. No, isn’t that right? A. The time element only is correct.
Q. When you went to work for Gerald L. K. Smith, you recall testifying about that today? A. I did.
Mr. McGohey: Objection, your Honor. There is no testimony that he went to work for Gerald Smith.
(T–3630) Mr. Gladstein: Well, I think there is but I will ask it—
The Court: He said he was looking over his files and he was paid by Gerald L. K. Smith. I take it that is what you refer to, Mr. Gladstein?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I will ask the witness.
Q. Did you regard that as working for him, when you did some work for him and got paid, Mr. Nowell?
Mr. McGohey: Objection to what he regarded.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Let us put it this way: without regard to whether it was working or not, you testified that you did something for Gerald L. K. Smith and you got paid for it; that is correct, isn’t it?
Mr. McGohey: Objection, your Honor. Are we going to have cross–examination on cross?
[*4776]
Mr. Gladstein: No, this is not cross on cross.
The Court: I will allow a certain latitude here. That was covered this morning; according to my notes here, Mr. Isserman was questioning him, but I will allow you to go on.
Q. (Continuing) Will you answer the question?
The Witness: Will you repeat it?
Q. (Read.) A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Did you do anything for him at all? A. Yes, I did.
(T–3631) Q. Did you get paid? A. Yes.
Q. Did you get paid from him? A. That is right.
Q. What was incorrect about my question?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, when was it that you did something for Mr. Smith and got paid by him? A. The best of my recollection, it was around 1941.
Q. ’49—’41? A. ’41.
Q. What part of 1941? A. My best recollection is 1941. I don’t know the particular month. Didn’t impress me. So, sometime in 1941.
Q. Did you know Mr. Smith before you did this, whatever you call this activity? A. Yes, I knew him.
Q. How long had you known him? A. I had known him for a few months.
Q. Where had you met him? A. I met Smith at a meeting where I spoke and he was a speaker on the program.
Q. What city? A. Pardon me?
Q. What city? A. Detroit.
Q. During what period did you speak on public platforms with him? A. That was around 1940 to 1941.
Q. In how many cities? A. About four cities.
Q. Before you went over these files for him and received pay for it, did you know what activity Gerald L. K. Smith (T–3632) was engaged in? A. No, I didn’t know anything about the man.
Q. You did not know what public activities he was engaged in? A. No.
[*4777]
Q. Did you know what organization he was connected with? A. No. I later learned that he was connected with something called America First.
Q. When did you— A. At the time I met Smith I knew nothing about it. I was introduced to him at that meeting.
Q. At which meeting? A. At the meeting at Olympia in Detroit.
Q. Over how long a period between 1941—1940 and 1941, did you have any relationship with him at all? A. I daresay it was off and on for several months in 1941.
Q. This was a political relationship, a political business, wasn’t it? A. No indeed.
Q. In the Eisler case you called it political business, do you recall?
Mr. McGohey: I object to that, what he testified to in any other case, unless he wants to ask him a question.
Mr. Gladstein: I will ask.
Q. Did you testify that you had political business with him?
Mr. McGohey: Further, your Honor, I press now (T–3633) that this is cross on cross.
The Court: Yes, sustained.
Q. I will ask you if you ever said at any time that you had political business with Mr. Gerald L. K. Smith?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, did you take the trouble to find out what activities Gerald L. K. Smith was engaged in?
Mr. McGohey: Objection, form.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: To the form? Oh, well.
Q. Did you take any steps to ascertain the activities of Gerald L. K. Smith? A. Not any special steps. In fact, it came to me by, well, an accident, I suppose. I didn’t know he had an organization.
[*4778]
Q. You didn’t know what? A. I did not know he had an organization. It was during the course—he wanted me to—
The Witness: Your Honor, if you will permit me to tell the whole story.
Mr. Gladstein: No, no, just answer the question.
The Court: Well, you see, the way we do things here, one lawyer asks the question and if there is some explanation, then the other lawyer later has a chance, if he chooses, to take it up on what they call redirect (T–3634) examination.
The Witness: Surely.
The Court: So you just answer Mr. Gladstein’s questions.
Q. Do you say that in 1940 and 1941 you did not know that Gerald L. K. Smith was publicly known throughout the country as an advocate of anti–Semitism?
Mr. McGohey: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. McGohey: And I object to putting into a question something which is not in evidence.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: The witness clearly testified that he did not know anything about the man.
The Court: That is right.
Q. Did you find out at any time whether Gerald L. K. Smith was an advocate of anti–Semitism?
Mr. McGohey: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that before you went to work for Gerald L. K. Smith you knew that he was connected with the KKK?
Mr. McGohey: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What is the date of the last time that you spoke (T–3635) on the same public platform with Gerald L. K. Smith? A. Somewhere in Pennsylvania.
[*4779]
Q. The date, please? A. Just over—oh, the date was sometime the latter part of 1941.
Q. Latter part? A. I believe it was the latter part of 1941.
Q. So that the period during which you spoke on public platforms with Gerald L. K. Smith began some time in 1940 and ended in the latter part of 1941, correct, sir? A. That is roughly correct.
Mr. Gladstein: That is all.
Mr. McGohey: Is there any more cross?
May I proceed?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Redirect examination by Mr. McGohey:
Q. Mr. Nowell, how many times in all did you ever speak on a platform with Gerald Smith? A. The best of my recollection is that I spoke five times.
Q. And the last time, you have just testified, was some time in the latter part of 1941? A. In the—I believe that is correct, latter part of 1941.
Q. After that time were you ever asked by Gerald Smith to speak with him again? A. He did ask me once after that.
Q. Did you accept his invitation? A. I did not.
(T–3636) Q. After this time in 1941 did you ever speak on any platform with Gerald Smith? A. I did not.
Q. Did you ever join any organization with Mr. Smith? A. I did not.
Q. In your testimony this morning, in answer to some questions by Mr. Isserman, you testified that you were dismissed from the Ford plant, I believe, as a result of collusion; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Will you tell us what that collusion was?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
A. By collusion I meant the—firstly—the Ford local was dominated by the Communists, who were inimicable to me because I was a former Communist.
Mr. Crockett: I object to that and move to strike it out as the witness’s conclusion.
[*4780]
The Court: When he says he was a former Communist?
Mr. Crockett: No, he is speaking about the Ford local being dominated by Communists.
The Court: Well, he was right there.
Didn’t you say—weren’t you right there?
The Witness: Surely, right there.
Mr. Crockett: I submit the witness should testify to the facts and not his conclusions.
(T–3637) The Court: I will deny the motion.
Q. You were in that local, weren’t you, Mr. Nowell? A. I am a charter member of that local.
Q. Will you proceed with your answer?
The Court: Yes, go ahead.
A. When the union split into the CIO and AFL, I remained in Ford Local AFL, which was the only chartered local at that time. It was chartered by the American Federation of Labor. Later, after the strike and when the CIO won the Labor Board election, naturally, all of those who worked in the plant should have been included in the local union.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, as not answering a proper question.
The Court: I will allow it, redirect examination.
A. (Continuing) Because we refused to surrender the charter prior to the strike, we were sent a notice, several of us who were members of the Ford local, that we were expelled for lifetime; and after the strike and the Labor Board election, they still maintained that I was not eligible for membership in the local. I never stood trial or anything else. And the local was chartered by the American Federation of Labor. And no decision, no proper decision, could have been passed until after the Labor Board election. Therefore, on these grounds—they claimed that these were their grounds—they brought pressure on (T–3638) the company to dismiss—
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
A. (Continuing) —me.
* * *
[*4781]
Mr. Sacher: I object to this testimony and move to strike it out, your Honor. Clearly improper.
The Court: Motion denied.
A. (Continuing) They put pressure on the company to remove me and others, even, who were in disagreement with them under the threat of a breach of truce, and threatened with strikes and other means of essential sabotage unless we were dismissed. That is all I mean by collusion, because collusion may not be exactly the proper term because I don’t think it was wholly the company. I think they were intimidated.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that out, your Honor.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. You were questioned this morning about this matter of the offices that you held in the Communist Party in 1929 and 1930. Will you tell us what were the facts with (T–3639) respect to how you got those offices? A. The facts are these, sir, that under Norman Tallentire’s organizationship I was appointed temporarily to the District Bureau, that is, I was co–opted, he asked me to attend, to sit in on meetings to get acquainted with what was going on, to learn how the district was run. And Stachel succeeded Tallentire as district organizer of District No. 7, that is, the Michigan district, and I continued to serve as co–opted member. Stachel called the Bureau together, enlarged Bureau, and he simply stated to the Bureau that “Mr. Nowell, I want him to be a member of the Bureau,” and everybody agreed.
So I became a permanent member of the District Bureau, although it was a rather enlarged number because there were members other than the regular Bureau. Therefore, I say that Stachel appointed me as a permanent member of the Bureau while prior to that I was a co–opted member.
Q. How about this membership on the Secretariat? A. My membership on the Secretariat: I also served on the Secretariat long before there was a district meeting or a bureau meeting that confirmed my sitting on the Secretariat.
[*4782]
Q. Did anybody appoint you originally to the Secretariat? A. Stachel appointed me to the Secretariat. (T–3640) There wasn’t any bureau in the office when he did. The only people present there were, perhaps, myself and Anthony Gerlach and maybe one or two others just around the Party office.
Q. You also testified that you had been made a member of the Negro District Commission. Were you appointed on that Commission by somebody? A. After the same fashion. Robert Woods preceded me and, at Stachel’s instruction, I was placed in charge and Robert remained a member of the Committee but I was appointed secretary of the Commission.
Q. You have testified that before you testified here you had talked with Mr. Gordon here at the table. A. That is correct.
Q. That is, you didn’t talk to him at the table, but I mean Mr. Gordon who is seated at the table, and you talked to him in one of the offices in this building? A. That is correct.
Q. You also talked to me, did you not? A. I did.
Q. As a matter of fact, you talked to me last Friday—yes, part of last Friday?
Mr. Gladstein: Wouldn’t it be better to have the witness not led? It is just an observation I make.
The Court: Well, I will adopt the observation.
Q. Did you talk to me some time last week, Mr. Nowell? (T–3641) A. I did.
Q. Did you talk to me on Saturday? A. Yes, I did talk to you.
Q. Did you talk to me on Friday afternoon? A. I did.
Q. And during some of the time that you were talking with me was Mr. Gordon present? A. He was.
Q. At any time that you talked to Mr. Gordon, whether in my company or not, did Mr. Gordon ever suggest to you how you should testify? A. He did not.
Q. Did he ever tell you what you should say? A. No, sir, he did not.
[*4783]
Q. Did he ever tell you the name of any person that you should mention? A. No, sir, he did not.
Q. Did I ever tell you how you should testify? A. No, sir, you did not.
Q. Did I ever tell you what you should say? A. You did not.
Q. Did I ever give you the name of any person whom you should mention? A. You did not.
* * *
Recross examination by Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Mr. Nowell, isn’t it true Mr. McGohey and Mr. Gordon knew, when you first met them, what you were going to testify to?
Mr. McGohey: Objection.
(T–3642) The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Nowell, I think you had better just leave.
(Witness leaves the courtroom.)
* * *
CHARLES W. NICODEMUS, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Nicodemus, where do you live? A. I live at Dawson, Maryland, small community right outside of Cumberland, Maryland.
Q. Dawson, Maryland? A. Yes.
Q. Are you employed in Cumberland? A. I am employed at Celanese Corporation of America.
Q. How long have you been working for Celanese? A. I have been employed at Celanese since 1933, nearly 16 years.
Q. During that 16 years in which you have been employed at Celanese have you ever been a member of any [*4784] union? A. Yes, sir, I was a member—I was and still am a member—of Local 1874 CIO.
(T–3643) Q. What is the name of the union of which that is a local? A. We are affiliated with TWUA, Textile Workers Union of America.
Q. Do you hold any position in your local of the Textile Workers Union of America? A. Yes, sir, I am subchairman of my department—sub–chairman of the committee of my department and am also an auditor.
Q. And auditor? A. Auditor to the union.
Q. For your local? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the unionization of the Celanese plant in Cumberland? A. Yes, sir. I participated in the organization of Local 1874 in 1936.
(T–3644) Q. Were you on the committee that helped form the union? A. Yes, sir, I was on the original committee of 100.
Q. That was in 1936? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States? A. Yes, sir, I was a member of the Communist Party.
Q. And when did you first join the Communist Party? A. Oh, I joined the Communist Party, it was in either March or February of 1937.
Mr. Isserman: I move the answer be stricken.
* * *
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. Are you a member of the Communist Party today? A. I sure am not.
Q. When were you last a member of the Communist Party? A. Well, the last meeting of the Communist Party that I attended, if this will answer the question, was in 1946, in January of 1946.
* * *
Q. What were the circumstances under which you joined the Communist Party early in 1937?
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
(T–3645) The Court: Overruled.
[*4785]
A. Well, it probably will require some explanation, but at the expiration of a strike at the plant where I worked, I was approached at the union meeting by a man who represented himself as a member of the Communist Party, and I was asked if I would like to join the organization—
Mr. McCabe: Objection.
The Court: Overruled. If it isn’t connected up I will strike it out.
A. (Continuing) I was asked if I would like to join an organization that would strengthen the union and that would learn me to handle grievances and other problems of the union by myself instead of consulting somebody, and I said that I was interested. So the person who approached me said that I would be contacted by a man in the near future. He described the man to me. He didn’t tell me his name. So shortly after that I was contacted by this man at my home and asked if I would like to join the Communist Party, and at that time I joined.
Mr. Isserman: I move the answer be stricken.
The Court: I will deny the motion at this time.
Q. What was the name of the man that first approached you? A. The name of the man that first approached me was Arthur Schusterman.
* * *
(T–3646) Q. Arthur Schusterman? A. Arthur Schusterman.
Q. Now he first approached you in the early part of 1937? A. That’s right.
Q. In connection with your membership in the Communist Party after April 1st, 1945, did you have any dealings or association with this same man? A. After 1945?
Q. April 1st, 1945. A. Yes, yes, I did.
Q. You did. And I think you said back there in ’37 he told you that this group would help you in your union work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did Schusterman say anything to you at that time about the aims or purposes of the Communist Party? A. Not right at that time he did not.
[*4786]
Q. Nothing except about the union work? A. That is right.
Q. Now thereafter as a member of—did you join the Communist Party right about that time? A. I joined the Communist Party in February, after I had been contacted by the man that Schusterman told me would contact me. On his first contact I joined the Party.
Q. What was that man’s name? A. That man’s name
* * *
was Lance Clark.
(T–3647) Q. And did you give Clark any money? A. I gave Clark 50 cents.
Q. Was that in connection with the Communist Party? A. That is right. That was my first—that was my initiation fee and first month’s dues.
Q. Did you pay any dues after that first 50 cents? A. Yes, I paid dues.
Q. Regularly? A. Yes, regularly.
Q. Now what branch of the Party were you a member of? A. Well—
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
* * *
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Go ahead, Mr. Nicodemus. A. I was a member of the textile branch, and also being a member of the textile branch I was a member of the Allegheny County branch, but that composed all of Allegheny County.
Q. Of the Communist Party? A. That is right.
Q. Were there any other industries, other than the textile industry, which had representation in the Allegheny (T–3648) County Party? A. Yes, there were a number of—
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
A. —number of industries—
Mr. Isserman: Just a moment. That is objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
[*4787]
Q. There were a number of other industries? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were those? A. That was—
Mr. Isserman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. (Continuing) Textiles; along with textile there was the rubber workers represented; timber—textile, rubber and timber, and there was a few others I know, and there was other small industrials, and so on—housewives. Housewives were represented, too.
The Court: Housewives?
The Witness: Housewives.
Q. Mr. Nicodemus, there has been some testimony in this case that one of the defendants—
Mr. Isserman: May I get the page number?
Mr. Gordon: Why yes. Pages 1859 and 1860.
Q. —that one of the defendants in Chicago held a meeting of the active functionaries in the Illinois District and said that the Party should be prepared to (T–3649) go underground and that—
Mr. Gladstein: Just a moment; your Honor, this is an improper form of examination. It is leading and suggestive and it is not proper direct examination.
The Court: I don’t know what he is going to ask him yet.
Mr. Gladstein: It is already perfectly obvious that he is stating certain things that he has no right to state. If he wants to elicit testimony by this witness either supposedly present somewhere or if not present somewhere concerning a similar subject matter this isn’t the way to do it, I submit.
The Court: Well, it seems to me, Mr. Gordon, there is something in that. Why don’t you ask him a question without covering the matter of the other testimony? Is there something you want to direct his attention to?
[*4788]
Mr. Gordon: Yes, I want to ask him whether he had received any instructions.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this, your Honor, because it is quite obvious—
Mr. Gordon: Why does Mr. Sacher shout me down?
Mr. Sacher: Oh, Mr. Sacher shouting this little boy down.
The Court: Now, Mr. Sacher, you are getting back into your old form.
(T–3650) Mr. Sacher: Your Honor, I have consistently been in this form and no observations from the bench will change that form.
The Court: You never can tell what will happen.
Mr. Sacher: With your Honor up there I suppose that is true.
The Court: I might possibly get control of my courtroom. I think I shall.
Mr. Sacher: If the Court please, to return to the point which I rose to object to, the point is that Mr. Gordon is about to state not only in the presence of the jury but of the witness what he intends to elicit from the witness by way of guiding or leading the witness, and I think it is improper.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, may I say something?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher is the last man in the world who is qualified to say what I intended to do or what I have in my mind. There is no relationship between Mr. Sacher and me which would justify that.
The Court: He probably can’t read your mind.
Mr. Gordon: No. I intended to put the question in this form: I intended to ask the witness whether he had received any instructions similar to those which appear on pages 1859 and 1860 of the record.
(T–3651) The Court: I don’t think you ought to do that. I think you ought to ask him about what instructions he received and let’s see what his recollection is without referring to something that might be suggestive.
[*4789]
Mr. Gordon: Yes, I will abide by your Honor’s suggestion, but for Mr. Sacher to say under the circumstances I was trying to get it out in any way—
Who said I did get it out? I have not referred to the instructions?
The Court: Mr. Gordon, somehow or other those little remarks down there, I don’t always hear them but they do find their way to you without my hearing them,—pay no attention to them. Go ahead and reframe the question.
(Mr. Gladstein rises.)
Mr. Gordon: I will be glad to. I wonder if counsel can let me go ahead. There has been a ruling.
The Court: Mr. Gordon, you let these things bother you so. You ought not to do that. If you just notice around and you see how easy it is to take these things in your stride.
What is it, Mr. Gladstein?
Mr. Gladstein: Only this: that no amount of levity can cover up the fact, your Honor, that this type of question that Mr. Gordon has asked, although he pretends (T–3652) innocence, is so vicious that I have seen Judges tell a lawyer that he may not inquire on that subject at all after a question of that kind.
The Court: My, my, my, you heard Judges say that?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes.
The Court: Well, this Judge will not do that. The other Judges are all right. Now you go ahead, Mr. Gordon, and put the question, without leading the witness.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. How many members were there of the textile branch that you belonged to?
Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
A. There 35 or 40 members. It varied from time to time.
[*4790]
Q. You say the number varied from time to time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did there ever come a time when the number got considerably smaller? A. Well, if you will explain that—I don’t know just what you mean. If you mean, did the number of people drop off in the Party—
Q. No. A. No.
Q. Did the number of people that were in the same branch or group that you were in get to be smaller than 30 or 35? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3653) Q. When was that? A. That was around 1940 or thereabouts. The Party was broken down into groups of five. That was for security reasons, I understand, or understood at the time.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that be stricken.
The Court: What? “That was for security reasons”?
Mr. Isserman: “I understand” and I also ask that the remainder of the question be stricken.
Mr. Gordon: Remainder of the question?
Mr. Isserman: I mean, the answer, of course.
The Court: Motion denied.
Q. You say that you were broken down into groups of five? A. Yes.
Q. Were the groups under any sort of leadership? A. Yes, the groups were under captains.
Q. How do you know that? A. That was our instructions and I was captain of one group.
Mr. Isserman: I ask that that be stricken.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. When you were broken down into groups of five did you have any instructions about what you were to do out at the plant?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
(T–3654) A. At that time we were instructed by the organizer—do you want me to give his name?
[*4791]
Q. Who was it? A. The organizer was a man by the name of Sam Dean. He had recently come into Cumberland as organizer. We were instructed that each captain or each person—either each captain or each person should draw a map of part of the plant, that was part of the Celanese plant in which he was working, of all the entrances and doors, and so forth, and these maps were to be turned over to Dean who had put them together. I don’t know what he was going to do with them.
Mr. Gladstein: I move that this be stricken. I suppose this is all under the category of background. I submit the amount of background as contrasted with the amount of foreground is incredible. I submit it is irrelevant, remote and should be stricken and I move to—
The Court: Motion denied.
And that all those maps were to be given to Dean?
The Witness: They were to be given to Dean.
Q. Was Shusterman still a member of the party at this time? A. Shusterman always had been a member of the Party. Shusterman was a member at that time.
Q. Down there in Cumberland? A. That is right.
Q. After this 1940 period when you were told to (T–3655) make these maps did you continue to be active in the Party? A. Well, no, sir, I wasn’t active in Party affairs again until 1944.
Q. And in 1944 what happened with respect to your activity in the Party? A. Well, from Nineteen—
Mr. Isserman: That is objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
A. From around 1940 until some time there in the summer of 1944 I had been inactive. Of course, I had had some dealings with single Party members. I mean I talked to them. But in 1944 I had two visitors at my home. One of them was Evelyn Coleman who was secretary of the Allegheny County Communist Party.
Q. Evelyn Coleman? A. Evelyn Coleman.
Q. And who was the other one? A. The other was a man who was introduced to me as Whitey Goodfriend.
[*4792]
The Court: As what?
The Witness: Whitey Goodfriend.
Q. Did you then at that time assume any office in the Party? A. Yes, I was told by these two people that an emergency existed.
Mr. Isserman: I object to that, if the Court please.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Isserman: Hearsay.
(T–3656) A. (Continuing) And that we were—that they were setting up a three–man executive committee and that they wanted me to be a member of this committee, this three–man executive board. So I accepted this office on the Board.
* * *
Q. The Communist Political Association? A. Yes.
The Court: Now, ladies and gentlemen, remember the admonition I have heretofore given you. Don’t discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you, you will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will take a recess now until 10.30 on Friday and there will be a full session on Friday, both morning and afternoon.
(Adjourned to April 22, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.)
[*4793]
(T–3657) New York, April 22, 1949;
10.30 a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
CHARLES W. NICODEMUS, resumed the stand.
The Clerk: All present, your Honor.
The Court: Are you sure everybody is here? How about Mr. Isserman?
Mr. McCabe: Mr. Isserman is absent, your Honor. The stipulation is being executed.
The Court: Very well, just as soon as the stipulation is handed up—
Mr. Gladstein: The stipulation is ready, if your Honor please.
The Court: Let the record show that the jury is present; and the defendants, and the attorneys for the defendants, with the exception of Mr. Isserman, concerning whom a stipulation has been filed, and the attorneys for the Government are present.
Mr. Gladstein: There is one signature missing. I will get that for you.
(Paper handed to the clerk by Mr. Gladstein.)
Mr. McGohey: Have you a copy for us?
(T–3658) Mr. Gladstein: Yes.
The Clerk: I will file this, your Honor.
Mr. McGohey: May that stipulation that is being filed be dated? I don’t seem to see the date as of today on it, your Honor.
The Court: The date may be affixed by the clerk.
Mr. McGohey: Yes.
The Clerk: There is a date on the original, Mr. McGohey, “May be absent from the trial”—
Mr. McGohey: I mean the date that it is executed. If you will just put today’s date on it, I will put it on my copy.
[*4794]
Direct examination continued by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Mr. Nicodemus, when we adjourned last Wednesday—
Mr. Sacher: Tuesday.
Mr. Gordon: Tuesday, thank you.
Q. (Continuing) I think you had just said that you were on a three–man board that you were put on some time in 1944. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of the Communist Political Association; is that right? A. Yes, sir, that is right.
Q. Do you recall that a time came when the Communist Political Association was dissolved and the Communist Party was organized? A. Yes, I recall it.
Q. Do you remember when that was? A. Well, I don’t (T–3659) remember the exact date on that. As I remember, it was, this meeting that I had was previous to that time, this meeting that I had with Goodfriend and Evelyn Coleman.
Q. You don’t remember the exact date that the Communist Party was organized? A. Reorganized?
Q. Yes. A. No, I don’t.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 24–A in evidence, which is a page of the Daily Worker—of the Sunday Worker for August 5, 1945, which reports the proceedings and elections of the Communist Party convention. Does that refresh your recollection as to when that reorganization took place? A. M–m–m–m.
Q. You say that—m–m–m–m?
The Court: He is probably thinking.
Q. What is the answer? A. Yes, it does.
(T–3660) Q. And taking that page and date on it what is your recollection now as to when that took place? A. Well, it must have taken place—still not specific on the date—but it took place previous to the 26th of July in that year.
Q. What year? A. ’45.
Q. 1945. Now after the Communist Party was reorganized in the summer of 1945 did you attend any meetings in Cumberland? A. No, sir.
[*4795]
Q. Where? A. Why, I attended one meeting I can recollect at the home of Evelyn and Boyd Coleman on North Mechanic Street, Cumberland.
Q. Evelyn and Boyd Coleman? A. Yes.
Q. On North Mechanic Street? A. That is right.
Q. And with respect to this convention or some other date can you fix the time when that took place? A. It was in the summer.
Q. Summer of what year? A. Summer of 1945.
Q. Who was at the meeting? A. Well, Al Lannon.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this.
The Court: Who did you say was there?
Mr. Sacher: I objected, your Honor.
The Court: Oh. Overrule the objection.
A. (Continuing) Al Lannon, Evelyn and Boyd Coleman, Arthur Shusterman, and Lee Starkey. They were among (T–3661) others who were present.
The Court: Now let’s get those names. What was the last name?
The Witness: Lee Starkey.
The Court: S–t–a–r–k–e–y?
The Witness: That is right.
Q. Was Lannon introduced to the meeting? A. Well, Lannon was introduced as a director of the Maryland–District of Columbia District of the Communist Party.
Q. Is that Maryland–District of Columbia District of the Communist Party? A. Yes, Maryland—District of Columbia District of the Communist Party. That comprised all of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
Q. Will you try to speak a little slower and a little louder.
The Court: You say he was the director?
The Witness: Director.
Q. Do you know whether or not he was a member of the National Committee of the Party? A. No, I don’t.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, may I direct the attention of the jury to Exhibit 24–A, which reports [*4796] the names of the National Committee elected at the convention?
The Court: Yes, you may.
(T–3662) Mr. Gordon: July 1945.
Mr. McCabe: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: On what ground?
Mr. McCabe: Hearsay.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. McCabe: Hearsay.
The Court: Why, it is an exhibit already in evidence.
Mr. McCabe: Yes, and I already made an objection to the admission in evidence of that exhibit as proof of any of the facts set forth therein.
The Court: Well, it has been received in evidence. We have gone all over that. There was a witness on the stand who was present at the time they were elected as I remember. I will overrule the objection.
(T–3663) Mr. Gordon: (To the jury) And included among the names of the National Committee is the name Albert Lannon.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now was there a discussion period at this meeting? A. Yes, sir, there was a discussion period at all meetings.
Q. Well, do you recall a discussion period at this particular meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now give us your best recollection of the substance of what was said. A. Well, after the meeting had gone on for some time and we got into the political aspect of it—
Mr. Gladstein: Just a moment. I want to object to this, if your Honor please.
The Court: You mean you object to his saying that the meeting had gone on for some time?
Mr. Gladstein: No; he is about to give the conversation.
The Court: Oh, I will overrule the objection.
[*4797]
A. (Continued) Well, after the meeting had gone on for some time we entered into a discussion of politics and the war and Al Lannon reported to the meeting that the war couldn’t last much longer, it was about over, but he said that we must put on an extensive recruiting drive there in Maryland, that they were putting on one all over the country, (T–3664) that we must put one on in Maryland because he said that the American General Staff had already planned a war with Russia and that the only thing that they had to do now was to iron out the details of that war, and, of course, he said in the event of that war with Russia the Party would have to adopt a policy of sabotage. He said—he pointed out that not only this policy must be adopted for war industries but for every other industry, all industries. He said this is to demoralize the population to the extent that they couldn’t adequately support a war.
Mr. Gladstein: Now I move that all of this be stricken as wholly outside the issues of the case, indeed falling within a section of the law which, if the grand jury or the United States Attorney had any idea that they could make that kind of a charge against these defendants, they would have charged it under that section of the law that applies.
The Court: Mr. Gladstein, how many times are you going to continue to make arguments without asking my leave to do so in reference to matters of evidence? You do it so persistently and so often—
Mr. Gladstein: But, your Honor—
The Court: —that I am becoming a little worried about it. I don’t see why you do it.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, may I say (T–3665) something about the character of this kind of evidence?
The Court: Well, you have already said it, and I take the view that this is within the period of the indictment here, and hence under the rulings that I have made repeatedly it seems to me admissible. I have held as to this earlier part of the testimony of this witness that if it is not connected up I will strike it out, but as to this part it is right within the period stated in the indictment.
[*4798]
Mr. Gladstein: But your Honor has apparently overlooked the fact that the kind of testimony being elicited from this witness now, even though it is dated after April 1945, according to his statement, is not in support of any issue that these men are charged with. We are here being confronted with claimed evidence of a violation of some portion of the law that we are not charged with, if your Honor please, and I say that even though the United States Attorney claims that this conversation occurred after April 1945, that is not material here because it is supposed to be in support of a charge that has never been made and isn’t involved—
The Court: Well, the charge here is the conspiracy to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. This sounds a little bit to me as though it had bearing upon (T–3666) that charge.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, if your Honor please, I assign the remarks of the Court as misconduct for this reason—
The Court: Oh my! Don’t get into that again.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, there is a distinction between the claim that these men are charged with conspiring to teach a doctrine, a political doctrine that is decades old—that is one thing—and it is quite a different thing to say that there is any right on the part of the United States Attorney to bring in here the claimed statement made in the absence of any defendant—none of the defendants are there—
The Court: You know, Mr. Gladstein—
Mr. Gladstein: May I finish, your Honor?
The Court: —it seems to me that what you and your colleagues are up to is that you insist on arguing and stating things, and then whatever I say you are prompt to assign as judicial misconduct because you evidently feel that you are to do all the talking and that you can get up and say how these things have nothing to do with the case, and then when I say that they have, that is supposed to be judicial misconduct. That is the first kind of alleged judicial [*4799] misconduct of that character I ever heard (T–3667) of, but you keep it up, I suppose we will just have to go through with it.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, my reason is this, that your Honor has said that this kind of testimony is in some way related to the charge and my point is this, there is no charge in this case, in the indictment, that the defendants conspired either to commit or to advocate the commission of any acts of sabotage now or at any time, and for that reason I submit that your Honor’s remark assimilating this statement concerning the sabotage to the charges in the indictment is inappropriate.
The Court: Well, every time I rule that evidence is admissible I am guilty of judicial misconduct if you disagree with me. That is a new doctrine. I don’t understand that. All I am holding is that the evidence is admissible.
Mr. Gladstein: I ask your Honor to strike that evidence, and I will also assign, as I did before, your Honor’s statement as misconduct because it gives the impression that there is some possible relationship, which there cannot be, between this kind of statement and the charges in the case.
The Court: How can I rule that the evidence is inadmissible without necessarily giving the inference that it has a bearing on the case. And every time a Judge rules (T–3668) that way, the doctrine that you gentlemen have developed here is that that is judicial misconduct. Now I can’t stop lawyers from calling me names and saying I am guilty of judicial misconduct and that I am prejudiced, and this, that and the other thing, and you can keep that up until the cows come home; that is all right, and I take no umbrage at it. It is your right to do that, but as to the objection, I overrule it, and your charge of judicial misconduct is duly noted on the record.
Now let us get on with the rest of the evidence.
[*4800]
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. I think when the interruption came, Mr. Nicodemus, you had said that the Party—
The Court: We had better have it read so that we can remember what it was. Read the answer.
* * *
(T–3670) Q. Do you remember anything else that was said? A. Yes, sir. During this discussion Coleman, Booie Coleman pointed out to the meeting in general—Booie Coleman was chairman of that meeting—he pointed out to that meeting that during the revolution in Russia the tactics that had been employed there had been for the Communists with their supporters to seize railroad stations and means of communications, public buildings and so on, all means of transportation had been seized, and he pointed out—quoted from a book that he had read, called “Ten Days That Shook The World”—that during this revolution in Russia that there had been a wave of strikes which swept that country, but they had been broken, and he pointed out that the sabotage that had been committed had been far more effective than the strikes could ever hope to be.
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike out the last answer given by the witness.
The Court: Overruled. Motion denied.
Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Lannon referred to the American General Staff by any particular words? A. Yes, he referred to the American General Staff first as the boys in the Pentagon Building. Then someone questioned that and he enlightened them on it.
Q. “The boys in the Pentagon Building”? A. “The (T–3671) boys in the Pentagon Building.”
Q. During your membership in the Party had the question of sabotage ever come up previously?
Mr. Crockett: Objection.
The Court: Do you refer—I will allow it. Just yes or no.
A. Yes.
[*4801]
Q. Was any reference made at this meeting to any previous discussion or instructions on the subject of sabotage? A. Not specifically.
The Court: Was there anything said at this meeting here about the conversation that you—let me have that book, please, Mr. Borman.
(Clerk hands book to the Court.)
The Court: (Continuing)—the conversation that you testified, about the Celanese plant, having had with this Sam Dean?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: No reference to that?
The Witness: No, sir, no reference.
The Court: Was there any reference to that conversation made later?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: I think I will strike out that testimony that I took subject to connection, then.
(T–3672) Was there any reference at this meeting to the conversation you had previously had with Arthur Schusterman, about which you testified the other day?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Well, I will leave in the part about his joining the Party and paying his initiation fee and his dues, but I will strike out the conversation that he testified to with Schusterman and, also, and more particularly, the conversation with Dean that had to do with the Celanese plant.
Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I instruct, you to disregard the testimony that I have thus stricken out. This witness testified the other day to conversations with this Mr. Schusterman and a conversation with a man named Dean about the Celanese plant, which I received subject to connection, and I am now convinced that the interests of justice require that that be stricken out. I took it subject to connection and subject to striking it out, and I now strike it out and I direct you to disregard it.
[*4802]
Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: I would like to ask one question. Perhaps I will go on, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
(T–3673) Q. Were there any other meetings held in 1945 at the home of Boyd and Evelyn Coleman of the Communist Party? A. I can recall one meeting that was held shortly before Christmas of 1945.
Q. Shortly before Christmas of 1945? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who was at that meeting? A. Well, mostly the same people that were at this previous meeting with the exception—I mean there was another Starkey there. Ther were two Starkeys. The other one was Albert Starkey and the same people I mentioned previously were all there.
Q. Had any of these people been present at earlier meetings of the Party that you had attended? A. Yes, they were present at earlier meetings, many of the meetings.
Q. I am talking about the period from 1937 to 1940. A. Yes, I understand what you mean.
Q. The same group? A. The same group with the exception of the Starkeys. They didn’t come into the Party until later.
Q. How about Al Lannon? A. Well no, Al Lannon, I didn’t know Al Lannon until that first meeting when he was introduced to me.
Q. In the summer of 1945? A. Yes.
The Court: But he was also at this meeting (T–3674) shortly before Christmas 1945?
The Witness: Yes, he was there.
Q. Do you recall the discussion that took place at that meeting? A. Yes, I recall that. Well, the discussion centered around—in the first part of the meeting centered around demoralization in the Party.
* * *
Well, it was explained there that a whole lot of people had dropped out of the Party. I mean they had become inactive. In connection with this organizing drive that [*4803] we were going to have we were to try to get these people back into the Party. We were given lists of ten people each to contact, given a certain amount of time to contact them in, and we were to report back in a period of up to a month, report our success or failure in getting these people.
During this meeting the subject of revolution again came up from a man who had just come back from the (T–3675) Army and seemed sort of put out, seemed sort of discouraged.
Mr. Crockett: I move to strike that out.
The Court: Were you the man who was back from the Army?
The Witness: No; it was another man.
The Court: Tell us what was said. Don’t tell us what you thought. Strike that latter part out. I will grant the motion. Go ahead and tell what was said.
A. (Continuing) The subject of revolution came up. We were discussing revolution and the possibility of revolution and it was pointed out by Al Lannon and Schusterman that times were good in the country, employment was high, everybody was working, nobody was hungry. These are the things that were said. Nobody is hungry now; the possibility of a revolution within the next five or six years just wasn’t any good. It was pointed out even then that without the help of the Red Army there could hardly be a successful revolution.
Mr. Gladstein: I move that all that be stricken for all the reasons that have heretofore been given plus the fact that there is no identification of who said any of these remarks.
The Court: Well, it seems to me he said it was this Al Lannon and Schusterman.
Mr. Gladstein: No, if your Honor please; he (T–3676) kept on using the third person neuter and it was—
The Court: (To witness) Did you hear those things said by the two men I named, Lannon and Schusterman?
[*4804]
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Gladstein: I object to your Honor’s leading the witness in this manner.
The Court: Oh, my goodness, that is the most absurd thing. He just said that and I said I understood he said it and asked him if he had said it. That is all. I suppose that is some more judicial misconduct.
Mr. Gladstein: I submit that the record won’t show that he designated any particular person, that he said any particular man said these things. Perhaps the witness himself made some of these remarks.
Mr. Gordon: We will get to the statements the witness made if we get a chance to bring out the testimony.
The Court: Yes, very well.
Q. Do you remember anything else that was said by Lannon and Schusterman? A. Well, just that it was pointed out, as I said, that a revolution wouldn’t be successful in the country without the help of the Red Army and until the Soviet Union had consolidated its position in Europe that the hope of that couldn’t be held very high.
Q. All right, did you say anything? A. Yes, I did. I had a question in my mind and I asked Lannon how the (T–3677) Soviet Union could possibly ever invade the United States without a navy and Lannon pointed out to me as had been pointed out before that the Red Army in Siberia numbered some hundreds of thousands and was a strong force and that the Russians were constantly building it up and they had a good air force, they were building air strips, whenever the time come with air support the Russians could invade Alaska down through Canada and they could even destroy Detroit.
Mr. Gladstein: What was that?
The Court: They could even destroy Detroit, as I understood it. Did you say that?
The Witness: That is what I said.
[*4805]
The Court: Why all of the defendants are smiling broadly.
Defendant Gates: Why certainly we are.
Defendant Potash: Certainly we are.
The Court: We are getting back to that country club atmosphere again. Well, there isn’t going to be any country club atmosphere in my court.
Mr. Gladstein: When a man hears something that is ludicrous and absurd to the extreme I suppose he is permitted the human reaction of a smile of contempt.
The Court: That to me is in the same line as some of the comments we have had in the past. It may (T–3678) ssem very funny to the defendants. They seem to enjoy it, but I don’t think it is, and their laughing is not going to have any effect.
Mr. Gladstein: This is the Federal court. I had expected a serious and sober effort on the part of the Government, if it could, to prove the charge that has been made that a political doctrine advocates the overthrow of the United States. But instead of that we are being treated to one after another of these witnesses, persons giving the same type of story we have heard from Congressman Rankin and J. Parnell Thomas.
The Court: Another little speech.
Mr. Gladstein: That is what we get. Your Honor asked why people are smiling, but there is an irony to it.
The Court: I had occasion to put a stop to some of that before. I am familiar with the practice in criminal cases of trying to laugh something off, and I am not going to have anything but order in my court. When the defendants get hilarious and start laughing and smiling and that sort of thing it is going to be stopped. You can put that in your book.
Mr. Gladstein: I would like the record to show that there was no hilarity on the part of any defendant.
[*4806]
The Court: I saw it and it is noted, and your (T–3679) denial doesn’t change it.
Mr. Gordon: Why the defendant John Gates said certainly he was laughing.
Defendant Gates: Do I understand that you are now forbidding me to smile?
The Court: No, I don’t think so.
Defendant Gates: It is bad enough we are not allowed to think. Now you want to forbid us to smile as well.
The Court: Well, you are evidently a very bold man and you get up and have your say. That is all right. I am not ordering you not to smile, but I am going to have order in my courtroom, and I am not going to have testimony laughed off by the sort of procedure that we have had in the past. We will just stop there.
Mr. Crockett: I wish to object to the remarks by the Court and assign those remarks as judicial misconduct by the Court in line with various other personal comments he has made concerning the defendants and their counsel.
The Court: Very well.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Now, Mr. Nicodemus, was anything said about what the Communist Party or its members would do?
Mr. Gladstein: I object to this as leading and suggestive.
The Court: Yes. Just ask him if anything else (T–3680) was said. I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Sacher: May I state a ground for a request to the Court to admonish Mr. Gordon not to ask questions which are so obviously leading?
The Court: Mr. Sacher, I am not accustomed to this business of admonishing you gentlemen for every word.
Mr. Sacher: We are admonished all right.
The Court: When testimony of a certain character comes along we have a barrage of objections, [*4807] judicial misconduct and all the rest. Now we have a motion that I admonish counsel. I am not given to doing that, particularly over a matter such as this. The question is objected to as leading, I sustain the objection, and then you want me to rebuke counsel.
Mr. Sacher: May I say why?
The Court: No, no.
Mr. Sacher: I see, only Mr. Gordon and Mr. Nicodemus may speak.
The Court: I think we have had a good deal of talk by others. Even the defendants get up now and have their say; so I don’t think anybody can say that counsel for the defendants have been unduly restricted.
Mr. Sacher: I would like to point out that your Honor does us no good when you sustain an objection (T–3681) after the question is out because the very next question is, “Did you have such a conversation?” and then he comes forward with precisely that which the leading question was designed to elicit.
The Court: Well, perhaps so. I think not. Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon: I might say I asked the witness to give his best recollection of what was said. If he had been permitted to do so without so much interruption there would have been no necessity to ask the question that was objected to. But I am trying to get his mind back on the subject. I have no intention of leading the witness.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Do you recall whether anything else was said? A. The only other thing that I recall was said during that meeting with Earl Browder was in trouble with the Party and Mr. Foster was going to lead the fight to have him kicked out of the Party because he had lost sight of the revolutionary policy of the Party.
The Court: Who said that?
The Witness: Lannon.
[*4808]
Q. I think you testified on Tuesday that the last meeting of the Party that you attended was in January, 1946? A. That is correct.
(T–3682) Q. And where did that meeting take place? A. Well, that meeting took place on Virginia Avenue in Cumberland at the home of Harry Bartlett.
The Court: This is in 1946?
Mr. Gordon: January 1946 he said, your Honor.
Q. Who was present at the home of Harry Bartlett at this meeting? A. Well, there was Harry Bartlett and myself and Joe Barley and Arthur Schusterman.
* * *
A. (Continuing) And Boyd Coleman was there too, Boyd Coleman was chairman of the meeting.
The Court: That is Boyd Coleman?
The Witness: Boyd Coleman.
The Court: Is that all?
The Witness: That is all that I can recollect.
Q. Boyd Coleman was chairman of the meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you give us his office in the Party? A. Well, he is chairman of the Alleghany Communist Party or he was at that time.
Q. Now what was the subject of discussion at this meeting? A. Well, we had called a meeting in order to discuss the coming election in Local 1874 and to come to some conclusion as to who we were going to support for (T–3683) the office of business manager and president.
Q. That was your union? A. In my union, yes.
Q. And tell us about the discussion. A. Well, during the discussion—
Mr. Gladstein: I object to this as having no bearing on the issues.
The Court: Well, I will allow it, (to witness) but tell us who said what.
The Witness: All right.
[*4809]
A. (Continuing) Well, Mr. Coleman as chairman of the meeting criticized me pretty badly there for my refusal to follow out a certain policy in the union and the conversation centered around that for a good while until I finally got up and walked out of the meeting.
Q. Did you say anything about your policy? A. Yes, I did. The question of seniority—that was the question of policy in the question that was discussed, as to what we should do about seniority in the plant.
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I object and move that all of this be stricken.
The Court: Motion denied.
The Witness: Can I go ahead?
Q. Yes. A. Well, during the war, during the manpower shortage—
The Court: This is what was said? Don’t bring (T–3684) in a lot of things you were thinking about.
Q. Tell us what was said. A. At this particular meeting during the discussion of seniority it was pointed out by Coleman that during the war—of course we all knew it but anyhow it was pointed out by Coleman that during the war there had been a number of Negro people hired at the plant where previously they had not. After negotiations with the company we finally got the company to hire the people. Sometime before the war ended I was approached by Boyd Coleman and asked if I would support a policy that they had adopted in a meeting of retaining Negro people in the plant regardless of seniority when furlough time come, just disregard seniority, the company wouldn’t furlough them, it would only furlough the other people. I objected, and I said I couldn’t go along with that and I said that seniority was the foundation of the union, that it is the basis we organized the union on. That is what I said was my policy. They asked me if I would take a position on the floor of the union hall that this thing be done and I wouldn’t do it. At this meeting I got a lot of criticism. I got a lot of criticism from Coleman, I got a lot of criticism from Schusterman.
[*4810]
By the Court:
Q. I am not clear as to just what it was you said you (T–3685) wouldn’t do. A. In our plant we have a seniority setup. The oldest person in the plant is the first one furloughed.
Q. Laid off you mean? A. That is right, we call it furloughed. Of course these Negro people had been hired and my policy was that they had as much seniority as everybody else, no more, no less. They didn’t want to do that; they wanted the Negro people to have superseniority, regardless of when they came in when furlough time came they wanted them to not be furloughed. They said that the Negro people had not had equal opportunity in the past and they wanted them to have super–seniority. I couldn’t agree with that because it is not a policy of the CIO. The policy of the CIO is regardless of who you are, race, color or anything else, you take your seniority in the place with everybody else. That is the policy I followed, and I received this criticism for it, and I walked out of the meeting.
(T–3686) Q. Since that time have there been any Negroes employed in the Celanese plant? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you got up and walked out of the meeting? A. I did.
Q. Thereafter, did you receive any communication from any member of the Party? A. I received a letter.
Q. Do you recognize that document? (Indicating.) A. Yes, I do. That is the letter that I received.
Q. That is the letter that you received? A. That is.
Q. And is this the envelope in which it came (indicating)? A. That is the envelope.
Mr. Gordon: I offer that in evidence and ask leave to substitute a photostat—in fact, I will offer the photostat.
Mr. Sacher: No objection.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 50 in evidence.)
Mr. Sacher: May I trouble you for a spare copy of that, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: I think I have one here, Mr. Sacher (handing to Mr. Sacher).
[*4811]
This letter is dated February 20, 1946, typewritten, and it reads “Dear Nic: At the last meeting of the Regional Board your recent actions involving violations of our organization’s basic principles were (T–3687) discussed. You are requested and expected to be present at Harry Bartlett’s home 8 p. m. Friday, February 22, to discuss these actions with the sub–committee of the Regional Board.
“Fraternally Evelyn.”
The postmark on the envelope is February 23, 1.30 p. m., 1946.
By Mr. Gordon:
Q. Have you ever been a member of any trial board of the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir, I have been a member of the trial board.
Q. Did you attend this meeting at Harry Bartlett’s home or any other meeting in the nature of a trial at or about that time? A. No, sir.
Q. Or thereafter? A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you make any effort to continue your membership in the Communist Party? A. I did not.
Mr. Gordon: Your witness.
Mr. Sacher: May it please the Court, in view of the fact that we are within ten minutes of the usual recess, would you—
The Court: Do you desire a recess now rather than later? I will allow that.
(Short recess.)
(T–3688) Cross examination by Mr. Sacher:
Q. When did you enter the employ of the Celanese Corporation at Cumberland? A. In 1933, August.
Q. In what department were you employed? A. Twisting department.
Q. Twisting department? A. Twisting.
Q. Are you still in that department? A. Yes, I am still in that department.
[*4812]
Q. Do you know how many employees the Celanese Corporation had in its employment? A. In the entire plant?
Q. In the entire plant? A. About 9400.
Q. That was at the time you entered in 1933? A. Yes, that was at that time.
Q. Do you know how many employees it has at the present time in that plant? A. Yes, 7400.
Q. Can you tell us how many of the 9400 employees in 1933 were Negroes?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. In 1933?
Q. Yes.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Mr. Sacher: This is in relation to the subject matter last discussed by this witness, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher stated his ground for (T–3689) offering it. May I state my ground for objecting to it?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: What I offered was a conversation that the witness had with members of the Party when he walked out of a meeting, the last meeting he attended.
The Court: That was in 1946.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir, and I don’t believe—
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Coleman about Negroes in the plant? A. Yes.
Q. Did the Negroes whom you discussed enter the employ of the company during the war? A. Yes, they did.
Q. Was that the first time that they entered the employ of the company? A. That was the first time, to my knowledge.
Q. And what year would you place as the first in which you saw Negroes at the plant, employed at the plant? A. That was in 1939.
Q. You saw none from 1933 to 1939, is that right? A. That is right.
[*4813]
Q. What was the maximum number of Negro people employed at the plant between 1939 and 1946, if you know?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. Well, I don’t know that.
(T–3690) Mr. Gordon: Objection—well, I withdraw the objection.
Q. Do you know anything about the employment of Negro people in your own department? A. In my department.
Q. Yes. A. No. There was none employed in my department.
Q. None at all? A. No.
Q. How many people were employed in your department in 1945? A. Approximately 940.
Q. And there wasn’t a single Negro present among the 940 in your department? A. No, there were not.
Q. You know, do you not—I withdraw that, if you please.
Q. You participated, did you, in the organization drive in 1936? A. I did.
Q. You were a member of the organizing committee, is that right? A. Well, I wasn’t a member of the organizing committee. I was a member of the original committee of 100 committee—of committee people who negotiated with the company.
Q. And you had a strike in that plant in 1936, did you not? A. We did.
Q. Did you vote for that strike? A. I did.
Q. Did you participate in picketing, et cetera? A. I did.
(T–3691) Q. At the end of that strike you joined the Communist Party, did you not? A. That is correct.
Q. And did you join on the strength of statements made to you that it would strengthen the union if you joined the party? A. That it would strengthen my position and my knowledge in the union.
Q. Wasn’t it said to you that it would strengthen the union if you joined the Party? A. That was inferred.
Q. I call your attention to the following testimony which you gave at pages 3644 and 3645:
[*4814]
“Q. What were the circumstances under which you joined the Communist Party in early 1937? A. Well, it probably will require some explanation, but at the expiration of a strike at the plant where I worked, I was approached at the union meeting by a man who represented himself as a member of the Communist Party, and I was asked if I would like to join the organization—
“I was asked if I would like to join an organization that would strengthen the union and that would learn me to handle grievances and other problems of the union by myself instead of consulting somebody, and I said that I was interested. So the person who approached me said that I would be contacted by a man in the near future. (T–3692) He described the man to me. He didn’t tell me his name. So shortly after that I was contacted by this man at my home and asked if I would like to join the Communist Party, and at that time I joined.”
I ask you, do you recall that testimony? A. Yes, I recall that.
Q. You recall—
Mr. Gordon: That is exactly what he testified to three minutes ago, your Honor.
Q. Was it said to you at that time as to whether you would like to join an organization that would strengthen the union? A. That organization—it was said to me that the organization would strengthen the union, but not that my joining would strengthen the union. It wasn’t said that my joining the Party would strengthen the union.
Q. No, but it was said that the Party would strengthen the union, is that right? A. Right.
Q. Did the Communist Party in Cumberland support the strike of 1936? A. Well, sir—
Q. Did it, yes or no? A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know? A. I don’t know anything about the Communist Party at that time. That was after the strike, that I joined.
Q. Do you know anything about the strike of 1939? A. Yes.
[*4815]
(T–3693) Q. Did the Communist Party support that strike? A. For a while.
Q. Did it? A. For a while, partly.
Q. What was that strike in 1939 about, was it for wages, increased wages? A. Partly wages, partly trouble that was in the plant.
Q. You mean grievances? A. No, partly a fight that we had in the plant with the plant police.
Q. With whom? A. With the plant police.
Q. Plant police? You mean the plant police were pushing the workers around, is that it? A. That is right.
Q. And the strike was dictated by those two factors of wages and plant police pushing around, is that it? A. Yes.
Q. And you say that the Communist Party supported that strike, is that right? A. The Communist Party participated in that strike, yes.
Q. Was there a time when seniority rights were demanded by the union of the Celanese Corporation for the workers in the plant? A. That was the main demand in 1936.
Q. And did you win that demand then? A. We did.
Q. And at that time, according to your testimony, there were no Negroes employed in the plant, is that (T–3694) correct? A. That is right.
Q. Now, you say that beginning with 1939 Negro people were hired by the company, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. By the way, you testified, did you not, that you were the sub–chairman of your department committee, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you at any time between 1939 and 1946 advance the request to the company that Negro people be employed in your department, the down twisting department? A. I could not make that request.
Q. Yes or no. A. No.
Q. You did not? A. I could not.
Q. Did you oppose the employment of Negro people in your department? A. I did not.
Q. You say that there never were any Negro people in your department, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
[*4816]
Q. And yet you say that you were opposed to granting the Negro workers in other departments of the plant an opportunity to stay on after the war; is that correct?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
* * *
(T–3695) Q. Did the company, as a result of the 1936 strike enter into an agreement with the union? A. Yes, it did.
Q. Do you know whether that agreement contained any provision—
(Mr. Gordon rises.)
Q. (Continuing)—for the establishment of seniority rights? A. It did.
Mr. Gordon: Changed my mind.
Q. You have testified to a conversation between yourself and Mr. Boyd Coleman, is that right, concerning the application of seniority to Negro workers in the Celanese plant in Cumberland, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Did Mr. Coleman explain or say to you that Negro workers had, prior to 1939, been systematically excluded from employment in the Celanese plant at Cumberland?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Sacher: I am asking as to whether he had a certain conversation, your Honor, at this time, and you sustain that?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: May I ask—
The Court: You put in something in your question there. Perhaps you can reframe it.
Q. Did Mr. Coleman say to you that Negro men and women (T–3696) had not been employed in the Celanese plant prior to 1939? A. Yes, he did say that.
[*4817]
Q. And did he also mention the fact—
The Court: Keep your voice up, now.
Q. And did he also mention the fact that at the time that the 1936 agrement was made, which contained provision for seniority, there were no Negro men and women employed in the Celanese plant? Did he mention that? A. No.
Q. He did not mention that at all? A. Not that way.
Q. What is that?
(Mr. Crockett speaks to Mr. Sacher.)
Q. Oh! Will you please take your hand away from your mouth so I can hear you? A. I said he didn’t say it in that way.
Q. All right. What did he say on that question? A. Coleman said that because—this is his words as clear as I can recollect them—that because in the past Negro people had not had equal opportunity to be hired, that when furlough time came, they should be retained on the job regardless of seniority.
Q. Did he say to you that because they had been denied equal opportunity to employment in the past that when furlough time came they would be the first to be laid off, if the seniority clauses were strictly applied according to their letter? A. No, he didn’t say that. (T–3697) He said just what I told you.
Q. Wasn’t it the fact that an insistence upon the literal application of the seniority clause, as contained in the 1936 agreement, resulted in the disemployment of Negro people first when furlough time came? Wasn’t that the fact? A. That would have resulted in some cases.
Q. Wasn’t it—didn’t it so result? A. Not in all cases, no. Not in all cases because, at the time these Negro people were hired, there were white people hired too. That was during the war when they were calling people in there fast.
Q. In other words, you mean that in those cases where there were white people who happened to be hired subsequent to Negro people that the white people in those instances were laid off first, is that right?
[*4818]
Mr. Gordon: I object to that. That is not what he said.
The Court: I think the situation is very plain.
Q. Is that what you meant?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
The Court: I will allow it.
The Witness: What was your question again? You got me off it. If you will ask me the question again—
Q. Is it the meaning of your testimony that in those (T–3698) instances where white workers happened to be hired subsequent to Negro workers, and the number laid off would be sufficient to absorb only the subsequently hired white workers, that in those instances Negro workers would not be laid off; is that what you mean?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Will you tell us in how many instances, if you know any, in which Negro workers were retained and white workers were laid off when furlough time came?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did there come a time when there were furloughs in the Cumberland plant of the Celanese?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Yes, there were furloughs.
Q. When did those furloughs take place? A. Well, those furloughs take place from time to time. I mean, there is a process of one going on now, and the furloughs are seasonal, business is seasonal. You cannot predict from one day to the next what is going to happen in the textile industry.
[*4819]
Q. As a sub–committeeman are you familiar with the number of Negro people employed in the Cumberland plant? (T–3699) A. No, I am not familiar with that. I mean, I am sub–chairman of a department, not of the entire plant.
Q. Was there a considerable number of Negro people employed in the Cumberland plant at the time of your conversation with Mr. Coleman in 1946? A. Well, I would assume that there were a considerable number.
Q. About how many, would you say? A. I couldn’t say the number.
Q. Was there a thousand?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You don’t know? A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it true to say that you didn’t know the number of Negro men and women employed in the Cumberland plant at the time of your conversation with Mr. Coleman? A. Yes, you could say that.
Q. You don’t know how many there were, is that right? A. I have no way of knowing.
Q. How many employees were there all told in the Cumberland plant at the time of your conversation with Mr. Coleman in 1946? A. Well, there would be approximately 8,900.
Q. You didn’t know, did you, to what extent the seniority (T–3700) status of white people would be affected if the suggestion by Mr. Coleman, in regard to the modification of seniority, were applied?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Q. Is that correct?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. No, I would not be familiar with it offhand.
Q. In other words, you didn’t know whether there was only one Negro worker among those 8900 or 500 Negro workers, is that right? A. Yes, I did know.
Q. You did know, you say? A. I didn’t know how many but I knew there was more than one.
[*4820]
Q. How many more than one were there?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: He said there was a considerable number.
Q. Can you give us some notion as to what you mean by a considerable number?
Mr. Gordon: I object, your Honor. The witness says he couldn’t say.
(T–3701) Mr. Sacher: Well, I am asking him now for what number when he says “a considerable number.”
The Court: Well, I will allow a question or two on it if it doesn’t go on too much.
Q. What do you mean by “a considerable number”? A. Well, there were more than three or four hundred.
Q. There were more than three or four hundred; is that right? A. (No response.)
Q. Do you know how many of them— I withdraw that. Was there a furlough or layoff at or about the time of your conversation with Mr. Coleman? A. There had been a furlough previous to that, yes.
Q. Will you please take your hand away from your mouth so that I can hear you? A. I said that there had been a furlough previous to that conversation.
Q. How long before—
Mr. Gordon: I have no difficulty hearing the witness, your Honor.
Mr. Crockett: Well, I am, Mr. Gordon.
The Court: Well, let us just drop that.
Q. How long before your conversation with Mr. Coleman did the furlough take place? A. Well, that was only one conversation. I had several conversations on this same subject.
Q. On this same subject? A. Yes.
(T–3702) Q. There were prior conversations? A. Yes.
Q. When did this first one take place? A. Well, that was just mentioned—
[*4821]
Q. On this subject? A. That was just mentioned to me on the street the first time. It was just mentioned in an offhand manner.
Q. When was that? A. Well, that was in—that was in the summer of about 1944.
Q. Were furloughs beginning in the summer of 1944? A. As I said, there were fluctuations, a furlough one week and recalled the next week. That happened all the time.
Q. But I am asking you, were there any furloughs in the summer of 1944?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. I don’t know. Furloughs happened from week to week.
The Court: I guess I will let that objection go without ruling on it.
Q. But you say it was mentioned to you on the street in the summer of 1944; is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now will you tell us what was mentioned to you on the street at that time? A. The subject of this super–seniority for Negro people. I was asked what I thought of that.
Q. Do you know—I beg your pardon, what was that? (T–3703) A. Yes, I know what it is.
Mr. Gordon: Now just a moment. Counsel asks a question and the witness begins to answer it.
Mr. Sacher: All right, I withdraw the interruption.
The Court: I think we have been going along very nicely, Mr. Gordon. I think it is a good idea to just—
Mr. Gordon: All right; then adopting your Honor’s suggestion—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: —in the language of Mr. Sacher I won’t make a production out of it; I will sit down.
The Court: I think that is a good idea.
Now go ahead, Mr. Sacher.
Mr. Sacher: Will you be good enough, Mr. Reporter, to read the last question.
(Record read.)
[*4822]
The Court: Go ahead and tell us the rest of the conversation.
The Witness: Well, it was just mentioned off–hand, your Honor—I mean Evelyn Coleman asked me what I thought of that.
* * *
The Court: Just go ahead.
(T–3704) The Witness: Well, she asked me what I thought of the question of this super–seniority for Negroes, and I told her the same thing I told the Court here, that seniority was the foundation for the union and it would have to apply to everybody or it would mean the destruction of the union.
Q. Did Mrs. Coleman tell you that the Communist Party was also in favor of seniority? Didn’t she say that? A. Yes, she did.
Q. And didn’t she say to you at that time that it was because the seniority rules which had been adopted in the Cumberland plant had been adopted prior to the employment of any Negro people, that it was necessary to take that seniority clause into account in relation to the period in which Negro people were actually employed? Didn’t she say that to you? A. She didn’t say that to me.
Q. What did she say to you in that connection, if anything? A. Evelyn Coleman just said to me that the Party was in favor of keeping Negro people in the plant regardless of seniority, for the reasons I had given you, because they hadn’t had equal opportunity to be hired in the past. She asked me what I thought of it, and I had no thought on the subject at that time.
Q. Did your mind crystallize on the subject between the (T–3705) summer of 1944 and the time of your conversation with Mr. Coleman in 1946? A. I forgot about it.
Q. But you do know that you were opposed to what Evelyn Coleman had proposed to you in 1944 and what Boyd Coleman proposed to you in January 1946, is that correct? A. I was opposed to it.
Q. Now do you know—
The Court: What did you say there?
The Witness: I was opposed to it.
[*4823]
Q. And that is the ground upon which you left this meeting that you testified to, in January 1946, is that right? A. I didn’t testify I left the meeting on that ground. I testified because I had taken a lot of abuse at that meeting, I couldn’t take any more, so I walked out.
Q. But is it true to say that the abuse that you were taking at that meeting was given to you in connection with your opposition to this matter of seniority for Negro people; is that right? A. That is right.
Q. That was the sole basis of the abuse that you were given at that meeting, is that it? A. No, that wasn’t the sole basis for it.
Q. But that was most of it, wasn’t it? A. That was part of it.
Q. Yes. Was part of it—what is that? Was part of it due to the fact that you also were (T–3706) opposed to the employment of women in the Cumberland plant regardless of race or color? A. No.
Q. You were opposed to the employment of women, weren’t you? A. I was not.
Q. Weren’t you opposed to the employment of women and asked that they be eliminated from the Cumberland plant? A. No.
Q. You are sure of that now? A. The record speaks for itself in Cumberland. I negotiated for women to come into my department. I negotiated with Mr. Allen.
Q. You negotiated for them to come in? A. I did.
Q. Did you negotiate for them to go out? A. There was no negotiating for them going out.
Q. Wasn’t there an arbitration at one time in regard to whether the women should stay in or not? Wasn’t there? A. There was arbitration.
Q. Yes, and wasn’t that arbitration due to the fact that you, as a sub committeeman were opposed to the employment of women in the factory, too? A. That is not so.
Q. Isn’t that the fact? A. That is not so.
Q. You deny that, do you? A. I do deny that emphatically.
Q. Emphatically? A. Emphatically.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps Mr. Sacher is misinformed your Honor.
[*4824]
(T–3707) Mr. Sacher: No, I am not misinformed.
Mr. Gordon: But his shouting at the witness doesn’t make it so.
Mr. Sacher: No, I am talking about things I know of.
Mr. Gordon: But his shouting doesn’t make it so.
The Court: Well, as long as Mr. Sacher knows about it he will probably testify later on.
Mr. Sacher: My testimony certainly can’t be any weaker than Mr. Gordon’s.
Mr. Gordon: I made an objection.
Mr. Sacher: No, you did more than make an objection.
The Court: You know, if we get up a little side show, with testimony by counsel, it is going to prolong this case unduly, I think.
By Mr. Sacher:
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, did you ever receive a membership book in the Communist Party? A. I received a folder.
Q. Have you got it? A. It was not a book; it was a folder.
Q. Have you got it? A. No.
Q. Did you ever receive a membership book in the Communist Political Association? A. No.
Q. You never did? A. No.
(T–3708) Q. Did you pay any dues to the Communist Political Association? A. I paid both dues and donations.
Q. And did you get any stamps in your book at all? A. I didn’t have a book in the Association.
Q. You did not? A. No.
* * *
Q. Now I show you Exhibit 44, which is a membership card of a former witness in this case, and ask you whether you had that kind of a membership book in the Communist Party (handing)?
The Court: That is the Communist Political Association.
[*4825]
Mr. Sacher: No, no; that is the Communist Party, your Honor.
The Court: You are on 44 now?
Mr. Sacher: That is right.
The Court: Very well.
A. (After examining) Yes, I had one of those.
Q. And now I show you Exhibit 34 and ask you whether you had a card like this in the Communist Political Association (handing)? A. No, I had none of these; I have seen them.
(T–3709) (Mr. Sacher hands exhibits to Mr. Gordon.)
Q. You have testified—I beg your pardon—you have testified that you ceased activity in the Communist Party around 1940, is that right? A. Around 1940.
Q. Did your cessation of activity in the Communist Party in 1940 come about because Negro people were hired in the plant in 1939? A. It did not.
Q. It did not. A. No, sir.
Q. Was there a furlough in 1946? A. In 1946? I think there was a small furlough in 1946. I won’t say for sure.
Q. And would you say that the furlough in 1945 was larger? A. Well, I can’t recall exactly how many people. If a furlough didn’t occur in my department then I couldn’t see very much of it or the effects of it. The only time I could see the effects of a furlough was when it happened in my department.
Q. Were there any furloughs in your department in 1945? A. In 1945 I think there was a slight furlough due to a fluctuation in production in the spinning department. It only lasted a few days.
Q. Did the end of the war in any way affect the number of employees, if you know, in your department in 1945? A. Yes, it affected it to some extent.
Q. Was there a furlough after the end of the war in (T–3710) Europe, in May 1945? A. Yes.
Q. And was there another furlough when the war with Japan ended in the late summer or fall of 1945? A. That furlough must have taken place in some other department; I just can’t recall it.
[*4826]
Q. Isn’t it a fact that when Mr. Coleman spoke to you in January 1946 about this seniority matter that he said to you that the Communist Party was not interested in negating the seniority clause; that on the contrary what it wanted was a pro rata application of the seniority clause as between white workers and Negro workers in the plant? Didn’t he say that to you? A. Not that I can recall. I can’t recall any conversation such as that.
Mr. Sacher: Will your Honor indulge me just a moment, please?
The Court: Yes.
(Mr. Sacher confers with Mr. Crockett.)
(T–3711) Mr. Sacher: Just one more moment, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I show you what purports to be an article entitled “Party Tasks among the Negro People” written by Mr. Henry Winston, one of the defendants in this case in the April 1946 issue of “Political Affairs,” same purporting to be a report to the Plenary Meeting of the National Committee of the Communist Party held on February 12th to 15, 1946, and ask you whether you ever read any part or all of this article at any time? A. What, on this page or on both pages?
Q. Well, you can take a quick glance at several pages if you will.
The Court: You better not take a quick glance; you better look it through.
Mr. Gordon: What is the date of that exhibit?
Mr. Sacher: The report is made of the meeting of February 12 to 15, 1946.
Mr. Gordon: What is the date of that issue of “Political Affairs”?
Mr. Sacher: It is April 1946.
Q. What is your answer to that question? A. I have never seen this before. Never have seen it before.
* * *
[*4827]
(T–3712) The Court: I should think you better mark that for identification.
Mr. Sacher: I will, your Honor.
The Court: That will be YY for identification.
Mr. Sacher: That will be pages 349 to 361 of the April 1946 issue of Political Affairs.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit YY for identification.)
* * *
Mr. Sacher: Oh, your Honor has it. All right, I don’t need it, your Honor.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 25 for identification, which is the September 1945 issue of Political Affairs, and ask you whether you ever read any portion or the portion on page 778, which I have marked off, same purporting to be a memorandum?
Mr. Gordon: I object.
Q. (Continuing) Of the Labor Committee of the Communist Party.
The Court: Is this in evidence, 25–A?
Mr. Gordon: It may be part of 25–A.
(T–3713) The Court: My notes do not seem to include that page, page number 778.
The Clerk: 782 to 834.
The Court: Yes, 782 to 834 being a report of Foster entitled “Struggle Against Revisionism” and also I have a reference to the resolution of July 28, and preamble of the constitution and a report of Williamson.
Mr. Sacher: That precedes 25–A.
The Court: I guess it is not in evidence.
Mr. Sacher: It is not in evidence.
Mr. Gordon: My objection was to his reading it.
The Court: That is what the witness is doing.
Mr. Gordon: The objection was to Mr. Sacher’s reading what is in it.
[*4828]
The Court: I realize that, but he hasn’t done that, and the witness is now looking at it.
(Witness shakes his head.)
Q. Never read that? A. (Witness shakes his head.)
Mr. Sacher: I ask that page 778 of Government’s Exhibit 25 for identification be marked for identification, your Honor.
Mr. Gordon: If it would save trouble, couldn’t we just—
Mr. Sacher: It may not be necessary as long as the whole book has been marked for identification and (T–3714) the record indicates what I referred to.
The Court: I think the record will be satisfactory just as it is now without a separate marking. Let me just glance at it so I can make a memorandum.
Mr. Sacher: In order to make clear specifically what portion of 778 is offered, I would like to say it is the first full paragraph appearing on that page and the second paragraph on that page.
The Court: Yes. Now just a second, Mr. Sacher, if you will.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher says the part of the page that was offered. I understand he is really not offering it in evidence.
The Court: He means the part that has been referred to and has been read by the witness.
Mr. Gordon: Then we are all in agreement on it?
The Court: Yes. Very well.
By Mr. Sacher:
Q. Did Mr. Coleman tell you in substance that the policy of the Communist Party in regard to the employment of Negro people was that which is set forth on page 778 which I showed you a moment ago? Did he tell you that?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Objection sustained.
[*4829]
Q. Do you recognize what I have shown you at page 778 (T–3715) as what constituted the policy of the Communist Party on this subject?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you at any time have any conversation with agents of the FBI in regard to the matters which you have testified to here today? A. Yes, I have.
Q. When for the first time did you have such a conversation? A. The first time was in about January—January of forty—let’s see when was it. I want to get that clear. 1947 in January. About 1947 somewhere in January.
Q. But do you know in what year it was? A. Yes.
The Court: He said 1947.
Q. What was that? What is it?
The Court: He said 1947.
Q. Are you sure it was 1947? A. I beg your pardon, it is 1948.
Q. Yeah.
Mr. McGohey: I object to the “yeah.”
The Court: Well, that—
Mr. McGohey: I object to the characterization of the witness’s testimony. It is not proper.
The Court: I think it is just a little gesture (T–3716) and not very effective.
Q. In what city did you talk to the FBI man? A. In Cumberland.
Q. How far is Cumberland from Pittsburgh? A. Around 160 miles I imagine.
Q. Do you remember making a trip to Pittsburgh in January 1948? A. Yes.
Q. Did your conversation with this FBI man occur before you went to Pittsburgh or after you went to Pittsburgh? A. With the FBI man, it occurred after.
Q. Yes. As a matter of fact, before you saw the FBI man you had pleaded guilty to an indictment in Pittsburgh for carrying concealed weapons, had you not?
[*4830]
Mr. Gordon: First we will let the witness answer and then I would like to make a statement on this subject.
The Court: Well, I think it is perfectly permissible to show a conviction of crime, if such be the fact. I will hear his testimony.
Did you plead guilty to such a charge?
The Witness: I did plead guilty.
Q. Did you also plead guilty to an indictment accusing you of carrying a revolver, an automatic pistol and other deadly weapons concealed on your person with intent there–with unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to (T–3717) another person? A. I did not.
Q. Was your answer to the former question that you did not? A. I pleaded guilty to illegal possession.
Q. To illegal possession? A. To illegal possession.
Q. I show you what purports to be a certified copy of the indictment charging you with carrying a revolver, an automatic pistol on your person with intent unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to another person, and show you the reverse side of the indictment, and ask you whether this is a photostatic copy of a plea of guilty signed by you on May 20, 1948?
The Court: Is this the record of the judgment?
Mr. Sacher: Yes, your Honor, it is. It is a photostat, certified by the clerk of the court.
A. This is the charge. I have never seen that charge.
Q. But do you see your signature on the reverse side? A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And do you see what—that it reads there—do you see these words immediately above, right here? Read them to yourself.
I ask you to read them and tell the jury whether or not that refreshes your recollection as to whether you pleaded guilty to that indictment. A. If you can read this, I wish you would read it because I cannot.
[*4831]
(T–3718) Q. If you will pause just a moment.
The Court: You had better hand it to me and let me look at it.
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor please, I object to something else being read, except what is said to be a certified copy.
Mr. Sacher: We are not going to read anything. If he wants a glass, I have a glass for him.
The Witness: Don’t need a glass. It is just blurred.
The Court: Let me take and glance at it.
I confess I cannot read it either.
Mr. Sacher: Well, maybe, your Honor, if you will be good enough to turn to the plea—
The Court: Have you the original?
Mr. Sacher: No, we don’t. But if you will turn to the plea in the other indictment, which is also annexed, that same thing will appear. It is signed—and may I point it out to your Honor?
The Court: Certainly, you may.
Mr. Sacher: It is in the other copy. I will be just a moment. There were two separate indictments.
Mr. Gordon: May I see what you were just showing the witness, which he said isn’t there, which now appears to be there?
(T–3719) Mr. Sacher: He didn’t say it wasn’t there.
The Court: No, he didn’t say it wasn’t there. He said it was not legible. I took a look at it, and it was not legible to me. Perhaps this other photostat will show it more clearly.
(Mr. Sacher and the Court converse at the bench.)
(Mr. Sacher leaves the bench.)
The Court: Mr. Sacher?
(Mr. Sacher approaches the bench and converses with the Court.)
[*4832]
The Court: All right, Mr. Sacher (handing papers).
Mr. Sacher: Would your Honor be kind enough to make a statement for the record as to what it shows?
Mr. Gordon: I am going to object to that, your Honor. I haven’t even seen the document. It hasn’t been offered.
The Court: I am not going to make any statement yet. I have just been looking on there to see what was legible and what was not legible, and I will permit the examination of the witness as to these papers.
Mr. Gordon: Don’t I get a chance to look at them?
Mr. Sacher: When they are offered in evidence.
The Court: I think you will get a chance to look at them, but I don’t think it is necessary to do it now.
(T–3720) Mr. Gordon: I will abide by your Honor’s ruling. I submit the law is that when a witness is shown a document and questioned about it that counsel, opposing counsel are entitled to see it.
The Court: Well, you see, he hasn’t offered it in evidence yet and, of course, if he does, you will see it; and, in any event, you certainly will have an opportunity to look at it in due time.
Q. Now, which of these two indictments do you say that you pleaded guilty to? Will you look at them and tell me which you say you pleaded guilty to?
Mr. Gordon: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know how many—
The Court: You showed him the first one, you know, and he identified his signature, and now you are assuming that he said something about the other one that he didn’t see. Let him look at them both and tell us what the fact is.
[*4833]
Q. All right, look at them both and tell us whether you pleaded guilty to either one or both of them?
The Court: It is on the back there that the pleas are noted. Now, that is the place, where you are looking now, that endorsement. Then, after you get to that—
(T–3721) Mr. Sacher: Would you mind if I tore this open, your Honor, without impairing its—
The Court: I would not tear it open unless you do not want him to see the other part.
Mr. Sacher: No, I want him to see it, on the contrary.
The Court: That is the first one (indicating). Did you plead guilty to that one?
The Witness: I pleaded guilty to illegal possession and that is the only thing, your Honor, that I can remember about the thing. I didn’t plead guilty to anything else. I pleaded guilty through a lawyer.
The Court: You see, you might have drawn an inference and understood this or that, but in looking at the papers there, now, that first one, you say you pleaded guilty to that one?
Mr. Gordon: No, your Honor. He said he pleded guilty to illegal possession, and that is all he remembers.
Mr. Sacher: Perhaps I can solve this.
The Court: Look at the first one—
Mr. Sacher: No, he isn’t looking—
The Court: —and see what it is.
Mr. Gordon: Maybe somebody stuck it in front of him and he signed it, but he says he pleaded guilty to illegal possession.
(T–3722) Mr. Sacher: Maybe there were two other guys there.
The Court: I think you asked him whether he pleaded guilty to what he signed his name to.
Mr. Sacher: I will withdraw the question, your Honor, and ask the witness:
Q. Whether your signature—this is a photostat of your signature. Did you sign the original of this docu– [*4834] ment? A. I certainly know my own signature. That is my signature.
Q. You signed it on the original of this document, is that correct? A. That is the document where I paid the court costs?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Mr. Sacher: I offer it in evidence.
Mr. Gordon: Well, the first indictment, which is, I thought, the one that Mr. Sacher read out, charging the defendant in the indictment, the witness here, and another person with force and arms, unlawfully then and there carrying firearms, that is to say, a revolver and an automatic pistol, on and about the person of the said, and so forth, has an endorsement on here—
Mr. Sacher: Just a moment.
Mr. Gordon: —and now—
Mr. Sacher: I object.
(T–3723) Mr. Gordon: —the plea is allowed to be withdrawn and a finding of not guilty is entered—
Mr. Sacher: Now, if it please the Court—
The Court: I didn’t see that at all.
Mr. Sacher: Just a moment. If the Court please, there is—
Mr. Gordon: —and in open court the defendants were adjudged not guilty by the court.
Mr. Sacher: If it please the Court, there is signed there a plea of guilty by this witness, and that is why I want to offer in evidence—
The Court: You offered the whole paper.
Do you object to it?
Mr. Sacher: I have asked—just a moment—I asked him only whether he signed—whether his signature appears under the plea of guilty, and that is what I am offering in evidence.
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, we have heard about vicious conduct of counsel, but the law—
Mr. Sacher: I object to this kind of statement, if it the Court please.
Mr. Gordon: I would like to argue a point of law.
[*4835]
The Court: Mr. Gordon, you don’t need to characterize anybody’s conduct.
(T–3724) Now, do you object to that paper being received in evidence? Mr. Sacher offered it, as I understood it, not just a part, not just a signature, but he offered the document. Do you object to it?
Mr. Gordon: I have just gotten through what I read. Now I would like to look at the rest of it, your Honor, before I formulate my objection.
Mr. Sacher: In order to save time—
Mr. Gordon: Let me finish, Mr. Sacher. Can’t somebody make an objection without being interrupted?
The Court: All you need do, Mr. Gordon, is to pursue your reading of the document and then let me know whether you object or not.
Mr. Gordon: Were you offering the whole thing or just part?
Mr. Sacher: I wish to offer that part—if there is any doubt about it—I wish to offer that part—offer the indictment and the endorsement thereon to the extent that it bears—there’s an item bearing—
The Court: That is not what you offered before. Now you are changing it.
Mr. Sacher: If there is a question raised about it, I respectfully ask leave to modify the offer and I offer that—the indictment plus the endorsement on the back of the indictment, that portion of it which bears (T–3725) the signature of this witness.
Mr. Gordon: Now will you please show me—oh, these are copies, aren’t they, duplicates?
Mr. Sacher: I guess they are.
The Court: I can tell you right now that if in part of it he said he pleaded guilty and then the other part he says he withdrew the plea and he was adjudged not guilty, it is all going in.
Mr. Sacher: I have no objection to it all going in, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Sacher: But let us have it in—
The Court: Do you object to it, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, under the circumstances, I cannot object to it. I object to his having [*4836] brought the subject up in the first place but now, for the protection of the witness, as I understand the law, if a man has been convicted of a crime, you may show that as bearing upon his credibility—
The Court: Yes, and I understood this was the judgment of conviction.
Mr. Gordon: —but if some subsequent action of the Court wipes that out, then it has always been my understanding of the law that that is not admissible; and to bring up the first part without the second part leaves (T–3726) me in a position where I can do nothing but say, we must now have the whole thing in.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Gladstein: May I say something, in view of the statement Mr. Gordon made?
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Gladstein has no part of this, your Honor.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I have.
The Court: Mr. Gordon, you know, you get so excited. If you would only be calm, we could sit here and hear all this out.
Go ahead, Mr. Gladstein.
Mr. Gladstein: Thank you very much.
The Court: Do you say this is a judgment of conviction or that this adjudges him not guilty?
(T–3727) Mr. Gladstein: I say this, that the thing that affects that witness’s credibility is that he went into court and pleaded guilty to the accusation contained in the document, and the fact that later on, as you, your Honor, know and lawyers know, for one reason or another arrangements were made to withdraw the plea of guilty, is immaterial to the plea of guilt.
The Court: Well, I will tell you what happens before me if a man pleads guilty and then I am convinced he is not guilty, I let him withdraw his plea and let him plead not guilty. That is the way it is done. This business of “making arrangements”, where do you get that from?
Mr. Gladstein: Why, if your Honor please, it is well known, and it happens all the time, that people are given opportunities on probation or otherwise to [*4837] withdraw a plea of guilty after they have pleaded guilty in fact and have been guilty in fact.
The Court: Well, it seems to me that it is a pity this subject was brought up at all, but now that it is here in fairness to the witness the whole story is going to come out.
Mr. Gladstein: That is exactly what we want.
The Court: So that we will receive this paper.
(T–3728) (Marked Defendants’ Exhibit ZZ in evidence.)
Mr. Gordon: It is just the first two pages.
The Court: We don’t want all those—it is the judgment part.
What is it going to be called now?
The Clerk: Defendants’ ZZ.
Mr. Gordon: It is the indictment on the top of the endorsement on the back of that indictment.
Mr. Gladstein: May I ask your Honor a question?
The Court: You look so innocent, Mr. Gladstein, how can I refuse?
Mr. Gladstein: Thank you.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Gladstein: You have said that when a man pleads guilty in your court and you later feel that he is not guilty, do you ever require him to pay the costs of the proceeding, if he is innocent?
The Court: Well, I never heard of that cost business here but they do have that in a good many parts of the country.
Mr. Gladstein: But, your Honor, they do that when a man is guilty.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Gordon: May I object to Mr. Gladstein’s testimony.
(T–3729) The Court: Well, I don’t know about that. But I know when a judgment is a judgment of guilty, and when it is a judgment of not guilty, and I am going to look at this for a minute or two and I am going to tell the jury which one it is. You men can argue your heads off to the contrary but it is going to be just the way I say.
Now let me have it.
[*4838]
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, in the Supreme Court of the United States it has been held that to offer a prior plea of guilty after it has been withdrawn and there has been a judgment of not guilty is extremely improper. That is the law in this country.
Mr. Sacher: If it please the Court—
The Court: I am not going to let this trial get off on any side show.
Mr. Sacher: All I want to do is call your Honor’s attention to the case of United States v. Minkoff, in this circuit, 137 Fed. (2d) 402, where the Court held that the precise question that I have put to this witness was absolutely proper.
The Court: Well, let us get the book. We might just as well take the time.
Mr. Sacher: And now, if your Honor please—
(T–3730) The Court: Mr. Loeffelman, go get that book.
Mr. Loeffelman: What is the citation?
The Court: Give him the citation.
Mr. Sacher: 137 Fed. (2d), page 402.
The Court: And while we are waiting for the book I wish one of you gentlemen—either Mr. Gordon or Mr. McGohey—would come up here and point out to me—I do not see yet that part which constitutes the judgment of the court.
Mr. McGohey: If your Honor please, with all the argument I haven’t seen any part of the paper yet.
(T–3731) (Conference at the bench between the Court, Mr. McGohey and Mr. Gordon.)
Mr. Sacher: May I proceed with the second indictment in the meantime so we will save some time?
The Court: I think I better see that book, to see what that case holds?
Mr. Sacher: All right.
The Court: If the witness was convicted of a crime that is admissible as bearing on his credibility. If he was acquitted it is a little hard to see how it bears. Maybe the case will enlighten me.
[*4839]
Mr. Sacher: The case I refer to holds that if he has admitted to a crime it is as material as if he was actually convicted.
The Court: As long as the jury get the whole story, I don’t think it will do any harm.
Mr. Gordon: Will you come up?
(Mr. McGohey and Mr. Gordon confer at the bench with the Court.)
(Law book brought in.)
The Court: Now let’s see, what is the page?
Mr. Sacher: The portion I refer to is at page 405. I think it is on the lefthand side, your Honor.
The Court: I can’t seem to find it, Mr. Sacher. I guess you will have to help me.
(T–3732) Mr. Sacher: The sentence reads—
The Court: Well, I know, but you just find it. Put a little mark there with your pencil so I can see where you want me to begin reading.
(Mr. Sacher marks book.)
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, I submit that the case of United States vs. Minkoff has no bearing whatsoever on the problem before your Honor.
The Court: Well, I couldn’t see any in the part I read, but Mr. Sacher is marking the part he wants to particularly call to my attention.
Mr. Gordon: From what he told me it starts at the top of page 405 and—
Mr. Sacher: It begins with those words, “Appellant testified”.
The Court: That hasn’t any bearing.
Mr. Sacher: Suppose I read it and see whether it has.
The Court: I don’t think reading it out loud for the audience will help me much. I can read it here in the book.
Mr. Sacher: Except your Honor says it didn’t mean anything.
[*4840]
The Court: I didn’t say it didn’t mean anything. I suppose all discussion is futile now. You brought out whatever (T–3733) you desired and it is all open now, and the only sensible thing for me to do is have the whole story brought before the jury, which I will do. This Exhibit ZZ is in evidence. You may read such parts as you desire and after that the Government may read what they desire.
Mr. Sacher: May I with the Court’s permission defer any reading until I have examined the witness a little further?
Mr. Gordon: Then I will read.
The Court: If you wish to read—
Mr. Sacher: If you wish to read it I will read it all, if that is what you ask for.
The Court: It seems to me there was a grave injustice done.
Mr. Sacher: There was no injustice done.
The Court: And there isn‘t going to be any while I am here.
Mr. Sacher: And there won’t be any while we are here, because we are going to bring out all the facts.
The Court: You think you are.
Mr. Sacher: If the Court permits it.
The Court: If you think you are going to spend a few days going into seeing what he did and what he didn’t do, you are mistaken.
(T–3734) Mr. Sacher: That is not our intention. That is not our intention.
(To the jury) Here is an indictment handed down by a grand jury of Allegheny County in the Com monwealth of Pennsylvania. It is entitled “In the Court of Quarter Sessions of Peace for Allegheny County, February Sessions A.D. One thousand Nine Hundred Forty–Eight.”
“The grand inquest”—
may I state to the jury that “grand inquest” is synonymous with our “grand jury.”
“The grand inquest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania now inquiring in and for the body [*4841] of the County of Allegheny, upon their oaths and solemn affirmations, respectively, do present, that Louise Trail and Charles Nicodemus, late of the County aforesaid, on the 8th day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1948, in the County aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms unlawfully did then and there carry firearms, that is to say, a revolver concealed on and about the person of them, and an automatic pistol of the said Louise Trial and Charles Nicodemus without obtaining a license therefor, contrary to the form of the Act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the (T–3735) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Signed “William S. Rohauser, district attorney For Allegheny County”; sworn by Julia Hunter, foreman, and then on the left side in Latin it says, “Witnesses for the Commonwealth: Fred W. Good. W. Sullivan, E. Swide, F. Finello.”
Then on the reverse side of the document under date of May 20, 1948, it says:
“Court Room No. 2”—
(Mr. Sacher glances at other photostat.)
Mr. Gordon: I think you better read from the exhibit.
Mr. Sacher: I am.
Mr. Gordon: Not from another one.
Mr. Sacher: Well, I am reading from this exhibit.
The Court: You know—
Mr. Gordon: Well, he goes over and picks up another document.
The Court: It seems to me perfectly all right. There is a rubber stamp there and it is a little hard to make out what it says. I think that is all right.
Mr. Sacher: Exactly, your Honor.
[*4842]
“May 20, 1948, court room No. 2, before O’Brien, Judge.
“Sanes, trial assistant D.A. N. Lippard, defense (T–3736) counsel.”
Then appear the words, “I or We plead guilty to indictment as returned,” bearing the signatures Louise Trail and Charles Nicodemus.
“Record verified by McDevitt, clerk”—
there is a word before “clerk” which I can’t make out.
And then underneath that in handwriting it says,
“And now May 20, 1948, above plea”—
that is, the plea of guilty—
“allowed to be withdrawn by the court, O’B.”—
standing, I take it, for O’Brien—
“Judge;
“And now May 20, 1948, after hearing in open court the defendants adjudged not guilty and pay costs by the Court May 20, 1948.”
Underneath that, “Defendants sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution by the Court, O’Brien”—“O’B” again, O’Brien.
The Court: And the costs are $3.10.
Mr. Sacher: No, your Honor. I don’t think you have seen the right amount. I think it is $43.26.
The Court: Let me look at it.
(After reading.)
The Court: There is a place over here where it (T–3737) says $3.10 costs.
Mr. Sacher: $3.10?
The Court: Maybe it was $46.
Mr. Sacher: What I see there is $43. I think $43.26 was the amount.
The Court: It is a little hard to tell. Look at that, Mr. Gordon, and see what you say (handing). That other amount is on the last page there.
Mr. Gordon: Wel, there is a rubber stamp that says “Clerk of”—maybe it says “clerk of court.”
[*4843]
The Court: Well, let’s ask the witness.
(To Witness) Do you remember paying the costs?
The Witness: Yes, I paid the costs, your Honor.
The Court: Do you remember how much they were?
The Witness: No, I don’t remember how much they were.
By Mr. Sacher:
Q. Was it more than $3.10?
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
Mr. Sacher: Well, we will find out.
Mr. Gordon: He said he doesn’t remember.
The Court: You see, when he says he doesn’t remember, that is always a fine time to go on into it.
Mr. Sacher: I would like to find out whether he paid $43 or $3.
(T–3738) Mr. Gordon: I am going to object to any further questions.
The Court: My feeling was it would be a source of controversy. He says he doesn’t know. Let’s drop it there.
Now you better get busy with the other one.
Mr. Sacher: That is what I am trying desperately to do.
By Mr. Sacher:
Q. Now I show you this paper and ask you—
Mr. Gordon: Now before there are any questions, your Honor, I think perhaps it has been demonstrated that there may be some justification for my asking to see these papers.
The Court: Yes, you better let him see it. Maybe it is the same kind of thing.
(Mr. Sacher handed photostat to Mr. Gordon.)
The Court: Does it have the same date as the other one?
Mr. Sacher: Same date.
[*4844]
Mr. Gordon: Yes, your Honor, and the same endorsement.
It seems, your Honor, that this subject is now being brought out by Mr. Sacher in the face of your Honor’s ruling that it is not admissible and I (T–3739) object to any further questions on the subject.
The Court: Well, it seems to me that in fairness to the witness the only way to do with this is to have the whole story brought out, otherwise there would be some mystery left on it or misunderstanding. I don’t think that is fair.
Mr. Gladstein: May it be made clear that in fairness to the defendants, in order to impeach the witness, that the whole story be brought out.
The Court: Mr. Gladstein, I think it is unfair to make it appear that the man was found guilty when he was not found guilty.
(T–3740) Mr. Gladstein: Now if your Honor please,—
The Court: Maybe that sounds absolutely bad to you, and it is probably some more judicial misconduct.
Mr. Sacher: Well, the point is—
The Court: When the record shows that the man was found not guilty, the least it seems to me that could have been made plain right from the beginning is that he was found not guilty.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please—
Mr. Gordon: If your Honor please, may I suggest that it is now almost one o’clock and that if we were to adjourn now, at the end of the luncheon recess I think I could have for you a case in the Supreme Court of the United States which indicates that a plea of guilty withdrawn is a nullity, and on the basis of that case I will object to it.
* * *
(Recess to 2.30 p.m.)
[*4845]
(T–3741) AFTERNOON SESSION
CHARLES W. NICODEMUS, resumed the stand.
The Court: Let the record show that the jury is present, and the defendants, and the attorneys for the defendants, with the exception of Mr. Isserman, whose absence is accounted for by the stipulation, and that the attorneys for the Government are present.
Now where is that case, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon: Your Honor, the case which holds that a plea of guilty which has been withdrawn by leave of the Court is thereafter a nullity, is Kercheval—K–e–r–c–h–e–v–a–l—vs. United States, 274 U. S. 220. It is marked here with a yellow piece of paper (handing).
I may say, your Honor, that that is the only point in the case, that although it was decided in 1926 or ’7, it has never been reversed, it has been referred to by the Supreme Court as late as January of 1948, and it is included in an annotation in American Law Reports Annotated, 124 A.L.R., found at page 1527. The rule is well established.
The Court (After examining): What do you say about that, Mr. Sacher?
Mr. Gladstein: May I see that case, your Honor?
The Court: Certainly (handing to Mr. Gladstein).
(T–3742) Mr. Sacher: I would like to say to your Honor that the purpose of the evidence thus far,—
The Court: No. I want to know what you say about that case.
Mr. Sacher: Well, I haven’t seen it yet.
The Court: Well, if you will look at it and then talk afterwards, it will probably be better.
Mr. Gordon: Perhaps your Honor would like to look at the A.L.R. note (handing).
(Mr. Gladstein, Mr. Sacher and Mr. McCabe examine book.)
[*4846]
Mr. Sacher: I submit, your Honor, that this case has no application to the instant case for the following reason: That in the case cited, it was a case where the defendant was on trial and where he had pleaded guilty originally and moved to vacate the plea on the ground that he had been deceived by the United States Attorney into making the plea. Thereafter the Court permitted him to withdraw the plea and he went to trial, and on his trial the prosecution was permitted to introduce his original plea of guilty which the Court had given him leave to withdraw, and the Supreme Court said that couldn’t be done. Then I submit—
(T–3743) The Court: What is the difference?
Mr. Sacher: —all that the case holds—
The Court: What is the difference?
Mr. Sacher: The difference is—
The Court: It holds that a plea of guilty when withdrawn is not admissible against a witness.
Mr. Sacher: No. What the case holds is that when a plea of guilty is withdrawn it is not admissible on a trial, on a subsequent trial of the defendant as evidence of his guilt—
The Court: No.
Mr. Sacher: In other words, in this case, your Honor, the plea of guilty was introduced not as it is here, for the purpose of impairing the credibility of a witness but as evidence of the guilt of the defendant, and that is all that the case holds, that a plea of guilty—
(T–3744) The Court: Does it strike you as entirely reasonable and fair to bring out that the man pleaded guilty and not show that he thereafter with permission of the court withdrew the plea? Does that strike you as entirely reasonable and fair?
Mr. Sacher: I will say this: I intended to bring it out in the circumstances in which it happened and if your Honor will permit me to do so I will bring it out in the circumstances in which it happened. That is what I am aiming to do.
Mr. Gordon: As I read this case when the plea was annulled it ceased to be evidence.
[*4847]
Mr. Sacher: Yes, evidence against the defendant in the prosecution. That is what it was.
Mr. Gordon: May I point out in the instant case we have not just permission from the court in Pittsburgh for the witness to withdraw a plea of guilty but an affirmative finding of not guilty.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Sacher: But there was a sentence. The judge said he was sentenced to pay the costs.
The Court: I am not going to hear further argument. It seems to me there has been so much talk about it that it would be futile for me to direct the jury to disregard it. I am going to let the evidence (T–3745) stand for whatever it is worth and you may go ahead and put the other one in too and then we will have that over with, and you can go ahead and put the other one in.
Cross examination continued by Mr. Sacher:
Q. Before I proceed to the other indictment I show you Defendants’ Exhibit ZZ and I ask you whether by looking at the reverse side of the indictment, on the endorsement, that refreshes your recollection as to how much costs you paid to the court under that indictment?
The Court: Is this the one that was offered this morning?
Mr. Sacher: That is the one that is in evidence.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Is it not a fact that you paid $43.26 in costs in connection with this indictment, Defendants’ Exhibit ZZ?
Mr. Gordon: I object to further questions about this, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, it seems to me you got the record in evidence there. Whatever the fact is it is. He says he paid the costs and doesn’t remember just how much. Now let’s get on to the other one.
[*4848]
Q. Now I show you this indictment and the endorsement on the back of it, this being the indictment for carrying (T–3746) weapons with intent unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to another and I ask you whether—
The Court: Does it say to another person unknown?
Mr. Sacher: To another person to said inquest unknown, your Honor.
The Court: And it is the same date, is it, as the other?
Mr. Sacher: It is. They are simultaneous.
Q. (Continuing) —and ask you whether you signed a plea of guilty to this indictment by referring to the endorsement on the back?
Mr. Gordon: Well, on the authority of the Kercheval case I object to it.
The Court: Well, Mr. Gordon, I am going to let all this go in. It seems to me it is futile at this stage to strike it out. I am going to let it remain in for whatever value it may have to the jury in passing on the credibility of the witness and whatever harm will come has been done and I feel it is futile for me to take any further action about it.
Mr. Gordon: The fact of the plea of guilty is not admissible.
The Court: Well, it is going to come out that he withdrew the plea and he was permitted to plead (T–3747) not guilty just like the other one. Then we will have it all in.
(To Mr. Sacher) Isn’t that the case?
Mr. Sacher: It is, your Honor, and he was sentenced to payment of costs.
The Court: He was found not guilty.
Mr. Sacher: He was sentenced to payment of costs.
The Court: He was found not guilty.
Mr. Sacher: Well, if you want to play, your Honor—
The Court: Well, I will play with you any time.
[*4849]
Q. Did you sign this, that I have shown you (indicating)? A. That is my signature.
Q. That plea, you signed the plea of guilty at that time? A. Where is the plea of guilty on here?
The Court: Well, you signed that, didn’t you?
The Witness: Yes, I signed it.
The Court: You signed it.
Now, put it in evidence.
Mr. Sacher: I offer the indictment and the endorsements on the back thereof (handing papers to clerk).
Mr. Gordon: Maybe I ought to see the endorsements, Mr. Clerk.
The Court: Better let me look at it. Isn’t it (T–3748) just the same as the other one?
Mr. McGohey: Let us wait and see, your Honor.
The Court: This is AAA?
The Clerk: AAA.
Mr. Sacher: May I, while the prosecution is taking time to look at that one, let the jury see the reverse side of Exhibit ZZ, your Honor? That is the one—the reverse side that is in evidence?
The Court: Certainly, you may do that.
Mr. Sacher: May I call the attention of the jury to the figure $43.26 with the words “costs paid” opposite it?
The Court: You may do that.
Mr. Sacher: Thank you.
(Mr. Gordon hands paper to the clerk.)
The Court: All right, Mr. Sacher, it is received.
(Marked Defendants’ Exhibit AAA in evidence.)
Mr. Sacher: I wil ask the jury later to read the indictment and the endorsements instead of taking the time to do so now, your Honor.
The Court: I think you had better clean this whole business up right now.
Mr. Sacher: Then all right.
May I interrupt your reading just a moment to read you this rather quickly?
[*4850]
Excerpts from Defendants’ Exhibit AAA, Read into Record
(T–3749) It is in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County of Allegheny, February Sessions A.D., One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty–Eight:
“The grand inquest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania now inquiring in and for the body of the County of Allegheny, upon their oaths and solemn affirmations, respectively, do present, that Louise Trail and Charles Nicodemus, late of the County aforesaid, on the 8th day of January, in the year of Our Lord, 1948, in the County aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms unlawfully did then and there carry a certain revolver and automatic pistol and other deadly weapons concealed upon their persons with intent therewith unlawfully and maliciously to do injury to another person, whose name is to the said inquest unknown, contrary to the form of the act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,”
bearing the signature of William S. Rohauser, District Attorney for Allegheny County, sworn by Julia Hunter, foreman; and then in Latin again, on the left, “Witnesses for the Commonwealth: Fred W. Good, W. Sullivan, E. Swide, (T–3750) F. Finello.”
And endorsed on the back appear the following:
“May 20, 1948, court room No. 2, before O’Brien, Judge.
“Sanes, Trial Assistant D.A. N. Lippard, Defense Counsel.
“I or We plead guilty to the indictment as retutrned,” signed Louise Trail, Charles W. Nicodemus.
“Record verified by McDevitt, Clerk.”
“And now May 20, 1948, above plea allowed to be withdrawn by the Court.”
Underneath that the initials “O’B”, standing for O’Brien.
[*4851]
“And now May 20, 1948, after hearing in open court, defendants both adjudged not guilty and pay costs by the Court May 20, 1948.
“Defendants sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution by the Court,”
signed again with the initials “O’B”, standing for Judge O’Brien.
By Mr. Sacher:
Q. Now I ask you to look on the reverse side of—
Mr. Sacher: I withdraw that.
Q. Do you remember how much in costs you paid in connection with the indictment which is Defendants’ Exhibit AAA? A. I don’t remember how much.
(T–3751) Q. I ask you to look on the reverse side of this indictment, which is Defendants’ Exhibit AAA, and tell me whether or not that does not refresh your recollection that on this indictment you paid the sum of $77.97? What is the answer? A. My answer is still that I cannot tell you how much money I paid. It is on there.
Q. It is on there? A. Well—
The Court: You see it on there too.
Did you pay whatever you had to pay?
The Witness: Yes, I did, your Honor.
Mr. Sacher: All right. I would like the jury to see that too.
Mr. Gordon: There is no proof that that was put on there before the plea of guilty was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Court: No, there isn’t, but whatever he was required to pay, he says he paid.
Now, get on to something else.
Q. You testified that you saw an agent of the FBI in Cumberland after your visit to Pittsburgh, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. You visited Pittsburgh from January 8th to January 10th, 1948, is that right? Is it? A. No, wait, just a minute. I am trying to figure out here now when I did [*4852] go back. I can’t answer you right off. That is a long (T–3752) time ago. A lot of things happened.
The Court: Just take your time.
A. (Continuing) I was there a few days, two or three days.
Q. Was it from January 8th to January 10th or 11th, 1948? A. I don’t just recollect the date of that either.
Q. Did you see that the indictment says that you were there on January 8, 1948? Did you see that before?
Mr. Gordon: I object to any further questions along this line.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. How long after—
Mr. Sacher: I withdraw that.
Q. You were arrested on January 10th, were you, in connection with this offense?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You will ask no further questions about that incident. The record shows the man was found not guilty. If you think you are going to retry that case, you are making a mistake.
Mr. Sacher: I am not going to retry it. The record also shows he was sentenced to pay costs after he had already interposed a plea of guilty.
The Court: I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Sacher: All right.
(A–3573) Mr. Gladstein: Excuse me. Your Honor, I move that you strike the remark you have just made for the third time about what the record shows.
The Court: I deny the motion.
Mr. Gladstein: And I ask your Honor to instruct the jury to disregard those remarks for this reason—
The Court: I don’t want to hear any reason.
Mr. Gladstein: But I want—
The Court: Mr. Gladstein—
Mr. Gladstein: I am trying to assign some remarks—
[*4853]
The Court: —this is one time when you will not give any reasons. So you will—
Mr. Gladstein: May I not assign—
The Court: You will please desist.
Mr. Gladstein: May I not assign remarks as misconduct?
The Court: You may not—you may assign misconduct, you may do that to your heart’s content, but you are not going to give any further reasons.
Mr. Gladstein: May I assign that which I consider your Honor has done, which I am assigning as misconduct, or am I simply confined to saying misconduct?
The Court: I think that is enough this time.
(T–3754) Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, I submit that the law gives me a right, and your Honor a duty, to protect my—
The Court: If the law gives you that right, that is one thing. I say you are now to desist, and you will please do it.
Q. Do you recall the date when on the first—for the first time you saw this agent of the FBI? A. No, I don’t recall the date, not the exact date.
Q. Was it in January or in February 1948? A. Well, it was either in the latter part of January or the first part of February.
Q. Whom did you see in the FBI? What was the name of the agent you saw? A. The name was Jones.
Q. What was that, Jones? A. Yes.
Q. What was his first name? A. Raymond.
Q. Raymond Jones? A. Raymond Jones.
(T–3755) And was he the only man you saw on this first occasion or was there another agent present? A. There was another agent present but I don’t know his name.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Jones that you had been arrested in Pittsburgh—
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
Mr. Sacher: I—
The Court: Sustained.
[*4854]
Mr. Sacher: Now, if it please the Court, I wish to show that it was pursuant to arrangement between this witness and the FBI that what happened on this exhibit took place. That is what I am directing my questions to now.
Mr. Gordon: And I deny that the United States Government entered into any agreement with any Judge in Pittsburgh—
Mr. Sacher: Now if your Honor please—
Mr. Gordon: —to get this man out of any charge.
Mr. Sacher: I object to this.
Mr. Gordon: And I object to any further question, and I may state, your Honor, that this is the first time in my brief experience in a courtroom where every time that I arose to make an objection on a legal (T–3756) ground counsel for the other side keep interrupting. I object to any further questions along this line.
The Court: I will sustain the objection to this particular question. I will pass on the others as they arise.
Q. How many times did you see Mr. Jones after this first occasion in the latter part of January or the early part of February? A. Well, I imagine I seen Mr. Jones about three times, approximately, three or four times.
Q. When was the last time that you saw Mr. Jones? A. The last time? You mean between the time that I was arrested and the time that I went back to Pittsburgh?
Q. When did you last see Mr. Jones, please? A. Well, I have seen Mr. Jones, if you want to know how recently I have seen Mr. Jones—
The Court: That is what he is asking you.
The Witness: All right. I have seen Mr. Jones a week ago.
Q. Where did you see him? A. I seen Mr. Jones at my home.
Q. Was anyone else with him? A. No.
Q. Was he alone? A. Mr. Jones was alone.
[*4855]
Q. Was there ever a time when you made a written statement to Mr.—for Mr. Jones, a typewritten statement (T–3757) which you signed? A. Yes, yes.
Q. When did that happen? A. Oh, that happened a few months ago.
Q. What month was that? A. Well, I don’t recall what month exactly.
Q. Well, was it this year, 1949? A. Yes, it was this year.
Q. 1949. Was it after January 17, 1949? A. No.
Q. Was it—now you said it was before. A. Yes. That is what I am trying to figure out.
Q. Well, if it wasn’t after January 17th and it was this year, then was it between January 1st and January 17th of this year? A. It wasn’t between January 1st and January 17th. Let me get this straight. I don’t mind telling you when I did it if I could just recollect. I have nothing to hide. I handed Mr. Jones a written statement.
Q. You handed it to him? A. Yes, it was a written statement in my own handwriting.
Q. This year?
Mr. Gordon: Now wait a minute.
Mr. Sacher: I am asking him was it this year.
The Court: Well, he is just trying his best to tell you.
Mr. Sacher: Well, I am sorry; I thought he was (T–3758) through.
A. No; that statement, now that I can recollect back, I think it was some time in September.
Q. September? A. Yes, some time in September, last year.
Q. It was September ’48, then? A. Yes.
Q. It wasn’t ’49? A. No.
Q. Now it was a written statement in your own handwriting handed in September 1948, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. And where did you hand it to him—at your home? A. No.
Q. At his office? A. Mr. Jones’s office.
Q. All right. Now was that the first written statement you ever handed to him? A. Yes, that was the first written statement.
[*4856]
Q. Had you ever signed any written statement for Mr. Jones prior to September ’48?
Mr. Gordon: Unless there is some claim that the witness has made a prior inconsistent statement, I object to these questions.
The Court: Well, I will allow inquiries as to this if it doesn’t get too long.
The question is whether this is the first one that you handed him or whether you handed him another one before (T–3759) that.
The Witness: I did hand Mr. Jones a statement before that.
Q. When was that? A. Well, that was some time prior, some time prior to this first one but I just can’t recollect the time.
Q. Now if this was the first one, it was the first one in September 1948, then there was no prior one. Now which was it? Was this first one in September 1948 or wasn’t it? A. No, no.
Q. All right. A. No, no; there was a statement before that which I initialed.
Q. When was that? A. I don’t know just when it was. It was some time prior to that. It was just a short statement that I handed to Mr. Jones.
Q. Would you say it was less than a page, that first statement?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Can you tell us how many pages that first statement consisted of?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
A. Just a page.
Q. What is that?
The Court: He says “Just a page.”
(T–3760) A. Just a page.
Q. And when was that?
[*4857]
Mr. Gordon: Well, I object to that, your Honor. I don’t think it is relevant.
The Court: Well, he has asked him two or three times. This will be the last time. I will allow this.
Do you remember?
The Witness: No, I don’t remember, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
Q. One thing you do know, that it was after January 8, 1948, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. Now at what time—
The Court: Did you say that is the one thing he does remember?
Mr. Sacher: What is that?
The Court: Did you say that is the one thing he does remember?
Mr. Sacher: No, I didn’t say that. I said, “You do know it was after January 1948?”
The Court: All right.
Q. Was it at your first meeting with Mr. Jones in the latter part of January or early February when you handed him this first one–page statement, or was it later?
Mr. Gordon: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
(T–3761) A. It wasn’t at the first meeting.
Q. When did your second meeting with Mr. Jones take place? A. Well, I don’t know; I can’t recall that.
Q. Well, was it in the summer time or was it in the winter time? A. Well, I am not going to say it was in the summer or winter because I can’t remember. I am only going to tell you what I know.
Q. I see. How many meetings all told did you have with Mr. Jones—
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
Q. —including the last one that you said took place a week ago?
[*4858]
Mr. Gordon: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Had you written out any statements or initialed or signed any statements of any kind prior to this first one–page statement that you initialed for Mr. Jones some time after January 8, 1948? A. Before that time?
Q. Yes. Had you ever signed any statement or initialed it concerning the matters that you had signed statements for Mr. Jones? A. Prior to January?
Q. Prior to January 1948. A. No.
Q. And the fact is that you had left the Communist (T–3762) Party in January 1946, is that right—two years before you were in Pittsburgh, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. Was the first statement that you gave to Mr. Jones given to him in Cumberland, Maryland? A. In Cumberland, Maryland, at his office.
Q. And that was true of the second statement that you gave him in September 1948? A. That is right.
Q. Now those were the only two statements that you made to him, is that correct? A. Those are the only two.
Q. Now isn’t it a fact that the second statement which you gave him was given to him prior to May 20, 1948, when you appeared in the Court of Quarter Sessions in Pittsburgh, isn’t that right? A. Before May, yes.
Q. So that it wasn’t in September that you gave him this second statement, was it? A. In September?
The Court: Which one are you talking about, the first statement or the second?
Mr. Sacher: No. He testified to two statements.
Q. Now you testified before, did you not, that the second statement was given to Mr. Jones in September 1948, is that right? A. I corrected that. I told you that I was sitting here trying to think when these things had occurred.
(T–3763) Q. All right, when then did you give him the second statement? Was it prior to May 20th, then? A. I just told you that I gave Mr. Jones two statements that I can recall.
[*4859]
Q. Right. A. One statement I gave him after I had been arrested in Pittsburgh, and the next statement I gave him some time after, prior to the time I had went to Pittsburgh to stand trial.
Q. In other words, you went to trial on May 20th, is that right? A. May 20th, somewhere in there.
Q. So that the second statement was given to Mr. Jones, the agent of the FBI, prior to May 20th, is that right? A. That is right.
The Court: He just said so.
The Witness: I told you it was right.
Mr. Sacher: That is all I desire to examine the witness on at the present time, but in view of the—
Mr. Gordon, would you be good enough to sit down?
Mr. Gordon: I thought you said you were finished. Excuse me.
Mr. Sacher: But in view of the fact we have not had a bill of particulars and in view of the fact that we have had no prior notice of the advent of this witness and in view of the fact we have had limited time to (T–3764) investigate and ascertain what we have found, I ask permission to recall him for further examination when our investigation into his activities and past have been completed. If your Honor will be kind enough to fix some reasonable period of time we will make every effort to complete our investigation in that time.
The Court: You have had several days, which is more than one ordinarily has in a criminal case. There has been an adjournment of a couple of days.
Mr. Sacher: In view of the fact—
The Court: I will make no ruling except that you must proceed now, but if you find there is something you want to examine the witness about you address yourself to me in a subsequent application and I will pass on it when it comes. As far as the present one is concerned it is denied.
Probably the others want to cross–examine.
Mr. Crockett: I don’t think there is any further cross–examination at this time, your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
[*4860]
Redirect examination by Mr. Gordon:
Q. Did Special Agent Jones of the FBI make any representation to you that he would get you out of this Pittsburgh charge?
Mr. Sacher: I object to that.
(T–3765) The Court: Overruled.
A. No, sir, he didn’t.
Q. He did not? A. No, sir, he did not.
Q. Did you give him these statements in return for any suggestion of that kind? A. No, I did not.
Q. When was the first time that you talked to me about being a witness in this case? A. That was around Thanksgiving.
Q. Of 1948? A. Of 1948.
Q. That was after the case in Pittsburgh had been dismissed? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that as assuming a state of facts not in evidence.
The Court: Not in evidence that they found him not guilty?
Mr. Sacher: No; they sentenced him to pay costs, I say to your Honor.
The Court: You know, Mr. Sacher, you can go on saying that till Kingdom comes, and every time you say he was sentenced to pay costs, I will say to the jury he was found not guilty.
Mr. Sacher: It says here he was sentenced to pay costs.
The Court: It says he was found not guilty.
Mr. Sacher: It says that he was sentenced to (T–3766) pay costs.
The Court: And it says that he was found not guilty.
Mr. Sacher: It doesn’t say that.
The Court: That is the way I read it.
Mr. Gordon: Let’s look at the exhibit.
The Court: He doesn’t have to look at the exhibit. I know what is in the exhibit.
Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher, do you mean to say the man was found guilty?
[*4861]
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that out as a misstatement of my mind, which may be unimportant, but also on the ground that it is a misstatement of the contents of the exhibit.
The Court: I think it is unimportant too. Let’s get along. It had not been stated to me, as I understood it, that that was a record of the man’s conviction. I wouldn’t let it—
Mr. Gordon: It says, after hearing in open court the defendants both were adjudged not guilty and paid costs.
Mr. Sacher: It says, “and paid costs” or “sentenced to pay costs”?
Mr. McCabe: It says below that “sentenced to pay costs.”
(T–3767) The Court: Maybe the jury will forget what I tell them and maybe you will induce them to disregard the instructions of the Court, but not while I still have breath in me.
Mr. Gladstein: I want to assign that, your Honor, as judicial misconduct.
The Court: That is fine, fine, fine.
Mr. Gladstein: And also, in connection with your Honor’s statements that you will continue to tell the jury that the case in which Mr. Nicodemus was involved turned out as not guilty, would you be good enough to add, if you tell the jury that, that it was no doubt because Mr. Nicodemus was innocent that the Court imposed a sentence of $140?
The Court: You see, Mr. Gladstein, it is the first experience I have ever had either at the bar or at the bench where counsel were so brazen, where again and again they argued over the Judge’s shoulder to the jury in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to induce the jury or some member thereof to disregard the Court’s instructions. I have heretofore had occasion to tell counsel that that is treading on dangerous ground, and I hope it will not be repeated.
Mr. Gordon: Thank you very much, Mr. Nicodemus.
[*4862]
Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness Nicodemus—Denied
Mr. Gladstein: Now I move to strike all of the (T–3768) testimony of this witness upon the ground that he gave no evidence in any way tending to connect any of the defendants with any issue in this indictment involving the charge of conspiracy to advocate or teach any doctrine forbidden by law.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Gladstein: I also ask your Honor to strike from the record Mr. Gordon’s statement a few moments ago in which he purported to deny that any arrangements had been made between any representative of the Government and the Judge in Pittsburgh in respect of Mr. Nicodemus’s case.
The Court: Well, Mr. Sacher said there had been, so he said there hadn’t.
Mr. Gladstein: I ask your Honor to strike the statement of Mr. Gordon: Do I understand your Honor’s disposition of my request is to refer to something else?
The Court: No, I deny your motion.
Mr. McGohey: Are we ready to proceed, your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McGohey: Mr. Bailiff, will you call Garfield Herron.
(T–3769) GARFIELD HERRON, called as a witness on behalf of the Government, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Wallace:
Q. Mr. Herron, where do you live? A. In Arkansas.
Q. Have you always lived in Arkansas? A. I was born there. No, sir, I have lived in Chicago, Illinois.
Q. When did you live in Chicago? A. In 1943 I was living there.
Q. Were you working in Chicago at the time? A. Yes, I was working at the Douglas Aircraft.
Q. When did you go to work for Douglas Aircraft? A. January 7, 1943.
[*4863]
Q. At the time you went to work at Douglas was there a union at Douglas? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you eventually have a union there? A. Yes, we organized a union there, I helped organize a union, and Norman Roth, a fellow by the name of Norman Roth and others.
Mr. McCabe: I can’t hear the witness over here.
A. (Continuing) I helped organize a union in Douglas, United Automobile Workers CIO—myself and other people that worked in the plant. Norman Roth was one.
* * *
Q. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party? (T–3770) A. No, sir, not then.
Q. I say, were you ever a member? A. Yes, sir, I was. Not at that time.
Q. When did you become a member of the Communist Party? A. In 1944 in the summer.
Q. Who had spoken to you about becoming a member of the Party? A. Norman Roth.
Mr. Sacher: Just a moment. I object to this, your Honor.
The Court: Well, is this going to be connected up?
Mr. Wallace: I am not going to ask for the conversation; I just want to show to the Court and jury how the man became a member of the Communist Party.
The Court: All right, somebody saw him and he became a member.
Q. You say Norman Roth spoke to you? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sacher: I move to strike that out.
Mr. Wallace: That was his answer.
Mr. Sacher: Was that the answer? I am sorry.
The Court: I am ruling, Mr. Sacher, as this is prior to the date of the indictment and as I expect there won’t be any connection similar to what happened with that other witness this morning, that I don’t want them to go ahead unless there is some connection with the defendants (T–3771) as to this preliminary period.
[*4864]
Q. Did you immediately become a member of the Party when you were first spoken to? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have a second conversation regarding joining the Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you fix the time of the second conversation? A. That is, joining the Party?
Q. A conversation regarding joining the Party. A. Well, in the fall of 1943 I was approached and asked to take the paper.
Q. What paper? A. The Worker, the Sunday Worker.
Q. Now at any time thereafter did agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation visit your home? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that after you subscribed to the paper? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long before you joined the Party did the agents visit your home? A. It was two or three months. I don’t exactly recall the exact dates. I would say two or three months, though.
Q. Now you said that in 1944 you joined the Communist Party, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall about when you joined? A. It was in the summer. I think it was around July or August. I wouldn’t exactly say the date but it was in July or August, I know.
(T–3772) Q. Was it known as the Communist Party at that time? A. No, sir; it was the Communist Political Association.
Q. Did you become a member of any club? A. Yes, sir, Haim Solomon Club.
Q. Where is the Haim Solomon Club located? A. 2251 West Roosevelt Road.
Q. In Chicago? A. In Chicago.
Q. After you became a member of the Communist Political Association did you attend meetings at the Haim Solomon Club? A. Yes, sir, regularly every two weeks—twice a month.
Q. About a year after you became a member of that Haim Solomon Club did anything occur in connection with the Communist Political Association? A. Yes, sir, there was an article in the Daily Worker from Jacques Duclos, and that was discussed in the clubs there, and then they had a convention a little later on there.
[*4865]
Q. Did you attend the convention? A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. Did you attend any convention of the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir, I did. A little later on they had another convention. After the one they had in New York they had one in Chicago and a national convention in New York. After the State convention in Chicago they had a (T–3773) National convention in New York, and then in August, I believe it was, they had another convention in Chicago. It was a State convention.
Q. And that was August of 1945? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now what happened after this State convention in August of 1945, as far as the Haim Solomon Club is concerned? A. Well, they were discussing at that time breaking up the Haim Solomon Club into smaller groups. Of course, it was in the first of the year before they got around to it.
Q. Well, around the first of the year was there a meeting of the Haim Solomon Club? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would be the first of 1946? A. Yes, sir, in January.
Q. Were there some speakers at that club? A. Yes, sir. Gil Green was one of them.
Q. Do you see Gil Green in the courtroom? A. (Standing) Yes, sir, there he is (indicating).
Q. Maybe you better come down and point him out. A. O.K.
(Witness leaves witness stand toward counsel table.)
Mr. Gladstein: It that necessary? Can’t the witness designate from where he stands?
The Court: Well, I found on previous occasions (T–3774) it was very difficult to tell for sure. I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t do it? Do you?
Mr. Gladstein: Except that it seems unseemly.
The Court: I don’t think we ought to make them immune from what happens to everybody.
(To witness) You go down and show us who is Mr. Green.
The Witness (Placing hand on Mr. Green’s shoulder): This is Mr. Green.
[*4866]
Mr. Wallace: Let the record show that the witness has identified the defendant Gilbert Green.
Q. Where were you working at the time of this meeting? A. At this meeting I had changed from Douglas Aircraft, it quit building planes, and I was working with Stewart Warner.
* * *
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Green at this meeting in the Haim Solomon Club? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Will you tell us what you said and what Mr. Green said?
The Court: Is this in January 1946?
Mr. Wallace: Yes, your Honor.
A. I told Mr. Green that I was working at Stewart Warner (T–3775) and I would like to be changed to the Industrial Club at Stewart Warner, and Mr. Green said—he took my name and address and he said he would take care of it.
Q. Did he? A. Well, I got a card in about—well, in a few weeks, two or three weeks, to come to a meeting at John Keleher’s house.
Q. Who is John Keleher? A. He was president of Local 54 United Electrical Workers of Stewart Warner.
Q. Were you a member of the UE at that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go to the meeting at John Keleher’s house? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it a meeting of the Stewart Warner Club? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Shortly after you became a member of the Stewart Warner Club—I withdraw that question.
Q. Did you ever take any educational courses while you were a member of the Communist Party? A. Not until I got to Stewart Warner, and then I did, yes.
Q. Where were the classes held? A. At these particular classes—they were held at different comrades’ houses that belonged to the same branch that I belonged to, that is, Stewart Warner.
* * *
[*4867]
A. (Continuing) They were held at club members’ (T–3776) houses, different club members’ houses.
Q. Who conducted the classes? A. Well, the Communist Party—it was the Communist class.
Q. Did you have an instructor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the instructor? A. Everett Hall.
Q. Did Everett Hall hold any position in the club? A. He did, educational director.
Q. How were the classes conducted? A. Well, it was a six weeks’ course and we had—of course, the only time we could go was at night time after work, and it was only one night a week for six weeks. There was six different lessons.
Q. Did you use any literature or books in connection with that course? A. Yes, sir, we had an outline or a guide to go by.
* * *
Q. Mr. Herron, will you look at Government’s Exhibit 51 for identification and tell me if you recognize it? A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. What is it? A. What is what? The book?
Q. What is Government’s Exhibit 51? A. This is the outline that we went by at school.
Q. Where did you get it? A. I got it from Everett Hall.
Mr. Wallace: I offer Government’s Exhibit 51 in evidence.
* * *
(T–3777) Mr. Sacher: May it please the Court, the defendants object to the exhibit offered by the prosecution and I should like to be heard briefly on it.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Sacher: And I should like to be heard briefly in support of the objection.
The Court: Just a second. I have a notion that there is another one that has already been admitted which raise substantially the same questions.
Mr. Sacher: There is one that was excluded, your Honor.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Sacher: There is one that was excluded.
[*4868]
The Court: Well, perhaps I was thinking of the one that was excluded, but I think not.
Mr. Wallace: I understand it may be Exhibit 39, your Honor.
The Court: That is just the one that I am looking for.
Mr. Sacher: I had reference to—
The Court: May I see Exhibit 39? That is that five–session introductory course on the principles of Communism.
* * *
The Court (After examining): Yes, I will over–rule (T–3778) the objection.
Mr. Sacher: Your Honor won’t hear me briefly on this?
The Court: Well, it seems to me that it is the same proposition over again that we had with the other exhibit.
(Government’s Exhibit 51 for identification received in evidence.)
* * *
(Short recess.)
* * *
(T–3779) By Mr. Wallace:
Q. Mr. Herron, are you presently a member of the Communist Party? A. Well, I haven’t paid any dues since I went back to Arkansas in 1947. I—
Q. During—excuse me. A. —I never resigned or anything. However, I just quit paying dues. I don’t suppose I am, no.
Q. During the period that you were a member of the Communist Political Association and the Communist Party did you confer regularly with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make reports to them? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wallace: Government’s Exhibit 51, on the outer page reads, “Outline on Marxist–Leninist Fundamentals For Class Use and Self Study Issued by State Education Commission Illinois District [*4869] Committee Communist Party, U.S.A. 208 N. Wells St., Chicago, Illinois.”
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 51, Read into Record
The second page is the “Table of Contents,” which lists six lessons.
There then is an introduction to instructors and suggestions for self–study. It reads:
(T–3780) “This basic outline on Marxist–Leninist Fundamentals aims to serve a threefold purpose:
“1. As a guide to instructors who will use it intelligently and with flexibility in the six–session courses which are being organized for the active corps of people who have not had much theoretical training.”
Q. Mr. Herron, how many classes did you take at this course? A. Six classes—six lessons.
Mr. Wallace: “The instructor”—continuing reading—“The instructor may have to decide to stress but 4 or 5 points out of a 9–point outline on Lesson 1 for example. Or he may decide, for example, to omit several aspects of the discussion on The State in Lesson IV. If the comrades in the class have had very little previous study and discussion on The State he may refer some of the material on The State Under Socialism, etc. to future classes or self–study.
“Or the instructor may even decide to use but 3 lessons out of the six projected themes and spend two weeks on each of 3 subjects chosen. Another six session course can then be organized as a follow through.
“A well–prepared teacher will adapt the (T–3781) outline to the needs of the particular class he is teaching, knowing in advance that he will not cover all the material of the outline in any given session. Some teachers may prefer to draw up their own notes on the basis of some rearrangements of the points they have chosen to stress.
“2. Furthermore, it can serve for more theoretically developed comrades—who want to discuss [*4870] some of the more difficult theoretical questions—which are also raised in the outline.
“3. Finally, it can be used as a self–study guide after the conclusion of the classes for both students and teachers in order to deepen their theoretical understanding. Correspondence, whether it be elaboration on some problems or questions on some aspect of the outline, is invited.
“It is assumed that all instructors will undoubtedly use the discussion method and will attempt to illustrate generalizations with concrete experiences of the members in the class. Trade unionists in particular should be encouraged to contribute to the class discussion experiences in the day–to–day struggles to highlight the theoretical questions. To strive for the involvement (T–3782) of the comrades in discussion must not, however, minimize the guiding hand of the teacher in introducing the question, keeping the main aspects of the problem before the class, partial summaries throughout the discussion and in final recapitulation at the end of each session.
“Experiences with the outline and suggestions for improvement are welcome.
“Education Commission
Illinois District Committee C.P.”
And there is a box at the bottom of the page saying:
“Note to Teachers:
“Relevant current material in the Daily Worker, The Worker and Political Affairs should continually be sought out by the instructor. The reading references at the end of each lesson should be mentioned regularly and students should be encouraged to buy literature and build up a personal Marxist–Leninist Library for study and reference.”
Lesson 1, which is entitled “Capitalism and Capitalist Contradictions”, and runs on pages 1, 2, 3, 4—on page 4 there are readings assigned at the [*4871] end of the lesson which includes Engels, Lenin and Anna Rochester, and then additional readings from Marx, Lenin, Foster, Program of C.I.
(T–3783) Q. Do you know what “Program of C.I.” is, Mr. Herron? A. That is a Program of the Communist International.
Q. Did you ever have one? A. No, sir. Mr. Hall had one at the time I was studying it.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 3 in evidence and ask you if you ever saw it (handing)? A. Yes, sir, one just like it. That is the one that Mr. Hall had.
Mr. Wallace: Then the “History of the CPSU”, pages 123 to 127, Leontiev, Fajon and Bittelman.
Page 5, Lesson II is headed “Imperialism—Present Day Capitalism.”
The first heading is “What is Imperialism?”
The second heading is “Main Features of Imperialism.”
Under II “Main Features of Imperialism”, at the bottom of the page there is an item No. 3, which reads as follows:
“After World War I, the US rose to second place among the capital exporting countries, challenging Britain for first place. During World II, the finance capitalists of the US have piled up the most tremendous superabundance of capital in world history.
“4. This situation is the key to the aggressive (T–3784) imperialism of the US, for finance capital clamors for profitable investment of this super–abundance by gigantic expansion of US domination.”
And 3 is headed—Roman numeral III, “Imperialism is Moribund (Dying) Capitalism. Eve of the Socialist Revolution; Period of Wars and Revolutions.”
On page 7, starting at the letter C, I propose to read one, two, three, four, your Honor.
It reads: “Imperialism intensifies the main contradictions of capitalism. ‘Imperialism carries the [*4872] contradictions of capitalism to their last bounds, to the extreme limit, beyond which revolution begins.’ (Stalin)
“1. Intensification of the class struggle forces working class to adopt new weapon. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.
“2. Intensification of contradiction among the various financial groups and imperialist powers in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for foreign territory. Imperialist wars inevitable, but lead ‘to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general, to the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical inevitability of this revolution.’ (Stalin)
(T–3785) “3. Intensification of the contradiction between the handful of ruling ‘civilized’ nations and the hundreds of millions of colonial and dependent peoples of the world. Results in the growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries. The colonies and dependent countries are converted from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.
“4. Contradiction between the imperialist system and the socialist system. Spy plots; atom bomb; UNO; Churchill’s speech, etc.”
On page 8, still under Lesson II, item F is headed: “Wars in the Era of Imperialism.”
The second item reads:
“2. The Marxist–Leninist approach to war. War is the inevitable extension under imperialism of politics by others, i.e., forcible means. Just and unjust wars—how are they determined?”
Now turning to page 10, which is the end of that lesson, there are references to the “History of the CPSU, pp. 167–172,” and I now offer in evidence, your Honor, from Exhibit 30 for identification, pages 169 to 172.
[*4873]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–C, Read into Record
Mr. Sacher: I think 160 to 172 is in evidence.
The Court: That is right. Exhibit 30–C consists (T–3786) of pages 160 to 172.
Mr. Wallace: That is correct, your Honor. Mr. Gordon has called my attention to that fact. I propose to read from page 167, the second paragraph, which starts:
“In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist–Revolutionary renunciation of revolution and their treacherous slogan of preserving ‘civil peace’ in time of war, the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of ‘converting the imperialist war into a civil war.’ This slogan meant that the labouring people, including the armed workers and peasants clad in soldiers’ uniform, were to turn their weapons against their own bourgeoisie and overthrow its rule if they wanted to put an end to the war and achieve a just peace.
“In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist–Revolutionary policy of defending the bourgeois fatherland, the Bolsheviks advanced the policy of ‘the defeat of one’s own government in the imperialist war.’ This meant voting against war credits, forming illegal revolutionary organizations in the armed forces, supporting fraternization among the soldiers at the front, organizing revolutionary actions of the workers (T–3787) and peasants against the war, and turning these actions into an uprising against one’s own imperialist government.”
Continuing to read from page 167:
“The Bolsheviks”—
Mr. Sacher: Excuse me, Mr. Wallace. I think, your Honor, that these passages that Mr. Wallace has been reading have been read once before.
Mr. Wallace: Certain of them have, your Honor, but at this point I want to read those passages from these references in this exhibit which are referred to at the end of the lesson, given at this school in 1946.
[*4874]
The Court: I will permit that on this occasion and pass on each such situation as it arises.
Mr. Wallace: “The Bolsheviks maintained”—
The Court: It is not a long passage, is it?
Mr. Wallace: Not at this—I only propose to read the balance of 167 and the top of 168, which refers to “Just and unjust wars.”
The Court: All right.
Mr. Wallace: And then certain other passages which have not yet been read.
The Court: You may do that.
Mr. Wallace: “The Bolsheviks maintained that the lesser evil for the people would be the military (T–3788) defeat of the tsarist government in the imperialist war, for this would facilitate the victory of the people over tsardom and the success of the struggle of the working class for emancipation from capitalist slavery and imperialist wars. Lenin held that the policy of working for defeat of one’s own imperialist government must be pursued not only by the Russian revolutionaries, but by the revolutionary parties of the working class in all the belligerent countries.
“It was not to every kind of war that the Bolsheviks were opposed. They were only opposed to wars of conquest, imperialist wars. The Bolsheviks held that there are two kinds of war:
“a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liberation, waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempts to enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and
“b) Unjust wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries and foreign nations.
“Wars of the first kind the Bolsheviks supported. (T–3789) As to wars of the second kind, the Bolsheviks maintained that a resolute struggle must be waged against them to the point of revolution and the overthrow of one’s own imperialist government.”
[*4875]
Now turning to page 170, the first full paragraph reads:
“The inestimable importance of Lenin’s theory of Socialist revolution lies not only in the fact that it has enriched Marxism with a new theory and has advanced Marxism, but also in the fact that it opens up a revolutionary perspective for the proletarians of separate countries, that it unfetters their initiative in the onslaught on their own, national bourgeoisie, that it teaches them to take advantage of a war situation to organize this onslaught, and that it strengthens their faith in the victory of the proletarian revolution.”
On page 171, the last full paragraph reads:
“The Bolsheviks also developed extensive activities in the army and navy. They explained to the soldiers and sailors who was to blame for the unparalleled horrors of the war and the sufferings of the people; they explained that there was only one way out for the people from the imperialist shambles, and that was revolution. The Bolsheviks (T–3790) formed nuclei in the army and navy, at the front and in the rear, and distributed leaflets calling for a fight against the war.”
On page 172, the first two full paragraphs read:
“At the front, the Party agitated for fraternization between the soldiers of the warring armies, emphasizing the fact that the world bourgeoisie was the enemy, and that the war could be ended only by converting the imperialist war into a civil war and turning one’s weapons against one’s own bourgeoisie and its government. Cases of refusal of army units to take the offensive became more and more frequent. There were already such instances in 1915, and even more in 1916.
“Particularly extensive were the activities of the Bolsheviks in the armies on the Northern Front, in the Baltic provinces. At the beginning of 1917 General Ruzsky, Commander of the Army on the North– [*4876] ern Front, informed Headquarters that the Bolsheviks had developed intense revolutionary activities on that front.”
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 51, Read into Record
Going back to the Outline, on page 9—
Mr. Crockett: If the Court please, I wonder if the record will show at this point that the passage just read from the “History of the Communist Party of the (T–3791) Soviet Union” relates to a period of time, 1914 to March 1917.
The Court: Well, I think all you had to do was to listen to see that the dates referred to that.
Mr. Crockett: Except that he didn’t mention the dates.
Mr. Wallace: I thought I mentioned everything that was in both paragraphs, your Honor.
The Court: Yes, I think so.
Mr. Wallace: And the dates were there.
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Wallace: Going back to page 9 in the Outline, item “4”, the top of the page, still the same Lesson II:
“The Truman administration, together with Social–Democracy, constitutes the main political instrument of imperialism for influencing broad sections of the labor and people’s government. It is the main political instrument in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie for retarding the growth of independent political action. Dennis—Report to National Committee.”
And the fourth item under Lesson II reads:
“The Military Defeat of Fascism has deepened the general crisis of world imperialism.”
There then appear to be six items; reading (T–3792) the second item headed “B”:
“It has resulted in the strengthening of U. S. imperialism relative to other imperialism. American imperialism has become the most powerful imperialist force in the world, and thus the main threat to [*4877] the aspirations of the people of the world for peace, democracy and progress. This can be seen in Europe, Asia, all over the world.
“C. It has given impetus to the national liberation struggle of all oppressed nations, Indonesia, Indo–China, Egypt, India, China, etc.
“D. It has brought forth a new anti–fascist people’s unity in Europe marked by the formation in a number of countries of democratic governments representative of the will of the people—Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
“E. It has enhanced the influence and unity of labor on a world scale—formation of the World Trade Union Congress.
“F. Victory meant that the Soviet social system had won, that it has proved its complete vitality and has emerged as the leader of a vaster peoples’ movement.”
At the conclusion of Lesson II there are reading assignments: Lenin, Stalin, Stalin, Foster, Dennis, (T–3793) Varga, Lenin, History of the CPSU, Political Affairs, Labor Research Association, A. Rochester, Labor Fact Book, Varga and Lenin.
Lesson III is headed “The State.” It starts on page 11, and I propose to go to page 13 and read from III, under “A 1, 2 and 3.” This section is headed, “The State After the Proletarian Revolution”.
“The highest form of democracy, democracy for all the toiling people, is possible only under Socialism.
“A. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the state during the transition from capitalism to communism.
“1.” —this is a quotation—
“‘The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; it [*4878] can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic machine, the bourgeois police.’ (Stalin)
“2. ‘The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a mere change of government, but a new state, with new organs of power, both central (T–3794) and local.’ (Stalin)
“3. The role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is ‘to retain power, to consolidate it, to make it invincible.’ (Stalin) Three main tasks are, therefore, to overcome and crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie overthrown and expropriated by the revolution; to organize the construction of socialism (including the abolition of classes) in such a way as to rally all the laboring people around the proletariat; and to organize the army of the revolution for the struggle against foreign enemies.”
(T–3795) Page 15, still lesson 3, is headed, “The State,” I believe.
“The State.” On page 15, heading C., “Anti–Marxist theories of the State in relation to Socialism.
“1. Social–Democratic approach that socialism can be achieved without the prior conquest of political power by the working class”—
I think I had better read this over, your Honor. I misspoke myself.
“C. Anti–Marxist theories of the State in relation to Socialism.
“1. Social–Democratic approach that socialism can be achieved without the prior conquest of political power by the working class—that socialism can gradually evolve out of capitalism—that socialism can be ‘voted’ in.
“2. Anarchist Syndicalist approach holds that the state should be ‘abolished’—that there is no [*4879] need for a state in building socialism—that any form of state is unnecessary—that political action is unnecessary, that the trade unions by themselves will perform all functions.
“3. Trotskyist Struggle to destroy Socialist State.
“Under the guise of extreme ‘revolutionary’ (T–3796) phrases, Trotskyism rejected both the dictatorship of the proletariat and the possibility of building socialism in one country. From this ‘theoretical’ position, Trotskyism entered into collaboration with fascism.”
And that page concludes lesson III, with reading assignments to “Lenin—State & Revolution, Chapters I & V, Stalin—Foundations of Leninism, Chapter IV, Dennis—Report to National Committee.”
Without reading the entire reference to Exhibit 42, which is the Foundations of Leninism, I want to briefly refer to chapter IV, which I think has already been read by Mr. McGohey previously in the trial. Chapter IV starts at page 47.
The Court: I would make your references to matters that have already been read just as brief as possible.
Mr. Wallace: I believe that Mr. McGohey read from pages 54, 55 and 56, and one paragraph on page 56 says that:
“In other words, the law of violent proletarian revolution, the law of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine as a preliminary condition for such a revolution, is an inevitable law of the revolutionary movement in the imperialist countries of the world.”
(T–3797) There is a reference in the reading assignment to State and Revolution, chapters I and IV, and I would like to have that exhibit.
Mr. Gordon: I and V, it is.
Mr. Wallace: I and V, rather.
[*4880]
State and Revolution is an exhibit in evidence as No. 32, your Honor. The heading of chapter I is State and Revolution, class—no, the title of the book is “State and Revolution.” Chapter I, “Class society and the State. 1. The State as the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms.” And on page 20 of that exhibit, and I believe that page has been read previously by Mr. McGohey, the next to the last paragraph reads that “The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, that is, of all states, is only possible through withering away.”
The fourth lesson in this outline is headed “The Negro Question,” and I wish to turn to page 17. Before going on to the fourth lesson, there is a reference on page 15, that concludes the third lesson. It says, “Errors of the American Communist Party with reference to the State,” and “C” reads “Uncritical approach to Roosevelt Administration.” On page 16 starts the lesson (T–3798) on “The Negro Question,” and I propose to read from page 17, Roman numeral “IIA” and “B,” which reads, “The National Character of the Negro Question,
“A. The Communist approach to the national question. The Marxist definition of a nation: common history, territory, language, culture and economic life.
“1. ‘A nation is a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life, and psychologic make–up, manifested in a community of culture.’
“2. The right of nations to self–determination. ‘The right of self–determination means that a nation can arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign and all nations are [*4881] equal.’ (Stalin, ‘Marxism and the National Question’.)
“3. The Soviet solution of the national question: The right of self–determination of nations, complete equality in every sphere of life, a voluntary federation of nations.
“a. ‘The war has shown that the Soviet multinational state system has successfully stood the test, has grown still stronger during the war and has proved (T–3799) a completely vital state system. Now we can say that the analogy with the Austro–Hungary cannot be substantiated, since our multinational state has grown up, not on a bourgeois foundation which fosters feelings of national mistrust and national animosity, but on a Soviet foundation, which on the contrary promotes the feeling of friendship and fraternal collaboration between the peoples of our state.’
“B. The Negro question in America in light of the Marxist approach to the national question.
“1. Do the Negro people in the South (black belt) constitute a nation?
“2. What about self–determination?
“3. What about the Negro people in the North?
“4. The necessity for study and analysis of this question as raised by the National Convention of the C.P.U.S.A.
“III. Mistakes in recent policy on the Negro question by the C.P.U.S.A.
“A. ‘Glossing over the national character of the Negro question, and in our unwarranted illusion that the big bourgeois themselves would carry forward after V–E day the wartime gains of the Negro People ...’
“B. ... ‘However, the struggle for the national (T–3800) liberation of the Negro people as funda– [*4882] mentally related to the whole struggle of the working class against capitalist exploitation and oppression was often lost sight of.’
“C. ‘Moreover, our revisionist policies narrowed the scope and weakened the vigor of such struggles, even causing us at times to soft–pedal the struggle to eliminate Negro discrimination in the armed forces ...’
“D. ‘... the abolition of the Communist organization in the South ... undermined the foundation for consistent and effective struggle for the needs and aspirations of the masses of the South, especially the Negro people ...’”
Lesson V is “The Meaning of Socialism,” and starts at page 19. The first part is headed “I. Why Socialism?” It reads:
“The historical necessity of, and the struggle for, socialism arises from basic objective and subjective factors, not utopian dreams nor wishful longings.”
Then it has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven items, and under G, the seventh item, it reads:
“The Communist Party, as it matures, becomes rooted in basic industry and steeled in struggles, (T–3801) wins the support of, and becomes capable of leading the working class and its allies to the achievement of socialism.
“1. It must conduct an irreconcilable struggle for unity of the working class against imperialist bourgeois and petty bourgeois influences.”
And Roman II is headed “What is Socialism?” And under A appears the following:
“Establishment of the political power of the working class in alliance with its allies—the dictatorship of the proletariat.
[*4883]
“1. Can be achieved only by a fundamental transformation of the class control of society (revolution).
“2. The necessary rise of revolutionary organs of the working class and its allies in the form of delegate councils (Soviets) which become the organs of the state power.
“3. Without the leadership of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the Communist Party, the victory of the proletarian revolution (and hence the socialist reorganization of society) is impossible. (See History of the CPSU p. 353).”
Mr. Gladstein: While we are waiting, did we get the witness’s address? I don’t recall if it was given. (T–3802) I don’t know whether I missed it.
Mr. Wallace: You didn’t miss it; it wasn’t given.
The Court: I don’t think any of the witnesses gave their addresses.
Mr. Gladstein: Did he say the city?
Mr. Wallace: He said Arkansas.
Mr. Gladstein: Could we have the city?
Mr. McGohey: I think the time for defense questions comes on cross–examination.
Mr. Gladstein: Is it not customary to inquire where he lives?
Mr. Wallace: Not in this court.
The Court: As I remember, what has been happening here is that the defense on their cross–examination go into all the places the witnesses were and where they live. Would you like to find out now exactly where his home address is?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, I would.
The Court: If it weren’t for the fact that if I direct that here, then you would want it in every case, I would do it.
Mr. Gladstein: Why don’t you adopt the rule you have heretofore adopted, that you pass on this one at this time and the next one next time?
The Court: I will do that.
[*4884]
(T–3803) Mr. Wallace: I see no reason at this time for having the address of this witness given on the record. The defense are going to have their opportunity.
The Court: Their point is here it is Friday afternoon, almost 4.30. If they know his home address now they have got all tonight and tomorrow and Sunday to chase around and find out what they can about the witness for purposes of cross–examination.
Mr. Gladstein: Find out something about him.
The Court: I say that is what we are talking about.
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, yes.
The Court: And frankly, I don’t see any objection to doing it this particular time. He comes from Arkansas.
(To the witness) What is your home address in Arkansas?
The Witness: It is City Route 3, Hot Springs.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: Did you get that?
The Court: I think Mr. Gladstein got it.
The Witness: O.K.
Mr. Wallace: Your Honor, the reference in the outline was to page 353 in Government’s Exhibit 30 for identification, of which only certain parts have been (T–3804) offered in evidence. Now I want to offer 353 to 363, which constitute the conclusion of the book, and which I might remark is referred to later in the outline as a reading assignment. The complete conclusion of the book.
The Court: All right, let’s see if the other side has any objection.
Mr. Sacher: Since Mr. Wallace is not going to be able to read it between now and 4.30 I suspect perhaps the offer can wait until Monday morning.
Mr. Wallace: I don’t see why we should wait. We have a few moments.
The Court: I practically don’t either, but let the other side see it and let’s see what happens. [*4885] Maybe they will be still looking at it at 4.30. Are you going to object to it, Mr. Sacher?
Mr. Crockett: I haven’t read it, your Honor.
Mr. Sacher: That is something for counsel to consider and decide. They are looking at it now. I think it will take more time than the few minutes that are left. That is why I suggested that it go over to Monday morning.
The Court: If you wouldn’t make those suggestions all the time perhaps Mr. Wallace would have (T–3805) said yes right away. I think that is reasonable, though. The time is fast approaching and I think possibly the best thing to do is to say yes.
Mr. Wallace: May I call this to your Honor’s attention: Government’s Exhibit 51 issued by State Education Commission, Illinois District Committee, Communist Party USA on page 31 gives an assignment from the History of the CPSU pages 353 to 363. Those are the pages that are being offered in evidence at this time. I don’t understand what objection could be made to them.
The Court: I don’t myself.
Mr. Crockett: If your Honor please, we were denied a bill of particulars. We don’t know what it is the Government proposes to bring in. I myself haven’t read the conclusion of this book.
The Court: What, not read the History of the CPSU?
(T–3806) Mr. Crockett: That is what I said. I want to read the conclusion so I can determine whether I want to make any objections on behalf of my client.
The Court: And if you want to read it probably Mr. McCabe wants to read it too. Isn’t that so, Mr. McCabe?
Mr. McCabe: I have no doubt about it.
The Court: How about Mr. Sacher and Mr. Gladstein?
Mr. Sacher: I would be glad to read it if I had a copy.
[*4886]
The Court: You haven’t read it either?
Mr. Sacher: No.
Mr. Wallace: I withdraw the offer at this time and I will renew it on Monday.
The Court: As none of them have read it this will give them a chance to read it.
Mr. Gladstein: No, no, I want to rise to say that I have read it. And I want to call attention that there are lots of other references other than reading assignments and so on to this same book. I think the Government ought to be consistent. If it is going to offer certain pages I think it ought to offer all the pages referred to here.
The Court: Why that is the problem of counsel. I have never found it helpful to have one counsel advise (T–3807) the other counsel what to do.
Mr. Gladstein: I withdraw the advice. I thought I was suggesting something to the Court.
The Court: I think we better leave it to counsel.
* * *
Now ladies and gentlemen of the jury remember the admonition I have heretofore given you:
Do not discuss the case among yourselves and do not let the matter be discussed by anyone with you, you will express no opinion of the merits of this controversy until finally submitted to you under the instructions of the Court.
We will now adjourn until Monday morning at 10.30.
* * *
(T–3808) (Adjourned to April 25, 1949, at 10.30 a. m.)
[*4887]
(T–3809) New York, April 25, 1949;
10.30 a. m.
TRIAL RESUMED
GARFIELD HERRON, resumed the stand.
* * *
Mr. Wallace: Your Honor, before we adjourned on Friday I had offered the concluding paragraph of Government’s Exhibit 30–A, and said that I would re–offer it the first thing this morning, which I am now doing.
The Court: What is the number of the exhibit? 30?
Mr. Wallace: 30 for identification, and there have been A, B and C.
(T–3810) The Court: Yes.
Mr. Wallace: Separately admitted into evidence.
The Court: And this is going to be 30–D, if it is received in evidence.
Mr. Crockett (To Mr. Wallace): Is that the concluding chapter?
Mr. Wallace: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: I object to the offer on the grounds heretofore urged.
The Court: Objection overruled.
(Marked Government’s Exhibit 30–D in evidence.)
Mr. Wallace: These are pages 353 to 363, as referred to in Government’s Exhibit 51.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Wallace: I propose to read certain parts from Government’s Exhibit 30–D in evidence.
Mr. Isserman: I object to the reading of parts, your Honor.
The Court: On the same ground that you previously stated?
[*4888]
Excerpts From Government’s Exhibit 30–D, Read into Record
Mr. Isserman: That is correct.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
Mr. Gladstein: There is an additional objection to the partial reading of that which the Government has on its own motion had received in evidence as not fair, (T–3811) to read certain portions torn out of context.
The Court: I have ruled that the defendants may read such portions as they think pertinent by way of modification or explanation or have any other bearing, and I shall continue to rule that way, I think.
Mr. Wallace (To the jury): This chapter is headed “Conclusion”:
“What are the chief conclusions to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party?
“What does the history of the CPSU (B) teach us?
“1) The history of the Party teaches us, first of all, that the victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is impossible without a revolutionary party of the proletariat, a party free from opportunism, irreconcilable towards compromisers and capitulators, and revolutionary in its attitude towards the bourgeoisie and its state power.
“The history of the Party teaches us that to leave the proletariat without such a party means to leave it without revolutionary leadership; and to leave it without revolutionary leadership means to ruin the cause of the proletarian revolution.
“The history of the Party teaches us that the (T–3812) ordinary Social–Democratic Party of the West–European type, brought up under conditions of civil peace, trailing in the wake of the opportunists, dreaming of ‘social reforms,’ and dreading social revolution, cannot be such a party.
[*4889]
“The history of the Party teaches us that only a party of the new type, a Marxist–Leninist party, a party of social revolution, a party capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive battles against the bourgeoisie and of organizing the victory of the proletarian revolution, can be such a party.
“The Bolshevik Party in the U.S.S.R. is such a party.”
Then there is a quote:
“‘In the pre–revolutionary period,’ Comrade Stalin says, ‘in the period of more or less peaceful development, when the parties of the Second International were the predominant force in the working–class movement and parliamentary forms of struggle were regarded as the principal forms, the party neither had nor could have had that great and decisive importance which it acquired afterwards, under conditions of open revolutionary battle. (T–3813) Defending the Second International against attacks made upon it, Kautsky says that the parties of the Second International are instruments of peace and not of war, and that for this very reason they were powerless to take any important steps during the war, during the period of revolutionary action by the proletariat. That is quite true. But what does it mean? It means that the parties of the Second International are unfit for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, that they are not militant parties of the proletariat, leading the workers to power, but election machines adapted for parliamentary elections and parliamentary struggle. This, in fact, explains why, in the days when the opportunists of the Second International were in the ascendancy, it was not the party but its parliamentary group that was the chief political organization of the proletariat. It is well known that the party at that time was really an appendage and subsidiary of the parliamentary group. It goes without saying that under such circumstances and with such a party at the helm there [*4890] could be no question of preparing the proletariat for revolution.
“‘But matters have changed radically with the dawn of the new period. The new period is one of open class collisions, of revolutionary action by the (T–3814) proletariat, of proletarian revolution, a period when forces are being directly mustered for the overthrow of imperialism and the seizure of power by the proletariat. In this period the proletariat is confronted with new tasks, the tasks of reorganizing all party work on new, revolutionary lines; of educating the workers in the spirit of revolutionary struggle for power; of preparing and moving up reserves; of establishing an alliance with the proletarian movement in the colonies and dependent countries, etc., etc. To think’”—
The Court: There is some part—you skipped a little part there.
Mr. McGohey: You skipped a line.
Mr. Wallace: I had better read the sentence again.
“‘In this period the proletariat is confronted with new tasks, the tasks of reorganizing all party work on new, revolutionary lines; of educating the workers in the spirit of revolutionary struggle for power; of preparing and moving up reserves; of establishing an alliance with the proletarians of neighboring countries; of establishing firm ties with the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, etc., etc. To think that these new tasks can be performed by the (T–3815) old Social–Democratic parties, brought up as they were in the peaceful conditions of parliamentarism, is to doom one–self to hopeless despair and inevitable defeat. If, with such tasks to shoulder, the proletariat remained under the leadership of the old parties it would be completely unarmed and defenseless. It goes without saying that the proletariat could not consent to such a state of affairs.
[*4891]
“‘Hence the necessity for a new party, a militant party, a revolutionary party, one bold enough to lead the proletarians in the struggle for power, sufficiently experienced to find its bearings amidst the complex conditions of a revolutionary situation, and sufficiently flexible to steer clear of all submerged rocks in the path to its goal.
“‘Without such a party it is useless even to think of overthrowing imperialism and achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.
“‘This new party is the party of Leninism.’ (Joseph Stalin, Leninism, Vol. I, pp. 87–8.)
“2) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party of the working class cannot perform the role of leader of its class, cannot perform the role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, (T–3816) unless it has mastered the advanced theory of the working–class movement, the Marxist–Leninist theory.
“The power of the Marxist–Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection of current events, to foresee their course and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the present, but how and in what direction they are bound to develop in the future.
“Only a party which has mastered the Marxist–Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class forward.
“On the other hand, a party which has not mastered the Marxist–Leninist theory is compelled to grope its way, loses confidence in its actions and is unable to lead the working class forward.
“It may seem that all that is required for mastering the Marxist–Leninist theory is diligently to learn by heart isolated conclusions and propositions from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, learn to quote them at opportune times and rest at that, in [*4892] the hope that the conclusions and propositions thus memorized will suit each and every situation and occasion. But such an approach to the Marxist–(T–3817) Leninist theory is altogether wrong. The Marxist–Leninist theory must not be regarded as a collection of dogmas, as a catechism, as a symbol of faith, and the Marxists themselves as pedants and dogmatists. The Marxist–Leninist theory is the science of the development of society, the science of the working–class movement, the science of the proletarian revolution, the science of the building of the Communist society. And as a science it does not and cannot stand still, but develops and perfects itself. Clearly, in its development it is bound to become enriched by new experience and new knowledge, and some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to the new historical conditions.
“Mastering the Marxist–Leninist theory does not at all mean learning all its formulas and conclusions by heart and clinging to their every letter. To master the Marxist–Leninist theory we must first of all learn to distinguish between its letter and substance.
“Mastering the Marxist–Leninist theory means assimilating the substance of this theory and learning to use it in the solution of the practical problems of the revolutionary movement under the varying (T–3818) conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.
“Mastering the Marxist–Leninist theory means being able to enrich this theory with the new experience of the revolutionary movement, with new propositions and conclusions, it means being able to develop it and advance it without hesitating to replace—in accordance with the substance of the theory—such of its propositions and conclusions as have become antiquated by new ones corresponding to the new historical situation.
[*4893]
“The Marxist–Leninist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action.”
I now go to page 359, to the paragraph which is numbered 3, which reads:
“The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the petty–bourgeois parties which are active within the ranks of the working class and which push the backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie, thus splitting the unity of the working class, are smashed, the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible.
“4) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunists within its own ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators (T–3819) in its own midst, it cannot preserve unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, nor its role as the builder of the new Socialist society.”
Page 361:
“5) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party cannot perform its role as leader of the working class if, carried away by success, it begins to grow conceited, ceases to observe the defects in its work, and fears to acknowledge its mistakes and frankly and honestly to correct them in good time.”
And page 362:
“6) Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to harken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the laboring people.”
[*4894]
Then, the concluding sentence of the paragraph is:
“Such are the chief lessons to be drawn from (T–3820) the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party.”
Going back to Exhibit 51—
Mr. Isserman: Before continuation, I would like a minute to see if there is any portion of this part of the exhibit that I would like to read.
The Court: All right, you may do that.
Mr. Gladstein: If your Honor please, I propose to read a portion which was not read by the Government attorney. It appears at page 358. I think the full context or the full sense of the thought is contained with the words “And just,” beginning the second paragraph down to the bottom of the page.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Gladstein: This, ladies and gentlemen, comes as a part of—
The Court: And I may say that, and this goes, of course, to both sides, that if there is some part that you claim qualifies another part, or modifies it, I will have no objection to your reading as part of what you read some portion of what has already been read by your adversary.
Mr. Gladstein: Very well.
The Court: I will do the same thing when we get around to the defendants’ case and something is read by the defense; if it needs a little repetition to give point to the qualifying part or the part that is relied upon (T–3821) as qualification, it may be read.
Mr. Gladstein: Now, there were six lessons or points that Mr. Wallace read portions of and this particular portion is part of point No. 2. It reads as follows:
[*4895]
“And just because Lenin and the Leninists have advanced the Marxist theory, Leninism is a further development of Marxism; it is Marxism in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, Marxism of the epoch of the victory of Socialism on one–sixth of the earth’s surface.
“The Bolshevik Party could not have won in October 1917 if its foremost men had not mastered the theory of Marxism, if they had not learned to regard this theory as a guide to action, if they had not learned to advance the Marxist theory by enriching it with the new experience of the class struggle of the proletariat.
“Criticizing the German Marxists in America who had undertaken to lead the American working–class movement, Engels wrote:”—
and then there is a quotation from Engels:
“‘The Germans have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American (T–3822) masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learned off by heart and which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a dogma and not a guide to action.’”
That is from Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, pp. 449–450.
Continuing with the text in the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
“Criticizing Kamenev and some of the old Bolsheviks who in April 1917 clung to the old formula of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry at a time when the revolutionary movement had gone on ahead and was demanding a transition to the Socialist revolution, Lenin wrote:
“‘Our teaching is not a dogma, but a guide to action, Marx and Engels always used to say, rightly [*4896] ridiculing the learning and repetition by rote of ‘formulas’ which at best are only capable of outlining general tasks that are necessarily liable to be modified by the concrete economic and political conditions of each separate phase of the historical process ... It is essential to realize (T–3823) the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the concrete realities, and must not continue to cling to a theory of yesterday....’ (Lenin Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XX, pp. 100–101.)”
Mr. Wallace: Your Honor, when I had started reading that quotation “Conclusion” I had been in the middle of reading from Government’s Exhibit 51 in which there was a reference to Exhibit 30 which led to that reading. I would like to go back to page 19 of Exhibit 51, which is Lesson V. (To the jury:) It says: “What is Socialism?”
“A. Establishment of the political power of the working class in alliance with its allies—the dictatorship of the proletariat.
“1. Can be achieved only by a fundamental transformation of the class control of society (revolution).
“2. The necessary rise of revolutionary organs of the working class and its allies in the form of delegate councils (Soviets) which become the organs of the state power.
“3. Without the leadership of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the Communist Party, the victory of the proletarian revolution (and hence (T–3824) the socialist reorganization of society) is impossible. (See History of the CPSU p. 353).
“B. Expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and the socialization of the means of production.
“‘In Russia, headed by the Bolshevik Party, the working class in alliance with the poor peasants, and with the support of the soldiers and sailors, [*4897] overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie, established the power of the Soviets, set up a new type of state—a Socialist Soviet State—abolished the landlords’ ownership of land, turned over the land to the peasants for their use, nationalized all the land in the country, expropriated the capitalists, achieved the withdrawal of Russia from the war and obtained peace, that is, obtained a much–needed respite, and thus created the conditions for the development of Socialist construction.
“‘The October Socialist Revolution smashed capitalism, deprived the bourgeoisie of the means of production and converted the mills, factories, land, railroads and banks into the property of the whole people, into public property.
“‘It established the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned over the government of the vast country to the working class thus making it the ruling class.’
“(History of the CPSU p. 224).”
(T–3825) I turn now to page 23, which is still lesson V. “D” reads “Development of the Red Army.”
“1. ‘It must not be forgotten that the Red Army is the army that utterly routed the German army which but yesterday was striking terror into the armies of the European states.’
“2. See History of the CPSU, pp. 244–46 wherein lies the unconquerable strength of the Red Army.”
Page 24, the same lesson: C 5. C reads:
“During and since the war against fascism the prestige, influence and authority of the Soviet Union has grown.”
5 under C reads:
“Emergence of the Soviet Union as one of the two most powerful countries in the world; the [*4898] U.S.A., the rallying center of imperialism and reaction; the U.S.S.R., the rallying center of anti–fascism, peace, liberation and progress.”
Page 26. This is the sixth lesson and is headed:
“The working class and the Communist Party,” and I is “The historic mission of the working class:” and under B it reads,
“The working class is the most revolutionary and most advanced class of capitalist society, leader of all the toiling and exploited, because of the (T–3826) relation in which it stands to production.
“1. ‘The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class whose economic conditions of existence train it for this task and provide it with the opportunity and the power to perform it. While the bourgeoisie breaks up and disintegrates the peasantry and all the petty–bourgeois strata, it welds together, unites and organizes the proletarit.’ Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. VII, p. 25.”
And last page of the exhibit, page 31, contains reading assignments from Stalin, Williamson, History CPSU, Communist Manifesto, Foster; Constitution, CPUSA, Williamson, Foster, History CPSU, Lenin, Foster, Stalin, Franklin, Communist Manifesto, Lenin, Charlotte Todes, Foster, Lenin, and others, Lenin and Losovsky.
Mr. Gladstein: Mr. Wallace, are you finished?
Mr. Wallace: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: May I read certain passages?
The Court: You may.
Mr. Gladstein: From Exhibit 51.
(To Jury) This is Exhibit 51, page 12, section B. There is a portion which is designated “Fascism.”
I desire to read that portion:
(T–3827) “1. It is not a new social order. Arising under special historical conditions, the develop– [*4899] ments of the bourgeois, reactionary offensive assumes the form of fascism. (Program of the CI).
“2. Fascism is the substitution of bourgeois–democracy as one form of rule by the bourgeoisie by another state form—the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital. (Dimitroff and CI).
“Note the emphasis on ‘elements,’—it is not the whole class.
(T–3828) “3. Fascism is the expression of the decay of capitalism and the inability of big monopoly capital to rule in the old way.
“4. Road to power of German fascism a major lesson to world workingclass. Workingclass split, role of Social–Democracy, isolation of the working class from its allies.
“5. Characteristic features: combination of brutal terror, corruption, social demagogy, chauvinism, race theories, destruction of all bourgeois–democratic liberties.
“6. Fascism is war—against the people at home as well as abroad; enslaver of peoples.
“7. Elements of the fascist menace in the U.S.A., and the struggle against it. Where the danger comes from. Role of G.L.K. Smith, Coughlin, McCormick, Bilbo, Rankin, Sentinels, Lindberg, Vandenberg, Hoover. The building of anti–fascist unity; the struggle for maintenance of bourgeois–democratic rights.”
Then C:
“Struggle for Bourgeois–Democratic Rights.
“1. To the working class ‘it is not a matter of indifference . . . what kind of political regime exists in any given country’ (Dimitroff). It must (T–3829) fight to defend and extend democratic [*4900] rights wrested from capitalism as instruments to unite the people in struggle against reaction and fascism and for socialism.
“2. We must reject and expose the Trotskyite position that there is no important difference between bourgeois–democracy and fascism. Trotskyite position leads to denying the need to struggle against fascism and results in actual aid to fascism. The war has shown the great difference between bourgeois–democratic rights and enslavement under fascism.
“3. The people of the USA have a rich history of struggle for the establishment, maintenance, and extension of democratic rights.
“4. The need to weld a powerful anti–fascist, anti–monopoly, democratic coalition. Election struggles for 1946 and 1948. ‘The existing loose, but broad democratic camp of labor and the progressives must yet be crystallized into an effective fighting and all–inclusive union.’
“‘The main objective of labor and the democratic forces in the 1946 elections will be to defeat the camp and the candidates of reaction and fascism, of imperialist aggrandizement and war, as well (T–3830) as to rout all conciliators of this imperialist combination.’ Dennis, America at the Cross–roads.
“‘We must re–emphasize that we approach these elections (Congressional elections) with the aim of checking and defeating the offensive of the camp of imperialism and reaction, irrespective of party labels. We stress that labor must pursue an independent and an anti–imperialist course in order to organize a powerful mass political and legislative movement, helping to prepare broad coalitions and groupings to bring forward candidates supported by labor in the major political party primaries, candidates who will fight for labor, the Negro people, veterans, etc., on all vital issues.’ Dennis, What America Faces.
[*4901]
“5. The struggle for FEPC, against the poll tax, anti–labor legislation, etc.
“6. The struggle for democracy is essential to the struggle for socialism. ‘It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for (T–3831) victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many–sided, constant and revolutionary struggle for democracy.’”
The quotation was from Lenin.
“Under the democratic republic ‘A wider, freer and more open form of the class struggle and of class oppression enormously assists the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of classes.’”
And that is from Lenin, “State and Revolution.”
Mr. Wallace: May I point out that the section immediately following that is headed “III The State After the Proletarian Revolution,” which I believe I have read.
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, I thought you had.
Now I want to read from page 16, if your Honor please. This is a part of Lesson IV. The lesson itself is entitled “The Negro Question,” and I think Mr. Wallace read—
(To Mr. Wallace) Well, I don’t know that you read any part of it. Did you, Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Wallace: Yes, I did. I read the entire section 2.
Mr. Gladstein: Where was that?
Mr. Wallace: Page 17, “The National Character”.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I will read the portion (T–3832) that precedes that and comes just before it:
[*4902]
“I. The Importance of the Negro Question.
“A. The relation of the struggle for liberation of the Negro people to the liberation of the working class.
“1. ‘Labor in the white skin can never emancipate itself where labor in the black skin is branded.’” That is from Marx, Karl Marx.
“2. ‘While the roots of this Bourbon policy is found in the semi–slave exploitation of the oppressed Negro nation in the Black Belt, its present ramifications threaten the democratic rights of the working people of the entire nation.”
And that is Nat Ross, Political Affairs of March 1946.
(T–3833) “B. The Negro people are a powerful and indispensable ally of the working class, as a basic part of the struggle for democracy and the fight for socialism.
“C. Status of the Negro people in America today.
“1. Employment: ‘During 1940–44 Negro men in industry rose from 17 to 29.7 per cent, and Negro women from 6 to 18 per cent in the South.’ In the Alabama Dry Docks in Mobile two of the shipways were manned exclusively by Negroes, from the unskilled worker to the supervisor. Many of the skilled workers were earning well over $1.00 an hour. These dry docks are closed down and thousands of Negroes are not only unable to find work in their trades, but in some cases are unable to find work of any kind.”
That is from Nat Ross, an article in Political Affairs for March, 1946.
“2. Discrimination in civil rights and suffrage: southern poll–tax laws, terror to keep Negroes from exercising voting rights, white primaries, registration trickery, etc.
“3. Enforcement of this discrimination by Jim–Crow laws and customs and by violence, the sharpest [*4903] expression of which is lynching. Attacks (T–3834) in Freeport, Long Island, Columbia, Tennessee.
“4. ‘These attacks are expressed most flagrantly in the outrageous assault upon the 14,000,000 Negroes in the U.S. This is an over–all assault, economic, political and social, without precedent in the history of the U.S. . . . the historical gains won during the war for Negro workers are faced with utter extinction.’”
That is from Winston, one of the defendants here, “National Committee Report.”
“5. The need to fight for full equality for the Negro people.
“6. The special problem of the fight for jobs and modification of seniority.
“7. Discuss the difference in status of the Negro people in the North and the South.
“D. The status of the Negro people in America today is one of special oppression, special exploitation.
“1. Historical reasons for this. Failure of the Reconstruction period to carry through the military victory of the civil war completely.
“2. The special condition of the Negro people can be traced back to the incompleteness of the bourgeois–democratic revolution of 1860–1876. (T–3835) All special forms of oppression of the Negro people have their origin in this fact.
“‘Though no longer a slave, he (the Negro) is in a thralldom grievous and intolerable, compelled to work for whatever his employer is pleased to pay him, swindled out of his hard earnings. . . . When our slaves were emancipated . . . they were sent away empty–handed, without money, without a foot of land upon which to stand.’ (Frederick Douglass’ West India Emancipation Speech, Elmira, New York, August 1, 1880.)
[*4904]
“E. The struggle of all nations for equality. Science shows no basis for the theories of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ of any people. The Negro people have made a tremendous contribution to American history and American life.
“1. Crispus Attucks, first to fall in the American Revolution; Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, Scientist, Paul Robeson, musician, etc.”
Now at page 19, as I recall, the prosecution read from Lesson V, entitled “The Meaning of Socialism”, a portion commencing with II, “What is Socialism?”
Mr. Wallace: I started with I.
Mr. Gladstein: I? Did you read “Why Socialism”?
(T–3836) Mr. Wallace: Yes, particularly “G”.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, did you read all of it?
Mr. Wallace: I don’t recall now, Mr. Gladstein, but I know I read G.
Mr. Gladstein: I don’t recall it. My notes indicated that section I “Why Socialism” was not read, but perhaps a portion of it was.
The Court: Well, if Mr. Wallace read it you can read it over again.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I do not want to do that, your Honor, but there is a certain portion that I am satisfied—
The Court: Well, it is hard to always keep track of these things, but where there is evidence of exhibits read in an orderly way, I am glad to have it done, but if there are times when there is some repetition, it is all right.
Mr. Gladstein: It is explanatory, your Honor. This second part of the lesson is entitled “What is Socialism?”, and the outline was read but immediately before that article is entitled “Why Socialism?” and I will read that portion of the outline, too.
“The historical necessity of, and the struggle for, socialism arises from basic objective and subjective factors, not utopian dreams nor wishful (T–3837) longings.
[*4905]
“A. It is the necessary outcome of the struggle between the two historically developed classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
“B. Capitalism at the highest stage of its development becomes a hindrance on the further growth of productive forces.
“C. Another system is required for their further development—socialism.
“D. The contradictions of capitalism can be resolved only under socialism.
“E. The inability of capitalism to rule is demonstrated by catastrophic and inevitable disasters—wars, crises, increased oppression and exploitation, fascism.
“F. The working class becomes ready for socialism as it learns the necessity for it through its own experience and the leadership of the Communist Party.
“G. The Communist Party, as it matures, becomes rooted in basic industry and steeled in struggles, wins the support of, and becomes capable of leading the working class and its allies to the achievement of socialism.
“1. It must conduct an irreconcilable struggle (T–3838) for unity of the working class against imperialist bourgeois and petty–bourgeois influences.
“For this section briefly review the main contradictions of capitalism and the character of imperialism as the eve of the proletarian socialist revolution. Summarze the points made by Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, pages 45 to 47.”
And one final passage at page 24,—and this is a part of the same Lesson No. V. This is entitled in subdivision V, “Revisionist Errors in the C.P.U.S.A. with respect to Socialism.”
“A. It was abandonment in actuality of socialism as our ultimate goal; replaced it with the per– [*4906] spective of a bourgeois utopia which would solve the contradictions of capitalism.
“B. It falsified relationship of struggle for immediate demands and the achievement of socialism, maintained that victories in Fight for immediate demands strengthened capitalism and weakened perspective for socialism, advanced idea that Socialism would only come as a result of social catastrophe.
“C. Conceived of majority support for idea of Socialism in mechanical non–Leninist manner as a result of an automatic process in which the (T–3839) Communist Party does not play any role; therefore abandoned education of masses in need for, and inevitability of socialism.”
Direct examination continued by Mr. Wallace:
Q. Mr. Herron. I think you told us that this class or course lasted for six weks. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell us just how these classes were conducted through this six–week period? A. Well, we studied out of different books, and we read in class—each member would read an article or a paragraph from each different—
Mr. Gladstein: I do not hear him, I am sorry.
The Court: Keep your voice up, Mr. Herron.
The Witness: Yes.
A. (Continuing) —each member of the class would—the instructor would have each member read from different pamphlets or books, pages of paragraphs, whatever—we would all have a chance to read, and then we would have—he would ask for an explanation and we all had a chance to give our explanation of the articles read and then there was a discusion period, and after we got through, why then he would comment on it, he would give his definition.
Q. I think you said that you left the Communist Party in 1947 when you went back to Arkansas? (T–3840) A. Yes, sir.
* * *
[*4907]
Q. Did you have any membership cards in the Party during the time you were a member? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have one for the year 1947? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you look at Government’s Exhibit 52 for identification and tell me if you recognize it (handing)? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it? A. That’s my card.
Mr. Wallace: I offer it in evidence. (Handing to Mr. Sacher.)
* * *
(T–3841) Mr. Wallace: I take it there is no objection?
(No response.)
(Government’s Exhibit 52 for identification received in evidence.)
The Court: All right, we will take our recess now. Ten–minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Mr. Wallace: Government’s Exhibit 52 in evidence is a 1947 membership card, Communist Party of the U.S.A. Name, Garfield Herron, Chicago, Illinois; 11/11/46, meaning November 11, 1946. Gil Green, signature of State Chairman; and a seal, Illinois State Committee, Communist Party, U.S.A.
(T–3842) By Mr. Wallace:
Q. Mr. Herron, did you ever attend any other classes or school of the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long after you finished taking this course you have been telling us about? A. I would say around three weeks, maybe.
Q. How did you happen to go to this other course? A. I was selected by my club to go.
Q. Did this other class or school have a name? A. Yes, sir, it was the leadership school.
Q. Where was it held? A. It was held in Chicago, at the Russian Cooperative. It was west on Division Street, [*4908] just west of Ashland, that is, 1600—in the Ashland 1600 West, in Chicago, and Division, I believe, is 1200 North.
Q. Is there a restaurant on the first floor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were the classes held? A. On the second floor.
Q. How long did this course last? A. It lasted a week, that is, six days.
Q. How many hours a day did you go to this class or school? A. Well, we went there and had breakfast in the morning and we got up to classes at 7.30 and it continued on with breaks, I mean, that is, for—of course, we had (T–3843) our lunch and a little rest period in the morning—we had a rest period and lunch; in the afternoon we had a rest period with lunch after we ate dinner later on in the afternoon. We continued on until around 11 o’clock at night.
Q. And you say you were selected by your club to go to this school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many other members were there in the class that went there? A. There was 19.
Q. Who were the instructors at this school? A. Well, David Ingelstein was educational director of Illinois. He was the main instructor. There was Gilbert Green, Fred Fine, and Albert Wagenknecht.
Q. How many lectures did Gilbert Green give at this school? A. Gilbert lectured one day and then, of course, on the last day. The last day we had a banquet, after the school was over, and he gave a lecture at that.
(T–3844) By the Court:
Q. You mean after the course was over? A. The same day. The last day it was over we had a banquet and he lectured at that.
Q. You don’t mean you had a banquet after one of the intermediate sessions were over; but one at the end? A. That is right.
By Mr. Wallace:
Q. What books did you review at this school? A. Well, they were practically the same as the ones we used at the other schools.
[*4909]
* * *
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 53 for identification and ask you if you recognize that book? A. Yes, sir. This is the book I used in the school.
Q. That is the actual book? A. That is the actual book.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 54 and ask you if you recognize that? A. Yes, sir, that is exactly the book I used in the school too.
Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 55 and ask you if you recognize that book? A. Yes, sir, that is exactly the book I used in the school.
(T–3845) Mr. Wallace: I am not offering these in evidence, your Honor, as we already have duplicates of them, but I would like to read into the record the titles of the books if they haven’t already been identified for the record.
The Court: You may do so.
Mr. Wallace: Government’s Exhibit 53 is “Foundation of Leninism” by Joseph Stalin.
Government’s Exhibit 54 is “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
And Government’s Exhibit 55 is “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Bolsheviks.”
Mr. Sacher: May I suggest, your Honor, that the record show that Exhibits 53, 54 and 55 are all for identification so we don’t get confused.
Mr. Wallace: Yes.
The Court: Yes, they are just for identification.
Q. Now you said that one of your lecturers was Albert Wagenknecht.
Q. Do you recall at what point in the course he gave his lecture? A. Well, I would say—I am sure it was around the fourth day of the class—that is, the fourth day of the school.
Q. Well, will you tell us in your own words what you can recall that Albert Wagenknecht said at this course?
[*4910]
(T–3846) Mr. Isserman: I object.
The Court: Overruled. What is the period? What is the date of this?
Mr. Wallace: A few weeks after the other course which is identified.
Mr. Gladstein: Hasn’t the witness answered that?
The Court: Yes, certainly; I thought he had already testified to it.
By the Court:
Q. But tell me what was the date? A. The exact date?
Q. Well, as far as you can recall. A. Well, it was April—wait a minute. I would say May or June.
Q. Of what year? A. Of 1946.
The Court: I will allow it.
The Witness (In answer to Mr. Wallace’s question): Well, Mr. Wagenknecht made quite a lengthy speech. I will tell you as much as I can remember that he said. He was speaking on the eastern democracies, that is, Bulgaria, those countries in Eastern Europe, and he said that we shouldn’t compare this country with those, that they had practically had their revolution during War World II, but that we in order for the workers to take over here, we would have to have a revolution here, armed revolution.
Mr. Wallace: Your Honor, at this time I want to call the jury’s attention to Government’s Exhibit 24–A (T–3847) in evidence which reads:
“Proceedings and Elections of C.P. Convention.”
The Court: You may do that.
Mr. Wallace: And refers to a convention on July 26th in New York City, and lists the persons elected to the National Committee of the Communist Party, and among the names we find A. Wagenknecht.
The Court: That is the National Committee?
Mr. Wallace: The National Committee?
The Court: Yes.
[*4911]
Motion to Strike Testimony of Witness, Herron—Denied Garfield Herron—for Government—Cross
Mr. Wallace: Oh, I am mistaken, your Honor. Mr. McGohey calls my attention to the fact that his name appears after the National Committee and as part of the Cadre and Review Commission responsible for review of personnel and control of finances, A. Wagenknecht.
The Court: Let me see that.
(Mr. Wallace hands to the Court.)
The Court: (After examining.) Very well.
Mr. Wallace: You may examine.
Mr. McCabe: I move to strike that out, your Honor.
The Court: You mean strike out the reference to Wagenknecht as a member of the National Commission—National Committee?
Mr. McCabe: Yes.
(T–3848) The Court: That has already been corrected.
Mr. McCabe: And also to strike out the reference to him as a member of the Review Cadre or Commission.
The Court: That is already in evidence, Mr. McCabe. I will allow it to remain.
Mr. McCabe: If the Court please, I should like also to move to strike out all of the testimony of this witness and all of the exhibits introduced during his stay on the stand.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Gladstein: Shall I proceed, your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
Cross examination by Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Mr. Herron, what is your present employment? A. I am presently employed at Oakland Park.
Q. At what? A. Oakland Park.
Q. What is that? A. Well, that is a race track.
Q. Where? A. In Hot Springs.
Q. What kind of work do you have? A. Maintenance work.
[*4912]
Q. How long have you been working at the race track? A. I started the Monday after Thanksgiving.
Q. Of last year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first time you had worked at that race track? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3849) Q. Now what had you been doing just before that? A. Mountain Valley Springs.
Q. What is that? A. That is a bottling plant where they bottle Mountain Valley Mineral Water.
Q. How long did you work there? A. From—from August of last year till around Thanksgiving.
Q. A couple of months? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you do then? A. Before?
Q. What kind of work? A. Before that?
Q. No, what kind of work at that bottling plant? A. At first when I went to work I was carpenter. I helped build some buildings, and I helped—after that I went into the bottling plant and worked in there.
Q. All right. Now just before you got the work at the bottling plant what kind of work were you doing? A. Farming.
Q. Where? A. Out in Mountain Valley.
Q. That is in Arkansas? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Close to Hot Springs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for how long did you farm? A. From the time I left Chicago.
Q. When was that? A. In August 1947.
Q. So from August 1947 to about August 1948 you farmed? A. That is right.
Q. Your own farm? A. No, sir; it was my brother–in–law’s (T–3850) farm.
Q. When did you first go to Chicago just prior to the time you got your job at Douglas? A. You mean the year?
Q. Yes. A. 1946—oh, 1936.
Q. You lived in Chicago continuously from ’36 on? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From ’36 to about ’43 when you got your job at Douglas? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you employed in 1942? A. At the Erie Railroad.
Q. I beg your pardon? A. The Erie Railroad.
Q. The Erie Railroad? A. Yes.
[*4913]
Q. How long had you worked for them? A. Seven years.
Q. That would take you back to the time you first came to Chicago? A. No.
Q. What was your first job when you came to Chicago? A. The first job—well, I don’t—I won’t say the first job; I will tell you where I worked there, if you want—before I worked at the railroad.
Q. All right, do that. A. I am not going to say that is the first job I had there. I worked at the Peacock Ale Bottling Company. I don’t know if there is any such company left now, I mean.
Q. How long did you work for them? A. Oh, maybe five or six months. I wouldn’t be (T–3851) exact.
Q. All right, where else did you work? A. Sears–Roebuck on Homan Avenue.
Q. How long did you work for them? A. Up until the time that I went to work at the Erie Railroad.
Q. Well, how many weeks, months or years? A. Well, it wasn’t any years.
Q. A short time? A. A short time.
Q. A couple of months? A. I don’t recall exactly how long I worked there. I worked there possibly two months.
Q. All right. Then you went to work for the railroad? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what kind of work did you do at the railroad? A. Freight clerk.
Q. That is what you began with, you mean? A. I began freight work.
Q. And what did you wind up doing? What was your job? A. I was checking clerk, freight checking clerk.
Q. All right. Now did you work continuously for the Erie Railroad from the time you first started with them until you left them in 1942 or 1943? A. That is right.
(T–3852) Q. When did you get your job at Douglas? A. January 7, 1943, I went to work at Douglas.
Q. Did you go to work at Douglas immediately after leaving the railroad? A. No, sir.
Q. How long an interval took place between the two? A. I think it was around a month.
Q. Did you leave your job voluntarily at Erie or was there a layoff or were you fired? A. I left voluntarily.
[*4914]
Q. Did you leave your job to take another one you had at the time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What job? A. It was freight clerk—well, freight clerk, same kind of work, and I was working at Olsen’s Transportation—Olsen’s Transportation. They were at 2222 Southwestern Avenue, Chicago.
Q. And during the period between your work for Erie and the time you started with Douglas, were you unemployed for any period of time? A. No, I went to work the same day.
Q. After you left this freight place you went to Douglas, is that right? A. After I left Olsen’s, yes, sir.
Q. What was your first job at Douglas? A. Stock clerk.
Q. How much did it pay?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3853) Q. You said you met a man named Norman Roth in Douglas, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. When did you first meet him? A. I don’t exactly recall the date.
Q. Roughly. A. It was shortly after I started to work there. I would say it was maybe in March.
Q. March of 1943? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he a worker at the plant? A. Yes.
Q. Was he in your department? A. No, sir.
Q. What was his job? A. Well, was maintenance, and I believe it was mechanical maintenance. I am not too sure about that anyway. It was maintenance.
Q. Who introduced you to him, do you remember? A. He introduced himself.
Q. Just as one fellow workman in the plant to another? A. No. He asked me if I wanted to join the union.
Q. When was that? A. Well, at that particular time.
Q. First time? A. Yes.
Q. That was March, 1943? A. That is right.
Q. What did you say? A. Sure.
Q. Did you? A. Yes.
Q. Was he engaged at the time in organizing workers into a union there? A. That is right.
[*4915]
Q. Which union? A. Local 201 of the United Automobile Workers CIO.
(T–3854) Q. From that time on did you become aware of the fact that Norman Roth was actively engaged in organizing workers at that plant? A. Oh, yes.
Q. He was pretty active as a leader in union organization there, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Did you go to union meetings? A. Oh, every one I attended.
Q. How often were they held, as a rule?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were there regular union meetings? A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him regularly at those meetings? A. Quite often.
Q. How often on the average did you see him at union meetings? A. Well, most of them. I wouldn’t say.
Q. How often was that, was it once a week, once a month?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: That is what I sustained the objection before, as to how many meetings there were.
Mr. Gladstein: I asked him how often he saw Norman Roth in the meetings, your Honor.
Mr. Wallace: I object to that question.
The Court: It seems to me it is just about the same thing.
(T–3855) How often did you say you met him, at most of the meetings?
The Witness: Yes, sir, most of the meetings. Quite often. I don’t recall exactly how often the meetings were held, but we were in the process of organizing the plant and we had meetings quite often.
Q. Now, when was it that you became a subscriber to the Daily Worker? A. Well, that was in the fall of 1943.
Q. Can you fix the month, roughly? A. Well, it was almost the end of the year anyway.
[*4916]
Q. You named—was it The Worker or Daily Worker? A. Sunday Worker.
Q. Sunday Worker? A. That is right.
Q. When was that? A. I don’t recall the date.
Q. Do you recall the month? A. No, sir, I don’t recall the month.
Q. Do you recall the season? A. I know it was in the—close to the first of—close to the last of 1943. Somewheres along there.
Q. So it was the tail end of 1943 or early part of 1944, is that it? A. Around in there.
Q. Now, did you subscribe to The Worker? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In whose name? A. In my name.
Q. What address did you give? A. My address.
(T–3856) Q. Did you begin to receive The Worker? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would be about the first part of 1944, is that correct? A. It wasn’t long after I subscribed to it. It wasn’t long after I subscribed to it until I started receiving it.
Q. All right; for how long a period of time did you subscribe? A. For a year at that time.
Q. When was it that FBI agents first communicated with you? A. It was three months after I subscribed to The Worker.
Q. That is, in 1944? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What month in 1944? A. It was early in spring—it was in the wintertime or early spring. I don’t exactly recall the date, but I do know it was in the spring or early—or latter part of the winter, or whatever you call it. I mean, it was after January. I don’t recall.
Q. Did they call on you at your home? A. Yes.
Q. Night or day? A. Day.
Q. How many? A. Two.
Q. Do you know who they were? A. Yes.
Q. Who were they? A. I won’t call their names.
Q. You mean you don’t recall or you won’t— A. I don’t recall their names. I know them.
Q. You mean as you sit there you don’t know their names? A. No, sir, I wouldn’t recall that.
[*4917]
(T–3857) Q. I beg your pardon? A. I wouldn’t remember their names now.
Q. Who was at home when they called on you?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. When they came into your house did they tell you who they were? A. Yes.
Q. You had a conversation with them? A. Yes.
Q. Was there anybody present at that conversation besides you and the two agents? A. No, sir.
Q. Was your wife at home? A. Yes.
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained. Strike out the answer.
Q. How long a conversation did you have? A. I would say 30 minutes, possibly.
Q. Did they tell you what they came there for? A. Yes.
Q. Did they tell you that they knew you were a member of the union? A. No.
Q. Well, from the—did you tell them you were a member of the union? A. Surely.
Q. Did you tell them which union you were a member of? A. That is right, yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell them when you had joined the union? A. No, sir.
(T–3858) Q. Did you tell what activities you were engaged in in the Union? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hold any office in the Union at that time? I mean, were you on the Executive Board or something? A. Well, I was on the Executive Board. I don’t know if I was on at that particular time.
Q. Did you tell them what position, if any, you had in the Union at that time? A. I don’t remember telling them very much about the union at all. Only thing I told them is where I worked and that I was in the union.
Q. Did they seem to know where you worked?
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
[*4918]
Q. All right. From their conversation with you did they say to you that they knew where you worked and what you were doing in the plant? A. I told them where I worked.
Q. No, no; I asked you did they—
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: I am trying to get the conversation, your Honor.
The Court: Well, the conversation hasn’t come out.
Mr. Gladstein: I beg your pardon?
The Court: I say you haven’t asked for the (T–3859) conversation.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I am asking whether something was said in the conversation.
Q. Did they tell you, Mr. Herron, how they happened to come to see you? A. Yes.
Q. What did they say? A. I don’t recall the words that they said, how come they come to see me.
* * *
The Court: Give the substance of the conversation. You don’t have to remember the exact words.
The Witness: You want me to?
The Court: That is what he is asking you. What did they say when they came in?
Q. Well, the question is this, Mr. Herron: I am trying to find out what they said, if anything, as to how come they came to see you. A. They asked me if I knew any Communists in the plant.
Q. Yes. A. I told them I didn’t know for sure if there was any in the plant; that there were rumors that there were some in the plant, but I had no way of telling if there were any Communists in the plant.
Q. Go ahead. A. They asked me if I would work with them and find out if there were. They explained they weren’t trying to harm the union in any way but they (T–3860) wanted to find out what the Communists were doing in there.
[*4919]
Q. And who they were? A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead. A. I agreed.
Q. So they said in effect to you that they wanted to find out from you and they wanted you to inform them which people were Communists?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: Why, your Honor?
The Court: Well, that isn’t what he said.
Mr. Gladstein: Well, I will ask.
Q. Did these FBI agents in substance say to you that they wanted you to help find out and inform the FBI as to which people in the plant were Communists?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: As repetitious?
Mr. Wallace: It is repetitious.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: Does that mean it has been answered in the affirmative?
Mr. Wallace: Partly in the affirmative.
The Court: Well, I will have it read.
(To reporter) Read the last few questions and answers.
(T–3861) (Record read.)
The Court: And then he said yes, he would help them.
Q. Now did you discuss with them and did they discuss with you the manner in which you could find out who the people in the plant were that were Communists? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, did they make any suggestion to you as to how you could go about finding out who in the plant were Communists? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you discuss with them any idea at all as to how you could find out? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, did you discuss with them your joining the Communist Party? A. Yes.
Q. Whose suggestion was it first? Theirs or yours? A. It was theirs.
[*4920]
Q. So they suggested that you join the Communist Party and get information as to who the members of the Communist Party were and then turn that information over to the FBI; correct?
The Court: Well, that isn’t what he said.
Mr. Gladstein: I am asking.
The Court: That is the same question that there was objection to before that he was to go over to see—
Mr. Gladstein: I didn’t hear your Honor. You (T–3862) had your hand on your mouth.
The Court: It didn’t seem to me I had my hand on my mouth but it was on my chin. But anyway, he said he would go in there to find out what the Communists were doing there. That is what the reporter read.
(To witness) Isn’t that what you said?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Did they say to you that they wanted to find out what activity the Communists were engaged in? Is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Did they say to you they wanted to know who the Communists were that were engaging in those activities? Did they say that?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, on that first occasion did you discuss with them the names of any persons that they were asking about as to whether they were Communists? A. On that occasion I told them that I had subscribed to the Worker and that Norman Roth was the one that took my application, and that is as much as I knew about it.
Q. Did they ask you whether in your judgment Norman Roth was a Communist? A. It appeared to me at that time he probably was. I never knew for sure if he was at that time.
(T–3863) Q. But at that time did you discuss that with the FBI agents? A. I discussed that I got the paper, that I took this subscription from Norman Roth.
[*4921]
Q. No, Mr. Herron—
Mr. Wallace: I object now.
Q. Did the FBI agents ask you if you knew whether Norman Roth was a member of the Communist Party? A. I don’t recall it.
Q. Did they ask you to find out? A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Did they discuss with you any other persons who worked in the plant? A. No, sir.
Q. Did they mention any other names to you? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you the first to mention that you had subscribed to the Daily Worker? A. During the conversation I was the one that mentioned it.
Q. You mentioned it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did they say to you how they happened to come to you in the first place?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
The Witness: You allow me to answer?
The Court: Yes.
A. No, sir, they never explained how they came.
(T–3864) Q. You didn’t ask them? A. No, sir.
Q. Had you ever had any contact with the FBI before? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you during that conversation discuss any of your past activities? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you discuss any of the work that you had done in the past? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you discuss any of the places you had been? A. No, sir.
Q. Now during that conversation you said that they made the statement to you that they were not interested in harming the union, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Now how did that come up in the conversation? A. Well, when they asked me to work with them to find out what the Communists were doing, they explained that very plainly that they intended—they wanted strong unions but [*4922] they wanted to merely find out what the Communists were doing in the unions.
Q. That is what they said? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened just before they said that? What was said by either you or they that brought up the subject of the unions? A. I don’t know—the only thing that maybe we was discussing Norman Roth as an organizer.
Q. An an organizer? A. Probably. I imagine that (T–3865) is about what brought it up to that point.
Q. Didn’t they say to you in substance that they wanted to know if Norman Roth was a Communist and they wanted you to understand that they were not interested in harming the union? Isn’t that about it?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: May the record show that the witness was about to nod in the affirmative?
Mr. McGohey: I object to that. This is a new technique, the cross–examiner indicating what the witness was about to do.
The Court: It didn’t seem so to me.
Mr. McGohey: Nor to me.
The Court: You lawyers have a way of indicating things that you say by indicating what people are about to do. I don’t understand that. He has already testified two or three times about it.
Q. On that occasion did you discuss the manner in which you would turn over any information that you got for them? A. Yes.
Q. What was the discussion? A. Well, I was supposed to—
The Court: Keep your voice up now.
A. I should write any information I had and send it by (T–3866) mail to them.
Q. They told you where to send it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they indicate how often thay wanted you to report? A. No, sir.
Q. Did they tell you the kind of thing they wanted reported? A. No, sir.
[*4923]
Q. They left that all to your own judgment? A. That is right.
Q. I see. Did you discuss any personal contacts that you might have or might make with them in addition to written reports? A. No, sir.
Q. They did not. Now do I understand that you did not at that time discuss with them the idea of your going into the Communist Party? A. No, sir.
Q. When is the next time you saw them? A. Oh, about a couple of weeks, I guess.
Q. What is that? A. About two weeks after that.
Q. Where was that? A. At my home.
Q. At night time? A. No, sir.
Q. Day time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the same two FBI agents? A. No.
Q. Different ones? A. Well, one different one.
Q. One was the same and one was different? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the names of the two men who called on you the second time? A. No, sir.
(T–3867) Q. Don’t know either one of them? A. I don’t recall their names.
Q. Did you have a conversation with them on that occasion? A. Yes.
Q. How long did that last? A. Possibly 30 minutes.
Q. What was that about? A. Well, I don’t—it was about the same thing. Probably about the same kind of conversation.
Q. What was that? A. It was about the Communists.
Q. What did you discuss about Communists? A. Well, we was having an election at Douglas in the union—different things.
Q. Having what kind of an election at Douglas? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Union election? A. Was getting ready to have a union—
Q. What kind of election? A. For officers in the union.
Q. Officers in the union? A. Yes.
Q. You mean, the local of the UAW? A. Yes.
Q. So you had a discussion on that occasion with the two FBI agents as to the forthcoming elections in your local union, is that right, Mr. Herron? Is that right? A. No, I said we had a discussion and it was about the time we were having an election there.
[*4924]
(T–3868) Q. What was discussed on that second occasion? A. The Communists.
Q. In what? The Union? A. In the plant.
Q. In the plant. Well, did you discuss the Communists in the local union? A. The ones that was in the plant.
Q. That were also in the union, is that right? A. Well, I don’t recall if they were all in the union or not.
Q. Well, whether you recall whether they were all in the union or not, is not the point.
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Of course, that is the point. He can’t answer the question without answering that part.
Mr. Gladstein: I think I asked. If I didn’t I will withdraw with apologies the question.
Q. What I am trying to find out, on this second occasion when you had this conversation with the two FBI agents during the day time at your home, whether at that conversation you and they had a conversation and that you talked about people in the plant who were also in the union who might be Communists?
Mr. Wallace: I object to the form of the question.
The Court: Sustained. It is too involved. Too much in it.
(T–3869) Mr. Gladstein: All right, I will take some of it out.
Q. Did you talk with them at all about the Communists and the election that was going to be held? A. Yes.
Q. What was that conversation? A. Well, I don’t recall the conversation altogether. At that time, though, they asked me if I had got an application or anything to the Communist Party to join.
Q. That was the second conversation when they made that suggestion? A. Yes.
Q. Did you get an application?
Mr. Wallace: I object to the word “suggestion.”
[*4925]
The Court: That wasn’t the suggestion. They asked him if he had got an application to become a member of the Communist Party.
Q. They asked you if you had gotten one? A. Yes.
Q. Had they suggested that you get one in the previous conversation? A. No, at this conversation. This conversation, the second one.
Q. Yes, on the second occasion. A. Yes.
Q. You say they asked you if you had got an application to join the Communist Party, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Now had you discussed with them the idea of joining the Communist Party in the prior conversation? (T–3870) A. At this particular meeting they asked me if I had joined or got the application.
Q. Isn’t that what happened the first time they saw you? Isn’t it true that they then suggested that you apply and try to get into the Communist Party, and that the second time they saw you they asked you whether you had taken any steps to get it?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Yes, that word “suggest” may be causing the trouble. Why don’t you ask him if they told him?
Mr. Gladstein: (To the reporter) Will you read the question and substitute the word “told” for “suggest”?
Mr. McGohey: I object to this procedure. I think counsel ought to ask his own questions and not have the reporter ask them for him.
Mr. Gladstein: I will accept the Court’s suggestion.
Q. Mr. Herron, is this what happened in substance: that the first time you met with the FBI agents they told you to get an application for membership in the Communist Party, and the second time they saw you—
The Court: Why do you put all that in? Why don’t you ask him a simple question without all these (T–3871) things in there? That I think confuses [*4926] him a little bit, but I may be wrong. You suit yourself.
Q. All right. Did they on the occasion of this conversation with you tell you to get an application for membership in the Communist Party? A. They told me at this meeting—they asked me at this meeting if I had been approached to join the Communist Party any more.
Q. Did you tell them the first time you saw them that you had been approached to join the Communist Party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you say approached you? A. Norman Roth.
Q. Did you tell them when? Did they ask you when that approach had been made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you say? A. In the fall of 1943.
Q. You mean at the time that he asked you to subscribe to the Worker? A. Before.
Q. Before that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, when was that? A. I said it was in the fall of 1943.
Q. Where did that conversation take place with Mr. Roth? A. In the plant where I was working, at the north end of the plant.
Q. During the day time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anybody else present? (T–3872) A. There was people working around. There was nobody right with us.
Q. And on that occasion you say that Mr. Roth just asked you to join the Communist Party, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Did he tell you that he was a member of the Communist Party? A. I don’t remember if he said he is a member or not.
Q. Did you ask him? A. (No response.)
Q. What is that? A. No, I don’t remember asking him. There was rumors—rumors around that he was a member of the Communist Party.
Q. Well, you say that in the fall of 1943 he came up and asked you to join the Communist Party? A. That is right.
Q. And what did you say? A. I said O.K.
[*4927]
Q. You said O.K.? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he give you a card of some kind? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he do anything else after that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he do? A. He gave me an application to the Worker.
Q. To the Worker? A. Sure, the Sunday Worker.
Q. To the Sunday Worker? Well, is that all that he did at that time? A. No, sir. When he first met me—you want to know what he said?
Q. No, on that occasion after the conversation you (T–3873) had with him about joining the Communist Party. A. At that conversation he explained what the Communist Party was.
Q. Did he give you some literature? A. Not in the plant, no; not then.
Q. Any place else? A. At some meeting later.
Q. No, not later. I am talking now, Mr. Herron, about the period between the fall of 1943 and the time that you had these conversations with the FBI agents. Now in that period did Norman Roth give you an application for membership in the Communist Party? A. No.
Q. No. The only thing he gave you then was the application to subscribe to the Worker? A. That is right.
Q. Now let us get back to the second conversation that you had with the FBI agents when they asked you on that occasion if you had got an application. Did you have one or not? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you suggest that you get one? A. They didn’t suggest I get one. They said—yes, they said if I am offered one, to take it. They asked me if I would mind to join it and I said no, if—they explained—they explained that they wanted to find out what the Communists were doing and I said, “Yes, I’ll join them.”
(T–3874) Q. You what? A. I agreed to join up in the Communist Party.
Q. All right. Now on that second occasion when you talked with the FBI agents what else was said, if anything, about the elections that were coming up? A. Not a thing.
Q. No more? A. No.
Q. Have you given us all of the conversation that occurred on the second occasion? A. No, not all but that’s all I remember of it.
[*4928]
Q. Did you have any further discussion about giving them any reports? A. I don’t remember.
Q. Had you sent any report since the first discussion with them? A. Yes.
Q. You had? When had you sent a report? A. Oh, it was a small report.
Q. When, I say. A. In between that—the two meetings with them.
Q. Now what was the subject matter of that report that you sent? A. I don’t recall it.
Q. Had you been at a union meeting between the first and second times that you saw the FBI men?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3875) Q. Now, in that report to them did you inform the FBI as to things that anybody had said in the plant?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
(To the witness) Did the report have to do with anything as to Communists?
The Witness: Yes, that is what it had to do with.
Q. As to what people said, people that you thought were Communists? A. Yes.
(T–3876) Q. Did the report have to do with Norman Roth, anything he said? A. Yes.
Q. Did it have anything to do with what he said at the union meeting? A. Not at the union meeting.
Q. That he said in private to you? A. No, sir.
Q. That he said where? A. We were at a different meeting, Communist meeting.
Q. At a Communist meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you were at a Communist meeting between the first and second time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wait. Between the first and second times that you talked with the FBI? A. I don’t recall the date. We went to a meeting at Harry Freed’s house.
Q. At whose house? A. Harry Freed.
[*4929]
Q. That was between the first time and the second time you saw the FBI? A. That is right.
Q. You weren’t a member of the Communist Party then, were you? A. No, sir.
Q. That was a Communist meeting, you say? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was discussed? A. Union.
Q. The union? A. Yes.
Q. What about the union? A. About the coming elections.
Q. What was discussed about the coming elections? A. There was two sides in the union running, a left wing and a right wing, and they was discussed.
(T–3877) Q. And I take it that you and the people that were with you were generally known as left wing, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Is this correct, that at that meeting you and the others you were with discussed positions to take in any effort to win the election among the rank and file, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. What position to take on various issues is that correct? A. Various issues?
Q. Various issues in the union. A. Oh, sure, yes, that is right.
Q. What kind of program to offer—of the left wing—to offer the rank and file in order to try to win the election, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. And in order to obtain betterment of conditions for the men, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. It was that meeting, was it, on which you then reported to the FBI? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your report summarized, I take it, what the discussion was, is that correct?
The Court: Did you tell them all about these issues and all that?
The Witness: No, I didn’t. I got some literature at that particular meeting and that is mainly what I was reporting on.
(T–3878) Q. And what was the literature? A. It was Communist literature.
Q. What was it? A. Communist literature.
Q. What was it, what was the name of it? A. Well, it was a Daily Worker or something. I don’t remember just what literature. Some pamphlets.
[*4930]
Q. What were the pamphlets? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Were any of them union pamphlets? A. No, sir.
Q. Are you sure? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what the pamphlets were?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that, your Honor. He said he doesn’t remember the names.
The Court: I think Mr. Gladstein means to ask him if he looked at them.
The Witness: Oh, yes, I looked at them.
Mr. Gladstein: No, I meant to ask him if he knows what they were, if he remembers.
The Court: You mean, if he remembers now what was in those pamphlets?
Mr. Gladstein: Well, if he remembers anything about pamphlets, your Honor.
Q. Do you remember the title of any of them? A. I don’t recall right now just exactly the titles of any of them. I know they were Communist literature, yes.
Q. When was the third time that you spoke to the FBI, (T–3879) how long after the second? A. Must have been a month or so—perhaps more than a month, I would say.
Q. In between that period did you join the Communist Party? A. I would say it was later than that period, a little later than that period, that I joined.
Q. How many reports, if any, did you send to the FBI during that period of one month between the first and third times you spoke to the FBI agents? A. I don’t recall just how many.
Q. Your best recollection, Mr. Herron. A. Sir?
Q. Your best recollection, please, two, three, half a dozen. A. No, it wouldn’t be more than one, I don’t believe.
Q. One in the whole month? A. Yes, about one in that particular month, yes.
Q. Was there anything special going on in the union at that time?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, what about the election, when was that held?
[*4931]
Mr. Wallace: I object.
Mr. Gladstein: The union election.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was the union election held in that one month period?
(T–3880) Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you running for office in the union election?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
* * *
Q. In the second report, what did you discuss in that second report to the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. Well, different Communist literature and speeches that was made.
Q. Speeches where? A. Communist speeches.
Q. Communist speeches that were given where? A. They were given in the Skyline, I believe, in the Skyline Auditorium, in Chicago—Skyline something. The building is Skyline Club or something. I don’t recall the building.
The Court: Some room where they got together?
The Witness: It was. They call it the Skyline. Anybody can look it up in Chicago at all.
Q. Is it a public auditorium? A. Well, there was a room in there in the building.
Q. Was it a meeting hall? A. Yes, there was benches in there, or seats, yes.
Q. Was it a public meeting? A. No, sir.
(T–3881) Q. How did you get in? A. Well, there was just fellows that—I got in with Norman Roth.
Q. But people who were not Communists were permitted to go in, is that right? A. Well, I wasn’t a Communist at [*4932] that time. I went in. I went in with Norman Roth. I don’t know.
* * *
(Recess to 2.30 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
GARFIELD HERRON, resumed the stand.
* * *
(T–3882) Cross examination continued by Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Mr. Herron, you mentioned a meeting at the home of a man named Freed. Do you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his full name? A. Harry Freed.
Q. Was he a worker at the Douglas plant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he a member of the union? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it true that all of the people who were present in his home on the occasion of the meeting you have described were members of the UAW? A. I wouldn’t know if they were all, but I am sure (T–3883) that most of them were.
Q. Do you remember anyone who was there who was not a member of the union? A. I never asked to see their cards whether they were or not, but I presume they were members of the union.
Q. Your best judgment now is that they were all members of the union, is that right?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that.
The Court: Sustained. What good is his best judgment? If he doesn’t know what is the use of his guessing at it?
Q. How long did that meeting last? A. I would say around two to three hours.
Q. Was there anything discussed at that meeting other than union matters, union elections, union business? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else? A. There was some—I don’t recall the article—it was in a paper though, about some poet in [*4933] Wisconsin, a great writer or great poet or something. I don’t remember his name. I don’t believe I could recall it if you would mention it. But anyway they discussed him and it was in a paper. I remember that particular article. I didn’t read it, however, but Norman Roth was showing me his picture and tell me about it.
(T–3884) Q. What paper? A. I don’t even recall what paper it was. It was a small paper, though.
Q. What was the subject matter— A. I believe it was the Daily Worker, although I am not so sure—or the Sunday Worker.
Q. What was the subject matter with which this picture of the poet dealt? A. I believe he had died—I believe it, and they were giving him a write–up in the paper as a great poet or a great author or something anyway.
Q. Was there anything else besides that that was discussed that evening in the two or three hours at the meeting at Freed’s home that did not deal with the union or union matters? A. Yes, they had pamphlets and literature.
Q. What kind of pamphlets and literature? A. Well, there was—I believe something by—
The Court: Keep your voice up now.
A. —it was Communist Party literature. I believe that Browder had written some of it, if I am not mistaken.
Q. What did you see that had been written by Browder? A. I don’t recall the exact readings of it. I had some of the literature, however. I was given some of the literature when I left.
Q. What was the total—you were given some, you say? A. Yes.
(T–3885) Q. Did you take some with you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you take with you? A. I can’t remember just exactly the pamphlets.
Q. Do you remember the subject matter with which any pamphlet dealt? A. In fact I never read it, so I wouldn’t know.
Q. What did you do with them? A. I sent them to the FBI.
[*4934]
Q. Did you get a copy of the paper that contained a picture of the poet? A. I don’t believe I did, no.
Q. But now the discussion that took place, the conversation that took place, that dealt with the union election, is that right?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that, your Honor. I do not think—
The Court: Sustained:
Mr. Gladstein: On what ground? I did not hear Mr. Wallace’s ground.
Mr. Wallace: I stopped; we are not allowed to state.
The Court: I sustained the objection.
Q. Now was that group known as the progressive or left wing caucus? A. Yes, sir, left wing group.
Q. And that group—
The Court: Do you know what “caucus” is?
(T–3886) The Witness: Yes, sir, very much so; at that time a left wing meeting.
Q. And that was a group of union men in the union that was known as a left wing or progressive caucus, is that right?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained. He just said that.
Mr. Gladstein: That it was.
The Court: I thought so.
Mr. Gladstein: All right.
Q. After you reported to the FBI on that meeting, when was the next time that you met with the FBI? A. I would say it was around a month.
Q. How often did you meet with the FBI thereafter? A. Oh, at intervals.
Q. It varied? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you meet with them sometimes every week or every other week for a while? A. Not every week, no.
Q. Well, were there periods when you met with them once every week or once very two weeks? A. Not periods, no. I would meet them whenever it was necessary.
[*4935]
Q. “Necessary,” you mean whenever you thought it ought to be done? A. Or whenever they thought it would be necessary for me.
Q. Uh huh. Did you have a way of calling them to (T–3887) have a meeting with them?
Mr. Wallace: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you ever call them and have a meeting with them? A. Yes.
Q. And there were times when they called you and made arrangements to meet with you, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. On the average, how often did you meet with them?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
A. I just answered.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Over what total period of time did you have meetings with the FBI agents? A. I did not get the question.
Q. Over what total period of time did you meet with them? For example, throughout 1944, after you once started, would that be correct? A. Why, I met with them from 1944 until 1947.
Q. All right; a period of roughly three years, would that be correct? A. Approximately.
Q. On the average, how often during that three–year period or so did you meet with them?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3888) Q. Did you meet with different agents from time to time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many different agents did you meet with altogether during the three–year period?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Can you give us the names of any of the agents with whom you met? A. Yes, sir.
[*4936]
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Well, I will let it stand.
Q. The answer is yes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, will you do so?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: I don’t understand the Court’s ruling. If you will permit me to have an affirmative answer—
The Court: I am permitting it to remain because it is already answered.
Mr. Gladstein: But when I asked him the next question, then, to name one or more of them, your Honor had sustained the objection.
The Court: Well, that is what I do.
Mr. Crockett: May I ask the basis for the Court’s ruling?
(T–3889) The Court: No—you may ask.
Mr. Crockett: But I seem to recall on my cross–examination that a witness was permitted to state the names of the agents.
The Court: This seems a little different to me. You know, I have a certain discretion in these matters.
Mr. Crockett: I just wanted to know if the rules change as we go along.
The Court: I consider that a rather impertinent remark, Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Crockett: I assumed the law of the case had been established in the prior examination.
The Court: Well, you may have your own opinion, about my conduct, but I hope you will try to restrain yourself, if you can. I sustain the objection.
Q. Mr. Herron, how often did you make reports to the FBI? A. There was no particular time. Only when we would have meetings, then I would make a report.
Q. That was an oral report when you had a meeting, isn’t that right? You would tell them certain things, is [*4937] that right? A. You asked how often I made written statements, is that right?
Q. Yes. A. Written?
Q. Yes. A. That was my answer, whenever we would have a meeting.
(T–3890) Q. On the occasions when you had meetings with the FBI agents you handed them a written report, is that your testimony?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you ever send any reports in writing to the FBI? A. Yes.
Q. By mail? A. Yes.
Q. Were these typed or written? A. They were written.
Q. How many reports did you send that were written by you?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you also deliver written reports in person to the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. How many reports did you deliver or send to the FBI before you became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Gladstein: May I be heard on that, your Honor?
The Court: No, I am not going to have this sort of thing go on indefinitely, you know.
(T–3891) Mr. Gladstein: I was limiting this to a period of time and asking for an over–all answer.
The Court: I understand that.
[*4938]
Q. Before you testified here did you see these reports or any of them? A. I think I looked over one or two.
Q. Don’t you know whether you looked over one or two? A. Yes.
Q. Well, how many did you look over? A. One or two.
Q. Which was it, one or two? A. Two, I would say.
Q. When? When?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
Mr. Gladstein: I think he started to point to a room.
Mr. McGohey: I object to counsel saying what he thought the witness did. The record will show that.
Mr. Gladstein: I will withdraw it. I am sorry.
The Court: Well, the real point is this hurry, hurry, hurry business. It is distracting. This witness is taking a moment or two to think, and I think he should be permitted to do that. And the moment he starts to think, you keep after him again.
Mr. Gladstein: I am sorry. I did not intend to do that.
The Court: I did not say you intended to do it.
Q. The question was, when it was when you looked over (T–3892) the two reports. A. Since I have been here in New York City.
Q. When is that? A. Well, the first day I came here.
Q. When was that? A. The second day I came here, rather.
Q. Well, when was that? A. Monday.
Q. Of last week? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see those reports? A. This attorney, Mr.—
Q. Wallace? A. Yes, sir, yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see the reports? A. In his office.
Q. Was there anybody else present? A. No, sir.
Q. That was last Monday? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You read the reports? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there were only two that you read? A. Yes, sir.
[*4939]
Q. Do you know the dates of the two? A. I don’t remember the dates, no, sir.
Q. How long were the reports?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did those reports have to do with your testimony here? A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Well, did they have to do with anything you have testified to here? A. Maybe.
Q. Don’t you know? A. I don’t remember just what I read in the reports. I don’t recall what I read in the reports, as I read here. Two reports, I remember, but I (T–3893) don’t recall the two particular reports or dates, or what it said in them now.
Q. Did you see those reports a second time? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you seen any other reports besides those? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any reports this morning? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any reports last Friday? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you testified here concerning things that are contained in either of those reports that you saw? A. I don’t recall what the two reports were that I went over, now.
Q. Mr. Herron, did you write and deliver or send to the FBI at any time in the past reports containing material or information such as any of the testimony you have given here?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. I don’t know what it means myself.
Mr. Gladstein: The question?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Gladstein: I will try to clarify it.
Q. Now, you have given certain testimony here, Mr. Herron, and I would like to ask you this: Will you state whether in the reports that you made for the FBI(T–3894) you discussed in any of those reports any information or [*4940] statements, any of which you have testified to here before the jury?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Were you shown anything besides the reports before you took the witness stand here? A. Some of the pamphlets and books is all.
Q. Which pamphlets?
The Court: Pamphlets and books he says.
Q. Yes, which pamphlets and which books. A. Well, the ones I sent up here from Hot Springs that I had.
Q. Oh, you sent them from Hot Springs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you send them from Hot Springs? A. Last fall.
Q. The fall of 1948? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many pamphlets and how many books did you send from there? A. I don’t recall how many. I didn’t count them.
Q. Well, roughly. A. Well, it was pamphlets and things that I had used in the school.
Q. Were there five, ten, 15, 20? A. I don’t recall the number.
Q. These were things that you had gotten a long time before 1948, were they? A. Yes.
(T–3895) Q. You didn’t send them to the FBI or give them to the FBI at the time you got them originally? A. Not those particular ones.
Q. Did you send some of the things you got to the FBI at the time you got them in Chicago? A. Yes, many things I sent to them.
Q. And some you didn’t? A. That is right.
Q. And these were ones that you didn’t send, is that right? A. Some that I didn’t send, yes.
Q. Let’s take the documents that have been introduced in evidence here. You know which ones have been introduced, do you, Mr. Herron? A. Yes.
Q. Tell me which have been introduced, that is, of the ones you identified.
[*4941]
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Mr. Herron, you are familiar with that study course outline which is Exhibit 51 here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you get that? A. I got that at the school when I was working at Stewart & Warner.
Q. When? A. You mean the date?
Q. The year, if you will. A. It was shortly after I went to work at Stewart & Warner. It was in the spring of 1946.
Q. And that is when you got it? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3896) Q. Did you turn it over to the FBI then? A. Yes, sir, but I took it back—they sent it back to me.
Q. When was that? A. As soon as I got it or shortly after I got it.
Q. Well, did you get this during the course? A. Yes, sir.
Q. After which lesson? A. I got it before the course.
Q. Before the first lesson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when did you turn it over to the FBI? A. I don’t remember the day that I turned it over to them.
Q. Well, how long after you first got it? A. It was about the same week that I got it.
Q. Did you mail it or did you deliver it to the FBI? A. I don’t recall whether they picked it up or I delivered it.
Q. After that when did you get it back? A. I got it back in about a day.
Q. Then it was left with you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you kept it? A. Yes, sir, I studied from it.
Q. You what? A. We used it in the course.
Q. You studied from it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you kept it and took it home with you to Arkansas? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3897) Q. Then you sent it to the FBI in 1948, is that right? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, when did you? A. I sent it to the attorney here.
Q. Mr. Wallace? A. Last fall.
Q. Last fall. That is in 1948? A. Yes.
[*4942]
The Court: You mean Mr. Wallace, the lawyer who was asking you questions on direct examination?
The Witness: That is right.
Q. Now were you sent some letter or something asking you to do that? A. I was asked to do it, yes.
Q. In writing? A. No, sir, Mr. Wallace told me to send it to him.
Q. How did he communicate with you? In writing? Or did he talk to you? A. He told it to me.
Q. Where? A. Well, he just talked with me.
Q. Where? In what city? A. In New York.
Q. Oh, you were sent for, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. And you came from Arkansas to New York, is that it? A. That is right.
Q. And that was in the fall of 1948? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have this Outline with you at the time? A. No, sir.
Q. Now at that time did he go over with you the (T–3898) testimony that he wanted you to give?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, did he review with you any of the testimony that you might give in this case?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: The same ruling.
Q. On that occasion in the fall of 1948, Mr. Herron, did Mr. Wallace discuss with you your testifying here? A. No, sir, he didn’t say a thing about testifying here.
Q. Did he discuss the contents of your reports? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he have the reports? Did you see them? A. No, sir, he didn’t have any reports of any kind.
Q. How long did you talk with him? A. It was only a few hours, I don’t know—I don’t know exactly how many hours, but it was only a short period of time.
[*4943]
Q. Did the conversation have anything to do with the matters you have testified to here? A. Well, he asked me a few questions and I answered them and in the conversation I told him I had some books and things that I had got, you know, during the school, and things and he asked me to send them up here.
Q. At the time you left him did he tell you you would be called as a witness? A. No, sir. In fact I didn’t (T–3899) know I was going to be called for a witness.
Q. Did he discuss with you any of the things that you have here testified to?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did he discuss with you any of the reports that you had sent?
Mr. Wallace: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Was the question of your reports to the FBI mentioned in your conversation with Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What were you doing? What was your work at the time you talked with Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I don’t understand you. What was his job down in Hot Springs?
Mr. Gladstein: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. I was working at Mountain Valley Spring—Mountain Valley Mineral Water Spring.
(3900) Q. Did you send or deliver this Exhibit 51—that is this outline—to Mr. Wallace or anybody else? A. There was an agent come and picked it up.
Q. Where? A. From Hot—I don’t know where he come from.
[*4944]
Q. No; I say, where did he pick it up? A. At my home.
Q. I see. Now Mr. Herron, did you have a discussion with the FBI agents at any time in your conversations with them regarding the payment of any money to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When? A. Well, shortly after they visited me the first time, they talked with me.
Q. I did not hear the last part. A. After the first or second time—I don’t know what particular time that they discussed it but it was after they had met with me once or twice, they wanted to—they felt that I should be reimbursed—reimbursed for some expenses I had been out.
Q. What was the arrangement that was made? A. Well, they told me that they didn’t want me to be out anything—any money, my expense or anything like that for gasoline. At that time it was hard to get and they said they would reimburse me for any gasoline.
Q. Or any other kind of expenses? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3901) Q. In connection with— A. That is, other expenses in connection with the—
Q. With covering what you call the Communist—
The Court: Why don’t you let him answer?
(To the witness) In connection with what?
The Witness: In connection with the work that I was doing for them.
Q. After that did you send them vouchers or bills of some kind? A. No, sir.
Q. What did they do, pay you when you met them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You would tell them how much and they would pay you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In cash? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now that took place before you joined the Communist Party, didn’t it? A. No, sir.
Q. When did you join the Communist Party? A. It was in the summer of 1944.
Q. You have just told us that along about the 1st or second meeting that you had with the FBI men you talked [*4945] about finances with them; isn’t that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. A. That is right—I don’t know just what meeting it was. It wasn’t the first or the second; it was after that.
(T–3902) Q. And so it is true that you started receiving money from them before you joined the Communist Party, isn’t that so?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Is it true or not? A. I don’t remember just when I got the—they footed the expenses for gasoline and stuff like that.
Q. Well, were you using your car— A. Yes, sir.
Q. —and using gasoline at the time that you covered the meeting at Fried’s house? A. No, sir, I wasn’t.
Q. Did you have a car? A. Not at—I had a car but I wasn’t driving it at that time.
Q. When did you start driving it?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What other expenses besides gas did you get paid for? A. Any—any expenses that I was out covering the meetings, why I would get reimbursed for; that’s all.
Q. What kind of expenses? A. Whatever expenses that occurred.
Q. Food? A. Well,—no, I don’t think there was any food connected with it.
Q. What was connected?
The Court: Keep your voice up, Mr. Herron.
(T–3903) A. Well, if I lost time from work I was reimbursed for it.
Q. And did you lose time from work? A. Many times.
Q. And did you get reimbursed for it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what rate of pay? A. At—
[*4946]
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you discuss with them how much money that you were to be paid if you lost time from work, on account of the work that you were doing for the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. No, sir, I didn’t—I never discussed that.
Q. Is it true that they simply told you to put in for the amount that you lost and they would pay? A. At first, yes.
Q. And is that what happened at first? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after that did it change? A. Yes.
Q. What was the change? A. Well, I was losing quite a bit of time from work and things, and they—they just give me what they figured I was—I mean that I lost; I mean, they would make it kind of regular.
Q. Oh, in other words, after a while you arranged it so that you got a regular amount? A. Yes.
(T–3904) Q. What was it—every week? A. No, sir.
Q. Every month, or how often? A. Every month.
Q. And how much was it? A. Well, it started out around $5. a month and it increased to more than that.
Q. To what amount did it increase? A. Well, it went as high as $60 a month.
Q. Is that the highest? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there was a time when you were getting $60 a month from them? A. When I left to go to Arkansas it was up that high because I was attending quite a few meetings.
Q. For how long a period of time did you get $60 a month after you worked for the FBI? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Was it more than two years? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it less than two years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much less than two years? A. I don’t recall the time. It wasn’t too long a time; maybe three or four months, something like that.
Q. The last three or four months? A. Yes, sir.
[*4947]
Q. What were you getting just before the last three or four months? A. Well, it ranged from $5. a month up to $60. I don’t recall the exact time or when it changed or anything, but I was losing quite a bit of time from work attending the meetings.
(T–3905) Q. Attending what meetings? A. Well, the Communist Party meetings.
Q. The Communist Party meetings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were getting paid for attending the Communist Party meetings? A. I wasn’t—
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Well, let me ask you this, is it your testimony that you were getting paid from the FBI because you lost time attending Communist Party meetings?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now when you were at Douglas did you work on the same shift all the time? A. No, sir.
Q. What shift did you work on? A. I worked on both shifts, that is, not—there were three shifts there. I worked some on—starting from, in the morning, around eight o’clock and—well, that day shift, starting around eight o’clock, I worked on that shift and I also worked on the afternoon shift.
Q. How long did you work on the day shift?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. When you were working on the day shift were you attending Communist Party meetings at night? A. Well, I (T–3906) mostly worked on the night shift anyway, and so I attended them at night then.
Q. You took time off from your work at the plant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. To attend these meetings? A. Yes, sir.
[*4948]
Q. How often did you attend Communist meetings? A. After—
Q. That applied after you joined? A. After I joined—
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
A. After I joined the Party—
Mr. Wallace: Objection, it is repetition, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I think I will let the answer stand. He says it was after he joined the Party that he was attending these Communist meetings.
Didn’t you say that?
The Witness: That is what I was going to answer.
The Court: I thought you did say it.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
Q. My question was—
The Witness: I attended some before but I asked (T–3907) him what he meant when he said how often did I attend. I never started attending regular until after I joined the Party, and after I joined that I attended them regular.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Q. And how often did you attend Communist meetings when you began to attend them regularly?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. And after you became a member of the Communist Party did you become a member of the club or group? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that club or group have regular meetings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How often did that club or group meet?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
[*4949]
Mr. Gladstein: This is all cross of the direct.
The Court: You go over and over it.
Mr. Gladstein: I haven’t gone into this at all.
The Court: I can’t see any point in just keeping this up indefinitely. You have had him testify about the money that he received. Now what more do you want.
Mr. Gladstein: I haven’t asked him at all about the meetings that he testified about on direct.
(T–3908) The Court: Well, you had better get around to that then.
Mr. Gladstein: That is just one of the questions I am now asking him.
The Court: Well, it didn’t seem so to me. It seemed to me you have been over and over it, how many meetings this and how many meetings that. Then you go over it again. Now if you want to ask him anything about the meetings that he testified on direct examination, go ahead and do it.
Mr. Gladstein: I just did, your Honor, and you sustained the objection.
Mr. Wallace: As to how many, your Honor.
The Court: I know.
Mr. Isserman: I would like to place on the record my objection to your Honor’s characterization of the cross–examination of this witness thus far.
The Court: Did I characterize it? I don’t remember doing that, but your comment will be noted.
Go ahead, Mr. Gladstein.
By Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Mr. Herron, did you make more than one copy of any report that you made out for the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3909) Q. Did you send or deliver any copies of your reports to anybody other than the FBI? A. No, sir.
[*4950]
Q. Did you know where—were you told where your copies of reports were going to?
Mr. Wallace: I object, your Honor.
The Court: Sustained.
A. How would I send them anyway if I didn’t know?
Mr. Gladstein: Could I hear that?
The Court: Strike that out.
I sustained the objection.
(T–3910) Q. Before you became a member of the Communist Party, how many meetings—how many reports altogether did you send to the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. How many meetings did you discuss with the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. How many meetings did you have with FBI agents before you became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Now, in your reports to the FBI what kind of meetings did you give information on?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What kind of discussions with people in the plant did you give?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did your reports contain information on discussions that took place within the trade union that you belonged to?
[*4951]
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
(T–3911) Q. Did you convey information to the FBI, either in writing or orally, as to the activities that were taking place in the union?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. You have been all over this, Mr. Gladstein.
Q. In any of the reports that you gave to the FBI, Mr. Herron, did you discuss any discussions that were taking place in the union about wage increases?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you discuss anything that was taking place in the union regarding any grievances that the men were discussing?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you report, either verbally or in writing, to the FBI concerning any questions of discrimination on the job that the union was discussing?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you report to the FBI, either orally or in writing, regarding any union demand that was being prepared within the union to be presented to the company?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
(T–3912) The Court: Sustained.
Q. When you went into the Communist Party you did not intend, of course, to become a devoted or real member of the Communist Party, did you? A. When I went in I didn’t know just exactly what I was going to be in there.
[*4952]
Q. You went in there with the intention of carrying out some instructions about finding out information regarding the Communists in the plant, isn’t that right? Isn’t that right? A. I had no instructions. I was to report on Communist meetings.
Q. And Communists and what they were doing in the union?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. And who the Communists in the plant were?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What was Norman Roth’s position in the union during the time that you knew him in that plant? A. At that particular time?
Q. Yes, the first time you met him. A. Just the same as anybody else, helping organize the plant.
Q. Did he later on become an official of some sort in the union? A. Yes.
Q. When did he become an official?
(T–3913) Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What office did he come to hold in the Union?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What office was Norman Roth holding in the union
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What office was Norman Roth holding in the union during the time you were reporting to the FBI?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you report to the FBI on any activities or statements of Norman Roth? A. I don’t—I suppose I did at that.
[*4953]
Q. Over how long a period? A. Whenever we would go to a Communist meeting, why, I would mention him if he went along.
Q. If he what?
Mr. Wallace: “If he went along,” he said.
The Court: You mean if he was there and said something?
The Witness: If he was there and said something that is what I reported.
Q. Did you report things he said regarding the union? A. No, sir, not that I know of.
Q. Are you sure?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
(T–3914) The Court: I will allow it.
A. I don’t remember of him—of ever reporting anything he said in the unions if he said—or anything about the unions. I don’t remember ever reporting anything about any union in a report, that is, the union itself as far as pay raises or conditions is concerned.
Q. Did you report concerning the statements or activities of Norman Roth in the union?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained. Hasn’t he been over that a number of times?
Q. During the time that you attended Communist meetings did they discuss from time to time problems or grievances that the union had?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did anybody tell you not to involve the union in your testimony here?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. No, sir, nobody told me what to testify here.
[*4954]
Q. My question was did anybody advise or suggest to you not to involve the union in your testimony? A. No.
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
(T–3915) The Court: He said no.
Mr. Gladstein: I wanted to have it over again.
The Court: I don’t want a lot of repetition. We have been over a lot of things now.
Q. Now when you transferred to Stewart–Warner do you remember when that was? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When? A. That was in January, 1946.
Q. In doing that did you take a wage cut? A. Just a minute; did I misunderstand your question? What did you mean? Transferring into the club or into Stewart–Warner?
Q. Your job. When did you quit your job? A. I quit in the fall of 1945 and transferred to—I mean and went to work at Stewart & Warner.
Q. Right away? A. Yes, sir.
Q. No period of unemployment in between? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it your idea to leave Douglas or was this at the suggestion of the FBI? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
A. (Continuing) No, sir. You see Douglas Aircraft at that particular time was closing down. It was after the war.
Q. Had it closed down already? A. Yes, it had closed, but they were packing, the Government was packing (T–3916) things, machines and things and so soon as the work was cutting down I was moved downtown close to—I moved down back close to Chicago and I had to get a job closer to home—that is, Stewart–Warner was the closest big plant to my home so I went over there and got the job.
Q. Did anybody assist you in getting a job? A. I went and asked for it and got it. I don’t know if anybody assisted or not. I went and asked for it. Not that I know of. I put my application in and I was called in in about a week.
Q. Up to the time that you went to work for Stewart–Warner’s what group or club did you belong to in the Communist Party? A. Haym Solomon.
[*4955]
Q. And that was the group that you met with? A. Yes, up until that time.
Q. Then you say that after you transferred to the Stewart–Warner plant there was a time when you continued in that club? A. Well, until the club broke up, yes, sir.
Q. When was that? A. In the spring, in January I’ll say.
Q. Of when? A. Of 1946.
Q. When you say it broke up you mean it just disbanded? A. What is that?
Q. The club. A. The club? What club?
Q. The Haym Solomon Club. A. No, they split it up (T–3917) into smaller groups.
Q. Did you become a member of such a group? A. No, sir; I transferred to Stewart–Warner.
Q. Oh, you were never a member of any small group, is that right? A. Well, a small group—Stewart–Warner wasn’t as big as Haym Solomon.
Q. I mean to say—you say you were a member of the Haym Solomon Club? A. Yes.
Q. Then you say that group broke up into smaller groups? A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t become a member of any of those smaller groups, is that correct? A. I don’t think I did. No, I don’t remember ever being in a small group. As soon as it broke up, the last meeting—I might have been in there two weeks until I got the notice to come over to John Keleher’s house—I might have been in one of the small groups until then, might have attended a couple of meetings.
Q. During that time you were in contact with the FBI, were you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you discuss with them the idea of going into another group?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. By the way, do you know who Haym Solomon was?
(T–3918) Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Did you ever meet the man, if it is a man?
[*4956]
The Witness: It is the club. No, sir, I never did.
The Court: Never saw the man if he was a man?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: All right, I will sustain the objection.
Q. Was the club named after a man named Haym Solomon?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Isserman: If the Court please, I would like to ask the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the man Haym Solomon is dead some several years. He was a figure in the American Revolution.
The Court: This is the first time I ever have become acquainted with the gentleman. I don’t see what that has got to do with it. You Communists have a way of taking all kinds of names.
Mr. Sacher: I object to that remark and ask your Honor to strike that remark and to direct the jury to disregard it.
The Court: I will deny the motion.
Mr. Gladstein: I wish to say that the remark (T–3919) was intended to be derogatory to the defendants and it couldn’t have been intended any other way. I object to it.
The Court: You have done a lot of—
Mr. Gladstein: I would like an objection rather than an invitation to engage in repartee.
The Court: What is the objection that you want me to rule on?
Mr. Gladstein: The objection is that your Honor made a remark which is inappropriate, improper for a Judge sitting in a trial to make because it was intended to convey some kind of slur against the defendants.
The Court: Well, you see it is the old story. Mr. Isserman gets up and has his say and if I remain quiet and let you spread eagle all over the place everything is fine. But the minute I say some– [*4957] thing it is judicial misconduct. I thought the statement I made was well borne out by the record, you have objected to it, and there it is. Now that’s that.
Mr. Gladstein: Perhaps your Honor will take judicial notice of the fact that it is not only Communists who give honor or pay honor to great historical figures or heroes of the country by naming a club or a section after such a person, that many fraternal and other bodies to do the same thing.
The Court: Very well. Now tell me who (T–3920) Mr. Solomon was. Let me have that again, Mr. Isserman.
Mr. Isserman: He was one of the very staunch supporters of the American Revolution.
The Court: What was his name?
Mr. Isserman: H–ay–m S–o–l–o–m–o–n.
The Court: All one word?
Mr. Isserman: No, Haym was his first name, H–a–y–m. He was a banker, and very wealthy man and helped support the American Revolution and made loans to the revolutionists and was a friend of George Washington’s, and throughout the Revolutionary Period carried on activities in support of the revolutionary forces. I believe there is a statue to him in New York.
The Court (To witness): You never heard of him?
The Witness: No.
The Court: Now that is the question that started the whole thing, whether the witness knew who he was.
By Mr. Gladstein:
Q. Now during the time you were at Douglas, Norman Roth helped you get wage raises, didn’t he?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Before you were transferred from the Haym Solomon group to the Stewart–Warner group did you discuss that idea of transferring with the FBI?
[*4958]
(T–3921) Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you receive advice or suggestions from the FBI to try to make that transfer?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you receive any advice or suggestions from the FBI as to how to go about transferring from one club to another in the Communist Party?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I can’t remember for sure whether this specific thing has been gone over before or not, so I will allow it. This general subject has been gone over, but I will allow that question.
A. No, sir.
Q. But you did discuss that with them before you made the change? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: I will allow it.
Q. Did you report to them right after the change was made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You reported each of your activities pretty regularly, did you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in your report you named various people from time to time, did you? A. Yes, sir.
(T–3922) Q. People that were working in the plant that you were working in?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that your reports named people who were working in the plants that you were working in?
Mr. Wallace: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
* This index applies only to Volume VI. A complete index of the entire Joint Appendix is printed in a separate volume.