[Senate Prints 107-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                         S. Prt. 107-84
 
                    EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE
                       PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                     INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
                        ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
=======================================================================

                                VOLUME 4

                               __________

                         EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                  1953


                        MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003






      Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                                ______


                       U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-872                         WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001











                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                     107th Congress, Second Session

               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
           Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
              Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii,             SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
            Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Kim Corthell, Minority Staff Director
                     Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk





                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
                      83rd Congress, First Session

                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine          HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho             HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland       STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
                   Francis D. Flanagan, Chief Counsel
                    Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas \1\
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington \1\
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri \1\
                       Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel
                  Francis P. Carr, Executive Director
                      Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk

                           assistant counsels

Robert F. Kennedy                                    Donald A. Surine
Thomas W. La Venia                                   Jerome S. Adlerman
Donald F. O'Donnell                                  C. George Anastos
Daniel G. Buckley

                             investigators

                           Robert J. McElroy
Herbert S. Hawkins                                   James N. Juliana
                   G. David Schine, Chief Consultant
               Karl H. W. Baarslag, Director of Research
               Carmine S. Bellino, Consulting Accountant
                   La Vern J. Duffy, Staff Assistant

----------
  \1\ The Democratic members were absent from the subcommittee from 
July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954.















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                                Volume 4

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 23..........  2729
    Testimony of Sidney Glassman; David Ayman; Lawrence Friedman; 
      Elba Chase Nelson; Herbert S. Bennett; Joseph H. Percoff; 
      Lawrence Aguimbau; and Perry Seay.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 26..........  2777
    Statements of Benjamin Zuckerman; Hans Inslerman; Thomas K. 
      Cookson; Doris Seifert; Lafayette Pope; Ralph Iannarone; 
      Saul Finkelstein; Abraham Lepato; Irving Rosenheim; and 
      Richard Jones, Jr.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 27..........  2815
    Statements of Edward Brody; Max Katz; Henry Jasik; Capt. 
      Benjamin Sheehan; Russell Gaylord Ranney; Susan Moon; Peter 
      Rosmovsky; and Sarah Omanson.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 30..........  2851
    Statements of Harold Ducore; Stanley R. Rich; Nathan Sussman; 
      Louis Leo Kaplan; Carl Greenblum; Sherrod East; Jacob 
      Kaplan; James P. Scott; Bernard Lee; and Melvin M. Morris.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 2..........  2893
    Statements of William Johnstone Jones; Murray Narell; Samuel 
      Sack; Joseph Bert; Raymond Delcamp; Leo Fary; and Irving 
      Stokes.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 3..........  2919
    Testimony of Abraham Chasanow; Joseph H. Percoff; Solomon 
      Greenberg; Isadore Solomon; William Saltzman; and Samuel 
      Sack.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 4..........  2953
    Testimony of Victor Rabinowitz; Wendell Furry; Diana Wolman; 
      Abraham Brothman; Norman Gaboriault; Harvey Sachs; Sylvia 
      Berke; and Benjamin Wolman.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 5..........  3033
    Testimony of Harry Hyman; Vivian Glassman Pataki; Gunnar 
      Boye; Alexander Hindin; Samuel Paul Gisser; Stanley 
      Berinsky; Ralph Schutz; and Henry Shoiket.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 16.........  3083
    Testimony of Rear Admiral Edward Culligan Forsyth; Samuel 
      Snyder; Ernest Pataki; Albert Socol; Joseph K. Crevisky; 
      Ignatius Giardina; and Leon Schnee.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 17.........  3125
    Testimony of James Weinstein; Harry Grundfest; Harry 
      Pastorinsky; Emery Pataki; and Charles Jassik.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 25.........  3151
    Testimony of Morris Savitt; Albert Fischler; James J. Matles; 
      Bertha Singer; and Terry Rosenbaum.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 10.........  3171
    Testimony of Michael Sidorovich; and Ann Sidorovich.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 10.........  3175
    Statement of Samuel Levine.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 14.........  3199
    Testimony of Albert Shadowitz; Pvt. David Linfield; Shirley 
      Shapiro; and Sidney Stolberg.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 15.........  3221
    Testimony of Ezekiel Heyman; Lester Ackerman; Sigmond Berger; 
      Ruth Levine; Bennett Davies; John D. Saunders; Norman 
      Spiro; Carter Lemuel Burkes; John R. Simkovich; Linda 
      Gottfried; Joseph Paul Komar; John Anthony DeLuca; and Sam 
      Morris.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 16.........  3273
    Testimony of Wilbur LePage; Martin Levine; John Schickler; 
      David Lichter; Albert Burrows; Seymour Butensky; and 
      Kenneth John Way.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 17.........  3309
    Statements of Irving Israel Galex; Harry Lipson; Seymour 
      Janowsky; Harry M. Nachmais; Curtis Quinten Murphy; Martin 
      Schmidt; and David Holtzman.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 18.........  3349
    Statements of Joseph John Oliveri; Philip Joseph Shapiro; 
      Samuel Martin Segner; Joseph Linton Layne; and Harry 
      William Levitties.
Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase, 
  October 19.....................................................  3403
    Testimony of William H. Taylor; and Alvin W. Hall.
Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase, 
  October 21.....................................................  3425
    Testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.
Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase, November 
  10.............................................................  3431
    Statement of Walter F. Frese.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  November 12....................................................  3445
    Testimony of Jean A. Arsenault; Sidney Friedlander; Theresa 
      Mary Chiaro; Albert J. Bottisti; Anna Jegabbi; Emma 
      Elizabeth Drake; Henry Daniel Hughes; Abden Francisco; 
      Joseph Arthur Gebhardt; Emanuel Fernandez; Robert Pierson 
      Northrup; Lawrence Leo Gebo; William J. Mastriani; Gordon 
      Belgrave; Arthur Lee Owens; John Sardella; and Rudolph 
      Rissland.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  November 13....................................................  3545
    Testimony of Lillian Krummel; Dewey Franklin Brashear; Arthur 
      George; Higeno Hermida; Paul F. Hacko; Alex Henry Klein; 
      Harold S. Rollins; and John Starling Brooks.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  November 18....................................................  3585
    Testimony of Karl T. Mabbskka; James John Walsh; Nathaniel 
      Mills; Robert Goodwin; Henry Canning Archdeacon; Donald 
      Herbert Morrill; Francis F. Peacock; William Richmond 
      Wilder; Donald R. Finlayson; Theodore Pappas; George Homes; 
      Alexander Gregory; Witoutos S. Bolys; Benjamin Alfred; and 
      Witulad Pierarski.
Transfer of the Ship ``Greater Buffalo,'' December 8.............  3607
    Testimony of Paul D. Page, Jr.; and George J. Kolowich.
Personnel Practices in Government--Case of Telford Taylor, 
  December 8.....................................................  3637
    Testimony of Philip Young.









              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Sidney Glassman testified in public 
session on December 16, 1953. Joseph H. Percoff (1908-1986) and 
Louise Sarant (1923-1997) testified in public on December 11. 
David Ayman (1907-1999), Lawrence Friedman, Elba Chase Nelson 
(1889-1967), Herbert S. Bennett, Norman Levinson (1912-1975), 
Lawrence Aguimbau, and Perry Seay did not testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                        FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 29, Federal Building, New York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
(chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis Carr, 
staff director; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; Harold 
Rainville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen; and 
Robert Jones, research assistant to Senator Potter.
    Present also: John Adams, counselor to the Secretary of the 
Department of the Army; and Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton.
    The Chairman. Will you stand and be sworn? In this matter 
now in hearing before this committee, do you solemnly swear to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Glassman. I do.
    The Chairman. Will you give the reporter your full name?

   TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY GLASSMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       VICTOR ABRAMOWITZ)

    Mr. Glassman. Sidney Glassman.
    The Chairman. And how long since you worked in the Signal 
Corps Lab?
    Mr. Glassman. Excuse me. Where?
    The Chairman. How long since you worked for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Glassman. For the Signal Corps?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Glassman. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Have you ever worked for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Glassman. I worked for the Signal Corps Procurement 
District.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Glassman. In 1942.
    The Chairman. You started in 1942?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder? I can not 
hear you.
    Mr. Glassman. I started in February 1942.
    The Chairman. And you worked from February '42 until when?
    Mr. Glassman. Until about October 1942.
    The Chairman. And then did you quit, or were you 
discharged?
    Mr. Glassman. I quit to go into the army.
    The Chairman. And what branch of the army were you in?
    Mr. Glassman. I was in the Signal Corps.
    The Chairman. In the Signal Corps in the army. And were you 
in as a civilian employee?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't quite understand.
    The Chairman. Were you a civilian, when you were in the 
army?
    Mr. Glassman. No. I was a member of the armed forces.
    The Chairman. What was your rank?
    Mr. Glassman. You mean my last rank, I presume?
    The Chairman. When you went in.
    Mr. Glassman. Sergeant. I was a sergeant when I was 
discharged.
    The Chairman. You went in as what?
    Mr. Glassman. As a private.
    The Chairman. You were discharged as a private?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes.
    The Chairman. And when were you discharged?
    Mr. Glassman. In December of 1944.
    The Chairman. Where were you stationed?
    Mr. Glassman. For most of my time, I was stationed in 
England, and the last part of my army career prior to the time 
I was wounded was in Normandy.
    The Chairman. And you were wounded in 1944, were you?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right, in July.
    The Chairman. In July. And you were discharged in December 
of '44?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. An honorable discharge?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes, it was a CDD.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Glassman. A CDD.
    The Chairman. What is a CDD?
    Mr. Glassman. Because of my wounds.
    The Chairman. And then where did you go to work?
    Mr. Glassman. I went to school.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Glassman. I went to school at Columbia University.
    The Chairman. Columbia. And what courses did you take 
there? What did you major in?
    Mr. Glassman. Economics and statistics.
    The Chairman. Economics and statistics. And when did you 
leave Columbia?
    Mr. Glassman. I left in about August of 1946, though I 
still took a course or two at night after that.
    The Chairman. Did you go back to work for the government 
then?
    Mr. Glassman. No, I did not. I worked for about a month 
during the summer for a professor, doing some statistical work 
for him. I think he was doing some labor statistics for the 
government.
    The Chairman. That was professor who?
    Mr. Glassman. His name was Hsu, I believe.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Glassman. H-s-u.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't recall. I think it was Francis.
    The Chairman. Was he Chinese?
    Mr. Glassman. I think so.
    The Chairman. He was Chinese?
    Mr. Glassman. I think he was.
    The Chairman. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that, on the basis----
    The Chairman. Will you speak up a little louder?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that on the basis of the 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Then was this professor doing work for the 
government?
    Mr. Glassman. I think he was.
    The Chairman. Do you know what branch of the government he 
was working for?
    Mr. Glassman. No. He was doing some labor work, labor 
research statistics, for something, but I don't recall exactly 
for what branch.
    The Chairman. And you worked for him for about one month, 
in 1946?
    Mr. Glassman. No, I think it was 1945.
    The Chairman. That is while you were still going to school?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. What did you get paid for that work?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't recall the exact amount, but I think 
the rate was at a P-2 salary at that time.
    The Chairman. And after you left school, where did you go 
to work?
    Mr. Glassman. I went to work for the United Nations.
    The Chairman. And what branch, what department, what 
agency?
    Mr. Glassman. I was in economic affairs.
    The Chairman. Who recommended you for that job?
    Mr. Glassman. May I consult with counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [Mr. Glassman confers with Mr. Abramowitz.]
    Mr. Glassman. I don't know if I had any direct 
recommendations. I had a number of letters from various 
professors that one normally gets when you get out of school.
    The Chairman. What professors?
    Mr. Glassman. Professor Goodrich.
    The Chairman. He is from Columbia?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes. Professor Mills.
    The Chairman. Mills?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes. I think there was also one--I don't know 
whether he was a professor. Eastwood.
    The Chairman. Eastwood.
    Mr. Glassman. I don't recall any others.
    The Chairman. What was Goodrich's first name?
    Mr. Glassman. Carter, I believe.
    The Chairman. C-a-r-t-e-r?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes.
    The Chairman. And what was Mills' first name?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't know, I think it was F.
    The Chairman. And Eastwood? Where does he work?
    Mr. Glassman. He is at Columbia, too.
    The Chairman. He is a teacher?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes, I believe he is.
    The Chairman. You do not know his first name, do you?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't recall his first name.
    The Chairman. Now, was Goodrich known to you to be a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that, on the basis of the 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. How about Mills?
    Mr. Glassman. On the same grounds.
    The Chairman. How about Eastwood?
    Mr. Glassman. On the same grounds.
    The Chairman. Then how long did you work in the UN?
    Mr. Glassman. About six years.
    The Chairman. From '46 until when? '52?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes. I believe it was until '52.
    The Chairman. What time in '52 did you leave the UN?
    Mr. Glassman. I think it was in December.
    The Chairman. December of last year?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes.
    The Chairman. What salary were you getting in the UN?
    Mr. Glassman. In '52? I think it was about $8,500 gross.
    The Chairman. Was that tax-exempt?
    Mr. Glassman. No. Well, my net salary was around $6,000-
something, on which I paid taxes, and for which the UN 
reimbursed me.
    The Chairman. In other words, the UN paid you for whatever 
taxes you paid; is that right? So that when you arrive at a 
figure of $8,500, you take your $6,000 and add to that whatever 
they reimbursed you? Is that how you arrived at the figure of 
$8,500?
    Mr. Glassman. No, there was a UN tax assessment, that 
brought you down to $6,000.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist party 
while you were in the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that, on the basis of my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged in espionage while you were 
in the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Glassman. I was not.
    The Chairman. You were not engaged in any espionage?
    Mr. Glassman. I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove any classified material 
from the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Glassman. First of all, what do you mean by 
``classified material''?
    The Chairman. What do you think I mean? You have been in 
the Signal Corps handling it.
    Mr. Glassman. I never said that I handled any material. I 
don't know what you mean, but if you mean secret material----
    The Chairman. Then we will explain to you. Either secret, 
confidential, or restricted.
    Mr. Glassman. No, I don't think I ever did.
    The Chairman. You do not think you ever handled any 
classified material?
    Mr. Glassman. No.
    The Chairman. How about when you were preparing the 
material for the Chinese Communist professor? Did you handle 
classified material there?
    [Mr. Abramowitz confers with Mr. Glassman.]
    Mr. Glassman. I never testified that anybody was a Chinese 
Communist professor.
    The Chairman. Well, let us drop the ``Communist'' and say: 
when you were working for the Chinese professor, Francis Hsu.
    Mr. Glassman. I never was aware of any confidential 
material.
    The Chairman. You did not see anything that was stamped 
``confidential,'' ``secret,'' ``restricted''?
    Mr. Glassman. Not that I can recall.
    The Chairman. When you were working in the UN, did you have 
access to any confidential, secret, or restricted material?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't know of any confidential material at 
the UN.
    The Chairman. I did not get your answer.
    Mr. Glassman. I said, I don't know of any confidential 
material at the UN. Most all the stuff I worked on were public 
reports.
    The Chairman. Why did you leave the UN?
    Mr. Glassman. I was terminated, in December.
    The Chairman. I see. And what were the grounds of your 
termination? I am not asking you whether the charges against 
you were true or not. I am just asking you what the charges 
were, the basis upon which you were terminated.
    Mr. Glassman. I was terminated for declining to answer 
certain questions before a congressional committee.
    The Chairman. Did you refuse to answer whether you were an 
espionage agent at that time?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't think I was ever asked that question.
    The Chairman. If you were, you answered that question, did 
you?
    Mr. Glassman. I am sorry. I didn't quite understand.
    The Chairman. If you were asked whether you were an 
espionage agent, did you answer the question?
    Mr. Glassman. I think you asked me something similar to 
that previously, just before.
    The Chairman. We are not talking about the grounds for your 
being discharged from the UN. You said you refused to answer 
certain questions before a congressional committee.
    Mr. Glassman. That was not one of the questions that was 
asked me.
    The Chairman. I see. Okay, were you engaged in espionage at 
any time over the past ten years?
    Mr. Glassman. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``no''? Did you ever associate 
with individuals whom you knew or had reason to suspect were 
engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Glassman. May I consult with counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [Mr. Glassman confers with Mr. Abramowitz.]
    Mr. Glassman. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. You don't think so?
    Mr. Glassman. As far as I know.
    The Chairman. Your answer is that as far as you know, you 
have not been associated in the past ten years with anyone whom 
you knew or had reason to suspect was engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is that correct?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone who has been engaged in 
espionage, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Glassman. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``no''?
    Mr. Glassman. ``No.''
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone that you suspect might 
have been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Glassman. No. I don't think I would.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party as of 
today?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that question, on the 
basis of the privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is it your opinion that the Communist party 
advocates the overthrow of this government by force and 
violence?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that question, on the 
same grounds.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in any activities 
which, in your opinion, were a violation of any of our laws, 
the laws of this country, in connection with any Communist 
party activities or membership in the Communist party?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that question, on the 
basis of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Glassman, are you a citizen of the United 
States?
    Mr. Glassman. I am.
    Mr. Jones. As a citizen, would you oppose any group 
advocating the overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Glassman. I would decline to answer that question, on 
the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. You served in the army?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Jones. While a member of the army, you opposed a group 
advocating the overthrow of this government.
    Mr. Glassman. Do you mean Nazi Germany?
    Mr. Jones. The enemy, yes.
    Mr. Glassman. Yes. I fought in the war.
    Mr. Jones. Now, you say under the Fifth Amendment you 
refuse to answer at the present time whether you would oppose 
any group that would overthrow the government?
    Mr. Glassman. I stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. Does the Communist party, in your mind, advocate 
the violent overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Glassman. I stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever, to your knowledge, see or 
handle any classified material, government documents? By 
``classified,'' I mean restricted, secret, or confidential.
    Mr. Glassman. Not that I can remember.
    The Chairman. After you left the UN, where did you go to 
work?
    Mr. Glassman. I went into a manufacturing business.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Glassman. I went into a manufacturing business.
    The Chairman. What business is that?
    Mr. Glassman. Furniture manufacturing.
    The Chairman. Furniture? What is the name of that company?
    Mr. Glassman. It is the Herrschaft Products.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Glassman. H-e-r-r-s-c-h-a-f-t.
    The Chairman. Who were your partners in that, if any?
    Mr. Glassman. Well, it is a corporation. I suppose you 
would like to know the officers of the corporation?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Glassman. Mr. Herrrschaft, myself, and my wife are the 
officers of the corporation.
    The Chairman. Do you have a family?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. How old is the oldest one?
    Mr. Glassman. The oldest? You mean child, I suppose?
    The Chairman. The oldest child.
    Mr. Glassman. About four.
    The Chairman. Has your wife ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't think so.
    [Mr. Glassman confers with Mr. Abramowitz.]
    Mr. Glassman. Except that she was in the armed forces.
    The Chairman. Was she a WAC?
    Mr. Glassman. She was a WAC.
    The Chairman. You took an oath when you entered the army to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States. Did you feel then 
that you would uphold the Constitution, or did you feel that 
this government should be destroyed by force and violence?
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers or sisters?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Will you name them?
    Mr. Glassman. I have two sisters.
    The Chairman. And what are their names?
    Mr. Glassman. Sylvia and Doris.
    The Chairman. Is their last name the same as yours now?
    Mr. Glassman. No, they are not.
    The Chairman. What are their names?
    Mr. Glassman. Doris Lesansky----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you first: Is either of them now 
working for the government?
    Mr. Glassman. No.
    The Chairman. Have either of them worked for the 
government?
    Mr. Glassman. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Are they married now?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes.
    The Chairman. You need not bother with their names. You are 
pretty sure they have not worked for the government. They have 
not worked for the government to your knowledge?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. And how many brothers do you have?
    Mr. Glassman. I don't have any brothers.
    The Chairman. Are your mother and dad living?
    Mr. Glassman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are they working for the government, or have 
they?
    Mr. Glassman. No.
    The Chairman. Is your wife a member of the Communist party
    [Mr. Abramowitz confers with Mr. Glassman.]
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Was she a member before you married her?
    [Mr. Abramowitz confers with Mr. Glassman.]
    Mr. Glassman. I decline to answer, on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. On the basis of the Fifth Amendment. I assume 
you declined to answer the first question on the basis of the 
marriage relationship. Is that correct? Or the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Glassman. Both, I think.
    The Chairman. Both. You had no connection with the Signal 
Corps, then, since December of 1944?
    Mr. Glassman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Would you stand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing do you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

                    TESTIMONY OF DAVID AYMAN

    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. May we have your full name for the record?
    Mr. Ayman. David Ayman, A-y-m-a-n. 1612 Lincoln Place, 
Brooklyn.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Ayman, were you ever in the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what year?
    Mr. Ayman. 1942 to 1946. Let me clarify that. I was in the 
Signal Corps but in the last year I was attached to the air 
force.
    Mr. Cohn. You were in the Signal Corps but from 1945 to 
1946 you were attached to the air force?
    Mr. Ayman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you stationed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Ayman. Two years: 1942 to 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you stationed when in the air force?
    Mr. Ayman. Hawaii.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work down at Monmouth?
    Mr. Ayman. I was working in Officer Candidate School.
    Mr. Cohn. For two years?
    Mr. Ayman. I was drafted in April 1942. I took my basic 
training, three or four weeks specialized training, then was 
sent to Officers Candidate School and I got a commission in 
October, approximately, 1942 and then I was assigned to 
instruct at OCS. That was the first assignment.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do now?
    Mr. Ayman. I am a school teacher.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you teach at the Samuel Tilden High School?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Ayman. I have been at Samuel Tilden since 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. You have taught there continuously since 1936?
    Mr. Ayman. Except time in the army or leave of absence for 
official business.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Teachers Union? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Accused of Communist leanings, the Teachers Union of New York 
was expelled from the American Federation of Teachers in 1940 and 
affiliated with the United Public Workers of America, a CIO union. In 
1952 and 1953 it was investigated by the Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been associated with any Communists 
in the Teachers Union?
    Mr. Ayman. Bella Dodd is a Communist.\2\ That is the only 
one officially I would know. I know no other one of my own 
knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969) served as legislative 
representative for the Teachers Union from 1938 to 1944, before 
formally joining the Communist party and being elected to its national 
committee. She was expelled from the party in 1949, and later discussed 
her experiences in testimony before the Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee and in an autobiography, School of Darkness (New York: 
P.J. Kenedy, 1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have reasonable grounds to believe there 
are others who are Communists?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, with the exception of Bella Dodd, 
you have never known a person you believed to be a Communist in 
the Teachers Union. Is that right?
    Mr. Ayman. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever represent any teachers, Teachers 
Union members, with the New York Board of Education in any 
respect?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Ayman. I represented some people before Moskoff, who 
does some work for the Board of Education. He is the counsel 
for the committee for the Board of Education interrogating 
individuals, I presume, on the basis of information he has 
about them.
    Mr. Cohn. And you represented some of those persons?
    Mr. Ayman. As teacher-advisor.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any of those persons Communists?
    Mr. Ayman. None of them ever told me they were Communists 
and I never asked them.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of them claim the Fifth Amendment when 
questioned?
    Mr. Ayman. No. The Fifth Amendment was not claimed in my 
presence.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the Fifth Amendment ever claimed?
    Mr. Ayman. No, not while I was there.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't care whether you were there. Did you ever 
hear that any of those persons you represented as teacher-
advisor claimed the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir. I never heard it.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people did you so represent?
    Mr. Ayman. Eight or ten.
    Mr. Cohn. What are their names?
    Mr. Ayman. Let's see. The last one was Lee Naguid. That is 
the last one I represented. The one before that was Louis 
Auerbach. Another one I represented was Samuel Chapman. The 
other names don't occur to me at the moment. Those are the last 
three.
    One other, Mr. Klein. I don't know what his first name is.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any of those teachers suspended as a result 
of the hearing before Mr. Moskoff?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir. One, Auerbach. I didn't represent Mr. 
Auerbach before Mr. Moskoff, when he appeared. I represented 
Mr. Auerbach before Mr. Perch.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how many of these were suspended as a 
result----
    Mr. Ayman. The only one I know, can think of, is Mr. 
Auerbach. The others have not been suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. Why was Mr. Auerbach suspended?
    Mr. Ayman. He refused to answer any questions that Mr. 
Perch asked him.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't he claim the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Ayman. He refused to answer questions concerning 
Communist party membership.
    Mr. Cohn. He refused to answer questions concerning 
Communist party membership?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that give you reasonable grounds to believe 
he was a Communist?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't think somebody who refuses to answer 
the question of whether or not they are a Communist, you don't 
think that furnishes reasonable grounds to believe that person 
is a Communist?
    Mr. Ayman. It is hard for me to make a judgment of a thing 
like that. There are things a person may believe in. He may 
feel this type of thing doesn't involve this type of activity.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe Communists should teach in the New 
York school system?
    Mr. Ayman. I believe a person ought to be judged.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe a Communist party member should 
teach in the New York City school system? That is a very simple 
question. Just answer ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Ayman. Well, my own feeling about this, that answer is 
not quite as simple as you put it.
    Mr. Cohn. Answer ``yes'' or ``no,'' then you can make any 
explanation you care to give us.
    Mr. Ayman. My answer would be ``yes,'' provided, of course, 
this person did not engage in activities in the school system 
in which he used his position to officially propagandize for 
the Communist party or any other group.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that a member of the Communist party 
would not use any position he held to propagandize and attempt 
in every way to aid the cause of the Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. Well, I would say this. Any person who believed 
strongly in any position he held, it might be possible for him, 
not necessarily and I believe necessarily that he would not 
actually use his position to do that. It is possible for him to 
do that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe it is possible for a Communist 
party member not to use any position he holds?
    Mr. Ayman. I wouldn't be in a position to answer that?
    Mr. Cohn. I think you should be. You are teaching children 
in the public schools in New York.
    Mr. Ayman. My function as advisor was to see that these 
people don't get rattled. I am not legal counsel. I can give 
them no legal advice. They wanted somebody to go up there and 
make sure they were represented.
    The Chairman. Is it your position that a man who is a 
member of the Communist party should not be barred from a 
teaching job unless it is first proven that he is using his 
membership-unless it is proved he is teaching communism to his 
students?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir. That was not my position.
    The Chairman. Do you think that mere membership in the 
Communist party and nothing else should bar him from teaching?
    Mr. Ayman. Off-hand, I would say no.
    The Chairman. You would say it takes more than that?
    Mr. Ayman. That is my opinion. My feeling is this.
    The Chairman. What more would it take?
    Mr. Ayman. Some act, some either technical act as a teacher 
in the classroom or in connection with the school system which 
he used to actually propagandize in one form or another about 
this proposition that should cause him to be eliminated.
    The Chairman. You realize the more clever the Communist is, 
the less possibility of catching him in the acts?
    Mr. Ayman. That is possible.
    The Chairman. You might catch the dumb ones, but the clever 
ones you wouldn't catch. You would say that unless you catch 
the Communist, know that he attended Communist meetings, unless 
you catch him in the overt act of propagandizing, unless you 
catch him doing something like that, you should keep him on as 
a teacher?
    Mr. Ayman. Not only Communist, anybody else. Fascists. I 
believe in some other kinds of systems, the same thing is true 
about those individuals as well.
    The Chairman. Do you know anything about the Communist 
movement?
    Mr. Ayman. Not enough to make judgment about it.
    The Chairman. Do you know what is meant by being under 
Communist party discipline?
    Mr. Ayman. Well, in my mind, under discipline, he accepts 
the dictates from the Communist party. I assume it means----
    The Chairman. Do you mean in good standing of the party and 
must obey orders?
    Mr. Ayman. I can't make such a statement. I am not a 
member.
    The Chairman. If you were told now--witnesses have 
testified over and over, witnesses the government considers 
reliable men, who were active in the Communist party--Bella 
Dodd whom you knew testified such is the case; that a member in 
good standing is under Communist discipline and obeys orders. 
Would you have any reason to doubt that? Do you have any 
information to the contrary?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir. I do not have information to the 
contrary.
    The Chairman. Don't you think a teacher, regardless of how 
good a teacher he might be, should be a free agent and should 
not be under the discipline of any organizations, particularly 
the Communist party dominated by Moscow?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir. I believe that not only about those 
but everybody else.
    The Chairman. Do you still say someone under Communist 
party discipline should be allowed to teach, realizing they are 
not free agents, no freedom of expression but expression of the 
Communist line. Do you still say you think such a man should be 
teaching our children unless he is caught in the overt act?
    Mr. Ayman. My own feeling is, as I said before, that is a 
belief I have. Whether it is a good belief or a bad one, it 
would be a question of somebody besides myself to be able to 
answer.
    The Chairman We are not trying to change your beliefs. We 
are just curious as to what your beliefs are on communism. We 
are not concerned with your other beliefs. We are concerned 
with your belief or attitude toward the international 
conspiracy.
    Mr. Ayman. The international conspiracy, I am not in a 
position to make judgment. I am not sufficiently well 
acquainted with it. It is not in my field. If it is, I think 
government officials knowing these facts, being aware of it, 
they ought to take appropriate action. If they can show that 
persons have performed acts as part of this conspiracy, well, 
obviously they ought to do something about it.
    Mr. Jones. Are you married?
    Mr. Ayman. No, not now.
    Mr. Jones. You were before?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Was your wife a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. I have no way of knowing.
    Mr. Jones. Do you have any children?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. I assume if you did have children you would not 
object to them receiving their entire education under a 
Communist teacher?
    Mr. Ayman. I wouldn't say that.
    Mr. Jones. You said it.
    Mr. Ayman. If these people were Communists and if they did 
not use their position to propagandize for their beliefs, I 
would have no objection to them any more than a person who is a 
Fascist not using his position. I would say it was perfectly 
all right, American principal. If they were using that 
position, then I would say that person should not be permitted 
to teach my children or anybody else's.
    The Chairman. In other words, you wouldn't object to having 
a Communist teacher teach your children?
    Mr. Ayman. No.
    The Chairman Would you have any objection to having a man 
convicted of rape a number of times, even though be was not 
caught committing rape in the classroom----
    Mr. Ayman. I don't think you can make that comparison. I 
assume a man convicted of rape would be sentenced to jail for a 
number of years and not permitted to get a license. I don't see 
how those two things are relevant.
    The Chairman. Suppose he did not advocate rape in the 
classroom, but had been convicted several times; that he was 
not in jail. Would you have any objection?
    Mr. Ayman. I don't know how he would get a license. If he 
didn't use his position in the classroom, I don't see what the 
objection would be.
    The Chairman. If you were looking for a babysitter, you and 
your wife were going out----
    Mr. Ayman. I would think twice before using him as a 
babysitter.
    The Chairman. Do you still have a reserve commission in the 
army?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been in the Reserves?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You were never in the army?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir. I was in the army. I was in what is 
called AUS.
    The Chairman. What is AUS?
    Mr. Ayman. Army of the United States as distinguished from 
the United States Army--people commissioned through the ranks 
through OCS or some such things.
    The Chairman. Did you have a commission?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman What was your rank?
    Mr. Ayman. I came out as a 1st lieutenant.
    The Chairman You no longer have the reserve commission?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman No connection with the army?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. What do you teach at Samuel Tilden?
    Mr. Ayman. Mathematics.
    Mr. Jones. Would you agree with this statement; that the 
Communist party is a conspiracy to accomplish the violent 
overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Ayman. I am not in a position to make judgment of this. 
I don't know enough about this business.
    Mr. Jones. Sir, you have been a teacher a good number of 
years. Don't you read the newspapers?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes. I know people believe it. I know it is 
possible to believe it. On the basis of my own knowledge, my 
own analysis of this thing, I don't have information to be able 
to make such a judgment.
    Mr. Rainville. How would you determine whether they were 
using their position to propagandize on your children or any 
children in your care.
    Mr. Ayman. Somebody would have to observe these 
individuals.
    Mr. Rainville. But this individual would not be you? Who is 
going to do that?
    Mr. Ayman. It is the supervisor's function to observe the 
teacher's fitness to teach.
    Mr. Rainville. But your particular job while you are a 
teacher was to represent those teachers against such 
supervisory controls? You said you were a Teachers Union 
representative.
    Mr. Ayman. I was advisor to those people, and as such I 
appeared before the supervisory body, Mr. Moskoff, to help the 
teachers. I didn't come to protect these people. My function 
was, if I thought or they thought, the individual, that he was 
being asked questions which he felt wasn't appropriate, he had 
a right to ask me my reaction. My reaction in almost ever case 
was: ``This is your job here.''
    The Chairman. Did you advise Auerbach?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir. I didn't advise him.
    The Chairman. The question was: Did you advise Auerbach to 
answer in regard to his Communist connections?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did he discuss that with you?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You were there as his advisor?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, I was his advisor. As a matter of fact, I 
met him five minutes before we went in to see Mr. Perch. In 
other words, here is what happened. Somebody would call and ask 
me if I would be willing to appear with this individual and I 
would say, ``Well, this person is entitled to be represented, 
to get some person who will represent them, and I will be 
willing to go.'' In most cases I hadn't seen some of these 
people. Met them maybe five minutes before we went into Mr. 
Moskoff's office.
    The Chairman. After Mr. Auerbach made his statement, did 
you make any statement in his behalf before Mr. Moskoff or 
whoever was there?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do I understand that you did nothing 
whatsoever in the hearing of Mr. Auerbach?
    Mr. Ayman. Nothing officially.
    Mr. Auerbach, when he was questioned he called me aside and 
asked me if he should answer. My answer to him was: ``You are 
involved. You have to decide for yourself what you are going to 
do.'' The word advisor, in this case, is not technically 
correct verbiage. I can't really give a person advice which 
might involve a legal question. I am not qualified.
    The Chairman. In any event, when he called you aside and 
asked you whether he should answer these questions about 
alleged Communist activities, you didn't advise him to answer 
or not to answer?
    Mr. Ayman. That is correct.
    The Chairman. So you didn't feel he should answer?
    Mr. Ayman. Oh, no. I wasn't in a position to make judgment.
    The Chairman. Do you think now that teachers should tell 
Mr. Moskoff when they are called before him whether or not they 
are Communists?
    Mr. Ayman. If these people feel they want to tell him.
    The Chairman. I am asking you whether you think they 
should?
    Mr. Ayman. For myself, I would answer.
    The Chairman. You are an advisor-teacher and I am asking 
you a simple question. Do you think teachers who are called 
before Mr. Moskoff should tell him truthfully about their 
Communist party activities? Do you think that a teacher called 
before Mr. Moskoff or any responsible member of the Board of 
Education should truthfully tell about any Communist activities 
in which they have been engaged or do you think they should 
refuse?
    Mr. Ayman. Each one must decide. It is a very hard thing to 
tell somebody. Each person must decide on the basis of his own 
convictions as to what answer he should give. I can't put 
myself in the position of telling these people what they should 
or should not do.
    The Chairman. Do you still think you are a competent 
advisor to these teachers if you don't know?
    Mr. Ayman. I am a competent advisor only in the sense that 
I would go and appear before Mr. Moskoff to give advice. As to 
whether or not they should answer or not, that I am not 
qualified to do.
    The Chairman. As of today you can't decide whether all 
teachers should be required to honestly tell about their 
Communist activities to responsible superiors?
    Mr. Ayman. That is substantially what I said before.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to attend meetings of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend meetings then or later 
that you thought were Communist party meetings or dominated by 
Communists?
    Mr. Ayman. I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. Would you say that the Teachers Union is 
Communist dominated?
    Mr. Ayman. Some people say it is. From my own knowledge I 
am not prepared to make such a statement.
    The Chairman. You are a member of that union?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you hold any office?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And the general feeling is that the greater 
part of the teachers are Communists in the Teachers Union?
    Mr. Ayman. There are a number of people who believe that.
    The Chairman. That is the general feeling, isn't it?
    Mr. Ayman. I would say ``yes.''
    The Chairman. Do you know that teachers who are anti-
Communist do not join that union?
    Mr. Ayman. Probably so, although there are people in it who 
are anti-Communist. I don't know.
    The Chairman. You are still a member?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How long have you been a member?
    Mr. Ayman. I have been a member of the union since 1932 or 
1933.
    The Chairman. Do you intend to retain your membership?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, unless it is declared illegal. From my 
point of view it represents the best interests of teachers.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask Mr. Auerbach whether he was 
a Communist?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask him whether he taught 
communism in the schools?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. But you still felt you should represent him 
and not ask him whether he was a Communist or not and not ask 
him whether he taught Communism in the schools?
    Mr. Ayman. It is a difficult problem in the school system. 
People who are called up before Mr. Moskoff have to have 
someone represent them. They are asked to bring along a 
teacher-adviser for any reason. If you struck some child you 
have a right to be represented by a teacher-advisor. It is 
obvious that lots of people would not go up as an advisor, 
because as you can gather from this, it is implied that one who 
goes up is himself a Communist.
    The Chairman. You said you went up as advisor, yet you did 
not advise them. The man called you back and asked you for your 
advice as to whether he should tell the truth about his 
Communist activities, and you say you refused to advise him.
    What did you advise him on?
    Mr. Ayman. I gave no advice. My function is if there is any 
difficulties.
    The Chairman. What kind of difficulty?
    Mr. Ayman. Suppose they would say, ``Are you a member of 
the Communist party?''
    The Chairman. He did, didn't he?
    Mr. Ayman. Either he would turn to me and say, ``Should I 
answer that question'' and I would say, ``That is up to you.''
    The Chairman. So you wouldn't advise him?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. So you weren't there to advise?
    Mr. Ayman. The technical term they used was ``advisor.'' 
That is the term they used. If they said teacher-
representative, it would be more in keeping with the meaning of 
the way the person does.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to Mr. Moskoff in his behalf?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone in his behalf?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. In all cases where you represented people as 
advisor, were they accused of Communist activities?
    Mr. Ayman. Well, what they were accused of, Mr. Moskoff and 
in one case Mr. Perch, that was Mr. Auerbach, the statement was 
made that there was reason to believe they were connected with 
the Communist party or Communist activities.
    The Chairman. In other words, all cases represented by you, 
they were accused of Communist activities.
    Mr. Ayman. The statement was made that there was reason to 
believe. There was not an overt statement in some cases that 
they were actually engaged in Communist party activities.
    The Chairman. Did you ask them before you advised them 
whether the statements were true?
    Mr. Ayman. They weren't given any charges----
    The Chairman. Call it statement, allegations----
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir, I did not.
    The Chairman. So you felt you could advise them without 
knowing if the charges were true?
    Mr. Ayman. The word advise--I was simply a representative 
not to perform technical duties.
    The Chairman. How could you advise then if you didn't ask 
them?
    Mr. Ayman. That is not the function of the so-called 
representative.
    The Chairman. You say you have never been solicited to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. Maybe Bella Dodd may have solicited me.
    The Chairman. Don't you remember?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay any money that went to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Ayman. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Do you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any Communist papers?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you belong to any Communist fronts, other 
than the Teachers Union?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever belonged to any organizations 
that have been listed by the attorney general as subversive or 
Communist fronts?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    Mr. Rainville. It is my understanding you did not think it 
was objectionable to have Communist teachers so long as he 
didn't use his position to propagandize, so if these teachers 
said they were Communists, you would still have defended them 
since you think that is all right?
    Mr. Ayman. If they did not use their position in any way.
    Mr. Rainville. Then that is the reason you didn't ask them. 
You didn't care?
    Mr. Ayman. I certainly wasn't going to ask them.
    The Chairman. Weren't you interested in whether they were 
teaching their students communism?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You weren't interested?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I thought you said that was the one condition 
under which Communists should not be allowed to teach and you 
didn't even ask.
    Mr. Ayman. I am not in a position to make judgment. I don't 
watch them as teachers. I am a classroom teacher myself. That 
is the function of those who are supervisors.
    Mr. Cohn. The Teachers Union is Communist-dominated?
    Mr. Ayman. That is what people say. I think it isn't. I 
think I made that clear. The Teachers Union represents the best 
interests of teachers and as long as it does that, I think it 
is a good organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Rose Russell?
    Mr. Ayman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think she is a Communist?
    Mr. Ayman. I don't know whether she is or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think she is?
    Mr. Ayman. You can ask me about anybody. Unless I know 
whether they are or not I have no evidence, no way of judging.
    Mr. Cohn. Unless you have evidence of your own you never 
pronounce judgment on anything?
    Mr. Ayman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You didn't answer counsel's question as to 
whether or not you think the Communist Teachers Union is 
Communist-dominated?
    Mr. Ayman. I say people believe----
    The Chairman. Do you think it is? You have been in it a 
long time?
    Mr. Ayman. From my experience I don't think so. My own 
opinion. As long as it represents the best interest of 
teachers----
    Mr. Rainville. You have been in the Teachers Union since 
1932 but I thought you said you didn't become a teacher until 
1936?
    Mr. Ayman. Oh, no. I didn't say that. I started to teach in 
1927. They asked me about Tilden High School. I don't think I 
started to teach there until 1936.
    The Chairman. You can consider yourself under subpoena and 
we will notify your counsel when you are to return.

 TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSELS, 
             WILLIAM A. CONSIDINE AND JACK FISHER)

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In the matter 
now in hearing do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Friedman. I do.
    The Chairman. Will counsel identify himself for the record?
    Mr. Considine. William A. Considine, 744 Broad Street, 
Newark.
    The Chairman. Will the witness give his full name for the 
record?
    Mr. Friedman. Lawrence Friedman.
    The Chairman. Who is the other gentleman?
    Mr. Considine. Associate counsel.
    The Chairman. What is his name?
    Mr. Considine. Jack Fisher.
    The Chairman. I don't think either of you gentlemen have 
appeared before the committee before, so I will run over the 
rules of the committee briefly.
    The witness can advise with counsel any time he cares to. 
He can interrupt the testimony. If you want a confidential 
meeting with your client, we will arrange a room for that at 
any time during the meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at Belock Instrument Corporation now?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
there?
    Mr. Friedman. Almost three years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you before that?
    Mr. Friedman. Reeves Instrument Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long?
    Mr. Friedman. Five years.
    Mr. Cohn. And what did you do before that?
    Mr. Friedman. I was in the navy, sir, for two years. I 
worked at Camp Evans Signal Corps Laboratory for two years.
    The Chairman. What kind of work did you do in the navy?
    Mr. Friedman. I was an electronics technicians mate in the 
navy.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you at Evans?
    Mr. Friedman. 1942 to 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were at Evans who were you living with?
    Mr. Friedman. Ralph Dunn.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody else?
    Mr. Friedman. I was living at a rooming house in Ashbury 
Park and I also lived in a dormitory at the camp installation.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else lived at that rooming house?
    Mr. Friedman. Nobody associated with the laboratory. There 
were several other girls and boys, but nobody associated with 
the lab.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. I met him when I was working at 
Reeves.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Friedman. I worked at Reeves from 1946 to 1951 and it 
was during that period.
    Mr. Cohn. You had not known him before?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him well?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work?
    Mr. Friedman. I worked on the third floor in the tool 
design department and he worked on the second floor in the main 
engineering office.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you know him socially at all?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir, not at all.
    Mr. Cohn. How frequently did you see him around Reeves?
    Mr. Friedman. Very infrequently. We were not associated on 
the same project.
    Mr. Cohn. While Sobell was at Reeves were you handling any 
project for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Any classified?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they involve radar?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on any of those projects?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you do any work on the same project Sobell 
was working on?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you familiar with the projects in general 
terms?
    Mr. Friedman. I know what the projects are, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know the project Sobell worked on?
    Mr. Friedman. I only knew it by name. I was not closely 
associated with those projects.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you recall?
    Mr. Friedman. I believe it was a plotting board program for 
the Air Corps. As far as I know, that is the only project he 
was associated with.
    Mr. Cohn. What else did they have there at the time you 
were there?
    Mr. Friedman. Well, of course we had many programs. We were 
doing the Mark 5 Bomb Site for the navy. Of course, we had 
these Signal Corps programs and the plotting board program.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the plotting board program?
    Mr. Friedman. Sir, I am not too familiar with it, just in 
general terms. It was plotting the inside of a trailer.
    May I ask one question? Some of this information may be 
classified.
    It was associated with 584 Signal Corps Radar. That is just 
about all I know about the program, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it have anything to do with 527 and 627?
    Mr. Friedman. I don't know what that means. I am not 
familiar with those designations.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, in connection with the Signal Corps project, 
would people come from time to time from Evans Laboratory down 
to Reeves?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of them speak with Sobell?
    Mr. Friedman. Not that I know of, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You can recall no instance where anyone came from 
Monmouth and spoke with Sobell?
    Mr. Friedman. No, I don't, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Friedman. Aaron Coleman was the project engineer on the 
414A project. I was on the 414A program. I was one of the 
mechanical engineers on the program.
    The Chairman. As you perhaps know, the army intelligence 
raided Coleman's home and picked up some forty-three secret 
documents which would be of great value to the enemy.
    Do you have any knowledge of his having removed those 
documents?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir. No knowledge whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Friedman, do you know a man by the name of 
Carl Greenblum?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you meet Mr. Greenblum?
    Mr. Friedman. I would say 1949. He was associated in some 
fashion with the 414A program and 414A Signal Corps project. 
During the demonstration of the program I recall he did come up 
to Reeves Instrument Corporation to witness the demonstration.
    Mr. Cohn. When he came to Reeves did you see him in the 
company of Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Sobell witness the demonstration?
    Mr. Friedman. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people worked at Reeves then?
    Mr. Friedman. I think, at that time, around one thousand.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether Greenblum was associated 
with Sobell up there?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir. I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. That was the first time you met Greenblum?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you come to know him better?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the only time you saw him?
    Mr. Friedman. Subsequent to that time I have met him twice. 
At the present time the Belock Instrument Corporation is about 
to complete a Signal Corps contract and Greenblum was in some 
small fashion associated with this program, associated with one 
phase of the program. I believe I had occasion to meet him 
twice.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Mr. Belock, head of your company, formerly 
with Reeves?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he the one who hired Sobell?
    Mr. Friedman. I can't answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this Belock Company doing classified work with 
the Signal Corps now?
    Mr. Friedman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything more of this 
witness.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never attended Young Communist League 
meetings?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Never contributed to it?
    Mr. Friedman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I may say in your presence that we will not 
give you to the press or anyone else unless you give it 
yourself. We have got to call people who are loyal in order to 
pick up the loose ends. If your name is given out some people 
might assume that you are guilty, so for that reason unless you 
give them your name, it will not be given out.
    Mr. Friedman. I would like to say, sir, that I think the 
committee is doing a wonderful job and I hope you continue to 
do so.

  TESTIMONY OF ELBA CHASE NELSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                       HAROLD I. CRAMMER)

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mrs. Nelson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get the name of counsel?
    Mr. Crammer. Harold I. Crammer, of Witt and Cammer.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your name?
    Mrs. Nelson. Elba Chase Nelson.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mrs. Nelson. Winter, New Hampshire.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address?
    Mrs. Nelson. The address is Hillsboro Post Office.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you an organizer for the Communist party?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. On what grounds?
    Mrs. Nelson. It is my privilege to decline to answer under 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. If you feel a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in 1936 an organizer for the Communist 
party in New England?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that, sir, on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you at that time know a man by the name of 
Haym Yamins?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to tell us whether or not you know Dr. 
Yamins?
    Mrs. Nelson. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. So the record will be clear, Yamins was the 
liaison between the Signal Corps and MIT and other labs on 
radar until this investigation started.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Yamins spend time in your home on 
frequent occasions between 1936 and 1949.
    Mrs. Nelson. I invoke the Fifth Amendment and I decline 
answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Yamins attend Communist party meetings at 
your home in New Hampshire?
    Mrs. Nelson. Sir, I decline to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at meetings attended by Mr. 
Yamins and Dr. Miriam Udins?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard Mr. Yamins discuss classified 
radar material?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Has he discussed that in the presence of members 
of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you seen Mr. Yamins recently?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much for the information. One 
other question; I assume you will decline to answer it. Isn't 
it a fact that your home was used as headquarters for Communist 
cell meetings at which certain members of the Signal Corps 
discussed the work they were doing?
    Mrs. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to say 
that I know absolutely nothing about Fort Monmouth. I had never 
heard of the town, didn't know where it was located until I 
read it in the newspapers.
    The Chairman. Do you know anything about Mr. Yamins?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know anything about any of the men 
working in the Signal Corps Laboratory?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer. As I said, I had never 
heard of Fort Monmouth or Evans Laboratory before I read it in 
the newspaper.
    The Chairman. You had never heard Yamins mention the 
laboratory at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that. You just got 
through telling us you had never heard the name Fort Monmouth 
or Evans Laboratory, so we can ask you some questions.
    Did you ever hear Yamins or anyone else in your home 
mention Evans or Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Nelson. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you sure of that?
    Mrs. Nelson. Very sure.
    The Chairman. I want to tell you for your benefit that we 
have evidence to the contrary so you will be fully protected 
and can't claim at some future time that you were trapped into 
this.
    Having that information, will you tell us again that you 
never heard Yamins or anyone else mention Evans, the Evans 
Laboratory or Fort Monmouth? Is that correct.
    Mrs. Nelson. Will you repeat that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear Yamins or anyone else ever 
mention Evans or Fort Monmouth? By Evans I refer to Evans 
Laboratory at Fort Monmouth.
    Mrs. Nelson. I want to repeat that I have never heard of 
Fort Monmouth until I read it in the newspapers.
    The Chairman. What is the answer to my question? Yes or No?
    Mrs. Nelson. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see any material brought into 
your home by anyone either stamped secret, confidential or 
restricted?
    Mrs. Nelson. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear radar discussed in your 
home?
    Mrs. Nelson. No.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party as of 
today?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that question, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you on the payroll of the Communist party 
as of today?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist in 1950?
    Mrs. Nelson. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Jones. Mrs. Nelson, if anyone stated to the contrary 
that Professor Yamins had discussed radar material and 
information in your home, would they be lying?
    Mrs. Nelson. They would be lying, sir.
    The Chairman. You may step down. You will consider yourself 
under subpoena. We may want you later. We will give your lawyer 
sufficient notice.
    Mrs. Nelson. I would like to say to the committee, I wasn't 
served with the subpoena until yesterday morning at 9:30 and I 
live over three hundred miles from New York and my husband is 
ill. I would like a little more notice, although I see no 
reason why I was called here in the first place.
    The Chairman. May I have the record clear at this time that 
apparently you weren't found by the marshal up there until 
yesterday, but you had notice a week ago that you were being 
called and made a statement to the press at that time about it. 
If the marshal can't find you, if you absent yourself from your 
home, that is not the fault of the committee.
    Let me ask you this?
    Is it correct that you made a statement to the papers in 
regard to being called?
    Mrs. Nelson. I did not make a statement. The reporter 
called me and informed me I had been subpoenaed.
    Do you imply that the marshal was at my home trying to 
serve the subpoena?
    The Chairman. The marshal had been looking for you a week.
    Mrs. Nelson. I beg your pardon. You are absolutely 
incorrect. I was home. I want to make that very clear.
    The Chairman. Ask the officer to remove the witness.
    Mrs. Nelson. I can walk.
    The Chairman. We will notify your counsel when we want you 
back here for public sessions.

                TESTIMONY OF HERBERT S. BENNETT

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Bennett. I do.
    The Chairman. Your name is Herbert Bennett?
    Mr. Bennett. Herbert S. Bennett.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed Mr. Bennett?
    Mr. Bennett. Dynamic Electronic Corporation of New York.
    Mr. Cohn. And do they do any government work there?
    Mr. Bennett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Any classified work?
    Mr. Bennett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For what branch of the service?
    Mr. Bennett. We have classified contracts with the U.S. Air 
Force.
    Mr. Cohn. Does any of it involve radar?
    Mr. Bennett. Not radar as such, no. It is electronic 
communications would be closer I think.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Bennett. Since March 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work before that?
    Mr. Bennett. Signal Corps. Electronic Warfare Center, Fort 
Monmouth.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you working at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Bennett. Since August 1950. I am not sure of the month 
but it was 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do before that?
    Mr. Bennett. I was an engineer at the U.S. Air Force, 
Watson Laboratories in Eatontown, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you at Eatontown?
    Mr. Bennett. Since June 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. And where did you work before June of 1946?
    Mr. Bennett. In the Armed Service Signal Corps from October 
1942 until June of 1946 except for terminal leave which 
actually ended in August.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you station at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Bennett. For a period of, I think, approximately 
February 1943 until May 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you from 1940 to 1942?
    Mr. Bennett. That would probably cover three phases, I 
imagine. I was with New York Signal Corps Procurement District 
from March 1939 and I think that whole outfit moved to 
Philadelphia.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever part of Signal Corps Inspection?
    Mr. Bennett. I was in the New York Signal Corps Procurement 
Division, Inspection Division.
    Mr. Cohn. During the time you were working in the Signal 
Corps did you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Bennett. Certainly while in the service.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there any point which you were not cleared for 
classified material?
    Mr. Bennett. I think at the very beginning I filled out 
some forms which were probably for clearance.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Bennett. Well, I was told he was at CCNY. I actually do 
not remember him from there. He was in inspection. I vaguely 
remember him from inspection.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him when you were in Signal Corps 
Inspection?
    Mr. Bennett. I probably came into contact with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection of coming into 
contact with him?
    Mr. Bennett. I have not. There were many inspectors.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't remember him being there at all?
    Mr. Bennett. I remember a name. I came there in March 1939 
and----
    Mr. Cohn. All I want to know is whether you knew him there?
    Mr. Bennett. I want to explain that it is rather vague in 
my mind.
    Mr. Cohn. I would just rather have you tell me whether or 
not you knew him?
    Mr. Bennett. I can't honestly say I knew him. I remember a 
name. There were three Rosenbergs on the roster.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Bennett. I would say vaguely. I don't think I remember 
him from there.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember him from any place?
    Mr. Bennett. That would be the only place for even a casual 
contact as far as I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he work with you at any time?
    Mr. Bennet. He never worked directly with me.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean on your assignment as inspectors?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he ever under your supervision?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. He did not?
    Mr. Bennett. I was assistant to the chief of the inspection 
division and in that sense if he was under my supervision, it 
would be in a very vague way.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, in as far as you recall-you don't recall 
ever having met him?
    Mr. Bennett. I cannot truthfully recall having met him.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Bennett. Morton Sobell I recall from school. He was in 
electrical engineering school at the same time I was at CCNY. I 
knew him there.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew him there?
    Mr. Bennett. Yes. I think I was definitely in classes that 
he was in at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir. I had no relations with him that 
would even tend to bring that to my attention.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know any of your classmates as 
Communists?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir. I knew of no classmates who were 
Communists. I would like to explain why.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't explain why if you don't know.
    Were you ever asked to go to a meeting of the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever asked to go to Communist meetings 
of any kind?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. None of the people in school with you or at the 
Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth did anything or said anything 
which might lead you to believe that they might be Communist?
    Mr. Bennett. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. You are excused.

   TESTIMONY OF NORMAN LEVINSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       WALTER N. KERNAN)

    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Levinson. Yes. I do.
    The Chairman. Could we get the name of counsel for the 
record?
    Mr. Kernan. Walter Kernan, Walter N., associated with 
Choate, Hall and Stewart, 30 State Street, Boston, 
Massachusetts.
    The Chairman. Now, will the witness give his name for the 
record?
    Mr. Levinson. Norman Levinson.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Levinson. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been at 
MIT?
    Mr. Levinson. Since February 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of work have you been doing?
    Mr. Levinson. Mathematics.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing before you began teaching 
there?
    Mr. Levinson. I am an academic appointee.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever done any laboratory work?
    Mr. Levinson. At MIT? I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. At any place?
    Mr. Levinson. Laboratory work, no.
    Wait a while. I was associated with someone who did some 
laboratory work at one time, at Worchester.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Haym G. Yamins?
    Mr. Levinson. I do not. I have never met him. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know who he is?
    Mr. Levinson. I read about him in the newspapers. I heard 
about him from Mr. [Stuart C.] Rand, who I know as an attorney 
and who is the attorney of Mr. Yamins. I heard about him 
yesterday when I went to the office of Choate, Hall and 
Stewart.
    Mr. Cohn. I assume that Mr. Rand advised you of the fact 
that Mr. Yamins who is under inquiry by this subcommittee 
testified here that you were one of the persons he had grounds 
to believe was a Communist? Was that called to your attention?
    Mr. Levinson. Do you want me to say what Mr. Rand told me?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. I don't care particularly what Mr. Rand told 
you. I want to know if he communicated to you the fact that Mr. 
Yamins has testified that you were one of the persons he 
believed to be a Communist.
    Mr. Levinson. Mr. Rand told me Mr. Yamins had said that he 
had reason to believe that my sister was a Communist. Mr. Rand 
wasn't sure whether he knew I was a Communist or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your sister named Pauline Levinson?
    Mr. Levinson. That was her maiden name. Her name is Nobel 
now.
    Mr. Cohn. What does she do now?
    Mr. Levinson. She is a housewife.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever worked at MIT?
    Mr. Levinson. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever done any work for the government?
    Mr. Levinson. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How about her husband?
    Mr. Levinson. He is a physician.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever followed any calling, done anything 
other than being a housewife?
    Mr. Levinson. At what date would you like me to begin?
    Mr. Cohn. Just give it to me in general terms.
    Mr. Levinson. She was a student at Radcliffe, graduated in 
1934, majored in mathematics. She decided she didn't like 
mathematics and went to the New York School for Social Work. 
She took the course there and was a social worker in New York. 
I don't know exactly what agencies. Several, I believe, and she 
got married sometime, I believe, in the early forties.
    Mr. Cohn. Has your sister ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Levinson. When Mr. Rand told me her name had come up I 
phoned her and talked with her. She doesn't recall ever meeting 
Mr. Yamins. However, Mr. Rand mentioned that Mr. Yamins had 
passed by the home of my parents where my sister and I lived 
with a man by the name of Wechsler, Harry Wechsler. I remember 
Mr. Wechsler. He was a corrector for a professor at Harvard and 
I took some courses as an undergraduate. I do know the name 
Wechsler. This was the phone conversation. Mr. Kernans was in 
the office of Mr. Rand upstairs and I gathered Mr. Yamins was 
in the room with him. Mr. Yamins told him there was a bulldog 
in the house and there was a Boston Terrier there. There is 
that evidence. That was the summer of 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. All I want to know is whether your sister has 
ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Levinson. Yes. She told me on the phone that she joined 
the Communist party sometime after she came to this New York 
School of Social Work, sometime after the fall of 1937. In the 
first year of that school she joined the Communist party. In 
about 1942 she began to drift away.
    Mr. Cohn. What was she doing when she joined the party?
    Mr. Levinson. She was a student at the New York School for 
Social Workers.
    Mr. Cohn. Was she a member of the party in New York City?
    Mr. Levinson. Presumably.
    Mr. Cohn. From 1937 to 1942?
    Mr. Levinson. Either 1937--she wasn't clear. She didn't 
remember exactly. In September 1937 she went to the New York 
School and in her first academic year there, 1937 or 1938, she 
joined the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever talked with the FBI? Do you know?
    Mr. Levinson. I don't know but I think she probably hasn't.
    The Chairman. Would she be willing? I know you can't speak 
for your sister, but do you think she would be willing to talk 
to the bureau and give them all the information she might have, 
even though the information would be rather old?
    Mr. Levinson. I'd be willing to call her up and try to 
persuade her.
    Mr. Cohn. But you have no recollection of Mr. Yamins?
    Mr. Levinson. No. I remember Harry Wechsler. Mr. Yamins can 
describe the place. He remembered the dog. In all probability 
he had been at the house. I got the impression from Mr. Rand 
that Mr. Yamins is an honest man. It seems quite likely. My 
sister was a good looking girl and any number of men passed by 
to see her.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know Mr. Yamins?
    Mr. Levinson. I don't believe I met him.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Levinson. Yes, I was a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join the Communist party?
    Mr. Levinson. I joined the Communist party in the fall of 
1931.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you join?
    Mr. Levinson. Boston, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing at the time you joined?
    Mr. Levinson. I was an instructor in mathematics at MIT.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you remain in 
the party?
    Mr. Levinson. About eight years, a little less. 1937 to 
1945. I think I was all out by the spring of 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you talked to the FBI?
    Mr. Levinson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Levinson. Several times.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the first time?
    Mr. Levinson. The first time was early in April, I think, 
of this year and I didn't say much to them then. I had been 
subpoenaed before the Velde committee [House Un-American 
Activities Committee] and sort of wanted to get that off my 
mind. They arranged for subsequent appointments. After that I 
had some sessions with the FBI agent. Do you want his name?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    The Chairman. You didn't take the Fifth Amendment before 
the Velde committee?
    Mr. Levinson. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you testify before the Velde committee in 
open session or closed session?
    Mr. Levinson. Open session.
    The Chairman. Who recruited you into the Communist party?
    Mr. Levinson. Well, I sort of went over this a little bit 
with the FBI. It is pretty complicated and it will sound a 
little weird.
    Nobody recruited me. I actually walked into the 
headquarters of the Communist party of Boston and met Mr. Phil 
Frankfeld and signed up.
    The Chairman. Was there anybody you knew while in the 
Communist party who is today working for the United States 
government?
    Mr. Levinson. No.
    The Chairman. Is there anybody whom you knew in the 
Communist party who has worked for the Army Signal Corps or any 
related organization?
    Mr. Levinson. No.
    The Chairman. Or any laboratory where they might have been 
doing work on radar or for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Levinson. Let's see. This goes back to the war period. 
Let's see. Wendell Furry.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Wendell Furry later testified in executive session on November 
4, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. Did he have anything to do with radar?
    Mr. Levinson. He was in the radiation lab. He was a 
theoretical physicist.
    The Chairman. What is Mr. Furry doing now?
    Mr. Levinson. He is a professor of physics at Harvard. He 
was also before the Velde committee.
    The Chairman. Did he testify?
    Mr. Levinson. He gave fairly long testimony except on 
certain questions he invoked the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. He is teaching at Harvard now?
    Mr. Levinson. That is right.
    The Chairman. What did he do in connection with radar?
    Mr. Levinson. Well, all the work of the radiation 
laboratory has been published. He wrote part of the volume of 
theories of antennas.
    The Chairman. At MIT? The Signal Corps project at MIT, was 
it?
    Mr. Levinson. Gentlemen, I don't know that. I don't think 
so. This was during the war. It was not electronic radar. It 
was NDIC, which he was interested. I think there were a lot of 
people interested, but as I say, various stuff was published 
after the war. It was rather theoretical, considerably 
theoretical.
    The Chairman. And he is now teaching at Harvard and he 
appeared before the Velde committee? Now, is he the only one 
you can think of?
    Mr. Levinson. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I think that will be all. I don't think we 
will need you again.
    Just one other question. You say that in 1945 or 
thereabouts you broke off connections with the Communist party?
    Mr. Levinson. I had certain differences, disputes with the 
New Masses with them in 1944 and stopped attending meetings and 
I sort of split away. Arguments with local leaders, etc.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Your name will not be 
given to the press or anyone else unless you give it to them.
    Mr. Levinson. I think that will not only help me but MIT.
    The Chairman. The reason we don't give out names of 
witnesses, we have got to call a lot of good, loyal Americans 
and if we give the names of witnesses, there is always the 
impression that they must have been guilty of something, which 
is not true.
    Thank you very much. That is all.
    Mr. Kernan. Is Mr. Levinson discharged from the subpoena?
    The Chairman. We will let you know if we want him again.

                   TESTIMONY OF LOUISE SARANT

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mrs. Sarant. I do.
    The Chairman. Could we get your full name for the record 
please?
    Mrs. Sarant. Louise Jacqueline Sarant.
    The Chairman. Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Sarant. Ithaca, New York.
    The Chairman. What is the street address?
    Mrs. Sarant. RD No. 3.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mrs. Sarant. Housewife.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married?
    Mrs. Sarant. No, divorced.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the name of your husband?
    Mrs. Sarant. Alfred?
    Mr. Cohn. When were you divorced from your husband?
    Mrs. Sarant. We were divorced in 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you married?
    Mrs. Sarant. 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Sarant ever work for the Signal Corps out 
at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey?
    Mrs. Sarant. Not when I knew him.
    Mr. Cohn. If he did it was prior to your marriage. Is that 
right?
    Mrs. Sarant. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it in the years 1942 and 1943, approximately?
    Mrs. Sarant. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, at the time--when did you see Mr. Sarant 
last by the way?
    Mrs. Sarant. Three years ago, 1950. July of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, coming to the first of 1945, in that year 
was Mr. Sarant an espionage agent?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You understand that unless you were involved, 
the fact that he was an espionage agent would not incriminate 
you, unless you, yourself, were involved. You understand that, 
don't you?
    Mrs. Sarant. I believe I do. I believe I understand what I 
am doing when I refuse to answer a question on the ground it 
may incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Sarant, from what Mr. Sarant told you 
do you know that he was engaged in espionage while working for 
the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer this question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever present when Mr. Sarant, Joel Barr 
and Julius Rosenberg were discussing plans concerning espionage 
against the United States?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party yourself?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Has Mr. Sarant left this country and gone to the 
Soviet Union?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer this question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you last see Mr. Sarant?
    Mrs. Sarant. Ithaca, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mrs. Sarant. Three years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he your husband then?
    Mrs. Sarant. [No answer]
    The Chairman. Has he left the country?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer this question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether he is in the United 
States?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. When did you get your divorce?
    Mrs. Sarant. 1952. A year ago.
    The Chairman. Where did you get the divorce?
    Mrs. Sarant. Florida.
    The Chairman. In what court down in Florida?
    Mrs. Sarant. I have no idea. Miami.
    The Chairman. And where did they serve the papers on your 
husband or did they serve them by publication?
    Mrs. Sarant. Publication.
    The Chairman. Do you know what address they gave in the 
publication notice?
    Mrs. Sarant. I think it was our last home address.
    The Chairman. I believe you have got to sign an affidavit 
that this is the last known address of your husband. Is that 
right?
    Mrs. Sarant. I believe so.
    The Chairman. Is that actually the last address you know he 
stopped at?
    Mrs. Sarant. That is the last place I saw him.
    The Chairman. Is that the last address that you know that 
he had, regardless of where you saw him? In other words, did 
you learn from someone else a different address he had 
subsequent to that time?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Are you married now?
    Mrs. Sarant. No.
    The Chairman. What do you work at?
    Mrs. Sarant. I take care of my children.
    The Chairman. How many children do you have?
    Mrs. Sarant. Two.
    The Chairman. How old is the oldest child?
    Mrs. Sarant. Seven in December.
    The Chairman. Are you working at all yourself or just 
taking care of your children?
    Mrs. Sarant. Pardon?
    The Chairman. You aren't holding down any job at all?
    Mrs. Sarant. No.
    The Chairman. How do you support yourself?
    Mrs. Sarant. My father supports me.
    The Chairman. You get no income from the Communist party at 
this time?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. I may say you waived the privilege when I 
asked you about support and you stated your father supported 
you.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your father a Communist?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your father's name Victor Ross?
    Mrs. Sarant. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does he reside?
    Mrs. Sarant. Utica, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Same address?
    Mrs. Sarant. Yes.
    The Chairman. When Mr. Sarant left did he take any 
belongings with him?
    Mrs. Sarant. I don't remember what he took with him.
    The Chairman. Did he just walk out of the house with his 
hat or did he take clothes?
    Mrs. Sarant. I believe he had a suitcase. I can't tell you 
what was in it.
    The Chairman. What were the grounds for divorce?
    Mrs. Sarant. Desertion.
    The Chairman. Have you heard from Mr. Sarant in the last 
three years, directly or indirectly?
    Mrs. Sarant. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Not one word?
    Mrs. Sarant. No.
    The Chairman. As far as you know he disappeared from the 
face of the earth?
    Mrs. Sarant. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know Joel Barr?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know Vivan Glassman?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know Joseph Levitsky?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know a man by the name of Carl 
Greenberg?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Were you present at a restaurant on 34th 
Street in New York with your husband and Joel Barr when 
Levitsky and with him William Perl on an occasion when Joseph 
Levitsky brought Carl Greenberg to that restaurant?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know William Perl?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that such 
answer might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Were you yourself engaged in espionage?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Was your husband a part of the Rosenberg spy 
ring while he worked for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. That will be all for the time being, Mrs. 
Sarant. We will want you at a future date, so consider yourself 
under subpoena.
    The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Aaron Copland?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Rainville. I had occasion in 1932 to interview some of 
the Brown Shirt leaders in Chicago and at one of their homes 
they had a seven-year-old boy of whom they were very proud of 
the way which he talked about Hitler. He would run in the front 
room and salute before Hitler's picture.
    May I ask, are you teaching your children the principles of 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Haym G. Yamins?
    Mrs. Sarant. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You understand that you are still under 
subpoena and you will be notified when to return.
    Mrs. Sarant. Yes.

  TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. PERCOFF (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                      LEONARD E. GOLDITCH)

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that in the matter now 
in hearing the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Percoff. I do.
    Mr. Golditch. I'd like to enter my appearance.
    Mr. Cohn. We'd like you to.
    Mr. Golditch. My name is Leonard E. Golditch, 25 Broad 
Street, New York 4, New York.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for an adjournment at this 
time. I understand from my client that he was served this 
subpoena at 1:30 yesterday afternoon. He consulted me yesterday 
evening about 4:30. I haven't had the opportunity to really 
prepare for the hearing or ascertain what the facts are or what 
the hearing is about. I would, therefore, respectfully ask the 
Chairman for an adjournment so I may be able to prepare for the 
hearing and the witness will be ready to reappear at any time 
you telephone. Call either his office or mine.
    The Chairman. I think that is a reasonable request.
    Mr. Golditch. In other words, when do you expect to be back 
in the city?
    The Chairman. I think I will be back a week from next 
Tuesday or Wednesday. We will let you know.
    Mr. Golditch. My number is Hanover 2-7550.
    The Chairman. I might suggest counsel, that it will save 
you considerable work if you let counsel ask some questions and 
if it requires further study, you can ask for an adjournment 
then.
    Mr. Golditch. I would appreciate it very much if we could 
have the adjournment. I might make unnecessary objections and 
we may be able to save you a lot of time when I ascertain what 
the hearings are about.
    The Chairman. We will notify you then, perhaps a week from 
Tuesday or Wednesday.

  TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE AGUIMBAU (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                      OSMOND. K. FRAENKEL)

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I do.
    The Chairman. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Lawrence Baker Aguimbau.
    The Chairman. And your counsel?
    Mr. Fraenkel. Osmond K. Fraenkel, 120 Broadway, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Aguimbau, where do you reside?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Foxboro, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I am a teacher at MIT.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you teach?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Radio engineering.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Since 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any work for the government?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Not directly, only through MIT.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the work you have done?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I have worked for MIT, work that was under 
government contract.
    Mr. Cohn. Such as?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Such as the research laboratory of 
electronics.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of that work involve radar?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No. It involved electronic frequency 
moderation.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you come across any classified information in 
the course of that work?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the only project you worked on?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Except for teaching. I was teaching army 
specialized training. That was not under direct government 
auspices.
    Mr. Cohn. At MIT?
    Mr. Aguimbau. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a Mr. Yamins?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Mr. Yamins?
    Mr. Aguimbau. It is difficult to say in detail. I know I 
met him as early as 1937, casually, and I may have met him 
before that. I read in the papers that we were both students at 
Harvard and I assume I may have met him there.
    Mr. Cohn. What year were you working on the electronic 
program?
    Mr. Aguimbau. 1945 until the present.
    Mr. Cohn. You are working on it now?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, at the present time you don't happen 
to be on government payroll, do you?
    Mr. Aguimbau. That isn't government contribution.
    Mr. Cohn. When did the government contribution cease?
    Mr. Aguimbau. July 1.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you teaching this army training?
    Mr. Aguimbau. During the war.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say you met Mr. Yamins in 1937?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you come to know him well?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Not well. It is so difficult to remember in 
detail. I have been trying to think of it since I saw his name 
in the papers. I met him in that period a total of a half dozen 
times.
    Mr. Cohn. When did he come to MIT?
    Mr. Aguimbau. A year or so ago. I wouldn't know that. 
Something of that sort.
    Mr. Cohn. And from the time you met him until he came to 
MIT, you had been with him about a half dozen times?
    Mr. Aguimbau. It is very hard to time with precision back 
about fifteen years ago. I did meet him occasionally.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any of these contacts socially?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I casually met him on the street in Cambridge 
while he was a graduate student at Harvard.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at any social gathering where he 
was present?
    Mr. Aguimbau. On one occasion, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Aguimbau. 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else was present?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Well, I don't know. It is a long time back 
and I don't really know.
    Mr. Cohn. You recall nobody who was present?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No. It was a left-wingish sort of social 
gathering but I had the impression he was not attending the 
gathering as such but was a casual visitor. He remarked on that 
to me.
    Mr. Cohn. You recall that?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall anybody present besides you and 
Yamins?
    Mr. Aguimbau. The people living in the house and I think 
there were others present but I don't know. I have been 
thinking of this during the time and it was the first time to 
the best of my knowledge that I met him and he came up and 
introduced himself and apparently he knew me because he said he 
had seen me at electrical meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it was a leftish gathering-under whose 
sponsorship?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes, sir. A school that I had attended.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you be specific?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Progressive Labor School.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that a Communist school?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Under influence, I would say.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a party member at that time?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Not at that time. I was from 1937 to sometime 
between 1949 and 1950. I am not sure of the exact date.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave the party?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Late 1949 or early 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. During part of the time you were working on the 
electronics project you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aguimbau. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anybody you met in the Communist party 
or in the Communist movement who is today working directly or 
indirectly for the government?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Not that I know of. I can't think of anyone 
who is.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anybody who did any work for the 
government, directly or indirectly----
    Mr. Aguimbau. It has been testified that Yamins of MIT did. 
He testified to that effect himself but I was not aware of 
anyone in the project in which I was active being a member of 
the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Is this the first time you were before a 
committee?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I was before the Velde committee.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see Mr. Yamins at leftish 
gatherings?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No.
    The Chairman. Now, when he came to MIT, did you have 
occasion to know Mr. Yamins better?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Only as far as business was concerned. I 
never talked with him about anything other than business 
matters.
    Mr. Cohn. Not at all. You never had a social acquaintance?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No, sir. I was at one leftish meeting with 
him socially. I have the impression that I met him at the Radio 
Institute at a radio engineers meeting in New York. I can not 
be certain of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he attend this Progressive Labor School?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not see him there?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know who brought him to the party? What he 
was doing at the party?
    Mr. Aguimbau. He told me he had come by with someone; that 
he was attending as a friendly matter and was not interested in 
the matter himself.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the matter? Was it fund raising?
    Mr. Aguimbau. No, it wasn't that. Some sort of celebration.
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with the school?
    Mr. Aguimbau. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Having searched your memory and having thought 
about it, do you still say you don't know anybody who worked 
for the government, we are particularly interested in 
electronics and radar, who are now or ever have been in the 
government and whom you knew in the Communist movement?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Well, I was in the laboratory--where I was 
working I have no knowledge of anyone who was a member of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. How about any place, anywhere, who was in the 
Communist movement and now works for the government?
    Mr. Aguimbau. It is a very difficult thing to answer. I 
wouldn't know of their government employment. I do believe that 
there was one case I knew of where a man was working for the 
government fifteen or twenty years ago, not in recent years.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I had rather not give that.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you direct the witness to give that, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. I may say that I understand your feeling that 
you don't want to name someone who worked in the government 
fifteen or twenty years ago. It may seem very unimportant and 
most likely will be unimportant. However, we are investigating 
a situation concerning espionage of very startling evidence, 
the Rosenberg spy ring extending into the Monmouth plant. Under 
those circumstances, it is difficult to know whether or not the 
man you knew as a Communist could furnish some very important 
information, which might be a minor link. I think I will have 
to very reluctantly order you to answer that.
    Mr. Aguimbau. May I say a word. He was not--he was working 
a long time back on a project of rivers or something of that 
sort, nothing connected with electrical matters. It is not at 
all connected. I am reasonably certain he has not worked for 
the government in the last fifteen years.
    The Chairman. What is he doing now?
    Mr. Aguimbau. I don't know. I haven't had contact with him 
in five or ten years.
    The Chairman. Then how do you know he is not back in the 
government? Do you know that he left the government?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes, I could say that because he was asked to 
leave that project as a security matter. He was asked to leave 
that project as a security matter.
    The Chairman. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't give 
us the name. If you want to consult with counsel, you have a 
right to at any time you'd like.
    Mr. Cohn. I'd like the name.
    Mr. Aguimbau. As I said before, I feel very strongly that 
he is not connected with this.
    Mr. Cohn. The trouble with that is this: You can't judge 
that. You don't know what happened. You don't know who his 
friends are in the Communist movement. You could give us a 
chance to call him in executive session and he might be 
perfectly friendly and happy to cooperate. You don't have the 
picture the committee has and you can't take it upon yourself 
to judge whether or not he can help.
    The Chairman. If we hear of anybody who is a Communist in 
the government we have to get the name and call him in. Unless 
you feel the answer might tend to incriminate you and I'm sure 
it wouldn't as you have freely answered the other question, we 
ought to have the name.
    Mr. Aguimbau. The situation is, he did tell me that he was 
discharged on a security basis and on this basis you must have 
his name.
    Mr. Cohn. That isn't going to be too much help to me.
    Mr. Aguimbau. You put me in a very embarrassing situation.
    The Chairman. I will have to order you to give the name.
    Mr. Aguimbau. I will have to refuse.
    The Chairman. Well, we will have to hold you in contempt if 
you refuse. You have no legal basis.
    I may say, as long as the witness has competent legal 
counsel, have the record show that the witness refused to 
answer the question; that the chairman ordered him to answer 
and he persisted in refusing and states that if he were to 
answer the question, the answer would not tend to incriminate 
him.
    Mr. Aguimbau. I might say this. I am thoroughly willing to 
cooperate with the committee as far as knowledge of the present 
situation is concerned and I regard on the technical matter at 
hand that this happens to be non-pertinent. If it were 
pertinent, I would bring it out.
    Mr. Rainville. You have already been proved wrong once. The 
government discharged him as a security risk.
    Mr. Aguimbau. The government discharges people as security 
risks from all kinds of positions.
    Mr. Rainville. They did think he was a security risk. They 
found out about his Communist activities and discharged him.
    The Chairman. Give us the names of every other individual 
you have known as a member of the Communist party? Do you 
refuse to do that too?
    Mr. Aguimbau. Yes. I would say that in this respect I 
thought this matter over. I had the same situation in the Velde 
committee. The reason for doing so is that I searched my 
conscience very carefully and decided there were many courses 
open to me and that in particular use of the Fifth Amendment 
would be appropriate but I didn't wish to do that. I wanted to 
give the committee there and this committee as much information 
as I can that will be of use to them in the problem at hand. I 
am willing to be of help and I have forgone the use of the 
privilege of the Fifth Amendment because I wished to be of 
maximum assistance to the committee consistent with what I felt 
was an honorable stand. If I had known of any activities that 
in my opinion constitute espionage or anything of that nature, 
I wouldn't use that for this purpose. This was the best thing I 
honorably could do for the committee.
    The Chairman. Let me say this for your information.
    The committee, as you understand, has jurisdiction to 
investigate anything having to do with the government, 
expenditure of government funds. It is not confined solely to 
the Signal Corps Laboratory, you understand, and we have been 
going into the question of Communists, espionage in various 
branches of the government.
    Mr. Jones. As a member of the Communist party you my have 
known of no espionage activities on his part. We may have other 
evidence indicating that he was part of the Rosenberg spy ring.
    The Chairman. It may be possible that the unimportant 
evidence, unimportant to you, it may seem completely irrelevant 
to you but it might be an important link in uncovering and 
exposing the espionage ring which has been operating or is 
operating at Fort Monmouth. For that reason I am going to order 
you to give the committee (1) the names of all members of the 
Communist party known to you as such who are now to your 
knowledge working in the government.
    Mr. Aguimbau. I know none.
    The Chairman. Number two, anyone known to you who is a 
member of the Communist party who has in the past been in or 
worked in the government.
    Mr. Aguimbau. I know only one instance of that.
    The Chairman. That is the one on which we have your refusal 
already. Number three, I am going to ask you to give the names 
of all those known to you as members of the Communist party and 
whose occupation you do not know at the present time. That is 
on the theory that he may or may not be working in the 
government, may or may not be doing government work.
    I assume you refuse to answer that?
    Mr. Aguimbau. That is so.
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness was ordered 
to answer the question and still refused. Last and finally is 
the request for the names of any other individuals other than 
those who have subsequently been deceased who were known to you 
or are known to you as members of the Communist party.
    Mr. Aguimbau. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness was ordered 
to answer the question and refused and the basis for refusing 
was not on the Fifth Amendment but for the reason as stated by 
the witness.
    Mr. Aguimbau. That is right.
    The Chairman. May I suggest that you go back and think this 
matter over and if you change your mind, let us know. We have 
no desire to take the time of the courts and the time of the 
Senate to punish people for contempt. There is nothing gained 
as far as the committee is concerned and nothing gained as far 
as you are concerned.
    Mr. Fraenkel. Counsel and the witness have talked this over 
quite sometime.
    The Chairman. Maybe when he thinks over the grounds on 
which we feel we need this, he will. If he doesn't, it is up to 
him.

                    TESTIMONY OF PERRY SEAY

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Seay. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Seay. Perry Alexander Seay. The last name is spelled S-
e-a-y.
    Mr. Cohn. You are employed at the Reeves Instrument 
Corporation?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Since when?
    Mr. Seay. 1947, November 1947. However, I was away for 
about an eight months period.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you before you went to Reeves?
    Mr. Seay. University of Texas.
    Mr. Cohn. While at Reeves, did you know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Seay. Not at the time I was employed there, after his 
indictment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him well when there?
    Mr. Seay. I knew him as a business acquaintance.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he work in the same office with you?
    Mr. Seay. For a period he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were the people that would come in to see 
him?
    Mr. Seay. He had dealings primarily with the air force and 
was only on the air force job during the time I was there.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that a classified job?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, sir, it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any of his social acquaintance that 
would drop in on him in the office?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't recall the name of anyone who ever came 
to see him in the office?
    Mr. Seay. Not a social acquaintance.
    Mr. Cohn. Anyone with whom he was particularly friendly?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the names of anyone who would come to 
the office to see him regardless of the relationship?
    Mr. Seay. [No answer]
    The Chairman. Would business people from various companies 
come there in connection with the work under way?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you name all the people you recall? 
Give us the names of all those?
    Mr. Seay. Mr. Lesley Cornell.
    The Chairman. Where is Mr. Cornell?
    Mr. Seay. Army air force, Rome air force.
    The Chairman. Was he a civilian or an army officer?
    Mr. Seay. He was a civilian employee of the air base.
    The Chairman. How often would he come in to see Sobell?
    Mr. Seay. In frequently. It is difficult for me to say. I 
wasn't directly associated with the project Mr. Sobell was on.
    The Chairman. You may think it is unimportant to give us 
the names, but it is important that you give us the names of 
everyone who came in to see Sobell. Out of ten nine might not 
be important but the tenth one might be important.
    Mr. Seay. I will do my best. You will have to remember that 
was over two years. I believe there was a Mr. Duncan.
    The Chairman. Who is he?
    Mr. Seay. He is head of the Helipot Corporation.
    The Chairman. Was he doing business with Reeves?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, sir. He still does business with Reeves.
    The Chairman. As far as you know he would just come in on 
business?
    Mr. Seay. I'd like to retract that statement. I don't know 
of any specific time he came to see Sobell.
    The Chairman. How about Cornell? Was that the first name 
you gave, Cornell?
    Mr. Seay. Cornell was head of the project at Rome, which 
was then Watson Laboratories. Sobell was project engineer at 
Reeves.
    The Chairman. Did Cornell see Sobell in the course of his 
work?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. Only in the course of his work?
    Mr. Seay. That was the only information I had.
    The Chairman. Keeping in mind that he was committing 
espionage at that particular time, I wish you would search your 
memory a little more carefully for these names?
    How about Greenblum, Carl Greenblum?
    Mr. Seay. I don't believe he had occasion to visit Sobell.
    The Chairman. Do you know Greenblum?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. You have only given me the name of one person 
who visited Sobell. I am going to ask you when you leave here 
to try and make a list of other people who visited Sobell and 
give the description of who they are, in business as far as you 
know and who visited him socially. You will be considered 
giving that under oath.
    Do I understand at this time that the only man you know of 
who visited Sobell was this man Cornell?
    Mr. Seay. It has been two years since this incident. At the 
time I was not directly associated with the project involved. I 
only know Mr. Cornell visited there; that he was the project 
engineer--
    The Chairman. Did you ever see him talk to Sobell?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. You didn't assume he talked to him?
    Mr. Seay. I know he was there in connection with the 
project and with Sobell.
    The Chairman. How large was this office you and Sobell 
worked in?
    Mr. Seay. The office was about--approximately eight people, 
eight desks.
    The Chairman. Was it as big as this room?
    Mr. Seay. About as big as this end.
    The Chairman. You worked there how many years?
    Mr. Seay. I was in that office--It is difficult to say. I 
have been in six or eight different offices. Probably a year at 
the least.
    The Chairman. It seems with Sobell in there you could think 
of a few more people who visited him?
    Mr. Seay. I concur.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: When Sobell was indicted 
for espionage, where were you working?
    Mr. Seay. I was at Reeves.
    The Chairman. How long before that had Sobell been at 
Reeves?
    Mr. Seay. He had been at Reeves, let's see, this was 
possibly two or three years. I don't know. I believe he came to 
Reeves about 1947 or 1948. If I am not mistaken he was there at 
the time I came in 1947.
    The Chairman. Now long before he was indicated did he leave 
Reeves?
    Mr. Seay. Possibly a couple of weeks before on vacation.
    The Chairman. A couple of weeks before he was indicted he 
was working in the office where you were?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. When you heard he was indicted didn't it make 
some impression on you, and didn't you go over in your mind the 
people who were visiting him?
    Mr. Seay. Not to any great extent. I was concerned about 
the problem, highly concerned.
    The Chairman. Didn't you stop to think who had been 
visiting in the office? He is a man accused of espionage, 
punishable by death. You were working in the same office with 
him, had been there up to the week before over a period of a 
year. Didn't you stop and say to yourself: Is it true? Who was 
at the scene? Who was involved?
    Mr. Seay. I would like to put in one comment. We have 
complete records at Reeves indicating who was there to see 
Sobell all during that period. I think that would be much more 
factual.
    The Chairman. Reeves keeps a record of anyone who comes in 
the place?
    Mr. Seay. Yes. Reeves is doing classified work.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: If I went to Reeves and 
I had secret clearance and was allowed to pass through the 
gate, would there be some record of who I was going to see?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. After I was in the plant could I see someone 
other than the people I was instructed to see? Couldn't I say I 
was coming to see you and end up talking to Sobell.
    Mr. Seay. You would be the responsibility of the individual 
whom you went to see during the time you were in the plant. He 
would turn you over to Sobell or someone else.
    The Chairman. But if someone came to see you who had secret 
clearance you wouldn't object to them going over and talking to 
Sobell who is working in the same office, would you? That 
emphasizes the importance of your trying to remember. There 
wouldn't be a record in all cases. There is no reason you can't 
give us the names. Do you have an awful bad memory?
    Mr. Seay. I wouldn't say I have a bad memory, average 
memory.
    The Chairman. And you can't think of a single other person 
that came in to see Sobell?
    Mr. Seay. I am sure there were other people there. There 
were manufacturers' representatives there and people associated 
with that particular project.
    The Chairman. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Seay. Business acquaintance.
    The Chairman. Do you know a man by the name of Levitsky?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. You never heard of him?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever visited Sobell's home?
    Mr. Seay. Once.
    The Chairman. How long was that before the indictment?
    Mr. Seay. It was a considerable time before that.
    The Chairman. Roughly. A considerable time doesn't mean too 
much.
    Mr. Seay. It is difficult to say on that. Possibly a year.
    The Chairman. Roughly. One month, two months, three months?
    Mr. Seay. I said possibly a year. I gave that information 
before the grand jury which indicted Sobell.
    The Chairman. Was that a dinner you attended in his home?
    Mr. Seay. I believe so, yes.
    The Chairman. Was your wife there too?
    Mr. Seay. I am single.
    The Chairman. Who else was there?
    Mr. Seay. I was there alone. His wife was there and I 
believe an acquaintance came in during the time.
    The Chairman. Do you know who the acquaintance was?
    Mr. Seay. No, I don't. That specific question was asked at 
the grand jury hearing and I wasn't able to give it then.
    The Chairman. Were you introduced to the acquaintance?
    Mr. Seay. I believe so.
    The Chairman. Was it a man or a woman?
    Mr. Seay. It is very vague in my mind. I believe some other 
people came in--one other person. It is very vague.
    The Chairman. You know that a person came in but you don't 
know whether it was a man or a woman?
    Mr. Seay. There was no significance attached to this visit.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether it was a man or a woman?
    Mr. Seay. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. You have no idea?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether they were old or 
young?
    Mr. Seay. I believe it was a young person.
    The Chairman. Did you take this person home after the 
dinner?
    Mr. Seay. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. How late did you stay in his home that night, 
roughly?
    Mr. Seay. I wasn't there late.
    The Chairman. How late? Undoubtedly you can't give the 
exact time but was it nine o'clock, twelve o'clock or two 
o'clock?
    Mr. Seay. I would say it was in the order of nine or ten 
o'clock.
    The Chairman. Did the four of you have dinner?
    Mr. Seay. I don't believe the fourth person ate dinner.
    The Chairman. The fourth person came after dinner?
    Mr. Seay. If at all.
    The Chairman. Now, you say if at all.
    Mr. Seay. I told you I believed there was a fourth person.
    The Chairman. Now you say you don't believe there was a 
fourth.
    Mr. Seay. No, I did not. I believe there was a fourth 
person but I can't say positively.
    The Chairman. Do you believe the fourth person was there 
for dinner?
    Mr. Seay. No, I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Do you think the fourth person came after 
dinner?
    Mr. Seay. If anyone was there, they dropped in for a few 
minutes only. The only thing I remember was he showed us some 
pictures of his trip to Canada.
    The Chairman. Let's get it down to the fourth person. You 
were very positive until we started questioning you. You say 
you do know if someone came in it was for a few minutes or half 
an hour.
    Mr. Seay. I think you asked me if it was an older person. I 
think if it had been an older person I probably would have 
remembered it.
    The Chairman. Do you know that they were only there for a 
few minutes or half an hour?
    Mr. Seay. I don't remember them being there at the time he 
showed the pictures of his trip to Canada.
    The Chairman. Now, it is rather important for us to know 
this fourth person. Mr. Sobell was engaged in espionage at this 
time. Do you know that this person was only there for a few 
minutes or half an hour?
    Mr. Seay. Sir, I wasn't there so very many hours myself. I 
know there was a time when there was no one there. At least I 
don't believe there was anyone there. I said he showed us some 
pictures.
    The Chairman. Who do you mean by ``us''?
    Mr. Seay. His wife and I.
    The Chairman. Is that what you had in your mind when you 
said ``us''?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. Pictures of what?
    Mr. Seay. Scenic trips through Canada and sections of 
Canada and he had pictures of his family, I believe.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take any classified material out 
of the laboratory?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, I had occasion to take classified material 
from the laboratory at Reeves also.
    The Chairman. Did you take it to your home?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, sir. I had material in my home at times.
    The Chairman. Secret material?
    Mr. Seay. I don't believe I had secret material. I have had 
material classified confidential.
    The Chairman. Did you sign a pass to get that or did you 
have to sign a pass over there?
    Mr. Seay. We sign passes to take material out.
    The Chairman. You sign the passes yourself?
    Mr. Seay. I wouldn't say positively we signed to take 
material out at that time. During the past couple of years we 
have more rigorous security arrangements. I couldn't say 
positively when that went in process.
    The Chairman. About how many times have you taken 
confidential material home?
    Mr. Seay. A number of times. It is difficult for me to say. 
I took material home on quite a few occasions to do work at 
night on.
    The Chairman. Did you have a safe in your home?
    Mr. Seay. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give it to anyone who was not 
working at Reeves Laboratory?
    Mr. Seay. Only when a receipt was signed for it. I don't 
know of any instances I gave material to other people. I have 
never given material to anyone whom I felt was not cleared for 
the project on which I was working.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married?
    Mr. Seay. I have not been married.
    The Chairman. Who were you living with when you and Sobell 
were working together?
    Mr. Seay. I had a private apartment.
    The Chairman. Now, would you leave this confidential 
material in your apartment from day to day?
    Mr. Seay. No, I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. You would always take it back the next day?
    Mr. Seay. Yes.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Seay. I can't say positively, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you take care of your own apartment?
    Mr. Seay. No one entered it. I had no maid service.
    The Chairman. You did all of your own cleaning?
    Mr. Seay. Everything.
    The Chairman. Did anyone else have a key to the apartment?
    Mr. Seay. I don't know, sir. Undoubtedly the management may 
have had a key to the apartment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Communist party?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. You never gave money to the Communist party?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. You never belonged to any organizations 
listed as Communist fronts?
    Mr. Seay. Not if I had any inkling that was their 
disposition. I do not in general believe in giving money to any 
organization.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join an organization which you 
learned later or knew at that time had been cited by the 
attorney general as a front for the Communist party?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    The Chairman. Are you quite sure of that?
    Mr. Seay. I am not a joiner in general. The only 
organizations in which I have ever held membership to my 
knowledge are fraternities at college and business 
institutions. American Institute of Engineering and the 
Institute of Radio Engineering. I have never been a member of 
any type political organization other than Republican and 
Democratic parties.
    The Chairman. So then your testimony in closing is, correct 
me if I make any errors, that one you never belonged to the 
Communist party; you were never solicited to join the Communist 
party; you never joined the Young Communist League; never 
solicited to join the Young Communist League.
    Did you ever attend any Communist meetings or any meetings 
of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Seay. No. That I am quite positive about.
    The Chairman. You never joined any organization which you 
either knew then or learned later was on the attorney general's 
list as subversive or a Communist front?
    Mr. Seay. Correct.
    Mr. Rainville. You say you are not a joiner, so if you ever 
belonged to such organizations you would remember?
    Mr. Seay. I think I would remember.
    Mr. Rainville. Actually you do have some difficulty 
remembering things which occurred two years ago?
    Mr. Seay. I have difficulty remembering instances that 
occurred in business, acquaintances with whom I was not 
connected in any way. I have many business acquaintances at the 
plant and at various government laboratories. I don't in 
general visit in their homes. I have a number of fellows in the 
plant who are friends.
    Mr. Rainville. You did have great difficult remembering 
whether there was anyone else present at this dinner or not. 
You couldn't remember whether it was a man or woman. You do 
think they were young but you are not sure there was anybody 
there.
    Mr. Seay. He had a child. It is possible I am thinking of 
the child. I can't say. It has been several years and it was a 
mere drop.
    Mr. Rainville. Do you remember who was president of your 
fraternity in college?
    Mr. Seay. I was never a member of a social fraternity. I 
was a member of a professional fraternity.
    Mr. Rainville. Do you remember who was president of your 
fraternity in college?
    Mr. Seay. No, I don't.
    Mr. Rainville. You can't remember the president of your 
fraternity in school?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    Mr. Rainville. Do you keep a diary?
    Mr. Seay. No.
    Mr. Rainville. You must have some means of reminding 
yourself of things when the year is gone?
    Mr. Seay. I frequently keep notes stacked up on my desk.
    The Chairman. Did you tell the FBI about this dinner you 
attended at Sobell's home?
    Mr. Seay. I did.
    The Chairman. Did you tell them that there was a fourth 
person present?
    Mr. Seay. I told them I didn't know. I believe it must have 
been a couple of years. I said it was about a year, but I 
believe it must have been a couple inasmuch as I wasn't able to 
remember at the time it came up before the grand jury.
    The Chairman. Didn't you tell them there was only three 
persons, only you and the two Sobells? Didn't you tell the FBI?
    Mr. Seay. I believe at the grand jury hearing I didn't know 
whether there was a fourth person present.
    The Chairman. Did you mention the fourth person?
    Mr. Seay. I know I did not mention a fourth person's name. 
I tried to recollect and could not.
    The Chairman. Did you mention that a fourth person was 
there?
    Mr. Seay. I believe I did.
    The Chairman. How about the FBI?
    Mr. Seay. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Isn't it a fact you never mentioned to the 
FBI that there was a fourth person?
    Mr. Seay. If they asked me about it I did I am sure.
    The Chairman. They asked you all about that dinner. In 
fact, they considered it a rather important item, didn't they?
    Mr. Seay. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Seay, do you have secret clearance now? 
Are you handling any classified work?
    Mr. Seay. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. And they are doing work for the Signal Corps 
Lab?
    Mr. Seay. I am not currently handling work from the Signal 
Corps Laboratory.
    [Off record discussion.]
    The Chairman. You may go. You my consider yourself under 
subpoena and counsel will notify you when you are to return.
    Mr. Seay. Sir, I'd like to add one comment. I am very 
anxious to cooperate with you on any matters. If I have sounded 
very vague on some of the matters brought up, it is because 
they occurred a long time ago and at the time under 
insignificant conditions.
    The Chairman. Just for your benefit I think you should know 
how I view it. I think, frankly, it is worse than vague. I 
think you know more than you are telling us. You have told us 
absolutely nothing.
    You could not tell us the persons who came in to see 
Sobell. We would like to get the name of the fourth person who 
came to his home. We would like to get anything you might have 
which would be of some benefit to us; anything Sobell did to 
indicate he was a Communist espionage agent; anything anyone 
else did.
    Think that over and if you want to come back and talk to 
us, we will be more than glad to hear you. You may be able to 
refresh your recollection.
    Mr. Seay. Yes, sir. Am I supposed to try to make up a list 
of who visited Sobell in his office?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Seay. May I use the files of Reeves?
    The Chairman. I assume you can. I assume you have secret 
clearance and I assume you can see the files.
    Mr. Seay. But that is permissible with you?
    The Chairman. I have no control over Reeves files. Get it 
from any source you can.
    Mr. Seay. Is there anything else you'd like for me to get?
    The Chairman. No, I think that is all.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]











              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--None of the witnesses in the staff 
interrogatory on October 26, 1953, Benjamin Zuckerman, Hans 
Inslerman (1909-1997), Thomas K. Cookson, Doris Seifert (1915-
2001), Lafayette Pope (1907-1979), Ralph Iannarone (1916-1996), 
Saul Finklestein (1901-1908), Abraham Lepato, Irving Rosenheim, 
Richard Jones, Jr., testified in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                        MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 11:00 a.m., in room 
36, Federal Building, New York, Mr. G. David Schine presiding.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis Carr, 
staff director; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; C. George Anastos, assistant 
counsel.
    Present also: Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton, commandant, Fort 
Monmouth.

                STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN ZUCKERMAN

    Mr. Cohn. Will you state your full name for the record.
    Mr. Zuckerman. Benjamin Zuckerman.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman by the name of Esther 
Gershon?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never met her or heard of her?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Jasik?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Yes, I do; there are two of them.
    Mr. Cohn. Henry Jasik.
    Mr. Zuckerman. Yes, and I know his brother very slightly.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his brother's first name?
    Mr. Zuckerman. His brother's first name I can't even 
remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Henry work down at Monmouth?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. What did Henry do?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I met Henry when he worked at the Bureau of 
Ordnance at Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. That was back in----
    Mr. Zuckerman. Way back in 1938.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see him thereafter?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I did. Yes, I did see him thereafter. I want 
to get this straight. Now, I saw him in Boston right at the end 
of the war. He was still in uniform at that time, and as I 
recall it, he was recruiting people for the Cambridge Field 
Security Office of the air force. He was still in uniform at 
the time I talked with him. That was after the war--right after 
the war. Then I saw him at the Airborne Instruments Laboratory. 
He worked there. I went there on business. I was pretty 
friendly with Jasik in Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he marry?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the name of his wife?
    Mr. Zuckerman. His wife's first name, I think, was Esther, 
and she was in Washington at the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember her maiden name? Could it have 
been Gershon?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. When was he married?
    Mr. Zuckerman. He was married, I believe, possibly around 
1939 or 1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the last you saw of Jasik?
    Mr. Zuckerman. In New York I saw him.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, when did you see him last?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I saw him at the Airborne Instruments 
Laboratory. I believe I visited him once at his home since that 
time.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was that?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I believe it is around Flushing somewhere. I 
have the address.
    Mr. Cohn. What is he doing now?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Jasik, I believe, is a consultant engineer.
    Mr. Cohn. For whom?
    Mr. Zuckerman. The last time I saw him he told me he was 
taking his doctorate and thought he was going to finish, but he 
was not going back to Airborne consultant work. I last saw his 
name in the IRP directory as a consultant engineer.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he doing government work?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I don't know. He may be.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his brother's name?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Charles.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever work at Monmouth?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I don't know anything about his brother.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Simon Gershon?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never met him?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. You went to the University of Michigan for a 
short time?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Yes, for approximately two months.
    Mr. Carr. Taking graduate work?
    Mr. Zuckerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Did you room with Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Zuckerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Did you assist in any way Coleman's financial 
condition while he was there?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did your family?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. He did not borrow money from you or from your 
father?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Not that I can remember. He may have 
borrowed a dollar or two at one time.
    Mr. Carr. What is your father's name?
    Mr. Zuckerman. Jacob.
    Mr. Carr. Jacob Zuckerman?
    Mr. Zuckerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Was he ever connected with the Communist party in 
any way?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No. My father was always violently opposed 
to the Communist party.
    Mr. Carr. Where does he live?
    Mr. Zuckerman. He isn't living.
    [Mr. Zuckerman returned to the hearing room and made the 
following statement.]
    Mr. Zuckerman. I have been thinking about my testimony I 
gave at the previous time [October 15, 1953], and one question 
was asked to which I could not remember the answer. If you may 
remember that I said I met Sobell once in Schenectady. You 
people asked me what I went to inspect there and after thinking 
it over, I remember I inspected cells and motors and 
generators. We had been having trouble with them and I was sent 
up to check on them.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you meet anybody with Sobell at any time?
    Mr. Zuckerman. I knew people he thought highly of. He spoke 
to me about Sid Godet. He spoke very highly of Godet. I knew 
his name too. He was very well known, being a very high class 
engineer. He spoke very highly of Dushman, and that name is 
well known in scientific circles. He is an older man now.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody else?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know any of his friends at Schenectady?
    Mr. Zuckerman. No.

                  STATEMENT OF HANS INSLERMAN

    Mr. Schine. Will you give your name for the record?
    Mr. Inslerman. Inslerman. I-n-s-l-e-r-m-a-n, Hans.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you currently employed?
    Mr. Inslerman. Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties there?
    Mr. Inslerman. Section chief, Research Study Section.
    Mr. Schine. Are you cleared for classified work?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. And do you handle classified work?
    Mr. Inslerman. I do.
    Mr. Schine. Ranging up to top secret?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You are cleared for top secret?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any brothers or sisters?
    Mr. Inslerman. I do. I have a brother.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Inslerman. Felix A. Inslerman.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Inslerman. He lives in upper New York State.
    Mr. Cohn. Exactly what location?
    Mr. Inslerman. Near Cambridge, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the Felix Inslerman mentioned in 
connection with the Hiss case?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And he is a photographer? Is that right?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I think he is an electrical engineer. He 
studied to be an electrical engineer.
    Mr. Cohn. But he was mentioned in the Hiss case in 
connection with photography. When called in the Hiss case did 
he claim the Fifth Amendment as to his Communist affiliations?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't know. I haven't got the details.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see your brother?
    Mr. Inslerman. In the fall of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the occasion for having seen him then?
    Mr. Inslerman. That was after the case came up, and he 
requested assistance--financial assistance. He indicated that 
his family was very hard put and asked for help.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you give it to him?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in touch at all with him since?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Not directly nor indirectly?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he married?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you seen his wife since then?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Has your wife been in touch with him, or his 
wife?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think we did receive a Christmas card, as 
I recall. There is another incident connected with your 
previous questions--we made arrangements to have him repay his 
loan, and he has been sending periodically the payments on the 
loan.
    Mr. Cohn. But you have not had any contact on the basis of 
the loan?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Schine. Your brother is Felix A. Inslerman?
    Mr. Inslerman. Felix A. Inslerman.
    Mr. Schine. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I have no knowledge whatsoever that he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, but then you have not seen his party card?
    Mr. Inslerman. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Schine. Have you had any reason to believe he is 
connected with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I haven't--or hadn't until this case 
came up in early 1950.
    Mr. Schine. Up until 1950 you had no reason to suspect he 
was connected with the Communist movement, but from 1950 on you 
felt that he was?
    Mr. Inslerman. I am afraid that I did have to infer that 
from all published reports. I was told twice after the Hiss 
case came up, once, I think after--in the fall of 1950. I was 
called before our commanding officer and he indicated to me----
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mr. Inslerman. Colonel Cassevant.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Inslerman. C-a-s-s-e-v-a-n-t. He indicated to me that 
my brother was a Communist.
    Mr. Schine. How do you mean he indicated it to you? He told 
you that he had information that your brother was a Communist?
    Mr. Inslerman. Right. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. What else did he tell you?
    Mr. Inslerman. I was told absolutely not to have any 
contact with him, my brother.
    Mr. Schine. At that time, were you handling top secret 
work?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't think so. I think I was cleared for 
secret at that time, or either in another status because my 
clearance was reduced to restricted as I recall when the Hiss 
case came up.
    Mr. Schine. Then after Colonel Cassevant told you not to 
have any contact with your brother, of course, you heard from 
your brother and he asked you to give him help.
    Mr. Inslerman. No, that occurred afterwards.
    Mr. Schine. You had no contact with him after Colonel 
Cassevant instructed you to have no contact with him?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right. Actually, I first recall, 
back to 1946, I believe that is correct, in 1946 is the last 
time I saw my brother until 1950, and I told Colonel Cassevant 
about the incident and he warned me to have no further contacts 
with him.
    Mr. Schine. Isn't it true that you did have further contact 
with him after this time? After talking with Colonel Cassevant?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, that is not true. What do you mean by 
contact?
    Mr. Schine. Weren't you in contact with your brother after 
that?
    Mr. Inslerman. By seeing him personally, or by letters? By 
mail, yes; I think that there was a Christmas card incident. I 
don't know whether my wife may have sent a Christmas card.
    Mr. Schine. Didn't he borrow money from you, and weren't 
you in contact about the money?
    Mr. Inslerman. There was a one-way contact. He merely sent 
a check, which I signed and sent back.
    Mr. Schine. How much money did you loan your brother?
    Mr. Inslerman. $1,400.00
    Mr. Schine. Did you know at the time you loaned this money 
to your brother you were loaning it to help the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I had no indication whatsoever. When he 
requested assistance, I asked him. He made the request by 
phone. I asked him if he had cleared himself with the 
government, and he gave me to understand that, at least I 
understood that there were no charges against him; however, he 
also indicated that his security clearance had been suspended.
    Mr. Schine. What was he doing at that time for the 
government?
    Mr. Inslerman. He worked at the General Electric Company at 
the time that this case came up.
    Mr. Schine. Where is your brother now?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't know. I assume he is still living up 
at his place near Cambridge.
    Mr. Schine. What is his address?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think the last address he had was the 
Cambridge post office.
    Mr. Schine. Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    Mr. Inslerman. Cambridge, New York.
    Mr. Schine. Is he still working for the government?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't really know.
    Mr. Schine. What was he doing the last time you knew what 
he was doing?
    Mr. Inslerman. He was an engineer at the General Electric 
Company.
    Mr. Schine. You mean he has been out of work since he left 
General Electric?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't really know.
    Mr. Schine. Is this Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    Mr. Inslerman. No; Cambridge, New York State.
    Mr. Schine. Is there a General Electric plant there?
    Mr. Inslerman. This is some distance from the General 
Electric plant. This is some distance from Schenectady. It is 
towards the northeast side of Schenectady.
    Mr. Schine. As far as you know he is still working for 
General Electric? Is that correct?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't know. I think so.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know what his means of living is?
    Mr. Inslerman. When he contacted me, he told me he was 
having trouble finding work, and I think he had obtained 
private employment somewhere else.
    Mr. Schine. When was this?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, about 1950, I believe, when the loan 
was made. That, incidentally, was my only contact, physical 
contact, or for that matter mail or letters or phone calls or 
any other means of communication.
    Mr. Schine. Can you give us some information concerning 
individuals with whom your brother associated that you believe 
are or were a part of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mr. Inslerman. I'll do my best. I can't say I knew of any 
connections with the Communist conspiracy.
    Mr. Schine. Would you try to give us the names of some of 
his friends and associates that you think were connected with 
the Communist movement.
    Mr. Inslerman. I would prefer that you ask a leading 
question.
    Mr. Schine. All right. What were the names of some of his 
associates that you believe are or were in the Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.
    Mr. Schine. What were the names of some of your brother's 
close friends?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is going to be rather difficult to 
answer, in view of the time which has gone by. I think the 
record would probably indicate that since he was so thoroughly 
investigated--the record would show which people he associated 
with. My association goes back to roughly 1934, when we 
separated from our common household. I think he got married 
about that date, and the year after that I obtained my job at 
Fort Monmouth, and came over here.
    Mr. Schine. Thinking up to this time, 1934, now that you 
suspect that he is connected with the Communist party, do you 
believe he was connected with it in 1934?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. When do you think he first joined the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I have no indication that he has joined. 
When I saw him in November of 1950, he very strenuously 
indicated his innocence.
    Mr. Schine. How did he explain the fact that he refused to 
answer questions.
    Mr. Inslerman. He didn't. He didn't explain anything. The 
interview was unsatisfactory so far as I was concerned. In 
fact, I felt very badly about it because he seemed to be a 
changed man from the man of a few years ago--or at least five 
years ago--which was the last time I saw him for any length of 
time.
    Mr. Schine. Do you have any ideas how he may have been 
dragged into the Communist movement?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Schine. You say that you loaned him about $1,400. Has 
he paid all of that money back?
    Mr. Inslerman. He has paid seven hundred dollars, with 
interest.
    Mr. Schine. When was the last payment made?
    Mr. Inslerman. Sometime last year. I believe last November 
or some date like that.
    Mr. Schine. How did he pay you?
    Mr. Inslerman. By check.
    Mr. Schine. Do you remember the name of the bank that he 
used?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, I think it was the Chase National Bank.
    Mr. Schine. Where is it located?
    Mr. Inslerman. New York City. A branch here in New York 
City.
    Mr. Schine. Has he made any effort to contact you in the 
last several months?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, absolutely none. I haven't heard from 
him since 1950, I believe that is the correct time.
    Mr. Schine. Has anybody else who may be associated with him 
in his work with the Communist party attempted to contact you, 
or to talk with you?
    Mr. Inslerman. I have no knowledge of any individual 
associated with the Communist party, and so far as your 
questions, there are no friends of his who have made any 
contact with me, or any people referring back to him.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever signed out any classified documents 
at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes. Well, by that I think you mean have I 
taken any out?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. Have you ever taken any documents out and 
been unable to reproduce them when directed to do so?
    Mr. Inslerman. I believe you are referring to the June 1952 
incident.
    Mr. Cohn. All right, let's take that.
    Mr. Inslerman. I think that was the only incident.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you return them after being directed to do 
so?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, after searching for several weeks, I 
would say. It took perhaps a month or more.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you return all of them?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a fact that there were some missing?
    Mr. Inslerman. Absolutely not. I returned every document I 
was requested to.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any documents missing?
    Mr. Inslerman. None whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any which you were not specifically 
requested to return which you did?
    Mr. Inslerman. Will you re-phrase your question?
    Mr. Cohn. When I ask you a question, resolve it out in 
favor of giving us the most information.
    Mr. Inslerman. I would be glad to do that, but I am not 
sure I understand the question right now.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any documents unaccounted for in any 
way?
    Mr. Inslerman. None that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have possession of any now?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, sir. I have some signed out, secret 
documents, now.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you have them?
    Mr. Inslerman. At my location of work.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any at your house?
    Mr. Inslerman. Absolutely none.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last time you took any home or out 
of the plant?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, I haven't taken classified 
documents home.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were the eighteen documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. At my place of work.
    Mr. Cohn. What had you done, just mislaid them?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, they weren't mislaid. In fact, the 
situation was that I wasn't even unaware they were charged out 
to me, some of them.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was they? You were ordered to produce them 
in two days and you couldn't do that.
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, sir. That is right. That is a rather 
involved question. It ties in with our procedure at the 
laboratory, and I was not asked to produce any documents. I was 
asked to produce certain route slips.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you produce them within two days?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I couldn't do that.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Mr. Inslerman. Because I couldn't identify the routing 
slips.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Mr. Inslerman. There was a whole bunch of numbers 
beginning--the group that I was asked to produce was merely a 
series of numbers beginning with the letter ``S,'' indicating 
that the documents were secret. In other words, a list of 
numbers that the gentleman who came down gave me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you sign out for these documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. I found out subsequently I didn't sign for 
some of them.
    Mr. Cohn. Who did sign out for them?
    Mr. Inslerman. The people who were in charge of the section 
before me.
    Mr. Cohn. What had they done with them?
    Mr. Inslerman. Apparently, they had merely put them in file 
and left them there and the charge was carried over to my name 
by having a card in mail and records transferred to my name.
    Mr. Cohn. Did this apply to all eighteen?
    Mr. Inslerman. Many of the eighteen I withdrew myself, at 
least I signed.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you able to produce all of those you signed 
for?
    Mr. Inslerman. I never segregated the documents. I couldn't 
tell.
    Mr. Cohn. You were asked to produce eighteen documents in 
two days. You say you signed out for some of them and others 
were transferred to you as described. How about those signed 
out by you, were you able to produce them immediately?
    Mr. Inslerman. I could very safely say I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Mr. Inslerman. For one thing, I had to identify the 
documents from the number given me, which was an ``S'' number. 
It took me at least several days. Actually, at the time I was 
quite overloaded with work that I didn't realize that 
implication when the gentleman came in the branch. I didn't 
even know for the first few days they were looking for the 
documents charged out to me. I was given to understand by my 
chief we were having these people in the plant to look at our 
mail and records system and I was assistant to my chief and 
took that as a routine function, which is the expected type of 
task we are called upon to do from time to time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever reproduce any classified documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Cohn. You never made copies for any use in the section 
or any other reason?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, we may--perhaps I'd better correct 
that.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you'd better.
    Mr. Inslerman. And indicate that carbon copies are made of 
classified documents.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom?
    Mr. Inslerman. Secretaries in the section or branch.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, is it a fact you directed the making of five 
copies of certain classified documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. What is this about five copies?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have reproduced five copies of 
classified documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. The number of copies are reproduced 
according to the requirements.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, did you ever direct that any be reproduced?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, I think I directed many copies to be 
reproduced.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the figure five? Were you ever asked about 
five copies of any documents you ordered reproduced?
    Mr. Inslerman. I couldn't pinpoint five copies.
    Mr. Cohn. You were never asked about that by Captain 
Sheehan or Lt. Bromberg?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, wait a minute. Captain Sheehan, Lt. 
Bromberg, I don't recognize the captain or lieutenant.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody from CIC, the security end up at 
Monmouth, ever ask you whether or not you had reproduced any 
classified documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. Did you say CIA?
    Mr. Cohn. CIC. Were you ever asked by anybody in security 
whether you had ever reproduced classified documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't recall any such question at any 
time.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say there have been occasions, you have 
had occasions in your section to make carbon copies. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What records do you keep of the fact that carbons 
are made?
    Mr. Inslerman. There is no record of carbon copies in the 
past. We have a new procedure now.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you have a document classified 
secret and signed out by number and everybody is very careful 
of that. They want it back; you signed it out and they order 
you to produce it and they know everything is safe; the 
document is there; and you have a secretary in the office take 
the thing and make five carbons of it and no record is kept of 
the carbons. How could you keep track of the secret document?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think that is being corrected with the new 
procedure.
    Mr. Cohn. When did this happen?
    Mr. Inslerman. The new procedure? Fairly recently. I can't 
exactly pinpoint it, but it would be within the last year.
    Mr. Cohn. And prior to that time you made carbon copies of 
these documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes. That was the normal procedure.
    Mr. Cohn. Who authorized the making of carbon copies?
    Mr. Inslerman. That was determined by each supervisor to 
necessitate getting the work done.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the supervisor who said it was all right 
for you to make carbon copies of these documents?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, normally, in the course of working, 
the past procedure has not even been to, on typewritten copy, 
to request permission from the supervisor. The supervisor 
determines himself whether copies are necessary for the file.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the supervisor in your section who 
authorized the making of carbon copies of secret documents 
without keeping records of it?
    Mr. Inslerman. I have been recently transferred. I actually 
am the supervisor myself and I would authorize the making of 
carbon copies.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever authorized the making of carbon 
copies before the new regulation went into effect?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, it has been sometime, as I recall. You 
see, I acted in the capacity of assistant and in that 
capacity----
    Mr. Cohn. You only did it when the supervisor wasn't there?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, no, not necessarily. It more depended 
upon the specific need for a document.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to know what the name was of the 
supervisor in your section who would from time to time 
authorize the making of carbon copies of secret documents 
without keeping a record of the carbons?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, I was second in command and I 
would go to the branch chief----
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Inslerman. M. Kaiser.
    Mr. Cohn. Morris Kaiser?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. I see.
    By the way, I was going to ask you if there were carbon 
copies of any of these eighteen documents unaccounted for. I 
assume you would have no accurate way of knowing whether the 
carbon copies were accounted for or not since no records was 
kept of the carbons. Is that right?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, I think the nature of the eighteen 
documents were such that normally we would not have carbon 
copies made. These eighteen documents were enclosures generally 
to letters and were charged out with the route slip number on a 
letter, not by the documents.
    Mr. Cohn. But if carbon copies were made, you would have no 
way of knowing whether all carbons were accounted for. Is that 
right? Under the old procedure?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't think there was a specific way of 
accounting for carbon copies.
    Mr. Cohn. What would be done with the carbon paper after 
the copies were made?
    Mr. Inslerman. On all classified correspondence, it would 
be disposed of as classified material.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see it disposed of regularly in your 
section?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, sir. That would be a very serious 
security violation if it wasn't.
    Mr. Carr. Where did you live in the year 1933?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think it was uptown, 122nd Street.
    Mr. Carr. Here in Manhattan?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall having signed a pledge for the 
support of Communist candidate in that year?
    Mr. Inslerman. That was a subject of the investigation and 
I was asked that question. I have been trying to resolve that 
ever since in my mind.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever resolve it?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, I did. It was quite a shock to me to 
know that such an incident apparently took place.
    Mr. Carr. In studying the thing in your own mind, did you 
come to any conclusion about it?
    Mr. Inslerman. The conclusion I have come to is when I 
graduated from school, I had made up my mind regarding 
communism and the Communistic system and I had resolved against 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you object to in it?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, many, many, many, many, matters.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your principal objection?
    Mr. Inslerman. It seemed to be a very militant and very 
aggressive type of movement which runs over people's liberties.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you feel about government ownership of 
property?
    Mr. Inslerman. My feeling is that what we have is 
satisfactory.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your feeling back then?
    Mr. Inslerman. As far as I know, I still say--for instance, 
it is hard to recall going back, but take the case of railroads 
for instance. Certainly, actually when I really think about the 
specific answer, I really didn't have very strong political 
feelings at that time. My intentions were engrossed with other 
things.
    Mr. Carr. But you don't deny in 1933 you voted the 
Communist party ticket?
    Mr. Inslerman. What I was accused of was that I voted in 
the primary election and I was directly that, and I have not 
been able to recollect that I voted in such an election.
    Mr. Carr. You don't recall signing anything with the 
Communist party name across the top and a symbol of the hammer 
and sickle?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall voting in any primaries?
    Mr. Inslerman. No. That is the thing. I don't recall ever 
having voted in the primary. I think I could be fairly certain 
on that.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall all the times that you have voted? 
Can you recall each year, each election that you have voted?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I should say not, but lately I think I 
have been voting rather steadily. I am not sure how steadily I 
voted many years ago. At the time you are asking questions 
about goes back twenty years.
    Mr. Carr. But in 1933 you may have voted for the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I can't say because I have no recollection 
on the matter.
    Mr. Carr. You have no recollection as to whether or not you 
did vote for the Communist party in 1933?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. It is possible you did?
    Mr. Inslerman. I won't say anything on the possibility.
    Mr. Carr. If presented with your name on a petition or 
ballot or official register, would you deny that it was yours? 
Is it that uncertain in your mind?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, when I was shown the register when 
the matter first came up a number of years ago, I could not 
recall the circumstances behind this registry whatsoever.
    Mr. Carr. What did you see on the registry?
    Mr. Inslerman. As I recall right now, I believe my name was 
listed there.
    Mr. Carr. Your name, your occupation?
    Mr. Inslerman. Among many other things listed on the 
registry.
    Mr. Carr. Wasn't you name signed in your own writing?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, as I recall, it did seem to be my 
own handwriting, but I can't certify to it.
    Mr. Carr. It appeared to be your handwriting?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right, but that is about the only 
thing I could say.
    Mr. Carr. And it was in support of the Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think the question leads us astray. From 
what I could make out, I believe that was a primary ballot, not 
ballot, but primary registration which I don't recall having 
accomplished.
    Mr. Carr. But you did align yourself with the Communist 
party according to what you were shown?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Carr. You don't believe that the paper which you were 
shown indicated to you you had aligned yourself with the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. Would you repeat that?
    Mr. Carr. You don't believe that the paper which you were 
shown, containing what looked like you signature, signified you 
had aligned yourself with the Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, I have been trying to figure out 
what the papers meant ever since.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall what they looked like?
    Mr. Inslerman. [Indicating] Rather long document.
    Mr. Carr. [Indicating] Like that?
    Mr. Inslerman. Not that long. One third as long.
    Mr. Carr. Did it have your name signed?
    Mr. Inslerman. I think it had a lot of names on it, among 
them my own name.
    Mr. Carr. It was a column affair and your name was one and 
it ran across your address, occupation, number of years in the 
state, number of years in the county, district, etc., and your 
name was signed on that?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, it was signed.
    Mr. Carr. Now, do you recall anything on that sheet which 
indicated what your selection of party was?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes. I think it indicated an abbreviation 
which I interpreted to mean Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you first asked about this? When did 
this matter first come up?
    Mr. Inslerman. That was early in 1950 when the Hiss case 
was being investigated very closely.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, neither at that time or at this time were 
you or are you able to say that is your signature?
    Mr. Inslerman. It looks like it is. That is about all I 
could say. I don't recall having signed it, no.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been called to appear before a 
loyalty board?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I have not.
    Mr. Carr. In 1950, when asked concerning this registration, 
was this by the army officials at Fort Monmouth? Who asked you 
concerning this?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, that was, I recall the man's name, Mr. 
Donohan. I think he is connected with the district attorney's 
office, U.S. federal district attorney.
    Mr. Carr. Donohan?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Were you called to testify in the Hiss case?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What did Mr. Donohan do, interview you?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man named Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I don't know an individual by that name.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Inslerman. No. I'd like to see a photograph.
    Mr. Cohn. Fred Kitty?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I don't know anyone.
    Mr. Cohn. Hy Sigman?
    Mr. Inslerman. Seems to be first names, no.
    Mr. Carr. When were you first approached by the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Inslerman. I was never approached by the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Carr. Were you approached by the Young Communist 
League.
    Mr. Inslerman. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Carr. How did it happen you signed your name on this 
registry?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't recall having--that is rather easy 
to explain to me, is that actually going through my school 
days, I was never too much interested in politics and 
consequently, political affiliations never came up as a 
critical item in my mind.
    Mr. Carr. You just said by the time you left school you had 
decided against communism. What year did you finish school?
    Mr. Inslerman. 1930.
    Mr. Carr. Then in 1933 your name shows up favoring 
communism?
    Mr. Inslerman. That is an incident which is difficult for 
me to explain because my personal viewpoint is, I have worked 
on an individualistic basis entirely and the Communistic 
viewpoint is such that the individual has no being in that 
viewpoint.
    Mr. Carr. Having that feeling, how could you make a mistake 
in registering? Doesn't it seem a little unusual that you would 
turn up in the Communist party rather than some other political 
party so designated at the time, since you had this feeling 
concerning communism, had had it at least three years.
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, actually, the problem wouldn't have 
appeared in the Republican category at that time.
    Mr. Carr. Would you say socialistic?
    Mr. Inslerman. Actually, I had no definite set of views 
but----
    Mr. Carr. You were opposed to communism?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. I say, ``You were opposed to communism.''
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Carr. So that the best you can say now is that what 
appears to be your own signature on this registry indicating 
you supported the Communist party in this election in 1933. 
Other than that, you are at a loss to understand. How your name 
happened to get on there under the emblem of the Communist 
party, you are at a loss to understand?
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall registering in 1933 at all?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever join the Communist party?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Carr. Or the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, absolutely no reason. Actually, it goes 
against my personal convictions.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Inslerman, where were you born?
    Mr. Inslerman. New York City.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Inslerman. I spent more of my time going to school in 
Middlesex County, Century, New Jersey. I graduated through 
senior high school. Most of my public school I spent in 
Brunswich and Trenton on a farm.
    Mr. Schine. What college did you go to?
    Mr. Inslerman. Cooper Union and also Brooklyn Polytechnic.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know Clarence Hiskey?
    Mr. Inslerman. No. I don't recall that name at all.
    Mr. Schine. When you first went to work at Fort Monmouth, 
what are the names of the reference you gave on your 
application form?
    Mr. Inslerman. Well, the one reference I would most likely 
have would be Mr. Howell, a civil engineer.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Inslerman. H-o-w-e-l-l.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any of the other names?
    Mr. Inslerman. I would assume that the people I worked for 
would be on that. I would also give them as references. Mr. 
George Houck, also Mr. George Uszmann.
    Mr. Schine. What are the other names?
    Mr. Inslerman. I can't recall any more.
    Mr. Schine. That was in what year? 1934?
    Mr. Inslerman. 1935, when I came to work.
    Mr. Schine. Now, you have told us that you have been 
against communism as far back as you knew about it and that it 
was against your basic principles and also that you believed in 
individualism.
    Mr. Inslerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Surely then you would recognize any Communists 
with whom you had been in contact, or any Communists you may 
have known over the years, either in your work, associates that 
work with you----
    Mr. Inslerman. No, that is a very difficult thing to do. I 
didn't even recognize my brother as having any connection.
    Mr. Schine. Are there any people that you have suspected of 
being Communists who have worked with you or who are connected 
with the army?
    Mr. Inslerman. No.
    Mr. Schine. Can you tell us the names of any individuals 
that you have thought were Communists who don't work with you 
or haven't worked with you?
    Mr. Inslerman. I don't recall any names whatsoever.
    Mr. Schine. Can you recall any individuals?
    Mr. Inslerman. In connection with what?
    Mr. Schine. That you believe were or are Communists, 
disregarding their names for the moment?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I don't recall any such individuals.
    Mr. Schine. Has any other member of your family ever been 
connected with the Communist party besides your brother?
    Mr. Inslerman. The only other member was my father who is 
deceased.
    Mr. Schine. I have no more questions. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your father a Communist?
    Mr. Inslerman. No, I could very surely say he wasn't. He 
was a very great believer in individualism and I think he was a 
great follower of the Golden Rule too, and I don't believe 
while he did have it very difficult, I don't think he ever 
lifted his hand against his country.
    Mr. Schine. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslerman.

                 STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. COOKSON

    Mr. Schine. Will you state your name for the record?
    Mr. Cookson. Thomas K. Cookson.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Cookson. C-o-o-k-s-o-n.
    Mr. Schine. You work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Cookson. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you worked for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Cookson. Eleven years.
    Mr. Schine. And what did you do before you went to work for 
the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Cookson. I had my own business, sign painter.
    Mr. Schine. Is it true that you are a Socialist?
    Mr. Cookson. Well, I have views I suppose----
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about your Socialist views?
    Mr. Cookson. Well, my father was a member of the 
Independent Labor party, Eidenberg, Scotland, and he educated 
me in the way of that line, and I became a member of the 
Independent Labor party, oh, way back in 1922, I believe.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first come to the United States?
    Mr. Cookson. November 13, 1928.
    Mr. Schine. What are your views about the Communist system?
    Mr. Cookson. I don't care about it.
    Mr. Schine. At times you have been in favor of some of 
their ideas, haven't you?
    Mr. Cookson. Nationalization and such things as that.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The transcript read ``Naturalization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Schine. Would you elaborate on some of the Communist 
forms of government that you are in favor of, or have been in 
favor of.
    Mr. Cookson. Communist forms of government?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Cookson. I wouldn't know that.
    Mr. Schine. Could you tell us some of the phases of the 
Communist type of government or society you favor?
    Mr. Cookson. I don't think I favor any of them.
    Mr. Schine. You don't favor any of the Communist society?
    Mr. Cookson. No. Their form of government or economy.
    Mr. Schine. You have in the past, haven't you?
    Mr. Cookson. I would say that.
    Mr. Schine. You said you favored nationalization?
    Mr. Cookson. I would say the Socialist point of view.
    Mr. Schine. Haven't you believed the Communists have a 
better form of the government than the United States?
    Mr. Cookson. I wouldn't say that, no, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Weren't you against our going into the Korean 
War?
    Mr. Cookson. Well, I didn't like the idea of any war.
    Mr. Schine. Did you make the statement on several occasions 
that ``The Communists will win the war.''
    Mr. Cookson. Oh, no.
    Mr. Schine. You have been under investigation, haven't you?
    Mr. Cookson. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Schine. Have you known any Communist party members, had 
discussions with them?
    Mr. Cookson. Oh, when I was a pretty young man in the 
Independent Labor party, we use to have debates.
    Mr. Schine. Have you known any in the United States.
    Mr. Cookson. Never.
    Mr. Schine. You never came in contact with any?
    Mr. Cookson. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you belonged to some political 
associations in the United States?
    Mr. Cookson. No, sir, never have.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Cookson. I am a leader in the Sign Painting Section of 
the Graphic Branch.
    Mr. Schine. When did you become a citizen of the United 
States?
    Mr. Cookson. I am not quite sure of the date, but I think 
it would be around 1934.
    Mr. Schine. And you voted the Socialist ticket all the way 
through?
    Mr. Cookson. No, that is a peculiar thing. I am a 
registered Republican.
    Mr. Schine. You have never voted the Socialist ticket here?
    Mr. Cookson. I don't think I have, no.
    Mr. Schine. But you----
    Mr. Cookson. Is it Fabian Socialism?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think the Republican party stands for 
Fabian Socialism?
    Mr. Cookson. No.
    Mr. Schine. I have no further questions. Thank you.

                   STATEMENT OF DORIS SEIFERT

    Mr. Schine. Will you state your name, please, and spell it?
    Mrs. Seifert. Doris Seifert, S-e-i-f-e-r-t.
    Mr. Schine. And where are you currently employed?
    Mrs. Seifert. Field Training Department, Signal School.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first join the Communist party?
    Mrs. Seifert. I have never been a member of the Communist 
party.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first attend Communist party 
meetings?
    Mrs. Seifert. I have never to my knowledge attended 
Communist party meetings.
    Mr. Schine. Did you live with Communist party members?
    Mrs. Seifert. May I explain.
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mrs. Seifert. When our home broke up, I was a little bit 
younger, and there was a girl working in the same office--I was 
working in an attorney's office at the time--who knew I had to 
find another place to live. She offered to let me stay at her 
house; that her mother would have no objection and I did.
    Mr. Schine. What was her name?
    Mrs. Seifert. Leader, Diana Leader.
    Mr. Schine. And her mother and father's names?
    Mrs. Seifert. William and Stephanie. He was separated from 
the family and they were in the course of getting a divorce. 
When I stayed there he visited there several times but he 
didn't live there.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know they were members of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Seifert. I can't say that from anything I heard her 
say.
    Mr. Schine. You suspected it?
    Mrs. Seifert. I was told by someone else that they 
suspected it.
    Mr. Schine. How long did you live with them?
    Mrs. Seifert. Approximately three months.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first go to work for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mrs. Seifert. In October 1941.
    Mr. Schine. I see. You were living with these Communists at 
that time?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir. I had my own apartment.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you left the Leader's home 
prior to your going with the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Seifert. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You were in touch with William and Stephanie 
Leader after you left their home?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir. Well, not in any continuous touch. I 
may have seen them on occasions.
    Mr. Schine. You saw them from time to time?
    Mrs. Seifert. Perhaps I did.
    Mr. Schine. You remained friends with the daughter?
    Mrs. Seifert. Acquaintances. We weren't close friends. I 
thought it was a generous idea that she or her mother had.
    Mr. Schine. What was the daughter's first name?
    Mrs. Seifert. Diana.
    Mr. Schine. She was working for the government at that 
time?
    Mrs. Seifert. She wasn't then, definitely.
    Mr. Schine. When did she first take a position with the 
government?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know exactly. I have not been in 
close contact with the family.
    Mr. Schine. Were William and Stephanie Leader employed by 
the government?
    Miss Seifert. I don't think so. She stayed at home. He was 
a jeweler.
    Mr. Cohn. What branch of the government did Diana go to?
    Mrs. Seifert. I have no idea.
    Mr. Schine. Isn't it true you were associated with members 
of the Communist party from time to time?
    Mrs. Seifert. Not to my knowledge, sir. If I did associate 
with other than Mr. Leader--at the time I had no intentions, I 
didn't move there knowing they were Communists; I didn't stay 
there knowing they were Communists. It was a necessary move at 
the time.
    Mr. Schine. Didn't you discuss communism with the Leaders?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Didn't you talk about government?
    Mrs. Seifert. We may have talked socially about communism. 
We didn't discuss it at any length.
    Mr. Schine. They didn't specify any sympathy for the 
Russian form of government?
    Mrs. Seifert. They may have had sympathies for such as 
wanted that form of government. That is as far as I ever 
thought about it.
    Mr. Schine. You can't recall any conversations about 
communism?
    Mrs. Seifert. That was ten years ago, more than ten years 
ago.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever have a loyalty hearing?
    Mrs. Seifert. I asked for one. I'd like to know why they 
haven't been able to clear me. I had a clearance withdrawn in 
1938. I couldn't find out why. I couldn't get anybody to face 
me with the charges or anything.
    Mr. Schine. Would you give us the names of the individuals 
that you know to be Communist party members that you have known 
over the years?
    Mrs. Seifert. I know of no one other than Mr. Leader.
    Mr. Cohn. Who met with Mr. Leader? Did you meet any of his 
friends?
    Mrs. Seifert. I worked with an attorney who was his 
attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mrs. Seifert. Samuel Epstein.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was that?
    Mrs. Seifert. The location of that was 701 Mattson Avenue, 
Ashbury.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Mr. Epstein a Communist?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know that he was. To my knowledge, he 
was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear that he was?
    Mrs. Seifert. No.
    Mr. Schine. Is any member of your family connected with the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Seifert. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Are you married?
    Mrs. Seifert. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Does your husband work for the government?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. When was the last time you were in touch with 
Miss Leader?
    Mrs. Seifert. I met them on the boardwalk this summer. They 
happened to be on the same stretch of the boardwalk that we 
were on. Mrs. Leader was sitting with some friends of hers. I 
think Diana was there also.
    Mr. Schine. You say Mr. Leader has a jewelry store. Is Mrs. 
Leader employed?
    Mrs. Seifert. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Schine. What was the address of their home?
    Mrs. Seifert. I can't give you the exact number, 700 
something Brinley Avenue, Bradley Beach.
    Mr. Schine. Where was this located?
    Mrs. Seifert. Bradley Beach.
    Mr. Schine. Did they have frequent visitors to their home?
    Mrs. Seifert. They had very little company, no.
    Mr. Schine. Can you give us the names of some of the 
individuals that came to see them regularly?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know of anyone, sir, during the time 
I was there. I wouldn't remember a single person. They were 
quite retirish, not much socially. They were separated at the 
time.
    Mr. Schine. Both were in the party?
    Mrs. Seifert. I didn't make that statement. Someone who 
suspected it told me that. I have no knowledge about either one 
of them.
    Mr. Schine. Who told you that?
    Mrs. Seifert. Mr. Epstein, the attorney. He said they were 
fools or some sort of eccentrics. He said it just like that. He 
may have been kidding. I say he told me that is the truth.
    Mr. Schine. Did they express sympathy for the Russian form 
of government?
    Mrs. Seifert. I never discussed politics with them.
    Mr. Schine. Aside from what Mr. Epstein told you, you had 
no reason to believe they were connected with the Communist 
movement?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you any reason in your mind why your 
security was lifted?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir. I have no idea, sir. I have tried to 
find out. I have no idea at all. I will admit I have had poor 
associates. I will confess that, but I got away as soon as I 
found out they were bad. I don't feel that I have ever done 
anything disloyal which makes me a security risk.
    Mr. Schine. Tell us about your poor associations.
    Mrs. Seifert. Well, first of all, there is a former 
associate, he used to work for the government but has been 
dropped. When I was single I worked very close to him and he 
invited me home to dinner.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mrs. Seifert. Louis Kaplan.
    Mr. Schine. That is the Communist Louis Kaplan? He was 
discharged for being a Communist?
    Mrs. Seifert. I heard rumors.
    Mr. Schine. Was he working at Watson Laboratories?
    Mrs. Seifert. I knew him at the standards agency, where we 
both worked at the time.
    Mr. Schine. When was that?
    Mrs. Seifert. 1946 or 1948, I believe.
    Mr. Schine. What did he look like?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know. Medium light, very ordinary 
looking person. Dark hair, I think.
    Mr. Schine. You spent some time with Louis Kaplan?
    Mrs. Seifert. I had dinner at his house a couple of times. 
At that time he was mixed up with an organization known as the 
National Council for American-Soviet Friendship.
    Mr. Schine. He was at that time associated with the 
National Council for American Soviet Friendship?
    Mrs. Seifert. It was just after the war and I guess some 
people got carried away--rather not go to war with Russia. He 
had organization meetings at his house. I attended two of them. 
They were entirely not in my line.
    Mr. Schine. You did attend some of these meetings?
    Mrs. Seifert. Two, yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Will you give us the names of some of the 
individuals you saw there?
    Mrs. Seifert. I know this sounds funny but I don't remember 
a single one. Mr. Kaplan and his wife and that is all. I 
wouldn't know them if I saw them.
    Mr. Schine. Did any of them work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Kaplan and his wife were connected with the 
organization?
    Mrs. Seifert. I couldn't say ``yes'' or ``no.'' I was at 
their home and they had meetings.
    Mr. Schine. You say that you worked together?
    Mrs. Seifert. Well, not in the same office; in the same 
agency.
    Mr. Schine. At that time he was handling classified 
material was he not?
    Mrs. Seifert. I believe he was. Almost everybody was in 
that agency.
    Mr. Schine. Will you tell us about your other poor 
associations?
    Mrs. Seifert. Well, I don't again know that there was 
anything wrong but I feel there is. They had a CIO union trying 
to organize in the Federal Employees Union and I went to one or 
two meetings. Again, I didn't like the smell and left.
    Mr. Schine. Who asked you to attend?
    Mrs. Seifert. I can't remember, frankly.
    Mr. Schine. With whom did you go?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't remember. I may have gone alone.
    Mr. Schine. You don't remember being asked to attend this 
meeting?
    Mrs. Seifert. It may have been Mr. Kaplan. I can't tie that 
in my mind.
    Mr. Schine. Tell us about your other poor associations.
    Mrs. Seifert. Those are the only two that I consider 
questionable--the union meeting and Louis Kaplan.
    Mr. Schine. With whom was Louis Kaplan friendly?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't know who his friends were, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Will you try and think. It could be of great 
value to us.
    Mrs. Seifert. I want to think. I don't want to mention 
people casually and get them in trouble. I know who he worked 
with. I don't know that he saw them socially. I have never seen 
anybody I knew or knew the names of in his home.
    Mr. Schine. You have had recent contact with Mr. Kaplan, 
have you not?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir. I have not.
    Mr. Schine. When was the last time you were in contact with 
him?
    Mrs. Seifert. At least 1948 when he left the government 
agency. I have never had further contact with him at all.
    Mr. Schine. Try and think of the names of individuals who 
worked with you and also mingled with them socially, if you 
can.
    Mrs. Seifert. Really, I don't know that there was one 
actually. I want to help.
    Mr. Schine. When you had dinner at his home, who else was 
present?
    Mrs. Seifert. His wife and I believe that is all. 
Generally, when they had the meetings, it was after supper that 
the other people came. I didn't pay too much attention.
    Mr. Schine. You attended dinners at his home several times?
    Mrs. Seifert. I might suggest only dinner once and perhaps 
two meetings in all.
    Mr. Schine. With whom did you attend meetings?
    Mrs. Seifert. Just myself.
    Mr. Schine. They talked about the Communist party at the 
meetings?
    Mrs. Seifert. Not that I remember, sir. I don't remember 
parliamentary things, only something about membership.
    Mr. Schine. Weren't you asked to join the party?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Do you feel the party was making overtures to 
you?
    Mrs. Seifert. I did not then feel so. I don't know now how 
I feel about it. I think maybe they thought I was the kind of 
person they could lure into the party that way.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think you were being sized up by the 
party?
    Mrs. Seifert. Do I now think so? It is hard to say. I don't 
know Kaplan to be a Communist. I don't want to implicate 
anybody unless I have the facts.
    Mr. Schine. At these meetings, what happened?
    Mrs. Seifert. I don't even remember. I didn't get very 
interested. As I say, I don't remember what happened. I wish I 
could help you with something more, but I don't know anymore.
    Mr. Schine. You say Louis Kaplan was the only poor 
association you feel you had. Can you think of any associates 
you feel the committee might think to be poor?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. From a loyalty standpoint?
    Mrs. Seifert. I will try to think. I honestly can't.
    Mr. Schine. Anybody you have come in contact with?
    Mrs. Seifert. I really don't know. You can know a person 
socially and still not know their politics are something.
    Mr. Schine. Have you had some access to classified material 
since your security clearance was lifted?
    Mrs. Seifert. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You haven't seen classified material?
    Mrs. Seifert. I have seen it, but I have not been near it.
    Mr. Schine. You have seen it?
    Mrs. Seifert. Do you mean seen the outside cover or the 
contents?
    Mr. Schine. You probably could have seen it if you wanted 
to?
    Mrs. Seifert. I doubt it. The place I work they are very 
careful. Nobody handles them unless they are cleared.
    Mr. Schine. All right. Thank you very much for coming here 
and you may go. If we need you again, we will call you.
    Mrs. Seifert. Do I have any right to ask what is to become 
of me? From all of the evidence, is there any reason to believe 
I will be suspended?
    Mr. Schine. That is up to the army. We are just gathering 
material as you read in the newspapers. It is up to the army 
what they do with you. We will turn some of the material over 
to the army but it is their decision.
    Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF LAFAYETTE POPE

    Mr. Schine. Will you please give us your name?
    Mr. Pope. Lafayette Pope.
    Mr. Schine. And you are currently employed where?
    Mr. Pope. At Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Schine. In what department do you work?
    Mr. Pope. Instructor, export branch.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties?
    Mr. Pope. Warehouseman.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been employed there?
    Mr. Pope. At this position?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Pope. Oh, about a year.
    Mr. Schine. What were you doing before that?
    Mr. Pope. I was a laborer at Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been employed at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Pope. Since I started?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Pope. Since 1942.
    Mr. Schine. And what did you do before that?
    Mr. Pope. I was a laborer.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you work?
    Mr. Pope. At Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Schine. Before you went to work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pope. I started at Camp Evans.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you worked for the army 
altogether?
    Mr. Pope. I started December 1942, to the present.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been under investigation at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Pope. I think once.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about that. What happened?
    Mr. Pope. Yes, sir. I was just called down for a loyalty 
test, I think they called it.
    Mr. Schine. What did they tell you there?
    Mr. Pope. They didn't say anything to me personally.
    Mr. Schine. Didn't they ask you some questions? Did they 
tell you some charges had been made against you?
    Mr. Pope. No.
    Mr. Schine. What did they ask you?
    Mr. Pope. They asked me something about my car being in a 
certain place. I told them ``no'' I didn't know anything about 
that.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know that your car was parked where a 
Communist party meeting was being held?
    Mr. Pope. I told them that time that was wrong. My car 
wasn't there.
    Mr. Schine. You checked the date that they said your car 
was parked near the meeting and you knew it had been parked 
somewhere else?
    Mr. Pope. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. What did they reply to that?
    Mr. Pope. That was all they asked about that.
    Mr. Schine. Isn't it true you loaned your car to somebody 
from time to time?
    Mr. Pope. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never loaned your car out to anybody?
    Mr. Pope. No.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know anyone who might have used your car 
to get transportation to this place?
    Mr. Pope. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did you drop anybody off at this place?
    Mr. Pope. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been near this place?
    Mr. Pope. No. I don't even know where it is at.
    Mr. Schine. How do you think they could have come to the 
conclusion this was your car if it wasn't?
    Mr. Pope. I don't know. There must be some mistake 
somewhere.
    Mr. Schine. You are a member of some organizations?
    Mr. Pope. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us the names of those 
organizations?
    Mr. Pope. Can I hand them to you?
    [The witness handed a paper to Mr. Schine.]
    Mr. Schine. Do you belong to any other organizations?
    Mr. Pope. That is all.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any reason why you might be 
under investigation?
    Mr. Pope. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Schine. You haven't known any Communist party members?
    Mr. Pope. No.
    Mr. Schine. Nor associated with any?
    Mr. Pope. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever attended any meetings?
    Mr. Pope. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever discussed communism with anyone?
    Mr. Pope. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You never belonged to any front organizations?
    Mr. Pope. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. We appreciate your coming here today, and we 
wont need you anymore. If we do, we will let you know.
    Thank you very much.

                  STATEMENT OF RALPH IANNARONE

    Mr. Schine. State your name for the record, please?
    Mr. Iannarone. I-a-n-n-a-r-o-n-e.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Iannarone. At the Field Engineering Branch, Signal 
Corps Engineering Laboratory, Watson Area, Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know someone named Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, I do not. There use to be a girl working 
there, Eleanor Glassman.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Eleanor's sister?
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Mr. Cohn. But you knew Eleanor?
    Mr. Iannarone. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When did she work with you?
    Mr. Iannarone. Approximately 1941 and 1942, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you know she was a Communist?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. How did she get that job with you?
    Mr. Iannarone. As I remember, she was one of a group of 
girls that were hired back at the beginning of the war as 
professional assistants, JPAs. She was one of a half a dozen 
girls that came to the section out of tens of hundreds that 
might have been employed at that time.
    Mr. Schine. Were you friendly with this lady?
    Mr. Iannarone. Only as a business associate, not outside 
the laboratory. She was one of several girls that worked either 
for me or in the section at that time.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever have an argument or fight with 
her?
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any reason why she would want 
to hurt you?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, I can't.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any reason why she would want 
to get you into trouble? We have testimony from her concerning 
you and when the chairman of the committee asked whether or not 
you were a member of the Communist party to her knowledge, she 
refused to answer that question on the grounds that if she 
answered it truthfully, she might tend to incriminate herself.
    Can you tell us anything about her, her associates, her 
activities?
    Try and think back and give us all the information you can, 
if you will please.
    Mr. Iannarone. No, I have difficulty even remembering the 
girl. I have a vague recollection of what she looked like, 
except I couldn't picture her face at all. I remember she was 
just there for a short time. The little bit of recollection I 
have of her, she was a very pleasant person. I can't remember 
anything about the work, whether she was among the best or 
poorest of people we had. I remember she resigned in perhaps 
1942; then she used my name as a reference going to school. I 
got two letters, one from the Columbia School of Social Science 
and another from Smith College, and there was a form letter 
saying she had used my name as a reference and would I please 
reply by answering certain questions.
    I replied to both letters saying I knew her during her 
employment in the laboratory; that she was in my section; and 
as far as I knew--the usual words. Nothing against her or I 
wasn't trying to build her up particularly. My acquaintance was 
fairly short, perhaps six months or a year. I have copies of 
those letters, routine type of thing.
    Mr. Schine. What year was this?
    Mr. Iannarone. I would guess 1942. Perhaps late 1941.
    Mr. Schine. Could you tell us about your association?
    Mr. Iannarone. I have never met her outside the office. I 
never had anything to do with her outside the office.
    Mr. Schine. What department were you in at the time?
    Mr. Iannarone. Well, I was in the P. L. and M. Section, 
Parts Lists and Maintenance Parts Section.
    Mr. Schine. Did you handle classified work in your office?
    Mr. Iannarone. Probably so, although in parts work there is 
very little classified work.
    Mr. Schine. She would have access to any classified work 
you did handle?
    Mr. Iannarone. Probably so. I think everybody that came in 
had clearance and she could have handled it.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know at any time after that that she 
was tied up with the Communist party?
    Mr. Iannarone. I never heard her name mentioned again until 
last week in the paper I saw Vivian Glassman. I looked it up in 
the file not remembering whether it was Vivian or Eleanor. That 
is the first time I had heard the name. In discussions I 
learned that Eleanor might have been Vivian's sister.
    Mr. Schine. Did Julius Rosenberg ever have occasion to 
visit your office?
    Mr. Iannarone. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Schine. Did she ever talk about her friends or anything 
to you?
    Mr. Iannarone. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Carr. What information can you give for her taking the 
Fifth Amendment as to whether or not you were a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Iannarone. I can't possibly conceive of why she would 
do it.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever sympathetic?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of any organization which 
has been designated as a Communist front?
    Mr. Iannarone. Never, not to my knowledge. I am not a 
joiner. I belong to three organizations, Knights of Columbus, 
Holy Name Society--I went into the service in October 1942 and 
I think this association must have been before. I was out of 
the laboratory about three months and came back in a different 
section. Although I am just guessing now, it might have been 
after I was in the service. The contact was no more than 
supervisor over fifteen or thirty girls.
    Mr. Carr. There were thirty people in the section and she 
was one of the thirty people. She used your name as a reference 
on two occasions after her leaving.
    Mr. Iannarone. Immediately after leaving she used my name 
on two occasions, both at the same time, evidently she applied 
for college graduate work. I haven't seen her since.
    Mr. Carr. Maybe you can give us some help on one further 
point here, that is regarding the name of individuals you have 
known who were tied up with the subversive movement.
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Would you repeat the question? The only other name I can 
think of was another fellow who was fired named Joel Barr.
    Mr. Carr. Would you tell us about that?
    Mr. Iannarone. He was, I believe, in the same section about 
the same time, and I remember he was suspended one day, much to 
everyone's surprise. This is the only other person, besides 
this girl if you say she was mixed up with Communists, that I 
know about.
    Mr. Carr. Could you tell us any more about this incident 
with Joel Barr?
    Mr. Iannarone. No, nothing except it came as a complete 
surprise to everyone at the time.
    Mr. Carr. You can't tell us anything more?
    Mr. Iannarone. I can tell you a little more. He was one of 
those people that everybody in the section liked. He was a 
likable fellow. It was the first incident which ever came to my 
knowledge and most everybody else's of somebody being picked 
out of the place and suspended. Everybody's sympathy went to 
the fellow. We couldn't understand on what basis the man was 
suspended. At that time half a dozen or perhaps a dozen 
petitions were circulating around the place. I signed a 
petition to the commanding officer of the laboratory to please 
very carefully consider whether he had done the right thing, to 
review the situation. My name wound up on one of the petitions. 
I signed one of them. I am sorry I ever did. It has been 
bothering me ever since. Evidently that was the only petition 
that ever got in. The rest of them got torn up or something. 
Some of the people got hold of them and got their names off.
    Mr. Carr. This petition was originated by whom?
    Mr. Iannarone. I don't remember.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know who the main circulator of the 
petition was?
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Mr. Carr. You don't know who wrote it or what----
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Mr. Carr. What happened to Joel Barr?
    Mr. Iannarone. I never heard of him until the other day 
someone said Joel Barr's name was in the papers and he is 
possibly behind the iron curtain.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know why he was suspended?
    Mr. Iannarone. I have no idea.
    Mr. Carr. He was a close friend of Glassman's, was he not?
    Mr. Iannarone. I didn't know that.
    Mr. Carr. Just one more question. Before, we had a girl who 
refused to answer whether or not she knew you were a member of 
the Communist party. This girl was one of thirty employees of 
yours. It could be that she was frightened, afraid, scared, 
maybe not answering any questions, but now we have a girl who 
was closely associated with the Rosenberg spy trial, closely 
associated with Joel Barr; we have your statement that you 
signed a petition for Joel Barr's behalf; we have a girl 
refusing to say whether or not you are a member of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Iannarone. I was one of perhaps one hundred people who 
signed the petition.
    Mr. Carr. But you were the one she refused to say whether 
or not you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Iannarone. I can't explain why she would do that. As I 
said, I only knew her when she worked there as an employee. I 
had no relationship socially or other than right in the office.
    Mr. Carr. It is your statement now that you have never been 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Iannarone. I have never been a member of the Communist 
party or any party looked upon as subversive or even close to 
subversive. I am categorically not a Communist.
    Mr. Carr. Do you remember other individuals who signed this 
petition?
    Mr. Iannarone. Yes, I do. I have a copy of the petition.
    Mr. Carr. Oh, fine. That will help us quite a bit.
    Mr. Iannarone. I am sorry I put my name on it. Most of the 
petitions were torn up at the time. People learned somewhere or 
other that this was a Communist thing. I didn't know it at the 
time I signed it.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Robert Ullmann?
    Mr. Iannarone. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. He has a brother----
    Mr. Iannarone. I didn't know he had a brother.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know he was any relation to Marcel 
Ullmann? Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Iannarone. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you originate this petition?
    Mr. Iannarone. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. I asked that because your name is the first one.
    Mr. Iannarone. Unfortunately my name got on the top of one. 
There were about ten around at the time.
    Mr. Carr. Weren't you a friend of Barr's?
    Mr. Iannarone. Not any more so than Eleanor Glassman's.
    Mr. Carr. How was it you were so happy to go to bat for 
him?
    Mr. Iannarone. It came as a complete surprise. The fellow 
was a likeable fellow. He had been with us a year and got along 
well with people. It was a complete shock to everyone and their 
sympathy went with the fellow.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know where he is now?
    Mr. Iannarone. I heard the other day he is behind the Iron 
Curtain.
    Mr. Schine. May we have this copy. We have no further 
questions. If we need you again we will ask you to come back.
    Mr. Cohn. You can't tell us who hired this Eleanor 
Glassman?
    Mr. Iannarone. The personnel department does all the 
hiring.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was head of the personnel department at that 
time?
    Mr. Iannarone. I don't remember at that time.
    Mr. Schine. Have you some other papers with you?
    Mr. Iannarone. That is the only thing. I didn't know at the 
time whether I was a friendly or unfriendly witness. You might 
say something to a person what it is all about. I spent a 
couple of miserable nights after being called. I went through 
the files after I remembered that thing. I thought that might 
be the reason and pulled it out of the file.
    Mr. Schine. We appreciate your coming in. We call a lot of 
people in an effort to find out all of the facts.
    Mr. Iannarone. I will help in any way I can.

                 STATEMENT OF SAUL FINKELSTEIN

    Mr. Schine. Would you state your name, please?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Saul Finkelstein.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you working?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I work at Watson, Area A.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Finkelstein. At Watson Area or the general Signal 
Corps?
    Mr Schine. The Signal Corps?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Sixteen years.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Chief of the Radar Metan and General 
Equipment Section of the Field Engineering Branch.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties there?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Briefly stated, our section is in charge 
of the initiation of production guiding, initiation production 
of Signal Corps equipment.
    Mr. Schine. You have access to classified material?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You have been cleared for top secret?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir up to secret.
    Mr. Schine. You have been handling secret material for a 
number of years?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know someone by the name Glassman?
    Mr. Finkelstein. What is the first name?
    Mr. Schine. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about your acquaintance with 
Eleanor Glassman, please?
    Mr. Finkelstein. About 1941 or 1942, I don't remember the 
exact year, the laboratory hired a number of girls and called 
them JPAs, Junior Professional Assistants. Their duties were to 
help in the preparation of specifications.
    Mr. Schine. Now, did you know Eleanor Glassman well?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Just in the work.
    Mr. Schine. Did you have a fight with her?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any reason why she might want 
to harm you?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No.
    Mr. Schine. When she was asked whether or not you were a 
member of the Communist party, she refused to answer on the 
grounds if she did, she might tend to incriminate herself. Can 
you think of any reason she may have done that?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been connected with the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you known any Communists?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know Eleanor Glassman was a Communist?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Schine. You never knew she was?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been tied up with any front 
organizations?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I would say, between 1932 and 1938, I 
belonged to what is now called a front organization. It was a 
fraternal organization in which I took out insurance.
    Mr. Schine. What was the name of the organization?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I don't know the name it was called at 
that time. It has since been called the International Worker's 
Order.
    Mr. Schine. You belonged to that group for six years?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I don't remember the exact time.
    Mr. Schine. Up to about 1938 you attended meetings?
    Mr. Finkelstein. My recollection is one or two meetings to 
pay dues.
    Mr. Schine. At that time you were working for the army?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I don't remember when I left the 
organization, probably either the end of 1937 or 1938. I was 
probably working for the army.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know that was a Communist-dominated 
organization?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know that now? Have you ever known it 
since?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I understand that organization has now 
been declared subversive.
    Mr. Schine. Who got you to join that organization?
    Mr. Finkelstein. My recollection is that it was some 
friends who advised me. I needed some insurance and also 
medical advice.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know his name?
    Mr. Finkelstein. To the best of my recollection, I can't 
say who asked me to join.
    Mr. Schine. What was the name?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Rubinowitz.
    Mr. Schine. Sol Rubinowitz?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, he was a man that came from the same 
town with me. His name was George Rubinowitz.
    Mr. Schine. Was he working for the Signal Corps.? Where was 
he working?
    Mr. Finkelstein. He either had a grocery or something.
    Mr. Schine. Would you spell his name?
    Mr. Finkelstein. To the best of my recollection, R-u-b-i-n-
o-w-i-t-z.
    Mr. Schine. Was he an active member of this organization?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I don't know whether he was a member.
    Mr. Schine. He advised you to join----
    Mr. Finkelstein. He advised me--we were discussing my 
financial situation. I needed medical advice and he said, ``Why 
don't you join this organization.''
    Mr. Schine. Any other organizations listed as subversive by 
the attorney general?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Can you give us any information on Eleanor 
Glassman's associates, people she mingled with socially?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Frankly, I don't know. All the girls were 
friendly with each other.
    Mr. Schine. Did they go out socially with some of the men 
working in the office?
    Mr. Finkelstein. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Schine. You wouldn't know?
    Mr. Finkelstein. No.
    Mr. Schine. Was she particularly friendly with any of the 
girls working in the office?
    Mr. Finkelstein. I frankly can't remember whether she was 
or not. They were all together, came from one school. They were 
all friendly together. I couldn't tell.
    Mr. Schine. I have no more questions. Thank you very much. 
We will call you if we need you.

                  STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM LEPATO

    Mr. Carr. Would you give us your name, please?
    Mr. Lepato. Abraham Lepato.
    Mr. Carr. Any middle initial?
    Mr. Lepato. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. What is your address?
    Mr. Lepato. 1317 Evergreen Avenue, Wanamassa, New Jersey, 
Allenhurst 31237R.
    Mr. Carr. Are you employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Lepato. Evans.
    Mr. Carr. In what capacity?
    Mr. Lepato. Technician.
    Mr. Carr. What particular branch?
    Mr. Lepato. Thermionics.
    Mr. Carr. Who is your supervisor?
    Mr. Lepato. Right now Harry Owens is section chief.
    Mr. Carr. Are you cleared for secret work?
    Mr. Lepato. No, sir. I haven't been for two years.
    Mr. Carr. Can you explain your relationship with Louie 
Kaplan?
    Mr. Lepato. There are two. Which one do you mean?
    Mr. Carr. Louie Kaplan, who left the Signal Corps, I think, 
in 1947.
    Mr. Lepato. Yes, sir. I believe he lived right next door. 
He moved into 27 Washington Village in 1943. I moved in in 1943 
and they moved in right after. I don't remember when; a few 
months later. I moved from Washington Village in December of 
1949. From 1943 to 1949 we were neighbors at Washington 
Village.
    Mr. Carr. What is his wife's name?
    Mr. Lepato. Ruth.
    Mr. Carr. And your wife's name is Sadie?
    Mr. Lepato. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. During the period that you were neighbors, how 
close were you?
    Mr. Lepato. Well, as close as neighbors. We visited back 
and forth and talked across the fence. We did go into their 
house. They came into our house. Living together for five years 
you get to know a person next door.
    Mr. Lepato. Could I say something?
    Mr. Carr. Yes
    Mr. Lepato. I volunteered testimony to the FBI for two and 
a half hours concerning this.
    Mr. Carr. Could you tell us a little something about 
Kaplan. When did you first discover he had Communist 
affiliations?
    Mr. Lepato. Well, I can't remember dates. They are very 
vague. I know his wife was always sending envelopes to the 
Soviet Friendship Committee or something during the war and 
doing Russian war relief. She was always a person to push 
herself ahead in anything that happened. They use to have 
meetings in her house continuously, night after night and she 
was always going all over.
    Mr. Carr. Did you and your wife attend any of these 
meetings?
    Mr. Lepato. I will tell you exactly what I did attend with 
him. After he moved in he asked me to attend a union meeting 
with him. He had no car. I drove him to the union meeting on 
Springwood Avenue, Ashley Place, Murry Cardinals Athletic Club. 
I never went again. That is the only time I went to the union 
meeting. I didn't join the union.
    Mr. Carr. What union?
    Mr. Lepato. To tell you the truth, I don't remember.
    Mr. Carr. Could it have been the Federal Workers--United 
Federal Workers?
    Mr. Lepato. I think so. I went there with him.
    Mr. Carr. That is the only meeting you went to with him?
    Mr. Lepato. In 1948, presidential elections, we use to have 
a community hall in Washington Village and whoever wanted to 
could get it if they asked for it. They had a meeting of the 
Progressive party. My wife and I--we lived right across from 
it--went to see what it was all about. Seeing that Ruth and Lou 
Kaplan were involved, both of us refused to join. We left the 
meeting.
    Mr. Carr. Did you discontinue your association with them 
once you knew they were Communists?
    Mr. Lepato. I never had any political association with 
them. We were social with them.
    Mr. Carr. Your wife was very friendly with his wife, wasn't 
she?
    Mr. Lepato. Neighbors, not political.
    Mr. Carr. She never attended any of the women's socials of 
the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship?
    Mr. Lepato. Never belonged; never attended.
    Mr. Carr. She didn't help out with the Russian war relief?
    Mr. Lepato. I don't believe she did.
    Mr. Carr. When you say you did give this information to the 
FBI, did you mean you were giving it to the FBI during the 
period you lived there?
    Mr. Lepato. No, they never came to me. In December they 
called me down. The FBI security officer asked me about 
Coleman, Ducore, Yamins, and that is all he wanted to know. I 
asked did he have any time to spend with me; if he would please 
sit down and listen to what I had to say. He listened to me and 
I spoke to him for over two hours, I think. He asked me 
questions and I told him everything I knew what I told him was 
a small part of what had happened over five years. I invited 
him to my house to see my wife since she knew them well also 
and she could give them more information and he said they would 
come but they never did.
    Mr. Carr. You say you didn't join this Progressive party in 
1948?
    Mr. Lepato. No, sir. I never did. They had a meeting. I 
think Wallace spoke at Gimbel's place. They asked me to go 
along.
    I refused to go along. I knew he didn't have a chance and I 
wanted to vote for somebody else.
    Mr. Carr. Since the Kaplans moved from their residence next 
door to you, have you had contact with them?
    Mr. Lepato. Well, I walked into Sears and Roebuck a year 
ago and saw Ruth Kaplan and walked out. I walked into 
Steinbeck's and saw her and turned around and went to the floor 
below. I dread them like the worst disease, like cholera.
    Mr. Carr. The situation appears that you were very friendly 
at one time.
    Mr. Lepato. As neighbors, nothing but neighbors.
    Mr. Carr. The part I don't quite understand, when did you 
start avoiding them?
    Mr. Lepato. A few years before we moved.
    Mr. Carr. Was that after you found out they were 
Communists?
    Mr. Lepato. Well, let me say this. Louis Kaplan worked for 
the government up until 1947. From what I understand now, he 
wasn't suspended or anything. He was allowed to resign. They 
gave him a party when he left. He got a briefcase or something 
as a gift when he left. Also, I understand he got a civilian 
meritorious award while he worked for the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Which government?
    Mr. Lepato. The Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he the only Communist you know?
    Mr. Lepato. I believe so. I know his brother-in-law. I know 
his sister-in-law, Sokel.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Lepato. I figured he married into that family and he 
knew what he was doing.
    They asked me about a fellow, Bennet Davis. I didn't 
remember the name. I knew a fellow, Ben Davis, who was a friend 
of Kaplan. I understood he was the same way.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else did you see around Kaplan's place?
    Mr. Lepato. I did meet her sister, I think it was.
    Mr. Cohn. What was her name?
    Mr. Lepato. I don't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. How about people from Fort Monmouth or Watson?
    Mr. Lepato. The only one I had pointed out to me worked at 
Evans was Ullmann.
    Mr. Cohn. Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Lepato. Yes. They were pretty friendly. I saw him there 
a few times.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Ullmann?
    Mr. Lepato. Not on the outside. I may have spoken to him in 
the place.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Lepato. Not until I saw he knew the Kaplans.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Lepato, your association with Kaplan did not 
continue after he moved away?
    Mr. Lepato. I moved away before him.
    Mr. Carr. You never called him?
    Mr. Lepato. I never saw him since. I was never in his new 
home after he moved away.
    Mr. Carr. You never visited with Ullmann?
    Mr. Lepato. No, sir. I never knew where he lived and never 
visited him.
    Mr. Carr. How about Ben Davis, the friend of Kaplan's?
    Mr. Lepato. I never visited his house.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Lepato. I don't believe he worked for the government, 
no. I walked into a radio store in Ashbury Park and I saw him 
in there and I turned around and walked away. Honestly I did.
    Mr. Carr. That is all, I guess. Thank you,

                 STATEMENT OF IRVING ROSENHEIM

    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name.
    Mr. Rosenheim. Irving L. Rosenheim.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Armed Service Electrical Standards Agency.
    Mr. Cohn. At Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Rosenheim. At Monmouth, off the reservation.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you worked for the Armed Services 
Electrical Standards Agency?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Since February 16, 1943. It has had various 
names but it is basically the standards agency.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it have any connection with the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Rosenheim. At present, no. It started as the original 
Signal Corps Standards Agency handling that type of work. It 
became the Army Electrical Standards Agency; then it became the 
Army-Navy Electrical Standards Agency and then the Armed 
Services. It seemed an independent agency sponsored by the 
three departments.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what are the three departments?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Army, navy and air force.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do some work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Rosenheim. We don't work directly for them, sponsored 
by them.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do work on classified material?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I was before I was declassified and 
suspended authorized to handle it but never used----
    Mr. Cohn. When were you suspended?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Tuesday. Just last week, Tuesday.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you get a letter of charges?
    Mr. Rosenheim. No, I did not. They said it would be mailed 
to me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not been given any information as to the 
exact nature of the charges on which you were suspended?
    Mr. Rosenheim. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a registered member of the American 
Labor party?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Quite a few years back. I got out when the 
left-wing took over. I guess that was about six years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. That was the United Federal Workers of America?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you were a member until six or seven 
years ago?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Louie Kaplan?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that he is a Communist?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I was told that by the executive officer 
about six months after he quit.
    Mr. Cohn. You had no reason to suspect it before?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes, when he got declassified I got 
suspicious.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I knew him at work, and, I believe, in 
Brooklyn. He lived out there.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ride back and forth to work when he lived 
out there?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I may have met him on the train 
occasionally. I don't recall definitely yes or definitely no. 
We did work together. That was basically the full contact.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever say anything during your work which 
led you to believe he was a Communist or Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Rosenheim. The only thing he said something about you 
can't blame me for what my wife does. He quit in a hurry after 
he was declassified. I figured that his wife was doing 
something.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Consumer's 
Union?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I don't know when I started. I quit it about 
six or seven years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that was under Communist domination?
    Mr. Rosenheim. No, and I will tell you why I quit. About 
that time, before I quit, the president refused to take the 
loyalty oath. I couldn't see why. He worked for the government 
and I couldn't see why he didn't, so I said, ``To hell with 
it.'' I didn't want to get tied up and quit.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were with the United Federal Workers of 
America, did you participate in a speaking program?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I never attended meetings. All I did was pay 
dues when they asked me.
    Mr. Cohn. You never had anything to do with arranging for 
any speakers?
    Mr. Rosenheim. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you acquainted with any other Communists, 
either at your work or outside?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Any people you believe or had reason to believe 
or grounds to suspect----
    Mr. Rosenheim. I leave the house at five and get home at 
7:00, so you see how much social life I have outside.
    Mr. Cohn. There is nobody in addition to Kaplan you can 
tell us about?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Wait a minute. There was a guy by the name 
of Lavene. He worked at the agency for a few months. I didn't 
know him. He wasn't in my section. He was caught in reduction-
in-force and at an agency staff meeting, he made a crack which 
led me to believe he was one of those guys.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his first name?
    Mr. Rosenheim. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Outside of those, you don't know of anybody.
    Mr. Rosenheim. Let me think if I can be suspicious.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody you had reasonable grounds to believe?
    Mr. Rosenheim. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You testimony is that you left the Consumer's 
Union and the American Labor party and United Federal Workers 
when you discovered the group--had reason to believe they were 
Communist dominated?
    Mr. Rosenheim. Not Communist necessarily, but I didn't like 
the way they were going on. I left the AFL when the left-wing 
took over. They had a big fight and that is when I quit.
    [Doris Seifert returned and stated that she desired to add 
to her testimony, in response to a previous question asked her, 
that she knew a man by the name of, ``Galler'' through Lou 
Kaplan.]

                STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES, JR.

    Mr. Carr. Your name is Richard Jones?
    Mr. Jones. Jones, Jr.
    Mr. Carr. What is your address?
    Mr. Jones. 949 Woodgate Avenue, Elberon.
    Mr. Carr. What is your telephone number?
    Mr. Jones. Long Branch 6573W.
    Mr. Carr. Are you presently employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. You have security clearance?
    Mr. Jones. I think so. I am sure----
    Mr. Carr. What is your position now?
    Mr. Jones. More or less the bookkeeper, Department of 
Finance.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know a man named George W. Good?
    Mr. Jones. No, I don't.
    Mr. Carr. You are sure you don't know a man named George 
Good of Wanarnassa, New Jersey?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. Your address is 949 Woodgate, Elberon?
    Mr. Jones. Right.
    Mr. Carr. What kind of automobile do you have?
    Mr. Jones. 1952 Ford.
    Mr. Carr. How long have you had that?
    Mr. Jones. About two weeks, I guess.
    Mr. Carr. What is the license plates on the car?
    Mr. Jones. I think it is 296, I am not sure.
    Mr. Carr. What number do you think it is?
    Mr. Jones. 296, I think.
    Mr. Carr. MS296?
    Mr. Jones. MS, I know.
    Mr. Carr. Are you married?
    Mr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. What does your car look like?
    Mr. Jones. Blue. I guess it is called--blue anyway.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you this. Were you working in July of 
1953 or were you on leave?
    Mr. Jones. This past summer, I took my vacation in August.
    Mr. Carr. Then you probably were working?
    Mr. Jones. Probably. I took every Thursday and Friday in 
August. That is how I took my vacation.
    Mr. Carr. What are your regular working hours?
    Mr. Jones. Well, regular hours are from eight to a quarter 
of five. We had them changed a while in August from 7:30 to a 
quarter after four and a half hour lunch.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall on August 8, 1953, driving your 
car, at approximately five o'clock in the evening, and stopping 
where you met another car; you met a young woman; getting out 
and exchanging packages?
    Mr. Jones. It could be my wife. She had the use of my 
father-in-law's car. She stays there in the summer.
    Mr. Carr. What is your father-in-law's name?
    Mr. Jones. Graham, but I don't ever remember. She was 
usually down at the beach with the kids, I mean.
    Mr. Carr. Is your wife a blond?
    Mr. Jones. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. On July 8th of this past summer, you, or someone 
driving your car--the description fits you--drove your car to 
the intersection of Rosen Avenue and Monmouth Drive in Deal, 
New Jersey. You were met by another car, license number I have, 
who stopped your car, opened the utilities base in the rear of 
the car; the other car stopped; a young woman got out and you 
transferred briefcases.
    Mr. Jones. No, not me.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have a brother who drives your car?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. Does anybody else have access to your car?
    Mr. Jones. No, I always had the car.
    Mr. Carr. Any other driver of your car other than your 
wife?
    Mr. Jones. She is the only one.
    Mr. Carr. You don't loan your car to anyone?
    Mr. Jones. Occasionally.
    Mr. Carr. Your license number is MS296?
    Mr. Jones. MS296 or 293. 296 I am pretty sure.
    Mr. Carr. In July did you have a white Ford, 1950 Ford.
    Mr. Jones. Light grey.
    Mr. Carr. What was the make of it?
    Mr. Jones. Ford, 1950, two door.
    Mr. Carr. Did it look like a Ford or was it whittled down 
or supped up or anything?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. This is your car all right. You have no 
explanation for it. You say it couldn't possibly have been you?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else could it have been?
    Mr. Jones. That I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom have you loaned your car?
    Mr. Jones. No one. That is it.
    Mr. Cohn. On July 8, 1953, apparently just at the time you 
finished work--did you drive your car to work?
    Mr. Jones. Sure, every day.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever lend it to a fellow employee?
    Mr. Jones. [The witness shook his head negatively.]
    Mr. Carr. Does your car have a Fort Monmouth identification 
tag?
    Mr. Jones. Certainly.
    Mr. Carr. You don't know a man by the name of George Good?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. You have never heard of him?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. What was your old car before you got the new one? 
Was that a 1950 Ford?
    Mr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. A white one?
    Mr. Jones. Yes. The only one I ever picked up with a 
briefcase was my father-in-law from the train and that is at 
the station at Allenhurst.
    Mr. Carr. This is not picking up. This is just transferring 
from one car to another.
    Mr. Jones. I don't know.
    Mr. Carr. There was a young man driving the other car and a 
young woman got out and made the transfer.
    Mr. Jones. It doesn't even ring a bell.
    Mr. Carr. Okay, we will have to let it go for now. We will 
talk to you again. We will let you know when to come back.
    Thank you.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--None of the witnesses at this staff 
interrogatory, Edward Brody, Max Katz, Henry Jasik, Capt. 
Benjamin Sheehan, Russell Gaylord Ranney (1911-1987), Susan 
Moon, Peter Rosmovsky, and Sarah Omanson, testified at a public 
hearing.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 11:00 a.m., in room 
36, Federal Building, New York, Mr. G. David Schine presiding.
    Present also: G. David Schine, chief consultant; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Francis Carr, staff director; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; James Juliana, investigator.
    Present also: Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton, commandant, Fort 
Monmouth; Lt. Richardson McKinney.

 STATEMENT OF EDWARD BRODY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, IRA J. 
                            KATCHEN)

    Mr. Schine. Would you give your name for the record?
    Mr. Brody. Edward Brody.
    Mr. Schine. And will counsel give his name?
    Mr. Katchen. Ira J. Katchen, 156 Broadway, Long Branch, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you currently employed, Mr. Brody?
    Mr. Brody. At present I am unemployed.
    Mr. Schine. Were you employed by the government?
    Mr. Brody. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. State the circumstances of your employment.
    Mr. Brody. I worked at Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. What year to what year?
    Mr. Brody. May 1951 to October 1953.
    Mr. Schine. What was the reason for your departure?
    Mr. Brody. I haven't been informed yet.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Brody. Belmont, New Jersey most of the time.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the exact address?
    Mr. Brody. I have had quite a few. The last one is 603 10th 
Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live on Eaton Terrace?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know another man by the name of 
Brody who worked at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Brody. There may be. I don't recall. I never met him.
    Mr. Schine. During your work at Fort Monmouth what were 
your duties?
    Mr. Brody. Physicist.
    Mr. Schine. And you were cleared for classified work?
    Mr. Brody. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. You had access to classified work?
    Mr. Brody. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. What were you exact duties?
    Mr. Brody. In the last two years, research group, south 
state physics. That work there was not classified.
    Mr. Schine. And you say you have not been informed of the 
circumstances of your suspension?
    Mr. Brody. That is correct.
    Mr. Schine. Were you suspended or dismissed?
    Mr. Brody. Suspended.
    Mr. Schine. Are you still on the payroll?
    Mr. Brody. I am on leave without pay, I believe.
    Mr. Schine. Have you been able to think of any reason why 
Fort Monmouth would suspend you?
    Mr. Brody. Possibly.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about the reason?
    Mr. Brody. At school I belonged to the American Veterans 
Committee. I registered ALP on occasions.
    Mr. Cohn. What years?
    Mr. Brody. 1947 and 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that ALP was under Communist 
domination at that time?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't know that?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you read the newspapers?
    Mr. Brody. I read a few.
    Mr. Cohn. Haven't you read the fact that ALP was very 
plainly under Communist domination at that time?
    Mr. Brody. Some of the papers claimed that. Others didn't.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Brody, what are the other reasons you 
thought were the causes for your suspension from Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Brody. I believe they made some mention of my brother's 
activities. They didn't like the fact he registered ALP.
    Mr. Schine. Is your brother ``Seymour''?
    Mr. Brody. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Where does he live?
    Mr. Brody. Manhattan.
    Mr. Schine. What is the address?
    Mr. Brody. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. What does he do?
    Mr. Brody. He works as a waiter here in the city.
    Mr. Schine. Has he ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell the other reasons that you have 
in mind that were cause for your dismissal?
    Mr. Brody. That is all.
    Mr. Schine. Have you belonged to some organizations which 
you feel were subversive?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. You feel you never belonged to organizations 
which were subversive. Will you tell us what organizations you 
belonged to?
    Mr. Brody. I belonged to the American Veterans Committee at 
Brooklyn College, the school chapter. It started out as an 
independent veterans group and, I think, after it had been 
organized approximately a year and a half or two, it was 
affiliated with the American Veterans Committee.
    Mr. Schine. What other organization?
    Mr. Brody. That is the only organization I was a member of 
except the Physics Society in school and that was non-
political.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never belonged to any other front 
organizations?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live in Brooklyn?
    Mr. Brody. That is where I lived most of my life.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever belong to the Neptune Branch of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. Has your wife been connected with some----
    Mr. Brody. I am not married.
    Mr. Schine. You say you know of no other Brody employed at 
Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Brody. I have heard of another Brody. This was in 
connection with some equipment and they thought I was somebody 
else. I don't know where he works or what he does. I have never 
met him.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard that that Brody is a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Brody. I don't know anything about him.
    Mr. Schine. Any relatives of yours working for the 
government?
    Mr. Brody. Not my immediate family.
    Mr. Schine. Any cousins, aunts----
    Mr. Brody. My kid brother is in the air force.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live at 17 Eaton Place?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were never married? Correct?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you get your college training?
    Mr. Brody. Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Schine. Have you known any members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. You have never been acquainted with any of 
them, talked with any of them?
    Mr. Brody. Not to my knowledge--that they were members of 
the party.
    Mr. Schine. Is there any information that you would care to 
give the committee that you feel would be of value to us?
    Mr. Brody. In my family there are four males. All four 
served the government in service, three of us in the last war, 
approximately nine years of service, five overseas. My younger 
brother is still in the air force, just got back from Korea. He 
was there approximately a year. My older brother was with the 
marines three and a half years, two and a half in the Pacific.
    Mr. Cohn. Which brother registered in the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Brody. Seymour.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last year of his registration?
    Mr. Brody. Approximately the same time as mine.
    Mr. Cohn. It is inconceivable to me that you didn't know 
the ALP was under Communist domination. If you remember in 1943 
it broke up and the liberal party broke away, formed an anti-
Communist segment. From then on it has been a Communist outfit 
and officially listed as such, very widely publicized.
    Where did you see any statement that the ALP was not under 
Communist domination?
    Mr. Brody. I am not a member of the Communist party so I 
will have to presume. Some of the papers violently stated that 
it was and others didn't make mention of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it disturb you when it was alleged that it 
was?
    Mr. Brody. I thought about it but not to the point I got 
excited.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing in 1950?
    Mr. Brody. I graduated from school at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you start working for the government?
    Mr. Brody. I started in 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not register in ALP in 1951?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it did not disturb you enough to do 
anything about it in 1950 when you heard it was under Communist 
domination?
    Mr. Brody. I thought it might have been but I wasn't 
convinced at the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to your suspension from Fort Monmouth you 
were questioned, weren't you?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were never questioned?
    Mr. Brody. No, I received an interrogatory--written.
    Mr. Cohn. You filled that out and it was after that they 
suspended you?
    Mr. Brody. No, that was in May approximately I sent back 
the interrogatory.
    Mr. Schine. You have never been questioned or asked to 
appear at a hearing or anything of that sort?
    Mr. Brody. No.
    Mr. Schine. What have you been doing since you left Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Brody. It has only been two weeks. I haven't been doing 
anything.
    Mr. Schine. Thank you very much for coming. If we need you 
again we will get in touch with you.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he give you his address where he can be 
reached now?
    Mr. Brody. 2363 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York.

                     STATEMENT OF MAX KATZ

    Mr. Schine. Will you give us your name for the record?
    Mr. Katz. My name is Max Katz.
    Mr. Schine. Are you connected with Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Katz. I work there.
    Mr. Schine. What is your job at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Katz. I am a chemist.
    Mr. Schine. And your duties as such?
    Mr. Katz. I work in the field of surface chemistry measure 
of powdered material.
    Mr. Schine. You are cleared for classified work?
    Mr. Katz. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. And you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Katz. I very rarely see classified information although 
I am cleared.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Katz. City College.
    Mr. Schine. When you were at City College did you know 
Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Katz. No. The only time I knew he went to City College 
was when I read it in the newspapers recently.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. When did you leave City College?
    Mr. Katz. 1941.
    Mr. Schine. You have belonged to a number of organizations 
in the past years. Would you give us the names of those 
organizations? We'd like to know the names of the organizations 
and when you joined them?
    Mr. Katz. Well, the only organization I can recall is the 
American Veterans' Committee. I don't remember the date but 
probably 1946 or 1947.
    Mr. Schine. What were the circumstances under which you 
joined the American Veterans Committee?
    Mr. Katz. Well, I don't recall exactly except I had heard 
that there was such an organization. I went down to some of the 
meetings.
    Mr. Schine. You were a member of some other organizations, 
weren't you?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never belonged to any other organizations?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never belonged to an organization listed as 
a front organization by the attorney general?
    Mr. Katz. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Or any front organization?
    Mr. Katz. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know the American Veterans Committee 
was Communist dominated?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Which chapter did you belong to?
    Mr. Katz. Monmouth County chapter.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the time Barry Bernstein was the 
chairman?
    Mr. Katz. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't the Communists get control of that chapter 
and wasn't it dissolved?
    Mr. Katz. Not to my knowledge. It folded up.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present when a vote was taken up as to 
whether or not Communists should be barred?
    Mr. Katz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you vote?
    Mr. Katz. I voted not to bar them.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't that a pretty straight vote along 
Communist lines?
    Mr. Katz. No, I don't think that. I felt that it was better 
to stand up and be counted rather than to have them dig under 
without being aware of them.
    That was the reason for my vote. There were about two 
people out of a total membership of better than two hundred who 
admitted to being Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Was one of them Bennett Davis?
    Mr. Katz. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Albert Saltz?
    Mr. Katz. The name sounds familiar.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Bernstein?
    Mr. Katz. Casually. I have met him in the laboratories 
occasionally.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any discussions with him about 
politics?
    Mr. Katz. Not about politics. We happen to belong to a book 
club, the Great Books Club.
    Mr. Cohn. That is another organization. Where did that 
meet?
    Mr. Katz. I think that was in the Long Branch YMCA.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, during those discussions did you discuss 
such documents as the Communist Manifesto?
    Mr. Katz. No, we never discussed that.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, it was discussed there. Maybe you weren't 
present at the meeting.
    Mr. Katz. I don't recall it.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Civil Disobedience?
    Mr. Katz. I don't recall any such.
    Mr. Cohn. From your observation of Bernstein tell us 
whether or not you think he is a Communist?
    Mr. Katz. To my knowledge he is not a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear him say anything which would 
indicate that he was against Communism?
    Mr. Katz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Katz. I can't recall any specific comment but my 
impression is he is a liberal Democrat. I don't know, but I 
imagine he probably liked the ADA, groups of that kind.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know whether or not he believed in 
our form of government?
    Mr. Katz. I would believe that he did.
    Mr. Cohn. You believe but you don't have any way of 
knowing. Have you ever seen a pamphlet entitled ``Brass Hat and 
the Atom''?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you called as a witness in the Bernstein 
loyalty board proceeding?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ask you for an affidavit?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work in the same section as Bernstein?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know William Saltzman?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. William Johnston Jones?
    Mr. Katz. Jones I believe was a member of the American 
Veterans Committee.
    Mr. Cohn. How did he vote on the issue of barring 
Communists?
    Mr. Katz. I don't recall.
    Mr. Schine. You stated that only two of the two hundred 
members were known to be Communist and you can't remember their 
names?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. Could you find out their names?
    Mr. Katz. I have had no connection with the group or with 
anyone in the group in years.
    Mr. Schine. When were you in the group?
    Mr. Katz. 1946.
    Mr. Schine. Nobody you knew in 1946 might be familiar with 
these names?
    Mr. Katz. Well, I suppose Bernstein would know them.
    Mr. Schine. What were the names of the other individuals 
who belonged to the Great Books Club?
    Mr. Katz. I don't remember--Mrs. Banister who was a nurse. 
I don't remember too many. I don't remember the names of the 
members. It has been quite a while ago.
    Mr. Schine. You went to a number of these meetings, didn't 
you? Is there any way you could find out?
    Mr. Katz. I remember another name. There was Maurice 
Distell.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Katz. Maurice Distell. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Was he employed by the government?
    Mr. Katz. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. What job?
    Mr. Katz. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. You don't know in what capacity?
    Mr. Katz. I believe he is at Camp Evans with the Applied 
Physics Branch.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know him well?
    Mr. Katz. Casually.
    Mr. Schine. Are you still a member of the Great Books Club?
    Mr. Katz. I don't think it is still functioning. I don't 
think it has been functioning for years.
    Mr. Schine. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Katz. I don't know any members of the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know a Communist?
    Mr. Katz. Other than the two people in the American 
Veterans Committee. I didn't know them. I know we had two 
members who admitted they were. Maybe more, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of these individuals express sympathy for 
the Communist form of government?
    Mr. Katz. The individuals mentioned? No.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you think of any names of Communist at all?
    Mr. Katz. I don't think I know any Communists.
    Mr. Schine. Do any other members of your family work for 
the government?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. Have they worked for the government?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. Has any member of your family belonged to any 
subversive organizations?
    Mr. Katz. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You still have access to classified material?
    Mr. Katz. Yes. In other words, as I said, my duties have 
rarely involved contact with classified material.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Barry Bernstein a close friend of yours?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last talk to him?
    Mr. Katz. It happens by coincidence that I saw him a few 
days ago. I was up there in connection with some work and I ran 
into him quite by accident.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of your conversation?
    Mr. Katz. Very general. I don't recall that we discussed--
--
    Mr. Cohn. What did he say he is doing now?
    Mr. Katz. He didn't say anything about what he is doing. We 
didn't discuss his work.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he talk about these hearings?
    Mr. Katz. No.
    Mr. Schine. What do you think of the American Legion?
    Mr. Katz. I don't think much of the American Legion. From a 
political standpoint it is possibly a little right of the way I 
would think. I think it is a little bit on the conservative 
side.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been out of this country?
    Mr. Katz. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You have never traveled away from the United 
States?
    Mr. Katz. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. What do you think of the Literary Digest?
    Mr. Katz. I am not familiar with the Literary Digest.
    Mr. Schine. Thank you very much, Mr. Katz. If we need you 
we will get in touch with you. We appreciate your coming down.

                    STATEMENT OF HENRY JASIK

    Mr. Schine. Would you give your name for the record?
    Mr. Jasik. Henry Jasik.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you currently employed?
    Mr. Jasik. I am self-employed, private consultant.
    Mr. Schine. What do you do as a consultant?
    Mr. Jasik. Study work, development work in the electronics 
field.
    Mr. Schine. Have you had any connection with the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, sir. I have worked for it and I have been a 
member of the navy. I worked for the Civil Aeronautics 
Administration and spent a year with the Bureau of Ordnance.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever with the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever done any consultant work for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. Indirectly as a subcontractor.
    Mr. Schine. What is the name of your firm?
    Mr. Jasik. Henry Jasik Consulting Engineer.
    Mr. Schine. What is your wife's name?
    Mr. Jasik. Esther A. Her maiden name was Gershon.
    Mr. Schine. Is she a sister of Simon Gershon?
    Mr. Jasik. I believe his name is spelled without the ``H.''
    Mr. Schine. She is a sister?
    Mr. Jasik. That is correct.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been married?
    Mr. Jasik. Since 1941. Over twelve years.
    Mr. Schine. When was the last time you saw your brother-in-
law?
    Mr. Jasik. Sometime back in 1950 at a family reception. 
That is my wife's family.
    Mr. Schine. Are any other of your in-laws members of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. I have no knowledge of such. Now, they may very 
well be. I know definitely Sy is, having read about it in the 
newspapers.
    Mr. Schine. Is your wife in contact with him more than you 
are?
    Mr. Jasik. She possibly visits there once every six months 
or so, very infrequent intervals. She takes the children there 
to visit with their children. The last time she went there he 
wasn't around.
    Mr. Schine. Did she ever discuss his Communist party 
activities with you?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, obviously I can read the papers.
    Mr. Schine. Would you like to tell us whatever you can that 
would help in the problem of subversion and espionage?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, she told me, I remember, back in the early 
forties that he had been stationed at Albany as a political 
correspondent for the Communist newspaper and after the war my 
recollection is that he ran for office. I am not sure what 
office it was, some public office in the City of New York, and 
she has spoken of his current activities.
    Mr. Schine. Where is he now?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Is he still in Albany?
    Mr. Jasik. I have not had contact with that part of the 
family actually prior to 1940. In my total married life I might 
have seen him a half dozen times. I don't agree with his 
political philosophy although he seems to have a nice 
personality. I am afraid that is about as far as it goes.
    Mr. Cohn. A Communist can be very charming.
    Mr. Jasik. I know very few.
    Mr. Schine. Is your wife in disagreement with her brother? 
I am referring to his Communist party views. Is your wife in 
agreement with his Communist party activities and views?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, if she is in agreement she never tried to 
convince me of it.
    Mr. Schine. Has she ever denied that she was in agreement 
with him?
    Mr. Jasik. Has she ever denied that she was in agreement?
    Mr. Schine. I will rephrase the question. Has she ever said 
she isn't in agreement with him?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I don't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Now look. Here is a man whose wife is the sister 
of one of the top Communists in the country. A man who has been 
the subject of public controversy for the past fifteen years, 
as you know very well; was one of the second string Communist 
leaders recently indicted and tried here in federal court and 
it is inconceivable, unreasonable, that there wouldn't be 
frequent discussions between Mr. and Mrs. Jasik on the question 
of whether or not they were in agreement or disagreement with 
him. He was one of the top leaders in the Communist party. We 
certainly don't want any views of hers except so far as it goes 
into other things we want to cover later. You would have to go 
a long way to convince me that this hasn't been a source of 
frequent discussions, Mr. Jasik.
    Mr. Jasik. We seldom discuss politics at home. I will be 
very frank.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Has your wife been in 
disagreement with her brother's Communist activities or views?
    Mr. Jasik. From my discussions with her, I don't think she 
is in agreement with his views.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever indicated outright that she is in 
disagreement?
    Mr. Jasik. Not directly.
    Mr. Cohn. She knows he is a top Communist?
    Mr. Jasik. I think that is obvious from reading the 
newspapers.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Jasik, you have done some work for a 
consulting firm, subcontractor for the government?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us what work you have done for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. Indirectly?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Jasik. I don't know whether some of it is of a 
classified nature. I can give it to you generally. I have done 
one bit of consulting work for Dorne and Margolin.
    Mr. Cohn. What were they doing?
    Mr. Jasik. They are a much larger firm of engineers also 
doing antenna work located at Westbury.
    Mr. Cohn. What branch of the government?
    Mr. Jasik. Bureau of Aeronautics.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, your firm, Henry Jasik Consulting 
Firm has acted as subcontractor for a larger firm who has done 
work for the Aeronautics Bureau?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes. I have also done other work for the 
government.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you name the various branch of the 
government for which you have done work?
    Mr. Jasik. Bureau of Aeronautics; navy; I have done work 
recently for the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you tell us about that work?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes. This was done as a sub-contract for the 
Smith Company and they came to me back last June or July. No, I 
guess it was May or June and they stated they had been directed 
to obtain a consultant to carry out the development and 
production contract. They had been referred to me, I think, by 
the organization by which I was formerly employed, and I wasn't 
quite so sure as to whether I could take it on and do any good. 
They pressed me on it and as a result we went down to, I 
believe, the Watson area of the Signal Corps to discuss my 
qualifications with the Signal Corps.
    Now, after we got the contract, they turned over a 
development portion of the job--apparently the work which had 
been carried out by the Signal Corps was incomplete before it 
was let out for production.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of the work you did for the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jasik. What do you mean by nature?
    Mr. Cohn. Was it classified?
    Mr. Jasik. Restricted, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they take any steps to clear you for access 
to restricted material?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, the initial clearance which they checked 
was with the Bureau of Aeronautics in Bethpage, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the Bureau of Aeronautics take any steps to 
clear you for classified material?
    Mr. Jasik. Oh, yes. When I first left Airborne Instruments 
Laboratory in 1952 I got in touch with the Bureau of 
Aeronautics and asked them if I could set up as a facility. I, 
at that time, signed a security agreement.
    Mr. Cohn. I'd like to rephrase the question. We haven't got 
too much time. Were you ever investigated?
    Mr. Jasik. Many times.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom?
    Mr. Jasik. By the FBI among others.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you receive security clearance from the 
Bureau of Aeronautics?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes. Secret at the time I left Airborne 
Instruments. I have been told up in Boston I had top secret 
clearance.
    Mr. Cohn. After being investigated by the FBI?
    Mr. Jasik. After being investigated by the FBI? No, Well, I 
maintain--Let me see. Well, what do you mean being investigated 
by the FBI? I assume to get initial clearance in 1946, or for 
that matter 1944 when I went on active duty as an officer of 
the navy that at that time I was cleared.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are you currently doing work for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Jasik. I am. Well, I was until my clearance was stopped 
as of last week.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they tell you why your clearance was stopped?
    Mr. Jasik. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. Did you receive a suspension on your security 
clearance or was it taken away?
    Mr. Jasik. By the Bethpage representative in New York.
    Mr. Schine. Did this automatically lift your clearance or 
suspend your clearance for the work you are doing for the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I am not quite sure. I got the thing 
recently enough that I have not had a legal interpretation. For 
one thing it is a contractual agreement and the question is: Do 
I stop immediately doing work I already know about.
    Mr. Schine. What other government agencies are you doing 
work for at this time besides the Signal Corps and the Bureau 
of Aeronautics?
    Mr. Jasik. I am no longer doing work for the Bureau of 
Aeronautics.
    Mr. Schine. What other agencies?
    Mr. Jasik. I had been doing work for the Bureau of Ships, 
Navy Department.
    Mr. Schine. Are you still doing that?
    Mr. Jasik. I advised these people just as soon as I got 
notice, ``Here is the state of affairs. What would you like me 
to do?''
    Mr. Schine. Did you notify the Signal Corps too?
    Mr. Jasik. Not as yet.
    Mr. Schine. What other government outfits are you doing 
work for?
    Mr. Jasik. These are the only two organizations.
    Mr. Schine. The Bureau of Ships and the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Jasik. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Jasik, has your wife ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. If she has, it was certainly prior to the time I 
married her. When I have asked her she has not given me a 
direct answer.
    Mr. Schine. She never denied that she was a member?
    Mr. Jasik. She put it in such an ambiguous way that I am 
not certain.
    Mr. Schine. Did she ever tell you that she left the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, the way I gather is that she attended a 
number of meetings. That was prior to my having met her.
    Mr. Schine. Did she tell you anything about these meetings?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, your wife told you she attended 
Communist party meetings but she didn't tell you anything about 
them?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Nor who was there?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. And she never told you she left the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jasik. In trying to elicit a more direct response from 
her, her contention is that she merely attended these meetings 
and that ``What constitutes membership''?
    Mr. Schine. Did she attend meetings with her brother?
    Mr. Jasik. This I don't know. That was before I met her.
    Mr. Schine. In the past ten years?
    Mr. Jasik. Not in the past ten years. We have been married 
since 1941, twelve years ago. At the time we got married I 
worked for CAA, unclassified, on Air Navigational Aid and we 
moved to Indianapolis. We moved back and forth so much had she 
engaged in outside activities I would have known about it. As a 
matter of fact, I would have been very definitely against it.
    Mr. Schine. What is your personal feeling about the 
situation? Do you think your wife is still a Communist party 
member?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think she is.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she still in sympathy with Communists?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think she is.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been in sympathy with communism?
    Mr. Jasik. I have looked into what they have to say but I 
have never agreed with them since my upbringing and philosophy 
of life is completely at variance.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever tell anybody that you believed in 
the results which the Communists sought to achieve but you 
didn't like the way in which they were going about it?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think I ever have.
    Mr. Schine. Are you sure that you never did?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, would you be more specific as to what 
results they are trying to achieve.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever expressed sympathy for Communist 
objectives?
    Mr. Jasik. Specify objectives.
    Mr. Schine. I will rephrase the question. Have you ever 
professed a sympathy toward what you believe to be Communist 
objectives?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I am not quite certain what the 
Communist objectives are since they have changed so many times 
and I have more or less lost interest as a subject as early as 
1940.
    Mr. Schine. When you were interested in the Communist 
philosophy isn't it true that you felt that there were virtues 
to some of the Communist objectives and so stated?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, let me state it this way. Insofar as the 
Communist objectives are in common with those of the democracy 
of the United States, I am afraid I have to be in agreement 
with them. You must remember that in a good many cases they 
claim to be for liberty, for democracy, and for all the things 
that our philosophy of the United States, the United States 
philosophy, so that I don't want to be picayune but I want to 
get your phrasing a little clearer. If you are asking me if I 
believe in the overthrow of this government violently, I do not 
believe that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever at one time openly say that you were 
sympathetic with--what amounts to sympathy towards the 
Communist objectives? I exclude force and violence. Was there 
ever a period in your life when you were sympathetic towards 
communism?
    Mr. Jasik. That is a hard question to answer. Sympathetic 
in the sense that we were both fighting to defeat the Germans 
during the last war, yes. Very definitely.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's go back to the time when you were with the 
Bureau of Ordnance. Were you in sympathy with communism then?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in sympathy before that?
    Mr. Jasik. No. As a matter of fact, I never heard of it 
until I came down to Washington on a Civil Service job. I had 
been brought up in a small town in New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work with a man named Benjamin 
Zuckerman?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say he was sympathetic towards 
communism?
    Mr. Jasik. Judging from some of the arguments he had with 
some of the other people, I would say he was not.
    Mr. Cohn. With whom did he have arguments?
    Mr. Jasik. With some of the various members of the group 
there, one of whom you of course know, Morton Sobell.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Sobell?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, sir. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you know Sobell?
    Mr. Jasik. Oh, not as well as I knew Zuckerman. I met him 
on a number of occasions and I lost contact with him in 1942 or 
1943, something of that sort, possibly even earlier and I did 
not see him again until 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. Who are some of the other individuals you put in 
Sobell's class?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't know what you mean class.
    Mr. Cohn. The group that lived together. Who were they? Max 
Elitcher? Do you know Mr. Elitcher?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember him as sympathetic towards 
communism?
    Mr. Jasik. He spoke so very little it was hard to tell, but 
I would gather from his close association with Sobell he 
probably was.
    Mr. Cohn. Zuckerman had a closer association with Sobell, 
did he not?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, but he voiced his opposition openly.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Zuckerman disagree with the substance or 
form?
    Mr. Jasik. I am afraid I am not a lawyer.
    Mr. Cohn. I will phrase it in a little plainer language. 
Did he object to the whole idea of communism or certain 
methods, the way in which they are trying to do things?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think you can divorce them.
    Mr. Schine. Would you continue to give us the names of the 
individuals who lived with Sobell?
    Mr. Jasik. Stanley Rich, who, as I recall, was violently in 
disagreement with Sobell personally as well as politically.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Mr. Danziger? William Danziger?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, Bill. There may have been some others. Mr. 
Rich's wife lived there, I believe. Sobell's wife.
    Mr. Schine. Were you ever present when they held Communist 
meetings?
    Mr. Jasik. I was not aware they held Communist meetings at 
that house.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at any dinners?
    Mr. Jasik. I was present at one or two dinners.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else were at those dinners? Were there any 
other Communists present besides Rich, Sobell, Danziger, 
Elitcher and yourself?
    Mr. Jasik. Please do not put me in the same category. I 
attended several times at their invitation.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody else attend?
    Mr. Jasik. Mrs. Danziger. I think she was there also. Now, 
there are some other people that I frankly can't remember. This 
goes back fourteen or fifteen years.
    Mr. Cohn. Who first tried to get you interested in the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. I would say probably Mr. Sobell.
    Mr. Schine. When did he first make overtures to you?
    Mr. Jasik. Possibly as a result of having met me at the 
Bureau of Ordnance.
    Mr. Schine. When did he first make overtures to you?
    Mr. Jasik. Oh, it was probably in 1938 or 1949.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know you were being sized up?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I was nineteen years old at the time 
and a little naive. They handed me a number of pamphlets and 
propaganda. I generally argued with them about it and I think 
that was as far as it went.
    Mr. Schine. Who besides Sobell handed you this material and 
made overtures to you?
    Mr. Jasik. I would say Danziger made some mild attempts at 
it. Actually, he didn't get very far. I might tell you the 
attitude they had towards me. I had a strictly bourgeois 
outlook on life, as phrased by Mr. Sobell, and while I did go 
so far as to read what they had to say, I certainly didn't 
subscribe to it. I might say that I find nothing wrong in that. 
Anyone with any amount of intellectual curiosity would want to 
decide for himself.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first meet your wife?
    Mr. Jasik. It was sometime in 1940, I believe
    Mr. Schine. Did her brother know this same group of people?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. Did your wife?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, I think so. I am trying to remember. I 
believe she may have gone to school with Mrs. Danziger.
    Mr. Schine. What was the name of the school?
    Mr. Jasik. Hunter College.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know Mrs. Danziger was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. No, in the sense I never did see any direct 
evidence. It might have possibly been true judging from her 
reaction towards some of the issues in the news.
    Mr. Schine. Now, wouldn't you say your wife was more or 
less in agreement with Mrs. Danziger on these issues?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, the general attitude of my wife was, she 
was out to have a good time and enjoy life and such politics as 
she might have been interested in were forced on her by her 
associations and her family.
    Mr. Schine. Did she tell you Mrs. Danziger was a member of 
the Communist party? By her family, you mean her brother?
    Mr. Jasik. Her brother, perhaps, possibly her mother, 
although I guess more directly she was influenced by her 
brother.
    Mr. Schine. Was her mother a member of the party?
    Mr. Jasik. I have no knowledge of that.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think she might be?
    Mr. Jasik. I suspect she was probably more in sympathy with 
some of the objectives but she is well along in years. She is 
about seventy-five or eighty now.
    Mr. Schine. When did you last see your mother-in-law?
    Mr. Jasik. Some several months ago.
    Mr. Schine. Was she born in the United States?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. Where was she born?
    Mr. Jasik. Poland.
    Mr. Schine. When did she come to this country?
    Mr. Jasik. That I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Was your wife born in the United States?
    Mr. Jasik. So far as I know, yes.
    Mr. Schine. Now, getting back to this association of yours 
with Sobell and that group, can you give us any more names 
before you go on--individuals in that group?
    Mr. Jasik. I am trying to refresh my memory. I went through 
all this some months ago for the Bureau of Investigation.
    Mr. Schine. Which bureau?
    Mr. Jasik. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. At which 
time I spent close to eight hours with them. There may be other 
names but frankly it would take a little more time. Actually, 
they were able to refresh my memory by furnishing direct leads.
    Mr. Schine. Did it ever occur to you you may have been used 
by the Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. How would I have been used?
    Mr. Schine. I am asking you a question. Did it ever occur 
to you that you may have been used by the Communist party?
    Mr. Jasik. I have never given them any information. I have 
never given them any money.
    Mr. Schine. Can't you think of any way they might have used 
you or your company?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, in the little over a year that I have been 
trying to get started in business, I don't think I have had any 
contact with anyone that I know or might suspect of being a 
member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Schine. What about prior to your starting your own 
company? Did it ever occur to you they might have used you?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, yes. This was something that happened to 
me in 1949 or 1950 and here again I have given the actual story 
on this to the FBI. I bumped into Sobell quite accidently in 
one of the shopping markets where I live in Flushing.
    Mr. Schine. That was in 1949?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes, it was in 1949. I returned to the New York 
area in 1949.
    Mr. Schine. Approximately when in 1949?
    Mr. Jasik. Here again--it would be sometime around the 
middle if I am not mistaken. At that time he told me that he 
was working at Reeves Instrument Company and I must say that 
his personality had changed somewhat from the time I knew him 
in Washington. When I knew him in Washington he was very much 
of a bore and he had improved somewhat. Now, I didn't know 
whether it was due to being married or what but he also did not 
express the same political views or at least if he had 
political views, he didn't express them to me at that time. At 
one time he met my wife in the Food Fair and took her bundle 
home.
    Well, this was some reason for being polite to him and I 
saw him a total of possibly two or three times over a period of 
a year. At one time he told me he was unhappy in his job at 
Reeves and wanted to know if I could get him on at Airborne 
Instruments Laboratory. Well, he, as I say, his personality 
left much to be desired. I let a little time elapse and told 
him they were not taking on people at the time and it dropped 
at that point. If he were trying to use me in order to get in 
on that end, this may have been a possibility. As it happened I 
did not recommend him and it went no further.
    Mr. Schine. Did you live with Sobell?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. In the same area?
    Mr. Jasik. I lived several miles from him in Washington. I 
can't remember what the house number was. It was somewheres, I 
think, in the end of the second alphabet or something in that 
general area of Washington.
    Mr. Schine. You knew he was a Communist in 1949?
    Mr. Jasik. In 1949, no. I thought perhaps he might have 
changed.
    Mr. Schine. You thought he had left the party by 1949?
    Mr. Jasik. As I say, when I bumped into him his actions did 
not indicate that he had any sympathy towards communism.
    Mr. Schine. So when you say his personality had changed----
    Mr. Jasik. He treated me no differently than I am sure he 
treated all the people he worked with.
    Mr. Schine. You knew he had been a Communist prior to that?
    Mr. Jasik. This, again, I am not sure of. I knew his views 
were sympathetic.
    Mr. Schine. Now, if he asked you to get him a job for the 
government----
    Mr. Jasik. It probably would have been a factor.
    Mr. Schine. If he had asked you to get him a job in the 
government and you knew he had been a Communist----
    Mr. Jasik. This was not a job with the government. It was a 
private laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. Was it doing work for the government?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes. He told me he was already doing work for 
the government at Reeves. Assuming their clearance procedures 
were thorough, the only conclusion I could draw was that he was 
not a Communist, otherwise he would not have been working for 
them.
    Mr. Schine. What does your wife do?
    Mr. Jasik. She takes care of our two children Stephen, ten 
and Harriet, seven. At least they will be in two months. She 
takes care of our house.
    Because of her past associations, I have never allowed her 
to do anything in connection with my business. As a matter of 
fact, while we have a joint personal checking account, I am the 
only one who can sign signatures on the business account.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you feel that because of her 
associations with Communists, you wouldn't want her to be 
involved in your business in any way?
    Mr. Jasik. Because of what remote association there may 
have been. Because of what association there may have been, I 
certainly would not clear her to work in my organization. Even 
though there are times I could have used somebody to answer 
telephones or do typing.
    Mr. Schine. Who else works for you?
    Mr. Jasik. One young man and Mr. Milton Brenner.
    Mr. Schine. What about him?
    Mr. Jasik. He worked for the Airborne Instruments 
Laboratory from 1951 to 1952 and at the time I left to set up 
my own business he left to finish up his master's degree at the 
New York University. When he got through I offered him a 
position.
    Mr. Schine. Was he connected with this group in any way?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Has he ever been a member of any subversive 
organization?
    Mr. Jasik. So far as I know, no.
    Mr. Schine. Have you?
    Mr. Jasik. No, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever join any organizations listed as 
subversive by the attorney general?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think the Institute of Radio Engineering 
is listed as subversive and the only organizations are 
professional organizations or in one case an honorary society.
    Mr. Schine. You never joined any front organizations?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Let the record show that the witness appeared 
voluntarily.
    Mr. Jasik. I am at your disposal as long as you need me, 
any time you wish.
    Mr. Schine. There is one other question I would like to ask 
you. Can you give us the names of any people who have expressed 
a sympathy for communism who are currently working for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. No, sir. I frankly can't. Actually, I can't 
imagine of anybody who wanted to keep their job making such an 
expression.
    Mr. Schine. Let's put it this way. Taking this whole crowd 
around Sobell, do any of them currently work for the 
government? Directly or subcontractors, either way?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, I believe Mr. Rich does.
    Mr. Schine. You said he was against communism.
    Mr. Jasik. He expressed very strong opinions against it.
    Mr. Schine. For the record, what does he do for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I don't know. All he mentioned was that 
he had done some work for them off and on.
    Mr. Schine. What about some of the other individuals in 
this group?
    Mr. Jasik. So far as I know, Mr. Zuckerman is not working 
with the government and as far as some of the other people are 
concerned, I have had no contact with them with the one 
exception of Sobell who I bumped into in 1949 and 1950.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard or did you hear that any of 
these other individuals were employed by the government?
    Mr. Jasik. No. Zuckerman was at one time.
    Mr. Schine. Zuckerman and Sobell. Anybody else?
    Mr. Jasik. As I say, Rich was or had been doing some work 
for them.
    Mr. Schine. How about friends of your wife that you know 
were sympathetic towards communism. Have you heard that any of 
them are working for the government or have worked for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't know of any friends of my wife--any 
friends she had before we were married and in the last several 
years, I believe, the main friends are those who are local 
neighbors. So far as I know, none of them are working for the 
government.
    Mr. Schine. What part of the Signal Corps does your firm 
sub-contract for?
    Mr. Jasik. I sub-contracted work from the Smith Company who 
in turn is working for the Countermeasures Branch of the Signal 
Corps.
    Mr. Schine. Is that at Evans Laboratory?
    Mr. Jasik. I am not quite familiar with the organization it 
is. I think it is three or four different laboratories.
    Mr. Schine. And the Smith Company's full name is what?
    Mr. Jasik. James H. Smith Manufacturing Company.
    Mr. Schine. Is that classified work?
    Mr. Jasik. Restricted, yes, although I was told some of the 
individual antennas are unclassified and I am quite sure I am 
not sure whether the overall job is classified or some of the 
components in addition.
    Mr. Schine. The Smith Company asked you to do some of this 
work. Do you have to pass any kind of security clearance?
    Mr. Jasik. Well, at the time I got into serious discussion 
of the technical problem. I referred them to the Bethpage and I 
believe they checked on that.
    Mr. Schine. The Smith Company checked?
    Mr. Jasik. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Who did you deal with in the Smith Company?
    Mr. Jasik. Billet. Dan Billet.
    Mr. Schine. Did he work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jasik. I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. Has he worked for the government in the past?
    Mr. Jasik. Aside from the contract work, I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. What is his function at the Smith Company?
    Mr. Jasik. Project engineer on this project if I am not 
mistaken.
    Mr. Schine. You did not report directly to the two Smith 
brothers who owned the corporation?
    Mr. Jasik. As a matter of fact, I have had dealings with 
them too. It is not a large company.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any relatives who are working for the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. What do you mean by relatives?
    Mr. Cohn. Cousins? First cousins?
    Mr. Jasik. Let's see. The only one, I have a brother who is 
doing work for an organization who in turn----
    Mr. Cohn. Is that Stan?
    Mr. Jasik. Charles. He is working on Olympic Radio and 
Television, I believe, and doing some work for the government. 
I am not too familiar with what he is doing.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your brother sympathetic towards communism?
    Mr. Jasik. If he was he never expressed such a sympathy 
towards me.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he anti-Communist or was it just something 
you don't recall having come up?
    Mr. Jasik. It has never come up. I know he is sympathetic 
towards unions.
    Mr. Cohn. Well----
    Mr. Jasik. I am not. First of all, I am trying to start a 
business and I am not sympathetic towards unions.
    Mr. Cohn. That is absolutely no reflection. In recent trial 
the Daily Worker was unsympathetic toward a union trying to 
increase the wages for people working there.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does your brother live, Mr. Jasik?
    Mr. Jasik. Great Neck.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know his exact address?
    Mr. Jasik. Overlook Road. I am not quite sure of the 
number. It is on the border between Great Neck and Little Neck.
    Mr. Cohn. And you last saw Mr. Gershon in 1950, is that 
right?
    Mr. Jasik. Around then. To my remembrance that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed your work?
    Mr. Jasik. Oh, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Does he know where you work?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. The kind of work you do?
    Mr. Jasik. No. He has never expressed any interest.
    Mr. Carr. Does your wife have any relatives presently 
employed by the government or very recently employed by the 
government?
    Mr. Jasik. Gee, I am trying to remember who some of her 
relatives are. I have had very little contact with her side of 
the family. If she does have any in the first cousin group, I 
don't know of them.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether Simon Gershon has any 
relatives or in-laws presently employed by the government?
    Mr. Jasik. That would come in the same category. As I say, 
I have not had any recent contact with Gershon.
    For the record I might state that in all my life I have met 
him at the most a half dozen times and these have been mainly 
on social occasions. Just a matter of one family visiting 
another, so that my association with him has been not what you 
call close by any means. I am not in sympathy with his views or 
ways of achieving them. I certainly don't have any knowledge of 
what his part of the family is up to, that is, beyond what I 
read in the newspapers.
    Mr. Carr. You have no knowledge of his relatives working 
for the government?
    Mr. Jasik. Frankly, I don't know who all his relatives are 
aside from his wife and his mother, and my wife, who is his 
sister.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have any knowledge of his wife's 
relatives?
    Mr. Jasik. No.
    Mr. Schine. Thanks very much for appearing here today. If 
we need to get in touch with you, we will do so. You are 
excused, at least for the moment.
    Mr. Jasik. I trust you are satisfied with what evidence I 
have been able to tell.
    Mr. Schine. We don't evaluate testimony.
    Mr. Jasik. Anytime you would like further testimony, I will 
be glad to appear.

             STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN BENJAMIN SHEEHAN

    Mr. Schine. Will you state your name for the record?
    Capt. Sheehan. Benjamin Sheehan.
    Mr. Schine. Where do you live?
    Capt. Sheehan. 946 Cherry Lane, Franklin Square, New York.
    Mr. Schine. What is the general nature of your duties at 
the present time?
    Capt. Sheehan. My duties are classified.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your assignment?
    Capt. Sheehan. I am in the army.
    Mr. Cohn. You are with CIC, aren't you? We are awfully good 
security risks.
    Could we get your name?
    Colonel Segolis. Colonel Segolis. I am with the 108th CIC 
and again, that is classified.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Capt. Sheehan, the reason we asked you to 
come in here as a witness to testify before this committee is 
that you did supervise an investigation of certain activities 
at Fort Monmouth, particularly relating to certain documents 
which were missing and subversive connections of certain 
persons there. Are you that Captain Sheehan?
    You can consult with counsel anytime you want too.
    Capt. Sheehan. The only thing I can say is I am governed by 
Army Regulations 380-5 and 380-10.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is your commanding officer?
    Capt. Sheehan. Colonel Huckins.
    Mr. Cohn. He is G-2?
    Capt. Sheehan. Again it is classified.
    Mr. Cohn. He is commanding officer of the detachment?
    Capt. Sheehan. Commanding officer of the 108th CIC 
Detachment.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is your superior at Governor's Island?
    Capt. Sheehan. Colonel Johnson.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you talk to Colonel Johnson before you came 
over here today?
    Capt. Sheehan. I did not.
    Mr. Carr. Did you answer the question of whether or not you 
conducted an investigation----
    Capt. Sheehan. I am governed by Army Regulation 380-25.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, you feel you are not able to tell 
us whether or not you conducted such an investigation.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your name?
    Col. Thomas. Colonel Ronnie F. Thomas, chief, Counter-
Intelligence Division, G-2, Section, First Army.
    Mr. Cohn. Do I assume that if I asked you the same type of 
question, your answer will be the same?
    Col. Thomas. If you ask me information which is classified, 
I am not at liberty to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. What exactly are you in a 
position to tell the Senate committee? What type of information 
is not covered by any directive?
    Capt. Sheehan. Anything not classified information.
    Mr. Cohn. How about matters pertaining to personnel files?
    Capt. Sheehan. Are you speaking about intelligence files? 
That is the only kind we have. Any information which does not 
come under directives. 95 percent of the information in our 
office is classified at least confidential.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the 5 percent?
    Capt. Sheehan. Matters pertaining to industrial security 
program which is largely not classified.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the industrial security program?
    Capt. Sheehan. That is clearance of defense contractors and 
contractor's employees.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that is not classified?
    Capt. Sheehan. No. All except the intelligence facts.
    Mr. Cohn. How large is your district?
    Capt. Sheehan. All of the First Army area.
    Mr. Cohn. That is what?
    Capt. Sheehan. New York, New Jersey and all of New England.
    Mr. Cohn. Does that include the General Electric plant at 
Schenectady?
    Capt. Sheehan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What can you tell us about security there?
    Capt. Sheehan. The General Electric plant is a defense 
contract, but under security cognizance of one of the other 
services.
    Mr. Cohn. Not army?
    Capt. Sheehan. The army may have some contracts that comes 
under technical service they are administering. The agency has 
security cognizance with one of the other services.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that navy?
    Capt. Sheehan. I am not sure. I think it is navy.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no concern with the security up there?
    Capt. Sheehan. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Cohn. To what extent?
    Capt. Sheehan. The commanding general, First Army, is 
responsible for security in every agency throughout the entire 
First Army area.
    Mr. Cohn. Specifically, how does that apply to the General 
Electric plant at Schenectady?
    Capt. Sheehan. If a violation of security was known or 
reported, we would be required to take necessary action to see 
that the deficiency was corrected.
    Mr. Cohn. How would that be reported to you?
    Capt. Sheehan. Various ways. It might be reported as an 
incident by one of the reporting agencies or it should be 
reported directly by the security officer of the General 
Electric plant at Schenectady.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you take direct action yourself? Would you 
make a report to the security officer?
    Capt. Sheehan. We would report it to G-2, Department of the 
Army, and they would take it up through channels, Colonel 
Johnson.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the security officer at the General 
Electric plant in Schenectady? Do you know him?
    Capt. Sheehan. I am not sure. I have never met him.
    Mr. Cohn. What other installations are under this system?
    Capt. Sheehan. Every civilian concern that has a classified 
contract.
    Mr. Cohn. Which are the most important ones at the present 
time; I mean to army?
    Capt. Sheehan. Well, I am not in the contracting end of the 
business. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. I meant from the standpoint of sensitivity?
    Capt. Sheehan. I couldn't answer without revealing 
classified information. The minute you ask me specific 
questions----
    Mr. Cohn. Frankly, I think this entire interpretation is 
carrying it much too far.
    Capt. Sheehan. We are bound by the orders. If the secretary 
of the army gives us written permission.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel Johnson has seen the secretary of the 
army. I was present when he was present and he should know what 
the secretary's position is on this thing. This entire 
interpretation was stated two months ago when we had Colonel 
Howie. I thought there had been a great deal of liberalization, 
but apparently there hasn't.
    Capt. Sheehan. I have not seen anything in writing changing 
the existing regulations.

              STATEMENT OF RUSSELL GAYLORD RANNEY

    Mr. Schine. Will you state your name for the record, 
please?
    Mr. Ranney. Russell Gaylord Ranney.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Ranney. I work for Headquarters, SCEL, Signal Corps 
Engineering Laboratory, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
    Mr. Schine. How was it you said it?
    Mr. Ranney. Headquarters SCEL. I should have said Signal 
Corps Engineering Laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Ranney. For the laboratory? Since August 1950.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you work before that?
    Mr. Ranney. Before that I worked for the Fort Monmouth 
Signal School a little over a year. I have been at Fort 
Monmouth since June 1949. Before that I was supervising 
principal of rural schools in that area, Shrewsburg Township 
Schools.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Ranney. Well, I am the chief of a small section called 
inspection instructions and the primary responsibility of that 
section is to further in service training, primarily to 
civilians and engineers and other civilians employed. We have 
put on courses intended to improve the reading skill of the 
civilians, although we have some engineering officers who 
attend, but primarily civilians, to improve their 
comprehension. We ran a series of programs for stock record 
clerks to improve their ability to recognize stock record 
numbers. Now, we are carrying on a series of programs intended 
to train them to write simply and clearly and logically.
    Mr. Schine. Do you handle classified work?
    Mr. Ranney. No. No classified material at all.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever handled classified material?
    Mr. Ranney. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you get your college training?
    Mr. Ranney. New York University. I also served on the staff 
there doing this work as associate director, New York 
University Reading Institute.
    Mr. Schine. Would you sum up the functions of this section?
    Mr. Ranney. Well, the function of this section is intended 
to make the civilian employees more efficient because in 
reading and writing, correspondence reports and memoranda, 
etc., all sorts of material they have to read they have 
occasion to read--those essential elements of the job engineers 
and other people have, and basically it is supposed to save 
them time. They maintain we have.
    Mr. Schine. You use a number of texts in conjunction with 
this instruction program?
    Mr. Ranney. No, not in the reading course. In the reading 
course we prepare our own material. I want to have the work 
directed solely toward their problems. I have been able to get 
permission to reproduce articles from Fortune, articles on 
management, etc. As far as the writing course is concerned, 
yes. Each student has a standard text. It is Taft, McDermott 
and Jensen and you know I can't remember the exact title. It is 
an English grammar book, a composition book. I can only think 
of the author. Then we have a workbook by J. E. Norwood, I 
think it is called English Composition Workbook.\5\ Those are 
the only books used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ J. E. Norwood, Concerning Words; A Manual and Workbook (New 
York: Prentice-Hall, 1938.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever used a pamphlet known as ``Brass 
Hat and the Atom.''
    Mr. Ranney. I am afraid not. Show it to me.
    [The pamphlet ``Brass Hat and the Atom'' was handed to Mr. 
Ranney.]
    No.
    Mr. Schine. You never saw that?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never used it as far as you know?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. You would know about it if it were used in your 
section?
    Mr. Ranney. Oh yes. I can't imagine that I wouldn't. I am 
the only instructor, except for a period last spring I had 
another instructor teaching reading training. I don't imagine 
he would have introduced it.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mr. Ranney. Dale Van Winkle. He resigned and is going to 
law school at the University of Michigan Law School now. We 
started writing training programs last spring and that is why I 
had to turn over three of the reading courses to Mr. Van 
Winkle. He had been with me for two years as a soldier and then 
when his period was up, a civilian position was set up for him.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever belonged to a subversive 
organization or front organization?
    Mr. Ranney. I will mention all that I belong to and you can 
tell me which ones they may be.
    First Presbyterian Church, Red Bank. American Legion, Tent 
Falls Chapter, Shrewsburg Township. Masons, Abacus Chapter in 
Long Branch. I belonged to Phi Delta Kappa, which is an 
honorary fraternity. I belong to the Fort Monmouth Officers 
Club.
    Mr. Schine. Does any member of your family work for the 
government?
    Mr. Ranney. Yes, my wife is in Squires Laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. What is her job?
    Mr. Ranney. She is in the materials section of the C & M 
Branch. She is a chemist. She works with plastics.
    Mr. Schine. Has your wife ever been connected with any 
subversive organizations?
    Mr. Ranney. We have been married nineteen years and I know 
pretty well what she has done in that time.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever known any Communist party 
members?
    Mr. Ranney. Not as far as I know. There could have been 
when I was in college, someone in my class, but no one I ever 
recall having mentioned such a thing. I took most of my 
schooling at night and it was kind of a busy time.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Ranney. Never.
    Mr. Schine. Were you ever approached by the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever have any students in your 
classroom whom you felt might be Communistically inclined?
    Mr. Ranney. No, I wouldn't have had an opportunity to find 
out. It is a pretty intensive two-hours session and all we 
talked about was improving reading skills. It wasn't a course 
which would lead to broad discussions. It wasn't that sort of 
thing at all. Perhaps in a history class or something like that 
you might have that sort of thing come out, but not in the work 
I have been doing.
    Mr. Schine. Does your class have in it as students, or also 
army personnel?
    Mr. Ranney. No, we have a few officers but not many at 
present. We have always had a few.
    Mr. Schine. When they enter your class, on what basis do 
they become a student? Any specific reason?
    Mr, Ranney. Yes. Yes, because the heads of their agencies 
ask the commanding officer of the laboratory for a quota for 
these separate agencies. Our function is to train only 
laboratory personnel, but I know the deputy chief of the Signal 
Corps asked for a quota. In Signal Corps supply that is also 
true, in Electronics Warfare Center and a couple of others. 
Would you like for me to describe the procedure?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Ranney. They ask for a quota and I try to make the 
membership of the classes homogeneous so as to give benefit to 
everybody. I am also requested to test fifteen or twenty people 
if they plan to send three to five. I give them a preliminary 
grammar test to see where they stand according to the plans of 
that particular training program and according to the decision 
of the commanding officer of the agencies, they send the 
people, the best selection for their quota.
    Mr. Schine. Have you been following the current 
investigation of this committee?
    Mr. Ranney. Of course, yes.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever had in your classroom any of the 
individuals under investigation?
    Mr. Ranney. No. I was interested, naturally enough, and I 
went through my records. I think I have read so far three 
names; Ducore, Coleman and Yamins, and I looked them up and I 
noticed that two of them three years ago took the preliminary 
reading test at Evans Laboratory. Ducore was one of those I 
think. I don't know of the other two. After the first series of 
reading courses, there was so much interest on the part of the 
base chief that they requested we plan the course on a long 
range training basis. With that in mind I thought it advisable 
to give reading comprehensive tests to a lot of people. There 
are fifteen hundred in the files and we have trained five 
hundred already in reading. We tested two of these people at 
Evans. I know Ducore was on the list. I don't know which of the 
other ones.
    Mr. Schine. What was the nature of the test?
    Mr. Ranney. The test is the standard one that we give 
everybody. It is a test put out by the American Council on 
Education. It is a reading comprehensive test, college graduate 
level. These two people were both in the middle group. That is 
all the information I have.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been personally acquainted with 
any of the individuals under investigation?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever discussed the investigation with 
anybody at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Ranney. Well, let me see. I want to be honest about 
this. I think I have probably heard people say, ``Are they 
still suspending people?'' Something of that sort.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know any of the individuals who have 
been suspended?
    Mr. Ranney. No, I am in sort of a bystander's situation 
because of the fact although I give this service to all 
laboratories, I have no connection with them otherwise--their 
work or anything highly specialized. I don't have these 
contacts with laboratory personnel that other people would 
have.
    Mr. Schine. What do you do besides working at the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Ranney. I do a little consulting work. I carried on at 
the New York University night section for one year until that 
was too much and gave that up. Now, I am in a situation which I 
have to give a certain amount of evening time in a separate 
building, Camp Wood, and the reading course is being given 
after hours and since I give a certain amount of evening time I 
am given one-half day compensatory time. I get off every 
Wednesday afternoon at twelve o'clock. Right now every 
Wednesday from three to five o'clock, I teach in Philadelphia a 
group of editors of the Protestant Church owned presses, the 
Westminister Presbyterian Group, Anglican Reform Group, all re 
the reading training program. I leave there and in the evening 
I go to the Philadelphia Office of IBM and teach there. That is 
the only outside work I do.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever express sympathy for Communist 
activities?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. The Communist form of government?
    Mr. Ranney. No, never.
    Mr. Schine. You never attended any meetings?
    Mr. Ranney. Never.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Ranney, you say you never had any sympathy 
toward Communist activities of the Communist party objectives 
or toward Russia?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever profess any sympathy? Can you 
think of any statements you have ever made?
    Mr. Ranney. No.
    Mr. Schine. Praising Russia?
    Mr. Ranney. Never.
    Mr. Schine. Is it true you have quite a bit of literature?
    Mr. Ranney. No, it isn't true at all that I have Communist 
literature. I don't have any Communist literature.
    Mr. Schine. Did anybody ever say you had Communist 
literature?
    Mr. Ranney. In my hearing? Not in my hearing. Not that I 
know of.
    Mr. Schine. Let me ask you this? At your hearing, what were 
the charges they made against you?
    Mr. Ranney. Nobody ever made any charges against me.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever have a hearing?
    Mr. Ranney. I have never had any hearing at all.
    Mr. Schine. Is your middle name Gaylord?
    Mr. Ranney. Yes. G-a-y-l-o-r-d. It is a family name. My 
father's mother was a Gaylord.
    Mr. Schine. May I say, Mr. Ranney, I have quite a bit of 
Communist literature myself and am reading it.
    Mr. Ranney. Your work calls for it. Mine doesn't.
    Mr. Schine. We appreciate your coming in and the fact that 
you are here would not indicate we have any charges against you 
or anything. We are in the middle of an investigation which 
required a great deal of spade work. We have talked to a great 
many individuals. Thank you for your cooperation and if we need 
you again, we will call you.

                    STATEMENT OF SUSAN MOON

    Mr. Schine. Would you state your name for the record?
    Miss Moon. Susan Moon.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you employed now?
    Miss Moon. In Watson Area, Fort Monmouth at commercial 
transportation.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you worked there?
    Miss Moon. Going on four years.
    Mr. Schine. What are your duties?
    Miss Moon. I am a transportation agent. I take care of 
shipments from Evans, Squire and Cole into Watson.
    Mr. Schine. Do you have access to classified material?
    Miss Moon. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never have been a member?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. You were never made any approaches?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. Were you employed at the Soviet Purchasing 
Commission in 1942 and 1943?
    Miss Moon. Back there sometime. It was a long time ago.
    Mr. Schine. Tell us about the circumstances of that 
employment?
    Miss Moon. I don't know how it happened. I was working for 
the Treasury Department; then I went home; then I came back and 
they were getting ready to start letting people off. I must 
confess that at the time the segregation policy down there was 
kind of messy and I hadn't been used to it. I decided to look 
for another job. Somebody told me the Soviet Purchasing 
Commission had a job handling American records and I went down 
there and applied for the job and got it.
    Mr. Schine. What were your duties?
    Miss Moon. I was a typist. I did reports and stuff. We kept 
the American records. At that time we were involved in the 
lend-lease. That was when Russia and the United States were 
allies.
    Mr. Schine. Did you read some of the agreements?
    Miss Moon. I didn't get involved in that. I was on the 
purchasing end. They bought the material from us and we took 
care of the records on the American side.
    Mr. Schine. Did you learn of a transaction which involved 
the sale of American cruisers to Russia?
    Miss Moon. Do you mean boats?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. Where were you geographically located?
    Miss Moon. On 16th Street and Park Road.
    Mr. Schine. In Washington?
    Miss Moon. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. And who was your employer? Whom did you report 
to?
    Miss Moon. The only one I remember I worked for was Major 
Polak.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Miss Moon. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. How do you pronounce it?
    Miss Moon. Major Polak.
    Mr. Schine. Was he a Russian?
    Miss Moon. Yes. Then my immediate supervisor was an 
American.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name--your immediate supervisor?
    Miss Moon. It was a woman. I don't remember.
    Mr. Schine. This was some of the purchasing commission?
    Miss Moon. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Did Major Polak hire you?
    Miss Moon. No, personnel. The American side of the 
personnel division sent me to his division.
    Mr. Schine. What was the name of the individual who hired 
you?
    Miss Moon. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. And what was the name of your immediate 
supervisor?
    Miss Moon. I can't think of that.
    Mr. Schine. Was this office located near the Russian 
embassy?
    Miss Moon. The Russian embassy was down on 16th Street and 
Connecticut Avenue, about a mile away.
    Mr. Schine. Did you have occasion to visit the Russian 
embassy?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did officials from the Russian embassy come to 
this office?
    Miss Moon. Yes, people from the Pentagon. Everybody was in 
and out of there. Official people from the Pentagon and embassy 
both.
    Mr. Schine. Did anybody there try to get you to join the 
Communist party?
    Miss Moon. No, they had a segregation policy. They wouldn't 
let the Americans fraternize with the Russians, wouldn't talk 
to them practically. If they got too friendly, they would be 
among the missing.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know Doxey Wilkerson?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. You never knew him?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever know Doris Walters Powell?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. And you say your present job is what?
    Miss Moon. Transportation agent, Signal Corps, First Army, 
detailed to Watson, in the Watson area.
    Mr. Schine. And your duties are that of a clerk?
    Miss Moon. Traffic clerk, handling all incoming and 
outgoing shipments. It is freight. We handle all of the 
freight.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know any Communist party members?
    Miss Moon. No.
    Mr. Schine. You know Major Polak?
    Miss Moon. Well, I thought you meant Americans. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Did you think he was a member of the Communist 
party?
    Miss Moon. I don't know, he was a funny character. I will 
tell you a funny story. He said to me, ``Miss Moon, I am an 
engineer by mistake.'' He said he didn't want to be an 
engineer. I said, ``If you don't want to be an engineer, why 
don't you be something else?'' He said they wouldn't like it. 
``You don't understand.'' Then he wouldn't talk any more. Then 
when I looked up he was gone.
    Mr. Schine. Was he still in charge there when you left?
    Miss Moon. No, he left. Went back to Russia.
    Mr. Schine. Who replaced him?
    Miss Moon. I don't know. He was the only one that tried to 
be friendly. He was more American than any of them. He tried to 
be sociable.
    Mr. Schine. Surely you thought some of the American 
employees were tied up with the Communist party?
    Miss Moon. I never thought about it. It never entered my 
mind. At that time we seemed to be working together.
    Mr. Schine. Think back to that situation, can you remember 
the names of some of your fellow-workers who you thought were 
tied up with the party. It has only been ten years.
    Miss Moon. Ten years. Good Heavens! That is a long time.
    Mr. Schine. How long have you been working for the Signal 
Corps?
    Miss Moon. I went there in June 1950. This is going on the 
fourth year.
    Mr. Schine. Where were you employed before that?
    Miss Moon. Before that I was with the National Bureau of 
Standards in Washington.
    Mr. Schine. For whom did you work there?
    Miss Moon. Dr. Cannon.
    Mr. Schine. And how long did you work at the Bureau of 
Standards?
    Miss Moon. I worked there three and a half to four years.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know Dr. [Edward U.] Condon?
    Miss Moon. I was there during that investigation. I know 
all of them big shots there.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Doxey Wilkerson?
    Miss Moon. No, I don't.
    Mr. Schine. What other branch of the government have you 
worked for?
    Miss Moon. Well, the Treasury Department and the Bureau of 
Standards.
    Mr. Schine. Who hired you for the Treasury Department?
    Miss Moon. I took a Civil Service examination and they 
called me off the list.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been sympathetic towards communism?
    Miss Moon. No, indeed.
    Mr. Schine. Did you like working in the Russian----
    Miss Moon. No, it was too high powered.
    Mr. Schine. How did they happen to hire you?
    Miss Moon. At that time it was during the Lend-Lease 
program and they needed Americans to handle the American side 
of the records. We were giving them our money and Americans 
were put in there to protect the records on the American side. 
There was a definite distinction. They were there and we were 
here.
    Mr. Schine. Was there anybody who worked with you who you 
thought was a Communist?
    Miss Moon. No, I never thought about it.
    Mr. Schine. Is there anything you feel you should tell the 
committee at this time?
    Miss Moon. No, not in particular. I never even thought 
about anything like that.
    Mr. Schine. In the Condon investigation what part did you 
play. You said you were----
    Miss Moon. Oh, no. I was down there while the furry was 
going on. Nobody called me for anything. I was working down 
there then.
    Mr. Schine. Thank you very much for coming in, Miss Moon. 
We call a great many people and we make no evaluation of them 
one way or another. We will call you if we need you again.

                  STATEMENT OF PETER ROSMOVSKY

    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Rosmovsky, where do you live now?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Bradley Beach, 108 Second Avenue.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your present position?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Radio engineer, Signal Corps Engineering 
Laboratory, headquarters staff.
    Mr. Juliana. And how long have you been there?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Since January 1951.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever employed at Los Alamos, which I 
believe is in New Mexico?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. No.
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No. I was in New Mexico, Alamagordo Air 
Base.
    Mr. Juliana. What did you do there?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I was on a project for the air force. I used 
to work at Watson Laboratories at the time which was the air 
force installation.
    Mr. Juliana. When were you in New Mexico?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. August 1946. I was there around Thanksgiving 
of 1946. I came back east and went out again around January and 
stayed there until July of 1947.
    Mr. Juliana. And can you tell us specifically what you did 
while you were there?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I was working with one specific radar 
section. I was on a special radar set tracking V-2 missiles 
from White Sands.
    Mr. Juliana. While you were in New Mexico did you know of 
any individuals who were implicated in espionage activities?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you associated with officers of the 
Canadian air force?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Oh, yes. I knew a Flight Lieutenant McLean.
    Mr. Juliana. Was he at any time ever involved in any 
Canadian espionage activities?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of a subversive 
organization?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Including the Communist party?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you familiar with the organizations that 
have been declared subversive by the attorney general?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes, I have seen the list quite a few times.
    Mr. Juliana. And you have never been associated in any way 
with any of those organizations?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have any knowledge at all that 
any espionage activities were going on while you were in New 
Mexico, particularly among Canadian officers?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't think I do, no.
    Mr. Juliana. Your associations with these people were 
purely business associations?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Well, Flight Lieutenant McLean was assigned 
there from the Canadian army, assigned to the air force. After 
working hours we probably had drinks together at the Officers' 
Club. We may have been in town together a couple of times, the 
town of Alamorgordo.
    That is the extent of it.
    Mr. Juliana. It was more of a business association?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that near Los Alamos?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Not that I know of. I don't know where Los 
Alamos is exactly.
    Mr. Juliana. It is near Albuquerque.
    Mr. Rosmovsky. It must be 400 miles, 350 miles at least.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have any knowledge of subversive 
activities going on at Fort Monmouth--now or in the past?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    I want to add something there. Something out at Alamorgordo 
Air Base. You asked me whether I had heard of any espionage. I 
think when I was out there, there was some kind of rumor or 
something about espionage out there.
    Mr. Juliana. You knew it only as a rumor?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Can you recall any of the individuals that 
were involved?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't think I know anything about 
individuals. I just heard somebody say something about 
espionage.
    Mr. Juliana. Could it have been this fellow [Donald] 
McLean?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he mention this to you?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't think so.
    Mr. Juliana. What were his duties there?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Liaison officer, Canadian army. His job, I 
believe, he was attached to the air force and also communicated 
between there and White Sands, about forty miles or so. As such 
he had access to V-2 data.
    Mr. Juliana. Were there other Canadians there also?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't remember. I don't think so.
    Mr. Juliana. He is the only Canadian you recall?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. And other than hearing about this espionage 
rumor, you can't elaborate?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I just remember something being said about 
spies.
    Mr. Juliana. Over at Fort Monmouth, do you know Aaron 
Coleman?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. He came to work at the laboratory and I met 
him then and I knew him when he lived in our apartment house at 
108 Second Avenue. I have known him ever since.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever a member of a car pool which 
Coleman was a member of?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know him socially?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Does that mean frequent visits to his home?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How frequent?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Well, it might have been two or three times 
a week. We used to drop in there. We probably ate together.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever seen a classified document in 
Aaron Coleman's possession, either at his home or in his 
personal possession? In his personal possession, on his person, 
either inside or outside of the laboratory--outside of the 
laboratory areas?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, not that I know of.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know him in 1947?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes, sir. Except I was away at Alamorgordo 
most of 1947, at least until July and from July on, the rest of 
1947, I was back at Watson Laboratories. I had very little 
contact with Coleman during that period. I believe he was 
married and I didn't see him too often and I didn't see him at 
work.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know that Aaron Coleman allowed his 
apartment to be searched and numerous classified documents were 
found by the G-2 officers?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes, sir. I heard it.
    Mr. Juliana. What was your reaction to that?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. At the time?
    Mr. Juliana. At the time.
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't particularly remember any reaction 
except I didn't think that it was anything unusual. People 
would take home stuff for study quite frequently.
    Mr. Juliana. Who else besides Coleman you know of took 
classified material home to study very frequently? You say it 
was the usual procedure?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't know that he took it home. I only 
found that out afterwards.
    Mr. Juliana. You never actually saw the material in his 
apartment?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Bernard Martin?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you known him?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I can't remember very well. I knew about him 
in the Signal Corps and I knew of him in the air force.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you say you have known him a number of 
years?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Very slightly. I know him to see him. I knew 
him professionally as an employee at the Watson Laboratories.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Bernard Martin socially?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. A little bit, I guess.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Jerome Corwin?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How did you know him?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I met him when he came to work at Camp Evans 
at the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you meet him?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I don't know exactly, probably around 1942, 
something like that.
    Mr. Juliana. You say you have no knowledge of any espionage 
activities at Fort Monmouth or at any of the laboratories?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No direct knowledge, no.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Haym Yamins?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. Well, I know him from work. I worked--I 
believe I was under him, I think, at Evans for a while doing 
some of the organizational changes and undoubtedly mostly from 
work.
    Mr. Juliana. You did not know him socially?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I knew him socially. I was to his house once 
or twice.
    Mr. Juliana. Did any individual ever ask you to remove 
classified material from any of the laboratories when you were 
working?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever take any of the classified 
material home for study or any other purpose?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I may have. I probably took classified 
material home when I was working at Watson Laboratories for the 
Signal Corps. When we had to make trips we had to carry papers. 
We would take classified material with us.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever take classified material merely 
to do your work at home, study it and then return it the next 
day or within the next few days?
    Mr. Rosmovsky. No, I am not exactly a student.
    Mr. Juliana. All right, Mr. Rosmovsky, if we should need 
you again we will be in touch with Fort Monmouth authorities 
and they can advise you.
    Mr. Rosmovsky. I am taking a couple of days leave beginning 
Wednesday, would that make any difference?
    Mr. Juliana. No, that is all right. Thanks very much.

                   STATEMENT OF SARAH OMANSON

    Mr. Juliana. What is your name please?
    Miss Omanson. Sarah Omanson.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your address?
    Miss Omanson. 240 State Street, Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your present position?
    Miss Omanson. I am a librarian at Squire Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Juliana. You are the librarian.
    Miss Omanson. I am not the librarian. I am a librarian at 
Squires Laboratory.
    Mr. Juliana. Where is that located?
    Miss Omanson. At Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been there?
    Miss Omanson. I have been there since September 1949--I had 
been there a number of years but I was transferred from the air 
force.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you first become employed at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Miss Omanson. March 1942.
    Mr. Juliana. What do your present duties entail?
    Miss Omanson. At the present time I do cataloging. That is 
not classified material. I do have access to classified 
material. I do some circulation work. You see, the present set 
up, the libraries were actually one unit--Evans, Coles and 
Squire, prior to moving to the new building. I have been 
permanently assigned to Squires since last year. I did work two 
days at Evans.
    Mr. Juliana. Miss Omanson, have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Miss Omanson. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of any 
organization which has been cited as a Communist front 
organization by the attorney general?
    Miss Omanson. Never to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you familiar with the organizations that 
have been cited by the attorney general?
    Miss Omanson. Yes. I have seen the Department of Army 
civilian personnel pamphlet and in laboratories.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of any of your associates who may 
be members of the Communist party?
    Miss Omanson. Not to my knowledge. I wouldn't have anything 
to do with them.
    Mr. Juliana. Have any of your friends or anyone asked you 
to remove classified material where you work?
    Miss Omanson. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever removed any classified material 
for studying purposes or any reason?
    Miss Omanson. Never. I do not study the material.
    Mr. Juliana. Who is your immediate superior?
    Miss Omanson. My immediate superior at Squire is Mr. Thomas 
J. Lilli, the head of all three is Helen Devore.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Miss Omanson. No, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know a Bernard Martin?
    Miss Omanson. There was a Bernard Martin who was employed 
in Watson. I knew him as a library patron. Later on, about a 
year after he came to Monmouth. I knew he was employed there 
because he came to the library at Squire.
    Mr. Juliana. Since you have been employed at Fort Monmouth, 
have all your duties centered around library work?
    Miss Omanson. That is correct.
    Mr. Juliana. What type of classified work do you handle?
    Miss Omanson. As high as secret. This is for the library.
    Mr. Juliana. For the purpose of laboratory personnel?
    Miss Omanson. The library keeps a file.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Miss Omanson. I remember him as a library patron in Watson. 
As I remember, he was suspended sometime in the forties, late 
forties.
    Mr. Juliana. And most of your associations with these 
people is strictly business--in connection with your work?
    Miss Omanson. My duties. I do not know any of them 
personally.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have access to the laboratories as 
such? Are you allowed to go into the laboratories?
    Miss Omanson. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Your clearance includes that.
    Miss Omanson. Secret, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have any knowledge of any subversive 
activities at Fort Monmouth or any of the laboratories?
    Miss Omanson. None whatsoever. My first inkling came with 
the publicity in the newspapers.
    Mr. Juliana. If you had been asked to join an organization 
in Perth Amboy or had been asked to maybe sign some petition, 
do you think you would have recognized it had it been a 
Communist organization?
    Miss Omanson. I think I would. I think so, I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have any brothers and sisters who live 
in Perth Amboy?
    Miss Omanson. I only have my father and mother.
    Mr. Juliana. What are their names?
    Miss Omanson. My father's name is Samuel and my mother's 
name is Rebecca.
    Mr. Juliana. Have they ever been members of any subversive 
groups?
    Miss Omanson. Goodness, no. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. All right, Miss Omanson, I think that is 
sufficient for now. If we need you in the future we will be in 
touch with you through the Fort Monmouth authorities. Thanks 
very much for coming.













              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Mounting contention developed between the 
subcommittee and the United States Army over the Eisenhower 
administration's refusal to make available for testimony 
members of the army's loyalty and security hearing boards, 
screening boards, appeals or review boards. Eisenhower relied 
on a 1948 executive order by his predecessor, Harry Truman, 
barring officials from discussing specific loyalty board cases. 
One of the few loyalty board members to testify was Sherrod 
East (1910-1999). A graduate of the University of Denver, East 
came to Washington in 1933 as an aide to Colorado 
Representative Lawrence Lewis. He joined the staff of the 
National Archives in 1937 and during World War II was 
transferred to the War Department as an archivist of military 
records. Between February 1952 and March 1953, he served on the 
army's loyalty screening board panel. A related issue was 
East's role as an original occupant and member of the town 
council of Greenbelt, Maryland, one of the planned towns that 
the New Deal's Resettlement Administration had created in the 
1930s. In 1958 East returned to the National Archives along 
with the army's records; and retired in 1967 as chief archivist 
of World War II military documents.
    Nathan Sussman testified in public session on December 8, 
1953. Harold Ducore, Stanley R. Rich (1917-1993), Carl 
Greenblum (1916-1997), Sherrod East, Jacob Kaplan, James P. 
Scott, Bernard Lee, and Melvin M. Morris did not testify in 
public. Louis Leo Kaplan did not appear in public session; 
instead the Louis Kaplan who testified in executive session on 
October 13 was called to testify publicly on December 17, 
1953.]
                              ----------                              


                        FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 11:00 a.m., in room 
36, Federal Building, New York, Mr. G. David Schine presiding.
    Present also: G. David Schine, chief consultant; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Francis Carr, staff director; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel.
    Present also: John Adams, counselor to secretary of the 
army.

 STATEMENT OF HAROLD DUCORE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, HARRY 
                             GREEN)

    Mr. Schine. Would you state your name for the record, 
please?
    Mr. Ducore. Harold Ducore.
    Mr. Schine. Will counsel state his name?
    Mr. Green. Harry Green.
    Mr. Schine. And your firm?
    Mr. Green. No, I practice individually. 16 Church Street, 
Little Silver, New Jersey.
    Mr. Schine. We called you back today to ask you some 
questions in light of some additional material which has turned 
up.
    I believe when you first appeared before us you listed all 
of the references that you gave when you took a position with 
the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Ducore. No, I didn't. I wasn't asked that question. I 
couldn't do it. It is so long ago, twelve years ago. Since then 
I have filled out any number of forms with new references. When 
I first filled out an application for a position, is that it?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Ducore. I don't remember that.
    Mr. Green. Mr. Schine, do you mean when he first made 
application for the position?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Ducore. I don't even have a copy of that at home.
    Mr. Schine. Were you in the class of 1938?
    Mr. Ducore. I was graduated actually in 1941. I entered in 
January 1935 but I switched to night school when I was going to 
school and it took me five and a half years to get through.
    Mr. Schine. About how many of your classmates that attended 
City College at the time you did would you say were members of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Ducore. I have no idea of that. I went to get an 
education. I don't know if you are aware of the situation, but 
that is a subway school. You go to school by subway, train, and 
go home when you are finished. All during the time I was going 
to school I was also working, at the beginning in my father's 
restaurant and after that for the New Jersey Broadcasting 
Corporation, and I had no time for outside activities.
    Mr. Schine. About how many did you know when at City 
College?
    Mr. Ducore. I had no outside interest at the school other 
than belonging to the Radio Club.
    Mr. Schine. Didn't you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Ducore. I don't remember him from school at all.
    Mr. Schine. You can't remember any of the names of the 
references that you gave when you took a position with the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Ducore. I don't remember any specific names. The only 
possibility would be that I gave names of some of the people I 
worked with at the New Jersey Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Schine. Give us those names?
    Mr. Ducore. The chief engineer was my brother-in-law, Wayne 
Allison Burnham. The other engineers that were there at the 
same time were William Fairclough, Harold McCambridge, Theodore 
Gemp.
    Mr. Schine. Now, when did you first meet J. Robert 
Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. I never met him. Are you talking about the 
physicist, the scientist?
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever know an Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. I knew a--I can't think of his first name. He 
was married to a girl my wife knew up in New Rochelle, New 
York.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know him very well?
    Mr. Ducore. I knew him while he was over at Fort Monmouth. 
He was stationed there.
    Mr. Schine. Did you meet him after you went to Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Ducore. Oh, yes. After he was stationed at Fort 
Monmouth his wife came down and she knew my wife and we saw 
them several times after he was discharged.
    Mr. Schine. Did you give him as a reference?
    Mr. Ducore. I gave him as a reference but not in the 
beginning.
    Mr. Schine. When did you give him as a reference?
    Mr. Ducore. I can't think of the date. Five, six, seven 
years ago.
    Mr. Schine. You knew him?
    Mr. Ducore. That was at the time at Fort Monmouth or 
shortly after he left. This Oppenheimer I am talking about, I 
can't think of his first name. I gave him as a reference.
    Mr. Schine. J. Robert Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. This is not J. Robert I gave as a reference.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you never knew J. Robert 
Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. That is correct.
    Mr. Schine. But you did know a man by the name of 
Oppenheimer who was a friend of your sister's?
    Mr. Ducore. Married to a friend of my wife.
    Mr. Schine. When did you give him as a reference?
    Mr. Ducore. I gave him as a reference sometime when I was 
employed at Fort Monmouth in connection with a promotion, or 
something. No, I think it was one of the Civil Service forms. 
It may have been a new security form.
    Mr. Schine. Were his initials J. R.?
    Mr. Ducore. Gee, I can't think of his first name.
    Mr. Schine. Was he any relation to J. Robert Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. That I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Will you try and think of his name?
    Mr. Ducore. I will try.
    Mr. Schine. Or his address or where you first met?
    Mr. Ducore. I first met him at Fort Monmouth while he was a 
2nd lt. there.
    Mr. Schine. What was his job?
    Mr. Ducore. At that time I think he was in the publications 
agency, I am not sure.
    Mr. Schine. Approximately what year was this?
    Mr. Ducore. Well, this would have been after I was married; 
probably I would say, 1945.
    Mr. Schine. Could you find out from your wife what his name 
is?
    Mr. Ducore. Oh, yes. I know his wife's name was Emily and 
her maiden name was Lowenfeld.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Ducore. I think L-o-w-e-n-f-e-l-d.
    Mr. Schine. Now, will you get that information to the 
committee as soon as you can?
    Mr. Ducore. Would you like for me to call Mr. Buckley?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, if you would call.
    Mr. Schine. Did you take out secret documents last year 
which you didn't return?
    Mr. Ducore. No, I never took out any secret documents for 
my own private use.
    Mr. Schine. Isn't it true that you took out two secret 
documents and instead of returning them you destroyed them?
    Mr. Ducore. No. I never knew anything about that.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever been asked about that?
    Mr. Ducore. No, I have never been asked. That is something 
I wouldn't do.
    Mr. Schine. You never destroyed secret documents?
    Mr. Ducore. Never outside the laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. Did you destroy two secret documents in the 
laboratory?
    Mr. Ducore. Any number in the laboratory, yes.
    Mr. Schine. Did you take out secret documents which you 
didn't return?
    Mr. Ducore. No, never.
    Mr. Schine. Or which were unaccounted for?
    Mr. Ducore. Never.
    Mr. Schine. When was the last time you took secret document 
out?
    Mr. Ducore. I can't give you any specific dates, but I 
think approximately a year ago. I can't be sure of this. I took 
some material to Washington with me.
    Mr. Schine. Which material was this?
    Mr. Ducore. I can't even remember the particular trip.
    Mr. Schine. You didn't take any secret material between 
that time and between the time your security clearance was 
lifted?
    Mr. Ducore. I know I needed it but other people accompanied 
me on the 538 who were allowed to take documents out.
    Mr. Schine. What was the approximate date of this trip to 
Washington when you took out secret material?
    Mr. Ducore. The best I can give you would be a year ago.
    Mr. Schine. That would be around October 1952?
    Mr. Ducore. Roughly. I have no way of really remembering.
    Mr. Schine. And you never to the best of your knowledge 
took secret material out since October 1952?
    Mr. Ducore. To the best of my knowledge I never took 
anything on a trip since that time. I have had material out but 
other people would carry it.
    Mr. Schine. Who carried it?
    Mr. Ducore. Colonel Gaither, director of Evans Signal Corps 
and John J. Slattery, who is the acting chief of the technical 
division, Evans Signal Corps.
    Mr. Schine. What was this material, secret?
    Mr. Ducore. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Schine. They went to Washington with you?
    Mr. Ducore. Not necessarily to Washington but on trips that 
I needed material they gave it to them to carry.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you go?
    Mr. Ducore. With Colonel Gaither I went to Fort Sill, 
Oklahoma. With Mr. Slattery, I am not positive but I think it 
was Washington.
    Mr. Schine. Was anybody else on that trip?
    Mr. Ducore. With Colonel Gaither, yes. Mr. Lowenstein, 
Allan J.
    Mr. Schine. Has his security been lifted?
    Mr. Ducore. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know any reason?
    Mr. Ducore. No, I don't think he has had any charges yet.
    Mr. Schine. I don't think we have any more questions to ask 
you now. If we need you we will get in touch with you. We 
appreciate your coming up today.
    We will appreciate it if you will get that name----
    Mr. Ducore. Oh, Philip. I don't know his middle initial. He 
was a 2nd lt. When he got out of the army he worked for a 
chemical company, Merck, but it wasn't too long after that that 
we stopped seeing each other.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know him very well?
    Mr. Ducore. I knew him as a pleasant fellow. We use to go 
out together. We would go to the movies together.
    Mr. Schine. You don't know whether he is related to J. 
Robert Oppenheimer?
    Mr. Ducore. I have no idea.
    Mr. Schine. You don't know that he isn't related?
    Mr. Ducore. No, I don't.
    Mr. Schine. All right. Thank you very much.

                   STATEMENT OF STANLEY RICH

    Mr. Schine. Will you give us your name for the record?
    Mr. Rich. Stanley R. Rich.
    Mr. Schine. And where do you live?
    Mr. Rich. I live in West Hartford, Connecticut.
    Mr. Schine. What is your current occupation?
    Mr. Rich. I am co-director of the Rich-Roth Laboratories of 
Hartford.
    Mr. Schine. Is that a private company?
    Mr. Rich. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Rich. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about the jobs you have had 
with the government?
    Mr. Rich. My first position out of school was with the 
Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department, Torpedo Design Section in 
Washington, D.C., which I held from October 24, 1938 to 
February 1, 1940; then I was transferred to the Radio Material 
Office, New York Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, where after 
various titles, the last one I had was outside supervising 
engineer in charge of installation and maintenance of 
electronic equipment of various kinds. Those are the only 
government jobs I have had.
    Mr. Schine. When did you start the last job?
    Mr. Rich. February 1, 1940. That was a transfer and it 
terminated in April 1943, when it was requested by the Bureau 
of Ships that I transfer to Harvard University because I had 
developed a new type sonar system and proposed it to the bureau 
and I have a commendation for that.
    Mr. Schine. Your second job was ordnance. That was navy?
    Mr. Rich. That is correct.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Rich. City College, New York and two other schools.
    Mr. Schine. You knew Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Rich. In school.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about your association with 
Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Rich. Rosenberg was a classmate of mine. I believe he 
either graduated at the same time I did, which was June 1938, 
or not too differently thereafter. I was also a member, for a 
period of about eight months of a club which is called 
``Steinmetz Club'' which was affiliated with the Young 
Communist League. Rosenberg was an officer of that club. I 
attended several meetings of the club myself.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know some of the other individuals who 
were in that club?
    Mr. Rich. Yes, I do. Sobell, Elitcher, Danziger, Sussman.
    Mr. Schine. Which Sussman?
    Mr. Rich. This is Nathan, the fellow I met for the first 
time in fifteen years out here. He looks different without his 
hair.
    Mr. Schine. The Sussman in the waiting room?
    Mr. Rich. Yes. Now, that was the total extent of my 
knowledge of Rosenberg, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Can you give us any other names of Communists 
you knew in that period of your life?
    Mr. Rich. Well, I would say that almost everyone in the 
graduating class that I was in, while not a Communist by any 
means, nor would I go on record as accusing people which I have 
no proof of, was undoubtedly interested in these things and 
probably on one or more occasions attended a meeting or so.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know who was the main instigator of 
Communist activities at CCNY?
    Mr. Rich. I don't know who for sure but I would say that 
the ring-leader, without a question in my mind, was Rosenberg.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know who lead Rosenberg?
    Mr. Rich. No, sir, that I don't.
    Mr. Schine. We know he was quite active during the class of 
1938, that period around there, but we have been trying to 
ascertain who indoctrinated Rosenberg if that is possible to 
find out.
    Mr. Rich. That I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know where you could find that out?
    Mr. Rich. No. That has been fifteen and a half years and my 
interest in those things ceased when I graduated.
    Mr. Schine. I understand there is a professor there who is 
quite radical. Can you think of any professor that might have 
been the main advocate of communism?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't know the main advocate would be. There 
is only one professor whose name sticks in my mind and I think 
he was bounced the year after I graduated. Somebody name 
Schappes.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't know that.
    Mr. Cohn. S-c-h-a-p-p-e-s, Morris.
    Mr. Rich. I personally had no contact with this fellow. 
This is a recollection from things that happened around this 
school.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any names of other professors 
who had leftist leanings?
    Mr. Rich. Really not for the reason in the engineering 
school there were practically none. By none, I am not as 
certain of that as the day I was born. In the engineering 
school I don't think any of the professors exhibited it openly.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Professor Lehrman in the chemistry 
department?
    Mr. Rich. No, I didn't know him. I had one course in 
chemistry, general chemistry.
    Mr. Schine. Did any professors try to get you to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Rich. Never did.
    Mr. Schine. Did anybody else?
    Mr. Rich. No. Incidentally, never in my life. I think 
possibly I was a much to independent person to be lead by the 
nose.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know any individuals working at Fort 
Monmouth or working for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Rich. I know now that classmates of mine are out there. 
I visited that area once in the company of Dr. Alfred G. Ennis 
as a representative from the Submarine Signal Company as a 
representative to an electronic conference there and met a 
whole lot of people, including people who were some of my 
classmates. I couldn't tell you who or how many.
    Mr. Schine. What about Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Rich. I don't recall him.
    Mr. Schine. Coleman?
    Mr. Rich. Coleman I do recall. His name is familiar to me. 
I didn't see him when I visited Monmouth.
    Mr. Schine. Do you remember Ducorsky?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. What about Jerome Corwin?
    Mr. Rich. That doesn't mean anything to me.
    Mr. Schine. Jerome Rothstein?
    Mr. Rich. The name is slightly familiar but I'm sure I 
wouldn't know him.
    Mr. Schine. William P. Goldberg?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. Edward J. Fister?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. Allan J. Lowenstein?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. Paul Seigal?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. Can you remember any individuals who were in 
your class end who associated with the Rosenberg crowd that are 
now working for the United States government?
    Mr. Rich. Frankly, no. In this recent investigation of 
yours names have come into the press. Sussman whom I have just 
met here for the first time in fifteen and a half years use to 
know Rosenberg. I don't know what he has done since then. If 
you could tell me some more names.
    Mr. Schine. How about Sorwitz, Jerome. Do you remember him?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Schine. You do recall Coleman?
    Mr. Rich. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Schine. Do you remember any of Coleman's friends?
    Mi. Rich. I don't think Coleman ran with the Rosenberg 
crowd more or less while at school.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Coleman was a 
Communist then?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't be able to say. My recollection would 
be that I would doubt it. He was a very studious kid as I 
remember. That doesn't have anything to do with it I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he in the Steinmetz Club?
    Mr. Rich. I don't believe he was but I wouldn't be 
surprised if he attended a meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him at a meeting?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't be able to recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you have any recollection?
    Mr. Rich. I am trying to dredge my memory. That is pretty 
much of a blur now.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know if it would be possible to get a 
list of the members of the Steinmetz Club?
    Mr. Rich. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Continue.
    Mr. Rich. The people I have named are the people I recall. 
A couple I have left out. I guess Perl attended more meetings, 
whether he was a member or not, I don't know. I think he 
attended more meetings than Coleman on a qualitative basis. I 
would say Perl was certainly friendlier to Sobell and Elitcher 
than was Coleman.
    Mr. Schine. But Coleman was quite friendly with them?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't say he was overly friendly, no.
    Mr. Schine. Do you have any recollection of Coleman being 
at any of these meetings?
    Mr. Rich. Not specifically. I do have recollection that 
damn near everybody attended a meeting or so. The trouble was 
the campus atmosphere of those days was what I now would 
consider to be poison.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Carl Greenblum?
    Mr. Rich. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Samuel Pomeranz?
    Mr. Rich. I recall him.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he at any of these meetings?
    Mr. Rich. I would doubt it.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Sam Lavine?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't really be able to say. Maybe yes and 
maybe no.
    Mr. Cohn. Louie Volp?
    Mr. Rich. I don't know him.
    Mr. Cohn. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    In answer to one of your earlier question as to whether I 
knew people working out there or not, I can tell you this: I 
wouldn't know whether they are working out there or not.
    Mr. Schine. Would you answer this please. You say that the 
climate of CCNY--in fact, would you say the entire school was 
leftist?
    Mr. Rich. Yes, I would definitely say that.
    Mr. Schine. Now, communism was a pretty openly discussed 
ideology?
    Mr. Rich. Unfortunately there was a situation I would not 
want to tolerate when I send my children to school. There was a 
situation where younger people, like myself, what amounts to a 
fertile field for ideas in the midst of people who are telling 
lies.
    Mr. Schine. Was Julius Rosenberg openly a Communist at that 
time?
    Mr. Rich. I would say almost more than anybody else in the 
engineering school.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think that everybody who knew Julius 
Rosenberg knew he was a Communist?
    Mr. Rich. I would be surprised if anyone said opposite.
    Mr. Schine. Would you think Aaron Coleman knew that Julius 
Rosenberg was a Communist?
    Mr. Rich. I would say so. I'd be surprised if he didn't 
recognize that.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think he would have known at that time 
that Julius Rosenberg was a Communist?
    Mr. Rich. That is what you just asked me.
    Mr. Schine. I mean Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Rich. He might or might not have. I think the answer is 
less definite but still positive.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, Sobell and Rosenberg were both 
open Communists?
    Mr. Rich. We will put it this way: There seemed to be a 
group of people who socialized a lot together. They lived--
actually, I don't know where they lived.
    Mr. Cohn. Who?
    Mr. Rich. Sobell, Elitcher, Danziger and a fellow named 
Barr.
    Mr. Cohn. Joel Barr?
    Mr. Rich. Yes, I think that was his first name.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Benjamin Zuckerman?
    Mr. Rich. I knew him quite well. If he has gotten into 
trouble, poor kid, he has been terribly mislead. At school he 
was not leftist in the slightest degree. Maybe he was but I 
didn't think of him in those terms. Actually, I wasn't 
particularly friendly with Zuckerman at school, but we moved to 
Washington, various of us accepted positions in Washington and 
Zuckerman was not what anybody would classify as leftist.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a fellow by the name of Mark 
Pogarsky?
    Mr. Rich. I don't know anything about him except I remember 
the name it is so unusual.
    Mr. Schine. Was there anyone to whom Julius Rosenberg 
reported?
    Mr. Rich. That, sir, I would not know.
    Mr. Schine. Did there seem to be individuals or places that 
Julius Rosenberg as the so-called ring leader of this group 
went for instructions?
    Mr. Rich. I wouldn't know, sir. Just how these things 
happened is still something of a mystery to me.
    Mr. Cohn. How about a fellow named Sam Greenman?
    Mr. Rich. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you recall the names of any other persons who 
attended the Steinmetz Club?
    Mr. Rich. Not as such. I do recall another individual who 
worked for the government. I think one of the fellows phoned 
me, Mr. Juliana, and asked me about a fellow named Bennet. I 
did recall there was a Bennett. The reason I remember that, did 
he have another name?
    Mr. Cohn. Benowitz. What about him did he attend these 
meetings?
    Mr. Rich. I would say not. He wasn't particularly 
interested anyway. All of these remarks essentially are 
recollections of impressions.
    Mr. Schine. What about Jack Okun?
    Mr. Rich. I don't remember him.
    Mr. Schine. I asked you before to give us the names of any 
individuals who attended City College, New York, who you 
thought were affiliated with the Communist movement and who 
since have taken positions and worked for the U.S. government. 
Can you give us anymore names?
    Mr. Rich. Beyond those I have mentioned, I am sort of a 
blank. I will be thinking about it a little bit.
    Mr. Schine. Which names have you mentioned already?
    Mr. Rich. Well, I think the people are apparently friends 
of Rosenberg. I think that is about it, actually. I find out 
Sussman had been with the government. I say I find out, he just 
told me.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever come in contact with any of these 
individuals after college days?
    Mr. Rich. With some of them when various people at the 
school took the Civil Service examination and some of us were 
offered positions in Washington and at the Bureau of Ordnance, 
I found myself arriving at approximately the same time as 
Elitcher, Sobell, Danziger, Ben Zuckerman, a fellow named 
Solberg, incidentally, who was a graduate of a few years before 
that. He was not even contemporary with us but he later took a 
position. I knew those people in Washington.
    Excuse me. I don't want to be too loose. I knew those 
people at work and for a period of three months I lived with 
them while preparing to get married. After I was married we 
moved off on Delafield Place. This has been well documented.
    Mr. Schine. Were there any other Communists you haven't 
told us about?
    Mr. Rich. No. I want to say, if I may, my wife and I had 
taken a distinct dislike to these particular people and after 
that three months period we did not socialize with them at all 
in Washington or ever after. I am a reasonably mild mannered 
fellow but I called Sobell a swine once when I had supper with 
him.
    Mr. Schine. Why did you call him that?
    Mr. Rich. He is personally piggish in his habits, an 
irascible person. Just a louse.
    Mr. Schine. Did these people have Communist meetings at 
this residence?
    Mr. Rich. This I would not know. To the best of my 
knowledge they did not. I spent most of my weekends courting my 
wife in New York City.
    Mr. Schine. Did they ever have visitors--foreigners from 
Russia?
    Mr. Rich. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of anyone these individuals 
contacted that they took orders from?
    Mr. Rich. I never knew these individuals in any later 
years, thank God. At the time I went to ordnance, after moving 
into my own place I lost contact with them and saw an entirely 
different group of people.
    Mr. Schine. You can't think of anyone they contacted and 
took orders from when you lived with them?
    Mr. Rich. No, sir. I can't, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Did these people talk about the overthrow by 
force and violence of our government?
    Mr. Rich. Not in my earshot, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Did they ever talk about espionage or hint that 
they might be interested in obtaining information for a foreign 
government?
    Mr. Rich. No. At least not while I was around.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever see them with any confidential, 
secret or classified information they shouldn't have had?
    Mr. Rich. No, I must say in the three months I lived with 
them we were junior engineers doing extremely menial work. I, 
myself, at that time worked on torpedoes. Nothing that I was 
given to do was of any nature where you would want to even 
study it.
    Mr. Schine. Now, when you took this job with the ordnance 
division, how did you happen to become interested in it?
    Mr. Rich. Jobs were kind of hard to get--engineers. I took 
a Civil Service examination in June, the same month I 
graduated. I had a grade of, I don't know, somewheres in the 
nineties, and I was very pleased.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think it was coincidental that they took 
these positions or do you think somebody in ordnance was trying 
to get people of that following in government?
    Mr. Rich. I personally feel it must have been coincidental. 
I believe it was entirely according to position on the list. 
For example, I have no proof and wouldn't know the power behind 
the screen, but there are some fact which lead me to feel it 
was random and those are that, as I recall, I don't know what 
the grades were, the various grades made by various individuals 
were in a point or so of each other. I suspect it must have 
been random. I certainly had no inkling of any of this.
    Mr. Schine. Were all of the individuals examined quite 
capable in their work at CCNY?
    Mr. Rich. That was one of the toughest exams I have ever 
had the displeasure of encountering in my life. It was a mess. 
A six-hour examination. It was really comprehensive and anybody 
who got a good grade knew his studies.
    Mr. Schine. Were these individuals known for their good 
grades while at CCNY?
    Mr. Rich. Not particularly. I say that for the following 
reason: CCNY is, of course, a free college and there are a 
tremendous number of students who were flunked out of the 
school. Of an engineering class of over two thousand, about one 
hundred graduated. Those who graduate are all pretty good.
    Mr. Schine. That is what I am trying to ascertain. We have 
this group of Communists who attended CCNY and went with the 
government. They had to take a very tough examination to go 
with the government.
    Mr Rich. That is right.
    Mr. Schine. Now, were they actually capable to your 
knowledge, capable enough to pass this examination?
    Mr. Rich. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Schine. Or do you think there might have been something 
wrong with the Civil Service----
    Mr. Rich. With the examination? I doubt that, sir. I doubt 
that very much. The curriculum at CCNY--I think the reason a 
student at CCNY got good grades on the examination, by and 
large, has not so much to do with the types of individuals but 
the extreme thoroughness of the curriculum.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, all individuals if they 
graduated from CCNY had to be at least intelligent enough to 
pass these Civil Service examinations?
    Mr. Rich. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. I have nothing more that I'd like to ask you 
now, unless you can think of further information you'd like to 
give us.
    Mr. Rich. No, except to say I am extremely pleased not to 
have had anything to do with these people since I graduated. If 
I can be of further help--my time is difficult. I do appreciate 
you getting to me now.
    Mr. Schine. Did many people fail the examination at CCNY?
    Mr. Rich. I don't believe so. I think the entire graduating 
class did a very good job on the examination and I know that 
other colleges did not. I know there was something like several 
hundred who passed out of six or seven thousand, that is vague 
figures, who took the examination.
    Mr. Schine. All right. Thank you very much for cooperating 
with us. We will call you if we need you again.

                  STATEMENT OF NATHAN SUSSMAN

    Mr. Schine. Will you give us your full name, please?
    Mr. Sussman. Nathan Sussman.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you very much for coming up Mr. Sussman.
    Mr. Schine. Where are you currently employed?
    Mr. Sussman. I am currently employed at Amuco American 
Electronics Company.
    Mr. Schine. And have you worked for the government in the 
past?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us the various jobs you have had 
with the government--federal government?
    Mr. Sussman. From October 1940 to April 1942 I was employed 
by the inspector of naval materiel.
    Mr. Schine. What was your function?
    Mr. Sussman. Radio employee.
    Mr. Cohn. In the navy?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. And where did you go to college?
    Mr. Sussman. City College, New York.
    Mr. Schine. Now, when at CCNY, you knew Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Would you give us the names of all individuals 
you can think of who were tied up with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Sussman. You mean the Young Communist League in 
particular?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, members of the Young Communist League.
    Mr. Cohn. Not only members but people you saw in meeting, 
differentiating as you go along.
    Mr. Sussman. Morton Sobell, Max Elitcher, Abe Emmer.
    Mr. Cohn. What ever happened to him? Do you know?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never heard of him after that?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't think so. Joseph Goldfield, Stanley 
Rich, Irvin Rosenblum, Henry Shoiket, Aaron Coleman.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Sussman. Member of the Young Communist League. There 
are others. I will have to think about.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any other now?
    Mr. Sussman. Morris Savitsky.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of a man by the name of Morris 
Savitt?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Schine. Do you recall Coleman being at more than one 
meeting of the league?
    Mr. Sussman. My recollection is he was a member. I don't 
particularly recall any meetings of the league.
    Mr. Schine. You knew Coleman?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Rather well?
    Mr. Sussman. I wouldn't say that. I think he was behind me 
in school. He was a relatively lower-classman.
    Mr. Schine. Who do you associate him with at college?
    Mr. Sussman. Coleman?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Sussman. I couldn't say.
    Mr. Schine. How did you know him? You knew him together 
with whom? Was there anybody else who knew him along with you?
    Mr. Sussman. I imagine there must have been, but I can't 
remember at this date. That was so long ago. I believe he was 
behind me maybe two years or so.
    Mr. Schine. Did you meet him at Young Communist League 
activities?
    Mr. Sussman. Probably.
    Mr. Schine. Is that your best recollection?
    Mr. Sussman. That is.
    Mr. Schine. Would you continue giving us the names? Can you 
think of some others?
    Mr. Sussman. Matthew Reliz. Did I give Sobell?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Sussman. Joel Barr.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Barr likewise a member?
    Mr. Schine. All of these were members, weren't they?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes, they were.
    Mr. Cohn. What ever happened to Goldfield?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Rosenblum?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Shoiket?
    Mr. Sussman. Well, Shoiket, I heard, was out in California.
    Mr. Cohn. What was he doing out there?
    Mr. Sussman. I heard he was working at the navy yard.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that? You probably heard that when 
the FBI and all those people were talking to you about the time 
of the Rosenbergs.
    Mr. Sussman. Yes. Apparently he had been employed there 
during the current period. That was my guess.
    Mr. Cohn. Where in California? Do you know?
    Mr. Sussman. I think Mare Island in San Francisco.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Reliz? Do you know what, happened to 
him?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't know.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any individuals who got jobs 
with the government?
    Mr. Sussman. I have a vague notion that Coleman may be 
working at Fort Monmouth. I don't know what gives me that 
impression.
    Mr. Schine. Did Coleman join the Communist party?
    Mr. Sussman. I have no idea.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether he belonged to the party?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Not in your section in any event?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Coleman at Communist 
meetings?
    Mr. Sussman. I would say when I left school or earlier. I 
did not see him afterwards.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether he went on into the party?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't believe I saw him. Another name is 
Alexander Farkas. Another is Harry Pastorinsky.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of Communist activities in connection 
with--in connection with what would you meet these people?
    Mr. Sussman. Meetings, most of these people. I don't 
believe they did much more than meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. The Young Communist League?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the Young Communist League put out a little 
newspaper?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes, the technology group did which it has 
been recollected to me the name was ``The Interrogator.''
    Mr. Schine. Would it be possible for us to get a copy of 
the members of the Young Communist League at that time?
    Mr. Sussman. Well, what do you mean? From what source?
    Mr. Schine. I don't know.
    Mr. Sussman. Well, the only source I have is my memory. 
There is nothing written. There is no list that I know of.
    Mr. Schine. How about that publication? Do you know where 
we might get copies?
    Mr. Sussman. No. Other people might know but I don't.
    Mr. Schine. Was Julius Rosenberg the ringleader of this 
group?
    Mr. Sussman. He was president of the technology group.
    Mr. Cohn. Technology group of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were all these people in the technology group?
    Mr. Sussman. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. We have got Emmer, Sobell, Goldfield, Rosenblum, 
Shoiket, Coleman, Reliz, Barr, Pastorinsky. Were everyone of 
those including Pastorinsky engineering students?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't recollect that he was there. I presume 
he was there.
    Mr. Cohn. You said you did not know whether Coleman joined 
the party?
    Mr. Sussman. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see any evidence of a break with 
Coleman?
    Mr. Sussman. I haven't seen him. I last saw him there. I 
don't know what happened. He might have gone on to the party or 
he might have become anti-Communist.
    Mr. Schine. Who was the main canvasser for the party?
    Mr. Sussman. I was fairly active. Rosenberg was active. 
There were many people active.
    Mr. Schine. Was some faculty member the outside contact?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes, there was a faculty representative of the 
Communist party to the Young Communist League.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mr. Sussman. Morris Foner.
    Mr. Cohn. That couldn't be Phillip?
    Mr. Sussman. No. There was four brothers. All of them were 
teaching.
    Mr. Schine. Is he still there?
    Mr. Sussman. This man was in the registrar's office. He was 
not a teacher.
    Mr. Schine. And his job was to more or less run the thing 
from the top?
    Mr. Sussman. No, I wouldn't say that. He didn't run it. He 
gave advice.
    Mr. Schine. Who did run it. Where did the orders come from?
    Mr. Sussman. The directives came from the next higher 
authority. Yes, that is true.
    Mr. Schine. What was the next higher authority?
    Mr. Sussman. It varied at different times. At one time it 
was the County Student Commission, I believe. It wasn't 
commission. Committee, I guess. County Student Committee.
    Mr. Schine. Who was on that committee?
    Mr. Sussman. The one I remember was Ruth Watt. I believe 
she died a long time ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall that it was Julius Rosenberg who 
brought Coleman into the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he already in there at the time you joined?
    Mr. Sussman. Coleman, I think he came in afterwards.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any other names on the higher 
authority?
    Mr. Sussman. No, after I graduated for a short time I was 
on the County Student Committee.
    Mr. Schine. Anybody else on that? Can you give us their 
names?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't think it had any names.
    Mr. Cohn. You made some mention of Reliz, Savitsky, 
Pastorinsky--do you know whether any of those individuals work 
for the government now?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether any of them ever worked for 
the government?
    Mr. Sussman. Savitsky worked for the Navy Yard in Brooklyn.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you think he was a member of the Communist 
party at the time he was at the Brooklyn Navy Yard?
    Mr. Sussman. I guess I know that he was.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know what sort of work he did?
    Mr. Sussman. He was some sort of technical clerk in the 
stock room?
    Mr. Cohn. How about Pastorinsky?
    Mr. Sussman. He was an inspector. It could have been the 
Signal Corps. I don't know. Some army group at the same time I 
was inspector for naval materiel.
    Mr. Cohn. Here in New York? An army group here in New York?
    Mr. Sussman. No, I ran into him at the RCA plant in 
Harrison, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think this was something having to do with 
the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sussman. It was inspector of a group similar to the 
Inspector of naval materiels but army.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was this Pastorinsky?
    Mr. Sussman. Harry.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Goldfield?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Emmer? Do you know whether he worked 
for the government?
    Mr. Sussman. No. I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you some questions about Coleman and 
your knowledge of his membership in the Young Communist League. 
Did you ever see him at meetings that you can specifically 
remember?
    Mr. Sussman. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him at meetings of the Steinmetz 
Club?
    Mr. Sussman. That was the same thing.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him at meetings of a club 
similar to that--Communist?
    Mr. Sussman. Probably did. I can't recall that right now.
    Mr. Cohn. You have stated that from your memory Coleman was 
a member of the Young Communist League. Can you place him at 
any meetings?
    Mr. Sussman. Among other things, there were so many 
meetings and so many other things.
    Mr. Cohn. But you don't have definite recollection of his 
being at meetings?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection of personal 
conversations which would place him in the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have recollection of Julius Rosenberg 
including Coleman in conversations as a Communist or a Young 
Communist League member?
    Mr. Sussman. It is a feeling. I have a definite 
recollection of a feeling that he was member of the Young 
Communist League.
    Mr. Cohn. How long?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't believe that it was very long because 
I think he was an under-classman.
    Mr. Cohn. You had only known him a year or so but you had 
the feeling he belonged?
    Mr. Sussman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. So you did see him in connection with some of 
these activities?
    Mr. Sussman. I must have seen him to carry that memory 
fifteen years later. What I could do is pick his face out, at 
least his face at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you seen him in the last ten years?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Schine. Did most of those individuals go on to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't know what most of those individuals 
did.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this: Does that about exhaust 
your recollection of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Sussman. There would be more.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me throw some names at you. Harold Ducorsky?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Samuel Pomeranz?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Samuel Lavine?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you associate him with the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he look like?
    Mr. Sussman. Fat fellow, sort of stout with round jaws and, 
I believe, he had black hair. I am not sure of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Louie Volp?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Jack Okun?
    Mr. Sussman. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Jerome Zorwitz?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Jerome Corwin?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Brody?
    Mr. Sussman. Not particularly.
    Mr. Cohn. Herbert Bennet?
    Mr. Sussman. He was not a member.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody named Goldberg?
    Mr. Sussman. No, I don't think so. Lots of Goldbergs there.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Benjamin Zuckerman?
    Mr. Sussman. He was not also. I believe he associated with 
some of the boys like Perl.
    Mr. Cohn. Was his name mentioned?
    Mr. Sussman. No, you forgot Perl.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go on from the Young Communist League and 
become a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sussman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What cell did you join?
    Mr. Sussman. Well, I am told number 16B.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the industrial section of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Sussman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were some of the people?
    Mr. Sussman. Well, Barr, Sarant, Schoiket, Savitsky, 
Rosenberg, Sol Tenenbaum.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever work for the government?
    Mr. Sussman. That is a question. I don't know. I think he 
did.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Sussman. There was some young fellow named Arthur, I 
think, something or other.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did you remain in section 16B?
    Mr. Sussman. Until January or February of 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you transferred to some other section?
    Mr. Sussman. Yes, Sunnyside Queens.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was in that section?
    Mr. Sussman. In Sunnyside?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Sussman. Gee, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Any of these CCNY people?
    Mr. Sussman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody who worked for the government?
    Mr. Sussman. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody connected with the names thrown at you?
    Mr. Sussman. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you in that section?
    Mr. Sussman. Until January 1945. I took a transfer but I 
didn't get there until three or four months later. When I got 
there, it was CPA, Communist Political Association, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened in 1945?
    Mr. Sussman. We resigned, my wife and I.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Schine. We are very much interested, of course, in 
knowing the names of individuals who were connected or are 
connected with the Communist movement who are working currently 
for the United States government, and if you try to think about 
this and remember some of the names it would be very helpful.
    Mr. Sussman. I can't if I don't know anything about them. 
This was years ago, and I wouldn't know among other things 
whether they are working for the government.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Schine. We will certainly appreciate your cooperation 
and help. If you think of some of the names, it will be of even 
greater value to us.
    [Off-record discussion.]

  STATEMENT OF LOUIS LEO KAPLAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                     SYLVESTER S. GARFIELD)

    Mr. Schine. Would you state your name for the record, 
please?
    Mr. Kaplan. Louis Leo Kaplan.
    Mr. Schine. Will your counsel please give his name?
    Mr. Garfield. Sylvester S. Garfield.
    Mr. Schine. And the name of your firm?
    Mr. Garfield. Gross, Garfield, Redbank, 29 Mechanic Street, 
Redbank, New Jersey.
    Mr. Schine. How do you spell your last name?
    Mr. Garfield. G-a-r-f-i-e-l-d.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Kaplan, what is your current occupation?
    Mr. Kaplan. I have been suspended from the Signal Corps 
Engineering Laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. When were you suspended?
    Mr. Kaplan. The 20th at about 1:20 in the afternoon.
    Mr. Schine. 1953?
    Mr. Kaplan. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. How long had you been employed there?
    Mr. Kaplan. Eleven and one half years, since April 1942.
    Mr. Schine. What department.
    Mr. Kaplan. Thermionics Branch.
    Mr. Schine. Could you tell us briefly what your duties 
consist of?
    Mr. Kaplan. Group leader of three groups, one mechanic 
group, one group specializing in planar iron tubes. The other 
group did what amounted to qualification approval testing of 
receiving tubes.
    Mr. Schine. Was this classified material?
    Mr. Kaplan. Almost all of it was not.
    Mr. Schine. But some of it was.
    Mr. Kaplan. In the past year or so there has been some.
    Mr. Schine. Were you cleared for classified work?
    Mr. Kaplan. I was cleared up to secret.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Kaplan. Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Schine. When did you first go to work for the 
government?
    Mr. Kaplan. April 1942.
    Mr. Schine. For the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Kaplan. Same position.
    Mr. Schine. Before that?
    Mr. Kaplan. Silver Holloware.
    Mr. Schine. Now, what was your position there?
    Mr. Kaplan. Supervisor of the assembly department. We did a 
certain amount of electrical engineering and some safety work. 
A generalized story.
    Mr. Schine. Have you any ideas as to why you were 
suspended?
    Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us why?
    Mr. Kaplan. I believe I have been confused with another 
Louis Kaplan whose wife's name is identical to my wife's and 
who has been plagued with me since 1942.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us about this other Louis 
Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. Do you want me to go back to 1942?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Kaplan. In 1942, approximately a week after I got to 
the laboratories, I was notified that I was being transferred 
to Dayton, Ohio. This happened three times. Each time the 
orders were rescinded. I found at that time that there was 
another Louis Kaplan employed by the laboratories.
    Mr. Schine. Was this Signal Corps?
    Mr. Kaplan. Signal Corps Engineering Laboratory. Oh, I 
guess it was a year later the other Kaplan came back from 
Dayton and picked up my check and gave me another fit; claimed 
that the check had been cashed, a few odds and ends. Finally, 
about a week later, I got it back again. At that time and up 
until this time I have not been known as Louis Kaplan but Leo. 
At that time, at the request of personnel group at the 
laboratories I adopted Leo as my middle name.
    About two years later, maybe a little bit longer than that, 
there were rumblings about a lot of confusion between the 
records of myself and this other chap and Major Gothney, then 
branch chief of the Thermionics Branch and who had previously 
been in personnel, requested the then personnel to go through 
the records, 201 files, at which time they found six or eight 
items misfiled between files. Each file having about six items 
wrongly filed. The most outstanding error was that I had signed 
both patent releases.
    I understand that we are both products of the New York 
school system and the handwriting is very much alike, although 
I imagine it can be told apart by somebody who knows what he is 
doing. We went through the files and cleared them up to my best 
knowledge.
    I'd say in late 1944, after I was married, I attempted to 
get in a rooming house development in Ashbury Park. I was 
refused the thing because there was not enough room. However, 
in visiting friends of ours down there I did meet Mrs. Ruth 
Kaplan, and found out my wife's name was the same.
    Mr. Schine. Have you ever had any contact with the other 
Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. None whatsoever. That was the sole contact I 
had with him.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know he was a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kaplan. It has been--well, let's put it this way: He 
has published a number of things in the Ashbury Park Press, 
letters to the editor, and they definitely had a flavor of 
communism.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever save any of these letters to the 
editor?
    Mr. Kaplan. No, but I checked with the Ashbury Park Press 
and they have the originals all on file with them at the 
request of the FBI. I have been, I wouldn't say accused, that I 
was writing these particular letters and in discussing this 
with Wayne McMurray, who happens to be the editor of the 
Ashbury Park Press, he promised me he would always put in the 
address of this individual when he published anything. Mr. 
McMurray offered to put a scribe in the newspaper, which at the 
request of the commanding officer at Fort Monmouth I didn't do, 
that there were two Kaplans. I tried to remain as anonymous as 
possible, realizing I had a position in the laboratory of some 
trust.
    Mr. Schine. Where did you meet Mrs. Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. I met her in Washington Village.
    Mr. Schine. Whose apartment?
    Mr. Kaplan. Abraham Lapato's apartment. I don't know what 
the number was at the time. It was right next to the Kaplans.
    Mr. Schine. They lived right next to the Kaplans. Were they 
good friends?
    Mr. Kaplan. I don't think so.
    Mr. Schine. Do you recall the names of individuals who Mrs. 
Kaplan was very friendly with?
    Mr. Kaplan. I don't know. I never met him. I know he had a 
brother-in-law in the laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. What was his brother-in-law's name?
    Mr. Kaplan. I am sorry. I am awfully bad at names.
    Mr. Schine. Could you find out that name?
    Mr. Kaplan. I am sure I can.
    Mr. Schine. Would you try and do that for us?
    Mr. Kaplan. How could I get the information to you?
    Mr. Schine. When do you think you can have the information?
    Mr. Kaplan. I can tell you right now what happened--give 
you the remainder of the story and that will include the other 
chap.
    In 1947 I learned that I was being investigated very 
thoroughly by Army G-2. A Captain Freedman was checking every 
one of the references that I had given until he finally covered 
all of my acquaintances. It seems as if the primary objective 
was after information about my wife more so than they were 
about me. There were many of my friends who had not met my 
wife. We were married after I left New York and they supplied 
as much as they could. I knew that I was being investigated. 
However, the thing seemed to have died out and I heard nothing 
more about it.
    One day I was discussing this thing with a friend in the 
cafeteria, a Lt. Art Skinner, now back at the laboratory, then 
adjutant, and he kidded me about not telling the whole story. I 
said, ``What is the whole story?'' He said, ``How you were 
canned.'' I said, ``What is the rest of the story?'' I got 
worried. I said, ``What is behind this?'' An order had come 
through at the close of the investigation to let Louis Kaplan 
go, but the other Louis Kaplan who worked at the time in the 
Standards Agency, in the meantime had resigned, and being the 
only Louis Kaplan, I was supposedly let go. However, Lt. 
Skinner discussed it with army G-2 and the orders were 
rescinded.
    At that time the brother-in-law, who was a mathematician, 
was let go from the service. I am trying to think what group he 
was in. He was----
    Mr. Schine. He was working for Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Kaplan. He was in the agency and let go at that time.
    Since 1947 I have had the shirt kidded off me about Lou 
Kaplan, not realizing I lived in Belmore. I have lived in 
Belmore except for a period of nine months since I came to the 
laboratory, since October of 1942. I have lived in Belmore 
since then and no where else.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any other reason why you might 
have been suspended?
    Mr. Kaplan. Honestly, no.
    Mr. Schine. Can you think of any organizations you have 
been affiliated with?
    Mr. Kaplan. I have never joined any organization I 
considered subversive. I consider myself a violent anti-
Communist. I have argued with people until I have been blue in 
the face. That was before I came to the laboratory.
    Mr. Schine. You never subscribed to any petitions?
    Mr. Kaplan. I never signed any petitions, Oxford Pledge, 
Stockholm Pledge or anything of that sort. Never went along 
with them. Never had any feeling for them.
    Mr. Schine. Did your wife ever have any connection?
    Mr. Kaplan. No, my wife is an extreme homebody. She worked 
for the Universal Camera Company before the war. That was her 
first and last job.
    Mr. Schine. Does she have any relatives who are Communists?
    Mr. Kaplan. None she knows of.
    Mr. Schine. Any Communist connections?
    Mr. Kaplan. None we know of.
    Mr. Schine. She never belonged to any subversive 
organizations?
    Mr. Kaplan. None whatsoever. She is not a joiner except 
religious organizations.
    Mr. Schine. We certainly appreciate your coming over. You 
are going to give us the name of the brother-in-law of the 
other Kaplan.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't it Sokel?
    Mr. Kaplan. Sokel.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known any Communists?
    Mr. Kaplan. Back in 1937, I don't remember the chaps name.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kaplan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Has your wife?
    Mr. Kaplan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. No affiliation whatsoever with anything 
Communistic?
    Mr. Kaplan. I did know a Communist back in the place I 
worked, in Continental Silver Company, now located at 68 33rd 
Street in Brooklyn in the Terminal Building. They had a chap 
working there. We had violent arguments. I will never forget 
once I was coming back from an interview at the Ford Instrument 
Company, wherein I was to be employed if everything worked out. 
I was one of three, of course, as inspector for the navy. At 
this point the interviewing officer, a navy officer and I 
forget his name, asked me if I ever signed the Oxford Pledge in 
college. I came back and mentioned this to that chap. I said, 
``I am sure now you can't get a job with the government. Didn't 
you sign the Oxford Pledge?'' He said he never signed it. I 
said, ``Well, didn't you take it around to be signed?'' He 
started to laugh and it never went any further. That was the 
other fellow. This was one example. He and I were continuously 
in arguments. After the place unionized there was a question of 
all supervisor going into the union. They didn't want me. He 
and his brother-in-law were afraid of me.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name? The one that was a Communist?
    Mr. Kaplan. Harry. Again I say my memory on names is very 
poor. He worked in this company from 1938, approximately, and 
there there after I left for awhile. In 1942, I left there and 
came right with the company.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Kaplan, of course our committee is 
interested in obtaining information on government departments 
and agencies' efficiency, that means efficiency in both 
directions. Therefore, we would be just as much concerned with 
the firing of a capable person unjustly as we would be 
interested in the retention of one who was a security risk.
    Mr. Kaplan. If you want to build some morale, check my case 
rapidly. I think it will help considerably.
    Mr. Schine. You have our assurance that we will get Mr. 
Adams, counselor to the Department of Army, to check on this 
matter and it is going to be resolved very quickly.
    Mr. Kaplan. I met Mrs. Kaplan not in the home but outside 
the home of Lapato.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time the Communist Louis Kaplan lived 
next door?
    Mr. Kaplan. That is right. Mr. Lapato and I worked 
together. We worked together for ten years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists at Fort Monmouth now?
    Mr. Kaplan. I can assure you if I had, I'd be the first to 
come in here and tell you about it.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not?
    Mr. Kaplan. Definitely not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any contact with the other 
Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the other Mrs. Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. The answer to that you have.
    Mr. Schine. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Kaplan. Mr. Cohn, I feel a whole lot better right now. 
If you need me again----
    Mr. Schine. Let the record show that Mr. Cohn will preside 
for the rest of the afternoon because I have to talk to some 
witnesses out of the hearing room.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  STATEMENT OF CARL GREENBLUM

    Mr. Cohn. Is there anything you told us the last time you 
want to add to first?
    Mr. Greenblum. Well, when I was here the last time I was in 
a somewhat distressed state.
    Mr. Cohn. What I wondered is this: Have you recalled, with 
the help of the FBI any names you could not recall when down 
here the last time?
    Mr. Greenblum. I have gone over this thing in great detail 
with the FBI. I have gone into a tremendous amount of detail 
with them. I can't think, at the moment, of any additional 
information.
    Mr. Cohn. How about these people like Fred, Lucille, Leo?
    Mr. Greenblum. I haven't been able to place them.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you recall being present in the restaurant 
in New York where Levitsky took you?
    Mr. Greenblum. Well, with great assuredness I recall Perl. 
I am fairly certain that he was there.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the two other couples? How about Barr? 
and Sarant?
    Mr. Greenblum. After thinking it over, I doubt if Barr was. 
I discussed the timing of this thing with the FBI and they seem 
to think Barr was probably not there.
    [Off-record discussion.]

                   STATEMENT OF SHERROD EAST

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your name for the record?
    Mr. East. Sherrod East.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you live, Mr. East?
    Mr. East. Falls Church, Virginia, 316 East Greenway 
Boulevard.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. East. I am by profession an archivist, Chief 
Departmental Records Branch of the Adjutant General's Office.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you stationed?
    Mr. East. Alexandria, Virginia.
    Mr. Cohn. How many men do you have working under you?
    Mr. East. One hundred and forty-six civilians and seventeen 
military detail. The military doesn't work for civilians except 
special circumstances.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your salary?
    Mr. East. GS-16, $9,600.00 a year.
    Mr. Cohn. That is gross?
    Mr. East. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
employed with the Department of the Army?
    Mr. East. Ten years. As of December 1 it will be ten years 
exactly.
    Mr. Cohn. What positions have you held in the Department of 
the Army?
    Mr. East. I was hired in December, 1943, from National 
Archives----
    Mr. Cohn. Who got you the job?
    Mr. East. I don't know that anybody got me my job. I was 
hired, I presume----
    Mr. Cohn. Who hired you?
    Mr. East. Well, the chief of the branch into which I was 
hired was then Hugh M. Flick.
    Mr. Cohn. Whom did you see about getting the job?
    Mr. East. Well, they came, to me.
    Mr. Cohn. Who?
    Mr. East. Captain Flick.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he come to you cold?
    Mr. East. No; he knew of me by reputation. He had known of 
me before I came in the army as an archivist for the State of 
New York. Also, another member of National Archives staff who 
had gone into the army records program knew me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been an archivist during your entire 
period with the army?
    Mr. East. During my entire period with the army I have been 
in work that calls for that MOS, as we would say in the 
military.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any dealings with the loyalty 
board? \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ A memorandum regarding Sherrod East, from Thomas W. LaVenia to 
Francis P. Carr, October 30, 1953, stated:
    Subject is a member of the Greenbelt Housing Association and the 
Greenbelt Health Association, the latter has been found to be 
Communist-dominated. He was instrumental in the appointment of Dr. 
Samuel Berenberg as a member of the Board of the Health Association. 
The Dr. is a known Communist sympathizer and is reported to be a member 
of the Communist party. The Dr. also had Communist literature in his 
home.
    Subject is a close associate of Abraham Chasanow, a member of the 
National Lawyers Guild who was suspended on July 30, 1953, from his 
position as Director of the District Control Office at the U.S. Navy 
Hydrographic Office as a result of security charges. Subject is also a 
close friend and former co-employee of Thurman Wilkens, a former War 
Department employee who was dropped from the rolls as a security risk 
because he was an associate of Samuel Witzcak, who was mentioned as a 
member of the Canadian Spy Ring on the atomic bomb. Subject stated in 
the presence of witnesses that Witzcak should have fought the charges 
against him because he saw nothing wrong in it. In 1941-1942 subject 
had a lawn party at his home to raise funds for the Spanish Loyalists.
    It is suggested that subject be asked if he was an associate of and 
friendly with Max H. Salzman who resigned July 31, 1953, from the U.S. 
Navy Hydrographic Office while under charges involving security.
    Subject is a member of the Panel from which the Security Screening 
Board of the Department of the Army is drawn. He has for several years 
sat on that board until very recently when he was not called up from 
the Panel.
    The derogatory information contained in this memorandum is known to 
G-2 and is part of the subject's official file. None of this derogatory 
information was made known to the Secretary of the Army. The 
appointment to the Panel and to the board is made by the Secretary of 
the Army.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. East. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect?
    Mr. East. In February of 1952 I was informed that I had 
been chosen to be representative of my agency on the loyalty 
screening board panel. I received, in April 1952, notification 
of my designation as a member of the loyalty screening board 
panel, who is designated by the secretary of the army.
    Mr. Cohn. 1952?
    Mr. East. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have access to classified material?
    Mr. East. Have I ever had? Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, for how long a period of time did you serve 
in any capacity on the screening board?
    Mr. East. From April 1952 until, I think, the last panel I 
sat on was along in February or March of 1953. I have not sat 
on a panel since February or March 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been eligible to sit on the panel since 
that time?
    Mr. East. I have never been informed that I was not still a 
member of the screening panel.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not been designated to sit on any 
specific----
    Mr. East. But I have not been called on a panel, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What are the general term or duties of this 
loyalty screening board?
    Mr. East. Well, the loyalty screening board sitting as a 
panel considers cases referred to them through channels. They 
make recommendations to the secretary of the army as to the 
apparent justification for preferring charges or not preferring 
charges.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does the board get its information from?
    Mr. East. Different armies. First Army, Second Army--I am 
assuming this is all right to speak on procedural matters.
    Mr. Adams. I see no reason why not.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do they get the information?
    Mr. East. The information is in the form of investigative 
reports prepared by investigative agencies, and they are 
forwarded with recommendations of the echelons through which 
the recommendation----
    Mr. Cohn. Where do these recommendations originate? Give us 
a typical case. Where does a case start?
    Mr. East. Well, a case could start at an installation, or a 
case could start at higher echelons. If, I assume, information 
came to higher echelons there was a reason.
    Mr. Cohn. How would your board get a case? Where would it 
come from?
    Mr. East. As far as the panel, it comes from--it is 
assigned by the permanent secretariat of the board, the loyalty 
screening board. We didn't select cases. We were called 
together and assigned to certain cases.
    Mr. Cohn. How would the secretariat get the cases?
    Mr. East. Those are referred through channels to the 
secretary of the army's screening board.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, see if I am right; if a case 
initiates at Fort Monmouth, of derogatory information, the 
initial question is whether or not the secretary should suspend 
the individual, or prefer charges----
    Mr. East. The individual may already be suspended for that, 
matter,
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, he is already suspended or there 
might be grounds on which to suspend him, and the files go to 
the secretariat, who parcels them out to different panels. The 
panel considers it and makes recommendations as to what action 
the secretary of the army should take?
    Mr. East. That is essentially right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you participate in any cases of employees in 
the Army Signal Corps? I am not asking you names.
    Mr. East. Well, I have participated in a number of 
installations, and a number of agencies, and I believe that I 
am precluded from going any further than that in answering a 
question as to places of cases or not.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not asking him to reveal individual cases. I 
am only asking him if he has had any from the Signal Corps. 
What do you think?
    Mr. East. I have sat on panels that have considered cases 
from a number of agencies and I believe I have handled cases 
that originated in the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I will ask you this next question. I want to 
ask you whether you recall names in the Signal Corps. I am not 
going to ask you for names. Do you recall----
    Mr. East. I would not be able to answer if I did recall. I 
could assure you that if I were able to answer I do not recall 
any names.
    Mr. Cohn. Your recollection would have to be refreshed?
    Mr. East. Yes, it certainly would. I would like to say in 
these panels I sat on, I tried to give them everything I had 
then. At least, I tried to make it a point not to retain 
information as to specific cases or names.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, during the entire time you have been in the 
Department of Army you have had full clearance?
    Mr. East. As far as I know, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, Mr. East, I think this is a matter of 
open regulation, what is the standard you used on the board in 
making a recommendation to the secretary? Were you looking for 
security risks, loyalty?
    Mr. East. Well, I don't pretend to be a specialist in 
procedure or any of this. I haven't sat on enough panels. I 
suppose people doing this a lot longer than I--of course, there 
are different types of cases involving loyalty cases, involving 
security risks that don't involve loyalty.
    Mr. Cohn. In a case involving a security risk, the 
objective of the panel is to look over the file and to make a 
determination as to whether or not that individual, based on 
his activities, associates, the sum total of it, is or is not a 
security risk?
    Mr. East. We are briefed by the permanent secretariat of 
the board to determine what category of cases we are to handle. 
We are supposed to know, of course, by the information or 
material given to us to study what category the case falls 
into. If it is a security case, we evaluate the facts, 
activities of the individual, background, associates and decide 
whether or not he is a security risk, depending on what he 
does, what degree of classified matter he may handle, etc. And 
we, of course, have to start off with the proposition that if 
he is found to be a security risk he should not be employed in 
any job.
    Mr. Cohn. In any job where he could do damage?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, and I suppose in loyalty cases, the 
test in recent years, if there is reasonable doubt as to the 
loyalty of an individual, he is not to be employed by the army 
at all.
    Mr. East. That is right. I would like to make a point. I 
have handled no cases since the change in procedure, if I 
remember, as of May of this year when there was a little change 
I am not familiar with.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean since the Eisenhower directive?
    Mr. East. I have not been on any board since.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you, yourself, ever been connected with 
Greenbelt Housing or Health Association?
    Mr. East. Those are two organizations.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's take Greenbelt Health?
    Mr. East. Yes, I was at one time a member of the board of 
directors of the Greenbelt Health Association and a member of 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. East. I was a member of that organization from about 
1948 when it was formed, shortly after the town of Greenbelt 
was opened, until about 1942 or 1943 during the war. I severed 
my connection with it, withdrew my membership from it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any connection with the Greenbelt 
Housing Association?
    Mr. East. I was one of the organizers of the Greenbelt 
Housing Association and served on the board of directors of the 
Greenbelt Mutual Home Owner's Corporation, which eventually 
bought the town of Greenbelt.
    However, that took place after I left the community. From 
1945 I worked quite diligently in the community to try to 
effect the sale of the community to a Veteran Resident 
Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was this Greenbelt Health Association under 
Communist domination or heavily infiltrated by Communists?
    Mr. East. I don't think so. I never thought so.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard that alleged?
    Mr. East. Not specifically, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard that alleged unspecifically?
    Mr. East. Well, I know that there were some people perhaps 
connected with the health association at one time who some 
people have since assumed--the thing, I thought, was never 
Communist dominated. That was a consumer-controlled health 
organization.
    Now, there was a doctor perhaps connected with the 
association at one time who I can understand, looking back, 
might have been considered to be a sympathizer. I don't think 
he was a Communist. I think, looking back now, that his wife 
may have been but at the time there was certainly no----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a Dr. Samuel Berenberg?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir. He is the doctor I referred to.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his wife's name?
    Mr. East. His wife's name, I believe, was Frederica Martin 
Berenberg.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Dr. Berenberg a pretty well-known Communist 
sympathizer?
    Mr. East. As I say, looking back I think he was.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his connection with the health 
association?
    Mr. East. He was one of the three doctors hired by the 
association to practice medicine.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you in your official capacity have anything 
to do with his employment?
    Mr. East. Not originally. It does happen I was on the 
board. He was in Greenbelt two different times. It does happen 
I was on the board when he was hired the second time. He had 
left the first time to go to the Pribilof Islands to work for 
the Department of Interior. When the war came on the Pribilofs 
were evacuated, I believe, and Greenbelt was without a 
physician. We were very anxious to get one doctor and they were 
very scarce. He was available and I was on the board that hired 
him back.
    Mr. Cohn. Who contacted him and asked him to come back?
    Mr. East. I don't know whether I had a hand in it or not. I 
may well have. I can't answer specifically yes or no. I don't 
remember what my official position was but I think I was 
president, therefore, I may well have written or answered a 
letter which he wrote us letting us know he was available.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. East, did you know at that time that Dr. 
Berenberg was a Communist?
    Mr. East. I certainly did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Had he ever said anything to lead you to believe 
he was?
    Mr. East. Only to this extent. He left about 1939 and up 
until that time it had never entered my head that he was a 
Communist sympathizer. I observed later that his attitude 
towards the war was quite different after he came back from the 
Pribilofs.
    Mr. Cohn. During the Hitler-Stalin Pact he was not as 
anxious to have the United States go in?
    Mr. East. That is my distinct impression, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know he was circulating Communist 
literature?
    Mr. East. He never circulated any to me. He would have 
known, I hope, better.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Abraham 
Chasanow?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir. I know him quite well. That is, I know 
him quite well in that both of us lived twelve or thirteen 
years in the same community and worked for the same 
organizations.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him socially?
    Mr. East. Casually. We were not close friends in the sense 
that our families saw each other frequently or any thing of 
that kind.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever in his home?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he ever in yours?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir. I am sure he has been over a period of 
thirteen years but I am sure not frequently.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you see Mr. Chasanow last, by the way?
    Mr. East. As far as I know I have not seen him since I 
moved from Greenbelt in June of 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you spoken with him?
    Mr. East. I have not talked to him on the phone or 
otherwise since then as far as I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. East. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that he was a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. East. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In any of your discussions with him----
    Mr. East. Never by any slight indication, act or word.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any members of the National Lawyer's 
Guild?
    Mr. East. No, sir. I knew he was a lawyer. I don't know 
what fraternal or legal organizations he might have belonged 
to.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Thermond 
Wilkens?
    Mr. East. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you know Mr. Wilkens?
    Mr. East. I knew Mr. Wilkens quite well.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him socially?
    Mr. East. Only casually.
    Mr. Cohn. You both worked together at the War Department?
    Mr. East. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever in his home?
    Mr. East. No, sir. He is a bachelor and he didn't have a 
home. He only had a room.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he ever in your home?
    Mr. East. Yes. Not frequently, however.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you ever know a man by the name of 
Samuel Witzcak?
    Mr. East. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that Wilkens knew him?
    Mr. East. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. There came a time when you found out?
    Mr. East. I have heard the name mentioned since Mr. Wilkens 
left the War Department in conversations with security officers 
in the department.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been advised of the fact that Mr. 
Witzcak was a member of the Canadian atomic spy ring?
    Mr. East. I learned that for the first time.
    Mr. Cohn. I assume you have been advised he was a close 
associate of Mr. Wilkens?
    Mr. East. I was advised of that within the last six months, 
yes, sir. I never knew it before that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Wilkens was suspended was he not?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he discuss his suspension with you?
    Mr. East. I was, of course--in the sense that I was working 
in the same office.
    Mr. Cohn. When was this?
    Mr. East. It was either in late 1947 or prior to June of 
1948. In that six months period.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever advise him that he should fight the 
suspension because there was nothing wrong with him having 
associated with Witzcak?
    Mr. East. Bear in mind that the name Witzcak was never 
known to me until six months ago--in the last six months. At 
the time Mr. Wilkens was suspended, I, of course, was aware of 
the published regulations informing employees of their rights 
in such matters, and knowing nothing whatsoever about the case, 
I was amazed that he did not take advantage of it, at least 
insofar as I know. That is why, I presume, he did not take 
advantage of his privilege of appeal of his separation.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew that the grounds for his suspension was 
his close association with----
    Mr. East. No, sir. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you think he was suspended?
    Mr. East. I understand that he had been during the war 
approached by an agent and that he did not report the approach. 
That is what he told me about it.
    I would like to make it clear that insofar as Wilkens is 
concerned, it is apparent now that Wilkens knew what the 
trouble was he was in but the rest of us did not. He knew how 
deep he was in; the rest of us did not, and he deliberately 
avoided telling us or bringing any of us into it, probably out 
of a feeling that he did not want any of us to be implicated, 
so that he told me very little and I certainly did not inquire, 
did not want to know any more about it than he was willing to 
tell. The fact that he was suspended and he did not choose to 
avail himself of his prerogatives, I did not understand why 
that was.
    Mr. Cohn. Getting back a minute to the doctor, when was it 
the doctor went back to Greenbelt? When did you re-employ Dr. 
Berenberg at Greenbelt?
    Mr. East. Well, it must have been fairly early in 1942, to 
the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did he remain?
    Mr. East. He did not remain very long. He was not popular.
    Mr. Cohn. About how long?
    Mr. East. I really would almost hesitate to hazard a guess. 
I would say less than a year. I just don't know whether it was 
a little under or over.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have anything to do with his leaving?
    Mr. East. I believe that I had resigned--no, I think I was 
still on the board when he left. I didn't have anything to do 
with his leaving in that I invited him to leave. He resigned of 
his own free will, except we had one other physician at the 
time and they did not get along and I assume that is one of the 
reasons.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of Max Salzman?
    Mr. East. Yes, sir, substantially the same way, the same 
connection, the housing association in Greenbelt, as Chasanow.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that Salzman was a Communist or 
Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. East. No, sir. In no way, shape, manner, or form did I 
ever suspect that he had any such leanings whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Mr. Salzman?
    Mr. East. I last saw Mr. Salzman in June of 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. Had you known him socially?
    Mr. East. Not even as much as I knew Chasanow.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you, yourself, ever give a lawn party 
for the benefit of the Spanish Loyalists?
    Mr. East. No, I did not.
    I was living in a farm house instead of right in the town 
of Greenbelt and I allowed my premises to be used by Mrs. 
Berenberg to hold such a benefit for Spanish refugees. She had 
been a nurse with the Spanish Loyalists.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. East. I am afraid I can't fix the date exactly. I think 
that it was sometime in 1949 or 1950 but I don't know for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend that party?
    Mr. East. Well, I didn't attend as a guest but I was there 
since I allowed it to be held on my premises.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the auspices of what organization?
    Mr. East. I did not know it was held under the auspices of 
any organization and still don't if it was. She simply said she 
would like to do something, having been in Spain, she said she 
would like to do something for the Spanish refugees. As far as 
I knew it was a personal thing with her.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. East. Based on the 
facts we have gone over here in connection with your 
appointment of Dr. Berenberg and your associations with other 
people, would you have considered yourself a good security 
risk?
    Mr. East. I most certainly would have then and I would now.
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with some of the cases you passed 
on on the loyalty board--I am not asking you for any names or 
about any individuals, but in what percentage of cases you 
passed on where the allegation was Communist activities did you 
recommend suspension?
    Mr. East. I don't know. I mean Communist activities is a 
very broad term. I have no idea but all I know is that I acted 
on some cases where we did recommend some suspensions. I acted 
on a greater number where I did not recommend suspension. When 
I say I acted, I acted as a member of the panel.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a matter of fact that you recommended 
against suspension in the vast majority of cases?
    Mr. East. [To Mr. Adams] Well, is that legitimate?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. East, taking everything you say here at face 
value today, I think it still might suggest that one who was 
fooled as you were by Communist and Communist sympathizers 
might not be in a position to evaluate these cases with 
understanding and perspicacity. For instance, suppose the case 
of Dr. Berenberg and Mrs. Berenberg had come up. They 
apparently fooled you once, you according to your own statement 
and you might have an unfortunate result if those and other 
people were in sensitive positions.
    Mr. East. They did not fool me in the sense you are using 
the term. Secondly, Berenberg was hired as a doctor. He was a 
good one no matter what his political complexion was then, now 
or ever was, and his position as a doctor was certainly not a 
sensitive position, and I resent, if I may say so, the 
implication that I can't judge when a man's political 
complexion, if political is the right word, has a bearing on 
his duties.
    As I say, I saw, and I said this earlier in the testimony, 
I saw the change in Berenberg after the attack of Germany was 
abandoned, of the Russian-German pact and attack on Russia. As 
a matter of fact, I used to bait the man. That was one of the 
reasons he would never consider giving me any literature, if he 
was passing out literature. He knew dag-gum well where I stood.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you saying now that in exercising your 
position you knowingly employed a Communist doctor?
    Mr. East. One, I did not know and do not know now is a 
Communist. I recognized a sympathy there and I also made it 
quite clear that the town needed a doctor and one of the 
reasons I resigned from the board was that I didn't want the 
town to go without a doctor. It might have had I stayed on the 
board. It so happened that the doctor who was left after 
Berenberg left simply didn't want to work in a consumer health 
organization. He wanted a private practice and I had a trust, 
as a matter of fact, to live up to because the government had 
granted a monopoly of medical practice in Greenbelt to the 
Greenbelt Health Association and I could not allow an 
individual doctor to make use of that in setting himself up in 
private practice in a monopoly situation. In that case I had a 
responsibility not only to the community but I had a 
responsibility to the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you disclose to the community and the 
government your knowledge of the Communist sympathies of this 
Dr. Berenberg?
    Mr. East. They were not an issue at the time. If that 
situation were repeated today, it would be different, I think, 
than it was at that time. The fact remains that Berenberg's 
feelings or views towards Russia or communism were not a factor 
as far as his medical practice in Greenbelt was concerned.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there a good many government employees 
living at Greenbelt?
    Mr. East. There always has been a high percentage.
    Mr. Cohn. And a lot of them would be in sensitive 
positions? Would you agree on that?
    Mr. East. Greenbelt is a low-income community. I don't know 
how sensitive their positions were. I think we might assume 
taking that large a group of government employees you would 
have a good many in sensitive positions, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you note on the record that following the 
off-record discussion I suggested to Mr. Adams and to Mr. East 
in regard to the information in the possession of the committee 
that in the overwhelming majority of cases passed on by Mr. 
East as a member of the secretary's screening board, in an 
overwhelming majority of cases where charges were Communist 
activity or Communist affiliation Mr. East had voted against 
suspension. I asked Mr. East to confirm that information for us 
and he raised the point concerning the regulations which Mr. 
Adams supported, at least to the extent that he felt the matter 
should be put to the secretary first to determine whether or 
not it would be violative of the executive order, the Truman 
blackout order, protecting various steps of their procedure. 
Mr. East stated as far as he was concerned he would personally 
be perfectly willing to have the committee examine each one of 
the cases which he passed on and his vote.
    Mr. East. I didn't quite say it that way. I said I was 
perfectly willing to give the committee an answer to the 
question you raised.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you be willing to go further and discuss 
individual cases?
    Mr. East. I am precluded----
    Mr. Cohn. I am assuming the secretary would be willing to 
waive that.
    Mr. East. If the secretary is willing, I'd love to come in 
and talk about each case to show how right I was.
    Mr. Adams. The secretary will not permit this individual or 
any other individual who is a member of the screening board or 
a hearing board or appeals board to discuss anything about any 
case or his pattern of decision on any cases because the 
secretary not only has the obligation to protect the loyalty 
and security procedures and program but to protect the rights 
of each individual whose case was considered, so this 
individual, in my opinion, has no right to waive that 
responsibility.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. On the record, as far as that is concerned, I 
think the attitude of the committee on the rights of 
individuals is crystal clear as was evidenced by an individual 
case which took place this afternoon when the committee joined 
with Mr. Adams and asked the reinstatement of an individual 
where it might have been a case of mistaken identity.
    I will further say that this committee has been confronted 
with evidence of suspensions of a number of people with long 
records of Communist activities and affiliation and the 
reversal of that suspension by the screening board and panel 
that Mr. East sat on, and combining that with Mr. East's 
testimony here today concerning his knowingly or unknowingly, 
and the record speaks for itself, taking answers at face value, 
his connection with people who were Communist sympathizers or 
Communists, as the case might be, I think in view of that that 
the American people are entitled to protection in this matter 
because some of these individuals concerned might still be in 
positions by virtue of Mr. East's vote in their cases, and I 
think this is a grave abuse of the intent of these directives 
when an issue such as this is raised.
    I am certainly going to recommend to the committee, and Mr. 
Carr just told me he agrees with me on that, that the committee 
press its position in regard to this situation.
    Mr. Adams. I think this is a matter of protecting the 
integrity of the whole loyalty system, the individuals and the 
program.
    Mr. East. Of course, I am very much disturbed that anyone 
would take this situation that developed in the community which 
I lived and tie it together with my supposed actions on the 
loyalty screening board, and assume from that that I have a 
softness for Communists or Communist activities or Communist 
affiliated organizations.
    In view of the statement you have made, I wish to make a 
categorical statement now that I do not so consider myself, and 
that disturbs me a great deal as you can well appreciate. I 
consider myself qualified, otherwise I would not have accepted 
the responsibility. I know, even with all the protection the 
secretary is giving us, in these matters, I know a man is only 
asking for trouble when he accepts this kind of extraneous 
duty. All of us on these loyalty boards have our hands full 
doing the job for which we are being paid and it is out of a 
sense of duty that we are willing to accept these additional 
responsibilities.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. I might say on that score, Mr. East, I 
understand your position. I think you can also understand the 
committee's position. We have been confronted with a series of 
cases, suspensions, and I have personally read the record where 
the suspensions were upheld at various steps along the line, 
and then the suspensions were reversed, recommended to the 
secretary that they be reversed. I will say that the actions of 
the screening board and some of its panels, each one of the 
cases that I have read is something which defies explanation--
in cases where they recommended reinstatement.
    Mr. East. Are you speaking in terms of the present 
standards?
    Mr. Cohn. I am speaking in terms of the standards under 
which the case was reviewed. I am speaking of any standards 
which ever existed. Cases where you directed reinstatement to 
positions dealing with top secret material of people with 
uncontroverted evidence in the record of Communist affiliation, 
disloyalty to objectives of the United States government, and I 
would certainly say, Mr. East, that you are certainly entitled 
to any opinion you might want to have about anything.
    If the information this committee has received concerning 
the consistent pattern of your evaluation of individual's cases 
is correct, and combine that with your willingness to appoint a 
doctor with Communist sympathies in a community in which 
resided government employees in sensitive positions and give 
him free access to them and the opportunity to develop 
acquaintances and abuse that position, if he sought to do so, I 
think the matter is of the utmost importance to the committee 
to get the facts.
    I am hopeful that the secretary of the army, in fairness to 
you and in fairness to us, will allow a thorough review of this 
entire matter. Don't you think so, Frank?
    Mr. Carr. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. I might say further, Mr. East, we have had a 
situation where loyalty board and loyalty panels in other 
government agencies have cleared people the FBI has furnished 
incontrovertible evidence of Communist party membership and 
when the people were called before this committee and question 
about Communist activities claimed the Fifth Amendment. That 
situation is very alarming. I think it is something that we 
have to go into.
    Mr. East. I say now that I think I acted properly on any 
cases that came before me, and I thought so at the time the 
case was before me on the basis of evidence present, and I--I 
think that is sufficient on that. As I say, I have done the 
best job I know how to do.

                   STATEMENT OF JACOB KAPLAN

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name for the record?
    Mr. Kaplan. Jacob Kaplan.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you presently employed at Monmouth?
    Mr. Kaplan. I was until two weeks ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you suspended?
    Mr. Kaplan. I was suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you given a letter of charges?
    Mr. Kaplan. I was given a letter of suspension with no 
charges.
    Mr. Cohn. What did they tell you?
    Mr. Kaplan. That the charges would be submitted later, 
twelve to fourteen days. They said the charges would be 
submitted in twelve to fourteen days. I have not received that 
as yet.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any reason why you were suspended?
    Mr. Kaplan. I have not the remotest idea.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any Communist connections?
    Mr. Kaplan. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. Ever belonged to any Communist organizations?
    Mr. Kaplan. Never in my life.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever associated with any Communists?
    Mr. Kaplan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you employed?
    Mr. Kaplan. Countermeasures Branch at Evans Signal Corps, 
assistant branch chief.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the branch chief?
    Mr. Kaplan. Morris Kaiser.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of William 
Saltzman?
    Mr. Kaplan. No. I have heard of him. I don't know him.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. William Johnstone Jones?
    Mr. Kaplan. I don't know him either. I have heard of him.
    Mr. Cohn. Barry Bernstein?
    Mr. Kaplan. Yes, I know Mr. Bernstein.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the American Veterans 
Committee?
    Mr. Kaplan. I am not a veteran and I didn't belong to any 
veterans' organizations.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Great Books Club?
    Mr. Kaplan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Bernstein socially?
    Mr. Kaplan. Well, I know him to speak to.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been in his home?
    Mr. Kaplan. Once. My daughter used to be friendly with his 
daughter and I went to pick her up.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been known as Louie Kaplan?
    Mr. Kaplan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe they are suspending everybody with the name 
of Kaplan.
    Mr. Kaplan. That is what it seems like to me.
    Mr. Cohn. That will be all for the time being, Mr. Kaplan.

                  STATEMENT OF JAMES P. SCOTT

    Mr. Cohn. You are Mr. James P. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been suspended?
    Mr. Scott. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been given any reason?
    Mr. Scott. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. When was it effective?
    Mr. Scott. October 27th.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had Communist connections of any 
kind?
    Mr. Scott. No, sir. I was never a Communist, not now, and 
don't expect to be.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any front 
organizations?
    Mr. Scott. No, I haven't. I am of this opinion that there 
was union down there and I believe that is----
    Mr. Cohn. United Federal Workers of America?
    Mr. Scott. Yes.
    M. Cohn. Do you belong to that?
    Mr. Scott. I belonged to that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that was Communist dominated?
    Mr. Scott. At the time I did not know it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Marcel Ullmann.
    Mr. Scott. Yes, I know him.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Mr. Ullmann?
    Mr. Scott. Just more like an acquaintance.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Scott. I didn't know it at the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Albert Sokel?
    Mr. Scott. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Scott. Not at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you find that out?
    Mr. Scott. I suspected him of being a Communist about two 
years after the union formed.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anybody else you suspected later of 
being a Communist?
    Mr. Scott. Joe Percoff.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody else?
    Mr. Scott. There was a fellow by the name of Kaplan.
    Mr. Cohn. Louie Kaplan?
    Mr. Scott. That is the name.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you identify Louie Kaplan? Do you know what 
he looks like?
    Mr. Scott. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you seen him today in the witness room?
    Mr. Scott. No, I haven't seen him in years.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in the witness room most of the 
day?
    Mr. Scott. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. That will be all for the present, Mr. Scott.

                    STATEMENT OF BERNARD LEE

    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your name, please?
    Mr. Lee. Bernard Lee.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you working at Monmouth, Mr. Lee?
    Mr. Lee. No, I am not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work there?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, I have been suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Lee. October 21st.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you received the specifications yet?
    Mr. Lee. The charges? No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know why you were suspended?
    Mr. Lee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any Communist 
organizations?
    Mr. Lee. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever associated with any Communists?
    Mr. Lee. Inadvertently, perhaps.
    Mr. Cohn. Which ones?
    Mr. Lee. Unfortunately, I believe that my sister-in-law, 
while I do not know whether she is a member, in my opinion has 
followed those kind of ideas.
    Mr. Cohn. What is her name?
    Mr. Lee. Ruth Stein.
    Mr. Cohn. What is her husband's name?
    Mr. Lee. She is not married.
    Mr. Cohn. She is your sister-in-law?
    Mr. Lee. My wife's sister.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does she live?
    Mr. Lee. 1127 Grant Avenue, Bronx.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been friendly with her?
    Mr. Lee. Friendly?
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see her?
    Mr. Lee. Well, the last time I saw her was at a family 
gathering. To say I am friendly isn't so. Occasionally we are 
in the same household. That last occasion was sometime early in 
September.
    Mr. Cohn. How old is she?
    Mr. Lee. About twenty-nine.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever been in your home?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, she has been in my home.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in hers?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, sir. That is my mother-in-law's home.
    Mr. Cohn. What leads you to think she is a Communist or 
party line follower?
    Mr. Lee. Why, over the years I have my own way of 
determining who is a Communist. I think they are pretty obvious 
people. For instance, who followed the Moscow-Berlin pact in my 
opinion were Communists. I never was sure of the things which 
caused me to think about it and really feel she was a loyal 
follower. For a period she was working for a union in 
Philadelphia, and I was distressed to find the union was one 
which had acceded to the requirement for officially signing the 
loyalty oath or whatever it was at that time. To me that meant 
that the union was very deep Red.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked on classified material?
    Mr. Lee. Recently you mean or over my entire career with 
the government?
    Mr. Cohn. Let's say recently?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, sir. It is necessary in my job to have access 
to classified material.
    Mr. Cohn. Does your wife think your sister-in-law is a 
Communist?
    Mr. Lee. [No answer.]
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed it with your wife?
    Mr. Lee. Not clearly that way. It is kind of a subtle 
thing. Something I have to piece out myself. It hasn't come out 
clearly on any occasions. What I hear about my sister-in-law 
comes from what I hear from my wife.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it distress your wife?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, she is very distressed about the whole aspect 
of it. It is a very distressing thing, unwholesome thing for a 
girl to be doing.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Lee. Missoula School of Mines and Metallurgy.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Lee. I might know him. I am trying to think of what he 
looks like.
    Mr. Cohn. Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Lee. I saw Harold Ducore and now realize I have seen 
his face. I do not know him.
    Mr. Cohn. Yamins?
    Mr. Lee. I know him only in connection with his having been 
at the laboratory. We have never had any occasion to even do 
business together.
    Mr. Cohn. Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Lee. Was Louis Kaplan the one in the witness room?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any other Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Lee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Joe Levitsky?
    Mr. Lee. That doesn't seem like anybody I know.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not received the specifications?
    Mr. Lee. I have not received any charges.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all we want now.
    Do you think your suspension is unjustified?
    Mr. Lee. Well, I don't know what the rules are for 
determining what a security risk is. I unfortunately cannot 
help it if my sister-in-law is Red. I am sorry about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Can't you avoid associating with her?
    Mr. Lee. I have avoided associating with her for years.
    Mr. Cohn. When was she last in your house?
    Mr. Lee. It must have been over a year and a half ago or 
two years.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you form the opinion that she was a 
Communist or a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Lee. About the time that I learned the union to which 
she belonged, to which she was shop stewardess, when I learned 
they had not gone along with the requirements of signing a 
loyalty oath.
    Mr. Cohn. What does Ruth V. Stein do for a living?
    Mr. Lee. Presently?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Lee. She is a librarian, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Lee. I don't know the name of the company. The firm 
specializes in medical type of advertising. They write 
advertising copy for the drug business, etc.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, she did.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Lee. She worked in the library at Camp Cole.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Lee. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is Camp Cole?
    Mr. Lee. That is one of the three laboratories at Fort 
Monmouth.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did she work there?
    Mr. Lee. I guess she worked there from 1943, or possibly 
1942, until the end of the war in Europe, whenever that was. 
1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you help her obtain employment there?
    Mr. Lee. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you married at that time?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, I was. If she used me for a reference, it is 
unbeknowing to me.
    Mr. Cohn. Thanks very much for coming in. We will let you 
know if we need you again.

                 STATEMENT OF MELVIN M. MORRIS

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name?
    Mr. Morris. Melvin M. Morris.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been suspended?
    Mr. Morris. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Morris. 21 October.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Mr. Morris. I don't know. It says on here.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you get any specifications?
    Mr. Morris. Not yet.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any Communist 
organizations or associated with any Communists?
    Mr. Morris. Would you put that in two questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any Communist 
organizations?
    Mr. Morris. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever associated with any Communists?
    Mr. Morris. I am not refusing to answer this question. I 
use to work in the Department of Welfare as a social 
investigator and one of my relief clients was a Communist and 
tried to recruit me into the Communist party. At that time it 
was illegal in the State of New York to give information on 
relief clients.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the name?
    Mr. Morris. Elizabeth Ray. I don't want to violate----
    Mr. Cohn. That is all right.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know her?
    Mr. Morris. Strictly professional basis. At that time the 
Unemployment Council, which was said to be a Communist 
organization was in my territory. I had the territory around 
Bleeker, Thompson Street. She lived on Thompson Street and the 
Unemployment Council was right downstairs from where she lived. 
I have no knowledge that the Unemployment Council was 
Communist. She tried to recruit me.
    Mr. Cohn. What made her think you would be susceptible?
    Mr. Morris. I think she was nuts.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any sympathy for communism?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir, to some extent I have.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that?
    Mr. Morris. I am not sure of the exact year it started. I 
can sure tell you when it stopped. I can trace back. I got 
completely disillusioned with the claims of the Communists at 
the German-Soviet pact which would be about 1939. It would 
probably be 1936 or 1937 somewhere around there.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Morris. One time. At that time I was an active union 
member of the union, Department of Welfare, and they invited me 
to a Communist party meeting and offered me a Communist party 
card. I took the card and gave some consideration as to whether 
I should join or not. I thought this might be the answer to 
some of my troubles. I finally decided against the idea, 
although I still investigated and looked into it thoroughly--
read an awful lot.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that a couple of years before the pact?
    Mr. Morris. I would say so. I am a little hazy.
    Mr. Cohn. And your complete break came at the time of the 
pact?
    Mr. Morris. I don't know about what you mean. I lost all 
faith in any statements made by the Communist, Daily Worker, or 
anything of that sort. Prior to that I was skeptical but that 
was the final score.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you known any Communists since that time?
    Mr. Morris. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Where have you worked at Monmouth most recently?
    Mr. Morris. Headquarters.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work at Evans?
    Mr. Morris. One year. Applied Physics Branch.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked on any classified material?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had a clearance for classified material?
    Mr. Morris. I have had a clearance through secret.
    Incidentally, these questions I have answered were 
previously asked me sometime back and I answered them in the 
same way.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom were they asked?
    Mr. Morris. I was given one of those interrogatories from 
the intelligence division.
    Mr. Cohn. On that basis, was a hearing held?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Morris. I have it here. I can refresh my memory. 
January 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. And you haven't heard anything since then?
    Mr. Morris. I was told I was cleared. The FBI did a 
complete field investigation on me, spent about two years on my 
case. Everything I said was verified and I was cleared for 
secret. I have never had occasion to have top secret clearance.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anything else you want to tell us?
    Mr. Morris. I would like to know why I was suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. The suspensions are not the territory of the 
committee, but I would imagine that it is because of the facts 
you have stated here.
    Mr. Morris. Except I was cleared after investigation. That 
is what I don't understand.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Morris. I met him one time at a conference and that is 
the extent of my knowledge. I am quite sure that several years 
ago I met him once.
    Mr. Cohn. Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Morris. I never saw him before today.
    Mr. Cohn. Yamins?
    Mr. Morris. Yamins worked across the hall from me in the 
same division for the director of engineers for I'd say about a 
year. I had considerable professional dealings with Mr. Yamins 
at that time and since at MIT in my field of responsibility. He 
had to send me considerable information from MIT. I had to get 
in touch with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever consider that Yamins was connected 
with the Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. At this point, if you want my opinion, I would 
say I haven't any belief that he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any colleagues at Monmouth that you 
have associated with that you think might be Communist or 
Communist sympathizers?
    Mr. Lee. No, sir, if I did, I would have turned them in.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Morris. Not until today.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know another one?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Joe Levitsky?
    Mr. Morris. Never heard the name.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all. Thanks very much.
    [The hearing adjourned at 5:00 p.m.]














              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--None of the witnesses at the staff 
interrogatory on November 2, 1953, William Johnstone Jones, 
Murray Narell (1923-1991), Samuel Sack (1911-1977), Joseph 
Bert, Raymond Delcamp (1922-1979), Leo Fary (1919-1975), or 
Irving Stokes, testified in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                        MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 11:00 a.m., in room 
36, Federal Building, New York, Mr. G. David Schine presiding.
    Present also: G. David Schine, chief consultant; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Francis Carr, staff director; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; James Juliana, investigator.

              STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JOHNSTONE JONES

    Mr. Carr. Your name is William Johnstone Jones?
    Mr. Jones. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. And you are currently employed where?
    Mr. Jones. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Mr. Carr. In what capacity?
    Mr. Jones. Engineer.
    Mr. Carr. How long have you been there?
    Mr. Jones. About a year and two or three months. I went to 
work in August, I think it was August 1952.
    Mr. Carr. Prior to that you worked where?
    Mr. Jones. Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Carr. And you were attached to Evans?
    Mr. Jones. During the later portion. When I first went 
there, I was assigned to Fort Hancock and then later 
transferred down to Evans.
    Mr. Carr. You now have clearance for classified work?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Up to and including secret?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Or top secret?
    Mr. Jones. Secret.
    Mr. Carr. Are you handling classified work at the present 
time?
    Mr. Jones. The particular equipment I am working on is 
unclassified at the present time.
    Mr. Carr. But you do, according to the job you are assigned 
to, work on classified material? In other words, you have 
clearance up to secret. At the present time you are working on 
a particular assignment which is unclassified?
    Mr. Jones. The equipment is unclassified. If we get data, 
that may be classified. I am placed in a position that if we 
get data, it will be classified and I am cleared to look at it.
    Mr. Jones. May I ask you something?
    Mr. Carr. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. I don't know your name.
    Mr. Carr. Carr.
    Mr. Jones. I'd like to know--what goes on my wife and my 
mother and brother would like to know--if it is secret.
    Mr. Carr. If you want to tell them, that is entirely up to 
you. It is secret in the sense that we keep the identity of the 
people who come here quiet. It is entirely up to you. This is 
not a secret hearing. It is a staff interrogatory to develop 
whether or not you should be called before the senators. If you 
want to tell your wife or your family anything that goes on, it 
will be entirely up to you.
    Mr. Jones. Could I have a copy?
    Mr. Carr. No, I am sorry you can't have a copy. However, 
you can arrange to look at it at any time.
    Mr. Jones. Can I take notes?
    Mr. Carr. Certainly.
    Mr. Jones. Just a matter of curiosity.
    Mr. Carr. When did you first go to work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Jones. I went to work at Fort Monmouth. I was hired by 
the Signal Corps in June 1941, June 24th, I think, to be exact.
    Mr. Carr. In what capacity?
    Mr. Jones. Junior engineer.
    Mr. Carr. What college did you go to?
    Mr. Jones. Tufts College, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Carr. And did you go there right after college? Was 
that your first job?
    Mr. Jones. That was the only place I could get a job.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you stayed at Monmouth until 1952?
    Mr. Jones. I was employed by the Signal Corps, Fort 
Monmouth until, don't hold me to the date, the 21st or 
something 1951 when I was suspended and the 24th of June 1951, 
I was released. I had an appeal hearing in September of 1951 in 
Washington and I was reinstated in March 1952, and I stayed 
there until it was indicated to me I had secret clearance and 
then I resigned. I resigned in July, I think, of 1952.
    Mr. Carr. Now, why were you suspended in 1951?
    Mr. Jones. The charges were listed 1 and 2. The first 
charge was, that I had--I am paraphrasing--permitted 
conversations to take place in the section--I was section 
chief--in which communism was praised and discussed; and that I 
had permitted the Daily Worker to be circulated in that 
section.
    Mr. Carr. That is at the post?
    Mr. Jones. At the post; right within the restricted area. 
There are several individual buildings, outside buildings, and 
one of the buildings housed the section of which I was chief. 
That is charge 1. Charge 2 said when I was elected to the vice 
presidency of my union, I had as supporters two reported or 
reputed Communists. That was all.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you were suspended in 1951 on those charges; 
you took an appeal and you were subsequently reinstated.
    Mr. Jones. I should go back further. In May 1950 or 1949, I 
am not sure which date, I was placed on a restricted status. 
All clearances were withdrawn up to restricted. I saw no 
confidential or secret material. My name was placed on a list 
in the library as one who couldn't receive documents that were 
classified material. All mail coming to my section was 
censured. That went on about a year, I think, maybe a year. It 
was 1949 or 1950. I can determine that accurately.
    I was placed in a restricted status and I could handle no 
classified material. I was suspended in January. I was 
presented formal charges in January. I had a hearing exactly 
thirty days later in February. I had a hearing at Fort Monmouth 
before a hearing board; and in January 1951, I was called down 
and presented a letter dismissing me from government service. 
It indicated there that I had a right to appeal.
    I requested an appeal and it was granted and I was heard in 
Washington, Pentagon Building, and in March of 1952 I was 
called back and reinstated, but I didn't receive secret 
clearance immediately. That is, my name was still on the 
restricted list in the library and other places where this 
material circulated. It was my intention to leave the 
laboratory, leave the employee of the government. Subsequently, 
I think it was maybe two or three weeks after I was cleared for 
secret, I resigned and left the government service.
    Mr. Carr. That is when you went to MIT?
    Mr. Jones. Right after that, yes. I did some circulating 
around and chose MIT. I had some other offers.
    Mr. Carr. Now, these charges, the first charge that you had 
allowed in your section the Daily Worker to be--I shouldn't say 
distributed--at least circulated; that there had been Communist 
statements made and such, what was your answer to that charge?
    Mr. Jones. I denied the charge. That was charge 1. I 
considered charge 1a the discussion and charge 1b, the Daily 
Worker, and I denied in effect all of charge 1a and 1b.
    Mr. Carr. In denying charge 1, was it a categorical denial 
or did you state anything in your defense or concerning the 
charges?
    Mr. Jones. Well, the charges named no people, no time, no 
place, no occasion. Also, all throughout the hearings and 
procedures and questioning, they never said who brought the 
Daily Worker in. I never heard of anyone being suspended for 
bringing in the Daily Worker. It was just like, ``Who killed 
Cock Robin?'' I saw him killed and I was a security risk. I 
don't know who the interrogatory said brought the Daily Worker 
in the section. They named nothing and all through the hearings 
held in Fort Monmouth in February--It was a two day hearing; 
started at 9:00 one morning and ended at 10:00 p.m. I came back 
the next day and it started at 9:00 and ended at 5:00.
    During the questioning period, it became apparent, I 
assume, that the derogatory information was from people who had 
worked in my section, but I presented witnesses in my behalf in 
connection with charge 1a and 1b that were present. People that 
were present in 1949 at the Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth came 
to the hearing board and made statements that they had never 
seen the Daily Worker in my section and had never heard any 
conversations on communism or that the Communistic form of 
government was considered superior.
    Mr. Carr. Did you testify that you had never seen or heard 
this activity either?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. What happened was after the 
unfavorable decision in June, I wrote the commanding officer of 
the Signal Corps and he sent me a list signed by the chief 
intelligence agent of everyone who ever worked for me. I 
started out with the first name and ran all the way through of 
all the people in my section at the time the charges were 
reported to have occurred, and I couldn't get affidavits from 
four people.
    One of them was Ross E. Edgett. He is working for the 
Watson Air Force Laboratories up in Rome. He would tell me he 
never saw the Daily Worker, knew I was not a pro-Communist or 
Communist sympathizer, and didn't hear any conversations. When 
I asked him for an affidavit he hemmed and hawed and said he 
was still working in the government and he couldn't help me. I 
finally made a telephone recording of a conversation and even 
though I don't have an affidavit, I have a telephone recording 
of a conversation. It had to be traced through to identify the 
person and there was no question.
    The second fellow was Edward Blackwell. Ed Blackwell, I had 
considerable trouble within the section when he was assigned to 
me. He reported as an engineer and I assumed he was an 
engineer. I had given him tests at an engineering level, at 
least the engineering level P-3, which he was. He was sent to 
White Sands, etc., and consistently he failed to perform. I 
tried every means possible to push him up and offered him 
raises if he would work. He just claimed that I expected 
performance too fast. He went to my supervisor and was finally 
transferred out of my section. I spoke to him and he denied 
having heard anything relative to the charges, denied anything 
about charge 1 and he wouldn't know about charge 2. He didn't 
want to be involved.
    That left two others--James C. Chappel. James Chappel was a 
radio mechanic who had been assigned to me in a reshifting of 
the organization. He claimed when he went to work he had a bad 
leg and he would be out frequently due to this bad leg. He had 
a pass to bring his car onto the grounds, and further he said 
he didn't want to work in the building; that he had rather work 
outside in a shed. He worked there by himself. He worked for 
about six months and then he asked for a transfer to his home 
in Florida, to an agency which existed near his home in 
Florida.
    Within the period of his employment, I had two unfavorable 
circumstances with him, not unfavorable, disagreeable. Once I 
walked into the shed with a number of people and he was saying 
something about Negroes. On the second occasion my twin 
brother, who was an officer in the marines, Third Division, 
came over to tell me goodbye. He was going to Guam. Everyone 
was interested to know that I had an identical twin who could 
pass for me. I introduced him to Chappel and he refused to 
shake his hand.
    I run a section. If a man doesn't like me because I am a 
Negro, I have to rate him on his ability to prepare the jobs 
assigned to him. I gave him a good or very good efficiency 
rating, but when he requested the transfer to Florida, I made 
sure he got it. I wrote a friend of mine, fellow worker, who 
was responsible for them and this man requested him and took 
him down. I tried to find Chappel after the unfavorable 
decision to get an affidavit from him and I didn't know where 
he was.
    His landlady told me--I called her--don't hold me to these 
little things, and she told me he was away. She told me I might 
see his Minister, Reverend J. K. Holms of the Old First 
Methodist Church in Long Branch, and I did and told him my 
story.
    He told me I wouldn't get very much; that Chappel disliked 
Negroes; that he was a very ignorant person. I mentioned his 
sickness and he told me that both Chappel and his wife were 
alcoholics; that he had heard the story about Chappell's leg 
and he got a physician in his congregation to see him and the 
physician said he couldn't help him; that his trouble was 
alcohol; that Chappel stayed drunk and could not come out of 
the house and finally his landlady asked him to move; that 
Chappel went to live in another town and his wife committed 
suicide.
    He wrote to Chappel and asked Chappel to write to me, but 
he didn't give me much help. I got in touch with people who 
worked with him in that building at that time and they told me 
that Chappel hated my guts. He was always preaching what he and 
his group would do when he got out of the Army, etc. He 
resented working for me. I supplied that information in the 
form of correspondence at the hearing in Washington concerning 
Chappel.
    The third person was a secretary in the section, Julia 
Paulson. She was a middle-aged woman and had worked as 
secretary to the chief scientist, I think, at Fort Monmouth and 
he in that office had dismissed her.
    We had a need for a secretary at that particular time and 
she was assigned to the group. She was very inefficient, 
incompetent, and in a highly excitable stage. We were always in 
a hassle or controversy with other mail and records people on 
how many copies she had typed properly, etc., and I tried to 
iron it out. She was one of those persons--She said, ``The 
first thing I know I will be in the state hospital with my 
brother.'' At that time I said, ``This is something far more 
fundamental than I am equipped to cope with,'' and I let it 
ride. I tried to leave the situation as it was.
    I was away on a trip on some duties outside the laboratory 
and when I returned I was informed that she had been reassigned 
somewhere else. She had been shifted out of the section, but I 
was happy to get rid of the woman. I pursued it no further. She 
was gone.
    When I tried to complete the list of affidavits for each 
person, I wrote to the branch chief, Dr. Anderson, and asked 
him if he would tell me something about the circumstances of 
the firing of this particular secretary. He told me he did not 
know the exact details; to get in touch with his administrative 
assistant, who at that time was Nagel O'Brien.
    Nagel O'Brien wrote to me and sent an affidavit, a letter 
to whom it may concern, which I submitted in Washington, in 
which he stated she resented being assigned to work for a 
Negro, and she was very upset and he had transferred her out of 
the branch at the request of Dr. Anderson because of her 
attitude and general inefficiency and incompetency.
    This completed the list of all the people that ever worked 
for me as indicated by the chief of intelligence agency to me 
in a letter. I had affidavits from all the people in my section 
during the time the Daily Worker was supposed to be there and 
these conversations took place where communism was praised or 
advocated.
    Now, I don't know for a fact whether it was one of the four 
people who refused to send letters or appear. I eliminated 
Edgett. He said over the phone that it wasn't so. I assume that 
it was one of the other three. I guess the only thing you can 
do if you have a witness is to prove he is lying or 
incompetent. If some thirty-five or forty people says those two 
are lying, that is the best I can do. Some people working in 
the outside shed with Chappel. He did not work in the building 
proper.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you this: To your knowledge there were 
no Daily Workers in the area that you were responsible for?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. To my knowledge there were no Daily 
Workers. It appears to be ludicrous that someone would be so 
bold and stupid as to bring Daily Workers past the military. At 
that time we had such an atmosphere that people were aware of 
the threat.
    Mr. Carr. It is also your statement that to your knowledge 
there has never been any conversations favoring communism going 
on in the area that you had personal knowledge of?
    Mr. Jones. In my section? I want you to understand one 
thing. Barry Bernstein, the assistant section chief at that 
time, was very much interested in the Great Books Club. He 
would argue or discuss Aristotle, Socrates, Freud during rest 
periods. These are the only conversation I can say were 
different from or different to the normal bull sessions such as 
whether the Yankees would beat the Dodgers which took place in 
the section. I don't ever remember having heard any discussions 
of communism. I have heard discussions of the philosophy of 
Aristotle, Socrates, and Freud. This I am mentioning to show 
any or all things which could have been interpreted one way or 
another by anyone. He was active in this club and that is about 
the only thing that, shall we say, one could index, other than 
who won the fights last night.
    Mr. Carr. Concerning the other charge that you accepted 
Communist support in your union, for your union post----
    Mr. Jones. I just want to bring in this other point. Miss 
Paulson, when assigned to my section, Captain Kerns, who was 
the officer in charge of the section at that time, he was my 
superior, and immediately upon her assignment he recognized the 
difficulty and placed her in an office well removed from where 
I was within the building because as long as she was near me 
she was complaining or interfering and he placed her away so 
the trouble with her was recognized earlier. During her period 
in the section, Captain Kerns was discharged from the army and 
had no replacement and I assumed responsibility for the 
section.
    I can review the history of my association with the union. 
When I went to work for the Signal Corps, as I mentioned 
earlier, that was the only place I could go to work and the 
labs have always been spread out among different places, Fort 
Hancock, Red Bank, Belmont, and Long Branch, etc., and it was 
extremely embarrassing when we had an inventory to do. If I 
were at Fort Hancock and we were asked to go to the field 
station at Belmont, and if we had to eat anywhere in Monmouth 
County, I couldn't. I couldn't go to any theaters, unless I sat 
in the balcony in the reserved section, and couldn't attend any 
bowling alleys, bowling meets, roller skating meets with the 
fellows on the job. If a fellow said, ``Let's get a cup of 
coffee,'' I sat in the car.
    You don't maintain much respect with your co-workers and 
people working for you if you have to live under those 
circumstances.
    In the next town, I lived in Fair Haven, there were two 
schools, one for the Negro children and one for the white 
children, and it didn't make any difference where you lived 
they had to cross over. I got in touch with the NAACP. This was 
legal in the state of New Jersey.
    There was an organization at Fort Monmouth still in 
existence, the National Federation of Federal Employees and at 
the particular time that I first went about it, I went to the 
president, a Mr. Heller who later was a captain in the army, 
and I asked him what could be done about it. He said that this 
was an internal organization and they didn't have anything to 
do with outside activities; that I would have to go somewhere 
else.
    It costs a lot of money to fight a case. The NAACP was not 
strong enough to do that. They said we can't help you, so I had 
to live with the situation until 1944.
    Someone mentioned at that time that there was a CIO Union 
organized within Evans Signal Corps. This was the latter part 
of 1944 and at that time the CIO was very active in promoting 
anti-discrimination policies or programs. I went to a meeting 
and determined that it was affiliated in fact with the CIO and 
learned that the state headquarters of the CIO was affording 
legal assistance for a very nominal fee to any local who needed 
it, and to prosecute for discrimination cases before the court 
was perfectly in order for the CIO, for a local union to do it. 
So I joined the union and as a member there wasn't too much 
interest in discrimination and I decided the only way to get 
this anywhere was to become an officer, and I became an officer 
by very elementary means--go to a meeting and wait until they 
bring up an item for discussion. Let everybody argue about an 
hour or so, recognize the trend of opinion and then get up and 
say, ``We ought to do such and such.'' Do that three or four 
times.
    I had had some training in arguing against each other about 
the same things, so it was comparatively simple to make them 
feel ``This fellow knows what he is doing.'' I was elected 
unanimously to vice president. The president resigned and I 
became president to fill out his term, and the second term I 
was reelected to the president.
    We then had a situation occur against the Rockwell Diner in 
Long Branch. It was and still is my opinion that if you have a 
court decision against anyone particular diner, then any and 
all other diners in the county and state abide by the rule. So 
this situation occurred. We set up this case of discrimination 
against the Rockwell Diner and then wrote to the headquarters 
of the state union and they assigned a lawyer. Do you want the 
name?
    Mr. Carr. Might as well have it.
    Mr. Jones. Harris Oxfeld and Rothbard, 1060 Broad Street, 
Newark.
    I am going to get this quickly.
    Then we waited for him to file and he filed suit in Long 
Branch District Court and a year and a half later nothing still 
was done about it, so we wrote to the State CIO and asked why 
didn't this fellow do something and a representative of the CIO 
came down and spoke with us. He said they had unions elsewhere 
and had thousands of people and our local had twenty-five or 
twenty-six people in it and he couldn't see that it merited too 
much attention unless we could increase the membership, and he 
told the causes of things that drive people into unions and 
none of those reasons existed at Fort Monmouth. Our chances of 
becoming a stronger local to warrant attention in the matter of 
anti-discrimination cases were slim.
    I resigned from office and stopped paying dues because at 
the same time the State of New Jersey revised the constitution 
and set-up mechanism within the constitution to take care of 
discrimination. It was no longer necessary to hire lawyers. 
That is the end of my membership.
    Mr. Carr. What about the allegation that you accepted 
Communist support, specifically?
    Mr. Jones. First of all, anybody who was in the union was 
cleared secret in the laboratories. There isn't any reason to 
suspect anyone unless you lose association with that person 
outside of work.
    Secondly, when they say support, I have no recollection of 
anyone getting up and making a speech in my behalf; no 
knowledge of anyone circulating petitions; electioneering among 
members that ``Jones is the man we want for president.''
    I said I was elected unanimously, and that is the best of 
my recollection. If someone were to say there were ten 
Communists in there, I couldn't say whether these people had 
done anything particular to support me.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, and Albert Sokel. I assume they were the 
ones referred to, the reputed or alleged Communists, who 
supported me in my candidacy for the presidency.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know Ullmann was a Communist or reputed 
to be Communist at the time ?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir. I have no information on that. I have 
never been told but I assumed Ullmann to be a Communist and 
from the statements at hearings and from rumors about his 
refusing or disinclination to answer any questions against him 
upon his suspension from Watson Laboratory is the only 
information I have he is a Communist. The same goes with Albert 
Sokel.
    Let me go further. I have never been to Sokel's home or 
Ullmann's. I don't know Marcel Ullmann's wife. My wife doesn't 
know her. They haven't been to our home. My wife has never been 
to either character's home.
    Mr. Carr. How about Barry Bernstein?
    Mr. Jones. Barry Bernstein, I have associated with. I have 
no reason to suspect that he is a member of the Communist party 
or Communist sympathizer.
    Mr. Carr. Were you a member of the American Veterans 
Committee?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you this: Had you known that some of 
your supporters in the union were Communists, would you have 
accepted their support'?
    Mr. Jones. Had I known that members of the union were 
Communists, I would not have joined the union. That is to begin 
with. There was a fellow in the union at that time named Albert 
Strong and I knew Strong outside. He was aware of my interest 
in the problem of discrimination in Monmouth County. He had a 
daughter in New Jersey State College and she was taking a 
position against discrimination against Negroes. Strong was in 
the union. Strong also told me he had been sent to Washington 
by the American Legion and he had taken a course in the FBI 
auditorium at which they told how to spot and detect and report 
communism. There was a fellow named Ralph Patterson, who 
subsequently received an award from the American Legion. Ralph 
Patterson I knew in the laboratories and he told me to be on 
the lookout for Communists. If I knew Communists were in the 
union, I would not have joined the union no matter what my aims 
were of having been in the union. These men had been cleared by 
experts and all men in the laboratories had been cleared for 
secret.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever belonged to the Communist party?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever belonged to any organization which 
has been designated by the attorney general as a Communist 
front?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. You never attended meetings of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jones. I never attended meetings of any organization 
declared subversive by the attorney general.
    I don't know whether the attorney general called these men 
subversive. I am referring to the list the Herald Tribune 
published.
    Mr. Carr. Your association with Marcel Ullmann was how 
extensive?
    Mr. Jones. We had little or no professional association 
within the laboratory. On the outside we had association in the 
union trying to get this case brought before the court. I did 
not live in Monmouth County all during my period of employment. 
I had an apartment at my mother's house here in New York. My 
wife taught in nursery school in New York City during the 
winter. She came down when school was out for the summertime. 
We had a pair of twins we lost after they were born. They were 
born in New York. The doctor who attended my wife was from New 
York and they died in a New York hospital. If you will examine 
the water bill record for the house, you will find that the 
water was turned off over the winter and turned on again in the 
spring. I did not stay in Monmouth County to socialize with 
these people.
    Secondly, I was going to school nights up here at Newark 
College of Engineering, New York University. I got my masters 
and half work towards my doctorate.
    Thirdly, they sent me, and I requested from the Signal 
Corps a list of all the travel orders I had stating the days I 
was out and the travel order number, and that indicated I was 
not in Monmouth County at least ten days out of the month. I 
was in the field primarily. I was not in the laboratory an 
average of ten days a month. It petered off toward the end.
    Mr. Carr. Concerning these discussions that Bernstein would 
engage in, could he have been discussing Marxism in these 
discussions?
    Mr. Jones. He could have. I did not enter the discussions. 
As a section chief you have to maintain--once you become 
involved in bull sessions, then you are no longer supervisor, 
but one of the boys. If you have to redress a fellow 
immediately afterwards, you are in an awkward position. I also 
recognized as a Civil Service employee supervisor you don't 
have any right of giving people raises, firing them, letting 
them go, or anything. The only thing you can do is make them 
like you if you have them working for you. You have no 
administrative powers as is normal outside. To get people to 
like you, you can't get into disagreements as to views on 
religion, and then the next day ask him to make a measurement 
or put himself to some inconvenience. You have to keep above 
the people in that respect to get ahead.
    Mr. Carr. So that I have this straight, your only problem 
that you were interested in joining the union, the only problem 
you had was the question of racial discrimination?
    Mr. Jones. Outside the organization; none within the 
laboratory.
    Mr. Carr. It was for the purpose of trying to get something 
done about this that you entered into the union activities?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you left when it became obvious the union 
wasn't going to do anything about it, or when the state decided 
to handle it themselves, in other words, changed the law?
    Mr. Jones. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. You maintain your only activity while associated 
with the laboratories down there was one concerning fighting 
racial discrimination and that you had no connection whatsoever 
with any Communist activity to your knowledge?
    Mr. Jones. That is right. The union, during my membership 
and while I was an officer, did not endorse any political 
candidates, did not recommend any cessation of wars, 
particularly did not endorse the Marshal Plan or speak against 
it during my association with it. If members were outside, 
doing it elsewhere, they didn't do it with the official 
sanction of any meeting that this fellow was going to represent 
local so and so at this organization.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Joseph Percoff?
    Mr. Jones. He was the fellow that was president of the 
union when I was vice president and he left. I don't know 
whether he had ulcers or what. I was elected vice president. He 
was president. I saw him at the meeting he was elected and I 
don't remember ever seeing him at union meetings after that.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know him as a Communist?
    Mr. Jones. No, I don't know him at all other than working 
at the laboratory. I have no information about him.
    Mr. Juliana. You had no knowledge that the union was 
infiltrated by Communists?
    Mr. Jones. At the time of my membership up to 1948 I had no 
inkling. After 1948, after Sokel's discharge from the 
laboratory. Sokel and Ullmann. One person said they were 
Communists. They never got in touch with me to tell me they 
were fired for Communistic reasons and they never challenged 
it. I was no longer a member of the union and had no 
association with them.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever attend meetings of the Walt 
Whitman Club?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir. The only time I heard of the Walt 
Whitman Club was after Jack Okun was suspended and his lawyer 
came to see me at Evans, saw me at Evans in the reception room 
and asked if I would appear as a witness. He mentioned the Walt 
Whitman Club and that was the first time I had ever seen the 
name or heard of it. I went back and asked Strong and he told 
me it was a Communist front organization.
    Mr. Carr. Did you appear for Okun?
    Mr. Jones. I didn't appear for Okun. I appeared as a 
witness at the hearing and they said the union held joint 
meetings with the Walt Whitman Club and I said this is false in 
as far as I know and I made this statement at this hearing. 
There were some arguments with his lawyer as to whether he was 
operating a mimeograph machine. I still don't think he thinks I 
was a witness for him.
    After his lawyer questioned me to his satisfaction, I told 
them I wanted to make a statement that not to my knowledge or 
within my administration and under my authority of any 
endorsements, any joint meetings held with the union and any 
other organization, particularly the Walt Whitman Club; that I 
had learned the name for the first time yesterday.
    Mr. Carr. Have you known any persons known to you to be 
Communists?
    Mr. Jones. No. I know people that I say, ``I think that guy 
is left-wing.''
    Mr. Carr. You mean Communist sympathizers.
    Mr. Jones. No, I know of persons you read about.
    Mr. Carr. Did you appear for anybody else in the hearings 
at Monmouth?
    Mr. Jones. No.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know anybody else at Monmouth who, in your 
opinion was Communist or extremely left-wing? When I say left-
wing, I mean actually pro-Communist. Let's not view a situation 
with the knowledge we have now.
    Mr. Jones. There was a fellow named Louis Kaplan in the 
union. I know now this man had Communist sympathies, at least I 
suspect now from statements made at hearings and comments of 
other people. You can't judge a situation--up to the time when 
they first made the first break exposing Communist in the 
Signal Corps, I knew of none of these people.
    Mr. Carr. You were entirely unaware that Kaplan, Ullmann, 
and some of the other people were Communists or procommunists?
    Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
    How would you determine this? I didn't discuss union 
activities on the job. This was part of the policy. No one who 
worked for Monmouth and belonged to the union solicited on the 
job.
    The union meetings were held very infrequently, primarily 
because there were very few people, and secondly, I wasn't 
there all the time. I was not in Monmouth County sufficient 
time to hold regular meetings. If I were at a meeting, it was 
my object to get in and out of it as quickly as possible to get 
a late train back to New York or get to school. There was no 
social contact with any of these individuals.
    Let me make this exception. I went to the home of Louis 
Kaplan once for dinner. We had a meeting and some woman was 
talking. He said, ``Shut her up.'' I said, ``No, she is 
talking. The woman has a right to talk.'' He blew up.
    He asked me to come to dinner and I went to his house at 
seven o'clock and left about 8:30, and all the time he was 
trying to be very gracious with me, trying to get me to direct 
the conversation at meetings and put any policy across.
    As soon as the meal was over, I said ``Goodbye'' and left. 
That is the only time I have been to his house. He has not been 
to mine. My wife does not know him.
    Mr. Carr. At that dinner meeting, Marxism was not discussed 
at all?
    Mr. Jones. No. I don't know if he were trying to direct the 
conversation in any channels. I made a point to keep quite in 
trivial matters, so I could get this thing over and get out. I 
had no suspicion that he was a Communist or anything or trying 
to direct anything in any Communist way. My objection I had was 
of people who deny others the right to speak up and to be as 
independent of that person as much as possible.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever in Marcel Ullmann's home?
    Mr. Jones. No, sir. I was never in Sokel's home.
    Mr. Juliana. When you were reinstated did you receive back 
pay and allowances for the period----
    Mr. Jones. I received a portion of back pay. In a sense 
what I computed I should have gotten and what he computed were 
different. I received no legal fees, no expenses and there were 
regular in-grade, etc. I was supposed to have gotten, and 
promotion which would have taken place, and also annual leave 
losses, etc. It amounted to a considerable amount of money, 
thousands of dollars.
    Mr. Carr. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Jones. Have I answered all your questions frankly and 
openly and as completely as you want. I have held one hearing. 
I don't want to leave any doubt in anybody's mind. I want to 
make sure everyone is satisfied.
    Mr. Carr. There were some Negroes in the union?
    Mr. Jones. Jim Scott was in there. He was in there 
primarily for this purpose. He was seldom at any meetings. He 
was at one meeting the whole time I was there.
    Mr. Carr. That is all.
    Mr. Jones. I didn't get your name.
    Mr. Carr. Carr and Mr. Julian and Mr. Cohn.
    Thank you very much for coming.
    Mr. Jones. Should I expect to be called again?
    Mr. Carr. I don't believe so, Mr. Jones, but I can't say 
definitely.
    Mr. Jones. The point is, when I go back, do I have to tell 
my supervisor I was here?
    Mr. Carr. I don't believe so. We have to call in a lot of 
people to straighten out some of the things we have heard. I 
don't believe we will need you back again. If we do, we will 
try to give you ample notice to get down here. We appreciate 
your coming.

                   STATEMENT OF MURRAY NARELL

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name?
    Mr. Narell. Murray Narell.
    Mr. Cohn. N-a-r-e-l-l.
    Mr. Narell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Narell. 20-23 Utopia Parkway, Whitestone 57, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your telephone number?
    Mr. Narell. Bayside 4-3844.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you for coming in, by the way.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Narell. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join the party?
    Mr. Narell. 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave the party?
    Mr. Narell. 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. In October 1952?
    Mr. Narell. About then. I don't remember the exact date.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you join?
    Mr. Narell. New York, Manhattan.
    Mr. Cohn. And while you were in the Communist party did you 
come across a woman named Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Narell. I think so, if it is the same one.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us the circumstances.
    Mr. Narell. If I am not mistaken, I think there was a young 
woman by that name who attended Columbia University, in the 
department of economics or something like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Studying there?
    Mr. Narell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What year would that be?
    Mr. Narell. Roughly 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. What did she look like?
    Mr. Narell. As I recall, she had reddish hair, frizzly 
hair. She was about 5,6" or 7" or something, middle height. 
Above average for a woman. I think she wore glasses.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know where she lived?
    Mr. Narell. She lived in Queens, I think.
    Mr. Juliana. Was she single at the time?
    Mr. Narell. Yes. I am quite sure.
    Mr. Buckley. Was she ever engaged in social work? Do you 
know?
    Mr. Narell. I don't know. I didn't know her that well.
    Mr. Cohn. About how old would she be today?
    Mr. Narell. Twenty-eight, twenty-nine. That would be rough 
because I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. If you saw a picture of her, you could identify 
her. Is that right?
    Mr. Narell. I think so. I haven't seen her in six or seven 
years. I am not positive that I would.
    Mr. Cohn. I think that will do it. Thanks very much for 
coming in.

                    STATEMENT OF SAMUEL SACK

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Sack. Samuel S-a-c-k.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work now?
    Mr. Sack. Espey Manufacturing Company.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that located?
    Mr. Sack. 528 East 72nd Street.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
employed there?
    Mr. Sack. A little over five years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you before that?
    Mr. Sack. In my own company, Supreme Transmitter 
Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you have your 
own company?
    Mr. Sack. Two years.
    Mr. Cohn. Before that?
    Mr. Sack. Transmitter, Incorporated, 240 Hudson Street.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you with that company?
    Mr. Sack. Approximately five years.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked for the government?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Sack. Fort Hancock, 1940 to 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. By what department were you employed?
    Mr. Sack. I was employed by the Department of Army, 
Department of Defense, by the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sack. Assistant engineer in the Radar Position Finding 
Division Group.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have access to any classified material?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you now?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work do you do at Espey? Do you do 
any Signal Corps work?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Cohn. About how many contracts do they have at the 
moment, do you know?
    Mr. Sack. I would judge--with whom?
    Mr. Cohn. With the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Sack. With the Signal Corps I believe we have one 
contract still running.
    Mr. Cohn. Does that involve radar?
    Mr. Sack. No, it does not.
    Mr. Cohn. What does it involve?
    Mr. Sack. Communication equipment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been affiliated with the Communist 
movement in any way?
    Mr. Sack. No.
    Mr. Cohn. No way, shape, manner or form?
    Mr. Sack. No way, shape, manner or form, except in 1936 I 
registered Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. This certainly qualified for affiliation, doesn't 
it?
    Mr. Sack. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your purpose in registering Communist?
    Mr. Sack. I don't know that either.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was that the only time you registered 
Communist?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you register 
Communist?
    Mr. Sack. I believe that was the first time I ever 
registered.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in communism?
    Mr. Sack. I probably was just a misguided fool at the time 
and though it is rather difficult to attempt to explain my 
attitude at that time, I probably thought that everybody had a 
right to be on the ballot or some such thing as that. I believe 
that was probably the reason if there was a reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Who induced you to register Communist?
    Mr. Sack. Nobody I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know any Communists?
    Mr. Sack. I don't believe I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody that you have had reasonable 
grounds to believe was a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know one person in your life who you 
think was a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. Whom I now think was a Communist?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Sack. Through his wife.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the name?
    Mr. Sack. Joel Barr.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, tell us when you first met Joel Barr?
    Mr. Sack. Sometime in the latter part of 1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you meet Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Sack. I met him as far as I can recall--we had an 
apartment together at 140 Broadway in Long Branch for a period 
of, I think, approximately two months.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean when you say you had an 
apartment together?
    Mr. Sack. Approximately the middle of 1940 or somewhere in 
1940, I was employed as assistant engineer by the Signal Corps.
    I moved to Long Branch, in a furnished room. We lived in a 
furnished room. Of course, that was only a temporary 
arrangement, this furnished room, as far as my wife and I were 
concerned.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't know Barr at this point?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. I did not. We attempted to get an 
apartment. It appears that my wife in hunting for an apartment 
met the presumed wife of Barr.
    Mr. Cohn. That was Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Sack. I don't know her name.
    Mr. Cohn. What did she look like?
    Mr. Sack. Fairly tall girl. I think she wore glasses, 
brunette. I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you know her if you saw her?
    Mr. Sack. I might.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether her name was Vivian?
    Mr. Sack. No, I do not. Apparently she had located an 
apartment and asked if my wife would be willing to share one to 
cut expenses down and apparently they both looked at the 
apartment and my wife felt that the apartment was better than 
living in a furnished room.
    Mr. Cohn. Barr was working for the Signal Corps then. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not meet him then?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Had you seen him around?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Your wife met the girl he was supposed to marry?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Then your wife told you about this possibility?
    Mr. Sack. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened next?
    Mr. Sack. Then we rented this apartment together and we 
learned after we were in the apartment after a month or so that 
they were not married and we requested that they leave, which 
they did leave.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Barr in relation to your 
moving into that apartment?
    Mr. Sack. I think the only time I met him was when we 
actually moved into the apartment.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know Barr was a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't it pretty obvious from the conversation of 
current events.
    Mr. Sack. We never had conversations on current events.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you talk to him?
    Mr. Sack. As a matter of fact, we had practically nothing 
to do with Barr. I think the reason they were willing to move 
when we requested it, apparently he personally didn't care for 
us.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you recall the name of the woman?
    Mr. Sack. No, I do not. I may recognize a photograph. I 
don't remember the name.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they ever have Communist literature around, 
the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Sack. No. I am pretty positive. At least none I saw.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were their friends, people who would come to 
see them?
    Mr. Sack. I don't think they had any friends come to see 
them, at least none that I ever saw.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work was Barr doing for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Sack. I don't know exactly what work he was doing, 
although I know he was interested in the transmission of 
intelligence by infra-red rays.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you find out he was interested in that?
    Mr. Sack. From what he said.
    Mr. Cohn. From what he said?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever have papers that he was working on, 
studying?
    Mr. Sack. None I ever saw.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him studying?
    Mr. Sack. I never saw him studying any papers myself.
    Mr. Cohn. You never saw him studying papers?
    Mr. Sack. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. How often did he discuss this transmission of 
intelligence by infra-red rays?
    Mr. Sack. I only remember once.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you recall he said?
    Mr. Sack. I don't recall the exact nature of the 
conversation. He stated that he was interested in that type of 
transmission.
    Mr. Cohn. He was interested in----
    Mr. Sack. That type of transmission.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Sack, when you registered with the 
Communist party; when you registered a Communist, were you 
living in Brooklyn?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Juliana. What was the address?
    Mr. Sack. 4704 13th Avenue in Brooklyn.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that in the 16th election district? Do you 
know?
    Mr. Sack. I am not sure.
    Mr. Juliana. You had no other affiliation with the 
Communist party or any Communist front organizations that you 
can recall?
    Mr. Sack. That I can recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Did your wife ever register Communist?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did she ever have any connection with the party?
    Mr. Sack. None at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Tell me what else Barr told you about his work?
    Mr. Sack. That is all. That is the only thing I remember 
discussing with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married now?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you talked to your wife? What does she 
recall? Doesn't she recall her first name?
    Mr. Sack. I never asked her.
    Mr. Cohn. Go back and talk to your wife. We want to know 
her first name and everything about her. Your wife will 
probably recall the people that came to see them and anything 
that was said or done around the apartment, and come back in to 
see us.
    Where do you live?
    Mr. Sack. In Brooklyn at 4520 Twelfth Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. And what about tomorrow? Is tomorrow convenient?
    Mr. Sack. It is.
    Mr. Cohn. Come in tomorrow around 2:00 p.m.
    Mr. Sack. All right.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. Thank you.

                    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BERT

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Bert. Joseph E. Bert, B-e-r-t.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Bert. Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
employed there?
    Mr. Bert. I have been employed by Fort Monmouth for a 
little over three years and at Evans a little over two and a 
half years.
    Mr. Cohn. And where were you before you went to Evans?
    Mr. Bert. At the Micro Air Force Research Institute, which 
is part of the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have clearance?
    Mr. Bert. I have had my clearance removed.
    Mr. Cohn. On what grounds?
    Mr. Bert. I have no grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. They have not supplied you with any grounds? You 
are still employed there but you have no clearance--do you have 
any idea why your clearance was lifted?
    Mr. Bert. Yes, I think it is because of a discussion I had 
in the laboratory one day about whether instructors, and 
particularly in an engineering school, should be questioned as 
to whether or not they were Communists. I had taken the stand 
they should be.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Bert. About a year ago.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you feel about that now?
    Mr. Bert. I have been thinking about that a lot since this 
happened. In my experience, in engineering school, I feel that 
the question isn't relevant. As I read in the New York Times 
yesterday, I didn't have any engineering classes that I thought 
the instructors could color my thinking and as such, I thought 
the question was rather irrelevant. I think some instructors 
would refuse to answer the question even though they weren't 
Communists on the basis it obstructed freedoms.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you read in that same article by Professor 
[Sidney] Hook when anyone resorted to the Fifth Amendment as a 
subterfuge, that would be just as much defense of 
Constitutional authority?
    Mr. Bert. I don't think the question at the time it came 
up--at the time I didn't think they should be question at all 
or not----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think we ought to have Communist working 
at Evans?
    Mr. Bert. [No answer.]
    Mr. Cohn. Suppose he was just teaching technical subjects, 
they don't teach communism, do you think if they just teach 
technical subjects----
    Mr. Bert. I don't really know.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know what you are talking about. Look, 
my friend, if you get a Communist teaching some kind of higher 
mathematics or chemistry where he can't possibly color the 
courses, he still has access to the students in his classes and 
gets to know them and other people on the faculty. If he is a 
Communist, he will take advantage of the relationship and 
attempt to recruit them into the Communist party and that isn't 
a healthy situation. If you think about it----
    Mr. Bert. I think I agree it would not be a healthy thing 
at the laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had affiliation with the Communist 
movement?
    Mr. Bert. So far as I know, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known a Communist?
    Mr. Bert. If the people you are questioning here; if any of 
them, so far as I know, they aren't and I haven't known any.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been friendly with a person you 
had reasonable grounds to believe was a Communist. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Bert. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you never belonged to any Communist front 
organizations?
    Mr. Bert. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the United Federal Workers of America?
    Mr. Bert. No.
    Mr. Cohn. American Veterans Committee?
    Mr. Bert. No.
    Mr. Cohn. No organizations whatsoever?
    Mr. Bert. I belong to IRE, Institute of Radio Engineering.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married?
    Mr. Bert. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Any children?
    Mr. Bert. Two children.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you like them to be taught by a Communist 
teacher?
    Mr. Bert. I wouldn't like for them to be taught by a 
Communist teacher in grade school or high school or in any 
school where they could color the thinking.
    Mr. Cohn. Suppose you had a Communist professor just 
teaching a course he couldn't color the thinking of children, 
but he could get to know them after hours as faculty advisor 
and things along those lines, worked his trade on them in that 
way, would that be all right with you?
    Mr. Bert. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.

                  STATEMENT OF RAYMOND DELCAMP

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Delcamp. Raymond William Delcamp.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Delcamp. Long Branch, New Jersey, 643 Westwood Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Delcamp. Evans Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. You have clearance?
    Mr. Delcamp. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how long have you been working at Evans?
    Mr. Delcamp. I came to work at Evans in July of 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a fellow named Barry Bernstein?
    Mr. Delcamp. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. William Saltzman?
    Mr. Delcamp. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. William Johnstone Jones?
    Mr. Delcamp. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever observe any indication of communism 
on the part of those three?
    Mr. Delcamp. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see the Daily Worker around the 
place?
    Mr. Delcamp. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear any of them make pro-Communist 
statements?
    Mr. Delcamp. No, not that I can remember.
    Mr. Cohn. You never heard them make pro-Communist 
statements?
    Mr. Delcamp. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever called to testify at a loyalty 
hearing in any of those cases?
    Mr. Delcamp. No. I knew they were having one. I knew that.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you know that?
    Mr. Delcamp. I learned he was under investigation about 
four weeks before he was suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know your name was mentioned in any way?
    Mr. Delcamp. Only after Mr. Bernstein told me. He told me 
in trying to answer one of the charges he had mentioned my name 
as being aware of what his politics were.
    Mr. Cohn. Were, you aware of what his politics were?
    Mr. Delcamp. Only generally. Only in a very general sort of 
way.
    Mr. Cohn. You had no specific information?
    Mr. Delcamp. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever see Bernstein distribute a piece 
of literature entitled ``The Atom and the Brass Hat,'' a little 
pamphlet?
    Mr. Delcamp. I don't recall it.
    Mr. Juliana. You never saw it?
    Mr. Delcamp. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.

                     STATEMENT OF LEO FARY

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name, please.
    Mr. Fary. Leo Fary. Leo Asa Fary
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Fary. Camp Evans.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been employed there?
    Mr. Fary. I have been with the government twelve years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a clearance?
    Mr. Fary. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, where do you reside?
    Mr. Fary. 26 LaFatra Avenue in Eatontown.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work do you do at Evans?
    Mr. Fary. Photography.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you have your training?
    Mr. Fary. I started off as an apprentice about twelve years 
ago. I spent three years in the navy working practical work to 
where I am now.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there ever a time when you went down to 
Aberdeen Proving Ground to take any pictures?
    Mr. Fary. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Fary. I couldn't give you the dates. I have been two or 
three times. No, I have been two times--maybe three times.
    Mr. Cohn. Which time was it it turned out you had the 
``Atomic Cannon''?
    Mr. Fary. What was that?
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that--that it turned out you had 
pictures of the ``Atomic Cannon?''
    Mr. Fary. A year and a half or two years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Who instructed you to go down there?
    Mr. Fary. Mr. Catelli, my supervisor.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he the only one who discussed the trip before 
you went?
    Mr. Fary. I discussed it with Lovenstein.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Fary. He was the only one.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what did Mr. Lovenstein tell you?
    Mr. Fary. I was to go down there and take a photographic 
record of radar stock and radar equipment they had down there 
and take movies of this gun.
    Mr. Cohn. The ``Atomic Cannon''?
    Mr. Fary. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. Who told you to take pictures of the ``Atomic 
Cannon''?
    Mr. Fary. Mr. Lovenstein and Mr. Catelli.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you think it unusual that they told you to 
take picture of that?
    Mr. Fary. No, all they talked about was the gun. I didn't 
know what it was. I didn't know what kind of gun it was. They 
didn't speak of it as the ``Atomic Cannon.''
    Mr. Cohn. Is the thing you took a picture of the thing you 
were referring to?
    Mr. Fary. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You took a picture and came back?
    Mr. Fary. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you subsequently find out you should not have 
taken that picture?
    Mr. Fary. I ran into difficulties down there before the 
pictures were taken. This Mr. Stewart, who was the engineer in 
charge at Aberdeen on this particular project, asked me to get 
authority from the people at Aberdeen before I did take 
pictures and that I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that subsequently an issue arose----
    Mr. Fary. Yes, I know.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't do it on your own?
    Mr. Fary. That is right. I was told to take pictures. I 
have been questioned before.
    Mr. Cohn. You are very sure Mr. Lovenstein told you to take 
pictures of the gun, the same one you photographed?
    Mr. Fary. He didn't describe it. I just thought it was 
another gun.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you know the one you took pictures of was 
the one he meant?
    Mr. Fary. It was the only one there they were doing radar 
work on.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Fary. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Ducore ever tell you to go to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Fary. He is the section chief. Lovenstein worked under 
him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever talk to Mr. Ducore before you went 
on this occasion?
    Mr. Fary. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never had any contact direct?
    Mr. Fary. Not on this particular project.
    Mr. Cohn. On any other project?
    Mr. Fary. Yes, I have projected movies for him and a lot of 
other work we have done for him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever ask you to take any pictures for him?
    Mr. Fary. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Never on any occasion?
    Mr. Fary. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When was your last trip to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Fary. I am rough on the dates. I can't remember the 
last trip on another project down there. I would say about a 
year ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Under whose instructions did you go then?
    Mr. Fary. Wally Jones.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Fary. Mr. Catelli, my supervisor.
    Mr. Juliana. What happened to the film of the ``Atomic 
Cannon'' you took at Aberdeen?
    Mr. Fary. We had to turn film over to the authorities at 
Aberdeen. They had the film processed and classified and it was 
a long time later before they sent the film back to us. They 
held it.
    Mr. Juliana. Why did Lovenstein want a picture of the 
cannon, do you know?
    Mr. Fary. He had a way of explaining it to me. We have a 
lot of other films which belong to that section and he wanted 
to make over all film of work the section was doing. He wanted 
that included.
    Mr. Juliana. What was this movie to be used for?
    Mr. Fary. We have visitors, official brass comes through 
and they come in and movies projected for them. Movies lots of 
times will tell more than a speaker can with pictures and 
everything.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all. Thank you for coming in.

                   STATEMENT OF IRVING STOKES

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Stokes. Irving Stokes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Stokes. I can give you my mailing address in a rural 
area. RFD #1, Box 184A, Keyport, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Stokes. Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a clearance?
    Mr. Stokes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Up through what?
    Mr. Stokes. Top secret.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the nature of your duties?
    Mr. Stokes. Chief of the Radar Branch and in this capacity 
I have to do radar development for the army.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your grade?
    Mr. Stokes. GS-15.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your salary?
    Mr. Stokes. $10,800.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been at Evans?
    Mr. Stokes. It was thirteen years in August of this year.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did Mr. Coleman work under you?
    Mr. Stokes. Yes, he did.
    Mr. COHN Before we get to that, have you ever been a 
Communist?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any connection with the Communist 
movement?
    Mr. Stokes. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. In any way?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Directly or indirectly?
    Mr. Stokes. To the best of my knowledge the answer is 
``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. Nothing you want to tell us?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Any associations you then believed to be or you 
now believe to be Communists?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never belonged to any Communist organizations 
or fronts?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't belong to the American Veterans 
Committee chapter?
    Mr. Stokes. No, I am not a veteran.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say Mr. Coleman did work under you?
    Mr. Stokes. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he work under you in 1946?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir. Shall I expand on that?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I get frightened when someone wants to 
expand.
    Mr. Stokes. I don't want to expand too much. I got to the 
position as assistant branch chief. Prior to that time Coleman 
did not work under me. He worked on the same general level. He 
was a section head and I was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work with him in 1946?
    Mr. Stokes. In 1946 I would say, in effect, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him in 1946?
    Mr. Stokes. Very generally as an employee in the 
laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear that there was a search 
conducted of his home and documents found there?
    Mr. Stokes. I heard about it but not in very great detail. 
I know of the fact that there was a search made and some 
documents found and that was about all.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't hear it officially?
    Mr. Stokes. Through gossip.
    Mr. Cohn. You had no part in that or the steps taken?
    Mr. Stokes. No, that was completely independent from my 
operation.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any knowledge of any documents 
being missing from Evans Signal Laboratory?
    Mr. Stokes. Now.
    Mr. Cohn. Or at any time in the past?
    Mr. Stokes. From time to time there has been the need to 
clear up people leaving the laboratory at which time charges 
were reviewed and maybe a document was initially missing. 
Whether they are found later on, I do not know.
    Actually, I want to say through this large number of years 
and with all of the documents handled, there is a certain 
measure of difficulty deciding whether documents are lost at 
the present time or misplaced.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there any situation which concerned you 
particularly?
    Mr. Stokes. The closest situation concerns my membership 
research and development board. I had a lot of documents I 
wanted to burn in the proper manner. I had a long list made out 
of documents to burn which I turned over to an officer and he 
unwittingly burned the list of the documents as well as the 
documents. I sent letters to the appropriate G-2 channels.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Stokes. I would say that was in order, less than two 
years ago. Since I have been in the top position in the branch. 
Maybe it is a year and a half, maybe a year.
    And we attempted at that time immediately to recall or 
remember all of the documents we had on that list. There were 
three officers involved. Since then there has been a change in 
technique.
    We do not let all of the copies of the list go with the 
destroying officer any longer.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there any situations concerning current 
missing documents which you are disturbed with?
    Mr. Stokes. The one disturbing factor, because of the large 
volume, we have not had people sign for every individual sheet 
of paper. We have had to, because of administrative factors, 
attempted to inventory our material in folders, groups of 
folders. However, with the current operation day to day, it has 
been exceedingly difficult to keep these things current. Sheets 
going into folders and sheets going out. We are doing business 
in the field every day, contractual business, letter from 
Washington and the like. I do have a feeling now that we 
haven't got every single sheet of paper tied down and assigned 
every individual.
    Mr. Cohn. Has there ever been instances of papers destroyed 
without authority which has come to your attention?
    Mr. Stokes. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Not at any time?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you authorize the making of carbon copies of 
classified documents?
    Mr. Stokes. Specifically, no; generally, yes. There are 
certain rules of behavior for all top officials.
    Mr. Cohn. If someone gets a secret document, can he have 
five carbon copies made and not make any record of that?
    Mr. Stokes. Not at the present time. There was a time when 
there were no restrictions against the making of copies of 
secret material.
    Mr. Cohn. Then what is the purpose of keeping close track 
of secret documents if you can make carbon copies and make no 
record of the carbon copies?
    Mr. Stokes. I agree with what you are leading up to, but 
they shouldn't make carbon copies--I have known of no instances 
where carbon copies were made except for official purposes. In 
answering a secret letter you make a carbon copy and the copy 
forms a complete----
    Mr. Cohn. We had a witness, Mr. Inslerman, who testified 
his secretary would make five or six carbons of different 
secret documents and keep no record of the number of carbons 
made.
    Mr. Stokes. That was true. It isn't true any longer.
    Mr. Cohn. That seems to defeat the whole purpose.
    Mr. Stokes. That is so. As a matter of fact, for the 
longest time they did not serialize secret documents and if 
five copies were made and one gets lost, you have no idea whose 
copy you recover.
    Mr. Cohn. Up until when? When were the final corrective 
steps taken?
    Mr. Stokes. The issuance of 380-5-1.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Stokes. I am guessing in the order of a couple of 
months ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Has there been any further communication since 
that time?
    Mr. Stokes. I would say the advent of the committee's 
operation has caused a considerable tightening up.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you now satisfied with things over there?
    Mr. Stokes. Not at the moment satisfied, but we are moving 
in the proper direction. I feel in the near future we will have 
every single sheet of paper tied down. We are now in the 
process of clearing out dusty files, destroying them, 
inventorying everything else.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you working from 1940 to 1943?
    Mr. Stokes. At the laboratories at Sandy Hook. This was 
when radar was in its infancy. I came to the laboratory in 
1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you get your education?
    Mr. Stokes. Newark College of Engineering.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Joel Barr?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Stokes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Stokes. I knew of him. I didn't know him.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew him when he was connected with Watson?
    Mr. Stokes. No. I think he was at Evans at one time, tied 
in with the CIO union activities. That was when the union 
attempted to get a foothold in the laboratory. I did not know 
him except to see him once or twice.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you in 1944 and 1945?
    Mr. Stokes. I was at Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, would it have been proper in 1944 for 
someone who had worked at Evans, then out on military leave, to 
have people who were working at Evans send him classified 
information through the mail? Would it be proper for them to 
receive classified information from Evans?
    Mr. Stokes. Only through appropriate channels, not outside 
of appropriate channels.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, if I were working at Evans and 
went into the service, I couldn't write a letter to a friend 
and tell him to get me such and such and such and such and mail 
them to me?
    Mr. Stokes. Not for classified material. Not unless it is 
through channels. We had had an officer who was at the Army War 
College and he had to give a talk on radar and he asked me for 
radar information. Once again, this was well documented and 
sent properly.
    Mr. Cohn. You wouldn't just pull it out and send it? You 
would make an official record and get approval?
    Mr. Stokes. Absolutely. No question about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Fred Kitty?
    Mr. Stokes. I am not sure. I served on a Civil Service 
Commission board at one time and I think Mr. Kitty was on 
there. I would have to see the man.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that a loyalty board?
    Mr. Stokes. The Civil Service Commission was overloaded on 
marking test papers of people trying to get jobs and we were 
helping.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any connection with the loyalty set 
up?
    Mr. Stokes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned.]
















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Joseph H. Percoff (1908-1986) testified in 
public session on December 11, 1953. Abraham Chasanow (1910-
1989), Solomon Greenberg (1916-2001), Isadore Solomon (1921-
1982), William Saltzman (1917-2000); and Samuel Sack (1911-
1977), did not testify publicly.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:00 p.m., room 36, Federal 
Building, New York City, N.Y., Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
     Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel 
G. Buckley, assistant counsel; James Juliana, investigator.

  TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM CHASANOW (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       JOSEPH A. FANELLI)

    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, 
please.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Chasanow. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get counsel's name for the record?
    Mr. Fanelli. Joseph A. Fanelli. I am a member of the 
District of Columbia Bar, 736 Wyatt Building, Washington, D.C.
    The Chairman. Mr. Fanelli, in view of the fact that you 
haven't appeared before the committee before, let me briefly 
run over the committee rules. As far as counsel is concerned, 
his client can consult with him at any time he cares to and you 
may advise him at any time you care to. If at any time you feel 
you want a private conference, we will arrange for that. The 
only restriction is that counsel cannot take part in the 
proceedings. You can speak as freely as you care to through and 
to your client.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your name?
    Mr. Chasanow. Abraham Chasanow.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Chasanow. 11 T Ridge Road, Greenbelt, Maryland.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are an attorney by profession?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When and where were you admitted?
    Mr. Chasanow. I was admitted to the District of Columbia 
Bar in 1934.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever worked for the U.S. government?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Chasanow. Since April 16, 1930.
    Mr. Cohn. With what agencies?
    Mr. Chasanow. First I was with Census Bureau on a temporary 
job and with the War Department as a permanent employee; then I 
went to work for the Hydrographic Office as a permanent 
employee. Hydrographic Office of the navy.
    Mr. Cohn. What were your duties, very briefly?
    Mr. Chasanow. My job was primarily inventory control.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Navy Hydrographic Office?
    Mr Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your salary?
    Mr. Chasanow. $8,360 a year.
    Mr. Cohn. On what grounds were you suspended?
    Mr. Chasanow. Do you want me to enumerate those?
    The Chairman. Do you have the letter of charges with you?
    Mr. Fanelli. What we have is in his answer. We repeated 
each charge. That letter gave the answers. That is not an 
official document but it is an exact copy. If you get down 
beyond the background consideration, we repeat each charge and 
response by Mr. Chasanow.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this: Do you know the 
Rothschilds and the Solomons?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir. I do know a Morris Solomon just very 
slightly, but apparently the Morris Solomon mentioned in the 
charges is not the one I know. They mentioned a Morris and 
Linda Solomon in the charges and according to the newspapers 
which have been referring to Morris, they mention his wife as 
Miriam Solomon.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Morris Solomon?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, very slightly.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the Rothschilds?
    Mr. Chasanow. I don't recall the Rothschilds at all.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know the Rothschilds at all?
    Mr. Chasanow. I may have seen them at a public meeting, but 
they are not listed in the Greenbelt directory.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Henry Prelman?
    Mr. Chasanow. I do know Henry Prelman.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mrs. Prelman to be a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anything they ever said or did which 
gave you reasonable grounds to believe they were Communists?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what connection have you had, if any, with 
the United American Spanish Aid Group?
    Mr. Chasanow. None, except that one which may possibly be 
sponsored by the Spanish Aid Committee, which is mentioned in 
my answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go to any party given by that?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, the party I speak of in my answer was 
purely a social gathering.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you ever subscribe to the Communist 
newsletter, In Fact? \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ In Fact was a weekly newsletter published by George Seldes. See 
his executive session testimony in State Department Information 
Service-Information Centers, July 1, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Chasanow. I believe that that was around 1939 or 1940 
for a short while.
    The Chairman. Did you know that was a Communist organ at 
that time?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir. There was nothing in it to indicate 
that it was. The only thing was it was a cheap little newspaper 
and after reading it I found that I didn't agree with what they 
said and I threw it in the waste basket and never removed my 
subscription.
    The Chairman. You said you did not agree?
    Mr. Chasanow. I did disagree with what they said.
    The Chairman. In other words, see if I understand you. You 
recognized that it was something with which you couldn't agree 
and quit reading it. Did you ever subscribe to it after that?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know a man by the name of Ziecheck
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. Would you repeat that question?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Ziecheck to be a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. Not at the time that I had met him but as I 
stated in the answer, several years later I heard that he was 
and that was the occasion I mentioned when I would not permit 
him in my house.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Arenz?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him to be a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Mr. Arenz?
    Mr. Chasanow. He was an attorney for the corporation which 
I was suggested on behalf of a client. I had one dealing with 
him.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you yourself ever belonged to the 
National Lawyer's Guild?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join?
    Mr. Chasanow. It must have been in 1939 and checking back 
through the records I found my card which expired in March of 
1940.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did you remain in the National Lawyers 
Guild?
    Mr. Chasanow. I never renewed my membership.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know that the National Lawyers Guild 
was under Communist domination?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir. There was nothing to indicate that 
it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't that after the time that it was learned 
that virtually the entire leadership and a large group of the 
membership were Communists--Justice Jackson publicly resigned 
from the organization?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I am positive that was in 1937 or 1938. We can 
check the record on that.
    The Chairman. Do you recall when he resigned in protest 
saying it was Communist controlled?
    Mr. Chasanow. I had no particular interest in the 
organization and dropped out in 1940. I don't recall reading 
much about it after that.
    The Chairman. Do you recognize that now as a completely 
Communist-dominated organization?
    Mr. Chasanow. I don't know of my own knowledge. I have read 
quite a bit about it in the papers.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your thought? You are a lawyer and should 
be somewhat of an expert on that?
    Mr. Chasanow. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Well, do you think it was Communist dominated 
as the attorney general says it was?
    Mr. Chasanow. To be honest, Senator, I'd have to say I 
don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Sherrod East?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Mr. East?
    Mr. Chasanow. I know him fairly well.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet him?
    Mr. Chasanow. I first met him shortly after he moved to the 
town of Greenbelt in 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you active in the affairs of the 
Greenbelt Health Association?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir, for a short period of time.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Chasanow. I believe it was about late 1939 or early 
1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Dr. Samuel Berenberg?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Chasanow. Not very well except through professional 
relationship. He was one of the three doctors on the staff.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Dr. Berenberg when he came back 
after he left Greenbelt and came back and was rehired in 1942?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir. I think he paid several 
professional visits to us after that time.
    The Chairman. I gather from the questioning--I haven't seen 
the letter of charges--that the principal charge against you 
was close association with a sizable number of Communists. Is 
that correct? Is that the gist of it?
    Mr. Chasanow. Apparently so, Senator.
    The Chairman. And were you handling classified material 
when you worked at the hydrographic office?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How high was that classified?
    Mr. Chasanow. Some of it was classified secret.
    The Chairman. Was that material of such a nature--I am not 
saying or intimating you were--if you were a Communist and were 
a Communist and were passing that over to some espionage agents 
it could be of great value to the Communists in case of war 
with the United States?
    Let's put the question this way. Let's say that someone 
other than you was handling the same type of material. Let's 
say he is a Communist and handing it over to Communists agents, 
would you say that would be of great value to the Communist in 
case of war with the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Chasanow. I don't know. I am not trying to hedge. Ours 
was a pretty technical office. It would be of very limited 
value in most cases.
    The Chairman. Would it be of some value to the enemy?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What is the definition of secret? You say it 
was secret. Do you recall the definition of secret?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir. I don't.
    The Chairman. I think the definition of secret is material 
which the unauthorized disclosure of would be of great value to 
the enemy and could do a like amount of damage to the United 
States. Would you say that is a correct description of the type 
of material you were handling?
    Mr. Chasanow. Probably so, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now did you have anything to do with Dr. 
Berenberg's re-employment at Greenbelt?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say at no time during your association 
did you come to know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss Dr. Berenberg with Mr. East?
    Mr. Chasanow. In what manner?
    Mr. Cohn. In any manner that you recall?
    Mr. Chasanow. We probably have because I was on the board 
of directors for a short while and I'm sure his name must have 
come up when we would be discussing contracts and things of 
that sort.
    Mr. Cohn. When did the fact that Dr. Berenberg was a 
Communist come to your attention?
    Mr. Chasanow. It has never come to my attention.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. East never told you that?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever suspect that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir. I had no reason to.
    Mr. Cohn. You had no reason whatsoever?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear anyone accuse Dr. Berenberg 
of being a Communist before today?
    Mr. Chasanow. I can't say that I have, Senator. Of course 
the word is loosely banded around in Greenbelt. It is a small 
community and when people get mad at each other they call each 
other names. It may have been. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Is it general knowledge at Greenbelt that 
there is a small group of Communists out there.
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Strike the word small.
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard that claim made?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You say you never have heard the claim or 
accusation made that there is a group of Communists at 
Greenbelt?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir, I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. Do you think there are any Communists out 
there?
    Mr. Chasanow. I don't know of any, Senator.
    The Chairman. Do you think there are any there?
    Mr. Chasanow. Speaking purely of my own knowledge, I would 
say no, sir.
    The Chairman. Not of your own knowledge? Any information 
you have got?
    We are dealing with a very important matter. We have the 
testimony of any number of witnesses that there is an espionage 
ring working within our Signal Corps laboratories. If that is 
true, it means this country is in considerable danger; it means 
the Russians have our top most secrets concerning our radar, 
our radar changes and electrical equipment--almost everything. 
You have been handling that secret material in one branch of 
the government. You have had security clearance. You have been 
living in a project where a great number of witnesses tell us 
there was a hard core of Communist organizations, and I just 
wonder if you yourself could shed any light about that. You are 
not here as a defendant. You are here to be of help to the 
committee and try to give us information.
    Mr. Chasanow. I want to be of as much help as I can. 
Honestly, Senator, if there has been that, they have certainly 
steered clear of me. They haven't said anything in my presence. 
I know personally no one who ever said anything in my presence 
to indicate he was a Communist.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. East ever tell you he found out Dr. 
Berenberg was a Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is that something you would be inclined to 
remember?
    Mr. Chasanow. I think so.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you that question again. 
Did you and East ever discuss the fact that Dr. Berenberg was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Chasanow. Senator, I honestly do not recall ever 
discussing that with him.
    The Chairman. Let me run over your employment again. You 
started to work with the government in 1930, Bureau of Census, 
wasn't it?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you worked there how long?
    Mr. Chasanow. About seven months until December of 1930.
    The Chairman. Then where did you go?
    Mr. Chasanow. War Department on a Grade 1 permanent 
appointment.
    The Chairman. What type of work did you do with the War 
Department?
    Mr. Chasanow. Filing.
    The Chairman. And were you handling the personnel files, 
security files, or what type of files?
    Mr. Chasanow. As I recall, they were jackets of deceased 
enlisted men.
    The Chairman. And how long did you work there?
    Mr. Chasanow. Until March of 1931.
    The Chairman. Then where did you go?
    Mr. Chasanow. Then I received a Grade 2 permanent 
appointment to the hydrographic office.
    The Chairman. And you worked in the hydrographic office in 
the army----
    Mr. Chasanow. In the navy.
    The Chairman. And have you worked in that office ever 
since?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Up until you were suspended?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What action has been taken upon your 
suspension?
    Mr. Chasanow. I received a copy of the decision of the 
board. I have it here if you'd like to have it.
    The Chairman. May I see that?
    [The witness handed a paper to the chairman.]
    The Chairman. Have they reinstated you?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the hearings--in other 
words, the testimony taken?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Who appeared against you at that time?
    Mr. Chasanow. There were no witnesses against me that I 
know of, Senator.
    The Chairman. Do you know the names of the witnesses who 
appeared?
    Mr. Chasanow. At the hearing?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes.
    The Chairman. Could you give us those?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir. There was Major Frank J. Lastner, 
director of public safety, George J. Panagoulis, Rabbi Morris 
A. Sandhaus, Adelbert C. Long, Simon Ratner and then the board 
called two more, Mrs. Winfield McCamy, city clerk of Greenbelt 
and Anthony Madden, who is Farm Bureau Insurance representative 
in Greenbelt.
    Mr. Fanelli. They called two more from your office.
    Mr. Chasanow. I am sorry. They called Commander W. G. 
Knopf, and Vincent A. Corello.
    The Chairman. Did they call any of these individuals who 
are alleged to be Communists and whom you are alleged to have 
been extremely friendly with?
    Mr. Chasanow. I don't know who else they might have called.
    The Chairman. You were present at the hearing at all times?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir. No, we were excused from the room 
when they had executive conferences.
    The Chairman. You were there and heard all of the witnesses 
testify?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. As far as you know they didn't call any of 
the individuals named in the letter.
    Mr. Fanelli. Senator, in that connection, as to people 
named in one connection or another, we filed affidavits from 
them. We filed an affidavit from Arenz in which he denied any 
membership in the party any time and we also filed an affidavit 
from a Mr. Cooper who is mentioned in these charges in which he 
made the same denial.
    The Chairman. How many witnesses did you ask them to call?
    Mr. Chasanow. Five.
    The Chairman. And they called those five and called others 
that they themselves wanted?
    Mr. Chasanow. Four.
    The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that they 
recommended that you be reinstated?
    Mr. Chasanow. Right.
    The Chairman. The board recommended that you be reinstated?
    Mr. Chasanow. That is correct.
    The Chairman. How long will it be before that is acted 
upon?
    Mr. Chasanow. We don't know. I wish we knew.
    The Chairman. How well do you know Don Burdett?
    Mr. Chasanow. I had never met him before.
    The Chairman. Did you know who he was before he sat on the 
board?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How about the colonel?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You had a board of three men that you had 
never met before.
    Mr. Fanelli. I might say, Senator, I understand their 
rules--I understand this is true everywhere; the board members 
are drawn from other agencies. None of these people were navy 
men. One of them I think was from the air force. I am not sure 
about the colonel. The other two came from elsewhere.
    The Chairman. I understand those are the new rules since 
the Eisenhower order.
    Were all the witnesses sworn?
    Mr. Chasanow. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I don't want to take the time to read this 
now. We have other witnesses, but I wonder if you could make a 
copy for us.
    Mr. Chasanow. You may have that, sir.
    The Chairman. It is not classified at all?
    Mr. Chasanow. No, sir.
    The Chairman. If you have another copy, I would appreciate 
that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. East consult with you at all in 
connection with your suspension?
    Mr. Chasanow. I haven't seen or talked to East in a year or 
two, possibly longer.
    The Chairman. You are excused. I don't think we will need 
you again.

  TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. PERCOFF (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                 LEONARD E. GOLDITCH) (RESUMED)

    The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness has 
been sworn before. Also let the record show that this is the 
same witness who appeared ten days or more ago and wanted an 
adjournment so he could fully discuss his problems with his 
attorney. That adjournment was granted and he is now before the 
committee.
    Mr. Golditch. Before you question the witness I would like 
to make a statement.
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Golditch. Objection is made to the hearing on the basis 
that the hearing exceeds the power given to the committee by 
the Constitution, the enactments of the Congress and 
resolutions of Congress; further that a quorum of the committee 
is not present and further that the committee is not 
constitutionally set up as provided by the laws applicable 
thereto because of the fact that the members of the committee 
just constitute the majority party and has no members of the 
minority party in Congress; also that the witness by reason of 
the fact that an objection has not been stated for the record 
thereby isn't considered to waive any of the objections that he 
might have taken under the Constitution, the enactments of 
Congress or the resolutions of Congress.
    The Chairman. May I say if we ask any questions of the 
witness which goes beyond the power of the committee, we will 
be glad to get your objection.
    Under the rules of the committee you must enter that 
objection through your client.
    Mr. Golditch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. There is a quorum present. Under the rules of 
the committee one person constitutes a quorum. Just for your 
own information, so you will have that in mind when you advise 
your client, the third objection which you made that the 
committee is not properly constituted by reason of the fact 
that it only has majority members, that question was raised in 
the case, I believe, of Mr. [Harvey] O'Connor when he refused 
to answer any questions. We took it up before the committee as 
a whole after the three Democrats stated they would not serve 
and those three members were not serving on the committee, and 
the full committee voted contempt. We then took that to the 
Senate floor and there again a unanimous vote of contempt of 
the witness, which was approved by the Senate as a whole, the 
jurisdiction of the committee and the fact that the 
subcommittee was properly constituted. Mr. O'Connor's case was 
turned over to the grand jury in Washington and two or three 
weeks ago he was indicted for contempt. I give you that 
information as a courtesy. Have that in mind when you advise 
your client.
    Have the record show that the objections of counsel were 
heard and have been overruled.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Percoff, could we have your full name?
    Mr. Percoff. Joseph H. Percoff.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked for the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Percoff. Are you referring to Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. This is just general questions.
    Mr. Percoff. I understand that. I think I am going to have 
to refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. The grounds of refusal is what?
    Mr. Percoff. The grounds of refusal is as follows: At my 
last appearance here my attorney was informed that this 
committee was conducting an investigation of Communist 
activities at Fort Monmouth. Under those circumstances I 
believe it is my duty to refuse to answer the question on the 
ground that any investigation of political activities in any 
place, including Fort Monmouth, is a violation of the rights 
guaranteed by the First Amendment, including the freedom of 
speech, freedom of association and freedom of belief. I also 
refuse to answer the question on the grounds that there have 
been reports in the papers in the last three weeks that there 
has been evidence of espionage at Fort Monmouth and, therefore, 
I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that a witness 
cannot be compelled to place himself at the scene of a crime 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. If that is your only objection, you will be 
ordered to answer the question. You can confer with counsel as 
freely as you care to. You have not stated a valid ground for 
refusal as of this point.
    Mr. Percoff. I further refuse to answer the question on the 
grounds that the question violates the provisions of the Ninth 
and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution and the Fifth 
Amendment which states a witness cannot be compelled to testify 
against himself.
    The Chairman. May I say your objection to answer on the 
grounds of the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments would not be 
honored but your refusal on the ground that a witness cannot be 
forced to incriminate himself, using the Fifth Amendment, is 
considered a valid reason for your refusal, so you will not be 
ordered to answer. The previous order of the chair to answer 
the question is withdrawn because at that point you did not 
avail yourself of the Fifth Amendment. You will not be ordered 
to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Percoff, while you were employed by the 
Signal Corps were you one of the organizers of the Shore Branch 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that it assumes a state of facts not proven and on all 
the other grounds I have stated to the other questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Percoff. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, while you were employed by the Army Signal 
Corps were you engaged in espionage against the United States?
    Mr. Percoff. Again you are assuming--I would like to answer 
the last part of the question.
    The Chairman. May I say; Mr. Witness, we are assuming 
nothing. You understand if you have not engaged in espionage it 
would not incriminate you if you said, ``No, I have not engaged 
in espionage.''
    If we asked you whether you had robbed a bank, you could 
merely say ``no'' and that wouldn't incriminate you. If you 
robbed it, you could rightfully use the Fifth Amendment and 
refuse to send yourself to jail. Counsel asks you these 
questions assuming nothing. We ask questions of many witnesses 
covering a great range of subjects. May I say we often inform a 
witness before we ask him whether he is a member of the 
Communist party that the mere asking of the question does not 
indicate a pre-decision or pre-thought on the part of the 
committee. We have this very important job to do. We have 
evidence establishing that there was espionage going on at Fort 
Monmouth. We have evidence that you were an organizer for the 
Communist party, evidence you were working with known espionage 
agents. We have evidence here that you were a close friend of a 
man whose apartment was raided where there was picked up secret 
material, material which could be of infinite value to the 
enemy. We have you here for two reasons. One is to attempt to 
get information, a picture of what occurred at Fort Monmouth. 
The other reason is so that you will know what you are going to 
be asked in public session so you can prepare yourself for it. 
You will be called in public session when we get through. This 
is a courtesy to you to have you here and also will give you an 
opportunity to say, ``No, I was not handing things over to 
Communist agents.'' We are not assuming anything at all.
    Mr. Percoff. Will you repeat the question?
    Mr. Cohn. When working for the Army Signal Corps were you 
engaged in espionage against the United States?
    Mr. Percoff. In view of what the chairman has already told 
me, I will state that I have never committed espionage at any 
time at any place.
    The Chairman. Then your answer to that question is ``No.''
    Mr. Percoff. No, that isn't my answer to the question. My 
answer I have already given. My answer is that I never 
committed espionage at any time, any place.
    Mr. Cohn. I'd like a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to answer because 
you have waived the privilege when you stated you had not ever 
committed espionage. When you waive the privilege, you waive it 
not merely to a single question, you waive it in that 
particular area of inquiry; so you will be ordered to answer 
counsel's question on the grounds that you have waived the 
privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Percoff. I still refuse to answer the question on the 
grounds the committee has no authority under the Constitution, 
under the laws of the United States, or under congressional 
resolutions for only one member of the committee to make such a 
ruling; and on the further ground that the question asked and 
the answer to be solicited would still incriminate me so far as 
placing me at a place where Communist activities were.
    The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness refused 
to answer the question; that the chair ordered him to answer 
and that the witness still refused to answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. On January 12, 1945, did you transmit classified 
information by word of mouth to a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to answer that 
question on the ground he has waived his privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment previously. I assume you still refuse.
    Mr. Percoff. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you working at Watson Laboratories in 
February of 1945?
    Mr. Percoff. On the basis of the information that I have 
learned here I will have to refuse to answer that question on 
all the grounds already stated.
    Mr. Cohn. That includes the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Percoff. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you state on February 7, 1945, that you 
were being transferred to Watson Laboratories and would be able 
to obtain valuable information from there?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you engaged in transmitting classified 
information--were you and Aaron Coleman engaged in the 
transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer the question on all the 
grounds previously stated in view of the information that the 
chairman has given me.
    The Chairman. This again would have to do with violation of 
the espionage act. In view of the statement that the witness 
has never engaged in espionage, the chairman has ruled that he 
has waived his privilege under the Fifth Amendment and you will 
be ordered to answer the question. I assume you still refuse?
    Mr. Percoff. I would like to take exception to the 
chairman's ruling on the ground I do not believe the chairman 
has authority, sitting as a committee of one, to rule on 
questions concerning the propriety of questions; that the only 
authority with which he is endowed with is to interrogate 
witnesses and not to make rules as to propriety of questions.
    The Chairman. May I say this is a waste of time and I am 
not going to argue with you. You have a lawyer and I happen to 
be a lawyer too. I merely for your information give you the 
chair's position and it will be up to the subsequent tribunals 
to determine whether you have the right to refuse or not.
    You are still refusing to answer?
    Mr. Percoff. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you engaged in the transmission of 
classified information to a member of the Communist party 
operating as a Soviet espionage agent and using the name 
yourself of Joseph Herbert?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on all the 
grounds already stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Including the ground that the answer might tend 
to incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Percoff. Yes.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. I 
assume you still refuse on the grounds stated the previous 
time?
    Mr. Percoff. That is right, plus the objection to the 
ruling of the chairman as a committee of one.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you used the name Joseph Herbert----
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. What is your correct name?
    Mr. Percoff. Joseph H. Percoff.
    The Chairman. Were you baptized Joseph Percoff?
    Mr. Percoff. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Have you used that as your name ever since? 
That was your given name?
    Mr. Percoff. Given name.
    The Chairman. Have you used the name of Joseph Percoff ever 
since?
    Mr. Percoff. In view of the fact of the previous questions 
asked me, I will have to refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds already stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit in the fall of 1949 the home 
of Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that I have already stated.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse if you include the 
Fifth Amendment. I assume you do.
    Mr. Percoff. [Witness nods head affirmatively.]
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party as of 
today?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on all the 
grounds stated including the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. What provisions of the Ninth and Tenth 
Amendment do you have in mind?
    Mr. Percoff. The provisions that limit the powers given by 
the Constitution wherein that it limits the powers given to the 
national government, and any powers that are not enumerated in 
the Constitution cannot be assumed by any congressional 
committee.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel the committee does 
not have authority to investigate alleged espionage in defense 
plants? Is that correct?
    I am just trying to get your reason for your refusal. Your 
refusal is a bit unique.
    Mr. Percoff. I believe that the question violates my rights 
under the First, Ninth, Tenth Amendments. Also, I refused to 
answer the question under the Fifth Amendment and at that point 
I don't want to get into a legal discussion on the question.
    The Chairman. I am not trying to bring about an argument. I 
ordered you to answer certain questions and I would like to be 
sure I have your position in mind before I have that order 
stand. You say it would be violating your rights under the 
First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I understood previously that 
you thought we were exceeding our authority. If you'd like to 
tell me, I'd like to hear what you have in mind.
    Mr. Percoff. At this point I wouldn't care to convince 
anybody.
    The Chairman. Are you currently in contact with anyone 
working at Fort Monmouth or Evans Signal Corps Laboratories?
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously 
stated.
    The Chairman. Have you been in contact with anyone at Fort 
Monmouth who to your knowledge has never been a Communist, 
never engaged in any unlawful activities either directly or 
indirectly.
    Mr. Percoff. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds already stated in that that places me at Fort Monmouth 
or in contact with employees at Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that. You are 
not asked whether you were in contact with criminals or in 
contact with Communist agents. You are asked if you were ever 
in contact with anyone at Fort Monmouth who has never been 
engaged in illegal activities as far as you know, or not 
Communist espionage agents as far as you know. You are ordered 
to answer that question because that answer would in no way 
incriminate you.
    Mr. Percoff. I will still have to refuse to answer the 
question on the grounds that all newspaper publicity implies 
that almost everybody who has come before this committee has 
been connected with espionage, and certainly I wouldn't know 
whether anybody else was engaged in espionage.
    The Chairman. That will be all. You may step down. You will 
consider yourself still under subpoena and we will contact your 
lawyer when we want you. How much notice will you have to have?
    Mr. Golditch. I don't expect to be out of town any time.
    The Chairman. We follow the practice of trying to 
accommodate counsel as much as possible. If your client is 
notified to appear and you are tied up with court work, we will 
try to accommodate you. We have so many witnesses we can shift 
them around.

  TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON GREENBERG (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       FREDERICK P. HAAS)

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee do you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Mr. Greenberg. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get counsel's name?
    Mr. Haas. Frederick P. Haas, firm of Webster, Shepfield and 
Christy, 15 Broad Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Greenberg, what is your full name?
    Mr. Greenberg. Solomon Greenberg.
    Mr. Cohn. G-r-e-e-n-b-e-r-g?
    Mr. Greenberg. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir. I have been.
    Mr. Cohn. From when until when?
    Mr. Greenberg. From 1943 to 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. During that period of time were you working on 
any classified material?
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of it involve radar?
    Mr. Greenberg. Well, radar is such a nebulous quantity. May 
I answer this way. I worked on microwave equipment, not a radar 
set in itself. I worked on a communications system.
    Mr. Cohn. Microwave radar would certainly come into it, 
wouldn't it?
    Mr. Greenberg. [No answer.]
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever deal with information concerning 
radar?
    Mr. Greenberg. I never worked on a radar set specifically. 
Yes, sir, I did once work on a radar set.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you not worked with radar indirectly?
    Mr. Greenberg. I worked on radar indirectly.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Mr. Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. I first met Mr. Levitsky when he came to 
work in the laboratory between six and nine months after I did.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you come to know Mr. Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. If I may, sir, I will trace my 
acquaintanceship with Mr. Levitsky.
    When he came to work we were assigned to the same division-
    Mr. Cohn. I'd like to save a little time.
    Did you know him socially?
    Mr. Greenberg. I never visited his home. The only social 
engagements were company functions and at a specific time we 
worked together in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. Has he ever been to your home?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been to any social gatherings other 
than company functions at which he was present?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you see Mr. Levitsky following your 
suspension from the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. The last time you saw him was when you left 
there?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. The last time I saw him was one 
evening when he called me and asked that we get together.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Greenberg. I cannot give you exact dates.
    Mr. Cohn. Approximately?
    Mr. Greenberg. It was sometime prior to November 3rd of 
last year, between September 12 and November 3rd last year.
    Mr. Cohn. About a year ago?
    Mr. Greenberg. About a year ago.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened at that meeting?
    Mr. Greenberg. I met him at the bus terminal, the Port 
Authority bus terminal. We journeyed from the Port Authority 
bus terminal to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel and there purchased a 
drink and sat in full view of everyone in Peacock Alley, I 
think it is called, I am not sure--in the Waldorf Astoria--and 
after about an hour we left and we walked over to the west side 
of town and stopped in a Howard Johnson's ice cream place and 
had ice cream and coffee and then went home.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did he want to see you?
    Mr. Greenberg. He wanted to know specifically why I left 
Federal Telecommunications. He wanted to know what plans I had 
made for the future. That, sir, is about the sum and substance 
of what he wanted to know and what we discussed. We discussed a 
few other things such as the job we worked on in Washington, 
D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. What job?
    Mr. Greenberg. A contract, CXJY, Communications System.
    Mr. Cohn. Was anything connected with that classified?
    Mr. Greenberg. I think it had a minor classification 
number. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he want to know about that job--what 
progress had been made since?
    Mr. Greenberg. He and I worked on the job and it was 
canceled, the offer termination. Neither of us worked on it 
since 1949 insofar as I know. I do not know what happened to 
that job after that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ask anything about anything you were 
working on or anything going on at the laboratory?
    Mr. Haas. Now, let's make it clear. Greenberg left there--
--
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave there?
    Mr. Greenberg. September 12th.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, he had left sometime before that, hadn't he?
    Mr. Greenberg. He left in February.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Levitsky then employed in the Laboratory?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Greenberg left in September 1952. Levitsky was 
still there?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And he called you up?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't that rather unusual when you had had no 
social relationship at all that all of a sudden he calls you 
up? Doesn't it strike you as unusual?
    Mr. Greenberg. Lots of people called me up when I left and 
I didn't think it was specifically unusual. I was so concerned 
with myself I didn't think anything unusual about anyone else.
    The Chairman. Had the final action been taken on your case 
when you discussed the matter with Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. Could you define----
    The Chairman. You were suspended by the commanding officer. 
Did you have a hearing?
    Mr. Greenberg. When I left Federal Telecommunications? I 
resigned.
    The Chairman. Were you not suspended?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And Levitsky left after you did?
    Mr. Greenberg. He was still working there.
    The Chairman. And you had not been a friend of Levitsky 
before that?
    Mr. Greenberg. Well, sir, I knew him as a man to work with. 
I wasn't intimate friends. I never went out with him. Our 
relationship was not the type of social billing. If I saw him 
in the laboratory I stopped to talk with him and knew him.
    The Chairman. Did he call you up and arrange for this 
meeting?
    Mr. Greenberg. He called me. He also called me the night my 
mother died a year ago today.
    The Chairman. Originally when you were interviewed about 
this meeting, is it correct you said it was just a chance 
meeting and not arranged by Levitsky? Is that correct?
    Mr. Greenberg. His calling me.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the question?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir, I don't.
    The Chairman. Have you been questioned about this before?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. By whom?
    Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Cahill.
    The Chairman. Who is Mr. Cahill? Mr. Cahill of the FBI?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Is it correct that you first told Mr. Cahill 
that this was merely a chance meeting with Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. I do not recall.
    Mr. Haas. I was present. I don't recollect that having been 
said.
    The Chairman. Let me ask the witness. Is it your testimony 
today that you do not recall having first told Cahill that the 
meeting with Levitsky was just a chance meeting and 
subsequently changed that story and said that it had been 
arranged by Levitsky.
    Mr. Greenberg. Could you repeat that?
    [The reporter reread the question.]
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I do not recall having said that.
    The Chairman. Did he suggest where you might get another 
job?
    Mr. Greenberg. Who, sir?
    The Chairman. Levitsky?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I didn't tell Levitsky that I left 
for any security reason whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Just try and tell me what he said.
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. We did not discuss going to work, 
where I should go to work.
    The Chairman. You were out of a job and he called you up 
and asked you why you left and what your plans were for the 
future. Is that right?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you tell him where you were going to 
work?
    Mr. Greenberg. I told him, sir, that I had considered going 
into business with my family but it had not worked out and I 
did not quite know what I was doing. I was unemployed.
    The Chairman. This was how long after you quit?
    Mr. Greenberg. It was between the period.
    The Chairman. About how long?
    Mr. Greenberg. About three weeks.
    The Chairman. Just try and answer these questions. They are 
very simple.
    And that is the last time you have seen him?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Just a few other questions. I wish you'd quit 
acting as though you were under suspicion or a defendant in a 
lawsuit.
    Mr. Greenberg. I am just scared.
    The Chairman. We are just trying to get the complete story 
of what occurred at Fort Monmouth and piecing it together. We 
are interested in this man Levitsky. We would like to get any 
information from you you can give us about him. With his 
background he must have had some reason to contact you. He 
contacted you once and apparently you weren't suitable for what 
he had in mind. Therefore, we'd like to know what he asked you, 
what the conversation was. If you had been suitable for his 
purpose, I assume he would have contacted you more times.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any idea why Levitsky called you and 
took you out and asked you these questions?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I have none at all because nothing 
was said that night to give me any indication of any wrong 
doing whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't it seem somewhat unusual to you?
    Mr. Greenberg. As I told you before, I was so befuddled and 
worried about myself the only thing I thought unusual was on 
myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you resign from Telecommunications 
Laboratory?
    Mr. Greenberg. I was forced to resign by the president of 
the company as a result of an alleged security break that 
supposedly was my fault.
    Mr. Cohn. What security break?
    Mr. Greenberg. I removed a document one day to work on 
because I was specifically ordered to complete a certain report 
on the document for the following day.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it a graph showing the results of guided 
missile tests?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``No?''
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. What happened to the document?
    Mr. Greenberg. I brought it back the next day.
    The Chairman. They found out you had taken it and asked you 
to resign?
    Mr. Greenberg. I told them I had taken it. I went to the 
personnel man and told him exactly what happened and 
approximately six weeks later Admiral Holman, president of the 
company, asked me to resign.
    The Chairman. Were any other classified documents ever 
found in your house? Did you ever have any other classified 
documents in your house?
    Mr. Greenberg. I did have a document, sir, that I was 
working on that became classified and that I, myself, had 
written and I worked on them at home in various stages of 
preparation.
    The Chairman. Was your apartment or room ever searched by 
anyone from the Signal Corps or from army intelligence?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir, by the FBI.
    The Chairman. Your apartment was searched by the FBI?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. And the material which counsel handed us in a 
brown envelop is the only material found in your apartment?
    Mr. Greenberg. That isn't quite so.
    Mr. Haas. They still have a notebook and still have a roll 
of what my client thinks is unexposed film and, I believe, that 
graph.
    Mr. Cohn. They picked up a graph, didn't they, having to do 
with guided missiles?
    Mr. Greenberg. They picked up a graph but I do wish you 
wouldn't overrate that scrap of paper. That entire situation 
has caused me much grief and has shamed and hurt me greatly. I 
do hope that these hearings ultimately bring out the truth of 
the situation.
    You see, sir, our projects at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory was always pushed and on 
practically advance moments we would have to go out and take 
data because for some reason we were always faced with 
cancellation of the project from the government for some 
reason; and we used to go out on flight tests and didn't finish 
on time and would work until all hours of the night trying to 
get data and in getting this data we would allow a recorder to 
flow on continuously taking the data of this. Maybe one foot in 
ten to twenty yards might be worthwhile data. This would then 
be gathered and brought back in the laboratory the next day and 
soldered. We would then select the pertinent data and the rest 
was stored in a big envelop and later when I left I turned it 
over to A. M. Lavine. This one little thing neatly wrapped up 
and contained no useful data, I am sure, must have been left in 
my brief case and when I put it in the closet it fell out and 
fell to the floor. I had no idea it was there. Had I known so, 
I would have returned it to the lab.
    The Chairman. Could you tell us why the FBI came and 
searched your apartment?
    Mr. Greenberg. Mostly because of documents--there was also 
another item in the case. A man named Sarant. Now, one day when 
Mr. Cahill approached me, he asked me if I knew a man by the 
name of Sarant.
    The Chairman. Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes. I thought a great deal. I have no 
recollection of him. He showed me a picture. The picture did 
not ring a bell. I do not know him. Mr. Cahill then informed me 
that this man was in some of my classes when I attended 
Brooklyn Polytech, going for my master's degree, 1943 to 1947. 
He asked me if that helped my remembrance. I have no 
recollection of this man.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. When you took 
this document, were you using it in connection with your work?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir. I had finished 80 percent of the 
work on the document. That 80 percent was left in the place. 
The part I was working on had to do with packaging and marking 
crates and cartons this would be shipped in.
    The Chairman. Was this a document you yourself prepared?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I was making a revision of it I was 
making a revision which in turn was acted upon by my superiors, 
Mr. Grig and Mr. Lavine.
    The Chairman. One other question. I am curious about why 
you went back and reported that the documents were out. Would 
that be a normal thing to do?
    Mr. Greenberg. I thought it would, sir. I thought if I had 
got the company in some difficult situation I owed it to them 
to inform them of the situation, so I did so the following day.
    The Chairman. Had there been some difficult situation 
before you informed them?
    Mr. Greenberg. The difficult situation, Mr. Cahill 
approached me the evening before.
    The Chairman. He approached you before you informed your 
superiors?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know how he found out?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. The FBI man contacted me while I 
was walking home from work.
    The Chairman. And you had been working at the Signal Corps 
how long?
    Mr. Greenberg. I never worked for the Signal Corps 
Laboratory. I worked for a private concern, telecommunications 
laboratory, which is a subsidiary of IT&T.
    The Chairman. You had worked there how long at that time?
    Mr. Greenberg. Nine and a half years.
    The Chairman. Do you know why they came up to you that 
particular night?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I have no idea.
    The Chairman. Did he ask you about the documents you had 
with you?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir. That was the one I had with me.
    The Chairman. Could you tell us what happened?
    Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Cahill came up and asked me to come with 
him. I said, ``Surely.'' My father was waiting for me. My 
father came along with me. We both went down to the FBI office 
and had a talk with Mr. Cahill and Cahill asked if he could 
search the house and I said, ``Surely, come along,'' and that 
is what he found.
    The Chairman. At what time was this document you had with 
you, under your arm, handed over to Cahill?
    Mr. Greenberg. During the questioning Cahill didn't ask me 
immediately about the document. He asked me about Sarant.
    The Chairman. How did he find out about the document?
    Mr. Greenberg. He asked me what I had in my envelop.
    The Chairman. I'm sure your counsel will agree with me that 
it is very unusual for a man from the FBI to come along--to ask 
you to come down to FBI headquarters. They don't normally 
contact you that way. He must have known you were taking 
classified material home.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. Getting back to the record, were you 
suspended then?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir. I was never suspended.
    The Chairman. Did you quit then?
    Mr. Greenberg. Six or seven weeks later.
    The Chairman. Did you go back and work in the plant?
    Mr. Greenberg. I continued working and doing my job to the 
best of my ability.
    The Chairman. And one final question. Where are you working 
now?
    Mr. Greenberg. Lambda Electronic Corporation.
    The Chairman. Do they do classified work?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir, none whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Do they do any work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Greenberg. We make commercial products. The Signal 
Corps possibly buys this equipment. We make power supplies for 
electrical equipment. They are open to all people who desire to 
buy them. I do hope the Signal Corps does.
    The Chairman. They are open to anyone?
    Mr. Greenberg. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Nothing secret?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have never joined the Communist party?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never belonged to anything which you knew 
had been listed as a front for the Communist party?
    Mr. Greenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Haas. Senator, may I say this. I took great care to 
show Greenberg the list. I have three supplements of the 
federal register of subversive organizations as listed by the 
attorney general and he will tell you, if you wish, under oath, 
that he never did associate with any of them at any time. That 
is correct, isn't it?
    Mr. Greenberg. That is correct. I have never had 
association with any of them.
    The Chairman. That is all. May I say, in accordance with 
our regular custom, your name will not be given to the press. 
No one will know you were here unless you tell them you were 
here. If you see the newspaper men outside you can tell them 
``yes'' or ``no'' or whatever you want to. I just want to make 
it clear, to keep from embarrassing whoever appears here. 
Unfortunately, the mere fact that you appeared before this 
committee might create the impression that you are guilty of 
improper conduct. It is merely that we are trying to piece 
together the picture which now appears to be a very serious and 
dangerous one, that an espionage ring is operating at Fort 
Monmouth. The fact that we call a witness doesn't mean that we 
think they are part of that ring. We merely call in everyone we 
can to get the picture fitted together. Unless you tell the 
press, they will not know you are here.

                  TESTIMONY OF ISADORE SOLOMON

    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, sir. I do.
    The Chairman. Where are you working now?
    Mr. Solomon. Fort Monmouth Publications Agency.
    The Chairman. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Solomon. Since I came out of service in 1946. November 
1946-the 6th of November was my reinstatement date.
    The Chairman. Had you worked there prior to being in 
service?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Will you tell us when you first worked there?
    Mr. Solomon. June 8, 1942, I started Civilian Training 
School in Long Branch, which was part of Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. In other words, you started to work there in 
1942 and you worked there until when?
    Mr. Solomon. I reported for induction April 2nd and entered 
on active duty May 6, 1943.
    The Chairman. And have you been handling classified 
material? How high?
    Mr. Solomon. Secret.
    The Chairman. Not any top secret?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How many children do you have?
    Mr. Solomon. Two children. One is fourteen months and the 
other is six and a half.
    The Chairman. Your wife doesn't work for the government?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Has she ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How many brothers and sisters do you have?
    Mr. Solomon. One brother and one half brother and one half 
sister.
    Wait now. I understand that my mother has remarried and the 
man she remarried has two daughters, I believe.
    The Chairman. Do you have a full brother?
    Mr. Solomon. One full brother.
    The Chairman. Is he working for the government?
    Mr. Solomon. He was in the marine corps, a lieutenant. I 
understand now that he has been discharged. I haven't seen him. 
I don't know.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether he is working for the 
government?
    Mr. Solomon. The last I heard through my father he was 
going to school.
    The Chairman. Your father is not working for the 
government?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How about your two half sisters?
    Mr. Solomon. I don't know what they are doing. I don't even 
know them.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Solomon. I went to school at Patterson, New Jersey.
    The Chairman. When did you graduate from school?
    Mr. Solomon. I didn't graduate.
    The Chairman. When did you leave?
    Mr. Solomon. I believe it was 1939. I was in the third year 
of high school.
    The Chairman. Where did you start to work?
    Mr. Solomon. I worked for Spevak Electric Supplies and 
worked for myself as an electrical contractor.
    The Chairman. Have you been suspended?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes.
    The Chairman. When?
    Mr. Solomon. October 19th. I have the suspension notice in 
my pocket.
    The Chairman. Could I see that?
    You are in the publications branch, now, that has to do 
with the publication of the----
    Mr. Solomon. Text books, TMs and FMs. Field manuals and 
technical manuals.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes.
    The Chairman. Roughly how many and when?
    Mr. Solomon. Well, they were prior to 1938 or 1939. I will 
say that. It was before I met my wife and before I went to work 
for Spevak so it was quite a ways back. In other words, about 
the time I was going to high school.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any after you left high 
school?
    Mr. Solomon. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is no?
    Mr. Solomon. No.
    The Chairman. When did you graduate from high school?
    Mr. Solomon. I didn't graduate.
    The Chairman. You did not go to college? This is high 
school you are talking about?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How many years did you attend high school?
    Mr. Solomon. I had a broken career in high school. I went 
two years and left school for a year and then returned for a 
while. Three years.
    The Chairman. When did you say you left high school?
    Mr. Solomon. Finally, I think it was in 1939. I don't know 
the exact dates. I entered Central High School in February of 
1936 and I went until 1938. I imagine I fulfilled two years and 
then I was out for a year. I went back in 1939, about eight 
months.
    The Chairman. Would you care to tell us the occasion of 
your quitting high school?
    Mr. Solomon. I had a job with Spevak Electric and I would 
fall asleep doing my homework. I wasn't doing satisfactory. I 
couldn't keep up both.
    The Chairman. You were going to school and working at the 
same time?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Solomon. Thirty-two. Thirty-three in February.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Young Pioneers?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Was that a Communist group?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that was a Communist group while 
you were a member?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes, but I was too young to realize much. I 
was under my mother's influence.
    The Chairman. Is your mother a Communist?
    Mr. Solomon. She is a Communist as far as I know.
    The Chairman. This was back in 1933 and 1934 when you were 
rather young?
    Mr. Solomon. I was only about twelve years old.
    The Chairman. And being only twelve years old, not of your 
own free will, your mother told you to join?
    Mr. Solomon. That is right.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you went to Communist 
meetings with your mother, if you recall?
    Mr. Solomon. I couldn't say, sir. I can't recall.
    The Chairman. Well, if there were testimony that you went 
to a Communist meeting in 1941, would you say that was a 
mistake or would you think that might be true?
    Mr. Solomon. It is possible it might be true but I don't 
recall it.
    The Chairman. You were in service in 1945?
    Mr. Solomon. I came home from service in April of 1945.
    The Chairman. Did you go to any Communist meetings in 1945?
    Mr. Solomon. No.
    The Chairman. You are quite sure of that?
    Mr. Solomon. I am quite certain of that.
    The Chairman. None since 1945?
    Mr. Solomon. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Solomon. Definitely not.
    The Chairman. Did your wife take a rather great interest in 
the Judy Coplon case?
    Mr. Solomon. Well, we were both interested as far as news 
value is concerned, but that is all.
    The Chairman. Did she express the opinion that Judy Coplon 
was a nice young lady and was framed?
    Mr. Solomon. No, not to me. I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. Well, if we have witnesses who testified to 
that, would you say they were telling the truth or not?
    Mr. Solomon. I don't know how to answer that, sir. That is 
rather difficult. I mean if she did make a statement of that 
type expressing a personal opinion from what she gathered in 
the newspapers, my wife is not too clear a reader.
    The Chairman. I understand the mere fact that she thought 
Judy Coplon was framed doesn't label her as a Communist.
    Mr. Solomon. That is right.
    The Chairman. Your mother, I understand, has worked for the 
election of Communist party candidates.
    Mr. Solomon. She also ran on the ballot at various times, 
as I recall, when I was a kid more or less.
    The Chairman. Do you see your mother regularly?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you saw her?
    Mr. Solomon. Approximately four years ago. We had a little 
difficulty with the man she later married and at that time we 
broke off complete relationship, nor have I seen any of her 
family.
    The Chairman. Your stepfather is a Communist too, I gather?
    Mr. Solomon. He has Communist leanings. I couldn't say 
honestly that I know him to be a member of the party or not. I 
do know he is inclined towards communism.
    The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Solomon, that your situation 
creates, I think you realize, a difficult one for the army. I 
am personally impressed by your testimony. I think I would 
personally be willing to give you a job if I were handling out 
jobs.
    However, with it, I can see they would have a great deal of 
difficulty passing in your case. Here you have both a mother, a 
brother, and a stepfather who are Communists, both active in 
Communist organizations?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is this incorrect?
    Mr. Solomon. That I will contradict. I don't ever recall my 
brother having had any connection with communism. In fact, in 
our youth we were both active in the YMCA. I know from having 
lived with my brother that when he went away to college he was 
definitely opposed to it.
    The Chairman. Is he in college now?
    Mr. Solomon. I understand so. I haven't seen him since my 
oldest son was born. He is six and a half now.
    The Chairman. So you wouldn't have any knowledge as to 
whether or not your brother is a Communist?
    Mr. Solomon. I recall our youth.
    The Chairman. We have statements that your brother is 
active in Communist movements. I am trying to give you a 
picture of the difficulty. Your mother is a Communist; your 
stepfather is a Communist.
    Mr. Solomon. I don't see him as a stepfather.
    The Chairman. Let me go over this, then you can comment if 
you want to. Your brother--we have information that your 
brother is active in the Communist movement. The family home 
was in effect a Communist headquarters in the middle thirties. 
Your uncle was district leader in the Communist party in New 
York State, active in the Communist party. The latest report I 
have on him is 1950, 1949 or 1950. I don't know which. Your 
aunt has been a ward leader of the Communist party. In handling 
secret material they have got to give people the benefit of the 
doubt. Also, the testimony here that your wife defended Judy 
Coplon, said she was framed by the FBI I am giving that as one 
part of the picture.
    They would have great difficulty reinstating you even if 
you are being as honest as you appear. You do appear to be a 
very honest young man.
    Mr. Solomon. I hope I am.
    The Chairman. I merely mentioned that, not as a part of the 
hearing but to give you a picture of the tremendous difficulty. 
I realize a man isn't responsible for what his mother does, his 
sister, aunts and uncles. If so, all of us would be in jail.
    Mr. Solomon. Does the fact I have completely broken off 
relationship with my mother's family have any bearing on it. I 
have felt for a long, long time that she was wrong and, well, I 
couldn't conscientiously associate with her or her family 
because of it.
    One reason is that my political leanings are of another 
personal description, which is natural to happen, and I can 
produce witnesses to the fact that I have not had any 
association with them since about four years and I can also 
produce witnesses as to what my actions have been in the last 
few years in Red Bank and Red Bank vicinity where people got to 
know me.
    The Chairman. When did you get married?
    Mr. Solomon. 1941.
    The Chairman. Did you live in your mother's home until that 
time?
    Mr. Solomon. I lived home, yes. We got married and had our 
own apartment.
    The Chairman. You set up your own apartment?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever removed any classified material 
from the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know of anyone removing any of that 
material?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I believe you have testified you were not a 
member of the Communist party and never belonged to it?
    Mr. Solomon. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you solicited to join the party?
    Mr. Solomon. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you solicited to join the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Solomon. Yes.
    The Chairman. Who solicited you to join that?
    Mr. Solomon. Well, Abe Bart or Maxie Bart.
    The Chairman. Do you know where they are now?
    Mr. Solomon. The last I saw of them they were living in 
Patterson at, I believe, 22 Carrol Street.
    The Chairman. Have you ever given the FBI any information 
about the people who attended these Communist meetings?
    Mr. Solomon. At one occasion I was spoken to by someone 
from the FBI. It was pertaining to a man classed as my 
stepfather. At that time in the discussion we did mention a few 
of the people, a few of the fellows and girls I grew up with 
who were then and still probably are now Communists.
    The Chairman. Would you have any objection to sitting down 
with someone from the bureau and giving them all the 
information you can?
    Mr. Solomon. I'd be glad to sit down with anyone. Having 
been away so long from Patterson and not having any connection, 
I don't know what value it might be.
    The Chairman. Some of it might seem unimportant to you. 
Ninety percent of it probably would be of no importance.
    Mr. Solomon. I would be glad to sit down if information I 
have is useful.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you will do this. You gave us Abe 
and Maxie Bart at 22 Carrol Street in Patterson.
    Mr. Solomon. I believe that is the address.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you would go home and give us a 
list of everyone you know or that you knew back in those days 
when you use to attend Communist party meetings.
    Mr. Solomon. I will do my best.
    The Chairman. If you would, that will be helpful.
    We will notify you if we want you again. No one will know 
you are here unless you tell them. It is a rule of the 
committee not to give out names of witnesses. If you meet the 
press, you can tell them ``yes'' or ``no'' or whatever you want 
to. Sometimes they drift down the hall.
    Mr. Solomon. If there is information you want? Do you want 
those statements?
    The Chairman. No, you will want that yourself, I imagine. 
Thank you very much. That will be all.

                 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SALTZMAN

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing do you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Saltzman. I do.
    The Chairman. Your name is Saltzman, William?
    Mr. Saltzman. S-a-l-t-z-m-a-n, and the first name is 
William.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Saltzman, were you employed by the 
Signal Corps at any time?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. From when to when?
    Mr. Saltzman. December 1941 until the present.
    Mr. Cohn. You are working there now?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Saltzman. I work at the Evans Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. What clearance do you have?
    Mr. Saltzman. My clearance was up to secret.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever suspended?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Saltzman. In 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. On what charge?
    Mr. Saltzman. A charge that I was alleged to have said that 
I favored the Russian form of government to that of the United 
States.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you deny that?
    Mr. Saltzman. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you favor it in any way?
    Mr. Saltzman. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever say that?
    Mr. Saltzman. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know how that came to be reported?
    Mr. Saltzman. I didn't have the slightest idea at the time 
and still don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the only charge?
    Mr. Saltzman. Well, that the economic system--it was a 
split charge.
    Mr. Cohn. It was a split charge?
    Mr. Saltzman. It was favoring the Russian form of 
government and their economic system.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything else?
    Mr. Saltzman. That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened to your suspension when you 
appeared before the first loyalty board?
    Mr. Saltzman. What happened? I was separated and it was 
appealed.
    The Chairman. Do I understand that your commanding officer 
first suspended you?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Then you went before the First Army loyalty 
board and they approved the suspension in order to separate 
you?
    Mr. Saltzman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you know who was sitting on that board?
    Mr. Saltzman. There were three. Colonel Mattox was the 
chairman. I don't recall the civilians.
    The Chairman. What witnesses appeared against you?
    Mr. Saltzman. No witnesses. Two were called. One did not 
appear at all and one wrote a letter to the board saying he 
would not appear.
    The Chairman. What were the names of those two witnesses?
    Mr. Saltzman. I don't know.
    The Chairman. That wasn't divulged to you?
    Mr. Saltzman. No.
    The Chairman. You don't know who they called?
    Mr. Saltzman. No.
    The Chairman. Did they tell you they called two witnesses?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did they show you the letter they had 
written?
    Mr. Saltzman. No, they didn't.
    The Chairman. So no one appeared before the board except 
you yourself?
    Mr. Saltzman. That is right.
    The Chairman. What did you tell the board?
    Mr. Saltzman. Well, I told them that these charges against 
me were false and I never made such statements.
    The Chairman. Do you know Barry Bernstein?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Saltzman. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Were his views pro-Communist?
    Mr. Saltzman. I can't say. I don't believe so, no.
    The Chairman. Did he believe in our form of government?
    Mr. Saltzman. I think he did.
    The Chairman. He never said anything to you which lead you 
to believe that he was?
    Mr. Saltzman. He didn't, no.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see the Daily Worker in the 
laboratory?
    Mr. Saltzman. No.
    The Chairman. Did you get a copy of your loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes, sir, I did. It is with my attorney.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you could procure that and submit 
it to us and we will return it to you?
    Mr. Saltzman. I will contact him.
    The Chairman. Either you or your attorney can contact Mr. 
Buckley.
    Just so there will be no question, you will be ordered to 
produce a copy of your loyalty board hearing. Who is your 
attorney?
    Mr. Saltzman. Mr. Katchen of Long Branch.
    M. Cohn. Do you know a Mr. William Johnstone Jones?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes, I do. I worked in his section.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any reason to think at any time he 
was a Communist?
    Mr. Saltzman. No, I have no reason.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that you are not now a 
Communist and have never been. Is that right?
    Mr. Saltzman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Saltzman. Never solicited.
    The Chairman. And you never saw the Daily Worker in the 
laboratory.
    Mr. Saltzman. That is right. I never saw it there.
    The Chairman. You never took the Daily Worker to the 
laboratory?
    Mr. Saltzman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you ever live with Bernstein?
    Mr. Saltzman. No.
    The Chairman. Just a social acquaintance?
    Mr. Saltzman. No. Just employer-employee relationship. He 
was assistant section chief.
    The Chairman. Is he your boss?
    Mr. Saltzman. Well, he was above me, yes.
    The Chairman. Do you handle classified material?
    Mr. Saltzman. I do not handle classified material.
    The Chairman. You have not been suspended?
    Mr. Saltzman. I am suspended now.
    The Chairman. When were you suspended?
    Mr. Saltzman. October 21st.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you go to work at Fort Monmouth, the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Saltzman. December 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked there continuously ever since?
    Mr. Saltzman. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you had access to secret material until you 
were suspended in 1951?
    Mr. Saltzman. No, my clearance was up to secret. However, 
the type of work I happened to be doing was either unclassified 
or restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were reinstated you were reinstated at 
your old salary but you no longer had clearance to handle 
classified material?
    Mr. Saltzman. I was reinstated at my old salary and up to 
the clearance I had up to the date I was suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. You still have that clearance?
    Mr. Saltzman. I had it until the date I was suspended.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work were you doing at Evans Signal 
Laboratory just before you were suspended?
    Mr. Saltzman. I was doing work on commercial tube testers, 
accumulating tube test data.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. Will you have your lawyer get in touch with 
Mr. Buckley and submit that.
    Incidentally, your name will not be given to anyone unless 
you tell them. You can tell them if you want to.

                    TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL SACK

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing do you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Sack. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your name is Samuel Sack?
    Mr. Sack. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Sack, just to bring the senator up to date, 
you work for Espey Manufacturing Company, which is a contractor 
for the Signal Corps. You, in 1936, registered as a Communist 
and in 1940 and 1941 you lived with Joel Barr?
    Mr. Sack. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I asked you to see whether or not you could 
recall certain things such as people who visited Barr etc. Have 
you been able to recall? Have you talked to your wife?
    Mr. Sack. I did speak to my wife and apparently they had no 
friends visit them.
    Mr. Cohn. Nobody at all came to see them?
    Mr. Sack. [No answer.]
    Mr. Cohn. Are there any other questions which I asked that 
you can give fuller answers to?
    Mr. Sack. You wanted to know if I could recall the name of 
presumably Mrs. Barr. I wasn't able to and I asked my wife. She 
said the name was Layne or Elaine. She was not sure. We 
presumed the last name was Barr. She does not know the last 
name.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever belong to the Ninth A.D. Communist 
Party Club?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. There isn't anything else you recall you want to 
tell us?
    Mr. Sack. Nothing I can recall now, sir.
    The Chairman. You say you did not belong to this Communist 
club?
    Mr. Sack. That is true.
    The Chairman. You did?
    Mr. Sack. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I did not.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. I am not.
    The Chairman. How long did you live with Barr?
    Mr. Sack. Approximately two months, sir.
    The Chairman. And where was that?
    Mr. Sack. That was in Long Branch, New Jersey.
    The Chairman. What year was that?
    Mr. Sack. I believe it was the latter part of 1940.
    The Chairman. Do you know where Barr is now?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. When did you last see him?
    Mr. Sack. The latter part of 1940 was the last time I ever 
saw Mr. Barr.
    The Chairman. Do you know Barr's wife?
    Mr. Sack. No. I did not, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I have not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to attend any?
    Mr. Sack. Have I ever been solicited to attend any?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sack. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Sack. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. Before you leave, one other question. We have 
the affidavit here that you were a member of the Communist 
party in the Ninth A.D., Assembly District, 16th Election 
District, Brooklyn, New York. The date, time and place is here. 
I am not saying this is true and you are not telling the truth. 
I merely tell you this for your protection in view of the 
conflict. If what you say is true, it means that somebody is 
not telling the committee the truth and we will, of necessity, 
have to run it down. If there is any doubt in your mind as to 
whether or not you belonged to the Communist party, you have 
the right to refuse to answer any questions, if you do not care 
to answer. Seeing that you have no lawyer, I would like to 
advise you of this. I would say that either you answer the 
questions truthfully or refuse to answer. We have got in this 
investigation--I don't know so far how many people, who will be 
brought before the grand jury for perjury, a number of others 
for contempt. If you want to think this over and change your 
answer, okay.
    Your answer is that you never belonged to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Sack. That is correct, sir.
    The Chairman. And you never attended Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. Sack. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any friends whom you know or have 
reason to suspect are Communists?
    Mr. Sack. The only one I have reason to suspect is a 
Communist that I knew was Barr.
    The Chairman. He is the only one?
    Mr. Sack. Yes.
    The Chairman. You never went to any Communist meetings with 
him?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, never.
    The Chairman. He never asked you to attend any?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, he did not.
    The Chairman. How did it happen that you started rooming 
with Barr?
    Mr. Sack. As I stated previously, at the time we moved to 
Long Branch, New Jersey, we obtained a furnished room which 
was, as far as we were concerned, temporary. My wife in her 
attempts to find an apartment met presumably Mrs. Barr who 
stated she had located an apartment and she would be interested 
in having somebody share that apartment with her in order to 
share the expenses. My wife looked at the apartment and thought 
it was satisfactory and we took it.
    The Chairman. In other words, two families lived in the 
same apartment?
    Mr. Sack. That is true, sir.
    The Chairman. How many rooms did the apartment have?
    Mr. Sack. Three rooms and bath, if I remember.
    The Chairman. Two bedrooms?
    Mr. Sack. That is right.
    The Chairman. And this was in 1940, you say?
    Mr. Sack. The latter part of 1940, if I remember.
    The Chairman. I assume there was a housing shortage at that 
time?
    Mr. Sack. I believe there was, sir.
    The Chairman. How much did you pay?
    Mr. Sack. I don't recall the exact amount but I think it 
was in the neighborhood of $75.00.
    The Chairman. Had your wife been a friend of Mrs. Barr's 
prior to that time?
    Mr. Sack. Never knew her before that time.
    The Chairman. You don't know how she happened to meet her?
    Mr. Sack. Only by virtue of the fact she was looking for an 
apartment.
    The Chairman. You did not know Barr before?
    Mr. Sack. Never knew Barr before.
    The Chairman. Was Barr working with you at the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. He was not to my knowledge. At least 
that it what I was told.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Sack. Joel.
    The Chairman. When did you first have any reason to believe 
or suspect that Barr was a Communist or espionage agent?
    Mr. Sack. I think it was approximately--I don't recall the 
exact time--it was approximately a year ago, I believe, when 
the FBI questioned me as to my knowledge regarding Barr. That 
was the first time that I had any information to the fact that 
he was a Communist.
    The Chairman. Why were you discharged from the Fort 
Monmouth Laboratories? Do you know?
    Mr. Sack. I understand that I was discharged for being a 
Communist. That is what I understand.
    The Chairman. And do you know why they thought you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, I do. Because I registered as a Communist in 
1936.
    The Chairman. And were you a Communist when you registered?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I was not.
    The Chairman. When you registered you pledged to support 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you think you were doing? Registry is 
indication that you believe in membership, in the party which 
you registered.
    Mr. Cohn. When you registered Communist, did you intend to 
support the Communist party?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you intend to support any other party?
    Mr. Sack. No, sir. As I attempted to explain previously, it 
is rather difficult to explain away a rather idiotic move.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us now why you registered 
Communist? In other words, if I go down and register Democrat, 
which I did at one time, I am now happy to be a Republican, I 
had a reason for doing it, a very good reason. It was a very 
important move but not nearly as important in my mind as your 
registering as a Communist. Can you give us a reason why you 
happened to register as a Communist?
    Mr. Sack. I may have had a little mistaken idea they had a 
right to be a legal party. That is all.
    The Chairman. How old were you then?
    Mr. Sack. I believe I was twenty-four years old at the 
time.
    The Chairman. Twenty-three?
    Mr. Cohn. Twenty-four he said.
    The Chairman. Did you vote the Communist ticket?
    Mr. Sack. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever vote or register in any 
political party?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What party?
    Mr. Sack. Democratic party, Republican party.
    The Chairman. I am not interested in how you vote. I am 
only asking so we can check. I am not interested in what your 
politics are.
    The Chairman. When did you last register either Democrat or 
Republican?
    Mr. Sack. I registered this last year and the year before 
Republican. Prior to that I registered as a Democrat.
    The Chairman. I want you to understand, I don't care 
whether you are a Democrat or Republican. I am only curious to 
know whether you dropped out of the Communist party and 
registered in what we call a different party. When did you 
first register in a party other than the Communist party, if 
you recall?
    Mr. Sack. I believe that----
    The Chairman. Did you recall the first year, roughly, when 
you registered in some party other than the Communist party?
    Mr. Sack. I believe the next year.
    The Chairman. Would you remember where you registered so 
that can be checked?
    Mr. Sack. Yes, sir. In Brooklyn, I believe.
    The Chairman. Could that be Ninth Assembly District, 16th 
Election District, County of Kings?
    Mr. Sack. I can't remember the election district but I 
think it was the County of Kings.
    The Chairman. I think we have no further question.
    Incidentally, unless you tell someone you were here they 
won't know. If you care to tell anyone you have appeared, you 
have a right to do it. The committee does not tell the press 
the names of any witnesses that appear in executive session. If 
he cares to discuss his being here, if he cares to discuss 
anything at all, he has an absolute privilege to do it.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 5:00 p.m.]

















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Following the testimony of Professor 
Wendell H. Furry (1907-1984), Senator McCarthy sent a telegram 
to Harvard President Nathan Pusey--a prominent critic of the 
senator's tactics--asking the university's attitude toward 
faculty who ``refuse to state whether they are Communists.'' 
When Furry again declined to testify at a public hearing in 
January 1954, a Boston grand jury indicted him and a Harvard 
research assistant, Leon J. Kamin, for contempt of Congress. 
Senator McCarthy was subpoenaed to testify at Kamin's trial, 
but after crowds cheered the senator's arrival, federal judge 
Bailey Aldrich (an Eisenhower appointee) dismissed the jury and 
heard the case himself. Judge Aldrich held that the 
subcommittee had no right to engage in a ``fishing expedition'' 
in the hope of turning up something discreditable, and he 
acquitted Kamin on January 5, 1956. In June 1956, the 
government dropped its prosecution of Professor Furry, who 
remained at Harvard until his retirement in 1977. Leon Kamin 
later chaired the psychology department at Princeton 
University.
    Wendell Furry testified in public session on November 1, 
1953 and January 15, 1954; Sylvia Berke (1920-1977) testified 
publicly on December 14; Diana Wolman and Benjamin Wolman on 
December 15, 1953; Vivian Glassman Pataki, Abraham Brothman 
(1913-1980), Norman Gaboriault (1914-1979), and Harvey Sachs 
did not testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                        MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) in room 36, Federal Building, New 
York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; George 
Anastos, assistant counsel; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant 
counsel; James Juliana, investigator.

                 STATEMENT OF VICTOR RABINOWITZ

    Mr. Cohn. Is Vivian Glassman [Pataki] here?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are her counsel and you know she is under 
subpoena?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Why isn't she here?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Because the notice she received was not in 
my opinion or hers reasonable.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have a contempt 
meeting. We have a telegram acknowledging that the notice was 
received.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. She called me at midnight last night. She 
received a telegram at 7:00 p.m. for an appearance at 11:00 
this morning.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does she live?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. In the city.
    Mr. Cohn. How far is it?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. It is certainly not too far to get here.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of period do you think she should get 
when she is under continuing subpoena; when her husband is 
dodging service?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I would say a reasonable time would be 
seventy-two hours.
    Mr. Cohn. I think we should direct Mr. Rabinowitz to 
produce the witness by two o'clock, otherwise we should have 
her cited for contempt.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I am perfectly willing to advise and tell 
her she ought to----
    The Chairman. What is her address?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I don't know that I have her address with 
me. Yes, I have. It is 443 East Eighth Street.
    The Chairman. She got the telegram?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. She told me she got it.
    The Chairman. Do you know where Mr. Pataki is?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No.
    The Chairman. You are not his lawyer?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Well, I did represent him about nine months 
ago, perhaps a year ago. I have not represented him since.
    The Chairman. You have no idea where he is?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. At the moment?
    The Chairman. Or yesterday?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No, I have not seen him for some weeks.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea where he is?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No.
    The Chairman. Did Mrs. Pataki tell you where he was?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No, I didn't ask her.
    The Chairman. When did you last see him?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I believe at the time she testified here 
which must have been two or three weeks ago.
    The Chairman. You saw him then?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I think they came down to the office 
together. I have not seen or heard from either of them since, 
until last night.
    The Chairman. That was two weeks ago?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Whenever it was.
    The Chairman. As far as you know they are living together?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I don't think I will answer that, sir. Any 
information I have is a result of communications from my 
client.
    The Chairman. You said he was not your client.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. He was my client once upon a time and she 
is my client today.
    The Chairman. Was he your client two weeks ago?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I had no conversation with him two weeks 
ago on this subject. The subject did not come up.
    The Chairman. You said you saw him two weeks ago?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know where he was living at that time?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No. There was no occasion for that subject 
to arise.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rabinowitz, we usually extend every 
courtesy to counsel. In this case you are not counsel for Mr. 
Pataki. Therefore, you are not here in the position of his 
lawyer. Therefore, we shall demand that you tell us anything 
about his whereabouts that you know.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I have told you, I know nothing about his 
whereabouts.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea where he was living two 
weeks ago?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Well, I don't know whether I had any idea. 
He did not tell me where he was living and I did not ask him.
    If you want Vivian Pataki down here tomorrow----
    Mr. Cohn. Don't do us any favors. She is under subpoena and 
was given notice and you are her counsel and an officer of the 
court and you received notice to produce your client.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. She was given entirely inadequate notice. I 
do not feel seven o'clock was adequate notice. I know this 
committee constantly does it.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea where Pataki was living 
when you saw him two weeks ago?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I don't know what you mean by any idea. I 
did not ask the man. He came down with his wife and I don't 
believe I exchanged ten words with him.
    The Chairman. Where do you think he was living at that 
time?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I have no idea. I have no reason to believe 
they were not living together. Nobody suggested they were 
broken up. They seemed to be on friendly terms and I had no 
reason to believe they were not living as man and wife.
    The Chairman. Her reason for not appearing was not because 
she could not get counsel?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I told her I would not represent her today. 
I have three witnesses. That is all I am willing to handle 
before this committee.
    The Chairman. You are willing to represent her tomorrow?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. It is bad enough to have Communists walking 
around the street. I don't think the committee--she is under 
subpoena, and I don't think she should tell us when she can 
come in. I don't feel like waiting for their convenience.
    The Chairman. I may say, you are chief counsel and if you 
feel the witness is clearly in contempt. She is under subpoena 
and her lawyer is here. If you want to cite her, I have no 
strong feeling about it. If you want me to order counsel to 
produce her this afternoon.
    How many witnesses do you have this afternoon?
    Mr. Cohn. He has three other witnesses. Lots of lawyers 
would be glad to have three witnesses.
    The Chairman. My point is, he has three witnesses and he 
might have difficulty in locating her.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I don't know where she is.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know what her phone number is?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I have no reason to believe she would be 
home.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in communication with her since 
yesterday afternoon?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I told you if you'd listen to what I say 
instead of talking so much. I said at twelve o'clock last night 
I received a phone call from her.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you tell her she was directed to appear here?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. She told me that she had received the 
telegram; that she had tried to get me earlier in the evening.
    Mr. Cohn. The situation is we have a woman we want to 
question as to whether or not she is an espionage agent against 
the United States. She is under lawful service by this 
committee, under continuing subpoena, both she and counsel 
lives a few minutes away; her husband is dodging service and we 
have information that he was a Communist spy, and he is dodging 
process while we sit here and wait and Mr. Rabinowitz tells us 
she will come in when she feels like coming in.
    The Chairman. If she is not her at two o'clock I will ask 
for contempt citation.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I will call her number and if I can reach 
her I will tell her what you said. I can tell the committee 
that I think it will be perfectly reasonable to come tomorrow. 
By that time she would have received two days' notice, and 
while I think that is a little short, I am willing to recommend 
her appearance at that time. I will not represent her at two 
o'clock. She will have to get another lawyer.
    The Chairman. We will give her until tomorrow at ten 
o'clock.
    Make that 10:30, Mr. Rabinowitz.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Can we make it 11:00?
    The Chairman. Sure.

TESTIMONY OF WENDELL FURRY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, OSMOND 
                            FRANKEL)

    The Chairman. Mr. Furry, will you raise your right hand and 
be sworn?
    In this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that 
the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Furry. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is your counsel?
    Mr. Furry. Osmond Frankel.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, counsel for the Harvard Corporation has 
requested that he be allowed to sit in. The chairman granted 
him that permission. He now says that he won't.
    Could we get your name?
    Mr. Furry. Wendell Hinkle Furry.
    Mr. Cohn. Your last name is spelled F-u-r-r-y?
    Mr. Furry. Right. My middle name is spelled H-i-n-k-l-e.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Furry. Harvard University.
    Mr. Cohn. What to you do?
    Mr. Furry. Teach.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you teach?
    Mr. Furry. Physics.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor of physics?
    Mr. Furry. Associate professor.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you taught at 
Harvard?
    Mr. Furry. I began nineteen years ago. I have had leave of 
absence for two and a half years during that time.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Furry. I had half a year's leave in 1950, sabbatical, 
and two years' leave of absence from 1943 to 1945 when I was 
employed at the Radiation Laboratory, MIT.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that laboratory deal with radar?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you do any work for the U.S. government?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Directly or indirectly?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Any for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Furry. I was not aware what the connections were.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it classified material?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you then a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Furry. On the grounds that this is irrelevant to the 
purpose of this committee to investigate my associations and 
beliefs under the First Amendment and my privileges under the 
Fifth Amendment, I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Furry. I stand on the ground I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Is it on the grounds that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Furry. On the Fifth Amendment, sir.
    The Chairman. Is it on the grounds that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you? That is the ground on which you can 
refuse to answer. I am going to order you to answer that 
question.
    I think you should understand the chair's position. You 
see, you can invoke the Fifth Amendment if you feel your answer 
might tend to incriminate you. It is up to the chair in each 
instance to determine whether or not you are properly invoking 
the Fifth Amendment before a committee. I cannot tell whether 
you are properly invoking the Fifth Amendment unless you tell 
me whether you feel your answer might tend to incriminate you.
    I asked you if you feel that your answer to the question of 
whether or not you were a Communist while handling classified 
material for the U.S. government would tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Frankel. I'd like to suggest that the word ``would'' 
was inadvertent.
    The Chairman. Might. Thank you.
    Mr. Furry. With the amendment to the question as provided 
by Mr. Frankel and accepted by you, the answer is ``Yes.''
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to the privilege.
    When you were on six months' leave in 1950, what did you do 
during that time?
    Mr. Furry. I traveled to Denmark and worked at the 
Institute of Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen.
    The Chairman. Now, in your work at Harvard do you handle 
any classified government material?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you handled classified 
material?
    Mr. Furry. Just before I left the Radiation Laboratory.
    The Chairman. That was in 1945?
    Mr. Furry. 1945.
    The Chairman. Did you know any Communists who were working 
at the laboratory at that time and handling classified 
material?
    Mr. Furry. On the same grounds that I have mentioned 
before, I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Did you know of anyone who was removing 
classified material from the laboratory and giving that 
material either to espionage agents or any other personnel who 
were not authorized to receive it?
    Mr. Furry. I did not, sir, and I would like to add a 
factual statement to that. That I have never had any connection 
with espionage or plans for espionage myself and I have never 
known of any other person having any connection with such 
things.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in any illegal activities 
of any kind in violation of any law, to your knowledge, in 
connection with Communists or the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I decline to answer that on the same 
constitutional grounds, except as I stated in the last answer.
    The Chairman. Except you say--you refuse to say whether you 
were engaged in any illegal activities with the exception of 
engaging in or knowing that espionage----
    Mr. Furry. Or having any knowledge of any plans on the part 
of other persons.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove any classified material 
from the laboratories at Fort Monmouth or the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Cohn. He said MIT.
    The Chairman. I beg your pardon.
    Mr. Furry. I am perfectly willing to testify that I have 
never been at the laboratories at Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove classified material from 
the MIT laboratories?
    Mr. Furry. I can remember only one instance, sir. The 
instance in question was when I left the employ of the 
laboratory in August 1945. There was a document classified 
restricted, which as you know is the lowest brand of 
classification, and I would, of course, be entitled to remove 
that at any time for my own study. I think the material, this 
document, was of general scientific interest and copies of it 
have been made available to lots of people since. I took a copy 
of it home. I was told the next day by my group leader that had 
been improper; that I should wait until the time it was made 
available as it was later.
    The Chairman. With the exception of this one document 
marked restricted, did you ever take home any document marked 
confidential or secret?
    Mr. Furry. Certainly not to my memory.
    The Chairman. And to your knowledge you never had any 
confidential or secret material in your home? Is that correct?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir, not in my home, only in my office.
    The Chairman. Your office is right within the MIT 
buildings?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    The Chairman. All of the radar material was in the office 
in the MIT buildings?
    Mr. Furry. There were one of two classified documents sent 
to me on other bases while at Harvard that remained in Harvard.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss radar or your work with 
anyone known to you to be a Communist?
    [The witness confers with counsel.]
    Mr. Furry. I decline the privilege in refusing to answer 
that question but I will add that I never discussed the work 
outside the laboratory.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    For the benefit of counsel, I will tell you why I order the 
witness to answer that question. As counsel knows, the 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment can be waived. When it is 
waived, you waive it as to an area, not to a specific question.
    You said you never engaged in espionage of any kind and 
discussing secret material with a Communist would come under 
that field, within that area of investigation. Therefore, you 
are ordered to answer the question for the reason that you have 
waived your privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Furry. The answer I already gave to that question 
covers everything which I am not entitled to the privilege on 
and I still stand on the privilege.
    The Chairman. Just to let you know the possibility of the 
claim so you can't say you misunderstood the question at some 
future legal proceeding, I will ask the question again.
    While you were working on classified material for the 
government, did you discuss that material with anyone known to 
you to be a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Furry. My answer as given previously was that I did not 
discuss it with anybody outside the laboratories. At least that 
is my impression that was the answer given. Beyond that, I 
refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer whether you 
discussed it with people known to you to be Communists either 
in or out of laboratory.
    Mr. Furry. My statement to that is that I discussed it only 
in the laboratory, which means I only discussed it with 
authorized personnel and beyond that answer----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss it with any persons in the 
laboratory known to you to be members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. On that question I claim the privilege.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Furry. I stand on the privilege.
    The Chairman. I do that as a courtesy to you. You are 
informed that you will be cited for contempt. If you want to 
cover up for Communists you may do that. If you want to cover 
up espionage agents getting information, you may do that. You 
have to take the consequences. We intend to see that any 
witness who does anything to destroy this nation will take the 
consequences.
    Did you ever discuss classified work with anyone whom you 
had any reason to believe might be an espionage agent?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a Communist, a member of the 
Communist party, is under such discipline and loyalty to the 
Communist party, if the Communists want classified information 
he is bound as a Communist to give them that information?
    Mr. Furry. I know essentially nothing of the nature of 
membership in the Communist party at the present time or what 
it might imply.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member last year?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you the years before that?
    Mr. Furry. I will testify that I have not been a member of 
the Communist party since March 1, 1951.
    The Chairman. March 1, 1951? Is that correct?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member in February 1951?
    Mr. Furry. I claim the privilege on that question.
    The Chairman. You understand if you were not a member of 
the Communist party you can merely say ``No'' and it would in 
no way incriminate you?
    Mr. Furry. I stand on the privilege on the question, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give the FBI any information as 
to your fellow members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. That question has obvious implications and I 
will refuse to answer it under the basis of the privilege.
    The Chairman. Under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever voluntarily give the FBI any 
information?
    Mr. Furry. The word ``voluntarily.'' I have never given it 
except when asked.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give the FBI information about 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I refuse to answer that, sir, on the basis of 
the privilege.
    The Chairman. Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that. You cannot 
incriminate yourself by giving the FBI information. You are 
ordered to answer the question.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, if you want my personal opinion, 
I don't think he waives any right by answering that question. I 
am not in a position to suggest to him what rights he does or 
does not waive. I have said that I was going to have him cited 
for contempt. This will be submitted to the attorney general 
for indictment before a grand jury. I think it would be highly 
improper for me to advise him ahead of time as to what rights 
he can waive. I merely take the position that the question of 
whether or not he gave any information to the FBI, the answer 
to that question could in no way incriminate him, and, 
therefore, he is not entitled to the Fifth Amendment. For that 
reason, I ordered him to testify.
    Mr. Frankel. I understand the chairman's position. I don't 
know whether the chairman would like my reaction to his 
comment.
    The Chairman. It would be a little unconventional.
    Mr. Frankel. I don't mind being unconventional at times.
    It seems if a person is asked whether he has given 
information about the Communist party, it puts him in the 
position of knowing something about the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Not necessarily. I have given the FBI 
unlimited information about the Communist party. One way we 
have of determining whether a Communist has broken with the 
party completely is whether they gave the proper law 
enforcement agencies any information he may have.
    Mr. Frankel. May I suggest that is outside of the function 
of this particular committee.
    The Chairman. Keep in mind that while we are primarily 
investigating espionage in the Signal Corps and in other 
government installations, the committee would have the 
jurisdiction to call this man as an employee of an institution 
that is partially supported by the government and inquire as to 
whether or not he is an espionage agent of a foreign power, a 
Communist agent, so that we would have the complete authority 
to call him entirely separate and apart from his radar work and 
Communist activities.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    Mr. Frankel. I think the witness can answer this particular 
question.
    Mr. Furry. The answer is ``No, sir.''
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist meetings with 
your students?
    Mr. Furry. I refuse to answer that, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever try to indoctrinate your 
students in the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Furry. I refuse to answer that, sir, on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit any of your students to 
join the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hold Communist meetings in your 
home?
    Mr. Furry. I refuse to answer that and as in the previous 
question and this, I would like to claim that it is beyond the 
scope of the committee and irrelevant to this investigation.
    The Chairman. And you are also invoking the Fifth Amendment 
privilege?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know any professors teaching at 
Harvard who are members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. As of the present, I will answer that I do not.
    The Chairman. After it became known around Harvard that you 
would be called before this committee, did the president of the 
university discuss the matter with you?
    Mr. Furry. That is entirely outside the scope of this 
committee.
    Mr. Cohn. Does Harvard obtain any grant in any way from the 
federal government?
    Mr. Furry. I am completely unacquainted with that.
    Mr. Cohn. They definitely do.
    The Chairman. Let's not argue. You will be ordered to 
answer the question.
    Mr. Furry. I have not, sir. I have forgotten how it was 
worded.
    The Chairman. Did the president call you in and ask you 
whether or not you were a Communist?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, he has expressed no 
interest in whether or not you were a member of the Communist 
party? As far as you know?
    Mr. Furry. As far as I know?
    The Chairman. He didn't discuss your appearance here today, 
didn't discuss any of the testimony you would give?
    Mr. Furry. I believe this is completely irrelevant to the 
purpose of the committee. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. He didn't discuss your appearance before 
other committees investigating communism?
    Mr. Furry. You mean the president of the university?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Who is the president?
    Mr. Furry. Mr. Pusey.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor, following any appearance you made 
before the House Un-American Activities Committee, were you 
suspended from your post at Harvard University?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. No action has ever been taken against you.
    Mr. Furry. Yes. Certainly action has been taken against me.
    Mr. Cohn. Up at Harvard?
    Mr. Furry. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Trace that very briefly.
    Mr. Furry. Well, I was, so to speak, placed on trial. My 
case was considered.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom?
    Mr. Furry. By the Harvard Corporation for a number of 
weeks. At the end of that time I was rather severely censured 
and placed on probation.
    Mr. Cohn. You were censured?
    Mr. Furry. And placed on probation. Again I will say these 
things seem to have nothing to do----
    Mr. Cohn. When was it you were placed on probation?
    Mr. Furry. Last May.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Furry. Three years.
    Mr. Cohn. You still go on teaching your classes?
    Mr. Furry. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any work for the government, directly 
or indirectly?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. No research work?
    Mr. Furry. I do research work for the university, the sort 
of problems chosen by me.
    Mr. Cohn. None of it reaches the government directly or 
indirectly?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody on the faculty at Harvard who 
ever was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I will claim the privilege in answering that.
    Mr. Cohn. The same question, MIT?
    Mr. Furry. Claim the privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody who worked on radar at the laboratory at 
MIT and is now working for the U.S. government, who you then 
knew to be a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I have already claimed the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't think that is information you can give 
us. Is that right?
    Mr. Furry. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party in November 1947?
    Mr. Furry. I will claim the privilege on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Hyman Yamins?
    Mr. Furry. I believe I must have known him when we were 
students at Harvard. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't 
seen him since.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Furry. I will claim the privilege on that, sir.
    The Chairman. You said you were not a Communist since March 
1, 1951. Have you ever attended any Communist party meetings 
since that time?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you since that time ever attempt to 
indoctrinate your students with the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you believe in the Communist system?
    Mr. Furry. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you in February of 1951 believe in it?
    Mr. Furry. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. What is your answer to that question?
    Mr. Furry. I will claim the privilege on that, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you care to tell us at what period of 
time you no longer believed in the Communist system?
    Mr. Furry. I will claim the privilege and not answer that, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Did you drop out of the Communist party, drop 
your formal membership for the sole reason that you felt that 
to keep your job you could no longer formally associate with 
the Communist party? Is that correct?
    Mr. Furry. That question contains an implication and I 
would claim the privilege under the Fifth Amendment. It does 
contain the implication that I was an active Communist.
    The Chairman. If that is not a correct implication you can 
answer the question. If it is incorrect you can answer.
    Mr. Furry. There is no question about that.
    The Chairman. Have your beliefs in regard to communism 
changed over the past four years, let's say?
    Mr. Furry. My beliefs on many subjects, including this, 
have gone through changes.
    The Chairman. In other words, your beliefs on communism 
have changed in the last few years?
    Mr. Furry. On that and other subjects.
    The Chairman. Do you have a lower opinion of communism than 
you had four years ago?
    Mr. Furry. I think that is probably true, sir. I have a 
lower opinion than I had four years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor, one thing here troubles me very much. 
You undoubtedly know the committee is investigating subversion 
and espionage in the radar field. You are an expert in that 
field undoubtedly and know what the transmission of various 
secrets to anyone seeking to destroy the United States might 
mean to the American people.
    In view of that, I wonder if you don't feel you could tell 
us the Communist party members who were working on radar 
secrets at MIT.
    Mr. Furry. I would like to make a comment on that, if I 
may; that is that a shelf of something like twenty volumes has 
been published which contains all of the work that I have heard 
of being done at MIT, so far as I know----
    Mr. Cohn. When was that published?
    Mr. Furry. As rapidly as possible after the fall of 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. How about prior? Was there anything secret that 
you were working on prior to the publication after 1945?
    Was there anything you were working on that was marked 
secret at that time? Don't you think it would be of value to 
know who was giving out things when they were secret and see 
where they are today and what they are doing today? You are 
blocking us in that, Professor.
    Mr. Furry. I would like to say that to the best of my 
knowledge and memory I have never known--other than the case of 
Mr. Yamins--anyone who had employment with the Signal Corps or 
Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know that. You don't know where 
everyone is who was working with you. You don't want to 
undertake to represent the exact whereabouts, occupations, 
directly and indirectly, the activities of people who worked 
with you at MIT laboratory, do you?
    Mr. Furry. There may be some of them about whom I don't 
know.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this, professor. Let's take a 
hypothetical case of John Jones who knew of someone working in 
our secret laboratories on secret work. If John Jones knew 
Communists who were there working on this secret work and would 
not give that information to a government committee, which is 
investigating espionage, would you consider John Jones a 
traitor?
    Mr. Furry. I am a little bit lost in this hypothetical 
question.
    The Chairman. Let me give you a real question. If Professor 
Furry was a member of the Communist party in 1945 and under 
Communist party discipline; if Professor Furry was working on 
secret material having to do with the defense of this nation; 
and if Professor Furry now knows that Communists were getting 
that information, made it available to them; if Professor Furry 
now knows of the Rosenberg's case, for example, knows this 
information was passed on to Communist Russia, and an espionage 
ring attempted to get that information; if Furry is called 
before a committee and asked to give us the names of Communists 
with whom he himself discussed this secret information and he 
refused to give us the names of those Communists or any others 
known to him who worked in the laboratory at that time, would 
you say Furry is a traitor to the United States or not?
    Mr. Furry. Well, this question claims to be a hypothetical 
question but it uses the name which sounds a little like mine, 
although it wasn't exactly like mine. I refuse to answer on the 
grounds of self-incrimination.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself under subpoena. We 
will want you in public session.
    May I say, Mr. Furry, we have the committee rule that the 
committee does not give the names of any witnesses to the 
public.
    The witness himself can give his name if he wants to. You 
can discuss with anyone what went on in this room as it affects 
you. I may say in your case someone gave the press in Boston, 
either you or your lawyer--we don't care. We didn't give the 
press anything. Someone told the press you were going to be 
here. I assume they know you are here. I wasn't criticizing you 
for doing it. I merely wanted to state we did not.
    Thank you very much.

                   TESTIMONY OF DIANA WOLMAN

    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mrs. Wolman. I do.
    The Chairman. I may say we are calling this witness first 
because we understand she would like to get home.
    Mrs. Wolman. I have a small child getting home from nursery 
school.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name?
    Mrs. Wolman. Diana Wolman.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Wolman. 505 Albany Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever worked for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mrs. Wolman. I am not certain. I think it was probably 1942 
to 1943
    Mr. Cohn. And where were you stationed?
    Mrs. Wolman. I was living at home.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mrs. Wolman. You mean where I was working?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Wolman. I worked in Carney during the summer months 
and then I transferred to New York and worked at Brooklyn and 
White Plains.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of your duties?
    Mrs. Wolman. I did what they call mechanical inspection. I 
inspected equipment, counted it to make sure it was counted 
right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have access to classified equipment 
or material?
    Mrs. Wolman. I don't remember having heard that word 
before. I have been reading it in the papers. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have access to material not open to the 
public?
    Mrs. Wolman. I imagine so. I don't know. This was wartime.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time, when employed by the Signal Corps, 
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Wolman. Well, I understand that a person may not be 
compelled to be a witness against himself and I would like to 
avail myself of that.
    Mrs. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mrs. Wolman. Teacher.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mrs. Wolman. Thomas Jefferson High School, Brooklyn.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you teach?
    Mrs. Wolman. Sight conservation. My license is teacher of 
sight conservation.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mrs. Wolman. I want to avail myself of the privilege of not 
being a witness against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you teach?
    Mrs. Wolman. Sight conservation. I help students with poor 
vision. I don't teach any particular subject. These students 
take all the same subjects. I read aloud to them or whatever 
their homework is. That is a special kind of license.
    Mr. Cohn. That goes across whatever subjects they might be 
taking?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes. We try to get talking records from the 
library for the blind ones so they won't strain their eyes. We 
give them help to get their work done. We type large copies of 
examinations.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any actual instructing?
    Mrs. Wolman. One English class, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You have an opportunity of saying you are or 
you are not a Communist. If you are not, it is to your benefit 
to say so. You see, you could not incriminate yourself to say 
you are not if you are not. If you are, you should avail 
yourself of the Fifth Amendment. This refusal to tell us 
whether or not you are a member of the Communist party will 
most likely result in the loss of your job. You have an 
opportunity, if you have broken with the party to tell us when 
you broke with it and all the facts.
    Mrs. Wolman. I believe I will use the opportunity of 
availing myself of the privilege on whether or not I am a 
Communist.
    The Chairman. If you are not a Communist, you couldn't 
incriminate yourself by saying ``no.'' It is only if you think 
a truthful answer could incriminate. If we ask you, ``Are you a 
Communist today'' and you say the truth would incriminate you, 
that is notifying your superiors in the school system that you 
are a Communist.
    Mrs. Wolman. I don't want to go into a long detailed 
discussion. I have a small child. That is the thing I said. 
That is what I'd like it to remain.
    The Chairman. You avail yourself of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Wolman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you born?
    Mrs. Wolman. Russia.
    Mr. Cohn. How old were you when you left Russia?
    Mrs. Wolman. I think three.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you speak Russian?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. After you left the Signal Corps where did you go 
to work?
    Mrs. Wolman. I want to avail myself of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer that question?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. As a matter of fact, didn't you go to work for 
the Four Continent Book Corporation?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were in charge of distributing Soviet 
publications in the United States and giving the money to the 
Communist party, weren't you?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were in the Signal Corps, did you 
participate in Communist activities with other people employed 
in the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of anyone working in the Signal Corps 
who you knew in there when you were there who is a Communist?
    Mrs. Wolman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, there was nobody working with you 
in the Signal Corps who you knew to be a Communist who is still 
working there?
    Mrs. Wolman. I don't know.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't know whether any of 
those people are still working there?
    I am just trying to get it clear whether you are saying 
none of those you knew as Communists are working for the Signal 
Corps or whether you don't know.
    Mrs. Wolman. There are two questions in one.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's break it down. Did you know any Communists 
in the Signal Corps when there?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Any person that you knew to be working there that 
is still working for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, tell me, are there any teachers in the New 
York School system who are Communists today, to your knowledge?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you indoctrinate any of your pupils in 
communism or anything to do with it?
    Mrs. Wolman. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. How old are the students you teach?
    Mrs. Wolman. From fifteen to eighteen.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attempt to recruit any of them into 
the Young Communist League?
    Mrs. Wolman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attempted to recruit any of them 
into any organization----
    Mrs. Wolman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever consulted with any representatives 
of the Young Communist League?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you consulted with any member of the Young 
Communist League concerning their program for recruiting 
students?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you ever instructed by the Communist 
party to indoctrinate your students in the philosophy of 
communism?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I think, Mr. Cohn, she has waived the 
privilege. She has answered the question as to whether she 
indoctrinated any.
    Were you ever instructed by anyone to indoctrinate your 
students in the Communist philosophy?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I will order you to answer the question for 
the reason you have waived the Fifth Amendment in that general 
area when you stated you did not attempt to indoctrinate----
    Mrs. Wolman. I still stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party 
meetings where some of your students were also present?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss communism with your 
students?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Who got you the job in the Signal Corps?
    Through whom did you get the job?
    Mrs. Wolman. I went there and applied.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know anybody working there at the time 
who assisted you in applying or obtaining the position?
    Mrs. Wolman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who did you give as references?
    Mrs. Wolman. It is such a long time ago, I don't know. I am 
sure you can find out.
    Mr. Cohn. You were single?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Your maiden name was Moldever?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you are married now to Benjamin Wolman?
    Mrs. Wolman. Un huh.
    Mr. Cohn. What does he do?
    Mrs. Wolman. Assistant principal in an elementary school.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had Communist meetings in your home?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that an elementary school in the City?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes. PS 3, I believe, Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. What does PS mean?
    Mrs. Wolman. Public School 3 in Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. What is the age range of the pupils at that 
school? Approximately?
    Mrs. Wolman. I have nothing to do with my husband's job.
    The Chairman. You talk to him, don't you? You know what the 
age range is.
    Mrs. Wolman. Seventh and eighth year. I guess normally 
twelve to fourteen.
    The Chairman. And you refuse to tell us whether your 
husband is a Communist on the grounds that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman [To Mr. Buckley]. Would you notify the head of 
the school system about that also.
    How long have you been married?
    Mrs. Wolman. Yesterday was seven years.
    The Chairman. This is your first husband you are married 
to?
    Mrs. Wolman. That is right.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mrs. Wolman. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give any secret information or 
information about the material you were working on to people 
you knew were Communists?
    Mrs. Wolman. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss any of the work you were 
doing at the Signal Corps with any member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Wolman. I never discussed it with anybody.
    Mr. Cohn. The questions is: Did you ever discuss it with 
any member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Wolman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you attending Communist party meeting at the 
time you were working for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Who got you the job at the Four Continent Book 
Corporation?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a functionary of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Now, when you filed an application for the 
employment with the New York City Public School System, you 
filed two, one on February 5, 1946 and February 18, 1948, and 
on both you answered ``no'' as to whether or not you were a 
member of the Communist party. Were you telling the truth?
    Mrs. Wolman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to notify the committee if 
and when you are suspended from your job and if and when your 
husband is suspended. The School Board, Board of Education, 
have apparently wisely taken the position that Communists 
should not teach their children. Communists are not free 
agents. Obviously they are under orders of the Communist party. 
There is not such thing as academic freedom as they are told 
what they must teach by the International conspiracy. I assume 
they will discharge you immediately and rightly so. I assume 
they will discharge your husband and rightly so. You will 
inform the committee when you two are suspended.
    Mrs. Wolman. Do you want me to write you a letter?
    The Chairman. You can do it either by phone or registered 
mail. If you do it by phone you can make a collect call to the 
committee. If you do it by registered mail, the committee will 
pay for any expenses connected with it.
    Mrs. Wolman. Am I excused?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.

  TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM BROTHMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       WILLIAM ROSSMOORE)

    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, 
please.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Brothman. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get the name of counsel?
    Mr. Rossmoore. William Rossmoore, Newark, New Jersey. May I 
state for the record my protest of the short notice given. My 
client was advised at five o'clock to appear at 11:00 this 
morning. He did not succeed in contacting me until 11:00 this 
morning when Mr. Buckley directed us to get here in an hour. I 
don't think he had due process in time to consult with counsel 
and prepare for this hearing.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever represented Mr. Brothman before?
    Mr. Rossmoore. No, I haven't. Is that question material?
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying to arrange for more time.
    Mr. Rossmoore. No, I haven't represented him before.
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying to see how much time you need to talk 
to him.
    Mr. Rossmoore. I feel in order to----
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel you would like to 
have additional time to consult with your client?
    Mr. Rossmoore. I am willing to start now, but if questions 
come up I want the record to show----
    The Chairman. If we arrive at a point in the questioning 
that you think you would like additional time, we will give you 
additional time.
    I think that is a reasonable request. I think a lawyer 
should have sufficient time to consult with his client and also 
to get up on the particular law involved himself.
    If at any time you want more time, we will accommodate you 
on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brothman give us your full name?
    Mr. Brothman. Abraham Brothman.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim 4108 42nd Street, Long Island City as 
my official home address. It is not, however, the address I am 
to be found at all times.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you to be found at other times?
    Mr. Brothman. Sixty-seven Ball Street, Port Jefferson, New 
York.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege of not testifying 
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. As to where you are employed?
    Mr. Brothman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at the Techniflex Corporation?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege of not testifying 
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work on radar now?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege against testifying 
against myself on that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, does this company for which you work 
directly or indirectly do any work for the government?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege of not testifying 
against myself on that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Brothman, are you engaged in espionage 
against the United States at this time?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment, my right not to testify against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you convicted in the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of New York in November of 1950 for 
conspiracy to obstruct justice in that you advised Harry Gold 
to lie to a grand jury concerning espionage activities? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In 1947 Abraham Brothman, who ran an engineering firm in 
Queens, New York, and his former employee Harry Gold, were called 
before a federal grand jury. Elizabeth Bentley had testified that 
Soviet agents had used Brothman's firm as a conduit for industrial 
espionage, with Gold acting as intermediary. In 1950, Gold repudiated 
his earlier testimony and revealed that he and Brothman had agreed to 
coordinate their earlier testimony and provide each other with alibis. 
Brothman was then convicted for obstruction of justice and served two 
years of a seven-year sentence. Roy Cohn had assisted in Brothman's 
prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Brothman. I was convicted on that charge.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were sentenced to what term?
    Mr. Brothman. [No answer].
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, is his employer here?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Tell him to consider himself under subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. He is under subpoena. I don't think the witness 
is particularly cooperative.
    The Chairman. How many years were you sentenced to?
    Mr. Brothman. I was originally sentenced to seven years.
    The Chairman. And was that cut down subsequently?
    Mr. Brothman. It was.
    The Chairman. What was that cut down to?
    Mr. Brothman. Two years.
    The Chairman. And you got some time off for good behavior, 
did you?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes, sir, I did.
    The Chairman. How much time did you actually serve?
    Mr. Brothman. Twenty-three days short of two years.
    The Chairman. And when did you leave the penitentiary?
    Mr. Brothman. November 5, 1952.
    The Chairman. Have you been pardoned yet? In other words, 
have you got your pardon so you have regained your citizenship?
    Mr. Brothman. I have not received a pardon.
    The Chairman. Where were you last night?
    Mr. Brothman. I am sorry. I didn't quite catch that.
    The Chairman. I said, where were you last night?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim the privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment, my privilege not to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged last night in any activities 
that were illegal, either in direct or indirect violation of 
the laws, of the state or federal government last night?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment, my right not to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. Were you in charge of the task of getting the 
Communist vote for a man who ran for office yesterday?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment, my right not to be made to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. Were you at Democratic headquarters last 
night with a man who you campaigned for?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment and my right not to be caused to testify against 
myself.
    The Chairman. Were you last night at Democratic 
headquarters?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 
There is nothing incriminating about being in a public 
headquarters.
    Mr. Brothman. I was not at Democratic headquarters last 
night.
    The Chairman. You were not?
    Mr. Brothman. I was not. I give this answer upon advice of 
counsel.
    The Chairman. I guess you are entitled to the privilege of 
refusing to answer whether you were engaged in any illegal 
activities.
    Who is your boss in your job?
    Mr. Brothman. I claim my privileges.
    The Chairman. Have him step in here, will you, Dan.
    How old are you?
    Mr. Brothman. Forty years old.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where does your wife work?
    Mr. Brothman. Dominion Products.
    The Chairman. Is that in New York City?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes, it is.
    The Chairman. And how old is your family--any sons and 
daughters?
    Mr. Brothman. Oh, I have a daughter who will be nine in 
December, December 31st, and a daughter who will be thirteen 
next July.
    The Chairman. They are not, of course, working any where?
    Mr. Brothman. No, they are not.
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers and sisters working 
for the government?
    Mr. Brothman. I have not.
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers and sisters?
    Mr. Brothman. I have a sister.
    The Chairman. What is her name?
    Mr. Brothman. Beatrice.
    The Chairman. And her last name now?
    Mr. Brothman. Schnee.
    The Chairman. And where is she working?
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Brothman. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. The question is: What does your sister, Mrs. 
Schnee, work at?
    Mr. Brothman. She is a housewife.
    The Chairman. Not working, of course. Does your brother-in-
law work for the government?
    Mr. Brothman. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Are you answering that question?
    Mr. Brothman. I have to confess that I am not too familiar 
with what my brother-in-law is doing at this time nor can I 
even be certain of what his work record has been.
    The Chairman. When did you last see him? Roughly?
    Mr. Brothman. I am sorry to have to take that time. I 
believe it was about eight weeks ago, maybe a bit more, maybe a 
bit less.
    The Chairman. Did you know where he was working at that 
time?
    Mr. Brothman. I say, I believe it was eight weeks ago.
    The Chairman. Was he working for the government at that 
time?
    Mr. Brothman. I can't honestly say.
    The Chairman. Did you have any idea where he was working at 
that time?
    Mr. Brothman. I vaguely believe, I can't be certain, but I 
think that he has for the last few years been in photography.
    The Chairman. You don't know if he has done work for the 
government or not?
    Mr. Brothman. I am not certain.
    The Chairman. Don't you have any idea?
    Mr. Brothman. Frankly, I can't really be certain of that.
    The Chairman. What is his address?
    Mr. Brothman. I can't give you the actual street address. I 
can confine it for you on the block where he does live.
    The Chairman. Will you do that?
    Mr. Brothman. It is Westside, Townsend Avenue between Mount 
Eden Avenue--that is on the north and what street bounds it on 
the south-going street on the other side.
    The Chairman. Is his name not in the telephone book, if you 
know?
    Mr. Brothman. I don't really know.
    The Chairman. And he spells his last name?
    Mr. Brothman. S-c-h-n-e-e.
    The Chairman. And his first name is what?
    Mr. Brothman. Lee.
    The Chairman. Lee Schnee. Is that right?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes. I am not sure that that is not just an 
abbreviation. It may stand for Leon.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Brothman. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that I will not testify against myself.
    The Chairman. Is the Communist party paying for your 
attorney's fees?
    Mr. Rossmoore. I would like my personal objection to that 
question to be noted on the record.
    The Chairman. Is the Communist party paying your attorney?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question under my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You understand that you are telling the 
public that the Communist party is paying your lawyer? If not, 
that is very unfair to him. If they are not paying him, you can 
merely say ``no.''
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer the question under my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that after the 
witness declined and I informed him of the affect of invoking 
the Fifth Amendment, that he had a conference with counsel and 
reiterated his position that he would decline to answer.
    Do you know Norman Gaboriault?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is Gaboriault a Communist?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you and Gaboriault jointly engaged in 
espionage?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question under my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Gaboriault is doing secret work for the 
government, isn't he?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you with Gaboriault yesterday?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. When Gaboriault hired you, did he know you 
had been convicted as a traitor and spy? Did he know that?
    Mr. Brothman. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Counsel, are you representing Mr. Gaboriault?
    Mr. Rossmoore. No, I don't represent Mr. Gaboriault.
    The Chairman. What is your answer to that question?
    Mr. Brothman. The record shows what I was convicted of and 
I furthermore decline to answer the question, invoking my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is your wife a Communist?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that I cannot be compelled to give testimony against my 
wife.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a Communist before you married 
her?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that I cannot be compelled to give testimony against my 
wife.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Gaboriault just 
entered the room.
    I now ask the witness: Do you know this man--Mr. Norman 
Gaboriault?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. So there will be no question, the man who 
stands here wears glasses--who has been identified as Mr. 
Norman Gaboriault--the gentleman with the grey suit on.
    Mr. Rossmoore. Make the record show that there has been no 
identification of the gentleman other than the Chairman's own 
statement.
    The Chairman. Counsel, I think I failed to instruct you 
what the committee rules are: I will instruct you now. You can 
consult with your client at any time you see fit. If you come 
to something of sufficient importance that you want a private 
conference with him, you can have that. Counsel is not allowed 
to take any part in the proceedings. If you have any counsel, 
you can consult with your client and have him object to it. We 
will not hear your statement. We will not hear your objection.
    Mr. Rossmoore. I have heard your statement without acceding 
to the rules you have announced.
    The Chairman. I just got through telling you, we will not 
hear from you. You can freely discuss matters with your client. 
We will hear from you no more.
    Getting back to the question, have you looked at the 
gentleman with the grey suit on and glasses, the man named 
Norman Gaboriault, and I ask you if you ever saw him before?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, claiming 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel it might tend to incriminate you 
if you tell us whether you have seen Mr. Gaboriault before?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, claiming 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you have declined to 
tell us whether you think it would incriminate you if you 
answered the last question, you are ordered to answer that 
question.
    Just so you can't claim ignorance of this at some future 
legal proceeding, you can only refuse to answer this question 
if you feel your answer might tend to incriminate you. You now 
tell us you won't say whether it will incriminate you, 
therefore, you are not entitled to the privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment. Therefore, you are ordered to answer the 
question of whether you saw Mr. Gaboriault before.
    Do you understand the chair's order?
    Mr. Brothman. I am afraid I don't know which question is 
being put to me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question of 
whether or not you have seen Mr. Gaboriault, before. If you 
don't understand the reason for the chair's ruling, just say so 
and I will explain it again.
    Mr. Brothman. I'd like to hear your explanation, Senator.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse to answer any 
questions if you honestly feel your answer might tend to 
incriminate you, otherwise you must answer the question.
    I asked you whether or not you had seen Mr. Gaboriault 
before. You refused to answer that and invoked the Fifth 
Amendment. I then asked you the question, ``Do you feel if you 
were to answer that question as to whether or not you know Mr. 
Gaboriault, that would tend to incriminate you?'' You have to 
answer that before the chair can determine whether you are 
rightfully invoking the Fifth Amendment. You then refused to 
tell me whether you thought the answer might tend to 
incriminate you. Therefore, you don't have the privilege under 
the Fifth Amendment as to the question.
    If you didn't understand the question and want to change 
your answer, you may do so. As it now stands, you are ordered 
to answer the original question.
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer the question, invoking my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Your counsel is properly informed that you 
will be cited for contempt and your case will be submitted to 
the grand jury.
    I believe this question has been asked before. Have you 
been engaged in espionage within the last week?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question, invoking 
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer that 
question, the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brothman. Regardless of the form of the question, I 
must again invoke my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are then ordered to answer the question 
as to whether or not you engaged in espionage in the past week. 
In view of the fact you have refused to tell us whether or not 
the answer to that question might tend to incriminate you, you 
are not entitled to any Fifth Amendment privilege. You are, 
therefore, ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Brothman. I refuse to answer that question, invoking my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are again notified for your information, 
so you can retain counsel, that you will be cited for contempt 
and the case will be submitted to the grand jury on this count 
also.
    I am going to give you a chance to run up as many counts as 
you want to. You have spent some time in the pen and I am going 
to give you a chance to get as many years as you want to.
    Have you engaged in espionage at any time you worked for 
the Techniflex Corporation?
    Mr. Brothman. I must answer all such questions with refusal 
to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you answer that question, your 
answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brothman. I have already claimed the privilege against 
self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Will you speak louder?
    Mr. Brothman. I have already claimed the privilege against 
self-incrimination and that continues to be my answer on that 
question.
    The Chairman. You refuse to tell me whether you feel if you 
answer that it might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brothman. I have already stated that I am claiming the 
privilege against self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you answered that question it 
might tend to incriminate you?
    I cannot grant you the privilege of the Fifth Amendment 
unless I know you feel the answer might tend to incriminate 
you.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    You can have a private conference.

                 TESTIMONY OF NORMAN GABORIAULT

    The Chairman. Mr. Gaboriault, will you take the stand.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gaboriault, could we get your full name for 
the record?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Norman G-a-b-o-r-i-a-u-l-t.
    The Chairman. Mr. Brothman, before you leave--Mr. 
Gaboriault, do you know this man?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I do.
    The Chairman. Is this Mr. Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. How do you pronounce it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. ``Gaboro.''
    The Chairman. And the first name is Norman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right.
    The Chairman. Mr. Gaboriault, what office do you hold with 
the Techniflex Corporation?
    Mr. Gaboriault. President and general manager.
    The Chairman. About how many people do you employ?
    Mr. Gaboriault. About seventy-five.
    The Chairman. Does the Techniflex Corporation do any work 
for the government?
    Mr. Gaboriault. One contract now.
    The Chairman. What is the nature of that contract?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Commercial type heater.
    The Chairman. Do you do any classified work?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever done any?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever done any work in connection 
with radar?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Nothing in connection with radar?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No. I'd like to have that clarified a bit. 
I have done work on radar personally. My interpretation of 
radar work is of a certain type.
    The Chairman. What type of radar work do you do?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The reason I am saying that is this: The 
heater we have now is a small commercial heater for the Signal 
Corps. We don't know where it goes or how it is used and I 
wouldn't want it to be interpreted at a later date that that 
has any connection with radar.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether that does have any 
connection with radar?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No. I don't.
    The Chairman. What kind of heater is it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It is made in the shape of a tube about two 
inches long and about two and a half inches in diameter. The 
principle of construction is much the same as a household 
toaster.
    The Chairman. And you got the specifications from the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Correct.
    The Chairman. And is that the only work you are doing for 
the government?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is the only work we are doing for the 
government on prime contract.
    The Chairman. On any contract?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Sub-contract, we have a machine shop. It is 
a jobbing type machine shop as much as any other machine shop. 
We do get parts of machinery related to the defense effort.
    The Chairman. Machinery related to defense effort?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The type work, it is related to defense in 
that their components required--none of it is of a classified 
nature.
    The Chairman. In other words, the general public could come 
in and buy any of that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It is not a classified plant. Anybody can 
see anything we are doing.
    The Chairman. Including this little heater that you are 
talking about?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Everything in our plant is open to the 
public. As a matter of fact, we invite the public in the form 
of school children, teachers.
    The Chairman. Have you ever done any work for the 
government not open to the general public?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Never.
    The Chairman. Do you do any work for anyone other than the 
government?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes. We have the commercial industrial----
    The Chairman. The total work done by you, what percent is 
government work on prime contracts or sub-contracts?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The percentage on prime contracts is less 
than 10 percent. That is the one Signal Corps job which we 
have. That job amounts to roughly $2,500 and that is a very 
approximate figure. I'd say the maximum amount would be $4,000.
    The Chairman. Give me, if you will, the percentage of your 
total work which is done for the government either on prime or 
sub-contracts. Just lump it all together.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right now I would guess at less than 50 
percent involves work of a defense nature.
    The Chairman. In other words, less than 50 percent is work 
for the government--any kind of work for any part of the 
government?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am trying to evaluate the question. We 
don't run a static business. We have a dynamic business. I am 
trying to evaluate it thinking in terms of current business 
open on the books, and I would estimate it at under fifty 
percent.
    The Chairman. That includes every branch of the government?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That includes anything of defense work of 
any type which is machine shop work.
    The Chairman. I don't care whether it is defense work--any 
work for the government regardless of whether it is defense 
work?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Now, you are including prime contracts and 
sub-contracts.
    The Chairman. All work you do for the government, directly 
or indirectly, regardless whether it is defense work or any 
other kind of work.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Every order I have would have to be 
searched for that, the reason being machine parts of a 
commercial nature are assembled into equipment and we don't 
know whether the government is going to be a customer or not. I 
would say that less than 50 percent of the work we do is 
essentially paid for by government funds, based on my knowledge 
of what is happening to the equipment we work on.
    The Chairman. Do you make any machine tools for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Gaboriault. None.
    The Chairman. Any parts for radio equipment?
    Mr. Gaboriault. None.
    The Chairman. Any parts for army devices of bombs?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The closest--the answer to that is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Any parts of airplanes?
    Mr. Gaboriault. We make parts of airplanes.
    The Chairman. What parts of airplanes do you make?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Fittings of a type similar to an elbow in 
piping, hydraulic piping, valves of rather simple construction.
    The Chairman. Would any of that material be of any benefit 
to an enemy of ours who is about to wage war on us, if they had 
access to all equipment in your shop or all material to be 
manufactures?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It is unclassified. It is for special 
application. It's value to anybody else would be nil in my 
opinion.
    The Chairman. Do you do any electronic work? Anything 
having to do with electrical equipment?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Electrical equipment--we are working on 
automotive accessory equipment.
    The Chairman. You started to say something in answer to the 
question as to whether you made any army devices for bombs. 
What were you going to tell us?
    Mr. Gaboriault. What I had in mind was a gun sight--I was 
scheduled to do for estimation purposes, and we are equipped to 
do that job. It is a matter of working up the details with the 
prime contractor.
    The Chairman. Would that be classified?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No, that is not classified. That design and 
print has been available and anyone has access to it that wants 
access to it to the best of my knowledge. It is not marked 
classified.
    I have tried to stay away from classified work of any 
extreme nature because it would cost me too much to set the 
plant up with guards and fences and all that.
    The Chairman. When did you hire Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. November 5th. The day after election day 
last year. That is from memory. I think November 5th. It may 
have been later.
    The Chairman. He testified that was the date he was 
released--November 5, 1952.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is probably the date that I remember. 
I hired him afterwards. I did not hire him November 5th if that 
is the date he was released. Perhaps the 6th or 7th. Sometime 
subsequent to that.
    The Chairman. Who recommended him for the job?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Mr. Freidus.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. F-r-e-i-d-u-s.
    The Chairman. What is Mr. Freidus' first name?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Jacob.
    The Chairman. Does he work for you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Where does he live?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He is, I believe, in Washington right now. 
He is serving a term for income tax evasion.
    The Chairman. He is in jail now?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Washington, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Washington State?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Honestly, I don't know where he is.
    The Chairman. Was he serving a term at that time?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Pardon me?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Was he serving a term at what time?
    The Chairman. At the time he recommended Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Had he been convicted at that time?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Was he doing work for the government or 
private work?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I honestly couldn't say what he was doing 
as a means of earning a livelihood or occupation if that is 
what you are endeavoring to find out. The reason I don't know, 
he was my employer at the time. He was my employer in that he 
owned or controlled the stock of the corporation.
    The Chairman. Of the Techniflex Corporation?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did he own the controlling interest in the 
stock?
    Mr. Gaboriault. At that time he did.
    The Chairman. And did you have the right to either take 
Brothman on or refuse?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is solely my responsibility.
    The Chairman. Were you informed that Brothman was in jail 
in connection with espionage activities?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That all depends on what the word 
connection means. I was informed----
    The Chairman. Did you know that he was in jail in 
connection with espionage?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I believe the exact charge was obstructing 
justice for advising an espionage agent to lie to the grand 
jury.
    The Chairman. Were you aware of that at the time?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I was aware of something. My honest answer 
to it is that I cannot recall what it was. It meant nothing to 
me at the time.
    The Chairman. This was in 1950. We were at war with Korea 
in 1950. November 5, 1950 was shortly after the Communists, 
Chinese Communists, entered that war so that all of us, I 
believe, were quite painfully aware of Communist espionage 
agents, I assume. You said it didn't mean anything to you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It had no connection with what I was doing. 
I don't want you to misunderstand. I did not hire him at that 
time.
    You asked me a question back a ways that I answered in this 
fashion. Mr. Freidus----
    The Chairman. When did Freidus break his connections with 
the company if he has broken it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Either during or shortly after his trial. I 
don't recall.
    The Chairman. How long ago was that? Roughly?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Roughly, I would say the end of 1950 or the 
early part of 1951.
    The Chairman. In other words, it was within a matter of 
months after you hired Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No. We have gone off some place. We are 
mixing one year ago and three years ago.
    The Chairman. I beg your pardon. I think I have been mixing 
these dates up.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That goes back to some prior question about 
me being indifferent regarding communism or something of that 
nature.
    The Chairman. You are right. I am referring to 1952. Was 
Jacob Freidus connected with the company November 6, 1952?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. When did he recommend Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I had already answered that.
    The Chairman. When he recommended him to go to work for 
you, he was not your boss and did not have any control over the 
company. Is that right?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Now, we have got to straighten something 
else out. He did not recommend that Mr. Brothman go to work for 
me in that sense.
    The Chairman. What did he recommend?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He recommended that I try to evaluate for 
myself whether or not work that Mr. Brothman had been doing was 
worthy of my consideration in the plant.
    The Chairman. Now, I will ask you a question. When he made 
this recommendation, did he control the stock of the 
corporation? Was he your boss?
    Mr. Gaboriault. At that time Mr. Freidus was.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. 1950, I believe.
    The Chairman. He made the recommendation in 1950. Is that 
correct? That was when Brothman was in jail. Correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. To the best of my knowledge he was.
    The Chairman. He recommended that you hire a man who still 
had a number of years to serve in jail. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The recommendation was not to hire.
    The Chairman. Let's forget the technicalities----
    Mr. Gaboriault. The technicalities make a big difference.
    The Chairman. The recommendation he made to you, regardless 
of what it was, was made when Brothman was in jail, when he had 
over a year's time to serve. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Recommendations were in regard to products 
rather than in regard to an individual at the time. The 
commercial industrial product, which had been designed by Mr. 
Brothman, was recommended. It centered around that. There I am 
speaking of something tangible rather than an individual.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you again. You will have to 
answer sooner or later.
    When this recommendation was made, Brothman was still in 
jail and he still had in excess of a year to serve.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That part, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you contact Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. How did you get in touch with him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. When he was released. His wife had been in 
touch with me and I had him picked up at Atlanta.
    The Chairman. In other words, you sent a car down to pick 
him up?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I picked him up for the purpose of 
interviewing him to see what could be done on the products.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him why he had been in jail?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him if it was in connection with 
the Gold part of the Rosenberg spy ring?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Not the latter question.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him about his connection with the 
Gold part of the Rosenberg spy ring?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him about his connection with 
Gold?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him if he had worked with 
Rosenberg?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him if he was a Communist?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I would not ask that question of anybody. I 
try to evaluate people myself.
    The Chairman. You did not ask him if he were a Communist?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him if he were an espionage 
agent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him about his appearance before 
the grand jury?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    I have no intention, Senator, of evading any questions.
    The Chairman. I will sit this out. It is a simple question. 
Did you ask him about his appearance before the grand jury?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Did you have any interest in whether or not 
this man that you were hiring directly from the pen was a 
Communist or espionage agent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. An extreme interest.
    The Chairman. You were interested?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Extremely so.
    The Chairman. But you didn't ask him about it? You picked 
up a man from the jail doors of Atlanta who had been sentenced 
in connection with treason, espionage, and you say you were 
extremely interested in knowing whether he was an espionage 
agent, extremely interested in knowing whether he was a 
Communist, but you say you never asked him about it. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Gaboriault. As a specific question? You are asking a 
specific question. I did not ask specific questions as such. I 
asked what the entire story was. From the entire story I tried 
to decide for myself.
    The Chairman. Did you ask whether he had broken with the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gaboriault. To the best of my knowledge he was never a 
member of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you he was not?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He has so stated.
    The Chairman. He told you he was not a Communist?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Correct.
    The Chairman. When was the last time he told you that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The last time, I believe, was possibly 
yesterday.
    The Chairman. And how well do you know his wife?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is a comparative question. I know her 
fairly well.
    The Chairman. Do you visit at their home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. You and your wife go to their home, do you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No. My wife and I do not go there. She has 
visited my home.
    The Chairman. Mr. and Mrs. Brothman have visited your home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Correct.
    The Chairman. Roughly, how many times?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Mr. and Mrs. Brothman together?
    The Chairman. Together or alone.
    I am just trying to find out how well you knew these 
people. You went down and picked up Brothman at the doors of 
Atlanta and brought him back and put him in government work. He 
was convicted in connection with treason. What was the occasion 
of this? How well do you know them?
    Mr. Gaboriault. How well I know them, I can explain very 
easily. I spend an average of maybe twelve hours a day working 
very closely with Mr. Brothman. That involves when he gets up 
in the morning, which is around 9:30, until around midnight 
when we stop working on what we are working on.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet him before you hired him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Once.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That was when he was--there is my memory 
again. That was either here or it was here in this building.
    The Chairman. While he was being tried?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I do not know whether he was being tried at 
the time or not.
    The Chairman. You never met him before that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Who introduced you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That I do not recall.
    The Chairman. You don't have any idea? You didn't just run 
into him in the halls here, did you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It may have been his wife that introduced 
us.
    The Chairman. How long had you known his wife?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I met his wife a few times because there 
were simultaneous trials going on.
    The Chairman. How did that occasion your meeting his wife? 
Were you involved in any law suits at the trials?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Were you interested in the trial in which she 
was involved?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. So you were over here in the courthouse. What 
were you doing?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That was at the time Mr. Freidus' trial was 
going on.
    The Chairman. At that time was the criminal trial of 
Brothman going on too?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That I do not remember.
    The Chairman. You met his wife. Is that the first time you 
met her?
    Mr. Gaboriault. In that----
    The Chairman. Is that the first time?
    Mr. Gaboriault. In that period of time.
    The Chairman. I asked you when you first met his wife. That 
is a very simple question. We are going to get this 
information. I want to know why a man handling government work 
hires a traitor out of Atlanta and I want to get the 
information from you.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am trying to give it to you.
    The Chairman. You will.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am trying. If I might cite this one 
instance. I am not trying to be evasive.
    I had a little experience a few days ago with an 
individual. We were going to a house and he asked me how to get 
there. I said, ``You know, drive me. You have been there 
before.'' He said he didn't know. I said we had both been 
there. I found out he hadn't been there. It took twenty minutes 
for me to remember. My memory is a little bit off.
    The Chairman. When did you first meet his wife?
    Mr. Gaboriault. While the trial was going on.
    The Chairman. That was the first time you met her?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right. I mean Mr. Freidus' trial.
    The Chairman. You did not know her before?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Late 1950, I believe, around December.
    The Chairman. Then you started to visit their home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you visit their home while Brothman was 
in Atlanta?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you see the wife while he was there?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. You never did see her when he was in Atlanta?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. Good. Tell us about it. Where was it--her 
home, your home or where?
    Mr. Gaboriault. She was bringing the children back from 
summer vacation and they stopped by the factory on the way 
through.
    The Chairman. That is the only time you saw her?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That may have happened twice.
    The Chairman. Did she ever come to your home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. She never came to my home.
    The Chairman. Did you ever phone her?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Which of the two times that you saw her did 
you arrange to hire him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I did not arrange it with her.
    The Chairman. Then I must have misunderstood you. I thought 
you said you did.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I arranged with Mr. Brothman after I met 
him and heard his complete story.
    The Chairman. You understand my complete question. You sent 
a car down to pick him up at the gate of Atlanta.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right. Get back to the question. You say 
you only saw her twice when she stopped in the plant. Which of 
those two times did you make the arrangements?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The gap in here is not due to evasiveness. 
It is due to trying to answer the questions and the gap in the 
questioning, as I see it.
    A former employee of Mr. Brothman came to work for 
Techniflex. That, I believe, was in early 1951 or late 1950, 
shortly after I spoke to Mr. Freidus. The object of that 
employment was primarily to try to work on products which 
primarily centered around a valve, at the time, which Mr. 
Brothman had designed a few years prior.
    The Chairman. You heard my question. You said you arranged 
with his wife to pick him up at the gate of Atlanta. I asked 
when you made the arrangements. You saw her twice while he was 
in the pen. Which of these two times you saw her did you make 
the arrangements?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Neither.
    The Chairman. Did you make the arrangements with her?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. So when you said you made the arrangements 
with her, you were mistaken?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I did not personally make the arrangements. 
That was done through Mr. Goldfarb.
    The Chairman. Does he work for you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He currently works for me--sales engineer.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Herman.
    The Chairman. Did he ask you to hire Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He did not.
    The Chairman. Did he recommend him? Was he in favor of 
hiring him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No, he did not recommend him.
    The Chairman. Was he in favor of hiring him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He was in no position--he was my employee.
    The Chairman. He made the arrangements. Did he approve of 
those arrangements?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He made the arrangements to go down to 
Atlanta. He made those arrangements, to the best of my 
knowledge, with Mrs. Brothman, so he would go down and pick up 
Mr. Brothman and bring him back to me for an interview.
    The Chairman. You are dealing here with a man convicted in 
connection with treason. You are going to hire him. Goldfarb is 
making the arrangements to pick him up at Atlanta. I ask you, 
was Goldfarb in favor of that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He was agreeable.
    The Chairman. You may step down. We will call you back. You 
understand you are under subpoena and we will call you back in 
about a half hour. In the mean time, think it over and try to 
refresh your recollection.
    [The witness returned to the stand in approximately a half 
hour.]
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Gaboriault, we seem, for some reason to be 
having difficulty in understanding each other--the committee 
and you. There seems to be some hesitancy on your part to 
answer fully. At the same time you state you feel you want to 
and are cooperating fully with the committee in telling 
everything you can that will be of help. It seems to me a 
simple story and if you would just tell us how you happened to 
hire Brothman. You seem to be afraid we are trying to lead you 
into questions and answers. All we want is the story on how you 
happened to hire Brothman and your connection with him. It is 
obvious that your connection with him has some explanation. 
We'd like to know about it.
    Maybe you could just tell the story in your own words 
briefly. Maybe the questions tend to throw you off your line of 
thinking.
    Mr. Gaboriault. They do. The questions definitely throw me 
off because of this: A man does not live that can remember 
details accurately.
    Mr. Carr. I think that is your problem. You have probably 
been afraid.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I have been afraid of perjury. I will 
remember something as I remember it. I cited one instance that 
happened a couple of days ago when someone else comes along and 
proves I am wrong.
    Mr. Carr. What we are interested in is getting the full 
picture and it seems to me you could tell us the story if you 
want to tell us the story in such a way as to protect yourself. 
In other words, we just want to the best of your recollection 
how it happened. You can protect yourself. You say you are 
afraid of perjury. We are not trying you or trying to give you 
questions which will lead you to perjury. All we want to do is 
get the story as to how you happened to hire this man Brothman 
and your connection with him.
    The question comes down to this. You stated that you had 
met his wife here in this building during the course of Mr. 
Freidus' trial. How did you happen to meet her here? There 
shouldn't be any problem. Don't involve yourself with making 
this too difficult, too technical.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is technical, isn't it?
    Mr. Carr. It is, but you are making it more so.
    Mr. Gaboriault. To the best of my recollection, I don't 
know how I met her. I was in the courthouse.
    Mr. Carr. You seem to be making it difficult.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I don't live this stuff every day.
    Mr. Carr. Why don't you just tell us the story. I am sure 
if you were engaged in some conversation with some of your 
friends or business acquaintances and they asked you how 
something came about, you could say so. You could say to the 
best of your recollection this is what happened. If your 
recollection is wrong, I am sure you would correct it at such 
time as you thought something was refreshed in your memory.
    How did you happen to hire Brothman, in as simple language 
as you can give it to the best of your recollection?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is already in the record. I will 
repeat it. First, Mr. Freidus was on trial simultaneously with 
Mr. Brothman. I was asked the details pertaining to that and I 
do not remember. Mr. Freidus, having met Mr. Brothman had 
conversed with him and I understood from him that he had some 
products, if worked on, which had some commercial value if 
exploited.
    Mr. Freidus told me if I wanted to look into it I could get 
the information, details of the transaction being vague. It was 
Mr. Goldfarb who had been a former employee of Mr. Brothman 
that brought the design data to me. I reviewed it. I liked it. 
I thought the program was worthwhile entering upon. This was 
around the end of 1950 or the first of 1951.
    In 1952, November, when Mr. Brothman was to be released, 
Mr. Goldfarb was requested to go down and get him and bring him 
back to me. He was the one who had designed the product 
initially. Mr. Goldfarb went down to get him. He was not hired 
at that time. I did not hire Mr. Brothman as a member of the 
company. He came back to my plant in Port Jervis, the plant I 
run. I run it in Port Jervis. I would never think of hiring 
anybody that I was convinced was a Communist.
    Would you care, for the senator's sake, for me to repeat 
the same things I have said before?
    Mr. Carr. Why don't you continue to tell us this part of 
it.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I didn't know anything about the trial in 
detail. I run a business. My job is not that. You fellows have 
the job of investigating. It is up to you to see that the 
country is kept straight.
    When I sent Mr. Goldfarb down to get Mr. Brothman, at that 
time I didn't know in detail what had transpired. I wanted to 
speak to Brothman and find out from him. I spoke to him and I 
was satisfied he was entitled to make a living.
    The Chairman. Did you think he had been unfairly convicted?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Based on discussions we had--we have had 
very lengthy discussion--I did not want to gamble. The 
discussions were very lengthy. Based on those and based on 
someone else who got the transcript of the trial, in my opinion 
I did not think he was justly accused. Some of the details of 
the trial, the transcript, and what happened in details that he 
gave me himself----
    The Chairman. Did you read the transcript?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I mentioned that was through a third 
person.
    The Chairman. Who is the third party?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Bill Ruben.
    The Chairman. Who is he?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He is a lawyer.
    The Chairman. Does he work for you also?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Do I understand that he got a transcript for 
you and studied it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He didn't study it for me. He studied it 
for other reasons.
    The Chairman. Do you know what reason he studied it for?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I believe he is a journalist.
    The Chairman. You mean in school?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That I couldn't answer. I have met the 
fellow and I can't go much beyond that.
    The Chairman. You must have known him fairly well?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I can develop confidence in a person after 
a certain amount of conversation. I have made mistakes.
    The Chairman. Did he come in to see you in regard to 
Brothman? How did you meet this fellow? Did he come to Port 
Jervis for that reason?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Excuse me one moment, please. I don't want 
to get in a situation----
    When I came back in this room, you mentioned that there was 
certain confusion and an apparent lack of desire on$my part to 
cooperate. That is not a lack of desire. It is a matter of 
sequence of questions, in answering questions regarding 
individuals, time, places, which are to me as a business man of 
inconsequential nature. Details I don't try to remember. That 
is when my vagueness is going to come in.
    The Chairman. You mean you don't remember when you met 
Ruben?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I could say five months ago and it could be 
ten months ago.
    The Chairman. In other words, it was long after you hired 
Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I don't believe it was long after I hired 
Brothman.
    The Chairman. Was it after your hired Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. After I hired Brothman.
    The Chairman. Ruben came to you to give you his conclusions 
after he had made a study of Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He was interested in the case being a 
journalist.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That I couldn't tell you. I have no idea. I 
have never contacted him.
    Mr. Carr. You don't know what paper--what magazine?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I didn't question him on details as to his 
employment.
    The Chairman. You knew he was a writer, journalist----
    Mr. Gaboriault. I know he----
    The Chairman. But you relied on his judgment in this case?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I can spend several hours with you and I 
don't have to question your background to make up my opinion as 
to what kind of fellow you are. If I want to go into a lot of 
details, all right, I can do it. I got married without checking 
the entire history of my wife. There are lots of things in her 
life I know nothing about and don't care about.
    The Chairman. How about this fellow Bill Ruben who came to 
see you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He is from New York City.
    The Chairman. Beyond that you know nothing.
    Mr. Gaboriault. He writes.
    The Chairman. And how long did he stay with you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I believe it was pretty close to twelve 
hours the first time.
    The Chairman. When I asked you whether or not Brothman had 
convinced you that he had been improperly convicted, you said 
``Yes'' and you based that partly upon Ruben's report to you.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Partly on that.
    The Chairman. I find now that Ruben saw you after you hired 
Brothman. My question is: After talking to Brothman, were you 
convinced that he was innocent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I felt that he was.
    The Chairman. You didn't ask him whether he was a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I didn't ask him as a direct question. I 
was satisfied from the statement from him it was very definite. 
I did not ask the question. The reason it was was this: I made 
it very plain to him that I was not interested in anybody that 
was involved in Communist activities and in no sense would I be 
interested in keeping--now, he understood before he talked to 
me----
    The Chairman. Did you send your own car to Atlanta?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. How far is that, roughly? How many hundred 
miles? You sent a car to pick him up. That is before you talked 
to him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is correct. I had said ``hello.''
    The Chairman. At that time I assume you felt the jury that 
convicted him were honest or they probably wouldn't have 
convicted him? Did you have a chance to talk to him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Until I spoke to him I drew no conclusion 
regarding the individual.
    The Chairman. At this point may I say I don't think any man 
of ordinary intelligence in listening to your testimony would 
believe that you were trying to be truthful. It is a very 
unusual procedure, you see. I say a man of ordinary 
intelligence couldn't be convinced that you are trying to be 
truthful.
    You have a man in the penitentiary whom you have met once, 
whom you do not know. You met his wife here during the trial. 
You say you saw her twice during the two years when she stopped 
at your office. On the basis of that, you go to all the expense 
of sending a car down to the gates of the penitentiary to pick 
up a man convicted of something which, while not called treason 
technically, certainly would constitute treason. I assume you 
would agree on that. You go to the expense of bringing him 
back. You would think it was your long lost uncle. If you want 
to tell us the rest of the story----
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is why I asked if I shouldn't repeat 
the story from the beginning. [To Mr. Carr] From what I have 
related to you, as to how this took place, do you feel the same 
way as the senator does?
    Mr. Carr. Senator, he said he had seen work of designs laid 
out by Brothman that he was interested in. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is correct.
    Mr. Carr. And because he liked these designs he became 
interested in Brothman; he thought that he might want to hire 
Brothman. He also said that he had no interest in hiring 
anybody connected with communism. However, in order to decide 
that, he wanted to talk to Brothman himself. He had talked to 
this man Ruben.
    Mr. Gaboriault. If I can inject something so we don't get 
out of chronological sequence, my decision was made to hire 
Brothman, but it was subsequent to that I had discussions with 
Ruben. A man goes through his entire life with certain doubts 
in his mind.
    The Chairman. You were convinced after you talked to 
Brothman that the judge and jury and the grand jury that 
indicted him were wrong and that the witnesses against him were 
lying. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I was convinced that the fellow was 
entitled to a job working for me on the program that had been 
laid out that I had had two years to think about.
    The Chairman. All right. If you thought he was guilty; if 
you thought that he advised an espionage agent to hold back the 
truth, to lie to the grand jury; if he knew this espionage 
agent so well that his advice was sought and accepted, assume 
all those facts to be true, would you still think he should be 
entitled to a job doing government work or work in which fifty 
percent of it was government work?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Don't misunderstand something.
    The Chairman. That is a simple question.
    Mr. Gaboriault. He is not working on government work. He is 
on development work, on a program which he has----
    The Chairman. He has access to the plant the same as 
anybody else, doesn't he?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He has free access to all the work.
    The Chairman. It is a corporation, isn't it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It is a corporation.
    The Chairman. Half of your income is from the government, 
is it not? Roughly?
    Mr. Gaboriault. At this time----
    The Chairman. So that he is getting government money, isn't 
he? You get the money from the government and it goes into the 
corporation till. The government work is what helps to make the 
company prosperous.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Everything helps.
    The Chairman. If you believed he had been properly 
convicted; if you believed that he had the confidence of an 
espionage agent, so close to him his advice was sought and he 
advised this espionage agent to lie, to commit perjury about 
something that affects the life and death of this nation; if 
you believed that all those things were true, do you still 
think he should have had this job?
    Mr. Gaboriault. In other words, to put it bluntly, if I 
were to believe he were active in the Communist party, should 
he have the job?
    The Chairman. If you believe he was properly convicted. You 
know what the charge was. The charge was obstructing justice in 
having advised an espionage agent to keep the truth about his 
espionage activities from proper government officials.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is not what I was told.
    The Chairman. What were you told?
    Mr. Gaboriault. My understanding was that there was 
something in the form of an alibi he was supposed to have 
provided.
    The Chairman. Did you ever check to see?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I didn't check, no.
    The Chairman. When you went to the expense of sending a car 
to Atlanta, hiring a driver, did it ever occur to you you 
should get the charge?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    Mr. Carr. You see the position--it may be clear to you but 
it does seem somewhat unusual that you should go to the trouble 
of hiring this man.
    Now, there is nothing wrong with hiring a man who has been 
convicted of a crime after he has served his rightful sentence, 
but you went to a good deal of trouble to hire him. You went to 
what seems unusual trouble--sent a car down, all because you 
thought the designs submitted for him, in his name, were of 
such exceptional potential value to you you thought he was 
worth the trouble and expense to get hold of this man?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Definitely.
    Mr. Carr. And you thought this man's background was such 
you were willing to consider it, even after this expense, and 
talked to him concerning his background and you were willing to 
hire him. You were willing to expend the money to bring him up 
here to talk to him. His designs were so good that you thought 
it worth your time and trouble and money to bring the man up 
for an interview and you were satisfied with his explanation. 
You then hired him. Is that the story?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Correct.
    Mr. Carr. You say that you believe he was not justly 
convicted? That is your belief after hearing what you have 
heard about his case?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Hearing what I have heard, reading in the 
trade journal what I have read, understanding what is available 
in literature of the contributions he made for which he got 
nothing. One in particular was the contribution on the 
synthetic rubber program for which he got nothing. He is as 
much if not more American than I am. I have lived with the 
fellow for over a year. He goes home at night to sleep when the 
work is done. Once in a while on Sunday we are separated. We 
put in twelve good months in this program. I have faith in him 
and I know he has engineering ability to finish up the designs 
he has got started.
    The Chairman. Could I get back to my question? You said you 
were never informed fully as to the charges against him; that 
you thought it was because he gave the improper alibi. Is that 
it?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Initially it was extremely vague. Today my 
understanding is that it had something to do with providing 
something in the form of an alibi.
    The Chairman. For an espionage agent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right, if you believed that he furnished 
an alibi for an espionage agent, a false alibi, do you feel 
that he should have a job there?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I do not believe he furnished the alibi.
    The Chairman. Answer my question. You said that is what he 
was charged with. If you felt that was true, that he gave a 
false alibi, supplied a false alibi for an espionage agent, 
would you think then that you should send a car to Atlanta and 
bring him down and give him a job?
    Mr. Gaboriault. If I believed it were true, what would have 
happened would have been--the story--if I subsequently believed 
it was true--the story that was relayed to him when he was 
picked up was to the effect that I wasn't the kind of a guy 
that would have anything to do with anyone involved in 
communism.
    The Chairman. Will you answer my question? I am going to 
bring you back tomorrow and the day after that. I am getting 
awfully sick of you giving us these evasive speeches. I asked 
you a very simple question. I asked you whether or not you feel 
this man had furnished a false alibi for an espionage agent and 
if you felt then that you should have brought him back from 
Atlanta.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Gentlemen, if I felt he had furnished a 
false alibi, I would have brought him back and given him the 
job.
    The Chairman. I thought that was the way you felt, but it 
has taken a long time to get it out of you.
    Do you think that a man who gives a false alibi to an 
espionage agent is guilty of a serious crime against his 
country?
    Mr. Gaboriault. If he does it knowingly, yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that a man who is guilty of such 
a crime against his country should be drawing pay, money which 
is supplied by the citizens of his country?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I have had an influx of loans to pay for 
our development.
    The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Gaboriault. I have no fixed----
    The Chairman. Do you think that a contractor, a man in your 
business, who would say, ``Yes, I would hire a man even though 
I knew he gave a false alibi, supplied a false alibi for an 
espionage agent,'' do you think such a man should ever again 
get one cent in government contracts? That is a pretty simple 
question.
    Mr. Gaboriault. It does go back to another one where you 
said ``false alibi.'' If a man knowingly furnished an alibi----
    The Chairman. No, the question involves you now, not the 
man who furnished the alibi. Do you think that a man in your 
position, doing your type of business who say, ``I would hire a 
man even though I knew that he had given a false alibi for an 
espionage agent, do you think such a man should ever again get 
another cent in government contracts?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and I agree. I hope the government 
refuses to.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Never.
    The Chairman. Have you ever gone to any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Never.
    The Chairman. You never attended any meetings at all of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Never.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes, I am sure. I have never been 
interested to any extent in any Communist activities.
    The Chairman. No. The question is: Did you ever attend 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. I am advising you to either tell the truth or 
refuse to answer.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am here to tell the truth. I am not going 
to refuse to answer any questions you ask.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The answer to that is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Did your wife ever attend any?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Were there ever any meetings of the Communist 
party in your home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. You say that in your opinion Brothman is not 
a Communist?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right.
    The Chairman. Are you related to Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Is your wife related to him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Are you or your wife related to his wife?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know why a man serving time for 
income tax evasion wanted to do something for Brothman? Is he 
related?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The reason was purely industrial.
    The Chairman. Had he known Brothman?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. He had never met Brothman before?
    Mr. Gaboriault. My understanding was he had never met 
Brothman until the trial took place.
    The Chairman. You say you never talked to Mrs. Brothman 
about giving Brothman a job; that the arrangements were made by 
someone else.
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is the best of my memory. That is the 
way it transpired.
    The Chairman. You say you only saw her twice while Brothman 
was in jail and on those two occasions she came to the plant. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is right.
    The Chairman. And Herman Goldfarb, I believe you said he 
worked for you. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right.
    The Chairman. Is he still working for you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. Had he been a friend of Brothman's?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Employee.
    The Chairman. Employee of Brothman's?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Yes.
    The Chairman. What type of business did Brothman have?
    Mr. Gaboriault. He had a chemical processing plant of some 
sort. I believe it was a methylic plant.
    The Chairman. Is he a chemist? Is that his profession?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right.
    The Chairman. Does he work with the chemists in your plant?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Equipment development involving knowledge 
of chemistry as well as mechanical knowledge.
    The Chairman. And how often did you say you have visited 
his home since he has been working for you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Half a dozen times.
    The Chairman. In other words, you are very close friends. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I don't think I have a closer friend. I say 
close friend because in the past year we have had to work 
closely together. I have come to know him fairly well.
    The Chairman. What is your feeling about a man who refuses 
to state, has of today, whether he is committing espionage 
against his country--refusal on the ground that a truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Fear.
    The Chairman. Fear of what?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Fear of distortion.
    The Chairman. Well, now. What were the distortions?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. If he were not committing espionage today and 
says ``no,'' is that more dangerous than if he said, ``I refuse 
to answer because if I told the truth it would incriminate 
me''?
    I am curious to know what distortions you have in mind. 
Someone says, ``Are you a traitor?'' If he says, ``No,'' that 
cannot be distorted.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am a businessman. I do not try to be a 
lawyer. I answered with the simple word ``fear.'' To go beyond 
that, the fear involved is something which is not in an 
individual. It is in people. The fear even gets down to this. I 
have been very civic minded all my life. I am buying a house in 
Port Jervis. The woman I am buying it from was called by a 
neighbor and told that she shouldn't sell the house. Then this 
woman I was buying the house from called my wife and told my 
wife she understood the sale was being made to a bunch of 
Communists.
    When I get back to Port Jervis--I am a member of the 
Kiwanis, board of directors of the Y, Elks Club, and to have 
been just called in front of a group has a certain amount of 
stigma. That is not solely with me. That is something that 
prevails. There is nothing I can do about it. The truth is 
there. It is discussed amongst the people. This is a free 
country. The people talk about it.
    The Chairman. You said the man refused to tell whether he 
is an espionage agent because of fear. If he were not an 
espionage agent, can you think of any reason why he wouldn't 
frankly say ``no.''
    Mr. Gaboriault. I am scared. I am full of fear.
    The Chairman. Are you an espionage agent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Were you afraid to answer that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Why should I be afraid? I have never gone 
through anything like this before.
    The Chairman. If you were an espionage agent, then you 
would be afraid to answer. If you were an espionage agent, you 
would refuse to answer. Not being one, you can say ``no.''
    Mr. Gaboriault. I have been through nothing.
    The Chairman. In other words, if he is not an espionage 
agent he can say ``no''?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Correct.
    The Chairman. When a man comes in and says he can't tell 
you whether he is an espionage agent because if he were to tell 
you the truth he might go to jail, when he refuses to answer on 
the grounds that his answer might tend to incriminate him, is 
that an indication to you that he is an espionage agent?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. You think it doesn't indicate that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. If he says, ``If I told the truth, it would 
tend to incriminate me'' and he is not an espionage agent, then 
he must be lying and should answer the question ``No.''
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. If he is not an espionage agent, how would 
that incriminate him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Different individuals react differently to 
fear.
    The Chairman. Do you agree that if he is not an espionage 
agent and answers ``No,'' his answer would not incriminate him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. That is my feeling. That is the way I feel 
about it. I am not involved politically or any fashion. I am 
involved in nothing.
    The Chairman. But you have no objection to keeping a man on 
in government work if he refuses to state whether he is an 
espionage agent on the grounds that his answer might tend to 
incriminate him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. In this case I would do a lot of thinking 
about it.
    The Chairman. Let's take a situation. Let's assume Mr. John 
Jones is working on government work and he refuses to state 
whether he is committing espionage against the government. He 
says, ``If I tell you that, my answer might tend to incriminate 
me.'' Would you have to do a lot of thinking before you decided 
to fire him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I'd be afraid of him.
    The Chairman. Would you let him go?
    Mr. Gaboriault. If I didn't think I knew him.
    The Chairman. What if you knew him?
    Mr. Gaboriault. If I knew him, I'd want to do a lot of 
thinking about it.
    The Chairman. The mere fact that a man would not tell 
whether or not he is committing espionage would not be grounds 
to fire him. You would want to go further than that?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Right.
    The Chairman. I think we have got the complete explanation 
of why he hired him.
    Mr. Carr. Why would there be any thought in the mind of 
anybody there in the community which would lead someone to say 
to your wife or to some of your people in the neighborhood that 
a bunch of Communists were moving in?
    Mr. Gaboriault. Because of what came out in the newspaper 
and in the news. I have seen it. I have seen it happen in the 
papers. I have friends who are anti-Communist who, in my 
opinion, are fanatical. I try to be fanatical about nothing. I 
have heard them talk. I haven't felt as sorry for some poor guy 
who might have been mislead as I have felt sorry for them.
    The Chairman. In other words, it is the anti-Communists who 
get you disturbed when----
    Mr. Gaboriault. When they are extremely fanatical.
    The Chairman. You say you think a man who is misled into 
becoming a Communist----
    Mr. Gaboriault. In Salem, Massachusetts, they use to burn 
witches.
    The Chairman. That is a simple question.
    Are you saying that the people who get excited about a 
criminal and want to expose him are worse than the criminal?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Do you think the people who get excited about 
communism, do you think they are worse than the Communists?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Let's assume they get fanatical about 
communism. Do you think they are worse than the Communists are?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No, I don't feel they are worse than the 
Communists. Don't twist that answer around.
    The Chairman. I thought that is what you said. I thought 
you said persons who were misled----
    Mr. Gaboriault. They are in a position to do no good and a 
lot of harm. I am not speaking about you people on these 
committees.
    The Chairman. How about a layman who gets excited about a 
Communist teacher teaching your children? How about a layman up 
in your town who gets concerned about a Communist teacher 
teaching his and your children. He can do some good.
    Mr. Gaboriault. It is up to him to turn it over to the 
right authority. The proper authorities should handle those 
problems. When an individual goes around slandering people, 
saying he is a Communist because of personal prejudice, there 
is a certain amount of unfairness. When it is handled by 
competent authorities, that becomes a different story.
    The Chairman. I think we are gaining nothing by prolonging 
this.
    Who is the man that said you were a bunch of Communists, 
when you were buying this home?
    Mr. Gaboriault. I'd rather not repeat it. I don't want to 
get individuals involved. I have lived my life in a small town 
and I have a lot of friends. I hope I have friends when I get 
back.
    The Chairman. I think we have nothing further. You will be 
called for public session.
    I may say that your name will not be given to the press 
unless you give it to them.
    Mr. Gaboriault. I won't give it to them.
    The Chairman. You are perfectly free. This is executive 
session. No one else here discusses what went on--what the 
witness said or what he didn't say.
    If you want to examine your testimony to correct it for 
typographical errors, you can do that by contacting counsel.
    Mr. Gaboriault. Who is counsel?
    The Chairman. You can write the committee at 101, Senate 
Office Building.
    Mr. Gaboriault. There is one thing I would like to say, 
which to me I don't care to say but I feel I have got to. 
Yesterday afternoon, in fact all day yesterday I was out. I got 
back just a little after five o'clock to vote. After voting I 
tried to get your Mr. Buckley and I couldn't do it. I started 
on down to Jersey City and on the way I called back to the 
plant to find out whether or not any calls had come in.
    I can understand the type of people you run into, but you 
intimidated, they felt intimidated, one of my employees and my 
wife. There was no need of it.
    Mr. Buckley. I tried for a period of eight hours to get in 
touch with Mr. Gaboriault personally and was unable to do so. 
His wife informed the telephone company that she didn't want to 
be annoyed with the committee. He may feel intimidated.
    The Chairman. What do you claim he did to intimidate your 
wife? If any of my staff has intimidated your wife, I want to 
know about it.
    Mr. Gaboriault. The office employee that was called has no 
right to talk to anybody about anything. I am an officer of the 
company. He was threatened with government action, over the 
phone, and things of that nature. What you said was 
unimportant.
    How he took it was extremely important. What you said to my 
wife was unimportant.
    Mr. Buckley. Tell us why your wife over a period of eight 
hours refused to tell where you were?
    Mr. Gaboriault. She did not know where I was. At election 
time I told her I was out around the town, around the polls, 
newspaper office, lawyer's office, where we were supposed to 
meet. I told her I would be out; that I would not be available; 
that I would be back later. She did her best to contact me. The 
United Press and A.P. were all calling.
    The Chairman. What was said to her to intimidate her? Was 
it the repeated calls to get you?
    Mr. Gaboriault. It was the repeated calls to get me.
    The Chairman. Is that improper, do you think?
    Mr. Gaboriault. The intimidation is in the words you used 
when you called. You were accusing her of evading you.
    Mr. Buckley. I said to you wife, ``I think your husband may 
be attempting to avoid these telephone calls.'' I said, ``I 
think he would do himself a service if he returned the calls.'' 
We had a very pleasant telephone conversation.
    The Chairman. Just one question. Were you with Brothman 
last night and yesterday?
    Mr. Gaboriault. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Were you both together at Democratic 
headquarters?
    Mr. Gaboriault. We went over to the firehouse where I voted 
and we did not go to Democratic headquarters. We then went back 
to my office.
    The Chairman. You were not at Democratic headquarters?
    Mr. Gaboriault. No.
    The Chairman. Okay. You will be released for the time 
being. Consider yourself under subpoena. We will notify you if 
and when we want you again.

  TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM BROTHMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                  WILLIAM ROSSMOORE) (RESUMED)

    The Chairman. Mr. Brothman, is it correct that Mr. 
Gaboriault had a car and chauffeur pick you up at the 
penitentiary at Atlanta when you were released?
    Mr. Brothman. Excuse me, Senator. Before I left I was given 
time to consult on some questions and I believe that you can 
reformulate those questions again.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact the witness did not have 
what we consider sufficient time to consult with counsel before 
he appeared here today, the chair will extend to him the 
privilege of changing his answers after consulting with 
counsel.
    I am not asking you each individual question.
    You were asked previously when you refused to answer 
certain question whether you felt if you were to answer those 
questions your answer might tend to incriminate you. You 
previously refused to say ``Yes'' or ``No.'' If you care to 
change your answer, you may.
    Mr. Brothman. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, your answer now is you feel 
that may tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Then the chair will cancel the order to 
answer those questions.
    Mr. Brothman. Would you mind? There were three questions, 
as I recall. Could I hear them?
    The Chairman. In all cases where you took the Fifth 
Amendment, unless you felt that your answer would tend to 
incriminate you, you were not entitled to take it. I am just 
trying to give you a chance to have one blanket answer to those 
question. I don't want to trap you into any indictment, 
criminal activity. I merely give you a chance to go over them 
in blanket.
    In all cases where you took advantage of the Fifth 
Amendment and refused to answer on the basis of the Fifth 
Amendment, is it your testimony if you had answered, you answer 
to those various questions would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brothman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Now, if you want to answer some of those 
questions, that is a different situation?
    Mr. Brothman. No, I would just like to answer those three.
    The Chairman. Could you recall what they were about?
    Mr. Brothman. They had to do with Gaboriault.
    If I may consult.
    Mr. Rossmoore. I don't think the witness understood that 
you had removed the direction to answer those particular 
questions. I am not sure what they were. You removed the 
direction because of his recent answer and there is no point in 
going back to those questions.
    The Chairman. I just feel that he has a right to change his 
answer to that because he didn't have a chance to consult with 
counsel at sufficient length. If he says his answer might tend 
to incriminate him, he is entitled not to answer. If after 
thinking it over, he wants to answer, we will be glad to re-ask 
those.
    Did Norman Gaboriault send a car to Atlanta with a 
chauffeur and pick you up and bring you here?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Just to save time, I assume that you will 
decline to answer any questions having to do with Gaboriault on 
the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Is that correct?
    Mr. Brothman. That is right, sir.
    The Chairman. You didn't want to change your answer as to 
whether you engaged in espionage in the last week?
    Mr. Brothman. I don't want to change that.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is Miriam Moskowitz these days?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Do you know Herman Goldfarb?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. What salary do you draw?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer, invoking my privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you have free run of the plant at which 
you are now working?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. Have you removed any material from the plant 
and given it to an espionage agent in the last year?
    Mr. Brothman. I decline to answer, invoking my privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a man who refuses to tell 
the committee whether he is committing espionage against the 
country should be drawing money from a company supported by the 
government?
    Mr. Brothman. I don't think I care to express an opinion on 
that, Senator.
    The Chairman. You may step down. He is excused for the time 
being. We will let you know when we want him again.
    Do we have your address?
    Mr. Rossmoore. 60 Park Place, Newark, Mitchell 2-2051.

TESTIMONY OF HARVEY SACHS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, SHERMAN 
                      LAWRENCE) (RESUMED)

    Mr. Cohn. You have been sworn.
    Did we get your counsel's name?
    Mr. Lawrence. Sherman Lawrence, 645 Madison Avenue, New 
York, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Sachs, where are you employed now?
    Mr. Sachs. Shore Television Corporation in Brooklyn.
    Mr. Cohn. And does that company do any work for the 
government?
    Mr. Sachs. We have two contracts at the present time.
    Mr. Cohn. From where?
    Mr. Sachs. One with the Signal Corps and one with the air 
force.
    Mr. Cohn. Any classified material at all?
    Mr. Sachs. No, there is not.
    Mr. Cohn. How large are those contracts?
    Mr. Sachs. The Signal Corps contract is approximately 
$3,000 and the air force contract is in the amount of $5,000.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any classified work for the 
government while with the Shore Television Company?
    Mr. Sachs. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I worked for the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. And before you went to the government, did you go 
to Cooper Union?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I attended Cooper Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Young Communist League 
at Cooper Union?
    Mr. Sachs. I believe you asked that question when I was 
here before and I stated to the best of my recollection I was 
not.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your answer tonight?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, it was brought out to me I had attended 
some meetings, which were stated to be Young Communist League 
meetings. I stated that I recollected attending meetings that I 
thought were American Student Union meetings. They might have 
been Young Communist League meetings for all I know. When I 
went to school I attended many meetings and I can't possibly 
recall whether they were specifically American Student Union 
meetings or Young Communist League meetings or what have you.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, whatever the organizations were that 
sponsored those meetings, were you a member of those 
organizations, or don't you know?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, I'd like to know what membership 
constitutes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of any organization?
    Mr. Sachs. If attending a meeting constitutes membership, I 
would be described as a member.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever contribute any money?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall. I might have.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was at these meetings? Name the people.
    The Chairman. I think that was a good suggestion.
    Mr. Sachs. You mean generally speaking.
    Mr. Cohn. Specific people you recall.
    Mr. Sachs. I stated to the committee the last time I was 
here I specifically remember having attended with one, perhaps 
two persons. I remember two people in the class at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. What are their names?
    Mr. Sachs. Ralph Cricker and Alfred Sarant.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Sarant a Communist?
    Mr. Sachs. That is something I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You wouldn't know?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't know for a fact.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about party membership. I am 
asking you whether or not he was a Communist. Did you have any 
discussions with Mr. Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. From those discussions couldn't you form an 
opinion as to whether or not he was a Communist?
    Mr. Sachs. From those discussions I would say he was 
idealistically inclined towards the Communist viewpoint.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? As a courtesy to the 
witness, I think we should tell you that we have considerable 
testimony here to the effect that you belonged to the Young 
Communist League; that you attended meetings, paid dues and 
that sort of thing. I am not saying that we believe that over 
your testimony, but I think you should know that the testimony 
is here. This is executive session and you haven't heard it.
    There is also testimony that a number of times in your 
presence, Sarant made it completely clear he was a Communist. 
Again I say, I am giving you this material to help refresh your 
recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anyone you recall other than Mr. Sarant 
and Mr. Cricker?
    Mr. Sachs. No one in particular.
    Mr. Cohn. Anyone at all?
    Mr. Sachs. I have searched my memory on these matters and 
truthfully, I can't recall anyone outside those two people.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall a man named Fred Kitty?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall him at any of these meetings?
    Mr. Sachs. He might have been. I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection of him having been 
there?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't recall.
    Mr. Lawrence. I'd like, for the purpose of the record, to 
provide the committee with the information that you are talking 
about something that happened fifteen years ago when this 
individual was eighteen years of age.
    The Chairman. I know that.
    Mr. Lawrence. I'd like to put on the record the fact the 
time limitation and his age--I do not regard his not 
remembering as any lack of cooperation on his part inasmuch as 
it might be lapse of memory.
    The Chairman. Do you have a poor memory?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. You are the only one we have had who doesn't 
remember more names.
    Mr. Sachs. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. I am not setting up a quantity of names of 
this group of people who you should remember were in attendance 
at these meetings.
    Mr. Sachs. As stated, I discussed this with counsel and 
have gone over this and tried to recall additional names of 
people and I do not recall them.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is Mr. Cricker now?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you went to work for the Signal Corps. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Sachs. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And you worked in Evans Signal Laboratory?
    Mr. Sachs. For a time, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see Mr. Sarant after you left Cooper 
Union?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you see Mr. Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. I saw him at various times. Is there some 
specific period you are interested in.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. Back in 1946 was the last time.
    Mr. Cohn. What were the circumstances of that?
    Mr. Sachs. The circumstances of that was that it was 
sometime after I came out of the navy. I had gotten married and 
I was living in Ashbury Park at the time and had returned to 
New York to visit my mother-in-law with my wife, and by chance 
Sarant called there when we were there and invited us over to 
say ``hello.''
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that?
    Mr. Sachs. That was in 1946.
    Mr. Lawrence. Have you seen Mr. Sarant since then?
    Mr. Sachs. I did see him about three weeks after that time 
briefly in the company of his wife. He suggested that I meet 
her. It was a strictly social visit. I have never seen them 
since.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see Mr. Sarant during the period you were 
working for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he working there?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, sir. He worked for the Fort Monmouth Signal 
Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. What was he doing?
    Mr. Sachs. He was an engineer.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work? Do you recall?
    Mr. Sachs. I wasn't in the same section he was in.
    Mr. Cohn. From anything he said, would you recall 
generally?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, it is hard to recall specifically. 
Electrical engineering work.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he working on radar?
    Mr. Sachs. I believe he was assigned to the meteorology 
section. I don't think he was doing work on radar. I don't 
know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist at the time he 
was working at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. I would like at this time to distinguish between 
membership in the Communist party or someone addicted to the 
idea.
    Mr. Cohn. The fact that he has a party card means nothing.
    Mr. Sachs. At that time I believe that he was 
idealistically inclined towards communism.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think he should have been working for the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Lawrence. Do you know he was working on classified 
material?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody in his category not working 
on some classified material? Do you know an electrical engineer 
doing the work Mr. Sarant was doing who didn't have access to 
classified material?
    Mr. Sachs. That is a broad question. I wouldn't know. I 
haven't worked for them in a long time.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know other persons Communistically 
inclined or addicted that worked down at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. That is a broad field. I haven't associated with 
people of that type for a long time.
    Mr. Cohn. Sarant is one you recall. Think back. Were there 
others?
    Mr. Sachs. You mean specifically?
    Mr. Cohn. That were idealistically inclined as Sarant was?
    Mr. Sachs. One other fellow whose name I brought up.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
    Mr. Sachs. Joel Barr.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Joel Barr?
    Mr. Sachs. The best I recall, it was probably in the very 
early part of 1942, through Sarant.
    Mr. Cohn. And what were the circumstances, as best you 
recall?
    Mr. Sachs. As best I recall, Barr came to visit Sarant. I 
think they worked in the same section together.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you say Barr came to visit him? Where did he 
come to visit him?
    Mr. Sachs. In a house where I lived with Sarant.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you live with Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. From October of 1941 until the end of March of 
1942.
    The Chairman. I didn't get the last?
    Mr. Sachs. The end of March 1942. At the end of March 1942, 
I was assigned to Baltimore, Maryland to work at the--if you 
are interested in that detail?
    Mr. Cohn. No. The other interests me more. For a period of 
six months you lived with Sarant. Who else?
    Mr. Sachs. One other fellow lived there to.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Sachs. Benjamin Lewis.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that Benjamin G. Lewis?
    Mr. Sachs. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was Mr. Lewis a Communist or Communistically 
inclined?
    Mr. Sachs. I would state he certainly was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he argue with Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. I would say he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he?
    Mr. Sachs. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was Barr pretty friendly with Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. Apparently. Apparently they were on friendly 
terms.
    Mr. Cohn. Barr came to see Sarant. Did he come to see you?
    Mr. Sachs. Not particularly, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Who would you say he came to see?
    Mr. Sachs. Probably more to see Sarant than myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Barr was also working down at Fort Monmouth, 
wasn't he?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I believe he was.
    The Chairman. Did the witness say Barr had come to see him?
    Mr. Sachs. To see me specifically?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sachs. He came to see Sarant probably. He may have seen 
me if I was there.
    The Chairman. Was he a good friend of yours too?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't think he was a particularly good 
friend, no.
    The Chairman. Were you friendly?
    Mr. Sachs. We weren't enemies.
    The Chairman. Did Barr ever stay overnight there?
    Mr. Sachs. At that time that I lived there?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall that he stayed there overnight.
    The Chairman. Actually he stayed there on four different 
occasion, didn't he, overnight?
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Isn't it true that Barr stayed at your place on at least 
four different occasions?
    Mr. Sachs. He may have, sir.
    The Chairman. But you don't recall that?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. Now, would you describe the apartment? How 
many rooms were in it?
    Mr. Sachs. It wasn't an apartment. It was a house.
    The Chairman. Oh. How many rooms in the house? If you know?
    Mr. Sachs. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. If you don't know--did you have a separate 
bedroom?
    Mr. Sachs. I think there were six rooms in the house.
    The Chairman. And were they all rented out?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, the three fellows who lived there, we 
rented the house. It was ours at that time.
    The Chairman. There was a kitchen too?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes.
    The Chairman. There was a dining room----
    Mr. Sachs. There was a dining room, a living room, a 
kitchen and three bedrooms upstairs.
    The Chairman. Did you cook in the kitchen at times?
    Mr. Sachs. I suppose we did. Yes, we did.
    The Chairman. Who was the man who used to make cooking 
somewhat of a hobby in the evenings? Was that Barr?
    Mr. Sachs. No, I don't recall him having had much to do 
with that aspect.
    The Chairman. Now, when you were living with Sarant, did 
you ever have any reason to think he was either a Communist or 
sympathetic to communism?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, based on the discussions that we had 
together, I would say, as I have said before, that he was 
idealistically inclined towards communism.
    The Chairman. Did you agree or disagree?
    Mr. Sachs. At that time I probably agreed with him a 
considerable portion of the time.
    The Chairman. How about Barr? Did you have any reason to 
believe he was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Sachs. I certainly wouldn't have any reason to believe 
it at that time.
    The Chairman. You were working where when you roomed with 
Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. During the period of October 1941 until the end 
of March of 1942 when I lived with them, I was working at the 
Fort Hancock Section of the Fort Monmouth Signal Laboratories. 
However, about the beginning of March, I started doing some 
field trips and at the end of March I was transferred to 
Baltimore, Maryland.
    The Chairman. When Barr would come to the house did he ever 
ask about the work you were doing in the signal laboratories?
    Mr. Sachs. That is something I can't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed it with him?
    Mr. Sachs. Possibly, but I can't recall specifically.
    The Chairman. Do this if you will. Don't think you are a 
defendant here accused of anything at all. You have been named 
as one of the people who could give us information about Joel 
Barr who has now gone to Russia, is behind the Iron Curtain, 
and clearly an espionage agent, clearly an espionage agent at 
that time. We realize to be successful, an espionage agent must 
be able to deceive a lot of fine people. This committee does 
not take the position that because you or anyone else happens 
to be a friend of Joel Barr that you are guilty of any 
misconduct. One of the principal reasons you were called in was 
that we know the close association between you and Sarant. 
Sarant according to all testimony, is a Communist.
    You know Joel Barr. He use to come to your house and visit. 
The testimony is that he stayed overnight there, and I hoped 
that you might be able to give us some information that would 
be helpful. Don't take the attitude that you are on trial. You 
are in here to give us information. I know that it is an 
unusual experience for most people to come before a Senate 
committee. We know that sometimes your memory is not as good as 
normal, but I wish you would try and remember what happened. We 
know that Barr was an espionage agent at that time. You were 
handling secret material. It would be unusual if he didn't try 
to get the information from you. The fact that he tried doesn't 
make you guilty of any crime.
    I wish you'd search your mind and tell us what Barr did 
when there. Here is Barr, an espionage agent, and Sarant, 
apparently a Communist. What would the discussions be about? 
Would they attempt to get information about what you were 
doing?
    Mr. Sachs. Frankly, Senator, I don't recall that they did. 
I would like to say again that I have really gone over this 
with my counsel. I have had time to search my memory and put 
down on paper all the things I could recall, to the best of my 
ability, and details like this you bring up are things which, 
frankly, I don't recall. Certain things I can recall. That was 
truthfully thirteen years ago or actually twelve years ago and 
it is hard for me to remember except some salient details stand 
out.
    The Chairman. What kind of work were you doing in the 
Signal Corps at that particular time?
    Mr. Sachs. At that particular time I was doing life test 
work for a while. I was recording data on various processes.
    The Chairman. What is life test work?
    Mr. Sachs. Studying performance data on equipment failures 
and, I think, right after the beginning of 1942 I was 
reassigned to another section where I was doing special 
writing, something like this. I think I testified to this 
already.
    The Chairman. How long did you work in the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. I worked for the Signal Corps from July of 1941 
until April of 1944, when I was drafted into the navy.
    The Chairman. And after you and Sarant were no longer 
living together, who did you live with then?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, I moved to Baltimore, Maryland and lived 
there about two months and then I went to Sunberry, 
Pennsylvania.
    The Chairman. Who did you live with in Baltimore?
    Mr. Sachs. I roomed in a rooming house. I don't recall 
having lived with anyone in particular, just a rooming house.
    The Chairman. What kind of working were you doing there?
    Mr. Sachs. I was the inspector in charge of the group 
inspecting material from the Westinghouse Electric 
Manufacturing Company.
    The Chairman. Was that classified material?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, it was.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see Barr while over in 
Baltimore?
    Mr. Sachs. You mean in Baltimore?
    The Chairman. Yes. When you were in Baltimore doing this 
job inspecting?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. I may say the report here indicates you did. 
Again I am not saying the report is right and you are wrong. I 
give you that information to refresh your memory.
    Mr. Sachs. That he saw me in Baltimore?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sachs. I can't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you recall having had dinner at a 
restaurant called Miller's Restaurant with Barr?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall anything like that.
    The Chairman. You were in Baltimore in 1945? Right?
    Mr. Sachs. 1942.
    The Chairman. I beg your pardon. 1942 it is.
    Mr. Sachs. I was just in Baltimore for two months in 1942.
    The Chairman. In 1942 you were there?
    Mr. Sachs. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you inspecting equipment which the mill 
was purchasing?
    Mr. Sachs. That is right.
    The Chairman. And what type of equipment was that?
    Mr. Sachs. That was radar equipment.
    The Chairman. And is it your testimony that you did not see 
Barr, never had dinner with him in a restaurant in Baltimore?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall having had dinner with him.
    The Chairman. You went into service in 1944. When did you 
come out?
    Mr. Sachs. 1946.
    The Chairman. Then where did you go to work?
    Mr. Sachs. I went to work for the, I think it is called, 
Watson Laboratories. The Air Force Division.
    The Chairman. And how long did you work there?
    Mr. Sachs. I stayed there one month.
    The Chairman. Then where did you go?
    Mr. Sachs. I resigned. I decided to go into business with 
another man--to start my own business.
    The Chairman. Did you go into business then?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Are you still in that business?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. How long did you stay in that business?
    Mr. Sachs. We had that business for a little over two 
years.
    The Chairman. And then did you quit?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes.
    The Chairman. Who was the other man?
    Mr. Sachs. Joseph Risner.
    The Chairman. Then what did you do?
    Mr. Sachs. Then both he and I joined the formation of 
another company in Red Bank.
    The Chairman. What was the name of that company?
    Mr. Sachs. Video Products Corporation.
    The Chairman. How long were you in that business?
    Mr. Sachs. About fifteen months.
    The Chairman. Then what did you do?
    Mr. Sachs. Then I went to work for Shore Television.
    The Chairman. Are you still working for them?
    Mr. Sachs. I still am.
    The Chairman. Does this company you are now working for do 
any work for the government?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, they do.
    The Chairman. Classified?
    Mr. Sachs. No, it is not.
    The Chairman. When you were at Watson Laboratories did you 
know a man called Coleman?
    Mr. Sachs. At Watson Laboratories?
    The Chairman. While you were at Watson Laboratories?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes I did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever furnish him any material?
    Mr. Sachs. Of what nature?
    The Chairman. Classified material?
    Mr. Sachs. At that time?
    The Chairman. At that time.
    Mr. Sachs. Not that I can recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you remember Coleman as being a Communist?
    The Chairman. Can you tell us whether you thought Coleman 
was Communistically inclined?
    Mr. Sachs. In my personal opinion, I don't believe that he 
was, but I can only say that as a matter of personal opinion.
    The Chairman. Did he ever visit Barr or Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think he did, although I wouldn't know 
it.
    The Chairman. Who were some of the people who visited 
Sarant, in addition to Barr, when you and Sarant were living 
together?
    Mr. Sachs. Individual names? I can recall that we probably 
had some of the other employees, but it is hard to recall 
individual people.
    The Chairman. You don't recall any other names?
    Mr. Sachs. Not off-hand.
    The Chairman. You can't recall anybody else besides Barr? 
How about Julius Rosenberg? Do you know him?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall knowing him.
    The Chairman. Didn't Rosenberg visit the apartment also?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. How about Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You don't recall whether Rosenberg did or did 
not?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. How about Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think he did.
    The Chairman. Do you know Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Sachs. It doesn't sound familiar.
    The Chairman. Did you know Joseph Levitsky at Cooper Union?
    Mr. Sachs. I might have but it doesn't sound familiar to 
me.
    The Chairman. You knew Fred Kitty, did you not?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Did you see him down at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Did he ever visit Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. That is something I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Did Sarant ever have documents at home in the 
apartment, documents which he had brought from the Laboratory?
    Mr. Sachs. Again that is something I wouldn't know. I can't 
recall.
    The Chairman. You don't have any mental picture of Sarant 
with any papers he would bring home from work?
    Mr. Sachs. None in particular.
    The Chairman. Do you have any recollection of Sarant and 
Barr exchanging any papers?
    Mr. Sachs. None in particular that I can recall.
    The Chairman. What makes you say Sarant and Barr were 
Communistically inclined--from things they said?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I would say so.
    The Chairman. Anything else?
    Mr. Sachs. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Did Sarant get the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Sachs. He might have. That is a detail I can't recall.
    The Chairman. Wouldn't that have made an impression on 
you--if a fellow you were rooming with was getting the Daily 
Worker every day?
    Mr. Sachs. If it were now I would get a definite impression 
but that was sometime ago. At that time my interests were quite 
diverse.
    The Chairman. Did you know Sarant and Barr were Soviet 
espionage agents at that time?
    Mr. Sachs. At that time I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know it now?
    Mr. Sachs. I know it because I was told that by this FBI 
agent who interviewed me last year who told me that they were.
    The Chairman. Did you ever visit Coleman's apartment?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Did you see any classified material in the 
apartment when you visited him?
    For your information, army intelligence raided the 
apartment and picked up a vast amount of secret material. 
Coleman has testified the material was lying around there for 
months and months. I wonder if you saw any of it?
    Mr. Sachs. I might have but it doesn't definitely make any 
impression.
    The Chairman. Wouldn't it make an impression if you had 
seen material there marked secret? It would shock the average 
man. I am wondering what your reaction would be.
    Mr. Sachs. If I can't specifically recall that I saw it, I 
would not have an impression of it and I can't form an opinion.
    The Chairman. When did you visit the apartment? What years?
    Mr. Sachs. That is probably sometime in the period I was at 
Fort Monmouth. It could be anywhere from the time I started to 
work there until the time I left--stopped living in that area.
    Mr. Cohn. What years?
    Mr. Sachs. Between 1941 and 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. How close to the time you left there in 1950 did 
you visit Coleman's apartment?
    Mr. Sachs. At the time that he was living there?
    The Chairman. Naturally, you wouldn't visit him there 
unless he lived there. You know what we mean.
    Mr. Sachs. I am trying to recall to the best of my ability, 
Senator. People lived there subsequently.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you visited Coleman 
while he was in the apartment or home or anything else.
    Mr. Sachs. The last time that I was with Coleman or visited 
Coleman in the apartment which he lived, as I recall, was at 
the time that he went into the Marine Corps which was----
    Mr. Cohn. 1944?
    Mr. Sachs. No, it was the end of 1943.
    The Chairman. Now, when did you last work for the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Sachs. In April of 1944.
    The Chairman. That is the last time you worked for the 
Signal Corps? You worked for Watson Laboratories after that?
    Mr. Sachs. For one month. That is right.
    The Chairman. When at Watson Laboratories did you ever give 
to Coleman any classified material?
    Mr. Sachs. Not that I can recall.
    The Chairman. You say not that you can remember?
    Mr. Sachs. Not that I can remember.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea whether you did or not? 
Some of the documents found in his apartment were from Watson 
Laboratories?
    Mr. Cohn. Wouldn't you remember if you took secret 
documents, classified documents, and handed them to somebody?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think I would take the documents.
    The Chairman. Do you have any doubt about it?
    Mr. Sachs. Not in my mind.
    The Chairman. Well, then, why don't you say so?
    Mr. Cohn. Did Coleman know Barr or Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. You never saw Coleman in the company of Barr or 
Sarant?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't believe I did.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know from conversations with Barr and 
Sarant whether Coleman knew either one of them?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think they did know each other.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you say you visited Coleman's apartment after 
he moved out?
    Mr. Sachs. I moved in.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Sachs. That was, I think, about September of 1943.
    The Chairman. Who roomed with you?
    Mr. Sachs. Myself and Coleman until the time he went into 
the Marines and Jack Okun.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Jack Okun Communistically inclined?
    Mr. Sachs. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. You didn't think Okun was Communistically 
inclined?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think he was.
    The Chairman. How long did you live with him?
    Mr. Sachs. I lived with him until the time----
    The Chairman. How long? A year, two years?
    Mr. Sachs. I guess about six months.
    The Chairman. How long did you live with Coleman?
    Mr. Sachs. About two or three months.
    The Chairman. I asked you before if you ever visited 
Coleman. Why don't you come through and say, ``Yes, I visited 
him. I lived with him.'' You don't tell me anything until I 
drag it out of you.
    Mr. Sachs. I am trying to answer specific questions. I am 
willing to tell you even if I were not asked.
    Mr. Cohn. After you lived with Sarant and Lewis, where did 
you move to?
    Mr. Sachs. Down to Baltimore.
    Mr. Cohn. When you came back from Baltimore?
    Mr. Sachs. I went to Sunberry, Pennsylvania.
    The Chairman. Who did you live with at Baltimore?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't remember living with anyone. I lived in 
a rooming house.
    The Chairman. Who lived in the rooming house?
    Mr. Sachs. That is something I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. What was the address?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know who the landlady was?
    Mr. Sachs. I can't remember.
    The Chairman. What part of Baltimore? Do you know the 
street?
    Mr. Sachs. I can't remember that.
    The Chairman. You don't know the street; don't know the 
landlady; don't know what part of the city it was in; don't 
know anyone in the rooming house?
    Mr. Sachs. I can't remember those details.
    The Chairman. Are you quite sure you never saw Julius 
Rosenberg? I assume you have seen his picture in the paper?
    Mr. Sachs. I can't state definitely I never saw him.
    The Chairman. What is your impression?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't think I ever saw him. I am not certain.
    The Chairman. Who did you have your car pool with? You were 
in a car pool, weren't you, at one time?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. Going to Fort Hancock from Long Branch?
    Mr. Sachs. Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. Who was in the car pool? Can you think of 
anybody that was in the car pool?
    Mr. Sachs. There was one fellow I can possibly recall.
    The Chairman. What was his name?
    Mr. Sachs. Gene Scheleman.
    The Chairman. Where was he working?
    Mr. Sachs. At Fort Hancock.
    The Chairman. Whose car was it?
    Mr. Sachs. I think it was his car.
    The Chairman. Where were you living then?
    Mr. Sachs. Long Branch.
    The Chairman. Who did you live with in Long Branch?
    Mr. Sachs. Well, I lived in Long Branch from the end of 
July 1941.
    The Chairman. I didn't ask you when. Who did you live with?
    Mr. Sachs. In Long Branch?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sachs. From October of 1941 until I left Long Branch in 
March of 1942, I lived with Sarant and Lewis.
    The Chairman. Who else did you live with in Long Branch?
    Mr. Sachs. Before I moved into the house, I roomed with a 
private family for a while and then I roomed----
    The Chairman. What was their names?
    Mr. Sachs. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you know the address?
    Mr. Sachs. Not off-hand.
    The Chairman. How many people were in the family?
    Mr. Sachs. I wouldn't recall that.
    The Chairman. You have no idea how many?
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. Did you eat there?
    Mr. Sachs. Where I roomed?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Sachs. No.
    The Chairman. Who else did you live with in Long Branch?
    Mr. Sachs. Then I moved into a room with this fellow Lewis.
    Mr. Cohn. Fred Lewis?
    Mr. Sachs. Yes, for about a month and then into the house.
    The Chairman. I am going to order you--we won't spend any 
more time to get this information with pliers. I am going to 
order you to prepare a list of places where you stayed, people 
with whom you roomed and the first date you went to work with 
the Signal Corps and the addresses. That will be given to the 
committee and given under oath.
    Mr. Sachs. Would you repeat that?
    The Chairman. The places you stayed and any other 
information which you think might be beneficial to the 
committee, we will ask you to give it.
    I may say for your benefit, and I think in fairness to you, 
what the committee or just what the chairman thinks. I think 
you have been completely evasive. We have testimony about you, 
a great deal of it. I am not saying that testimony is true and 
that you are lying. The point is that either you are not 
telling us the truth or your memory is extremely bad or someone 
else has perjured themselves. I don't think you have been frank 
with the committee.
    I asked you if you had ever visited Coleman and you said, 
``Yes, I visited him once in a while'' but you don't bring out 
the fact you lived with him until you are forced. At any 
subsequent proceedings I doubt whether I am going to be 
convinced too much by your truthfulness.
    You had just better go home and give us a list of the 
people you lived with and any other information that the 
committee is looking for. We are investigating a very serious 
matter. We are investigating espionage in one of the most 
sensitive areas you will find, espionage that can well mean we 
might lose the war, espionage affecting the lives of 160 
million Americans. We are not playing. I may say this time you 
are not through with the committee.
    Consider yourself under subpoena and you will compile that 
list. Your counsel can send that to us. Don't think we picked 
you out of a hat. We have a good reason for your being here.
    [Off-record discussion.]

 TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA BERKE (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWITZ)

    The Chairman. Will the witness stand and be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing do you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Berke. I do.
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness was before 
the committee some ten days or two weeks ago. At that time she 
felt she had to have sufficient time to hire counsel and 
prepare herself to testify. At her request, the matter was 
adjourned.
    Have the record show that the witness is here with Mr. 
Rabinowitz.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ In his autobiography, Unrepentant Leftist, A Lawyer's Memoir  
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 111-112, Victor 
Rabinowitz recalled that he volunteered to serve as counsel for Sylvia 
Berke when he met her at the courthouse and learned that she had no 
attorney. ``She decided to refuse to answer the inevitable questions as 
to her membership in the Party by pleading the Fifth Amendment. She 
knew, and I knew, that she would lose her job with the board of 
education as a result, since it was then the declared policy of the 
board to dismiss anyone with 'took the Fifth Amendment' before a 
congressional committee. There was not much I could do for her except 
attend the hearing with her and provide whatever support I could. 
However, I did promise to see if I could appeal to McCarthy's sympathy 
to get her excused from testifying. . . .
    ``I waited in the hall to catch McCarthy as he came up in the 
elevator, and a few minutes before ten o'clock he stepped out of an 
elevator car, saw me, and with his usual geniality, which he exhibited 
only in personal relations, threw his arms around me, shouting, `Hello, 
Vic! What can I do for you?' There were perhaps fifty people in the 
hall, and I did not relish the greeting. I told him I wanted to see him 
about one of the witnesses, and he took me to a room adjacent to the 
courtroom.
    ``I asked him whether he would excuse Sylvia from testifying. I 
pointed out that it seemed unnecessarily cruel to this young woman to 
deprive her of employment in a situation that made it possible for her 
to work and raise a child, albeit on a very low salary. She was going 
to take the Fifth Amendment anyhow, so the committee would get no 
information from her.
    ``McCarthy's answer was typical: `It's all right with me, but you'd 
better take it up with Roy.'
    ``Roy Cohn was standing ten feet away, and when I put the problem 
to him, his answer was quick and peremptory. `Nonsense,' he said. `We 
can't withdraw the subpoena. This woman possesses a great deal of 
information concerning subversive activity at the Signal Corps. She's 
one of the most important witnesses in this investigation.' I told him 
that since she was going to plead the Fifth Amendment, the only result 
of the investigation would be that she would lose her job. It made not 
the slightest impression on Cohn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rabinowitz, let me ask you something. Is Mrs. 
Pataki going to be here tomorrow morning?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I have called and left word for her to meet 
me here at 10:00 a.m. I assume she will.
    Mr. Cohn. I can suggest that an awful lot of trouble will 
be saved if Mr. Pataki is produced.
    Can we have your full name?
    Mrs. Berke. Sylvia Berke.
    Mr. Cohn. And where are you employed?
    Mrs. Berke. Public School 50 in the Bronx.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you teach?
    Mrs. Berke. I don't teach. I am the school clerk.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do as the school clerk?
    Mrs. Berke. Take care of transfers to make sure that 
addresses are right; attendance records of students.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you ever employed by the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mrs. Berke. Either December 1942 or January 1943 to 
September of 1943, I believe it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working out at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Berke. You mean in the laboratories at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Berke. I am not sure. I know I was at the Eatontown 
Laboratories. I may have been there for a while.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work were you doing?
    Mrs. Berke. I was going to school three days a week and 
three days a week I was testing meters for the most part.
    Mr. Cohn. And in 1944 were you with the Federated 
Television and Radio Group?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a radar tester there?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do there?
    Mrs. Berke. Half the time I tested coils, tested direction 
finders and half of the time I worked on seeing that blood was 
donated, seeing that war bonds were sold for the firm.
    The Chairman. The witness said she had not worked on radar?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Didn't you say you worked testing direction 
finders?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were direction finders part of the radar 
equipment?
    Mrs. Berke. To be quite honest, I don't know. We were given 
a kind of ordnance test which we were put through.
    The Chairman. When you applied for your position with the 
Board of Education, you listed your occupation as a radar 
tester?
    Mrs. Berke. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. We will have the application made a part of 
the record at this point.
    Now, did you have access to any classified material?
    Mrs. Berke. What do you mean classified material?
    The Chairman. Material not available for public inspection. 
Could anybody walk in down at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Berke. They couldn't walk in unless they were working 
there.
    The Chairman. Would you call the material public material?
    Mrs. Berke. Anybody working there could have seen the 
material I was working on.
    The Chairman. What clearance did you have?
    Mrs. Berke. I don't know what that means.
    The Chairman. Were you cleared to see secret material, 
confidential material, restricted material?
    Mrs. Berke. I don't know. I don't think I worked on any 
secretive. They never told me I was cleared.
    The Chairman. Did you have a badge?
    Mrs. Berke. I had a badge. Everybody had a badge with their 
picture on it.
    The Chairman. It allowed you to go any place in the plant?
    Mrs. Berke. There was no block secretive while I was 
working there--no place restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Berke. I will have to cite the Fifth Amendment on that 
and refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member last year?
    Mrs. Berke. I have to cite the Fifth Amendment on that and 
refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party 
yesterday?
    Mrs. Berke. I have to cite the Fifth Amendment and refuse 
to answer.
    The Chairman. You say you are not a member today, but you 
cite the Fifth Amendment as to yesterday?
    Mrs. Berke. I cited it yesterday.
    The Chairman. On the grounds that if you told the truth it 
might incriminate you?
    Mrs. Berke. That is what the Fifth Amendment is supposed to 
mean.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you drop out of the Communist party so you 
could come here--upon instructions of Communist party 
officials--so you could come here today and say you were not a 
member?
    Mrs. Berke. I will say ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. Who instructed you to drop out of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Berke. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment----
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to tell us who ordered you to drop out 
of the party?
    Mrs. Berke. I am not saying anybody did. I am not saying I 
ever was a member.
    The Chairman. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment you 
refuse to say whether you have ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. I am saying I am not a member here and now.
    The Chairman. If you were not a member yesterday, you 
realize that would not incriminate you? You realize if you say 
you were not a member of the Communist party yesterday----
    Mrs. Berke. Then you are going to say were you a member the 
day before yesterday.
    The Chairman. You are not going to play with the Fifth 
Amendment, madam.
    Mrs. Berke. I don't intend to, sir.
    The Chairman. I don't intend that you will.
    Do you realize that if you were not a member of the 
Communist party yesterday, then you cannot use that? You would 
not incriminate yourself by answering the question. You merely 
say no.
    You merely say ``no'' and that answer could not incriminate 
you. Do you realize that?
    Mrs. Berke. I just stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer that question.
    Mrs. Berke. I stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. On the grounds that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you drop out of the Communist party last 
night?
    Mrs. Berke. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did someone order you to drop out of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that too.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist party when 
you appeared before this committee a week or two ago?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Did you believe in the Communist form of 
government?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Do you believe in it today?
    Mrs. Berke. I will cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist when you worked for the 
Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. I will cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Did you engage in espionage when you worked 
for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give any information to a member 
of the Communist party in regard to your work at the Signal 
Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss your work in the Signal 
Corps with a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist party meetings 
while you were working in the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any Communist party meetings 
in the year 1944?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you specifically attend a Communist party 
meeting on September 7, 1944?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You were working for the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. That was September 1943 that I left the Signal 
Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you go to the Signal Corps?
    Mrs. Berke. Either December 1942 or January 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. And you left there in September of 1943.
    The Chairman. Did you in August of 1943 attend a Communist 
party meeting?
    Mrs. Berke. When was that?
    The Chairman. August of 1943?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. That is to include July. July or August 1943?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Well, let's refresh your recollection. Did 
you on July 27 and again on August 14, 1943, attend Communist 
party meetings?
    Mrs. Berke. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. If it will help you, we can give you some of 
the names of the people who were with you.
    The question is: Did you attend a Communist party meeting 
on July 27 and August 14, 1943?
    Mrs. Berke. All I can say is to the best of my 
recollection, I did not.
    The Chairman. How about the balance of 1943, did you attend 
any Communist party meetings?
    Mrs. Berke. Again, to the best of my recollection, I did 
not.
    Mr. Cohn. How about 1944?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you go from the Signal Corps to the Federated 
Television and Radio Company in Newark?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after you left the Federated 
Television and Radio Company?
    Mrs. Berke. I went to work for the Veterans Administration, 
Insurance Division, in New York.
    Mr. Cohn. When working for the Veterans Administration were 
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. I will cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after you left the Veterans 
Administration?
    Mrs. Berke. I went to work for the finance office, Local 65 
of the Distributive Processive Workers of America.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when 
working there?
    M. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you working there? What years?
    Mrs. Berke. I think it was late 1946 and 1947, something 
like that.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mrs. Berke. It might have been a year.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know David Livingston?
    Mrs. Berke. He was president or vice president of the 
union.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him?
    Mrs. Berke. Certainly I knew him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with him?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Jack Pailey?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes, he was president of the union.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with him?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Nor Mrs. Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Perl?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were working at the Signal Corps, did 
you know a Mr. Coleman?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Alfred Sarant?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Joel Barr?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Vivian Glassman?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Eleanor Glassman?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go when you left Local 65?
    Mrs. Berke. I worked for a very short time as a bookkeeper 
with an installment house.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the name of that?
    Mrs. Berke. I can't remember the name, quite honestly. I 
was pregnant at the time and it was just a part time job for 
just two or three months.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after that?
    Mrs. Berke. I had the baby and stayed home for a while and 
then worked as a bookkeeper about two years ago in a wholesale 
hardware firm downtown.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the name of that.
    Mrs. Berke. General Screw and Specialty Company.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, where did you go after that? Board of 
Education?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who obtained your position with the Board of 
Education for you?
    Mrs. Berke. I took an examination.
    Mr. Cohn. Who obtained your position for you with the Board 
of Education?
    Mrs. Berke. I took a Civil Service examination.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you consult any member of the Communist party 
when applying for your position with the Board of Education?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any member of the Communist party 
teaching in the New York public schools today?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. How many pupils attend that school?
    Mrs. Berke. One hundred and fifty.
    The Chairman. Do you have access to all their records?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. What is your salary?
    Mrs. Berke. I was just appointed.
    The Chairman. When were you appointed?
    Mrs. Berke. I started to work September 14th.
    The Chairman. Of this year?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. What did you do directly prior to that?
    Mrs. Berke. Nothing, the bookkeeping job.
    The Chairman. Now, you were appointed on September 14th, is 
that right?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. At the time of your appointment were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Now, we have it that on September 14th you 
weren't a member of the Communist party; on November 3rd you 
refused to say whether or not you were a member on November 
3rd, but you aren't today.
    Mrs. Berke. Can I change my answer with respect to November 
3rd?
    The Chairman. Yesterday?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. What do you want to change your answer to?
    Mrs. Berke. ``No.''
    The Chairman. How about during the year 1952?
    Mrs. Berke. Now, I stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Up until when do you stand on the Fifth 
Amendment, to save time? Up until the time you got your job?
    Mrs. Berke. No, that is not completely true.
    The Chairman. You will not be allowed to change your answer 
as to yesterday. Communists come in here and tell us they are 
not Communists today to protect their jobs. If you were honest 
when you told us that--if you were perjuring yourself, then 
that must stand. If you were telling the truth, that must 
stand. Tell me this: Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Berke. 1545 Leland Avenue in the Bronx.
    The Chairman. You are married?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. What does your husband do?
    Mrs. Berke. He is an accountant.
    The Chairman. With what firm?
    Mrs. Berke. Well, I am separated from my husband. I have 
been for three years.
    The Chairman. Do you know what firm he is with?
    Mrs. Berke. It is a firm called Active Machine Shops.
    The Chairman. Is your husband a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Now, when you filed your application, any 
applications or any of the papers in connection with this 
school, Board of Education, were you asked any question as to 
whether or not you were or ever had been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. I see. In what manner did you answer that 
question?
    Mrs. Berke. I said ``no.''
    The Chairman. Is that a truthful answer?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. You refuse to say whether or not that is a 
truthful answer.
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you feel now that if you were to tell us 
whether you were a Communist yesterday, that would tend to 
incriminate you or not?
    Mrs. Berke. I'd answer ``no'' with respect to yesterday.
    The Chairman. Just a few minutes ago you refused to answer 
whether you were a Communist yesterday. You told us that if you 
were to answer that, it would tend to incriminate you. Do I 
understand now you feel that would not tend to incriminate you 
to answer?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. What caused you to change your mind in the 
last twenty minutes?
    Mrs. Berke. I don't think I have an answer for that.
    The Chairman. Did you lawyer remind you that teachers who 
refuse to tell you whether they are Communist or not get fired?
    Mrs. Berke. No, my lawyer did not remind me of that.
    The Chairman. You do not know what caused you to change 
your mind?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. In September of last year were you a 
Communist? Any time in September?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    May I consult with counsel?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    What is your answer?
    The question was: Were you a Communist in any of the month 
of September last year?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to college?
    Mrs. Berke. I went to Hunter at night for a short while.
    The Chairman. How long?
    Mrs. Berke. For about a year.
    The Chairman. Did you graduate from Hunter?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. At the time you entered Hunter how old were 
you?
    Mrs. Berke. About seventeen or eighteen.
    The Chairman. When you entered Hunter were you a Communist?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you favor the Communist system?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think we should have anyone in our 
school system who favors the Communist system?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings at 
any of the schools?
    Mrs. Berke. I beg your pardon.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings 
with any students?
    Mrs. Berke. May I ask whether that question is directed to 
students in the school I now work or at students at any time, 
any place?
    The Chairman. Any students, any school system. I would like 
to know if you ever attended any Communist meetings with 
students?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. When you say you cite the Fifth Amendment, do 
you mean you are refusing to answer on the grounds your answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Berke. Right.
    The Chairman. Do any of your brothers or sisters work for 
the government?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Which ones?
    Mrs. Berke. I have one brother.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mrs. Berke. William. The last name is Martasa.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    Mrs. Berke. He is in the army.
    The Chairman. As military personnel?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. When did he go into the army?
    Mrs. Berke. He has been in a long time.
    The Chairman. About how long?
    Mrs. Berke. I think since about 1944.
    The Chairman. Was he drafted then?
    Mrs. Berke. No, he enlisted.
    The Chairman. What is his rank?
    Mrs. Berke. He is a major.
    The Chairman. In what branch of the army?
    Mrs. Berke. I think he is in personnel. I think he is in 
the Pentagon.
    The Chairman. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Has he ever been?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. How do you know? Did you and he discuss it?
    Mrs. Berke. We haven't discussed it. Perhaps I shouldn't 
say it.
    The Chairman. Has he ever asked you whether you were a 
Communist?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Have you and he ever discussed Communism?
    Mrs. Berke. Not to the best of my knowledge.
    The Chairman. When did you see him last?
    Mrs. Berke. I saw him for about two hours in the spring 
sometime. He came back from overseas.
    I hadn't seen him for years before that.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist at that time?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. And how long since you and he had lived in 
the same home?
    Mrs. Berke. I think he left home in about 1939.
    The Chairman. And at that time there was only you and your 
brother in the home--and your mother and father?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Was your mother or father a Communist at that 
time?
    Mrs. Berke. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings 
with either your mother or father?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist meetings with 
your brother?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. This is your only brother?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist when you and your 
brother were living in the same home in 1939?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Were you attending Communist party meetings 
at the time you and your brother were living in the same home?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did your brother know you attended Communist 
party meetings?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell him you were attending 
Communist party meetings?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    May I consult with counsel?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Berke. Did you say had I ever told my brother I 
attended Communist party meetings?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Did your brother know you were a Communist?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did your brother ever object to Communist 
activities in your behalf?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did your brother, in conversation, approve of 
your Communist activities?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. What kind of work does he do in the army?
    Mrs. Berke. I think it is personnel work.
    The Chairman. Can you be any more specific?
    Mrs. Berke. We have never discussed it.
    The Chairman. Do you write to him?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. You don't write to him at all?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Is he married?
    Mrs. Berke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Living in Washington?
    Mrs. Berke. He is living in Virginia, I believe.
    The Chairman. Did your mother or father ever work for the 
government?
    Mrs. Berke. No.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this one final question: In 
view of the fact that the Communist half and our half is at 
war, and a great number of our young men have died in the 
shooting part of that fight, do you think any good American 
should keep from the proper government officials his or her 
knowledge of the members of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mrs. Berke. I cite the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. I'd like to see some of these Fifth Amendment 
cases in Russia and see them cite the Fifth Amendment.
    You will be released for tonight. Consider yourself under 
subpoena and you will be called, most likely, in Washington. In 
the meantime, if you decide to come in and give the committee 
what you have about the Communist conspiracy, we will be glad 
to receive it.

             TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN WOLMAN (RESUMED)

    The Chairman. You are Benjamin Wolman?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    The Chairman. You have appeared before this committee 
before?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Wolman. I am assistant principal, Public School 3, 
Brooklyn.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your wife a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wolman. I have a statement, Senator----
    The Chairman. Will you submit it to us?
    Mr. Wolman. Will it be put in the record?
    [The witness handed a paper to the chairman, which the 
chairman read.]

    [I wish to object to further examination by this Committee 
on the following grounds:
    1. Further examination of me along the lines indicated by 
my first examination is not within the jurisdiction of this 
committee. The committee's jurisdiction is limited to the 
efficiency and economy of Government operations. An 
investigation into matters such as subversive activities, 
espionage and related subjects is specifically reserved to 
other committees of the Senate, and particularly the Committee 
on the Judiciary. I have never been a civilian employee of the 
United States; my only connection with either the Signal Corps 
or with Fort Monmouth was as a member of the Army during the 
war. Such connection is now almost ten years old and cannot 
have any possible current bearing on the efficiency and economy 
of government operations.
    2. Even if it be assumed that this committee does have the 
right to examine into matters such as subversive activities in 
government departments, I have already testified before the 
committee that I engaged in no such activities during my 
service in the Army and that I have had no connection at all 
with the Signal Corps or with Fort Monmouth since that time.
    3. Most of the questions asked by the committee at my last 
examination cannot possibly have any relevance to any 
legislative inquiry, whatever the jurisdiction of this 
committee might be. Questions as to whether prior to my 
marriage I suspected that my wife might be sympathetic to 
communism relates only to my state of mind prior to 1946, and 
could not possibly be relevant to a legislative investigation. 
Moreover, the tenor of the questions asked and the manner in 
which the investigation was conducted was more akin to that of 
a grand jury investigation than that of a legislative inquiry 
and was, in the opinion of counsel, highly improper.
    4. I have already testified at length before this committee 
and my testimony has established my lack of familiarity with 
any of the subjects into which, according to the press, the 
committee is now investigating. Any further examination on the 
subjects will therefore be a repetition of what I have already 
been asked and will result in unnecessary harassment and 
annoyance of me.
    5. Not only is this questioning a matter of personal 
inconvenience and expense, but it is also an interference with 
the administration of the school where I am employed in a 
position for which no substitute is available. I have come to 
school ill, as have some of our teachers, because I knew that 
my absence would work a hardship on the rest of the staff and 
the 600 children in the building of which I am in charge. I 
have been excused from jury duty because of the nature of my 
assignment and duties.]

    The Chairman. Lots of boys in Korea were inconvenienced 
very badly by Communists and espionage agents.
    Mr. Wolman. Will that be put in the record?
    The Chairman. That will be put in the record.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know whether or not you answered the 
question as to whether or not your wife is a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Wolman. Except to conversation of my wife, which I 
plead the privilege, the answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. You mean you refuse to tell us whether you 
learned she was a Communist in conversation with her claiming 
the privilege of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your wife doing when you married her?
    Mr. Wolman. Teaching, probably. I am trying to think back 
when she went to Thomas Jefferson High School.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe I can refresh your recollection, Mr. 
Wolman. As a matter of fact, your wife was teaching at a 
Communist training school, wasn't she?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you wife ever teach at the Jefferson School 
of Social Science?
    Mr. Wolman. I believe she has taught Russian there.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know that is a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. I think that was before my marriage.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't care when it was.
    All right. Don't you know that is a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this the first time you have heard that the 
Jefferson School is a Communist School?
    Mr. Wolman. I have seen accusations in the newspapers to 
that effect.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you think of those accusations?
    Mr. Wolman. I have no way of knowing how true the 
accusations might be.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard anybody deny that it was a 
Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. No, I don't recall seeing any such denial.
    The Chairman. When did you get married?
    Mr. Wolman. 1946.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask your wife if that was a 
Communist school before you married her?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You didn't?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't recall that the subject ever came up.
    The Chairman. But you knew that she had been teaching at a 
school that was alleged to be a Communist school. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Wolman. Let's say has been alleged.
    The Chairman. You knew at that time it had been named as a 
Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. This would have to be before 1946. I don't know 
whether it was alleged before that time.
    The Chairman. You knew your wife was teaching at this 
school which was publicly named as a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know that it was publicly alleged. I 
don't know that.
    The Chairman. How long have you been teaching?
    Mr. Wolman. Since I got out of the army in 1945.
    The Chairman. You say you never had any knowledge that the 
Jefferson School was a well-known Communist training school?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When did you first learn it?
    Mr. Wolman. When did I first learn what?
    The Chairman. That it was a well-known Communist training 
school?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know that it is well-known.
    The Chairman. Did you ever teach social studies in New 
York?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you teach?
    Mr. Wolman. American history.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever teach anything about communism?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Is it your opinion that the Jefferson School 
is not a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. I have no opinion on that.
    The Chairman. None whatsoever?
    Mr. Wolman. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever talked to your wife about 
whether it is a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. Husband and wife privilege.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer whether you talked to 
her about whether it was a Communist School?
    Mr. Wolman. Husband and wife privilege.
    The Chairman. Were you interested in knowing whether your 
wife had been teaching at a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. The question never came up.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Were you interested in knowing whether your wife ever 
taught at a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. The answer has to be ``no'' because the 
question didn't come up.
    The Chairman. You were not interested in knowing whether 
she had taught at a Communist school?
    Mr. Wolman. It didn't come up so the answer would have to 
be ``no.''
    The Chairman. I am not asking you whether the question came 
up. I asked you whether when getting married you were 
interested in whether or not your wife had taught at a 
Communist school, or was then teaching at a Communist school? 
Were you interested in knowing that?
    Mr. Wolman. The question never came up.
    The Chairman. You are going to answer that. I am asking you 
whether you were interested----
    Mr. Wolman. I will have to say ``no.'' The question never 
came up.
    The Chairman. Is ``no'' the truthful answer?
    Mr. Wolman. No is a truthful answer.
    The Chairman. Were you interested in whether or not your 
wife was a Communist when you married her? Did you have any 
interest in that?
    Mr. Wolman. I would say ``no.'' That is ridiculous. The 
question never arose. How could I show interest in it.
    The Chairman. Were you interested in knowing whether your 
wife was a Communist, a woman who was then teaching at a 
Communist school? You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Wolman. Which one do you want me to answer--the one 
whether I was interested?
    The Chairman. The question I asked you.
    Mr. Wolman. Answer now?
    The Chairman. Yes. This is a very good time.
    Mr. Wolman. First of all, I said I didn't know it was a 
Communist school. I said the question never arose, and, 
therefore, the answer would be ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. What was your wife doing when you married her? 
Was she teaching?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was she teaching at the Jefferson School?
    Mr. Wolman. Teaching in the public school system, I think, 
at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Public school system?
    Mr. Wolman. Public high school.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to enter in the record the catalogue 
of the Jefferson School for 1945 and 1946, reflecting the name 
of Diana Molover as instructress in Soviet literature for the 
fall of 1946 and for the February to April term of 1945.
    Now, did you know that your wife had worked as head of the 
export department of the Four Continent Book Shop?
    Mr. Wolman. I knew she worked at the Four Continent Book 
Shop.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that bookshop was completely owned 
and controlled by the Communist party?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you hear that for the first time?
    Mr. Wolman. A couple of weeks ago when here.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the first inkling you had of that?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of David Flacz?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't have any idea?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You know you are under oath?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting in his 
home at 144 Carrol Street, Brooklyn?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman by the name of Florence 
Jacobs, known as Frommie Jacobs?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she a Communist?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a meeting at her home at 729 
East Fourth Street, Brooklyn?
    Mr. Wolman. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Leon Portnoud?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever meet a Communist, as far as you 
know, in your life?
    Mr. Wolman. Not personally. I have known people who have 
names, I would say, were Communist, but not that I know 
personally.
    To my knowledge, the answer to that question, whatever they 
were, was ``no.''
    The Chairman. Are you including your wife in that answer or 
not including her?
    Mr. Wolman. As to my knowledge, the answer has to be ``no'' 
to these last couple of questions. As for my wife, I use the 
husband and wife privilege.
    The Chairman. You use the privilege?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that the Communist form of 
government is superior to ours?
    The Chairman. Is that a tough question for an assistant 
principal of a public school in New York?
    Mr. Wolman. It is not a question of a tough question. I 
would say ``no.''
    The Chairman. Did you have difficulty in arriving at that?
    Mr. Wolman. The reason is that is a system established in 
Russia and may not fit American conditions, American history, 
American background development of the American people, or for 
that matter, the English people.
    The Chairman. You say it may not. Do you think it might 
fit?
    Mr. Wolman. Well, I can't prophesy.
    The Chairman. What do you think? What is your personal 
opinion?
    Mr. Wolman. My personal opinion in terms of the philosophy 
of American historical development, it does not seem likely; 
certainly in any foreseeable future that such a situation could 
be established.
    The Chairman. I am not asking you if they will succeed. I 
am not talking about your predictions but your wishes, what you 
would like to see happen. Is that right, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. That is exactly right.
    The Chairman. In other words, whether you believe it or 
not, whether you believe in the likelihood of the Communist 
form of government, we want to know whether you believe in the 
desirability of the Communist form of government?
    Mr. Wolman. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. You are against the Communist form of 
government?
    Mr. Wolman. Certainly for the United States.
    The Chairman. How about Russia?
    Mr. Wolman. That is for them to decide.
    The Chairman. Do you think that is a pretty good system for 
them?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know.
    The Chairman. With respect to what we are talking about 
right now, do you think the Communist system is a good system 
for any country to have?
    Mr. Wolman. Maybe I ought to make it straight. It is not 
the job of a teacher to present his opinion pro or con on any 
of those major subjects. It is the job of the teacher to get 
the kids to arrive at a conclusion.
    The Chairman. We are interested in knowing whether a 
teacher, teaching communism, feels that is a desirable form of 
government. Do you think that is a good system of government 
for any country, for Russia, or any country other than the 
United States, or don't you know?
    Mr. Wolman. I frankly wouldn't know. I wouldn't take enough 
interest in it to decide for the Russian people. May I point 
out, in any history course the whole question would be a small 
part of the whole discussion. If we spent a period or two 
periods of forty minutes each on that, it would be a lot.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you the question again. We 
had your wife here and she refused to tell us whether or not 
she was a Communist on the grounds that it would incriminate 
her. You refused to tell us whether she is a Communist. You are 
teaching school. Do you think the Communist system would be a 
good system for China, we will say?
    Mr. Wolman. That is some doubt I had. I would say the same 
opinion as far as Russia.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't know?
    Mr. Wolman. I think it is a decision for them to make.
    The Chairman. I know it is a decision they should make. The 
question is: Do you think that is a good system of government 
for them? You are a teacher, Mr. Wolman.
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know the background that led to the 
Russian Communist system so well.
    The Chairman. I am asking you a simple question. Do you 
think the Communist system would be good for Red China, good 
for China?
    Mr. Wolman. I have no opinion on that.
    The Chairman. Do you think it would be good for the world 
if communism were to engulf all of Asia or would that be bad 
for the world?
    Mr. Wolman. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Do you have any opinion on that? Would it be 
bad if all of Asia became Communis?.
    Mr. Wolman. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you think it would be 
good or bad if all of Asia became Communist?
    Mr. Wolman. I would say, ``no,'' sir.
    The Chairman. Do you mean it would be good or bad?
    Mr. Wolman. I am sorry. I think it would be bad.
    The Chairman. How about England--if England and France were 
to be Communist dominated, do you think that would be bad for 
the world?
    Mr. Wolman. I think you are asking me to prophesy again.
    The Chairman. You have some difficulty with that question?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes, because it has to assume once it takes 
place what will be the repercussions in France, England, or 
whatever.
    The Chairman. In other words, you can't decide whether it 
would be good or bad if France and England were Communist 
dominated?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir. I have no opinion on it.
    The Chairman. Is that what you tell your students if they 
ask you the question?
    Mr. Wolman. Again, if I had the time I would explain the 
nature of a class discussion.
    The Chairman. If one of your students comes up to you after 
class and says, ``I have been hearing about this communism. 
Some people think it is a world conspiracy; some people think 
it is a vicious thing, enslaves people. Do you think it would 
be good or bad, teacher, if the Communists were to dominate 
England and France?'' what would your answer be?
    Mr. Wolman. I would ask the kid to decide for himself on 
the event, just as if he had placed it another way--not on that 
topic but many other topics.
    The Chairman. If a student came up to you and said, ``Some 
people think it is wrong to murder other people. What do you 
think, teacher? Is it right or wrong.'' Would you say decide 
for yourself or would you say it is wrong?
    Mr. Wolman. Murder is not in political development. I think 
I would have to find out what was wrong with the kid on a 
question of murder.
    The Chairman. You mean you would not answer the question?
    Mr. Wolman. I think I would certainly want to know what led 
to the question on the part of the kid.
    The Chairman. What would your answer be? Would you say it 
was wrong or would you say it was all right?
    Mr. Wolman. My first thought would be that the kid was 
pulling my leg. Then after I decided the kid was serious, I 
would try to find out why the question arose. I think that 
would be part of my job.
    The Chairman. Would you answer whether it would be right or 
wrong?
    Mr. Wolman. I would tell him I can think of no 
circumstances where murder is correct.
    The Chairman. What if he asked you about stealing? ``Do you 
think it is wrong to steal?'' Would you tell him it is wrong to 
steal or would you tell him to decide for himself?
    Mr. Wolman. No, I would say in the case of stealing, that 
is wrong. That is illegal.
    Mr. Cohn. Who started the Korean War?
    Mr. Wolman. There are various opinions.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your opinion?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't know that all the evidence is in.
    Mr. Cohn. On the basis of all the evidence now, who do you 
think started it?
    Mr. Wolman. I don't think I can come to a decision on the 
basis of the evidence now.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how many students attend this school of 
which you are principal?
    Mr. Wolman. About six hundred.
    Mr. Cohn. You are assistant principal?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What are your duties as assistant principal?
    Mr. Wolman. Setting up programs, assigning duties, pupil 
discipline.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you assign any teachers courses?
    Mr. Wolman. Do I assign teachers any courses? Oh, no. They 
are pretty well fixed by the city.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you still do any teaching yourself?
    Mr. Wolman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last time you taught?
    Mr. Wolman. About a year ago or so.
    Mr. Cohn. Then you became assistant principal?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you teach before that--social studies?
    Mr. Wolman. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you assign any duties from books during the 
course?
    Mr. Wolman. Textbooks or reference material?
    Mr. Cohn. That is other books?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you assign any reference material in regard 
to communism?
    Mr. Wolman. Except what appeared in the textbooks, once.
    M. Cohn. What textbook did you use?
    Mr. Wolman. The last one used was Graphic World History, I 
think was the title of it. The authors, I don't remember. Oh, 
yes. Evans and Sankowsky.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Jesse Campbell Evans and Suzanne Harris Sankowsky, Graphic 
World History (Boston: D.C. Heath & Company, 1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. How do you spell that name?
    Mr. Wolman. Probably S-a-n-k-o-w-s-k-i or y. One of them.
    The Chairman. Do you think that members of the Communist 
party should be allowed to teach in the public school system?
    Mr. Wolman. I think if they do no wrong in the classroom or 
anything improper, I think they should.
    The Chairman. What if they do wrong outside the classroom?
    Mr. Wolman. There are certain rules in our Board of 
Education.
    The Chairman. What if they attend Communist party meetings 
outside the classroom?
    Mr. Wolman. At the present time you know what the Board of 
Education policy is. I think the Board of Education is wrong. I 
can't agree with them.
    The Chairman. You think Communists who engage in Communist 
activities outside the classroom should be allowed to teach?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes, assuming there is no effort made to bring 
to the children their ideas on this.
    The Chairman. All right. Now, what if they asked the 
children outside the classroom to attend Communist meetings. Do 
you think that should bar them?
    Mr. Wolman. I have never heard of such an instance. It is 
the first time I have heard of such a question.
    The Chairman. Then you have heard it for the first time, so 
answer it for the first time?
    Mr. Wolman. Perhaps that is improper because they are 
presumably using their influence they may have gotten with the 
children in a non-school situation.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think they should be 
fired?
    Mr. Wolman. Let's say tried.
    The Chairman. Well, tried and they find they do; that they 
have invited their students to attend Communist meetings, 
invited them outside the classroom and attended outside the 
classroom?
    Mr. Wolman. I think that would be using influence gained in 
the classroom to carry over to a non-school situation.
    The Chairman. Do you think they should be fired?
    Mr. Wolman. They should be tried.
    The Chairman. What happens if they found they did?
    Mr. Wolman. The point is, the decision is to be made by the 
trial examiner, superintendent.
    The Chairman. Let's say you are the trial examiner. Do you 
think they should be fired if that is the offense?
    Mr. Wolman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have the record show the witness conferred 
with counsel at length and hesitated and was instructed by 
counsel to say ``yes.''
    Mr. Wolman. I asked counsel if I had to answer that 
question and he said ``yes go ahead,'' then I gave the answer.
    The Chairman. Just so the record is clear, let the record 
show I am sitting about ten feet from the witness and that I 
heard him say ``yes,'' and counsel nodded his head. He then 
turned to me and said, ``yes.''
    If that is incorrect you go ahead and correct it.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. May I state I am sitting twelve inches away 
from the witness and he turned to me and said, ``Do I have to 
answer that question?'' And I answered, ``I don't think you 
have to, but go ahead and answer it anyhow.''
    The Chairman. Do you think someone who is before a school 
board or congressional committee and says, ``I will not tell 
you whether I attended Communist meetings with my students'' 
should be discharged; says ``I will not tell you because if I 
tell you the truth, the answer will tend to incriminate me.''
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Is the question here whether a teacher who 
pleads the Fifth Amendment privilege should be fired?
    The Chairman. If you don't understand the question, I will 
repeat it.
    Do you think that a teacher who goes before the school 
board in a trial or before this committee or any other 
congressional committee and is asked whether or not he or she 
has attended Communist, meetings with his or her students and 
refuses to answer and gives as a reason that the answer might 
tend to incriminate him or her, do you think such a person 
should be retained in the school system?
    Mr. Wolman. I think an individual has a right to use the 
Fifth Amendment for such a question.
    The Chairman. That wasn't the question. I know they have 
the right. My question was whether or not----
    Mr. Wolman. My answer is that a person who uses the Fifth 
Amendment should not be fired on those grounds at all. There 
may be other things.
    The Chairman. You think the school board is wrong in 
deciding that teachers who refuse to state whether they are 
Communist or not, using the Fifth Amendment, should be fired?
    Mr. Wolman. I disagree with the board on that. The matter 
is on appeal.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think teachers should be 
retained----
    Mr. Wolman. Otherwise, the privilege would have no meaning.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you regard communism as a world conspiracy?
    Mr. Wolman. I have heard the expression, if that is what 
you mean.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your opinion?
    Mr. Wolman. I have no opinion on that, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Buckley, will you transmit this testimony 
to the Board of Education. I assume with this testimony they 
will discharge this man.
    Mr. Counsel, do you want to go over the testimony to check 
it for any typographical errors before it is transmitted to the 
Board of Education, so there will be no question about the 
accuracy of the report.
    I may say, your wife's testimony is being transmitted to 
the Board of Education also. I assume she will be discharged 
also.
    If counsel would care to, we will be glad to have him go 
over that testimony.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I would also like to look at the first 
testimony of this witness. I would like to examine that.
    When will the second transcript be ready?
    The Chairman. I will say the middle of next week.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I can get the first volume in the meantime.
    The Chairman. You can get that from somebody in 1402, Mr. 
Buckley.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I am sorry we had to work you this late.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Not as sorry as I am.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m.]



















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Outlining the anticipated public hearings 
for the Army Signal Corps investigation, subcommittee counsel 
Roy Cohn informed the army's counsel, John Adams, of plans to 
call as a witness Harry Hyman. Although not an employee at Fort 
Monmouth, Hyman had made numerous telephone calls to the 
installation during the investigation. Hyman, who worked at the 
Federal Telecommunications Laboratory in Nutley, New Jersey, 
was president of the local union of the Federation of 
Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, which aimed 
to organize shop workers and engineers in defense industries. 
The Congress of Industrial Organizations had expelled the union 
for being Communist dominated. Citing records of these 
telephone calls, Senator McCarthy, in a public hearing on 
November 25, 1953, said that Hyman ``would appear to be one of 
the most active Communist espionage agents that we have run 
down to date.''
    Peter A. Gragis (1913-2001) testified at a public hearing 
on March 5, 1954 that he had been a member of the Communist 
party while working for Federal Telecommunications Laboratories 
from 1945 until his suspension in 1950. Gragis identified Hyman 
as an active member of a small Communist cell that also 
included Ernest Pataki, Frank McGee, Ruth Levine, John 
Saunders, Leo Kantrowitz, Harriman Dash, and Albert Shadowitz. 
In public testimony on March 11, 1954, Harriman Dash and John 
Saunders confirmed their past Communist party membership, but 
described their mission as union building rather than espionage 
or sabotage.
    In a letter to Attorney General Herbert Brownell on 
December 24, 1953, Senator McCarthy requesting that a grand 
jury investigate Hyman's alleged espionage activities. In the 
Senate on February 2, 1954, he pledged that ``These `Fifth 
Amendment' agents, espionage agents like Hyman, will go to jail 
and they will be removed from circulation by way of a contempt 
proceeding and under the Smith Act.'' The Justice Department, 
however, did not pursue the case.
    Harry Hyman testified publicly on November 25 and December 
17; and Henry Shoiket on December 10, 1953. Vivian Glassman 
Pataki, Gunnar Boye (1903-1970), Alexander Hindin (1909-1978), 
Samuel Paul Gisser (1912-1999), Stanley Berinsky (1923-1985), 
and Ralph Schutz did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 11:00 a.m., in room 36, Federal 
Building, New York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; George 
Anastos, assistant counsel; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant 
counsel.

 TESTIMONY OF HARRY HYMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEONARD 
                            BOUDIN)

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that 
the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hyman. I do.
    Mr. Boudin. Could I ask a question for the record?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Boudin. The nature of the inquiry and, second, the 
specific jurisdiction of the committee.
    The Chairman. The nature of the inquiry has to do with 
Communist influence, Communist infiltration of government 
agencies or any agency in which the U.S. government or any 
agency which is being supported in any way by government funds. 
The jurisdiction of the committee extends over that wide area.
    Mr. Hyman will be questioned about any knowledge he has 
which may be of benefit to the committee, and any activities of 
his own which may have had any affect upon any agency of the 
government, particularly in the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Boudin. What I had really meant is there a specific 
resolution, rule or statute which gives the committee 
jurisdiction?
    The Chairman. I wouldn't go into a long legal discussion 
with you. I think that would be up to you. You have been before 
the committee before. I am not going to take the time to 
explain the Reorganization Act, how the committee was set up. I 
have seven witnesses waiting. I think in your experience before 
this committee you have got a fairly good knowledge of the 
background.
    Mr. Boudin. I just want to make it clear, senator, before 
proceeding that we are reserving our rights to object to 
jurisdiction.
    The witness is here involuntarily, the witness having been 
subpoenaed by the subcommittee.
    The Chairman. Your name is Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Hyman. Yes.
    The Chairman. What is your address?
    Mr. Hyman. 719 East Ninth Street, New York City.
    The Chairman. Will the reporter note he is accompanied by 
counsel, Mr. Leonard Boudin.
    Where are you working now, Mr. Hyman?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You decline to tell where you are working 
now?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional provision of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. In your work are you engaged in any illegal 
activities of any kind?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. When did you work for the U.S. Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. All of your refusals so far are based upon 
the Fifth Amendment, the provision that if you tell the truth, 
your testimony might incriminate you.
    Mr. Hyman. The provision--based on the privilege that a 
witness shall not bear witness against himself.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that to answer those questions it 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional protection of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You refuse to tell me whether or not you 
think your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Hyman. I decline to answer for the same reason.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Hyman. I don't understand.
    The Chairman. Well, we will start over, so there will be no 
question.
    Did you work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional privilege of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the constitutional privilege of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to tell us whether or 
not you worked for the Signal Corps.
    So you can't plead ignorance at any future legal 
proceedings, let's have it very clear you were asked a question 
about your employment and you refused to answer. I asked you 
whether you thought your answer might tend to incriminate you 
and you refused to tell me whether you thought it might 
incriminate you. Therefore, you are not entitled to any 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, you are ordered 
to answer the question of whether or not you worked for the 
Signal Corps.
    Mr. Boudin. Let the record be clear that I have informed 
the witness he need not adopt the rules of the committee.
    The Chairman. I do not want to hear from counsel.
    [Witness consulted with counsel.]
    Mr. Boudin. I think the witness can answer now.
    The Chairman. You have been ordered to.
    Mr. Hyman. I would like to state when I use the 
constitutional privilege of the Fifth Amendment, I refer to the 
privilege which affords me the right not to testify against 
myself, self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. You can advise your client as much as you 
want to. I have asked you a very simple question. That is, 
whether or not you feel your answer might tend to incriminate 
you. Unless I get an answer to that, I will have to order you 
to answer the question.
    I must determine, as the chairman, whether you are 
rightfully taking the privilege or this is a frivolous abuse of 
the privilege. I can't determine that until you answer this 
simple question.
    Do I understand now you are refusing to tell me whether or 
not you think your answer to the question, as to your 
government employment in the Signal Corps might tend to 
incriminate you? You are refusing to answer that?
    Mr. Hyman. If you insist I answer it, I will answer the 
question.
    The Chairman. I don't insist but you cannot have the Fifth 
Amendment privilege until you do.
    You are not being ordered to answer that question about 
self-incrimination. You understand that, don't you?
    Mr. Hyman. I am not sure I do.
    The Chairman. I asked the question about your employment in 
the Signal Corps. You refused to answer that. Then the next 
question, I asked you if you felt an answer to that question 
would tend to incriminate you. You can either answer that or 
not. I am not ordering you to answer that question. Unless you 
tell me whether or not the question about your employment would 
tend to incriminate you, I will have to order you to answer the 
question about your employment.
    Mr. Hyman. I am asserting the privilege--I am doing it on 
the basis that my answer might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. How old are you?
    Mr. Hyman. Thirty-one.
    The Chairman. And your address is what?
    Mr. Hyman. 719 East Ninth Street, New York City.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Hyman. New York.
    The Chairman. What college?
    Mr. Hyman. City College, New York.
    The Chairman. And when did you graduate from City College?
    Mr. Hyman. I did not.
    The Chairman. How many years did you attend City College?
    Mr. Hyman. It was a period of months, perhaps three months, 
two months.
    The Chairman. Do you remember when you left there? What 
year?
    Mr. Hyman. 1939.
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your leaving?
    Mr. Hyman. Pardon me.
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your leaving?
    Mr. Hyman. It was financial problems.
    The Chairman. You are thirty-one now, and you left college 
when you were about how old?
    Mr. Hyman. Eighteen or nineteen.
    The Chairman. You were only about seventeen years old, 
right?
    Mr. Hyman. I was sixteen.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to high school?
    Mr. Hyman. Seward Park High School.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist party when 
you entered college?
    Mr. Hyman. Under the Constitutional privilege of the Fifth 
Amendment, I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. We are going through it again. Is it correct 
that when you invoke the Fifth Amendment, you are invoking it 
because you feel your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Hyman. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged in espionage while you were 
working at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment
    The Chairman. Have you engaged in espionage in the past 
several weeks?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you steal radar secrets from the Signal 
Corps Laboratory and turn them over to Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you acquainted with members of the 
Julius Rosenberg spy ring?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you a part of that ring?
    Mr. Hyman. What was that?
    The Chairman. Were you a part of that spy ring?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Mr. Coleman at the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Hyman. What is the name?
    The Chairman. Mr. Coleman, if you remember.
    Mr. Hyman. May I ask you to identify him.
    The Chairman. Mr. Coleman was a man working in the Signal 
Corps Laboratory at the time you worked there. His first name, 
I believe, is Aaron.
    Mr. Hyman. You say Signal Corps Laboratories?
    The Chairman. Fort Monmouth Signal Laboratory and Evans 
Laboratory?
    Mr Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Who was your immediate superior?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I don't know if you gentlemen have any 
questions to ask this witness. He has taken the Fifth Amendment 
on everything as to his employment, whether he is a Communist 
party member, as to whether he was committing espionage when 
working for the Signal Corps Laboratory, as to whether he was 
part of the Rosenberg spy ring, as to whether he stole radar 
secrets.
    In the questioning he has answered so far his age, address, 
schooling, where he went to school, City College for several 
months, high school.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man named Howard Stretch Johnson?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Boudin. Let it be indicated who is asking these 
questions.
    The Chairman. Mr. Carr.
    Mr. Carr. You answered that Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Hyman. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Have you been associated with Howard Stretch 
Johnson in the Communist party?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Have you been functioning in the Communist party 
underground as of the last month?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. When was the last time you were at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. When was the last time you telephonically 
communicated with anybody at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hyman, where do you work now?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Now, do you know a man by the name of Harold 
Cole?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Is he a business associate of yours?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Is it true that you have affiliated yourself with 
the American Labor party?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Have you within the last six months made any 
trips down to Fort Monmouth for the purpose of picking up 
classified material from people working there?
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Carr. Have you had meetings of the Communist 
underground in your home, attended by Stretch Johnson, 
including other people?
    Mr. Boudin. Those questions have been covered.
    The Chairman. We will not hear from counsel.
    Mr. Hyman. Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will remain here until we call you back, 
Mr. Hyman.
    Mr. Boudin. Will you call me if you need him today. He came 
down in response to a telegram, even though he wasn't 
subpoenaed.
    The Chairman. How much notice?
    Mr. Boudin. We will accommodate you if given adequate 
notice.
    The Chairman. I want to know if you want a half hour, an 
hour?
    Mr. Boudin. I think after two hours.
    The Chairman. That won't be sufficient.
    Mr. Boudin. The witness won't be able to be accompanied by 
counsel. I have to be at my office. I'm sure Mr. Cohn can give 
me two hours notice.
    Mr. Cohn. I want the witness to remain here.
    The Chairman. How long would it take you to get down here?
    Mr. Boudin. Give us an hours notice and I will come down 
here with the witness.
    Mr. Hyman. Does that mean I have to stay in the building?
    The Chairman. As long as your lawyer says he will produce 
you in one hours notice, go wherever he lets you go.
    Thank you.

    TESTIMONY OF VIVIAN GLASSMAN PATAKI (ACCOMPANIED BY HER 
                  COUNSEL, VICTOR RABINOWITZ)

    Mr. Rabinowitz. Senator, I have a statement to make on Mr. 
Pataki, if you'd like to have it.
    I spoke to Mr. Pataki last night and to Mrs. Pataki this 
morning. I am advised that for the last seven months certainly, 
Mr. Pataki has been carrying on a perfectly normal existence. 
He comes home every night and no one has ever made an effort to 
serve him with a subpoena. No one has called up. No one has 
indicated they wanted to serve process.
    I think Mr. Cohn said Mr. Pataki was attempting to evade 
service and I feel that is merely an attempt to shift the 
incompetence of the one serving process on Mr. Pataki. As far 
as availability for service, if process server comes he will 
accept service. He is not going to come down without service of 
a subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you notify him that he was to appear this 
morning?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. You were told last night to notify him.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I know. I am not a messenger for the 
committee.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not notify him to appear this morning?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. He told Mrs. Pataki, and I have no reason 
to doubt that it is true, that he had no desire to evade 
service. He works tonight and will be home about----
    Mr. Cohn. Is he at home?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. As to that, you had better ask Mrs. Pataki.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he at home now?
    Mrs. Pataki. I really wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Counsel will be held in contempt for failing 
to notify Mr. Pataki to be here this morning.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Well, I'd like to see----
    The Chairman. He was told yesterday to tell Mr. Pataki to 
be here this morning. Counsel says he talked to Mr. Pataki.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. And does the senator care to cite the 
provision of law under which he can cite me because I failed to 
act as a process server for the committee, if there is such a 
provision?
    Mr. Cohn. I think the issue goes a lot deeper than that. 
You appeared before this committee yesterday without Mrs. 
Pataki. You were directed to have her here yesterday. I think 
the record on the whole thing, as far as your conduct----
    The Chairman. Mrs. Pataki, where is he right now? Where 
does he work?
    Mrs. Pataki. Cooper Union.
    The Chairman. Does he teach there?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes, he does.
    The Chairman. Is he there all day long?
    Mrs. Pataki. He has a varied schedule. He goes in at 
different hours each day and so I can't say where he is.
    The Chairman. Is he teaching there today sometime?
    Mrs. Pataki. I believe so, yes.
    The Chairman. Morning or afternoon?
    Mrs. Pataki. I believe sometime this afternoon.
    The Chairman. I understood counsel to say he goes to work 
at 11: 00?
    Mrs. Pataki. He won't be home tonight until about 11:30. 
That I know.
    The Chairman. Is he teaching?
    Mrs. Pataki. No. He goes to school.
    The Chairman. Where does he go to school?
    Mrs. Pataki. City College.
    The Chairman. What kind of courses does he take there?
    Mrs. Pataki. He is taking courses leading to his master's 
degree in engineering.
    The Chairman. What does he teach at Cooper Union?
    Mrs. Pataki. Engineering.
    The Chairman. Did anyone come to your home looking for your 
husband within the last week?
    Mrs. Pataki. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did this committee ask you where your husband 
was?
    Mrs. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. Did the U.S. marshal ask you where your 
husband was?
    Mrs. Pataki. At the time he came to me originally, do you 
mean?
    The Chairman. At any time in the last two or three weeks?
    Mrs. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. You had no knowledge that the committee was 
attempting to find your husband?
    Mrs. Pataki. No, as a matter of fact, when the telegram was 
delivered to me Tuesday night, my husband was home with me. The 
telegram was addressed to me.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that your husband has no 
knowledge the committee wants him to appear?
    Mrs. Pataki. That would be correct.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say, as of now, your 
husband has no knowledge that he is wanted by the committee?
    Mrs. Pataki. I would say that is satisfactory.
    The Chairman. You say Mr. Rabinowitz talked with him and 
after he discussed matters with him, your husband still had no 
knowledge of any kind?
    Mrs. Pataki. I wasn't at home when Mr. Rabinowitz called. I 
do know Mr. Rabinowitz called and my husband gave me the 
message he had left for me, and that is the extent of my 
knowledge of the conversation.
    The Chairman. Did the committee tell you the committee 
wanted to serve subpoena on him?
    Mrs. Pataki. [No answer].
    Mr. Cohn. There has been no discussion between you and your 
husband about the fact the committee is looking for him?
    Mrs. Pataki. To my knowledge and from what I understand, my 
husband is neither aware the committee is looking for him or 
wanting him at any time for the simple reason that he has been 
home right along with me and when I have been home to receive a 
subpoena, either the first time, or telegram which came, my 
husband has been there with me.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rabinowitz never said we wanted your husband 
down here to testify? Is that your testimony under oath?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I think it is privilege clearly.
    Mr. Cohn. About producing her husband?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I think she ought to.
    Mrs. Pataki. It was my understanding that there was a 
comment made yesterday about the fact that the committee had 
been looking for my husband and that he was attempting to evade 
service. I said to Mr. Rabinowitz that I found it very 
difficult to believe that.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. When did you say that to me?
    Mrs. Pataki. This morning after I left home. This was the 
first time I had discussed it with Mr. Rabinowitz and I said 
that it was hardly possible for me to believe it inasmuch as my 
husband has been home and he has been there on both occasions 
when I was served with a subpoena the first time and the 
telegram. Since he is home, well, as often as he normally would 
be, I couldn't believe somebody couldn't reach him if they 
wanted him.
    Mr. Cohn. Why didn't you appear yesterday when you were 
served the day before?
    Mrs. Pataki. The telegram came about 7:00 or shortly 
thereafter, I believe, Tuesday night and I did not have time to 
confer with Mr. Rabinowitz, which I feel is necessary. I had 
had arrangements before for yesterday which I found unable to 
break.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you confer with Mr. Rabinowitz before you 
appeared last time? This is not the first time you have been 
called before this committee. You were temporarily excused with 
the understanding that you were still under subpoena and would 
be back when directed by the committee to come. It is not your 
option to decide whether you are coming or not on a particular 
notice. If given notice, you are to be here or be in contempt 
of the committee.
    Mrs. Pataki. Mr. Cohn, I understand. I am agreeable to 
cooperating to come down, as far as I do feel that I should be 
given a reasonable amount of notice so I could make 
preparations to appear.
    The Chairman. I am not asking what you said to your lawyer. 
When did you confer with him after you got the wire? Was it 
about midnight before last by phone?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes, it was, Senator.
    The Chairman. When did you next confer with him, either by 
phone, or otherwise?
    Mrs. Pataki. Today.
    The Chairman. On the way down?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I think the record might show that I was 
here all day yesterday.
    Mrs. Pataki. We were going to make arrangements----
    The Chairman. When did you next confer with him?
    Mrs. Pataki. Early this morning.
    The Chairman. You mean on the way down here?
    Mrs. Pataki. Well, it wasn't on the way. I had met him an 
hour before we were due to come in here today.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you he wasn't available for such 
a conference yesterday?
    Mrs. Pataki. He had told me he was tied up; that he had 
clients who were scheduled to appear here yesterday and that he 
would not have time to confer with me, yes.
    The Chairman. What time does your husband normally leave 
the house in the morning?
    Mrs. Pataki. It varies, depending on the classes he is 
teaching.
    The Chairman. Is that the only occupation he has--teaching 
at Cooper Union?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. What is the correct name of the high school?
    Mrs. Pataki. It is called the Cooper Union.
    The Chairman. And is your husband a Communist?
    Mrs. Pataki. I don't wish to answer that question on the 
basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is your husband an espionage agent?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. When you say on the basis of the Fifth 
Amendment, are you refusing on the grounds that your answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. When did your husband leave the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mrs. Pataki. I really don't know when.
    The Chairman. Approximately?
    Mrs. Pataki. I would say seven years ago. I am really not 
clear on the date.
    The Chairman. Was it prior to your marriage?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. When were you married?
    Mrs. Pataki. January 1952, so it was prior to that.
    The Chairman. How long prior to that?
    Mrs. Pataki. I am not sure, perhaps a year, perhaps two 
years. I really don't know. I don't remember.
    The Chairman. 1950 or 1951?
    Mrs. Pataki. It might have been.
    The Chairman. What was he doing when you married him?
    Mrs. Pataki. He was teaching at Cooper Union.
    The Chairman. When did you see Joel Barr last?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. When did you see Alfred Sarant last?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with forging the 
passport for espionage agents?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever, on instructions of the 
Communist party, take forged passports to people known to you 
to be Communist agents?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. When you refuse to answer in regard to your 
husband, you are not invoking the marital privilege but the 
Fifth Amendment. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. Do you know what your husband teaches at 
Cooper Union?
    Mrs. Pataki. Yes. He teaches engineering.
    The Chairman. Does he solicit his students to join the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself under subpoena. 
You will be notified when you will be needed. That will 
undoubtedly be the latter part of next week. Unless you are 
notified to the contrary, you will be in Washington at ten 
o'clock next Thursday in room 318 in the Senate Office 
Building.
    Mrs. Pataki. A week from today?
    The Chairman. A week from today.
    I may say, it is entirely possible it may not be.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I understand you are merely making certain 
she is getting adequate notice this time.
    May I just have that again?
    The Chairman. A week from this Thursday, which is the 12th 
at 318 in the Senate Office Building. Now, if that hearing is 
postponed for a day or two, as it may be, your counsel will be 
notified.
    Mrs. Pataki. Senator, it becomes a little difficult for me 
to afford a trip to and from Washington. Is it possible to work 
out some provision to take care of that?
    The Chairman. Yes, you are entitled to your cost of travel 
and if you do not have funds to advance the cost yourself, the 
committee will take care of that through your attorney.
    Mrs. Pataki. I can manage it temporarily.
    Was there a time?
    The Chairman. Ten o'clock.
    You understand, one, that if you cannot advance money for 
travel, it will be advanced by the committee. Otherwise, if you 
can buy the ticket, you will be given a check when you get to 
Washington. Counsel should ask the clerk down there, otherwise 
there is a waiting period. There is no reason why you can't 
have the check immediately upon arrival in Washington.
    Thank you.

                    TESTIMONY OF GUNNAR BOYE

    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Boye. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name?
    Mr. Boye. May I say that I have laryngitis and my voice is 
not very clear. I will try to speak as loud as I possibly can.
    My name if Gunnar Boye.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Boye. Machinist.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Boye. Arma Corporation, Garden City, Long Island.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your title?
    Mr. Boye. I am a Leadman.
    Mr. Cohn. What are your duties as such?
    Mr. Boye. Well, when the foreman isn't there, I take charge 
of the department.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people work in it?
    Mr. Boye. Ten, eleven.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work is done in the department?
    Mr. Boye. Well, machine instrument parts--parts for 
instruments.
    Mr. Cohn. Is any of that in connection with any government 
contracts?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For which branch of the government?
    Mr. Boye. I think for army and navy and air force, I 
believe, too.
    Mr. Cohn. What part of the army?
    Mr. Boye. That I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any Signal Corps work ever been done at Arma?
    Mr. Boye. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any work on radar, electronics, been done 
there?
    Mr. Boye. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Does any of the work you do involve radar in any 
way?
    Mr. Boye. I do not think so but I couldn't say for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any access to classified 
material?
    Mr. Boye. By that I suppose you mean restricted, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Boye. About twenty years ago. Eighteen or twenty years 
ago----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know David Greenglass?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work with David Greenglass?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know David Greenglass at Armas?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you tell David Greenglass you were then a 
Communist?
    Mr. Boye. I did not. I have been trying to forget that many 
years.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long have you been trying to forget it?
    Mr. Boye. I would say as long as I have been working for 
the government.
    Mr. Cohn. How long is that?
    Mr. Boye. About 1939. I was only what you might say a 
Communist in the understanding that I joined, somebody asked me 
to join the Communist party and I went to one or two meetings. 
That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Who asked you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Boye. It was a man who worked in the Pisto Corporation, 
but his name I really do not know because he worked there only 
a very short time. I believe it must have been around 1934 or 
1935.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave the Communist party according 
to what you say?
    Mr. Boye. When did I leave? I just didn't go there any 
more. Just a year. It must have been 1934 or 1935.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a Communist in 1938?
    Mr. Boye. No, I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you a Communist without being a member 
of the party and tell people you were a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last time you told anyone you 
believed in communism?
    Mr. Boye. That is very hard for me to say because----
    The Chairman. May I tell you for your protection, in view 
of the fact that you do not have a lawyer, we have sworn 
testimony that you did tell various people at a time much later 
than you indicate you were a Communist, you told them without 
qualification you were a Communist and believed in communism.
    Understand I am merely telling you this for your own 
information. I am not making any decision as to whether they 
were telling the truth or you are.
    Mr. Boye. I understand. I don't think that I have said and 
meant that I was a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you say that--something they could have 
misunderstood?
    Mr. Boye. That I do not know because I have been a citizen 
since 1941, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. When you applied for citizenship, did you 
disclose that you had been a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. I did not. I do not think that question was in 
the application that I filled out. At that time there was no 
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you disclose to your employers at Arma that 
you had been a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. There was no question. I did mention the fact I 
had been a member of the International Workers Order.
    Mr. Cohn. When you started to work on classified work, did 
the FBI come to you and ask you questions?
    Mr. Boye. No, sir. Ever since 1938 when I started to work 
for the Norden Company which was making, at the time, the 
Norden bomb site.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know, no one ever investigated you?
    Mr. Boye. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. And as far as you know, no one investigated you 
up to this time?
    Mr. Boye. Yes, sir. I was up for a hearing sometime ago.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Boye. Don't pen me down. I think it is four months ago.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened?
    Mr. Boye. I told exactly what I am telling you now on the 
same questions asked by you.
    Mr. Cohn. Who did you have a hearing before?
    Mr. Boye. It was on Columbus Avenue, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Immigration Service?
    Mr. Boye. The Immigration Service.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when did you leave the International 
Workers' Order?
    Mr. Boye. I believe I was a member to 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. You left in 1936?
    Mr. Boye. I believe so, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What other Communist organizations do you belong 
to?
    Mr. Boye. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Boye. 1923.
    Mr. Cohn. And where were you born?
    Mr. Boye. Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you tell us how it happened that you joined 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Boye. Well, at that time, of course, the Communist 
party wasn't looked upon as it is looked upon today, so 
somebody asked me to join it, so I said, ``Okay, I will join'' 
and I believe I paid dues twice and that is about nineteen or 
twenty years ago. Just around 1933 or 1934. I do not exactly 
remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember who asked you to join?
    Mr. Boye. No, I do not remember his name. I believe he only 
worked there a short time. I do not even know the meeting place 
at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Roughly, how many meetings did you attend?
    Mr. Boye. Roughly, I suppose two.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know the names of anybody else?
    Mr. Boye. I do not and I am telling you the truth.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know the names and have forgotten?
    Mr. Boye. I suppose I know them by first name.
    Mr. Cohn. Were they people who also worked with you in this 
plant? Did people attending Communist meetings with you, were 
they people who worked with you at that time?
    Mr. Boye. Yes, one of them was.
    Mr. Cohn. You were working where?
    Mr. Boye. Presto Lock Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. And then you worked for Norden?
    Mr. Boye. No. Let's get this straight. I worked for a 
manufacturing machine and tool company. We were making the 
Norden bomb site then.
    Mr. Cohn. That was what year?
    Mr. Boye. I started there in 1938.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did you work there?
    Mr. Boye. Then I was sent to Indianapolis, Indiana, to be a 
general foreman in the Lucas Herold Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. What were they manufacturing?
    Mr. Boye. We were making the Norden bomb site.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that?
    Mr. Boye. It was a month before the war started.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did you work there?
    Mr. Boye. Two years. I then came back to Manufacturing 
Machine and Tool Company.
    Mr. Cohn. And how long did you work for them then?
    Mr. Boye. May I look at my card?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Boye. 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. And during that time, what type of work were you 
doing?
    Mr. Boye. Well, as I said, the Norden bomb site. I was a 
foreman.
    Mr. Cohn. Up until 1949 you were still working on the bomb 
site?
    Mr. Boye. Not all the time. After the war we were doing 
different jobs.
    Mr. Cohn. But it had nothing to do with defense work?
    Mr. Boye. Well, some did.
    Mr. Cohn. Off and on you were working on the bomb site in 
1949?
    Mr. Boye. After the war I did not work on the bomb site 
anymore. The bomb site was eliminated. They had no use for it 
anymore.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Boye. After that we worked a wire recorder. They had 
some other instruments too. Just what they were, I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you working on defense work now?
    Mr. Boye. I am working on defense work now.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of equipment?
    Mr. Boye. That I don't know. We don't know what goes on the 
assembly----
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, it is highly secret and you do 
not make the entire instrument, only parts?
    Mr. Boye. I don't think I would put it that way. My job is 
not assembling the instrument itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this highly secret work?
    Mr. Boye. Well, it is restricted work.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean by restricted?
    Mr. Boye. It is a word stamped on in paint.
    Mr. Cohn. Is the general public excluded from where you 
work?
    Mr. Boye. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. There are guards at the gate?
    Mr. Boye. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have anything stamped secret--the word 
secret?
    Mr. Boye. I think I do have. I am not sure but restricted 
is on most of it.
    The Chairman. Now, again I want to inform you, just so you 
will have the information, we have the positive testimony of 
what appears to be reliable witnesses as late as 1949 and 1950, 
that you said, without any qualification, that you were a 
Communist; that you were a member of the Communist party at 
that time.
    As I say, it is not my function to cite the other 
witnesses. We are dealing with such a tremendously important 
matter. It means that somebody is lying or you have perjured 
yourself. I wish you'd search your mind.
    Mr. Boye. I told you I would tell the truth and nothing but 
the truth. That is a fact.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that under no circumstances 
since 1946, we'll say, did you ever tell anyone you are a 
Communist or a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Boye. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And did you ever register as a member of the 
American Labor Party?
    Mr. Boye. Oh, yes. I was going to volunteer that 
information that I registered American Labor party, maybe 1940 
and then on until the present time. Not the last time or the 
time before.
    The Chairman. That is three or four weeks ago?
    Mr. Boye. That is correct. I was a member of the American 
Labor party.
    The Chairman. Did you go to the meetings?
    Mr. Boye. I have never been to one meeting for the reason I 
worked nights.
    The Chairman. You knew that the American Labor party has 
been generally known to be a completely Communist dominated 
party in the last number of years?
    Mr. Boye. In the last number of years, yes.
    The Chairman. Do you recall when the more conservative 
elements broke away because it was Communist dominated and 
started the liberal party? Do you know what year that was?
    Mr. Boye. I do not.
    The Chairman. You were aware of the fact?
    Mr. Boye. I was aware of the fact in the American Labor 
party.
    The Chairman. And you knew that the--we will call them the 
more conservative--anti-Communists withdrew from the party?
    Mr. Boye. I don't know all the Communists who stayed in the 
American Labor party.
    The Chairman. You continued on in the American Labor party 
after that split?
    Mr. Boye. I did. I continued after the split. I took notice 
of' the split but I continued, yes.
    The Chairman. Would you care to tell us why you continued 
on as a member of the party which was publicly named, publicly 
known to be completely Communist dominated. Why did you lend 
your support to that if you were no longer a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. Well, I have never gone to any of the meetings as 
far as belonging to a party. A lady came around and I gave her, 
I believe, a dollar a year. I have no reason. I can't give you 
a concrete reason why I kept on and on, except I wanted to 
belong to a party.
    The Chairman. Did you ever register in either of the two 
parties; did you ever register either Republican or Democrat?
    Mr. Boye. I have never. In other words, to the best of my 
recollection, I have never registered Democrat or Republican.
    The Chairman. You are still a regular member of the 
American Labor party?
    Mr. Boye. I am not now. I was up to two years ago.
    The Chairman. You did not vote in the last two years?
    Mr. Boye. Oh, yes, I voted every year. I think it is two 
years ago I last registered.
    The Chairman. Did you vote Tuesday?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    The Chairman. Well, now, in order to do that you would have 
to register.
    Mr. Boye. I beg your pardon. I did register but I didn't 
designate any party when the primaries----
    The Chairman. But you registered as a voter?
    Mr. Boye. Yes, positively, yes. It was my misunderstanding. 
I hope you understand. It is part because of lack of knowledge 
of the rules of registering. I registered to vote.
    The Chairman. Am I correct? I know nothing about the New 
York elections. You go down and register either Democrat, 
Republican, American Labor party, or you go down and register 
and leave your party affiliation blank?
    Mr. Boye. Yes. So I did register. I have voted in all the 
elections since I became a citizen.
    The Chairman. Up until two years ago when you registered 
you designated the American Labor party. Since then you have 
registered and left your party designation blank?
    Mr. Boye. I believe that one year ago I did not put any 
name down.
    The Chairman. Did you do some campaigning for Mark Antonio?
    Mr. Boye. I never did.
    The Chairman. You didn't carry his literature?
    Mr. Boye. Never had his literature in the house.
    The Chairman. You didn't.
    Mr. Boye. Never did.
    The Chairman. Let's revise that question. Did you carry 
campaign literature or campaign for American Labor party 
candidates?
    Mr. Boye. I never visited any people for the American Labor 
party and never given out any inferences.
    The Chairman. Around the plant didn't you urge workers, co-
workers, to vote ALP?
    Mr. Boye. I mentioned the fact I was voting American Labor 
party, but I did not urge anybody to do that.
    The Chairman. In the year 1949, were you not asking the 
other workers to vote the American Labor party ticket?
    Mr. Boye. I might have said, ``Vote American Labor Party.'' 
I have never--my voice is getting worse.
    The Chairman. I think in view of the fact that you have 
laryngitis----
    Mr. Boye. I'd like to get it over with. I have nothing to 
hide.
    The Chairman. Just one other question. Did you tell the 
hearing board that you had been in the American Labor party 
after the split in the party, but you knew it was Communist 
dominated or did they ask you?
    Mr. Boye. They did not ask me.
    The Chairman. Do you still support the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Boye. I am not a regular member of the American Labor 
party.
    The Chairman. Do you still consider yourself a member of 
the American Labor party?
    Mr. Boye. No, I do not consider myself a member of the 
American Labor party.
    The Chairman. Do you consider yourself a member of some 
other party?
    Mr. Boye. I do not and am not a member of any political 
party whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Did you support American Labor party 
candidates this year?
    Mr. Boye. I did not.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    Mr Cohn. Who is the head of the company for which you work?
    Mr. Boye. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is your immediate superior?
    Mr. Boye. A Mr. Fred Geodian.
    Mr. Cohn. Spell his name.
    Mr. Boye. G-e-o-d-i-a-n.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was on the hearing board when you were called 
on it? Do you know?
    Mr. Boye. I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they give you a copy of the proceedings, 
testimony?
    Mr. Boye. No, they did not.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you didn't get anything from them 
at all?
    Mr. Boye. They asked me similar questions as you are asking 
me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they serve a paper setting forth the charges 
against you?
    Mr. Boye. No, they did not. They asked me to come.
    Mr. Cohn. Was this the Immigration Department?
    Mr. Boye. Department of Justice, I believe. I do think it 
is at immigration. I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know what type security clearance you 
have? Are you cleared to handle secret or top secret material?
    Mr. Boye. I could not say.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you have seen stuff stamped secret at 
times?
    Mr. Boye. I believe I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a Communist in Denmark?
    Mr. Boye. No, I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever belong to a Marxist Society there?
    Mr. Boye. No, I was only a young fellow, nineteen years 
old.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married?
    Mr. Boye. Divorced.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Boye. I do not. I have never seen him.
    The Chairman. Do you know David Greenglass?
    Mr. Boye. He worked right alongside of me.
    The Chairman. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. He has never spoken about him being a Communist.
    The Chairman. Did he ever visit your home?
    Mr. Boye. Yes, one time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit his home?
    Mr. Boye. I never visited his home.
    The Chairman. You say he only visited your home one time?
    Mr. Boye. I can tell you the reason if you want to know. 
His wife had a very bad accident. She was burned and he tried 
to put the flames out with his hands. While he had his hands 
bandaged, I asked him to come home with me for dinner. They 
gave his wife twenty pints of blood.
    The Chairman. He is a good friend of yours?
    Mr. Boye. No, a fellow-worker.
    The Chairman. Was he an enemy? He would have no reason to 
lie about you?
    Mr. Boye. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman. You worked right next to him?
    Mr. Boye. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you tell him you had been a Communist?
    Mr. Boye. I did not. I have not told any people I have been 
a Communist. That is something so far in the past----
    Mr. Cohn. You were in the American Labor party only last 
year?
    Mr. Boye. That is something that I cannot--I don't want to 
argue the point.
    Mr. Cohn. Your view is that the American Labor party is 
Communist dominated?
    Mr. Boye. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You found out it is a more radical party than 
either the Republican or Democratic parties?
    Mr. Boye. I think it probably is. I felt I should belong to 
a party and I didn't see why I shouldn't belong to the American 
Labor party. As far as Communist activities, I have never gone 
to any of them.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. I wish you would consider yourself under 
subpoena. I don't know whether we will call you again or not.
    Mr. Boye. I will be willing to appear any time you want me 
to appear.
    The Chairman. Where is your company?
    Mr. Boye. Garden City.
    The Chairman. It is spelled A-r-m-a?
    Mr. Boye. A-r-m-a. Arma Corporation, Engineering 
Corporation.
    The Chairman. Do you happen to know the telephone number?
    Mr. Boye. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. What position does Fred Geodian hold?
    Mr. Boye. He is my foreman.
    The Chairman. Of what section?
    Mr. Boye. We call it the Model Shop. It is usually called 
the Model Shop.
    The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Boye. I am the leadman.
    The Chairman. Just one final question. Will you tell us why 
you didn't register in the American Labor party two years ago?
    Mr. Boye. For no apparent reason. I just didn't want to be 
bothered with people coming around.
    The Chairman. You didn't change your ideas about the 
American Labor party?
    Mr. Boye. I had no ideas about the American Labor party. I 
didn't want to belong to the other parties so I belonged to the 
American Labor party. So far as political opinion is concerned, 
I could have belonged to the Democrat or Republican.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel about the American 
Labor party today as you did when you registered?
    Mr. Boye. I had no special feeling for it. I wanted to 
belong to a party, so I can say ``yes'' to that.
    The Chairman. I thank you.

  TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER HINDIN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        MONTAGUE CASPER)

    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that 
the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hindin. I do, sir.
    The Chairman. The witness is Alexander Hindin, H-i-n-d-i-n?
    Mr. Hindin. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would counsel identify himself?
    Mr. Casper. My name is Montague Casper, C-a-s-p-e-r, 30 
Pine Street, New York 5, New York.
    The Chairman. Mr. Casper, if you have not been before the 
committee before, I will give you a quick run-down on the 
committee rules. Counsel may consult with his client at any 
time he cares to, whenever you think he needs your advice or he 
thinks he needs your advice. If the time comes you want to have 
a private conference, we will give you a private room. If at 
any time we come to matters that you think you want to check 
into the facts and laws and you want an adjournment to discuss 
the matter with your client, will try and accommodate you on 
that. We have a rule that counsel himself cannot take part, 
cannot enter objections, cannot make statements. He can only do 
that through his client.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Hindin, would you give us your address?
    Mr. Hindin. Box 298, R.F.D. 1, Byport, New Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. Your attorney is Mr. Casper, whose office address 
is 20 Pine Street, New York?
    Mr. Hindin. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Hindin, where are you employed?
    Mr. Hindin. I am employed at the Coles Signal Laboratory, 
which is part of Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. What is your position there?
    Mr. Hindin. I am a mechanical engineer, GS-12.
    The Chairman. Have you been suspended?
    Mr. Hindin. That is right. I have been suspended as of 
October 20th.
    The Chairman. Have they served you with a letter of 
charges?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. They have not.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have not been informed as 
to the reason for the suspension?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. I have not.
    The Chairman. And your supervisor is whom?
    Mr. Hindin. The immediate supervisor is Mr. Norman Lee.
    The Chairman. Were you suspended prior to this suspension 
in October?
    Mr. Hindin. That is right, sir.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Hindin. October 20, 1948.
    The Chairman. At that time you were charged with a number 
of charges, I think it was as high as five, weren't they?
    Mr. Hindin. I can't recall the exact charges, sir. There is 
a record of them.
    The Chairman. Do you have the copy of the charges?
    Mr. Hindin. Not with me.
    The Chairman. Do you have them at home?
    Mr. Casper. I can be helpful. I have his records in my 
office. I represented Mr. Hindin at that time. There were two 
charges, one was broken up into many parts. They all concerned 
his alleged sympathy for the Communist ideology and the second 
was a member of his family.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hindin, were you a member of the 
Communist party in 1944?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member in 1930?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member between any of the years 
between 1930 and 1944?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have never been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the party?
    Mr. Hindin. Not that I recall, Senator.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir, I did not.
    The Chairman. For your information and for the information 
of your attorney, I will give you a quick run down on the 
information which the committee has. Keep in mind when I give 
you this information it is no indication on my part that I 
think you are not telling us the truth or that the other 
parties that testified are not. I just think you should have 
the information as a courtesy to your attorney so he can 
properly advise you.
    We have testimony here that you were identified as a 
Communist at various times. I won't go over the date, from 1930 
to 1944; that you attended meetings and that you paid money. I 
don't have the complete report. I have a resume of it.
    I gather from the report, the nature of it, that it must be 
from an agent of the FBI, who was allegedly in your cell in the 
Communist party. We are informed that the witnesses are 
available to testify against you. As I say, I don't know, but I 
assume from this that they are no longer undercover agents of 
the bureau or they are willing to pull themselves up for this 
case.
    Again, I have no way of knowing whether you are the 
Alexander Hindin described in this or whether those people are 
telling the truth. They have not been before me. All I can say, 
if reliable witnesses come here and swear that you are a member 
of the party, saw you paying dues--sometimes the bureau has men 
collecting dues.
    If you testify to the contrary, then your case would be 
submitted to the Justice Department for the grand jury. I am 
not intimating that your man is lying, Mr. Casper. We, here on 
the committee, try very hard not to trap anyone into a position 
where he is guilty of criminal activities.
    I may say, this seems about the most positive report you 
could get. It includes your wife.
    What is your wife's first name?
    Mr. Hindin. Pauline.
    The Chairman. How do you spell it?
    Mr. Hindin. P-a-u-l-i-n-e.
    The Chairman. That would conform with this. They have P-a-
u-l-i-n. That may be a typographical error.
    Was your wife a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    The Chairman. Did she ever in your presence and the 
presence of others admit membership in the Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. Not in my presence, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Casper, I would like to suggest, I think 
you should, in order to intelligently advise this man, take him 
out and talk to him. I have given clients bad advice because I 
didn't know the facts. I have given clients advice extremely 
bad for which they have served time because they were reticent 
about telling me the truth. If I had had the truth, I could 
have done a much better job for them.
    There is a detailed report on a man who has worked as 
Alexander Hindin has, same name, his wife has the same name, 
and I think you should go out and talk to him.
    Mr. Casper. Senator, may I say for the record, I have 
talked to Mr. Hindin. I represented him in 1948 and 1949 and I 
know him and have seen him ever since. I know his wife. I know 
his family. I have advised him on many occasions that if there 
was any truth to these charges, I wanted to know about it. He 
has assured me since the first time I met him that he has never 
been a member of the party, as late as this morning.
    The Chairman. I will call a brief witness in the meantime.

                TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL PAUL GISSER

    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand.
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that 
the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Gisser. I do.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Gisser, where are you employed?
    Mr. Gisser. Right now in Lakewood for Jack People.
    Mr. Carr. What is the address, please?
    Mr. Gisser. Tenth Street in Lakewood, New Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. What business?
    Mr. Gisser. Delicatessen.
    Mr. Carr. What is your home address?
    Mr. Gisser. 346 Ocean Avenue, Lakewood.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Gisser. I was.
    Mr. Carr. From what period to what period?
    Mr. Gisser. I was there twice. I was there from 1940 to 
1942, I believe, and then I was there from 1951 to 1952.
    Mr. Carr. And when did you leave?
    Mr. Gisser. 1952, in July.
    Mr. Carr. What was the occasion of your leaving?
    Mr. Gisser. They claimed that I--they proved that when I 
filed my application for Civil Service I didn't put down I had 
been a member of IWO, International Workers Order.
    Mr. Carr. How long had you been a member?
    Mr. Gisser. I had been a member of the IWO about three 
years.
    Mr. Carr. What years were they?
    Mr. Gisser. I believe I dropped out in 1948.
    Mr. Carr. What lodge were you a member of?
    Mr. Gisser. I don't believe it had a name. Just Lakewood 
Lodge.
    Mr. Carr. Did it have a number?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, but I wouldn't know that. Although it had 
a number and I was president, I wouldn't know the number. I 
dropped out and forgot everything I ever knew about it at that 
time.
    Mr. Carr. Was that the only Communist front organization 
you belonged to?
    Mr. Gisser. That is all.
    Mr. Carr. How did you happen to belong to the IWO?
    Mr. Gisser. When I joined IWO, I joined as an insurance 
member. In fact, I helped organize the insurance group and when 
they started getting other ideas, I dropped out.
    Mr. Carr. What did you say the last year was?
    Mr. Gisser. About 1947.
    Mr. Carr. You joined it for the insurance benefits; you 
were active in promoting the Lakewood Lodge, building it up, 
then you learned that there were other ideas involved besides 
insurance benefits?
    Mr. Gisser. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. These ideas were to promote communism?
    Mr. Gisser. No, not as far as I could see, although the 
chairman brought up different points on the floor. I remember 
they asked for donations for something for the foreign born.
    Mr. Carr. American Committee for the Protection of the 
Foreign Born?
    Mr. Gisser. Something. They asked donations for that. They 
asked for donation, if I am not mistaken, for Scottsboro case, 
if I am not mistaken. All those things had nothing to do in my 
opinion with our lodge. They couldn't see it my way and I 
wouldn't see it theirs.
    The Chairman. In 1945, either March 30th or April 13th, I 
don't know which, did you attend a meeting at which a 
collection was taken up for the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Gisser. I can't honestly say that I ever remember.
    The Chairman. Can you give me an idea where it was held?
    Mr. Gisser. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Where did you hold your lodge meetings?
    Mr. Gisser. In Carpenter's Hall.
    Mr. Carr. In Lakewood?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    The Chairman. At how many meetings you attended, if any 
were collections taken up for the Daily Worker, these IWO 
meetings?
    Mr. Gisser. You mean from the lodge that I was at myself? 
None there. I must admit I didn't go to all the lodge meetings.
    The Chairman. Any meeting?
    Mr. Gisser. I was at an affair in the Tom's River Community 
Center where they made a drive for the collection of the Daily 
Worker, but I wouldn't know the dates.
    The Chairman. That was a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Gisser. No, it was either a movie or an entertainment 
group.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know who sponsored that?
    Mr. Gisser. IWO Lodge of Tom's River.
    Mr. Carr. This was IWO sponsored meeting?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Carr. How many other times did they have meetings, 
sponsor meetings where collections were taken up for the Daily 
Worker?
    Mr. Gisser. I couldn't say, sir. I wasn't that active in 
it. I was chairman and went to meetings.
    Mr. Carr. Were you chairman of the meeting when they took 
up a collection for the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Gisser. I am almost positive. I won't swear to it 
because I can't recall the particular incident.
    Mr. Carr. When they had that drive, weren't you chairman of 
that meeting?
    Mr. Gisser. I don't think so.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, if you were chairman of the group 
at that time, you were present?
    Mr. Gisser. I was present, I think.
    Mr. Carr. Is there any reason you would not if chairman?
    Mr. Gisser. I know Tom's River, another lodge, I went down 
as a guest.
    Mr. Carr. I didn't ask you your name. It is Samuel Paul 
Gisser?
    Mr. Gisser. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Is that the name you assumed after birth?
    Mr. Gisser. That is the name on my birth certificate.
    Mr. Carr. Have you traveled under other names than Sam 
Gisser, Sam P.?
    Mr. Gisser. Samuel without the P.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been known as Samuel Paul?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Carr. Why did you assume that?
    Mr. Gisser. I assumed that while in business.
    Mr. Carr. What business?
    Mr. Gisser. Dress business.
    Mr. Carr. Were you known to the public as Samuel Paul?
    Mr. Gisser. To about ten or fifteen people, I would say.
    Mr. Carr. Did you have a bank account in the name of Samuel 
Paul?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, in Freehold National Bank, if I am not 
mistaken. First National Bank of Freehold or Freehold National 
Bank. There are two banks there.
    Mr. Carr. What state is that?
    Mr. Gisser. New Jersey. Pardon me, sir. I had made a loan 
from a loan company and I wanted to start an account in 
Freehold. I also had an account in Lakewood in the Peoples Bank 
and under the W.T. Shop and I figures if I ran short, I could 
take it from another.
    Mr. Carr. Well, did you ever join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gisser. No, sir. I did not.
    Mr. Carr. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Gisser. I am positive.
    Mr. Carr. Would it be possible to join without knowing it 
yourself?
    Mr. Gisser. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Did you have a card in the IWO?
    Mr. Gisser. I believe I did.
    Mr. Carr. Membership card?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know what the number of that card was?
    Mr. Gisser. No, I don't, sir.
    Mr. Carr. You are sure that wasn't a Communist party card?
    Mr. Gisser. I will almost swear to that although--may I 
interrupt--when I was called up to the Civil Service Board, 
they showed me a photostatic copy of a card made out to Samuel 
Paul and I explained to them if that was a Communist party 
card, when I'd get home, if you know what I mean, they were out 
electioneering, and I would take a card and put it in my 
pocket. There was no signature, nothing I ever wrote myself. If 
I did see it was a Communist card, I merely destroyed. I 
wouldn't join no Communist party at that time, although stress 
was made, put on me, I was active in IWO to get members into 
it. In fact, IWO use to come out and fraternalize. I was cited 
for signing up twenty members, just to give you an example. I 
signed up twenty fellows as insurance members, colored fellows, 
and they turned around and they brought the papers in to me 
Morning Freiheit. All those colored families got a Morning 
Freiheit. Of course, none of them could read it. I said, 
``Well, throw them away.''
    Mr. Carr. Was that a Communist paper?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, you signed them up for IWO as an 
insurance member only? Did you collect money from them?
    Mr. Gisser. The only thing I collected was $1.00 initiation 
fee, or whatever rate they had. They have a regular rate for 
insurance. They also had what is known as a cemetery, whatever 
you call it.
    Mr. Carr. And you say after you signed them up they started 
to get the Communist paper.
    Mr. Gisser. They got the Jewish paper, that is right.
    Mr. Carr. You say you were acknowledged for signing up 
twenty Communists?
    Mr. Gisser. I was honored for signing up twenty Communists? 
No, not Communists. Twenty members into the IWO, not as 
Communists.
    Mr. Carr. Did you think at the time you belonged to it that 
the IWO was a Communist dominated organization?
    Mr. Gisser. I swear I never did.
    Mr. Carr. When did you first think it might be Communist 
dominated?
    Mr. Gisser. Well, when all this propaganda was coming out 
and this fraternalizing and we went down to the school--well, I 
will say it this way: The IWO was running a series of concerts 
in Lakewood. We had a speaker, a singer and a lecturer. I mean 
on three different groups. We went down to the school, which is 
the only public hall we have in town to rent it and they 
refused to rent it to us because they claimed the IWO was a 
Communist affiliation.
    Mr. Carr. Was that the first time you had any suspicion of 
this?
    Mr. Gisser. That is the first time I got any suspicion and 
started looking around and questioning.
    Mr. Carr. That was what year?
    Mr. Gisser. I am afraid I don't recall.
    Mr. Carr. How long was that before you dropped out?
    Mr. Gisser. I dropped out about seven or eight months 
later. I still wanted the insurance. I tried to find out if I 
could have the insurance and not be a member.
    Mr. Carr. When were you elected chairman?
    Mr. Gisser. I was elected chairman as soon as it was 
formed.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, when IWO was formed, you were 
elected chairman?
    Mr. Gisser. That is right
    The Chairman. How did you drop out, by letter?
    Mr. Gisser. I stopped paying dues and the insurance dropped 
and everything else.
    The Chairman. What town?
    Mr. Gisser. Lakewood. I have been living in Lakewood 
fourteen years.
    The Chairman. And you continued living there?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    The Chairman. You didn't change your employment?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    The Chairman. At the time you dropped out did you change 
your employment?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, I believe I did. I believe when I dropped 
out I did change my employment. I couldn't give you the exact 
year. I sold liquor for about four years. I was a liquor 
salesman.
    The Chairman. As a liquor salesman could you belong to the 
IWO?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. Do you know Eva Silver?
    Mr. Gisser. I can't honestly say I do.
    The Chairman. She was in Open Road, Inc.
    Mr. Gisser. No, I am afraid I don't, sir. Maybe if I'd see 
her. I don't know the name.
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone in that particular 
outfit--Open Road, Incorporated?
    Mr. Gisser. No.
    The Chairman. Was your wife ever a Communist party member?
    Mr. Gisser. No, sir. She was at that same affair, by the 
way, where cards were given out.
    The Chairman. Well, what was that affair where cards were 
given out?
    Mr. Gisser. That was a party, somebody had a birthday and 
one of these days I will remind myself and drop into the FBI 
and give them this name. We went to a birthday party and 
everybody started talking communism. If you want to look up the 
record, not Selective Service, Civil Service. If you want to 
look up the record which I recorded there you will find 
everything I told you here is repetition. The fact is, my 
father-in-law was a leaner towards the Communist party. He 
begged us to join. I made this statement then: ``It will be 
over your dead body.'' I said, ``I don't believe in it.'' They 
always held it against me. I never joined the Communist party. 
I did belong to the IWO and I will admit that I went in there 
with my eyes wide open.
    The Chairman. About this party. Tell us more about that.
    Mr. Gisser. If I can recall. I believe I even had a small 
son who played the organ. They had an organ. It was just a 
birthday party. How I was invited, they just said, ``Come on 
over and have some fun.'' The first thing I knew we were 
sitting around the table and got to talking. This fellow Bob--
this is going back to 1941. This fellow came down to the house 
one night and he sat there from ten o'clock until almost three 
o'clock in the morning trying to convince us, my wife and I, to 
join the Communist party, and we definitely refused.
    The Chairman. Then were the cards issued there?
    Mr. Gisser. The cards were issued there. They said, ``What 
do you care? Take a card.'' I never gave any money to the 
Communist party or Communist cause knowingly.
    The Chairman. Do you remember where this house was located?
    Mr. Gisser. Well, we went down County Line Road about a 
mile; then turned to the right. It was a chicken farm. I didn't 
know too much about Lakewood then. That much I do know. It was 
a farm. These people had just started to farm. You welcome a 
new friend, so we called on them to welcome them into the area.
    The Chairman. Who else was at the party?
    Mr. Gisser. Oh, God. I wouldn't know that, sir.
    The Chairman. Were any of your friends there?
    Mr. Gisser. Of my age, no. That is what got us so mad. We 
left long before the party broke up. They were all elderly 
people.
    The Chairman. What time did you leave the party?
    Mr. Gisser. I'd say around 10:30 or eleven o'clock.
    The Chairman. When was it that you sat up until three 
o'clock in the morning?
    Mr. Gisser. That I don't know. This was even prior to the 
party.
    The Chairman. It was prior to the party that he tried to 
get you to join?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes.
    The Chairman. How did you happen to go out and see him on 
the other occasion?
    Mr. Gisser. We were invited to a birthday party.
    The Chairman. Apparently, I am not clear. You were at his 
home on two occasions?
    Mr. Gisser. On one occasion he was at my home. This 
happened in my home that he came down and tried to convince us 
to join the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Had you known him before that?
    Mr. Gisser. No, I had never met him before.
    The Chairman. You don't know his last name?
    Mr. Gisser. No, I don't, believe me. I am going to look for 
it.
    The Chairman. You lived in what city?
    Mr. Gisser. Lakewood.
    The Chairman. And you went out County Line Road you said?
    Mr. Gisser. Maybe a mile. It might have been a half mile. 
As I say, I didn't know too much about the area at that time.
    The Chairman. And you turned right?
    Mr. Gisser. From where I live, County Line Road runs 
identical to Ocean Avenue. You make a left hand turn on County 
Line Road and then make a right and it was in-between.
    The Chairman. What direction would you be going on County 
Line Road when you leave town?
    Mr. Gisser. County Line Road going towards Monmouth County.
    The Chairman. You weren't working at the Signal Corps at 
that time?
    Mr. Gisser. I never worked at the Signal Corps. I worked at 
Fort Monmouth. I worked only in the commissary. I never worked 
for the Signal Corps. All I ever worked for was the commissary 
or quartermaster.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether this fellow Bob was 
working at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Gisser. No, he never did, as far as I know. He wasn't 
there too long until he was drafted. That is all I remember 
about him.
    The Chairman. Did he have a wife?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, he had a wife and no children.
    The Chairman. About how old a man was he?
    Mr. Gisser. Roughly, I would say in comparison to my age at 
the time, I'd say about two or three years younger than myself. 
I am forty-four now, going on forty-four. Roughly, I'd say he 
would be twenty-eight or twenty-nine at the time.
    The Chairman. Did you give the FBI this information?
    Mr. Gisser. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And he invited your wife out to the birthday 
party?
    Mr. Gisser. That is right.
    The Chairman. How many people?
    Mr. Gisser. Fifty or sixty.
    The Chairman. Was there a general attempt to get them to 
join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gisser. They tried to get everybody to join the 
Communist party.
    The Chairman. Besides Bob and his wife, were other people 
there Communists?
    Mr. Gisser. I couldn't answer that. I don't know whether 
they had joined. All I know is they tried like the devil to get 
us to join. They gave us two cards and I refused. I said I 
wouldn't take them under any circumstances. They shoved them in 
my pocket.
    The Chairman. Do you know who issued them?
    Mr. Gisser. I can't honestly say.
    The Chairman. Are you sure you didn't give any money to 
anyone there?
    Mr. Gisser. For the Communists, to the Communists? Under 
what circumstances?
    The Chairman. Did you give anybody money?
    Mr. Gisser. They may have made a drive for something and I 
may have donated something. I won't swear to that. I can't 
recall, being honest, sir, whether we did or not.
    The Chairman. You can't recall how small or large?
    Mr. Gisser. No, it couldn't be large. I have never been in 
a position to give a large amount.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you gave anyone any money 
at the time you got the card, in that transaction.
    Mr. Gisser. What was it supposed to be--fifty cents or a 
dollar? Possibly, I wouldn't know, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether it was for the card?
    Mr. Gisser. That I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. You never worked on any classified work?
    Mr. Gisser. No.
    The Chairman. In other words, you worked in the commissary 
or quartermaster?
    Mr. Gisser. Quartermaster, I will say, in the Second World 
War. I worked at the quartermaster during the war for almost 
three years. I left there to go to work for Eastern Aircraft, 
Linden, mainly because I had two children at the time and 
wasn't making a living.
    The Chairman. What work are you doing now?
    Mr. Gisser. Driving a delicatessen truck.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. You are excused. I don't 
know if we will want you again. If we do, we will notify you.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Gisser. I'm glad I met you, Senator. I hope all the 
information I gave you will do some good. Anything I know of, I 
will drop a line to the FBI as I promised my word.

  TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER HINDIN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                   MONTAGUE CASPER) (RESUMED)

    The Chairman. Let me ask you this question now that you 
have had a chance to consult with your lawyer. Did you ever 
join the Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You were never solicited to join?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And your wife never joined?
    Mr. Hindin. To the best of my knowledge, no, sir.
    The Chairman. You never heard her admit that she was a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. I have not.
    The Chairman. Then if anyone says they saw you at various 
meetings from 1930 to 1944, they would either be mistaken or 
lying?
    Mr. Hindin. I'd like to explain I was a member of the IWO, 
International Workers Order.
    The Chairman. You were an official of it?
    Mr. Hindin. No, I say I was a member of the International 
Workers Order, which was a fraternal organization, to the best 
of my knowledge. It was certainly not classified subversive at 
the time I was a member.
    The Chairman. When were you a member?
    Mr. Hindin. I believe it was sometime between 1937 and 
1942. When I got my position with the Signal Corps, I dropped 
my membership because I could afford medical payments of my 
own. Of course, it may have been construed to be Communist.
    The Chairman. Where were you living at the time you joined 
the IWO?
    Mr. Hindin. Well, it could have been on Kelly Street and it 
could be on Sumter Street. I don't remember exactly. It is 
quite a ways back.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you this, Mr. Hindin, you have 
consulted with counsel for a few moments. We asked you to 
recall if you had been in the Communist party from 1930 through 
1944 or any part thereof. Your answer is ``no.'' Now, let me 
ask you if it isn't possible you did attend meetings at which 
Communist party activities were going on? Is it possible that 
you may have been at Communist party meetings without knowing 
it?
    Mr. Hindin. Well, I attended--I belonged to the electrical 
workers' union.
    Mr. Carr. Is that the UE?
    Mr. Hindin. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Let me explain briefly and it might help you to 
come out with what we are trying to get out.
    As the senator said, it is no crime to belong to the 
Communist party. We have witnesses here who say they never 
belonged, deny belonging and then we prove they did belong. We 
have even had witnesses here who finally admitted that they 
accepted cards and membership in the Communist party. They 
first said they didn't have any idea of it. Perhaps you 
attended one of these meetings. We would like to get the record 
clear as to why it is said you belonged during these years.
    Mr. Hindin. I will be glad to explain anything that I can. 
I am trying to cooperate with you folks any way I can. As I 
said, I was a member of the electrical workers' union. I 
attended meetings regularly, which was once a month.
    The Chairman. During what years did you attend their 
meetings?
    Mr. Hindin. I would say about 1936 to approximately--those 
are not exact dates. It is almost impossible for me to fix 
exact dates.
    The Chairman. So you belonged to the IWO and the UE until 
you got your job with the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hindin. No, in 1940 I established my own business. I no 
longer belonged to the union when I was in business for myself.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us when you started to work at 
the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Hindin. March of 1942.
    The Chairman. March of 1942?
    Mr. Hindin. Right, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you been handling classified material?
    Mr. Hindin. Up until 1943, I believe I had access to some 
classified material. After 1943 I have handled restricted 
material. I believe, from about 1946, I haven't handled any 
classified material to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Have you had security clearance to handle 
secret and confidential material?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You didn't get that clearance?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Could you go any place in the laboratory that 
you wanted to?
    Mr. Hindin. At Coles?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Hindin. Yes, I could go any place.
    The Chairman. You were handling secret material?
    Mr. Hindin. Yes.
    The Chairman. If you wanted to, you could have seen 
classified material?
    Mr. Hindin. No, that isn't quite so. Classified material 
was generally locked up, marked as classified and generally 
there was somebody in the offices at all times supposedly 
protecting it. I made it my business not to get close to 
classified material.
    The Chairman. Where were you working when you were 
suspended--Coles?
    Mr. Hindin. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You worked there all the time?
    Mr. Hindin. Yes.
    The Chairman. How far is that from Evans?
    Mr. Hindin. Fifteen miles.
    The Chairman. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Hindin. No.
    The Chairman. Levitsky?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Barr?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Harold Ducore.
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You weren't married then, were you?
    Mr. Hindin. When was that?
    The Chairman. When you got your job?
    Mr. Hindin. Oh, yes. I was married.
    The Chairman. Did you have any roomers in the house?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think you might be able to give us any 
idea why people would say that you belonged to the Communist 
party from 1930 to 1944, that your wife belonged to the party?
    Mr. Hindin. Well, I was a good member in the UE, which was 
the electrical workers' union. I was a member of it, attended 
all the meetings that they had, which was approximately one a 
month. I was a member of the IWO.
    The Chairman. Did you consider the UE a Communist dominated 
union?
    Mr. Hindin. I wouldn't say it was Communist dominated at 
the time I was in there. I would say there were Communists in 
it, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who are those you thought were Communists?
    Mr. Hindin. I couldn't answer that. People I knew would get 
up on the floor and make statements which sounded on the 
pinkish side. No particular individual I can mention.
    The Chairman. Do you know any of the names?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any of them work for the Signal Laboratory?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir, not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you attend a conference of the Shore 
Branch of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you attend a conference of the Shore 
Branch of the Communist party on atomic energy?
    Mr. Hindin. I didn't know such a branch was in existence 
and I never attended.
    The Chairman. How do you spell your first name?
    Mr. Hindin. A-l-e-x-a-n-d-e-r.
    The Chairman. How do you spell your last name?
    Mr. Hindin. H-i-n-d-i-n.
    Senator, maybe I could shed a little more light if it would 
be of any value--I may as well bring it in. I spent two weeks 
at Camp Unity, which I believe is known as a Communist camp. 
The reason I spent two weeks there, somebody suggested that 
they needed a radio repairman for a radio-phonograph 
combination. I did not have to pay for my vacation. That is the 
only time I recall having been there.
    The Chairman. Where is that located?
    Mr. Hindin. I believe it is around Wingdale.
    The Chairman. That was what year?
    Mr. Hindin. I couldn't tell you, 1936 or 1935. I am not 
sure.
    The Chairman. Weren't you there again in either 1940 or 
1941?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you sure you weren't out there, not even 
to do repair work?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. I was only there one year, as far as I 
remember.
    The Chairman. Are you sure it couldn't have been 1940?
    Mr. Hindin. Definitely not.
    The Chairman. Aside from yourself, was everyone out there 
Communists?
    Mr. Hindin. All I know, all the people were having 
lectures. All I was interested in was in handball, swimming. 
That is all I did.
    The Chairman. This was a Communist camp; they were having 
Communist lectures, you did some work and they gave you a week 
at the camp?
    Mr. Hindin. Two weeks.
    The Chairman. Did your wife attend also?
    Mr. Hindin. I wasn't married at that time.
    The Chairman. Where did you meet your wife?
    Mr. Hindin. At a theater party, I think.
    The Chairman. What year did you get married?
    Mr. Hindin. 1939.
    The Chairman. You didn't meet her at this Communist camp?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I think you have been asked this question. 
Did you ever give any classified material to any member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir, definitely not.
    The Chairman. You never removed any from the laboratory?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I have nothing further.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Hindin, you understand it is difficult for us 
to believe you were not a member of the Communist party when we 
have this information in which you yourself confirm that you 
were a member of the IWO, member of a union which has been 
alleged to be Communist dominated and controlled. You were very 
active in that union. You, at one time, spent two weeks at the 
Communist party--one of their summer camps, training groups. It 
is difficult for us to discount the information which says that 
you were a member of the Communist party in view of your 
association with these fronts. As you say, the two fronts and 
the labor union. You cannot explain the fact that you were 
alleged to be a member of the Communist party between 1930 and 
1944?
    Mr. Hindin. I'd like to make several statements. First of 
all, the term very active, I don't think, is quite correct. I 
was a member of the union.
    Mr. Carr. You said you were active.
    Mr. Hindin. Active in the respect that I attended meetings, 
paid dues, which is general activity of any member of the 
union. As far as IWO is concerned, I have explained that I 
never tried to hide the fact that I was a member. I have 
admitted that.
    Mr. Carr. The only question is: Have you any explanation 
for this Communist party allegation?
    Mr. Hindin. I haven't, sir, with the exception of perhaps 
inference since I was a member of the IWO, they thought I was a 
member of the Communist party.
    At the time I was a member of the IWO, it was, as far as I 
was concerned, a fraternal organization, helping me take care 
of medical needs.
    Specifically, I'd like to point out something. When I got 
my position at Fort Monmouth, I traveled a whole year. I wasn't 
home. My wife had a baby and I wasn't home when the baby was 
born. The IWO paid the medical expenses. I didn't have the 
money to pay it. The moment I was able to pay my own way 
through, I was happy to drop it. I wanted to belong to New 
Jersey Blue Cross or whatever you would call that.
    Mr. Carr. You were an officer in the union?
    Mr. Hindin. I was not an officer in the union either. I 
meant to bring out also when talking about it, at one meeting I 
attended, union meeting, someone said, ``let's go over to this 
fellow's house.'' I don't remember the place or names and a 
group of fellows were there and they were discussing general 
union policy. Now, there was nothing specific put in there that 
that was a Communist meeting. Nevertheless, it was a meeting 
not part of the union.
    The Chairman. Let's assume you had no knowledge regardless 
of whether it was or not. You had no knowledge that it might 
have been a Communist meeting at the time; in retrospect 
looking back now, do you think that could be one of the 
meetings you were accused of attending?
    Mr. Hindin. I couldn't say, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you think, in retrospect, that was a 
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Hindin. It is hard for me to answer the question. It 
was about fifteen years ago. It is a meeting I recall. Perhaps 
that was one of the meetings in question. The reason I 
mentioned it is because it was an extra meeting; it wasn't a 
regular union meeting. One fellow said, ``Let's go over to this 
fellow's house and talk things over.''
    The Chairman. Do you remember the names of anyone 
attending?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. That was fifteen or sixteen years ago.
    The Chairman. Do you remember whose house it was?
    Mr. Hindin. I don't remember the section except it was in 
Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. Do you remember the people who attended the 
Communist camp?
    Mr. Hindin. No, sir. That was quite a while ago.
    The Chairman. Did you attend lectures?
    Mr. Hindin. I wasn't interested. I was interested primarily 
in swimming----
    The Chairman. Did you attend any lectures? Keep in mind 
that there were members of the FBI at that camp.
    Mr. Hindin. Keeping in mind everything I have, Senator, I 
am doing everything I can to help you and myself, naturally.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any lectures?
    Mr. Hindin. Not that I remember.
    The Chairman. And you don't remember the names of anyone 
there?
    Mr. Hindin. Not that I can remember. Strictly a vacation 
was all I was interested in.
    The Chairman. May I make a suggestion? Before you come up 
before the loyalty hearing, if you want to convince the board 
you are being truthful and above board--I am not accusing you 
of not being truthful--but I would suggest that you remember 
the names of some of those people. The average person won't 
believe you lived for two weeks at a Communist camp and can't 
give the name of a single person. If you or I go out to a 
Communist camp and spend two weeks, we get curious to know who 
the people are and get to know the people. It would be 
impossible to stay in a camp two weeks without developing 
friendships or knowing some people. I am giving you this 
advice.
    Mr. Hindin. I appreciate it, Senator.
    The Chairman. I think that would shed considerable doubt on 
the rest of your testimony.
    Mr. Hindin. Let me give you an example. I appreciate the 
things you say. I know it sounds kind of peculiar. For example, 
there was a girl I was playing around with, Florence, and I 
don't remember her last name. I wasn't interested in 
personalities. I was interested in having a good time. I was a 
youngster having a good time.
    The Chairman. Was the girl staying at the camp?
    Mr. Hindin. She came some place from Connecticut.
    The Chairman. Do you know her name?
    Mr. Hindin. Florence is the best I can remember.
    The Chairman. I don't think we have any more questions.
    Mr. Hindin. I will be glad to answer anything you wish, 
sir.
    The Chairman. I think that is sufficient.
    I wish you would consider yourself under subpoena. We may 
want you again. We are opening public hearings in about ten 
days to try and give a complete picture of the Signal Corps 
situation and we will have the witnesses that the staff decides 
to call.
    Mr. Hindin. All right, sir, anything I can do to help, I 
will be very happy to do so.

                 TESTIMONY OF STANLEY BERINSKY

    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Berinsky. I do.
    The Chairman. Your name is Stanley Berinsky?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you also known as Simon? Is that part of 
your name?
    Mr. Berinsky. Simon is on my birth certificate but it was 
changed two weeks after birth.
    The Chairman. Are you presently employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, I am not.
    The Chairman. When were you last employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Berinsky. June of 1952.
    The Chairman. What is your present occupation?
    Mr. Berinsky. Steam engineer, Stavid, in Plainfield, New 
Jersey.
    The Chairman. What is your home address?
    Mr. Berinsky. 191 Rod Street, Metuchen, New Jersey.
    The Chairman. When you left Fort Monmouth in 1952 were you 
suspended?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you resign?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you in effect forced to resign or did 
you resign of your own volition?
    Mr. Berinsky. I resigned of my own volition.
    The Chairman. Were you accused of any improper conduct, 
Communist connections prior to your resignation?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you tell us about that?
    Mr. Berinsky. Prior to the time that I left, I was told 
that my security clearance had been lifted pending 
investigation, and I don't know, the period may be about a year 
or more.
    The Chairman. In other words, the investigation was pending 
for about a year?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. What were you accused of?
    Mr. Berinsky. I don't think I was accused of anything in so 
many words. I gathered from the discussions I had with the FBI, 
the matter concerning the fact my mother had been a member of 
the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did they serve a letter of charges on you?
    Mr. Berinsky. You mean a formal notice of charges?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Berinsky. I don't recall anything like that.
    The Chairman. Your mother's name was Mary, was it?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes, that is correct.
    The Chairman. And her last name is?
    Mr. Berinsky. B-e-r-i-n-s-k-y.
    Mr. Carr. Is she also known as Mona?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Was she a member of the party?
    Mr. Berinsky. I don't know.
    The Chairman. How long since you lived with her?
    Mr. Berinsky. I lived with her, since--oh, it would be 1940 
when I went away to college.
    The Chairman. In other words, you lived at your mother's 
home until you went to college?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Your mother was a member of the Communist party 
for fifteen years and you don't know it?
    Mr. Berinsky. I don't know.
    Mr. Carr. Secretary of the community branch in your town 
and you didn't know?
    Mr. Berinsky. I knew she belonged to various organizations. 
What they were----
    Mr. Carr. How old were you when you left home?
    Mr. Berinsky. Seventeen in 1940. I went away to college.
    Mr. Carr. Even now you don't know that she is?
    Mr. Berinsky. I know now she is not. She told me she had 
resigned because of me mainly.
    Mr. Carr. She has resigned from the Communist party?
    Mr. Berinsky. She told me she had resigned.
    The Chairman. Let's get this straight. I know it is unusual 
to appear before a committee. So many witnesses get nervous. 
You just got through telling us you did not know she was a 
Communist; now you tell us she resigned from the Communist 
party? As of when?
    Mr. Berinsky. I didn't know this until the security 
suspension came up at Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Berinsky. That was in 1952.
    The Chairman. Then did your mother come over and tell you 
she had resigned?
    Mr. Berinsky. I told her what happened. At that time she 
told me she had been out for several years.
    The Chairman. You went to your mother's home after the 
security hearing?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. And up to that time you had no knowledge of 
any kind that she was a Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You went to see her sometime in 1952?
    Mr. Berinsky. Probably earlier because this thing started 
in 1951. Right after they first spoke to me. The reason I went, 
I directed the people who spoke to me to see her personally, so 
I told her about that coming up.
    The Chairman. You told her they were coming? In other 
words, you knew the FBI had been to see your mother. You told 
them to go there. You told the FBI to go see your mother. Did 
you then ask your mother, ``Are you a Communist?''
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Well, did you ever ask her if she was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did the FBI ask you if she was a Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes, I believe they did.
    The Chairman. What did you tell them?
    Mr. Berinsky. I said I didn't know.
    The Chairman. When you went to see her, weren't you 
curious? If somebody told me my mother was a Communist, I'd get 
on the phone and say, ``Mother is this true?''
    Mr. Berinsky. We discussed the thing and she brought up the 
fact that she had resigned.
    The Chairman. When you discussed it, did you ask her if she 
had been a Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. Not directly in so many words.
    The Chairman. Did she tell you how long she had been a 
member of the party?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. You didn't ask her?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did she tell you when she resigned?
    Mr. Berinsky. Probably did. I am trying to recall. 1945 or 
1946, something in that order.
    The Chairman. Did she tell you why she resigned?
    Mr. Berinsky. It seems to me she probably did it because I 
held a government job and she didn't want to jeopardize my 
position.
    The Chairman. In other words, it wasn't because she felt 
differently about the Communist party, but because she didn't 
want to jeopardize your position?
    Mr. Berinsky. Probably.
    The Chairman. Was she still a Communist at heart in 1952?
    Mr. Berinsky. Well, I don't know how you define that.
    The Chairman. Do you think she was a Communist, using your 
own definition of communism?
    Mr. Berinsky. I guess my own definition is one who is a 
member of the party. No.
    The Chairman. Let's say one who was a member and dropped 
out and is still loyal to the party. Taking that as a 
definition, would you say she is still a Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. Do you mean in an active sense?
    The Chairman. Loyal in her mind.
    Mr. Berinsky. That is hard to say.
    The Chairman. Is she still living?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever asked her whether she still 
believes in communism?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. How often did you get home?
    Mr. Berinsky. Well, once a week or every two weeks, 
something like that.
    The Chairman. You have got no thought one way or the other 
as to whether she is still loyal to the Communist party?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, it is something we don't discuss. We 
never have discussed it.
    Mr. Carr. There is no doubt in your mind that she was a 
Communist in the sense that she was a member of the Communist 
party, active in it, and no doubt in your mind that she retains 
a sympathy towards the Communist party?
    Mr. Berinsky. That is probably true.
    Mr. Carr. She is still your mother and you are finding it 
difficult to say this, but she is still sympathetic towards the 
Communist party. She dropped out merely to make it easier for 
you?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. How many brothers and sisters do you have?
    Mr. Berinsky. None.
    Mr. Carr. Is your dad living?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Where is he working?
    Mr. Berinsky. Trenton, New Jersey. He is a wholesale meat 
dealer.
    Mr. Carr. He is not doing any government work?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    Mr. Carr. Has he ever done any government work?
    M. Berinsky. No.
    Mr. Carr. Is your mother working?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    Mr. Carr. Has she ever done government work?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, not outside army service, being on active 
duty with the army. I think she was there about a year or a 
little more.
    Mr. Carr. What year would that be?
    Mr. Berinsky. 1945.
    Mr. Carr. What kind of work was she doing in the army?
    Mr. Berinsky. To my knowledge she was at Fort Monmouth and 
part of the time with the Quartermaster Corps, secretarial work 
and base hospital receptionist.
    The Chairman. She was with the Signal Corps at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Berinsky. For a while.
    The Chairman. Then I missed the duties?
    Mr. Berinsky. I know she was working in the quartermaster 
department and also as a receptionist in the base hospital. 
That is what she told me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss communism with your 
mother?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did she ever urge you to join the party?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. You had no knowledge, no suspicion she was a 
member of the Communist party until 1951 or 1952?
    Mr. Berinsky. That is right. When she told me she had 
resigned.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Berinsky. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. I will re-ask the question. Have you attended 
Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Berinsky. If I did attend, I didn't know it was a 
Communist party meeting. The only thing I can think of, perhaps 
when I was a youngster my mother dragged me down to some 
organization or something in town and if that would be 
considered a Communist meeting, I was there sometime before the 
age of seventeen.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether your mother took you to 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Berinsky. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. In retrospect, do you think any of those 
meetings were Communist meetings?
    Mr. Berinsky. Some of those organizations may have been 
those organizations that would be Communistic now.
    The Chairman. Not Communistic meetings of the Communist 
party, Communist cell meetings.
    Just to refresh your recollection, weren't there cell 
meetings in your home at which you were present? Were you 
present?
    Mr. Berinsky. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. And you say at this time you can't think of a 
single Communist meeting you attended?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Berinsky. MIT.
    The Chairman. How many years?
    Mr. Berinsky. Four years interrupted with three and a half 
years of service.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. You say you never joined the Communist party?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give any money to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. You were never solicited to join?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. When did you first work at the Signal Corps 
Laboratory?
    Mr. Berinsky. I started in July of 1948, a month after I 
got out of college.
    The Chairman. And you had access to classified material?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. During the time you were working in the 
Signal Corps Laboratories, did you visit your mother regularly?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes, or she visited us.
    The Chairman. Are you married now?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. You say you started working for the Signal 
Corps in 1948?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where were you working in 1946?
    Mr. Berinsky. In 1946 I was still in service until the end 
of the year, November. I re-entered MIT in January of 1947, the 
end of that term.
    The Chairman. When did you graduate?
    Mr. Berinsky. I graduated in June of 1948.
    The Chairman. You went directly from MIT to the job at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. What kind of work were you doing in the 
service?
    Mr. Berinsky. In service I was radio officer in charge of 
fixing station radio equipment, communication work.
    The Chairman. You went in the army what year?
    Mr. Berinsky. Active duty was 1943, I believe, March of 
1943.
    The Chairman. And do you call yourself an engineer now, 
electrical engineer?
    Mr. Berinsky. Right.
    The Chairman. You had access to classified material while 
at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove classified material from 
the post itself?
    Mr. Berinsky. No
    The Chairman. Did you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes, he was my section chief when I came 
there.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have any reason to believe he 
was a Communist or espionage agent?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you know Levitsky?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know Mr. Rosenberg?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. You didn't know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know Carl Greenblum?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes, he was my boss at the time I left.
    The Chairman. You never considered him a Communist?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know a man named Okun? Jack Okun?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give any classified material to 
Coleman?
    Mr. Berinsky. Aaron Coleman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Did you ever give classified material to 
him?
    Mr. Berinsky. We both had access to it. It was just sitting 
in the files. Just in the course of our business.
    The Chairman. In other words, he had access to the same 
material you could get, so there would be no occasion?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give any classified material to 
anyone not connected with the signal laboratory?
    Mr. Berinsky. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever suspect that there might be 
Communists working in the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Berinsky. No. I would have no reason to suspect it.
    The Chairman. In other words, you thought all the people 
were good loyal Americans and there were no Communists there?
    Mr. Berinsky. That is right, except I was aware lots of 
people were having their security clearances suspended for 
different reasons.
    The Chairman. You felt they were good loyal people and not 
Communists?
    Mr. Berinsky. I didn't know the reason they were suspended.
    Mr. Carr. What is your mother's present address?
    Mr. Berinsky. 1494 Stevenson Avenue in Trenton.
    Mr. Carr. Does she have a telephone?
    Mr. Berinsky. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. What is that?
    Mr. Berinsky. 26009.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    I might ask you this so it will be in the record. Did you 
know that in 1946 your mother's Communist party card was 
numbered 69604?
    Mr. Berinsky. No, I didn't know that at all.
    The Chairman. That is all. You will consider yourself under 
subpoena. We will want you back later.

                   TESTIMONY OF RALPH SCHUTZ

    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Schutz. I do.
    The Chairman. Your name is Schutz?
    Mr. Schutz. Ralph Schutz. S-c-h-u-t-z, 1892 Evers Street.
    The Chairman. And where are you employed?
    Mr. Schutz. Arma Engineering, Incorporated.
    The Chairman. Are you acquainted with Mr. Gunnar Boye?
    Mr. Schutz. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. Does he work with you?
    Mr. Schutz. He works in the same department as I do.
    The Chairman. Were your formally acquainted with Mr. David 
Greenglass?
    Mr. Schutz. Yes.
    The Chairman. He worked in the same department?
    Mr. Schutz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Now, were you closely associated with 
Greenglass?
    Mr. Schutz. I knew him at work as a working acquaintance 
and I went out with him once or twice and I believe I picked 
him up once or twice to take him to work. We were coming from 
New York. I would say he came over to my house once.
    The Chairman. What type of work do you do at the Arma 
Corporation?
    Mr. Schutz. Machinist.
    The Chairman. Are you cleared to work on classified 
material?
    Mr. Schutz. You mean am I worked with classified material?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Schutz. Well, some of the prints have on them 
``restricted.''
    The Chairman. Have you ever seen any classification higher 
than restricted--I should say other than restricted?
    Mr. Schutz. Off-hand, I don't think so.
    The Chairman. You worked on parts rather than the full 
product?
    Mr. Schutz. That is right. I make parts for instruments.
    The Chairman. Do you know what instruments?
    Mr. Schutz. No, I only make parts for them.
    The Chairman. You formerly worked at Reeves?
    Mr. Schutz. That is right.
    The Chairman. What did you do there?
    Mr. Schutz. I made parts, bread board models.
    The Chairman. Was that secret material?
    Mr. Schutz. Not to my knowledge. I never had a blueprint or 
anything.
    The Chairman. Getting back to Arma Engineering Corporation, 
is the work you are doing for the U.S. government?
    Mr. Schutz. I would say so, yes.
    The Chairman. Is it for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Schutz. I don't think so. I really don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know what type of instruments it is 
for?
    Mr. Schutz. I don't follow that. What do you mean by what 
type of instruments?
    The Chairman. You don't make the complete instrument. Do 
you know what type instruments the parts you are making are 
for?
    Mr. Schutz. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Schutz. I was not
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Schutz. No.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the AYD, American Youth 
for Democracy?
    Mr. Schutz. I never even heard of it.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Schutz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Why would it be reported that you had 
associated with Communists?
    Mr. Schutz. To my knowledge, if a man is a Communist, I 
don't know about that. As far as I know, all the people I have 
associated with were not Communists, at least they have never 
told me so.
    The Chairman. You don't know of anybody who could be a 
Communist that you are associated with now?
    Mr. Schutz. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. You know Greenglass, did you suspect him of 
being a Communist?
    Mr. Schutz. I did not know that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Schutz. No, I did not
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet Mrs. Rosenberg?
    Mr. Schutz. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet Mrs. Greenglass?
    Mr. Schutz. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Were you ever in their home?
    Mr. Schutz. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. How frequently did you visit with them?
    Mr. Schutz. Maybe twice perhaps, at the most.
    The Chairman. In what year would that be?
    Mr. Schutz. That was just before Mr. Greenglass was picked 
up as being a spy.
    The Chairman. Did he ever at any time ask you to procure 
anything for him?
    Mr. Schutz. He did not.
    The Chairman. Your association with him was that of fellow 
worker. You worked in the same shop, in the same section. You 
occasionally rode back and forth to work with him. Did you eat 
lunch with him?
    Mr. Schutz. In the department we would eat lunch together.
    The Chairman. You occasionally visited his home?
    Mr. Schutz. Twice I think.
    The Chairman. Did he visit your home?
    Mr. Schutz. Once I believe.
    The Chairman. What was the purpose of those visits?
    Mr. Schutz. Well, I was moving and I asked him if he would 
help me move. That was the only time I could recall he had ever 
been over at my house.
    The Chairman. At the time you were associated with him were 
you working on classified material?
    Mr. Schutz. I am sorry. I wouldn't recall that now.
    The Chairman. Well, it was only 1949.
    Mr. Schutz. I would say, being Arma is regular governmental 
work to the point it would probably be classified.
    The Chairman. You say you are not now a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schutz. I said I never was a member of the Communist 
party.
    The Chairman. What was the answer. Have you ever been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schutz. I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of any 
organization declared to be a Communist front?
    Mr. Schutz. Not to my knowledge. I never belonged to any 
organizations.
    The Chairman. You have never belonged to any organizations 
at all?
    Mr. Schutz. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. Do you belong to any clubs or societies now?
    Mr. Schutz. I don't belong to any clubs or societies now.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to any?
    Mr. Schutz. No. I would say no.
    The Chairman. You never belonged to any neighborhood clubs 
or anything like that?
    Mr. Schutz. I went down to the ALP Club once. That is about 
all. I think I went there. I went down as far as that went. 
That was all.
    The Chairman. Did you then associate yourself with the ALP?
    Mr. Schutz. No.
    The Chairman. Did you register a vote with the ALP?
    Mr. Schutz. I believe I did at the time Mr. Wallace was 
running.
    The Chairman. Is that the only time you registered to vote 
with the American Labor party?
    Mr. Schutz. That is correct.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. That is the only connection you have had with 
ALP was during the 1948 elections you voted with the ALP for 
Wallace?
    Mr. Schutz. To my knowledge, yes.
    The Chairman. You can say that as a fact, can't you?
    Mr. Schutz. I can say to the extent, as far as I am 
concerned, I had had no connection.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of the Young 
Progressives?
    Mr. Schutz. No, I was not.
    The Chairman. That will be all and I thank you very much.
    [The following telegram was received during the testimony 
of Mr. Schutz. The chairman directed that it be copied into the 
record at this point.]

NEW YORK N.Y. 330P Nov 5, 1953
SENATOR JOSEPH MCCARTHY, CHAIRMAN:
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE ON 
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS FEDERAL COURTHOUSE FOLEY SQUARE NYK
HAVE JUST BEEN ADVISED AT 3:10 P.M. THAT ERNEST PATAKI HAS BEEN 
SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA RETURNABLE AT 4:00 THIS AFTERNOON. I AM 
AUTHORIZED BY MR. PATAKI TO STATE THAT THE TIME IS INSUFFICIENT 
TO PERMIT HIM TO MAKE THE NECESSARY PERSONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND 
TO PERMIT HIM TO CONSULT COUNSEL. IF I AM TO REPRESENT PATAKI I 
COULD NOT DO SO UNTIL MONDAY BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MY 
PERSONAL HEALTH WILL NOT PERMIT IT. THE CONDITION OF MY HEALTH 
INCIDENTALLY IS DUE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FACT THAT I WAS 
COMPELLED TO ATTEND A NIGHT SESSION BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE LAST 
NIGHT AFTER HAVING WAITED IN THE ANTEROOM OF THE COMMITTEE ALL 
DAY. IF YOU WISH PATAKI TO APPEAR ON MONDAY HE WILL DO SO 
PROVIDED I RECEIVE NOTICE OF YOUR DESIRE BEFORE NOON TOMORROW.
VICTOR RABINOWITZ, 76 BEAVER STREET NY 5

TESTIMONY OF HENRY SHOIKET (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, SIDNEY 
                            L. KATZ)

    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand, please.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Shoiket. I do.
    The Chairman. Your name is Henry Shoiket, S-h-o-i-k-e-t?
    Mr. Shoiket. Yes.
    The Chairman. What is your present address?
    Mr. Shoiket. 337 East 16th Street, Brooklyn, New York.
    The Chairman. Has counsel identified himself?
    Mr. Katz. Sidney Katz, 20 Broad Street, New York 5.
    The Chairman. Any telephone number?
    Mr. Katz. Whitehall 42888.
    The Chairman. Mr. Shoiket, where are you presently 
employed?
    Mr. Shoiket. At Lawson Machinery Corporation.
    The Chairman. What is the address of that?
    Mr. Shoiket. 36 West 33rd Street, Manhattan.
    The Chairman. Is this company doing any work for the 
government?
    Mr. Shoiket. No. They are manufacturers of paper cutting 
machinery.
    The Chairman. It may be that they have sold machinery to 
the government, I don't know, but they make, sell and build 
paper cutting machines.
    The Chairman. Is there any classified work?
    Mr. Shoiket. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman. And your schooling, where did you go to 
college?
    Mr. Shoiket. College of the City of New York.
    The Chairman. What year did you graduate?
    Mr. Shoiket. I graduated in 1939.
    The Chairman. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Shoiket. He went to school at the same time as I did.
    The Chairman. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Shoiket. I will refuse to answer that on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Did he ever take you to a Young Communist 
League meeting?
    Mr. Shoiket. I will refuse to answer this.
    The Chairman. On the same ground?
    Mr. Shoiket. Also on the grounds of the First Amendment, in 
that I do not believe you should be inquiring into my political 
beliefs.
    The Chairman. Do they do government work--the company you 
work for?
    Mr. Shoiket. No.
    The Chairman. Are you quite sure of that?
    Mr. Shoiket. I believe they have sold one or two paper 
cutting machines to the Government Printing Office or something 
like that. This is merely a matter of sales.
    The Chairman. Have you ever had any connection with the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Shoiket. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Shoiket. Yes, I worked for the navy, civilian engineer, 
Brooklyn, first, then I worked for Mare Island Navy Yard in 
California.
    The Chairman. When did you start working for the navy in 
California?
    Mr. Shoiket. 1940, I believe.
    The Chairman. How long did you work for them?
    Mr. Shoiket. Seven years.
    The Chairman. What type of work?
    Mr. Shoiket. Engineer.
    The Chairman. Handling what type of work?
    Mr. Shoiket. Electrical work. I was involved in elimination 
of vibration, largely mechanical work, on diesel engines and 
ship structures.
    The Chairman. Was any of your work of a classified nature?
    Mr. Shoiket. I can't remember that any was but there may 
have been something.
    The Chairman. Did you at times work on a project of such a 
nature that the general public would not be entitled to know 
what you were doing?
    Mr. Shoiket. Certainly, all work, navy yard work, is of 
restricted nature. That is obvious.
    The Chairman. Then you worked there until 1947?
    Mr. Shoiket. That is right.
    The Chairman. Where did you go then?
    Mr. Shoiket. I worked at Boeing Aircraft Company.
    The Chairman. How long did you work for them?
    Mr. Shoiket. Until 1951, I think it was. Three and a half 
years.
    The Chairman. What type of work were you doing at Boeing?
    Mr. Shoiket. Engineer in vibration.
    The Chairman. Were you working on new designs, advances in 
aircraftery?
    Mr. Shoiket. Well, I had the speciality of vibration 
elimination and I was called on for people who needed 
vibration--designers who had vibration problems consulted with 
me.
    The Chairman. You were working on the new designs for 
fighter ships?
    Mr. Shoiket. Boeing does not make fighters.
    The Chairman. New jets?
    Mr. Shoiket. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And then where did you go after 1951?
    Mr. Shoiket. I returned to New York City and I worked for 
a--you are asking me where I worked?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Shoiket. I worked for a commercial testing laboratory 
called Sam Tour and Company.
    The Chairman. What is the address of that?
    Mr. Shoiket. 44 Trinity Place.
    The Chairman. Were you doing any work for the government 
then?
    Mr. Shoiket. Not directly. I was not doing any work for the 
government directly. I believe there may have been some 
projects. They were doing some sub-contract work.
    The Chairman. How long did you work for the Sam Tour 
Company?
    Mr. Shoiket. Approximately a year and a half, something of 
that sort.
    The Chairman. That would bring you up to 1953?
    Mr. Shoiket. At the beginning of 1953 or the end of 1952.
    The Chairman. Then from there you went over to the present 
company?
    Mr. Shoiket. With a brief period of sort of working for 
myself.
    The Chairman. Were you discharged from the navy, Boeing 
Aircraft or Sam Tour?
    Mr. Shoiket. I was, to be exact, left the navy of my own 
volition. I was asked to resign from Boeing.
    The Chairman. Why were you asked to resign?
    Mr. Shoiket. Because I was questioned by FBI agents who 
then recommended to Boeing I be asked to resign. I was fired at 
Sam Tours.
    The Chairman. For what reason?
    Mr. Shoiket. For similar reasons.
    The Chairman. And the navy, were you under any pressure of 
claims that you were a security risk or claims that you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Shoiket. None at all.
    The Chairman. Is there anything of a remotely secret or 
confidential nature about that?
    Mr. Shoiket. Not in the least.
    The Chairman. The general public can walk in?
    Mr. Shoiket. Anyone can.
    The Chairman. I don't know if you were asked this question. 
Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Shoiket. I said he went to school at the same time I 
did.
    The Chairman. You knew David Greenglass?
    Mr. Shoiket. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Shoiket. As far as my memory serves me, I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Communist party?.
    Mr. Shoiket. I will not answer questions of a political 
nature.
    The Chairman. Are you claiming the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Shoiket. Fifth Amendment. Both the First and the Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. The first wouldn't be effective.
    Did you ever see Rosenberg after you left school?
    Mr. Shoiket. I will not answer this question on the grounds 
of remote possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mr. Shoiket. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give information of a classified 
nature to a Communist?
    Mr. Shoiket. I never gave information of a classified 
nature to anyone. That would include anyone.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss any of the classified 
work you were doing with a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shoiket. I never discussed with anyone any classified 
work, whom I knew to be a member of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss any classified work with 
anyone whom you had any reason to believe might be a member of 
the Communist party?
    You may want to discuss this with your counsel first, I 
don't know. I want you to know, your name wasn't picked out of 
a hat. We do have a fairly complete report on some of your 
activities, so I am not anxious to run up the list of perjury 
cases I have got to submit to the attorney general.
    Mr. Shoiket. May I answer it this way. I never discussed 
work of a classified nature with anyone except those involved 
in the same work, at the same place, with whom I was authorized 
and told to discuss those questions by superiors. I never 
inquired into the political beliefs of those with whom I have 
been working.
    The Chairman. That is not sufficient. I want to know 
whether or not you ever discussed work of a classified nature 
with anyone whom you had reason to believe might be a member of 
the Communist party. Either on the job or off the job, either 
working with you or not working with you?
    Mr. Shoiket. Sir, upon advice of counsel, I will say ``no'' 
because I have no knowledge of what your investigations are or 
what they show.
    Mr. Katz. May I interrupt?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Shoiket. Gentlemen, excuse me. This was a gross error. 
Withdraw that please. I will refuse to answer the question for 
what I started to explain, the Fifth Amendment, because I have 
no----
    The Chairman. I will order you to answer the question 
because you have waived the privilege of the Fifth Amendment 
when you said you did not engage in espionage at any time. You 
said you did not give any material to Communists outside. You 
no longer have the Fifth Amendment as far as that area is 
concerned. You have waived it and I order you to answer that 
question. If you refuse, obviously the case will be submitted 
for contempt.
    Mr. Shoiket. I will say it the same way. I still refuse to 
answer.
    The Chairman. You still refuse to answer?
    Mr. Shoiket. I still refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. So there can be no question of a 
misunderstanding at a subsequent date, I will restate it and 
you can get a chance to refuse again if you want to.
    While you were working for the U.S. government, handling 
classified material, did you ever discuss any of that material 
or any of the classified work which you were doing with anyone 
whom you knew to be a member of the Communist party; you 
thought to be a member of the Communist party; or had valid 
reason to believe was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shoiket. I will refuse to answer this question on the 
grounds of possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. What grounds?
    Mr. Shoiket. Fifth Amendment, possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Have the record show the chair ordered the 
witness to answer the question for the reason that he has 
waived the Fifth Amendment privilege by his answer to previous 
questions.
    I assume you still refuse to answer?
    Mr. Shoiket. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified material with 
Julius Rosenberg?
    [Witness consulted with Counsel.]
    Mr. Shoiket. Sir, I have told you before that I discussed 
with no one unauthorized and Julius Rosenberg is included. I 
did not discuss classified information with Julius Rosenberg.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss classified information with 
William Perl?
    Mr. Shoiket. I did not discuss classified information with 
William Perl.
    The Chairman. Did you ever associate with anyone whom you 
knew or had reason to believe was engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Shoiket. No. Definitely.
    The Chairman. Did you ever associate with anyone you later 
discovered had been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Shoiket. I don't know who has been discovered.
    The Chairman. Did you ever associate with anyone other than 
Julius Rosenberg at any time whom you later learned was accused 
of espionage by an official agency of the U.S. government?
    Mr. Shoiket. Yes. I knew Morton Sobell when at City 
College.
    The Chairman. Did you see him after he left City College?
    Mr. Shoiket. I will refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of possible self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in any illegal activities 
in connection with any association with Sobell at any time?
    Mr. Shoiket. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Shoiket. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Then you will be ordered to answer that, if 
you knew him after he left City College and you engaged in no 
illegal activities in connection with him, the answer can in no 
way incriminate you.
    You will be ordered to answer the previous question about 
any contacts with Sobell after he left City College for the 
reason, if as you state, you engaged in no illegal activities 
in connection with your association with Sobell, you are not 
entitled to any Fifth Amendment privilege because you could not 
possibly incriminate yourself. Therefore, you are ordered to 
answer.
    Mr. Shoiket. I have been advised to make a formal request 
that the previous answer be withdrawn and that I may instead 
refuse to answer on the basis of the Fifth Amendment possible 
self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. Was the previous answer untrue. If it was a 
truthful answer you can't withdraw it.
    When were you subpoenaed?
    Mr. Shoiket. Day before yesterday.
    The Chairman. You haven't had much chance to talk to your 
lawyer. This is a very serious matter--being involved in 
contempt citation. I think you are entitled to sufficient time 
to go over and make your decision.
    Let's put it this way. If you want to--I intend to go into 
detail as to your waiver as to espionage and your waiver as to 
Sobell and question you at some length. The same problem will 
come up each time I ask the question. I think it is only fair 
to you, and if you want to, I will give you an adjournment.
    The only trouble is, I doubt if we will be having hearings 
in New York and it will mean coming to Washington.
    Mr. Shoiket. It will be a hardship coming down to 
Washington.
    The Chairman. Let's skip this question for the time being. 
We will see what we can do about that.
    Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Shoiket. I don't know. I have read the name in the 
newspapers. I believe he was at City College when I was. I 
don't know.
    The Chairman. Let's say on this other question, the order 
that he answer will stand. He will not be required to answer at 
this moment. Discuss this with your lawyer and if you decide 
that you refuse to answer, let us know by letter with your 
signature, that you refuse to answer. If you decide to answer, 
then give us all of your association, contacts with Sobell, 
since he left City College and you will not have to come to 
Washington. That will save you the trouble of coming to 
Washington.
    I am all through, Frank. I have no further question.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Shoiket. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shoiket. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Carr. On the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Shoiket. First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. How about as of today?
    Mr. Shoiket. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at five o'clock.]


















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Albert Socol (1918-1984) testified 
publicly on December 14; and Ernest Pataki (1915-1998) on 
December 15, 1953. Rear Admiral Edward Culligan Forsyth (1900-
1990), Samuel Snyder, Joseph K. Crevisky, Ignatius Giardina 
(1902-1982), and Leon Schnee-(1907-1994), did not testify in 
public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                     New York, N.Y.
    The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 36 of the Federal Building, Foley Square, New York, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; C. George 
Anastos, assistant counsel, Francis P. Carr, staff director; 
Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; and Robert Jones, 
executive assistant to Senator Potter.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    I will ask you to raise your right hand. In this matter now 
in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Adm. Forsyth. I do.

       TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL EDWARD CULLIGAN FORSYTH

    The Chairman. May I say first I very much appreciate your 
taking the time off to come all of the way down here to be of 
help in what we consider an extremely important matter, and 
apparently you do, too, or you would not be here.
    Adm. Forsyth. I do, indeed, and I am very pleased to be 
here, in fact, and I want to be of every possible assistance to 
your committee and to you personally that I can. As you know, 
in accordance with navy regulations, I am required to ascertain 
that this is an executive session, and I am required to 
ascertain definitely that everyone here is cleared to receive 
classified information.
    The Chairman. I will identify all of the people here, 
Admiral. They are all members of the staff, and all have been 
cleared.
    Adm. Forsyth. I am also required to respectfully request, 
Senator, that nothing that I say will be printed, either in 
substance or in word, in the Congressional Record or in any 
other material that is available for public inspection.
    The Chairman. Let me say this, Admiral, with regard to 
abiding by your wishes on this. Normally we give the press a 
resume of the testimony without giving the name of the witness 
or any information about him which will identify him.
    The reason we have done that is this: Ordinarily you have a 
representative of another senator here, and so on, and we have 
found in the past that newsmen contact the administrative 
assistant, and representatives of Karl Mundt, and members of 
the staff, and sooner or later they get a piece of evidence 
from this man, and a piece of evidence from this man, and we 
get a completely distorted picture of the hearings. To avoid 
that, and to avoid the newsmen constantly contacting the staff, 
we have been following a practice, after a hearing, of giving a 
resume--as I say, without identifying the witness.
    Now, if you think that will violate the rules under which 
you are here, we will refrain from doing that in this case.
    Adm. Forsyth. Senator, you have as much discretion as I 
have in this matter, sir, and I just have to make the request, 
as I am still bound by navy regulations, as you realize, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me say this to you, that nothing at all 
will in any way disclose the fact that you testified on any 
specific matter, and if we give the press any resume, they will 
have no idea of who testified.
    Adm. Forsyth. I hope you realize, Senator, that this is not 
personal. I am required to do it.
    The Chairman. I was in the military for a while, and I know 
that a good military man observes all of the rules and 
regulations. Sometimes we do that even though we do not approve 
of it.
    Adm. Forsyth. That is not within my jurisdiction to approve 
or disapprove, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Admiral, will you state your full name?
    Adm. Forsyth. Edward Culligan Forsyth, Rear Admiral, 
Retired, U.S. Navy.
    Mr. Anastos. How do you spell the last name?
    Adm. Forsyth. F-o-r-s-y-t-h.
    Mr. Anastos. What is your present address, please?
    Adm. Forsyth. Monterey Peninsula Country Club, Pebble 
Beach, California.
    Mr. Anastos. Admiral, when were you first assigned to duty 
at Schenectady, New York?
    Adm. Forsyth. I reported for duty as inspector of 
machinery, and navy inspector of ordnance, General Electric 
Company, Schenectady, New York, on 15 May 1949.
    Mr. Anastos. And how long were you on duty there?
    Adm. Forsyth. Until 30 June 1953, at which date I retired 
from active duty in the navy.
    Mr. Anastos. Can you very briefly state what your duties 
were there?
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes. I was in general charge of all navy 
business with the General Electric Company at their plants in 
Schenectady and Pittsfield, which came under my immediate 
jurisdiction, and I also had certain other duties generally 
throughout the whole General Electric Company; specifically, 
armed services planning and procurement officer as the 
mobilization planning function, which extended throughout the 
whole organization of the General Electric Company. That is for 
all armed services and not just the navy, but all armed 
services, and that included the Atomic Energy Commission and 
various other branches of the government.
    The Chairman. You said that your job was in connection with 
all armed services. Did that have to do with security?
    Adm. Forsyth. Then in connection with security, I of course 
had charge of security matters directly for the navy, and I was 
also later, not on the date of reporting, designated to 
coordinate all security matters for all services in the General 
Electric plants under my immediate supervision, namely, 
Schenectady and Pittsfield. That did not, however, include, and 
in fact it specifically excluded, the Knolls atomic power 
laboratory.
    Mr. Anastos. When you first reported for duty, Admiral, how 
did you find security conditions at the General Electric plant 
in Schenectady?
    The Chairman. Admiral, you have made a number of notes over 
the weekend. Instead of our asking you specific questions, we 
will ask you to just run over your notes and give us all of the 
general information you can.
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, sir.
    Item 1. I was asked for a resume of the security situation 
in the General Electric Company as I found it and as it 
developed and as I left it.
    Specifically, when I went there in the beginning, 15 May 
1949, I considered that security was practically nonexistent. 
The officer whom I relieved, for example, took me to the 
Aeronautics and Ordnance Systems Division, in which practically 
all of the work was classified in one degree or another, and 
said, ``Now, everybody in here is supposed to have a badge 
which lets them in, but I want you to count the number of 
people around here that you see without badges.''
    Well, I should say approximately 50 percent were without 
badges. He was very displeased with that situation. We went 
then further to the office of Mr. H. V. Erben, who at that time 
was not operating that division but above the operations of 
that division, and he promised to do a lot about it, but 
pointed out that he couldn't do it all alone. I found out what 
he meant by that when I went back to my office, and I found 
sitting in a corner of a very stuffy little office a new 
officer, relatively new, and he had been there about a month, 
who was an ex-warrant carpenter in the navy--an excellent man, 
as far as his talents were concerned, but not particularly 
suited for that. But he had been designated as security 
officer. He had on hand some fifteen hundred applications for 
personnel clearances. That is as I remember the number; it 
might be a little one way or the other. They were in stacks on 
his desk and in chairs alongside his desk, and the office in 
general was crowded and confused. And I wondered how the 
General Electric Company could be expected to have cleared 
people when, frankly, a lot of the trouble was right at home.
    Mr. Anastos. What was his name?
    Adm. Forsyth. McDonough and he is now long since retired, I 
believe. I think so; I am not too sure.
    In any event, Mr. McDonough, M-c-D-o-n-o-u-g-h--John 
Aloysius McDonough--is a man close to sixty years old. I took 
it upon myself to clear that situation up, and I got him a 
proper office and I got him some help, and we turned on to the 
clearances and we got the clearances pretty well stable.
    I also found, among other things, that there was no badge 
system generally applying throughout the plant. Anyone could 
walk in and out as they pleased, and the only requirement for 
badges was, they were supposed to have them in order to get 
into these classified areas. That wasn't enforced, as it was 
plain to be seen.
    Mr. Anastos. May I interrupt again, please? Do I understand 
conditions to be somewhat as follows: that you did need a badge 
to enter the area itself, and you didn't need a badge to enter 
the A & O plant itself, the building?
    Adm. Forsyth. A badge was required on the books, that is to 
say, the regulations required badges; and I should say 50 
percent of the people that I saw in there that day that Captain 
Ward took me over, had no badges on them. They might have had 
them in their pockets, but that did no good. So that was one 
situation.
    I did, after working with Mr. Erben, who was most helpful, 
get a badge system instituted there, and every person that 
enters the gate now has to have a badge of one kind or another. 
The badges were set up with a color system to indicate the 
clearance of the holder. They were picture-type badges, sealed 
in by being laminated; and, as badges, were pretty good. But, 
at first in any event, we had a terrific epidemic of lost 
badges, and although I asked repeatedly for disciplinary action 
in case of lost badges, it was very difficult to get. Finally, 
they made the people who lost the badges pay fifty cents for a 
new one, which wasn't too much.
    In any event, no badge system is perfect. These little 
pictures don't mean anything.
    The Chairman. If there are a lot of lost badges, I assume 
that any potential espionage agent could pick up one of those 
lost badges and put his picture in it and pin it on.
    Adm. Forsyth. He didn't need to put his picture in it. Most 
of those pictures are very difficult to identify, anyway. They 
are little pictures about one inch square. You have really got 
to put a microscope on them.
    There is also the matter of the facility clearance, that is 
to say, the physical capability of the plant to maintain 
security and to be guarded against sabotage. At that time it 
was, in my opinion, very poor, if it was worth anything. I set 
about getting a facility clearance fixed up, and it took a long 
time to do, although I had the utmost cooperation in that from 
Mr. Louis J. Male, who was the plant manager at Schenectady. He 
is a man that I don't think he talked to, and if you have an 
opportunity again, I think that you should. He is an excellent 
man.
    I found that our clearance files in our office were not in 
good condition, and I found that the clearance files in the 
General Electric Company were in worse condition, if anything, 
and maybe they weren't in any condition. As far as I know, at 
the time I went there they had no security officer, plant wide, 
there at all. There was a Mr. John Logan, who was a sort of an 
assistant to Mr. H. V. Erben, vice president, who handled 
security matters. But that was only part of his duty, and a 
very incidental part as far as he was concerned, as far as I 
could see. They had no security coordinator for the company, 
and security was a pretty sketchy thing.
    These things had to be taken up one by one, Senator, and 
they couldn't all be accomplished at once, but I think that 
within two years we had some fair degree of security. However, 
there were a number of things that happened which I will come 
to a little later.
    The Chairman. I hate to keep interrupting while you are 
going through this, but I would imagine, not knowing anything 
about handling a security set-up myself except what we get here 
in the committees, you take over as a security officer and you 
have some forty thousand people, and a small staff, I assume, 
and it must be just about an impossible job to bring some order 
out of that chaos at that point. If, as the situation built up, 
you had a good, tight security set-up, you would never be faced 
with the chaotic situation you were in. I could easily 
understand how, no matter how competent a security officer 
might be, we will say, who came in in 1949 or 1951, by 1953 he 
could not possibly catch up to every potential espionage agent.
    Adm. Forsyth. No, sir. It was impossible to do, of course. 
But I do think that the security officers who I had, who worked 
for me, did a remarkably good job in that, and I had three 
while I was there. One was Lieutenant Commander J. A. 
McDonough; and the second one was D. L. Whyte; and I have given 
your staff the address and telephone number of Lieutenant 
Commander Whyte, who is now in civilian life, and he lives 
nearby here, and he is an excellent man, and outstandingly 
good.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Would Whyte be bound by 
military regulations?
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, sir, he is still in the Naval Reserve, 
but I am sure that he would be glad to come over on just a 
telephone call, and I have arranged clearance.
    The Chairman. For that matter, I am bound by them, too. I 
am a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps.
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, sir, you are.
    Then the third security officer that I had after White went 
back to inactive duty was Commander Otteson, O-t-t-e-s-o-n, who 
is there now. He is there now as security officer.
    All three of them really worked at it. As I say, I think 
McDonough's capacity was limited, but he certainly worked hard 
enough, and I had no kick about the way he worked.
    We did get them to set up and establish a security officer 
for the plant under the office of the plant manager, Mr. Male. 
That security officer they finally settled on to be Mr. 
LaForge, who was a former member of the New York State police 
organization, and I think you probably know Mr. LaForge's 
background pretty well.
    Then, the next thing to do was to try to get a security 
coordinator for the plant, who, as you say, should sit at the 
right hand of the president and speak with his authority. We 
kept after them about that, and finally they secured a Mr. 
Russell White, a former FBI agent and a lawyer. But, as you 
say, they did not place him next to the president, nor did he 
have any authority within any operating division.
    The Chairman. Would you say, Admiral, that has been one of 
the big difficulties in getting a good tight security 
organization, that even though you apparently have had some 
good, competent security officers out there, they just have not 
been given the authority which they need if they are to do the 
job as they are supposed to do it?
    Adm. Forsyth. Senator, Mr. White drew up a very fine set of 
security regulations promulgated throughout the company, and 
had they been mandatory, I believe they would've done a good 
job. On the first page, however, it said, ``The following 
security regulations are recommended,'' and they might just as 
well not have been sent out.
    The Chairman. He should have been high enough in the 
organization to substitute ``ordered'' instead of 
``recommended.''
    Adm. Forsyth. It should have gone out over the president's 
signature, stating ``The following security regulations will be 
uniformly placed in effect in all divisions.'' That is the only 
way to do that. They weren't. Mr. White and Mr. LaForge both 
sit there with both their hands and their feet tied, in my 
opinion.
    Mr. Anastos. Is there also a security officer in a 
division?
    Adm. Forsyth. Each division has its own security officer 
yes, civilian, of course.
    Mr. Anastos. Does the security officer of a division have 
any practical power?
    Adm. Forsyth. None that I know of.
    Mr. Anastos. What are his duties, that you know of?
    Adm. Forsyth. Again, to recommend.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, I assume that the security 
officer must also belong to the UE?
    Adm. Forsyth. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. He would not?
    Adm. Forsyth. No, not a single security officer that I know 
of belongs to any union. In that connection, however, there is 
a point there that I would like to bring out right now, since 
you mentioned it, Senator. As you know, they have a large 
number of uniformed guards around the plant. Those uniformed 
guards are all deputy sheriffs of Schenectady County, and they 
all belong to a union. That, I believe, is illegal.
    The Chairman. Do you think they belong to the UE?
    Adm. Forsyth. No, sir, they have their own union, which was 
represented, I believe, as was brought out by one of your staff 
members here, by a man named Silverman.
    The Chairman. George, will you check with the attorney 
general in New York, and ask him whether or not there is a law 
providing it is illegal for deputy sheriffs to belong to a 
union, and what, if any, laws cover a strike by deputy 
sheriffs? It could be a tremendously dangerous situation if we 
had a strike of all of the armed guards. It would be an 
impossible situation.
    Adm. Forsyth. This went along for the whole four years I 
was there, Senator, and it required my personal constant 
attention, as well as the undivided time of some other people 
on my staff. There isn't a thing that I will say here today 
that I haven't said to some responsible person in the General 
Electric Company organization at one time or another.
    I frankly am sorry that Mr. [Ralph] Cordiner isn't here 
now, because I have written a lot of these things to him, and I 
am perfectly willing whatever criticisms I have to say to be 
made known to Mr. Cordiner, and I will tell him myself again if 
he so desires.
    The Chairman. Who is Mr. Cordiner?
    Adm. Forsyth. President of the General Electric Company, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Is he the president of the entire 
corporation, or is Schenectady a separate company?
    Adm. Forsyth. His office is here in New York, right across 
from the hotel I am staying in.
    At the time that I left, we had approximately twenty 
thousand clearances on record of various and sundry kinds. By 
that time, I should say approximately eighteen months before I 
left, the requirement that we clear for confidential was 
removed, and it was placed with the company, which placed quite 
a burden on them because they weren't equipped to conduct the 
investigations and had to equip themselves.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, did you have available the 
facilities of the FBI in conducting investigations?
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, sir, but generally speaking, through the 
intelligence officer of the Third Naval District, our matters 
were conducted through DIO. However, the FBI did enter into it.
    The Chairman. I assume, as is usually the case, even though 
you got the stuff from ONI, much of it originated with the FBI.
    Adm. Forsyth. I should judge it did, yes, sir. As I said, 
when we left there, we had approximately twenty thousand 
clearances on record, and we had a number of cases on file 
where clearances were denied and were revoked and were 
suspended, and I found that it was much easier to suspend a 
clearance than to revoke a clearance, because if I tried to 
revoke a clearance, even under emergency procedures, it was up 
to me to explain why. If I suspended it, it placed the burden 
of proof on the other hands, because I did it that way. Maybe 
it was a dodge, but it worked.
    I would like to go on from that to another point which a 
member of your staff brought up, Senator, and which caused me a 
lot of thought. I still am not very clear on it. They brought 
up a matter that some time before I left, I had taken action or 
intended to take action, and I myself don't know which it was, 
to suspend clearance on several people because they signed 
Communist petitions. It is not that particular incident, which 
must have been an isolated instance--it is not clear in my 
mind. However, in thinking back over it, it appears to me that 
some months before I left, and it was early in 1953, I received 
a report either from Mr. LaForge's office or through him, that 
certain persons had signed Communist petitions. Frankly, I am 
prone to take somewhat hasty action upon occasion, and so 
offhand I said, ``Suspend their clearances.'' Whereupon, Mr. 
LaForge--and I don't remember the occasion clearly, but Mr. 
LaForge came right over to my office very quickly, and he said 
that he wasn't sure of what he had reported, that there was 
nothing sure and certain about that, and asked me if I would 
delay action. He presented a very strong argument, and so I did 
delay it. As I said at the time, I didn't know whether any 
letters in connection with that were signed by me, or by 
Commander Otteson as my security officer, but I should like it 
clearly understood if Otteson signed any letters, it was at my 
direction, and I alone am responsible.
    Mr. Anastos. Admiral, can you remember what reasons were 
advanced by the General Electric security officer to you to 
suspend action or to retract your suspension of the clearance 
of people, these people signing a Communist party petition?
    Adm. Forsyth. As I say, it is a little hazy in my mind, but 
all I can remember is that he presented pretty strongly that 
the report that I got, he wasn't sure of at all, and he wasn't 
certain, and he felt it might be doing it considerable 
injustice.
    Mr. Anastos. To whom?
    Adm. Forsyth. To the people concerned.
    Mr. Anastos. Why?
    Adm. Forsyth. Well, you must understand that a person 
working in the plant, with the clearance, was plainly evident 
to everyone from the badge that he wore; and if all of a sudden 
that badge was taken away and a white badge was given them, 
that was a non-cleared badge, first, he generally would have to 
be moved from the position he was in, and secondly, this white 
badge was an immediate indication to everybody that he had gone 
wrong. That often created quite a stir.
    So as I remember, and as I talked to him in the meeting we 
had, I am particularly very vague, and I would be glad to tell 
you anything I know about it, and if I could see any letters 
perhaps I would remember more about it, but it is pretty vague 
in my mind. But if I did, as I say, that is the reason why I 
did it.
    That is all I had on that particular one, and as I say, I 
sat around the whole weekend trying to remember these things. I 
just plain can't remember them all.
    I am coming now to the missing documents matter. When I 
first went there, as I told you, there was a seventeen-page 
piece of copy work, classified, as I remember it, confidential, 
which disappeared from a stenographer's desk when she 
carelessly, and in strict violation of the security rules, went 
off to cash her pay check and left it lying by her typewriter. 
It was lying by her typewriter. Every possible kind of a search 
was made for that seventeen-page document, which was just a 
part of the whole, incidentally, and it was never found.
    Mr. Cohn. You reached the conclusion it was stolen?
    Adm. Forsyth. I feel very sure in my own mind that it was 
definitely stolen. As far as I know, nothing ever happened to 
anybody involved in that.
    Mr. Anastos. Admiral, from what plant or division was that 
document missing?
    Adm. Forsyth. It was the Aeronautics and Ordnance System 
Division work, and whether the girl was actually sitting in an 
O & AS office, I can't recall.
    Mr. Anastos. Briefly, what type of work was done in A&O?
    Adm. Forsyth. Practically all of it was classified in some 
degree, and it was work in the manufacture of torpedoes, 
gunfire control systems, airplane control systems, and guided 
missiles.
    Mr. Cohn. That was that one instance. There was another 
incident involving an inventory that was taken, is that 
correct?
    Adm. Forsyth. I have them all listed.
    Mr. Cohn. All right.
    Adm. Forsyth. That was in the middle of 1949.
    In 1951 and 1952, we got the General Electric Company to 
hold an inventory of all classified material in the way of 
documents, drawings, and so on, in the A&OS Division. You must 
realize, as I said, that the General Electric Company has no 
central filing system, and they don't use file numbers, and it 
is very difficult to locate papers. It is very difficult to 
track them. As a result of that inventory, a large number--
originally it was several hundred--were found to be missing. We 
went back and required that a search of the files, file-by-file 
and folder-by-folder, and the desks drawer-by-drawer, be made, 
and a large number of these papers were found. However, at the 
time that I left there, it was reduced to what even the General 
Electric Company considered an irreducible number, and as I 
remember, the number was in the neighborhood of twenty to 
thirty documents that were found to be missing and just could 
not be located, no matter where.
    Mr. Cohn. Did those documents follow some kind of a pattern 
and deal with the same subject matter?
    Adm. Forsyth. The major portion of those documents dealt 
with the torpedo. I had an evaluation of those documents made 
by my torpedo engineer, by ordnance engineers, and they 
reported to me in their opinion on the missing material, the 
torpedoes had been definitely compromised and must be 
considered compromised.
    Mr. Cohn. There is a final incident involved there.
    Adm. Forsyth. We can go on, if you wish to, and there was a 
standing instruction, again on torpedoes, which was a document-
sort of a descriptive specification of settings for certain 
portions of the torpedo, which was supposed to have been 
shipped from the General Engineering Laboratory to the A&OS 
Division at Pittsfield, in a box of equipment, and the man who 
sent the box swore it was in there, and the man who received 
the box said it wasn't received, and I know definitely it was 
not received. Those documents were never found.
    Then there was the matter--and this is one of the most 
amazing things--of the package of documents, again concerning 
the torpedo, which were lost, stolen, or strayed from A&OS 
within a time after I left. A girl messenger, properly cleared 
and all, had been given this bundle to take from one man to 
another man near the quitting time, and when she got there it 
was so near the quitting time that the man who was to receive 
them didn't want to take them, and said he couldn't do anything 
with them that night, and told her to take them back and put 
them in the vault.
    This vault was a special vault in the A&OS Division for the 
storage of classified material. It was in a room which was 
locked, and to which, as I was told, only four people had the 
key, and only one man was supposed to know the combination to 
the vault. They were put, the girl says, in the vault, and she 
gave them to the man and he put them in the vault. The next 
morning when she came to get the papers and take them to the 
person to whom she was to deliver them, they were missing.
    That was investigated by the proper investigative agencies, 
not once but, to my knowledge, at least twice, and possibly 
three times, and they dropped everything and started all over 
again, because they said or told me they were right up against 
a blank wall, and those papers have never been found.
    There were other isolated instances occurring practically 
all of the time. I should say on the average of once every two 
weeks, some----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you find a reluctance on the part of the 
company to take action against those guilty of security 
violations?
    Adm. Forsyth. I tried again and again to get proper 
disciplinary action, and the company was very reluctant to take 
it, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what do we have after the documents?
    Adm. Forsyth. One thing I would like to cover with regard 
to documents was that I had an inventory, a similar inventory 
made in the General Engineering Laboratory, which is a highly 
sensitive location, and to the best of my knowledge and belief 
there wasn't one single paper missing there. It was really 
outstanding.
    You asked me the other night for divisions where such an 
inventory should also be made, and I couldn't remember it, but 
one definitely is the Tube Division, where they make electronic 
tubes of all kinds.
    The next item was the manner or reason that the UE union is 
permitted in the plant, the main plant at General Electric 
Company, when the Knolls Atomic Laboratory bars them; and as 
you indicated from part of a letter you read me, that was done 
by reason of Mr. Lillienthal's action.
    I should like to point out that in so far as the main plant 
is concerned, that this is done strictly because of the 
provisions of the law. The major portion of the workers, the 
majority of the workers in that plant, voted that they wanted 
the UE to represent them; and there is nothing under the law 
that I know of, or that the General Electric Company knew of, 
to bar UE from the plant. They had to accept the 
recommendation.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you regard it as a dangerous security 
situation having members of UE who work on classified material, 
responsible in their union activities in connection with 
grievances to known Communist leaders, who can discover 
indirectly just what these people assigned to classified 
material have been working on?
    Adm. Forsyth. I do, and I do consider that a very dangerous 
situation. Again, it is questionable as to whether or not, 
under the law, that can be prevented. However, I do believe 
that if it can be definitely proved that a worker in the plant 
revealed to an unauthorized person classified information, that 
the espionage law would cover them.
    Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about that.
    Adm. Forsyth. It would have to be definitely proven.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a dangerous situation?
    Adm. Forsyth. It is an extremely dangerous situation.
    Mr. Anastos. Isn't it true that according to the security 
regulations at General Electric in Schenectady, nobody was 
allowed to work in A&O and General Laboratory Division, or 
General Engineering Laboratory Division, unless that person had 
a clearance of some sort?
    Adm. Forsyth. I was coming to that, too. There were places 
in A&OS, and also in the general engineering laboratory, where 
no classified work of any nature whatever existed. But, it was 
my desire, more often than not expressed to the managers of 
those divisions, that no person who didn't have a proper 
clearance be admitted. However, when they tried to remove some 
people who either did not have a clearance or whose clearance 
had been revoked, suspended, or whatever you call it, then they 
again ran squarely against the union and the seniority rules. 
The union immediately screamed, actually and physically, that 
these people would lose seniority, and that their seniority 
would be taken away from them. And so, the General Electric 
Company was actually forced to retain those people in the place 
where they were, because of the seniority rules.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you remember the particular persons who had 
no clearance but were allowed to work in those two divisions?
    Adm. Forsyth. Offhand I cannot, and if I saw their names I 
would click on them, probably.
    Mr. Anastos. Would you remember whether or not there was 
derogatory information against those particular persons?
    Adm. Forsyth. I think so. I am not too sure of that. If any 
of--and there were, yes, of course there must have been, 
because after all, the man was denied a clearance, or if his 
clearance was revoked it was done for cause and not for fun.
    Mr. Cohn. Admiral, is it a fact that approximately one-
quarter to one-third of the work done by the whole General 
Electric Company is government work and government contracts?
    Adm. Forsyth. Approximately so, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. One more thing I will ask you. In view of this 
situation of this Communist-dominated union being up there, and 
the other things you have outlined, do you regard the presence 
of Communists who are there at that plant as a danger or threat 
to national security?
    Adm. Forsyth. Definitely.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect?
    Adm. Forsyth. Because they are in a position, first, to 
conduct espionage; and, second, sabotage. And that plant, as 
well as certain other GE plants, are vital to the national 
defense, and there is no way you can get around that.
    The Chairman. We had a witness before us the other day, a 
young man who worked in GE for quite a long time. He told us 
that he joined the Communist party as a dues-paying member in 
September of 1948 or 1949, and he dropped out as a dues paying 
member in February of 1953, this year. He indicated he was 
sympathetic to the Communist cause before that. He was 
completely cooperative, and I am convinced the break is 
complete. He gave us the names of thirteen people who were in 
effect in his cell, known as Communists, and a great many of 
them were shop stewards. He related the fact that while a shop 
steward who had a Communist record might be denied clearance, 
he said on a grievance committee and that sort of thing there 
was no difficulty getting secret information and a complete 
picture of the operations.
    He went on to say from the knowledge he had as a member of 
the Communist party, there was nothing about all of the GE 
operations, and nothing they manufactured, no matter what the 
classification was, that is secret from the Communist party.
    Would you think that that could be classified as a fairly 
accurate statement?
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, sir, under the circumstances, I do. 
Unfortunately, I must admit it.
    I have some other things here which I would like to bring 
out. I am still talking about the UE union in the plant, and as 
I say, that is provided for by law, and it would require, I 
believe, a change in the Taft-Hartley Act----
    Mr. Cohn. Couldn't the government just come in and put a 
provision in its contracts that they will not permit-
    Adm. Forsyth. That would be contrary to the Taft-Hartley 
law, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. For the government to make that provision in its 
contracts?
    Adm. Forsyth. Yes, because the majority of the workers of 
the plant vote they want UE to represent them, and how can you 
stop it?
    Mr. Cohn. Can't they invoke the provision, I think in the 
National Security Act, giving the Defense Department the power 
to declare something as a restricted area, and exclude 
Communists from it?
    Adm. Forsyth. I can come to that in very short order. I was 
coming right down to this: that the AEC can, by virtue of 
certain provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, require the 
exclusion of subversives, of people of known subversive 
affiliation or of organizations to which people who are 
subversives belong, even though the organizations might not be 
proved to be so themselves. The AEC can do that under the 
Atomic Energy Act. I don't believe anybody in the Defense 
Department has any such legal authority.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't agree with that at all.
    Adm. Forsyth. I have a way out of it in any event. I speak 
now of the General Electric Company approach, which had certain 
points of weaknesses. First, their organization has recently 
been completely done over. They have decentralized to a degree 
almost unheard of. Every division in the General Electric 
Company operates as a separate business. It is excellent from a 
business viewpoint. But it should be a means to an end, and not 
an end in itself. Some things can only be realized by strongly 
centralized authority, and good security is one of them.
    Now, the security coordinator, who is the top security man 
in the General Electric Company, has no real authority. He 
reports to a relatively low level. The security officers, 
similarly, within the various divisions, generally speaking, 
particularly in the case of the A&O Division, report again to a 
relatively low level. The security officer in the A&OS 
Division, for a specific example, reports to the manager of 
engineering, one Mr. Carroll--and why he should do that is just 
beyond my ken. I just can't understand it. If I were sitting in 
his position, I wouldn't allow it for a minute, for my own 
safety.
    He is required, as you have brought out here before, to 
just sit in a corner and do nothing except what he is told. For 
instance, in this room which contained the vault that I spoke 
of, no security officer in the A&O Division is allowed in that 
room. They are not allowed to have keys to it, and they are not 
allowed to have anything to do with it.
    The Chairman. It sounds like a fantastic situation, does it 
not?
    Adm. Forsyth. It is, indeed. Security instructions written 
by Mr. Russell White in my opinion, are excellent, but they are 
only recommended. They are not mandatory. They are sent to all 
division managers, and the interpretation and the application 
is left up to a variety of individuals, and so the carrying out 
of those instructions varies just with the individual who 
interprets them and applies them. There is no uniformity, and 
there is no compulsion to it at all. There is no strictly 
applied disciplinary action for violations.
    That is just, again, a situation that I can't understand. 
We in the navy, if I lost a confidential book, I know precisely 
what is going to happen to me, and it is going to happen fast 
and long. I will have thirteen solemnly looking at me.
    The Chairman. I want to ask you a question. I just wonder 
if it wouldn't be extremely important to see if we could not 
get clearance to have you testify in a public session. I think 
it is just so important for the American people to know what is 
going on, because as J. Edgar Hoover once said, once the people 
know the facts, they will take care of the situation. I am just 
wondering what you would think about our attempting to get 
clearance.
    Adm. Forsyth. Senator, I would like to help this committee 
just all I can, but I am really very loath to appear in a 
public session.
    Mr. Cohn. If the navy clears it, if the secretary of the 
navy approves it; wouldn't that be a matter of policy for the 
navy?
    The Chairman. We will talk with the admiral further on 
that.
    Adm. Forsyth. I like to sit in a place like this and let it 
all go.
    Mr. Cohn. It doesn't do much good.
    Adm. Forsyth. It is going to do some good, because I think 
I can tell you how to do some good. After all, I sat on this 
job for four years. I went lots of times, several times, many 
times, to highly placed officials in the General Electric 
Company, vice presidents and executive vice presidents, and to 
the president himself, and every time they would say to me, 
``You tell me where there is something wrong, and I will do 
something about it.'' And as I pointed out to them, on every 
such occasion, that was only putting out the fires, and I 
wanted to prevent the fires. That is the whole thing that is 
wrong with their work. They are willing to put out fires, but 
they don't prevent them ahead of time.
    Mr. Anastos. Isn't the reason for this laxity in security 
measures the fact that the General Electric plant has assumed a 
decentralization policy?
    Adm. Forsyth. The decentralization is definitely 
responsible in large measure for it, because the president 
feels if he is going to hold a division general manager 
responsible for his profits, and make or break him on it, he 
can't tell him how to conduct his business, and he has so told 
me in writing, that is, Mr. Cordiner has told me.
    Mr. Anastos. Carrying that a little further, do you mean 
that the General Electric Company is more concerned with making 
a profit than in taking proper security measures?
    Adm. Forsyth. No, I would find that very difficult to say. 
I would hate to say that. I just say that they are so imbued 
with the profit motive, they find it hard to do anything that 
will break it the least little bit. After all, they have lived 
their lives with it.
    The Chairman. Admiral, I wonder if you would do this for 
us: I have some very disagreeable witnesses out here who have 
attorneys with them, who have been kept here for four hours. I 
wonder if you would take a chair over here and listen to their 
testimony.
    Adm. Forsyth. These points are mostly written, so I can 
read them off whenever you are ready, and I have some definite 
recommendations.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. In this 
matter now in hearing before the committee. Do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Snyder. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL SNYDER, (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        LEONARD BOUDIN)

    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your name, please?
    Mr. Snyder. Samuel Snyder.
    Mr. Cohn. For the record, Mr. Leonard Boudin appears for 
the witness.
    Where do you reside?
    Mr. Snyder. 2141-34th Avenue, Long Island City.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Snyder. I am a patent attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a patent attorney?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are admitted to the bar in New York?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir; in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you practice before any government agencies?
    Mr. Snyder. Not now.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever practice before the Patent Office?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not now, though, do you?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir. I might on something I am qualified 
on.
    The Chairman. And if the occasion arose, you would appear 
before the Patent Office?
    Mr. Snyder. I could, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Snyder, have you ever worked for the 
government?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, first in the Patent Office, and then in 
the Bureau of Standards, and the last time in the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you go to work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Snyder. April 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you work for 
the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Snyder. From April 1949, to, I think it was, March 3 or 
March 6, 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. And where were you stationed?
    Mr. Snyder. In New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Where in New York?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, our office moved once, and most of the 
time I guess it was on LaFayette Street.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of work did you do?
    Mr. Snyder. Really the same thing. I was a patent attorney, 
although my title was patent adviser.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any access to any classified 
information, patent or otherwise?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You did?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, up to what classification?
    Mr. Snyder. Up to secret.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Snyder, are you now or have you ever 
been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Snyder. No I have never been; I am not now.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, you are free to confer with counsel, 
you understand, at any time.
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever committed espionage?
    Mr. Snyder. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever transmitted any classified 
information to any member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, not knowingly.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known any member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, I would rather you ask me specifically.
    Mr. Cohn. Just answer the questions as I put them to you.
    Mr. Snyder. Well, I have to plead the Fifth Amendment, 
then.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer 
might tend to incriminate you, under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I did not get the answer to your other 
question.
    Did you ever discuss any classified material with anyone 
who was known to you as a Communist or whom you had reason to 
believe was a Communist?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. At no time?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman named Eleanor Nelson?
    Mr. Snyder. I plead the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. The Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss any Signal Corps work of 
yours with Eleanor Nelson? You can talk to Mr. Boudin any time 
you want to.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. The answer is no.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not? Your testimony under oath is that 
you never discussed any of your work at the Signal Corps with 
Eleanor Nelson?
    Mr. Snyder. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with Eleanor Nelson?
    Mr. Snyder. I plead the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend any Communist party meetings with 
Eleanor Nelson while you were employed by the Signal Corps?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I plead the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there any persons who worked with you for the 
Signal Corps who are members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, I might take a normal understanding. No, 
I knew of nobody at the Signal Corps.
    The Chairman. I am having difficulty hearing you.
    Mr. Snyder. The answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with anybody who worked with you at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Snyder. No.
    Mr. Boudin. Excuse me a second.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. What was his answer? Could we have the question?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any Communist party meetings 
with any person who worked with you at the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Snyder. No.
    The Chairman. I did not quite get his answer to the last 
question. Did you ever know anyone at the Signal Corps whom you 
either knew to be a Communist, or had reason to believe was a 
Communist or member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, I include people whom you 
knew to be Communists at that time, or people whom you 
subsequently learned were Communists. Do you understand my 
question?
    Mr. Snyder. I think that I understand your question, and I 
am just trying to think, but there might have been people that 
I have read about since; and certainly no one that I knew, in 
the sense of having met or something like that, no one like 
that was a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Eleanor Nelson live in your home while you 
were working for the United States government?
    Mr. Snyder. I will plead the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Eleanor Nelson use your home as a mail drop 
in connection with espionage activities?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I have no knowledge of that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear that she had?
    Mr. Snyder. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear anything to that effect?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did she ever tell you that she expected to 
receive certain mail at your home----
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. That was of great importance?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever believe Eleanor Nelson to be an 
espionage agent?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever believe her to be a member of the 
Communist party?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I plead the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. Were you ever engaged in any illegal 
activities in connection with Eleanor Nelson, either directly 
or indirectly?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. It might be that we don't understand, or I 
don't at least, what would be comprehended by ``illegal 
activities.''
    The Chairman. Well, were you ever engaged in any activities 
in connection with Eleanor Nelson either directly or 
indirectly, which you thought were illegal, or violations of 
the laws?
    Mr. Snyder. Which I thought were illegal?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. Could you be more specific, because there seems 
to be some doubt as to what we are to understand by the 
question?
    Mr. Cohn. You are a member of the bar. You know what 
``illegal activities'' are.
    The Chairman. I am asking you whether, to your knowledge, 
you have ever engaged in any activities in connection with 
Eleanor Nelson, either directly or indirectly, which you 
considered a violation of the law? Either you did or you did 
not, and either you thought you were in violation of the law in 
connection with your activities which concerned her, or at this 
time you feel that you never violated the law in any activities 
in which she was involved.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I feel that I can't answer the question because 
of its general character. I therefore plead the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. That is not grounds for pleading the Fifth 
Amendment, because of the general character of the question. If 
you feel the answer to the question might tend to incriminate 
you, you can refuse to answer; but you cannot refuse because of 
the general character of the question. Do you feel the answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I have to plead the Fifth Amendment, then.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, the last point I want to cover is this: 
While you were working for the government, did you ever have a 
loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For whom were you working when you had the 
loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. The Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. The hearing was initiated by your being served 
with a letter of charges, is that correct?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you suspended at the time the letter was 
served?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. That isn't quite so, and let me make it clear--
--
    The Chairman. Could you speak a little louder?
    Mr. Snyder. There was a loyalty hearing, and that, 
technically, was not initiated by the Signal Corps but by the 
Civil Service Commission, and I was not suspended at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the result of that hearing?
    Mr. Synder. I was cleared.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom were you cleared?
    Mr. Synder. By the Civil Service Commission.
    Mr. Cohn. By the regional board, or on appeal?
    Mr. Synder. By the regional board.
    Mr. Cohn. You were cleared by the regional board?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. There was never an appeal by either side?
    Mr. Synder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Let us make it clear. You mean the first army 
loyalty board, or do you mean the final board in the Pentagon?
    Mr. Synder. No, I mean first there was a loyalty hearing by 
the Second Civil Service region.
    The Chairman. What did they find; against you?
    Mr. Synder. No, sir, they found for me.
    Mr. Cohn. They were acting for the Signal Corps, which was 
your employer; is that right?
    Mr. Synder. That is not my understanding. My understanding 
is that the procedure at that time was that when you took a 
Civil Service job, you were first either cleared or not 
cleared, as a result of a hearing, if there was information, by 
the Civil Service Commission.
    Mr. Cohn. This was not at the time of your employment; this 
was after you had been employed?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, but it was still by the Civil Service 
Commission, and it was not a Signal Corps thing.
    The Chairman. You started working there in April of 1949?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. When did you have this hearing?
    Mr. Synder. I had it in February of 1950.
    The Chairman. And the commanding officer did not suspend 
you?
    Mr. Synder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were never out of work, 
is that correct?
    Mr. Synder. No, I am not saying that.
    The Chairman. Were you working every day?
    Mr. Synder. The loyalty hearing----
    The Chairman. Were you ever suspended from your job?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. For how long?
    Mr. Synder. From March 1951 until I was reinstated, October 
1952.
    The Chairman. So you were out for about a year and a half?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir, not as a result of that loyalty 
hearing, but as a result of a security loyalty hearing.
    The Chairman. How long did you work in 1952, then? How long 
did you continue to work in 1952?
    Mr. Synder. I did not really work, and I resigned after 
reinstatement.
    The Chairman. Did you get all of your back pay?
    Mr. Synder. I didn't ask for back pay.
    The Chairman. Did you get your pay from March of 1951 to 
October of 1952?
    Mr. Synder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never received back pay?
    Mr. Synder. You see, one has----
    The Chairman. Did you ever receive the pay?
    Mr. Synder. I did not get paid for that period, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For any part of that period, did you get paid?
    Mt. Synder. No, sir, but I have to qualify it. You may not 
understand me.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Synder. I did not get paid for that period. I waived 
payment for that period.
    The Chairman. Why?
    Mr. Synder. Because the rule is that you are paid for that 
period, you are entitled to pay for that period unless your 
earnings were so much, and I figured my earnings were probably 
so close I didn't ask for pay.
    The Chairman. But the board did order that you be 
reinstated and receive your back pay, is that correct?
    Mr. Synder. I think ordered or authorized it.
    The Chairman. Now, can you tell us why it took from March 
of 1951 to October of 1952, about a year and a half, to pass on 
your case? Do you have any way of knowing that?
    Mr. Synder. The reason is, I believe, that I had a hearing, 
and this is a second hearing, by the Signal Corps----
    The Chairman. Who held the first hearing?
    Mr. Synder. The first one was held by the Civil Service 
Commission.
    The Chairman. And what happened as a result of that 
hearing? Did they clear you?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. They cleared you?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let us start at the beginning. Your 
commanding officer recommended you for a loyalty hearing, is 
that right?
    Mr. Synder. Well, I don't know how it is initiated.
    The Chairman. When did you first get notice that you were 
accused of being either disloyal or a bad security risk?
    Mr. Synder. About December of 1949.
    The Chairman. December of 1949?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you had started working in April of 1949, 
is that right? In what way did you get this information?
    Mr. Synder. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. How did you get the information? By letter?
    Mr. Synder. By letter, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. From whom?
    Mr. Synder. From--I am assuming, I know from, I think, the 
Civil Service Commission of the second region.
    The Chairman. The second region?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Were there charges in that letter, and did 
they tell you why you were being accused?
    Mr. Synder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Why did they say you were accused?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel]
    Mr. Synder. According to my recollection----
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Synder. There were questions as to my membership in the 
Communist party, and some allegations of that kind, and 
allegations of association with certain persons.
    Mr. Cohn. Eleanor Nelson?
    The Chairman. Were you accused of associating with Eleanor 
Nelson in these charges?
    Mr. Snyder. That allegation was made.
    Mr. Cohn. The charges were made, is that correct?
    The Chairman. Were you not charged with being part of an 
espionage network?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you charged with having in your home a 
person who belonged to an espionage network, and who was the 
maildrop for an espionage network?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Anything of that nature?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have the charges yet?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't have them.
    The Chairman. Who has them?
    Mr. Snyder. My attorney has them.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to produce them. Now, it is 
not necessary for you to bring them down, Mr. Boudin. If you 
will send a photostat of the charges, that will be sufficient.
    Mr. Cohn. There is other material I want to get, so why 
don't you hold that up.
    The Chairman. Let us have the record show that he is 
ordered to produce the charges.
    Mr. Cohn. After these charges were made, Mr. Snyder, you 
had a hearing, is that correct?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You were suspended, and you were out of a job 
with the Signal Corps, and you went to this hearing before the 
Civil Service Commission, is that right?
    Mr. Snyder. That is right, except that I was not suspended 
at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. You kept right on working. And you had a hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were the members of the board at that 
hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't think that I can recall their names.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall any of the names?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people were on the board?
    Mr. Snyder. There were three.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, as a result of that hearing, did you testify 
at that hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any witnesses testify against you?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a transcript of that hearing, or were 
you furnished with a transcript of that hearing?
    Mr. Snyder. I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your attorney furnished one?
    Mr. Snyder. My attorney was.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was your attorney?
    Mr. Snyder. Mr. Boudin is my attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. He has a copy of it?
    The Chairman. The witness is directed to produce that.
    Mr. Cohn. You are going to get three or four requests. Now, 
the next thing is this: You received a written notice from the 
Civil Service Commission that you were cleared, is that right?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when did you get notice of the next hearing, 
the loyalty security board of the army? When did you get notice 
of that?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, roughly, say, in February of 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. About how long after you had been cleared by the 
Civil Service Commission was that?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, approximately half a year.
    Mr. Cohn. About half a year?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time were you suspended?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Then you were suspended?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Up to this time, had you continued to work with 
classified material?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You had?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were suspended and you left the job, did 
you have another hearing, a hearing before the security loyalty 
board?
    Mr. Snyder. Excuse me, may I correct that answer. Something 
just occurred to me. You asked, did I continue to work with 
classified material. Yes, I did, but at some time during that 
half-year, my security rating was lowered to restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. It was lowered, but continued as lowered to 
restricted?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you are now suspended, and you have your 
second hearing, is that correct?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. This is before the army security loyalty board?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the First Army?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was that?
    Mr. Snyder. Where was it held, you mean?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Snyder. It was held at an army installation on Varrick 
Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were the members of that board?
    Mr. Snyder. There was a Mrs. O'Connor, I believe--and I am 
giving you my best recollection--and there was a colonel--his 
name escapes me--and a Mr. Bragaw, B-r-a-g-a-w, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what was the ruling, or what was the finding 
of that regional board?
    Mr. Snyder. That board found against me.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you take an appeal from that finding?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that finding reversed, on appeal, by the 
screening board to which the appeal was taken?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. It was reversed?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were the members of the screening board which 
reversed that appeal?
    Mr. Snyder. I believe there were five men, but I am not too 
sure, again.
    Mr. Cohn. Was one of them named Mr. East, E-a-s-t?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't remember Mr. East.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you remember?
    Mr. Snyder. I remember Mr. Gordon D. Taft. He was the 
chairman. And the name Clement occurs to me, but I am not too 
sure of it, and there is a lieutenant colonel, or there was a 
lieutenant colonel.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, before----
    The Chairman. You said there was a Gordon Taft, and you are 
not sure and there was a lieutenant colonel. Do you know what 
the lieutenant colonel's last name was, or first name?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't remember, I don't recall.
    The Chairman. How about the other two members of the board?
    Mr. Snyder. I am pretty vague on it, but I also have been 
thinking of the name White, and I wouldn't be sure of that. 
That might be one of the names. I am not sure of that.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Mr. East was on the 
board?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't remember that name.
    The Chairman. We have four now, and can you think of the 
fifth one?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't know whether there were five, and it 
seems to me now, sort of coming back a bit, that there were 
four members and one observer.
    The Chairman. You do not know who the other observer or 
member was?
    Mr. Snyder. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Now, the appeal board reinstated you, is that 
right?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    The Chairman. Why did you not go back and work for the 
Signal Corps then? You were ordered reinstated at that time.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I think that the reason was, I just considered 
I was having too much trouble.
    The Chairman. Where were you working then?
    Mr. Snyder. I was working at the Western Electric Company.
    The Chairman. Was Western Electric doing any government 
work?
    Mr. Snyder. It is a big company, and I suppose they were.
    The Chairman. Were you handling any classified material 
there?
    Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
    The Chairman. What kind of work were you doing there?
    Mr. Snyder. I was doing foreign patent work.
    The Chairman. Foreign patent work?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Having to do with mechanical equipment?
    Mr. Snyder. Well, almost anything that might come through.
    The Chairman. What are you doing now?
    Mr. Snyder. The same kind of work.
    The Chairman. When you were before either the army board or 
the appeal board, were you asked whether or not you knew 
Eleanor Nelson?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Snyder. I plead the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You of course have the transcript of what 
went on at both of those two loyalty hearings, I assume.
    Mr. Snyder. Again, I don't have them, but my attorney does.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to produce the minutes of 
those two hearings, also, and I think that that is all. We will 
order those produced--Mr. Boudin, what time in the morning will 
those be produced?
    Mr. Boudin. I will say the witness will decline to produce 
those papers, on the ground the hearing procedure, we 
understand, is confidential under the Civil Service and army 
rules; and, if you will not accept that, on the further ground, 
which I think you will, the witness' privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment. Those are the two grounds.
    The Chairman. You will decline to produce the official 
record?
    Mr. Boudin. The hearings, in which there is testimony of 
the witness himself, and the Fifth Amendment applies to all 
documents in which the witness may have made any statement or 
which was the basis of it. For those reasons, the witness will 
decline to produce it.
    I take it that you will adopt my statement.
    Mr. Snyder. I adopt my attorney's statement.
    The Chairman. The chair does not recognize the first 
grounds cited by counsel, namely, that this is privileged 
because it is the army and Civil Service regulations, because 
he was accused of wrongdoing at the time, and he is no longer a 
member of any government bureau and no longer working for the 
government, and this would not apply to him; and if there is 
anything secret about the documents, he would not be entitled 
to have them. The chair thinks we have a perfect right to 
subpoena them.
    As to the second ground, that he has a privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment not to produce them, the chair differs with 
counsel on that, and will order the witness to produce the 
material by two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
    May I say for counsel's benefit, however, that I will go 
over, with my legal staff, this question you have raised, and 
if they agree with you that he is entitled to refuse to produce 
the documents under the Fifth Amendment, then we will get in 
touch with you by phone by twelve o'clock tomorrow.
    Mr. Boudin. Senator, thank you. And in the event that you 
were not to agree with my contention, I can submit a memorandum 
to you in support of the cases when you are ready to receive 
it; and then I would prefer a subpoena at the proper time being 
issued to the witness, so that we can make a motion to vacate 
the subpoena.
    I take it that that is satisfactory.
    The Chairman. I may say that normally we would not serve a 
subpoena. If you feel that it is necessary, in order to avail 
yourself of a legal right that you think your client has, I can 
see no objection to serving a subpoena duces tecum.
    Mr. Boudin. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Will you stand up and raise your right hand.
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Pataki. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST PATAKI, (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWITZ)

    The Chairman. I may say for your benefit that the chair has 
already made a record to the effect I am going to recommend 
your case to the Senate and the grand jury for contempt for 
having failed to appear. If at this time you want to tell us 
why you did not appear when you were subpoenaed the last time 
and your ground appears valid to me, number one, I will not 
submit it to the Senate; and number two, regardless of whether 
I think it is valid ground or not, I will submit it to the 
Senate. If I think it is not a valid ground and I still 
recommend you for contempt, I will still give the Senate the 
excuse you give today so that they will be able to evaluate 
your case. If you care to tell us--and you may want to consult 
your counsel first--why you did not appear, we will be glad to 
hear from you.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Give your full name.
    Mr. Pataki. Ernest Pataki P-a-t-a-k-i. My reasons for not 
answering the subpoena was that I had about an hour's notice 
between receiving the subpoena and the appearance, and I found 
it impossible to arrange to be represented by counsel within 
that hour.
    The Chairman. Had you known before that that the committee 
was looking for you?
    Mr. Pataki. I had information that day, the same day.
    The Chairman. Whom did you get the information from?
    Mr. Pataki. From my wife.
    The Chairman. What time of the day was that?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't recall the time. She was here and 
testifying.
    The Chairman. She was at her home. Did she tell you?
    Mr. Pataki. I am sorry, I can't hear you.
    The Chairman. She was ordered to go home, as I recall, and 
if she saw you to tell you that you were wanted here before the 
committee. Did she tell you that?
    Mr. Pataki. She told me after she got home--and I don't 
recall the time--that the committee was interested in my 
appearance.
    The Chairman. In other words, your excuse is that you were 
subpoenaed too late and you had only an hour's time to appear, 
and you felt that the charges against you were of such a nature 
you wanted a lawyer and you felt you did not have time to get a 
lawyer and to consult with him, is that it?
    Mr. Pataki. I didn't understand the first part.
    The Chairman. I said, in other words--if I can recapitulate 
what I have said--you say the subpoena was served upon you so 
late that there was only one hour's time between the time you 
were served and the time you were to appear, and you felt that 
that did not give you time to consult with a lawyer and that 
you should have additional time, and for that reason you did 
not appear?
    Mr. Pataki. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I think that is a valid ground.
    Counsel has pointed out that this might be a valid ground 
to come down and ask for a continuance on the ground that you 
did not have time to get counsel, but that there would be no 
grounds for refusal to appear, especially in view of the fact 
that you previously knew that you were wanted here before the 
committee. I will call this to the attention of the full 
committee and let them decide what to do in the matter.
    Now, your wife's name is what?
    Mr. Pataki. Mrs. Vivian Pataki.
    The Chairman. And her name before that was Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Pataki. That is correct.
    The Chairman. When did you get married?
    Mr. Pataki. January 1952.
    The Chairman. How long had you known Miss Glassman before 
you were married?
    Mr. Pataki. I can't give the exact time; about four years.
    The Chairman. During that four years' time, was your wife 
involved in espionage, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Where do you work now?
    Mr. Pataki. Cooper Union.
    The Chairman. Cooper Union high school?
    Mr. Pataki. College.
    The Chairman. Cooper Union College?
    Mr. Pataki. The name is, the Cooper Union.
    The Chairman. That is a college, is it?
    Mr. Pataki. An engineering and art college.
    The Chairman. How many students do you have?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't understand.
    The Chairman. How many students do you teach in the course 
of a week, different individuals?
    Mr. Pataki. All classes?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Pataki. Approximately sixty.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed espionage with anyone 
whom you had reason to believe was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on any project involving radar, 
directly or indirectly?
    Mr. Pataki. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, 
no.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you work on?
    Mr. Pataki. Design and development of electronic equipment.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, radar of course is an integral part of 
electronic equipment.
    Mr. Pataki. Not all electronic equipment is part of radar.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you worked on electronic equipment?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was any of it classified?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't know what the official classification 
was.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it classified or was it public information, 
anything you work on?
    Mr. Pataki. It wasn't public information.
    Mr. Cohn. It was classified but you don't know what the 
exact classification was, is that right?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you had permission to work on such classified 
material?
    Mr. Pataki. I was given access to it.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you work for the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Pataki. From the middle of 1944 to the middle of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. To the middle of 1950?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on government work during that 
entire time?
    Mr. Pataki. I worked on contracts from the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Were some of those contracts from the Army Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after you left the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Pataki. I have worked in a television factory.
    Mr. Cohn. On any government work?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. What television factory?
    Mr. Pataki. Tele-King Corporation.
    The Chairman. Did you know a Mr. Levitsky there?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You worked with Levitsky at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory on Signal Corps work, did you 
not?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is it not a fact that Levitsky got you your 
job at Tele-King?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Pataki, when you were working on Signal 
Corps contracts at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory, 
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged in espionage at that time?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Julius Rosenberg 
espionage ring?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer that, 
your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Pataki. It might tend to.
    The Chairman. Do you feel it might tend to?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. That is true of all of these questions that 
you refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    The Chairman. You understand that you do not have any right 
to refuse unless you honestly feel that the answer might tend 
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, does Cooper Union do any government work of 
any kind, research or anything else?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of an espionage ring today?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you in contact with the remaining members of 
the Rosenberg spy ring today?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you participate in the distribution of money 
from the Soviet Union to members of the Rosenberg spy ring 
following Rosenberg's arrest?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present and in Vivian Glassman's 
apartment when Julius gave her money to distribute to members 
of that spy ring?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the 
distribution of fake passports to people known to you to be 
espionage agents or whom you had reason to believe were 
espionage agents?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Joel Barr?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Albert Sarant?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Who is your immediate superior at Cooper 
Union?
    Mr. Pataki. Professor Starr S-t-a-r-r.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, he is not a Communist?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer that?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You feel the answer to that might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Pataki. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Is your wife engaged in espionage as of 
today?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. On the ground of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know your wife's sister, Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she engaged in espionage, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you while you were working at the Army Signal 
Corps take classified contract information to which you had 
access and give that to members of the Rosenberg espionage ring 
for transmission to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. What are some of the major contract projects you 
worked on when you were with the Federal Telecommunications 
Laboratory?
    Mr. Pataki. In almost all cases, I didn't know the final 
use of the equipment I worked on.
    Mr. Cohn. You worked on electronic equipment?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir; small parts.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Signal Corps and other government 
departments?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of them involve work in connection with 
guided missiles?
    Mr. Pataki. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, 
no.
    Mr. Cohn. Fire control?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't some of them involve fire control?
    Mr. Pataki. As I have stated before, I seldom knew what the 
ultimate use was.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew it was classified ``Electronic, Pursuant 
to Government Contract,'' but you didn't know the end use?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You will not tell us whether or not you were 
stealing these secrets and giving them to the Rosenberg spy 
ring?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. On the ground of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. When in 1950 did you leave the laboratory?
    Mr. Pataki. I believe it was in August.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances? Did you resign or were 
you fired?
    Mr. Pataki. I resigned.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there ever a loyalty charge brought against 
you?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Not of any kind?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit the Evans Signal Laboratory at 
Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pataki. No, not to my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in contact with members of the Communist 
party working in the Evans Signal Laboratory at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you now in contact with persons working at 
the Evans Signal Laboratory at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think communists should be allowed to 
teach in our schools, unless they admit that they are 
Communists so that their students will know that they are being 
taught by a Communist teacher?
    Mr. Rabinowitz. May I have just a moment?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Pataki. I have never formed an opinion on that.
    The Chairman. You do not have any opinion on that?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. If the Communist party were to order you to 
sabotage our defense or any of our defense installations in 
case of war with Communist Russia, would you obey such an order 
or would you refuse to obey it? By this question I am not 
asking whether or not you are a Communist, but I am merely 
asking you what you would do in case you got such an order from 
the Communist party and you knew you were getting it from the 
Communist party.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Pataki. May I have the question?
    [The pending question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Pataki. Without indicating any possibility of such an 
order, as far as I am concerned I would not obey it.
    The Chairman. You would refuse to obey it? Let me see if we 
have this straight: You would refuse to obey any order from the 
Communist party ordering you to sabotage any of our defense 
installations in case of war with Communist Russia?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes. As I said, I would like to be understood 
that this answer does not mean that any such order would be a 
possibility.
    The Chairman. Do you think the Communist system of 
government is better than ours?
    Mr. Pataki. I haven't formed opinions on that subject, 
either.
    The Chairman. Have any of your students asked you questions 
along that line, whether or not you thought our republican form 
of government is better than the Communist form?
    Mr. Pataki. I teach electrical engineering, and no other 
subject ever comes up.
    The Chairman. You haven't answered my question.
    Mr. Pataki. I don't see the possibility of the question to 
exist.
    The Chairman. Well, have they or have they not?
    Mr. Pataki. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. Have they asked the question?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed communism with your 
students?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever solicited any of your students 
to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any Communist meetings 
which were also attended by your students?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. What is the answer?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer this last question.
    The Chairman. Do you know any of your students who attend 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Who is the principal at Cooper Union? Who is 
the principal of the school?
    Mr. Pataki. There is no principal.
    The Chairman. Who is the dean?
    Mr. Pataki. Professor Towle, T-o-w-l-e.
    The Chairman. We will call Professor Towle and tell him we 
have a Fifth Amendment case here who refuses to tell whether he 
is engaged in espionage today, whether he is still in contact 
with the Rosenberg spy ring, and whether he is a Communist. If 
he wants the record taken here today, that will be available to 
him. He will have to pay the reporter the usual fee to get the 
transcript.
    We will tell him also that we are not asking this as an 
order at all, but if he has no objection, we would appreciate 
knowing whether or not he will take action against Fifth 
Amendment cases of espionage and sabotage.
    Does your wife work in Cooper Union also?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers or sisters living?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many?
    Mr. Pataki. One brother in this country.
    The Chairman. Pardon me?
    Mr. Pataki. One brother in this country.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Pataki. Emery.
    The Chairman. And his last name is Pataki?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    The Chairman. What does he do?
    Mr. Pataki. He is an engineer.
    The Chairman. Who does he work for?
    Mr. Pataki. Maxson's.
    The Chairman. Do they do government work?
    Mr. Pataki. I can't say for sure.
    The Chairman. Where is that located?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't know the exact address.
    The Chairman. Is it in New York City?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know where, roughly?
    Mr. Pataki. Around 34th Street.
    The Chairman. That is the Maxson Corporation?
    Mr. Pataki. That is right.
    The Chairman. You don't know if they manufacture defense 
material?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't know for sure; I would say yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the company that makes machine guns?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your brother a Communist?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a spy?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. Where does his wife work?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't believe she works.
    The Chairman. Are your mother and father dead?
    Mr. Pataki. My mother isn't.
    The Chairman. She does not work, does she?
    Mr. Pataki. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does your brother reside?
    Mr. Pataki. 257 West 86th Street, I believe.
    The Chairman. Do you have any sisters?
    Mr. Pataki. Not in this country.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Pataki. In Hungary.
    The Chairman. When were you naturalized?
    Mr. Pataki. In 1944.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist then?
    Mr. Pataki. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. You were asked whether you were a Communist.
    Mr. Pataki. I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to consider yourself 
under subpoena. There was some difficulty in contacting you the 
last time, and your lawyer has indicated that that was not your 
fault. It might have been the fault of the marshal. I do not 
know whose fault it was, but in any event you are ordered to 
contact your lawyer once a day so that we can merely call him 
and make arrangements with him for you to appear.
    Mr. Rabinowitz, may I say that since we have so many 
witnesses in this case that if the day he is called it is 
difficult for you to be here, let us know.
    The Chairman. Will you stand up and raise your right hand. 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Socol. I do.
    The Chairman. I assume you are Samuel A. Neuburger, 76 
Beaver Street, New York City.

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT SOCOL (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS ATTORNEY, SAMUEL 
                         A. NEUBERGER)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, Mr. Witness?
    Mr. Socol. Albert Socol.
    Mr. Cohn. How is your last name spelled?
    Mr. Socol. S-o-c-o-l.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Socol. 419 West End Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer whether you ever worked 
there?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Socol, during what years would the public 
records indicate that a man named Albert Socol worked for the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Neuburger. It is understood that this would not be a 
question that would be a waiver; you just want it for the 
record.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Socol. I worked about five and a half years.
    Mr. Cohn. During what years?
    Mr. Socol. 1942 to 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the work at Evans Signal Laboratory?
    The Chairman. I understand he is answering these with the 
understanding that this is merely to establish the public 
record, and this will not be considered a waiver of his 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Socol. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the work at Evans Signal Laboratory?
    Mr. Socol. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And the last question I want to ask is this: Up 
to what classification were you cleared? What would the public 
records indicate as to up to what classification you were 
charged?
    Mr. Socol. I believe that the only type of material I 
handled was restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. I wanted to know what his clearance was up to. 
Now we will get to this: While you were working, Mr. Socol when 
you were working for Evans Signal Laboratory, were you a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. When working for Evans Signal Laboratory at Fort 
Monmouth, were you engaged in espionage against the United 
States?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. While working at the Evans Signal Laboratory, 
were you a member of the Communist spy ring?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer, on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you engaged in espionage activities with 
Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground previously 
stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Socol. I refuse to answer on the ground of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work, by the way?
    Mr. Socol. I work in New Jersey; Farmdale, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of work?
    Mr. Socol. I am an office manager.
    Mr. Cohn. In what kind of a company?
    Mr. Socol. It is a poultry association.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any government contracts?
    Mr. Socol. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. They do no business with the government directly 
or indirectly?
    Mr. Socol. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have refused to answer a sizable number 
of questions under the Fifth Amendment. I assume you are 
refusing because you feel that your answers to those questions, 
if you made an answer, might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Socol. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Neuburger, the witness will remain under 
subpoena, and we will get him not by bothering you but by 
calling you.
    Mr. Neuburger. Are these for public hearings, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. In this 
matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Crevisky. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH K. CREVISKY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        FRANK SCHIENER)

    Mr. Cohn. May we get the name of counsel.
    Mr. Schiener. Frank Schiener, S-c-h-i-e-n-e-r, 401 
Broadway, New York City. My phone number is Worth 2-6851.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think that you have appeared before the 
committee before, Mr. Schiener. The rules of the committee are 
that you may not participate in the proceedings. However, any 
time that your client desires to confer with you, he may do so. 
He may confer with you after any question is asked. At any time 
he may confer with you in strict privacy.
    You understand that, Mr. Crevisky?
    Mr. Crevisky. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, may we have your name?
    Mr. Crevisky. Joseph Crevisky C-r-e-v-i-s-k-y.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Crevisky. 45 MacDougal Street, New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Crevisky. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Crevisky, were you ever connected with the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Crevisky. I wish to decline to answer that question, 
and I would like to state the reasons for that. In answer to 
any question that I decline to answer before this committee, I 
think that I am standing on my constitutional rights. When I 
say that I am referring to each and every part of the 
Constitution, including each and every right and privilege 
accorded me or available to me under the First, the Fifth, and 
the Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. I regard this hearing 
with apprehension for my own liberty and my own freedom, and I 
feel not only for myself as a person but for my right of 
freedom of expression and freedom of speech for myself and for 
my associates and the people as a whole.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you feel that an answer to this last question 
might tend to incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Crevisky. I have stated the reasons for refusing.
    Mr. Cohn. The position of the chair has been that the 
committee does not recognize and the law does not recognize any 
privilege other than the privilege to refuse to answer under 
the Fifth Amendment if you feel, honestly, that the answer 
might tend to incriminate you. If you assert that privilege, 
that will be recognized by the chair. Otherwise, you will be 
directed to answer the question.
    Mr. Crevisky. No, I will stand on the previous answer which 
states the reasons for my refusal to answer.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. You are 
ordered to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Unless you assert the Fifth Amendment privilege. 
You can confer with counsel.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Crevisky. Well, I wish to stand on the answer which 
includes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment, as I chose to do 
so, and also the First and Ninth Amendments. I have asserted 
the Fifth Amendment in a manner in which I intended to do.
    The Chairman. The chair must determine whether or not you 
are entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege, and I must 
determine whether or not you will be ordered to answer. I 
cannot make that determination unless you first tell me whether 
or not you feel that the answer to the question might tend to 
incriminate you. I will now ask that very simple question: Do 
you feel that if you were to answer counsel's question that the 
answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Crevisky. I can only stand on my statement of my reason 
to decline to answer the question, which includes invoking my 
rights--all of my rights--under the First, the Fifth, and the 
Ninth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You are refusing to tell me whether or not 
you feel that an answer to counsel's question might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Crevisky. I wish to stand on my previous reason for 
declining to answer.
    The Chairman. Are you refusing to tell me at this time 
whether you feel that an answer to counsel's question might 
tend to incriminate you? Either you are refusing to tell me 
that or you are not. I would suggest that you consult with 
counsel. [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Would you answer the question?
    Mr. Crevisky. Just a moment.
    Well, if you mean by that question am I invoking my 
constitutional right in a criminal case not to be a witness 
against myself, then the answer is yes.
    The Chairman. I will ask you this question: Do you feel 
that the answer to counsel's question might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Crevisky. I can only stand on the previous answer that 
I gave, and the one that I have just stated.
    The Chairman. May the record show that the chair has given 
the witness an opportunity and a sizable number of occasions to 
tell the chair whether or not he feels that an answer would 
tend to incriminate him. The chair's position is that unless he 
answers that question, he is not entitled to the privilege of 
the Fifth Amendment, and especially so in view of his rather 
garbled reliance upon provisions of the Constitution which can 
have no conceivable connection to his testimony here today.
    He has relied, for example, on the Volstead Act, among 
other things, and he says all of the provisions of the 
Constitution. Therefore, in view of this garbled and confused 
statement he has made about relying, as I say, upon all 
provisions in the Constitution, before I can know whether or 
not he is entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege I must have 
an answer to the simple question of whether or not he feels his 
answer would incriminate him. He has refused to give me that 
answer. He is therefore ordered to answer counsel's question.
    So that the witness cannot plead ignorance at a subsequent 
legal proceeding or before a grand jury, and so he cannot claim 
he was entrapped before this committee, I will inform him at 
this time that if he fails to answer, I will submit the case 
for contempt proceedings and for an indictment.
    What is the next question, counsel?
    Mr. Schiener. May I be heard?
    The Chairman. You cannot be heard. You may consult with 
your client.
    This is a committee rule passed unanimously by all of the 
members of the committee: that counsel will not be heard and 
take part in a proceeding. If he has anything to say to the 
committee or to the chair, he can do it through his client. If 
you have any objection, you can do it through your client. For 
that reason, you can very freely discuss with him at any time.
    May I also say, Mr. Counsel, that you need not wait for him 
to call upon you for advice. If you feel that he needs advice, 
you just proceed to tap him on the shoulder and give it to him.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Schiener. May I suggest that if you ask your question 
again, Senator, you will get an answer perhaps that will 
satisfy you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Witness, the question is whether or not 
you feel an answer to counsel's question might tend to 
incriminate you.
    Mr. Crevisky. I will answer that question.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege. Can we 
assume without going through this long, drawn out procedure 
that just takes up your time and your counsel's time and our 
time--can we operate on the assumption that whenever you invoke 
the Fifth Amendment that you are doing so on the ground that 
you yourself feel that your answer might tend to incriminate 
you? Is that correct?
    Mr. Schiener. That is right, if you ask me.
    You had better make the record clear that that is your 
answer.
    Mr. Crevisky. All right, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were with the Signal Corps, were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were with the Signal Corps, were you 
engaged in espionage for the Communist party?
    Mr. Crevisky. I will discuss that with my counsel.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated.
    The Chairman. You worked from 1942 to when?
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer those questions on the 
grounds previously stated.
    The Chairman. You may be refusing under the fear that you 
may waive the privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    We will have the record show that the witness has been 
asked questions about the years of his employment at the Signal 
Corps and that he has expressed some concern for fear he may be 
waiving the Fifth Amendment. The chair has assured him that if 
he answers those questions, there will be considered no waiver 
of the privilege.
    Mr. Schiener. I thought that you mentioned the years of his 
employment in the army, or rather, service in the army. He has 
not admitted being employed by the Signal Corps. I might state 
off the record that I don't think you have any understanding--
----
    Mr. Crevisky. Am I answering the question off the record or 
with my constitutional privilege?
    The Chairman. It is on the record. I merely assured you 
that in case your lawyer was disturbed for fear you would be 
wavering the Fifth Amendment privilege by answering the 
question as to the years of your employment and where you 
worked, that you now have the chair's assurance that that will 
not be considered any waiver of any Fifth Amendment privilege. 
I might say----
    Mr. Crevisky. I would appreciate it if you would clarify 
it.
    The Chairman. In the first place, you don't have a Fifth 
Amendment privilege as to that--it is a matter of public 
record--and I was trying to save some time. The question is, 
Did you ever work in the Signal Corps?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Crevisky. Well, I am not familiar with what is a matter 
of public record. I will assert my privilege.
    The Chairman. You are refusing to answer whether you ever 
worked for the Signal Corps, the Army Signal Corps? You are 
refusing to answer that?
    Mr. Crevisky. Yes, I decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. On the grounds that you feel that your answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Crevisky. I include that among my reasons, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at this time a paid functionary of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer that question.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. During the past week, have you been in touch 
with any espionage agents?
    Mr. Crevisky. I will consult my counsel.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Crevisky. I will decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated.
    The Chairman. Have you been in contact with any espionage 
agents within the past three months who are presently working 
at the Signal Corps Laboratories at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Crevisky. I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds stated.
    The Chairman. You are not teaching school anywhere now, are 
you?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Crevisky. No, I am not teaching school now.
    The Chairman. That is all. You will consider yourself under 
subpoena, and your counsel will be notified when you are wanted 
again.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. In this 
matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Giardina. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF IGNATIUS GIARDINA

    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Giardina, do you work at Arma Company?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your position?
    Mr. Giardina. I am a supervisor.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Giardina. About six years.
    Mr. Cohn. Does that company handle any government work?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What branch of service?
    Mr. Giardina. We do all types of instrument work.
    Mr. Cohn. For the army?
    Mr. Giardina. For the army, navy, and air force.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any Signal Corps work?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You do work for the army?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know David Greenglass?
    Mr. Giardina. Well, he was one of my men.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew him?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. He worked under you?
    Mr. Giardina. As a mechanic I knew him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him socially at all?
    Mr. Giardina. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of Gunnar Boye, G-
u-n-n-a-r B-o-y-e?
    Mr. Giardina. He is my lead man.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Gunnar Boye now or 
ever was a Communist?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know that, to this day?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Does he have security clearance, and can he work 
on classified material?
    Mr. Giardina. No; only security material and not 
classified.
    The Chairman. You mean security material would mean 
classified material?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes. I am sorry, I am a bit hard of hearing.
    Mr. Carr. How well did you know Boye, or do you know Boye?
    Mr. Giardina. I think he is a mechanic.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever known him outside of the shop?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Carr. How long has he been there?
    Mr. Giardina. He has been with me since 1949, July of 1949.
    Mr. Carr. You didn't have any idea he was a Communist or 
had been a Communist?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did he ever indicate during the period he worked 
in your shop that he was active in the American Labor party?
    Mr. Giardina. Well, the only time I heard that is when he 
mentioned it to me. He told me he was here, and that is all.
    Mr. Carr. Before that, you had never heard it?
    Mr. Giardina. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. This is only a week or so ago?
    Mr. Giardina. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Before that, you never heard anything about it?
    Mr. Giardina. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Would you say what type of material he does work 
on, and what physical type of material, and what does he make?
    Mr. Giardina. Machine parts, that is all.
    Mr. Carr. None of it is classified?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Carr. You do not know what the parts are for?
    Mr. Giardina. The parts aren't classified; I think they are 
not.
    The Chairman. Apparently, you may not understand what we 
mean by ``classified.'' Is the general public entitled to come 
in and look at the work he is doing?
    Mr. Giardina. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. They can't?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    The Chairman. Then it is classified.
    Mr. Giardina. Then it is classified.
    Mr. Carr. Well, do you know what the ultimate use of these 
parts is? Do you yourself know what happens to these parts and 
what they are for?
    Mr. Giardina. No, I do strictly machine work; that is all.
    Mr. Carr. That is, strictly making parts?
    Mr. Giardina. We manufacture parts, that is all.
    Mr. Carr. You don't know what happens to them?
    Mr. Giardina. I don't know what happens to them.
    Mr. Carr. Is this on government contract?
    Mr. Giardina. It is a government contract. It is all work 
for the government.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether those parts are parts 
of bomb sights or parts of guns or parts of radar equipment; 
all you know is that you get the specifications and you 
manufacture the article, is that right?
    Mr. Giardina. That is right.
    The Chairman. And the defense material that you manufacture 
is of such a nature that the general public is excluded from 
the plant, is that right?
    Mr. Giardina. That is right.
    The Chairman. Are there guards at the doors of the gates?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes, we have gates; and we have a very 
efficient plant guard system.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see anything stamped secret or 
top secret or confidential?
    Mr. Giardina. No, never.
    Mr. Carr. You say you don't know Gunnar Boye very well?
    Mr. Giardina. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. You never associated with him outside?
    Mr. Giardina. No, sir; I never have time for myself. Let us 
put it that way.
    Mr. Carr. And your association with Greenglass was the 
same?
    Mr. Giardina. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. That is, you knew Greenglass only in the plant?
    Mr. Giardina. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. You never visited at his home at all?
    Mr. Giardina. Never.
    Mr. Carr. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Giardina. No, of course not.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been a member of the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Giardina. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did Boye have in the plant American Labor party 
material? Did you ever find that in his plant?
    Mr. Giardina. I am sorry, I can't hear.
    Mr. Carr. Did Boye ever bring into the plant literature of 
the American Labor party?
    Mr. Giardina. Not to my knowledge, never. As a supervisor, 
I never permit any intermingling or discussions to take place. 
I execute that down. In fact, as far as I know, there has never 
been any discussions while I have been there because I forbid 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. In this 
matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Schnee. I do.

                    TESTIMONY OF LEON SCHNEE

    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name?
    Mr. Schnee. Leon Schnee, S-c-h-n-e-e.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Schnee. Litho-Print Company.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you worked there?
    Mr. Schnee. I am there for about five years.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Schnee. I worked for quite a while ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work?
    Mr. Schnee. Naval Depot.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that?
    Mr. Schnee. Down on 36th Street and First Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you work there?
    Mr. Schnee. Around about--I worked there about 1934 or 
1935, up to 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go then?
    Mr. Schnee. I then went to New York Trade.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Schnee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known any member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never known a Communist?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know David Greenglass?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you have never known any 
member or any person you believed to be a Communist?
    Mr. Schnee. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Any person who subsequently you found out to be a 
Communist?
    Mr. Schnee. Subsequently found to be a Communist?
    Mr. Carr. Later learned to be a Communist.
    Mr. Schnee. Well, that is after I heard about it you mean; 
I met them or something like that. Yes, I have met them.
    Mr. Carr. Who was that?
    Mr. Schnee. My brother-in-law.
    Mr. Carr. What is his name?
    Mr. Schnee. Brothman, Abe Brothman. I didn't know he was 
but from what I read.
    Mr. Carr. What is your association with Brothman now?
    Mr. Schnee. Nothing at all.
    Mr. Carr. You never see him?
    Mr. Schnee. No; very little.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know where he is now?
    Mr. Schnee. No. As far as I know, he is working out in New 
Jersey. He lived on Long Island, Jackson Heights. I know his 
family.
    Mr. Carr. Your connection with Mr. Brothman at the present 
time is very negligible, and you don't see him but once a year 
or once a month?
    Mr. Schnee. I haven't seen him at all.
    Mr. Carr. What was your relationship with him in the past, 
before he got into difficulties?
    Mr. Schnee. In the past, nothing at all except as a 
brother-in-law.
    Mr. Carr. You never saw him?
    Mr. Schnee. Oh, yes. We visited with the family. My father-
in-law lived with us, and we went out to his home and we would 
see him. He would come and visit us occasionally.
    Mr. Carr. You never knew he was a Communist agent?
    Mr. Schnee. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Carr. How about your wife, was she aware of it?
    Mr. Schnee. I don't think she even knew his connections 
with, or had any connection.
    Mr. Carr. You have never been connected with the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. What kind of work do you do now at this company?
    Mr. Schnee. I am a plate maker, printing.
    Mr. Carr. Do they do work for the government?
    Mr. Schnee. I think they do some naval work.
    Mr. Carr. What would that be, printing of manuals or 
printing of charts?
    Mr. Schnee. I imagine it is some sort of designs of some 
kind.
    Mr. Carr. You don't do any of that yourself?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir; I only make the plates. I don't work 
in the printing.
    Mr. Carr. You make the plates for the printing?
    Mr. Schnee. That is right, for the press.
    Mr. Carr. And you are able to say that you are not now and 
have never been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schnee. I have never been at all.
    Mr. Carr. You have had no association with Abe Brothman in 
the last how many months?
    Mr. Schnee. Well, I have been in the army. Before he got 
into difficulties, previous to that, I would only see him when 
we visited him occasionally and when he came to see us.
    Mr. Carr. When was the last time you saw him?
    Mr. Schnee. Some time a few months ago. He had to come down 
to the house to see my wife.
    Mr. Carr. Did he come down frequently?
    Mr. Schnee. No, that is the only time he came, and that is 
the only time he really did come down.
    Mr. Carr. That is the only time he came to see you since he 
has been released?
    Mr. Schnee. Yes. I don't get what you say, ``association,'' 
and I don't quite understand what you are driving at.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see him other than that one time 
since he was released from prison?
    Mr. Schnee. I saw him that once, if I remember.
    The Chairman. Any other times?
    Mr. Schnee. No, I haven't seen him since then. The past two 
or three months I would say.
    The Chairman. Now, he was released from prison about how 
long ago, two years ago?
    Mr. Schnee. Or thereabouts.
    The Chairman. Have you seen him only once since then?
    Mr. Schnee. That is right. I am pretty sure it was once 
that I have seen him.
    The Chairman. Only once?
    Mr. Schnee. Yes, when he came down to see the family.
    The Chairman. And did you ever go up to see him?
    Mr. Schnee. Not since----
    The Chairman. Not since he was released from prison?
    Mr. Schnee. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go down and see him at the 
penitentiary?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you help him get his job when he got out 
of the penitentiary?
    Mr. Schnee. I didn't know anything about that.
    The Chairman. And your testimony is that you are not now 
and never have been a Communist?
    Mr. Schnee. No.
    The Chairman. And you never have attended Communist 
meetings?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never have been solicited to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schnee. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And never asked to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Schnee. I didn't know those things existed until I 
heard about it.
    The Chairman. I think those are all of the questions we 
wanted to ask of you.
    [Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., a recess was taken until 11:30 
a.m., Tuesday, November 17, 1953.]





















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Born in Russia, Harry Grundfest (1904-
1983) had immigrated to the United States as a child in 1913. 
He earned a Ph.D. at Columbia University and taught 
neurophysiology at Swarthmore and Cornell before joining the 
Rockefeller Institute. During World War II he took a leave to 
work at the Climatic Research Unit at Fort Monmouth Signal 
Laboratories and the Wound Ballistic Unit at Princeton 
University, and after the war he joined the faculty of Columbia 
University. He also chaired the medical advisory board of the 
Hebrew University and Hadassah (1950-1954). He remained at 
Columbia until his retirement in 1972.
    Grundfest testified in public on November 25, 1953. James 
Weinstein (1918-1995), Harry Pastorinsky, (1913-1990), Emery 
Pataki (1901-1956), and Charles Jassik did not testify in 
public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 11:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 36 of the Federal Building, Foley Square, New York, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
staff director; C. George Anastos, assistant counsel; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; and Robert Jones, executive 
assistant to Senator Potter.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. In this matter 
now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Weinstein. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF JAMES WEINSTEIN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        LEONARD BOUDIN)

    Mr. Cohn. Can we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Weinstein. James Weinstein.
    Mr. Cohn. How is that spelled?
    Mr. Weinstein. W-e-i-n-s-t-e-i-n.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside? And we will note that Mr. 
Boudin appears for the witness.
    Mr. Weinstein.101 St. Marks Place, Manhattan.
    Mr. Cohn. You can be contacted there at any time?
    Mr. Weinstein. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your phone there?
    Mr. Weinstein. Canal 8-0488.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you resided there?
    Mr. Weinstein. I think almost two years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you educated, Mr. Weinstein?
    Mr. Weinstein. I attended Cornell University, graduated in 
1949, in June.
    Mr. Cohn. In June of 1949?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes, sir, and I attended Columbia Law School 
for one term and a half starting September 1949 and I left, I 
think it was around March of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. What have you done since that time? You can talk 
to Mr. Boudin any time you like. Where have you worked?
    Mr. Weinstein. Where am I presently employed?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Weinstein. At the Emerson Radio and Phonograph 
Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. You are employed presently at Emerson?
    Mr. Weinstein. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do at Emerson?
    Mr. Weinstein. I am a television trouble shooter.
    Mr. Cohn. Does Emerson have any government contracts?
    Mr. Weinstein. I think they do.
    Mr. Cohn. From the various branches of the service?
    Mr. Weinstein. I guess so.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have access to any of that work?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You are not working?
    Mr. Weinstein. I am not working now.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know where it is being done? Is it being 
done any place where you go as a television trouble shooter?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never enter a building wherein any government 
work is being done?
    Mr. Weinstein. I believe it is all in the same plant, in 
the areas which have government work are separated.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that plant located?
    Mr. Weinstein. Jersey City.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been 
working there?
    Mr. Weinstein. Approximately sixteen months.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work before that?
    Mr. Weinstein. David Bogen, Incorporated. They make audio 
equipment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any government work?
    Mr. Weinstein. I believe they did, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have access to any of that?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes, I worked on some government work there 
but it was not classified.
    Mr. Cohn. For what branch of the government?
    Mr. Weinstein. I think it was for the army.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that Signal Corps work?
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of work was it?
    Mr. Weinstein. You mean what was the equipment that I 
worked on?
    Mr. Cohn. In general?
    Mr. Weinstein. It was a phonograph and public address 
system.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when you say not classified, could anybody 
walk in and look at this material or do anything they wanted or 
do you mean that it did not bear an engraved classification 
from the government?
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't know if they had an engraved 
classification, anybody can walk in and you didn't need 
clearance or anything else to work on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Could a stranger walk in off the street into the 
plant?
    Mr. Weinstein. I imagine so.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know they took no security measures 
whatsoever?
    Mr. Weinstein. As far as I know.
    The Chairman. You are working at Emerson today?
    Mr. Weinstein. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And I believe you already told counsel, but how 
long have you been working there?
    Mr. Weinstein. Sixteen months.
    The Chairman. Who got you your job there?
    Mr. Weinstein. I did.
    The Chairman. Who did you apply to?
    Mr. Weinstein. To the personnel office.
    The Chairman. Who is the personnel officer?
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't remember who interviewed me at the 
time.
    The Chairman. You say they are doing some secret work at 
Emerson?
    Mr. Weinstein. I didn't say secret, I don't know what the 
nature of the work is.
    The Chairman. Is it classified as far as you know?
    Mr. Weinstein. There is some government work.
    The Chairman. What part of the building is that done in?
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't know specifically.
    The Chairman. Have you been barred from any parts of the 
building?
    Mr. Weinstein. Well, yes, where government work is going 
on, in areas. They are marked off and there are guards.
    The Chairman. They have guards there?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you need a special pass to get in?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know any of the people working in that 
section?
    Mr. Weinstein. I may, I don't know who works where.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone who is working there? 
Anyone known to you working there?
    Mr. Weinstein. Specifically?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. There is one person who I know that does.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Weinstein. Her name is Rose, and I think her last name 
is Keyes; I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Weinstein, have you been a member of the 
Rosenberg espionage ring?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Boudin. Excuse me a second.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. May I change my answer? No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been a member of the Rosenberg spy 
ring?
    Mr. Weinstein. I have never been a member of any spy ring.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you never engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Weinstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
ground it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question. 
You have stated that you were not part of the spy ring and you 
have never been engaged in espionage.
    Mr. Weinstein. I am sorry----
    The Chairman. Just a moment. Will you strike that order, 
please.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Weinstein, did Julius Rosenberg conduct 
activities in an apartment in which you resided?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. As far as I know, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Julius--Did you ever live at a place on 
Morton Street?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never did. Did you ever visit a place at 65 
Morton Street?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know a man by the name of Joel Barr?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Maxwell Finston?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been engaged in Communist activities 
with Julius Rosenberg and Maxwell Finston?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse----
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is Finston today?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know----
    The Chairman. Do you know where he is today?
    Mr. Weinstein. That was the last question.
    The Chairman. Well, he asked you where he was today, and 
this is a question do you know where he is today?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Boudin. It can be understood when the witness says on 
the same grounds, he means the Fifth Amendment, of course.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you study electronics at any time?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Weinstein. In the United States Navy.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a civilian or were you an enlisted man?
    Mr. Weinstein. I was an enlisted man.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you thereafter teach at any navy school?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Weinstein. At the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in 
Illinois.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you teach there?
    Mr. Weinstein. I think it was the last six months I was in 
the navy which was approximately from February 1946 until the 
end of July, 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time were you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you teach subjects bearing on electronics?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I taught mathematics and that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the only thing you taught?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When you obtained employment with the company you 
worked for before, Bogen Company, did you have to fill out any 
form in which you were asked whether or not you were a member 
of the Communist party, in substance?
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't remember whether you did or not?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you disclose to your employers there or at 
Emerson whether you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell them you were not a member 
of the Communist party?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Boudin. You have got me stumped here, just a moment.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. While you were working--this woman Rose 
Keyes, is she a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Weinstein. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to any Communist meetings 
with her? [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to any meetings with her? 
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes.
    The Chairman. What kind of meetings?
    Mr. Weinstein. To a meeting of my local union.
    Mr. Cohn. What union is that?
    Mr. Weinstein. The International Union of Electrical 
Workers.
    Mr. Cohn. IUE?
    Mr. Weinstein. Local 480, CIO.
    The Chairman. How often do you see Rose Keyes?
    Mr. Weinstein. Every day.
    The Chairman. At work?
    Mr. Weinstein. She is one of my riders.
    The Chairman. One of your what?
    Mr. Weinstein. I drive to work.
    The Chairman. Do you discuss your work with her ever?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never mention anything about your work?
    Mr. Weinstein. I may mention something about the work but I 
don't discuss the nature of the work.
    The Chairman. You may mention what you are doing?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes.
    The Chairman. There is nothing secret about what you are 
doing?
    Mr. Weinstein. Absolutely not.
    The Chairman. No reason why you shouldn't tell her what you 
are doing?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    The Chairman. Does she keep what she is doing secret from 
you? [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with any members of the 
Communist party--strike that. Did you ever discuss with anyone 
known to you to be a member of the Communist party any 
classified work they were doing for the government or that you 
were doing for the government? [Witness conferred with his 
counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I never discussed classified work with 
anybody.
    The Chairman. That would mean you never discussed it with 
any members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Weinstein. With anybody.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified work with 
Rose Keyes?
    Mr. Weinstein. I refuse to answer that on the grounds----
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that. [Witness 
conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. Not that I remember, no.
    The Chairman. Did Rose Keyes ever discuss her work with 
you?
    Mr. Weinstein. No.
    The Chairman. Just within the last five minutes you refused 
to answer that on the ground that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you.
    Mr. Boudin. The reason is, Senator, that there is a 
possibility from the way you put the question that a probable 
waiver might have arisen, and actually I don't think it was, 
but I told him to answer it.
    The Chairman. You mean when you said that you felt the 
answer might tend to incriminate you, that you did not think it 
could incriminate you, and you merely answered that because 
your lawyer told you to?
    Mr. Boudin. No.
    The Chairman. I want the answer from the witness. [Witness 
conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Boudin. Will you repeat the question, Senator?
    The Chairman. We will start all over and I will hear from 
the witness and not from counsel. Just a short time ago in the 
last five minutes, I asked you the question about discussing 
classified material with Rose Keyes and you refused to answer 
on the ground that your answer might tend to incriminate you; 
is that correct?
    Mr. Weinstein. I believe so.
    The Chairman. Did you think that answer would tend to 
incriminate you? [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Weinstein. I thought that the answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. But you say you never did discuss any 
classified material with her.
    Mr. Weinstein. I don't remember ever having discussed any 
classified material with her. We ride every day, and she may 
have mentioned a word, you know, and I don't remember.
    The Chairman. You now don't think that that answer would 
tend to incriminate you, and have you changed your mind?
    Mr. Weinstein. Obviously.
    The Chairman. Have you changed your mind in the last five 
minutes?
    Mr. Weinstein. Yes.
    The Chairman. So you thought then it would incriminate you 
and now you think it won't?
    Mr. Weinstein. That is right.
    The Chairman. You may leave, and you will be called again 
in a public session and your counsel will be notified when you 
are to be called.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
In this matter now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Grundfest. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF HARRY GRUNDFEST (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        OSMOND FRANKEL)

    Mr. Cohn. Note that Mr. Osmond Frankel appears for the 
witness, and can we get your full name?
    Mr. Grundfest. Harry Grundfest.
    The Chairman. The rules of the committee are that at any 
time you desire you may consult with Mr. Frankel, and any time 
you feel that you need advise, he can tap you on the shoulder 
and give it to you.
    Where are you employed now?
    Mr. Grundfest. At Columbia University.
    The Chairman. What do you do there?
    Mr. Grundfest. I carry on research in neurophysiology.
    The Chairman. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Grundfest. 4 East Ninth Street, New York.
    The Chairman. Now, have you ever worked for the Army Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. When?
    Mr. Grundfest. From the middle of 1943 until the end of 
1944.
    The Chairman. And where?
    Mr. Grundfest. At Squire Laboratory in Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. Did you work on classified government 
information?
    Mr. Grundfest. My work was on biological engineering.
    The Chairman. Did you have any access to classified 
material?
    Mr. Grundfest. Restricted material as far as I know.
    The Chairman. That is classified.
    Mr. Grundfest. Well, it is the usual low classification of 
the army.
    The Chairman. I don't care if it was low or high, but it 
was classified.
    Did you have access or did you see at any time in the 
Signal Corps labs any material stamped confidential, secret or 
top secret?
    Mr. Grundfest. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. You never saw any material stamped secret, 
confidential or top secret, during the time you were working at 
the Signal Corps labs, either inside the laboratory or outside?
    Mr. Grundfest. Not that I recall. I think that I never saw 
any in the higher classifications, and I may have seen some.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove any classified material 
from the Signal Corps laboratory?
    Mr. Grundfest. Only the documents which I was given 
permission by my chief to take with me when we closed up.
    The Chairman. Who was your chief?
    Mr. Grundfest. Dr. Miller.
    The Chairman. M-i-l-l-e-r?
    Mr. Grundfest. That is right.
    The Chairman. And he gave you permission to take classified 
material away at times?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [Question read by reporter.]
    Mr. Grundfest. No, sir. At the end of our work at Fort 
Monmouth, we were given permission to take copies of the 
material which we had written.
    The Chairman. Did you get copies of work that anyone else 
had written?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't believe so. All of our work, I was 
sort of an editor of the group.
    The Chairman. You had a group working under you?
    Mr. Grundfest. With us, I mean I was not the head; we had a 
group of colleagues.
    The Chairman. When the work was finished, you were the 
final editor on the work, is that right?
    Mr. Grundfest. The reports were published as the work was 
finished, yes.
    The Chairman. Was any work done in that section--strike 
that. You were allowed, as I understand, by Dr. Miller, to take 
with you any of the work done in that section or copies of the 
work?
    Mr. Grundfest. You mean our group?
    The Chairman. In your group.
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, the biological work.
    The Chairman. Did you on occasion deliver some of that 
material to your wife?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall of any. She is not a 
biologist.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Dr. Grundfest, did you ever reside at 37 
Wood Avenue, Rumsen, New Jersey?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And was that in February of 1944?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall, sometime in 1944 we moved 
there.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were residing at that address did you 
attend Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Grundfest. I claim the privilege of the Fifth 
Amendment, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the Fifth Amendment, that 
your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Grundfest. The end of 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. The end of 1944?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, at that time were you a member of the Shore 
Branch of the Communist party?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. On the same grounds?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your wife a member of the Communist party at 
that time?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. On what ground?
    Mr. Grundfest. On the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You mean on the ground that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Grundfest. That any associations covered, I think.
    The Chairman. Are you claiming the marital privilege or the 
grounds that your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    May I explain again off the record or on the record?
    The Chairman. Just a moment, we don't want too many 
witnesses.
    You are taking the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a brother named Jack Grundfest?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the party today?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1947?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1949.
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1951?
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1950?
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party on September 17, 
1949?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. How about October of 1949?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. How about November of 1949?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. On the ground that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    The Chairman. How about December?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. When you say you refuse to answer, you are 
refusing in each instance on the ground that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you, is that right?
    Mr. Grundfest. That is right, yes.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. On the ground of the Fifth Amendment, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member in January of 1950?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you drop out between December and 
January?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you change your beliefs about communism 
in December of 1949 and January of 1950?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, Senator, on the same 
grounds, and the First Amendment, I believe.
    The Chairman. Do you feel communism is a very bad thing as 
of today?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't think that that is a question which 
I am qualified to talk about.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you to answer it, unless 
you don't know.
    Mr. Grundfest. I think it probably has bad features and 
good features.
    The Chairman. It has got good features?
    Mr. Grundfest. I expect so, and I don't know very much 
about it.
    The Chairman. And you say it has some bad features?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think the bad outweighs the good?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't know enough about it, sir.
    The Chairman. You don't know enough about it?
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    The Chairman. You have no opinion on that?
    Mr. Grundfest. I should imagine from what all I hear, that 
there are a lot of bad features about it.
    The Chairman. Do you know or do you have any opinion as to 
whether the bad outweighs the good?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I think that I should refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. On what ground?
    Mr. Grundfest. On the ground of the First Amendment and the 
Fifth Amendment, sir.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment, and are you teaching today?
    Mr. Grundfest. My job is research, and I have some lectures 
to residents when they ask me to give some lectures.
    The Chairman. You lecture, and where do you lecture?
    Mr. Grundfest. At Columbia University.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your title?
    Mr. Grundfest. Associate Professor of Neurology.
    Mr. Cohn. Dr. Grundfest, have you ever visited the Soviet 
embassy, in Washington?
    Mr. Grundfest. Not that I can recall--oh, yes, I can recall 
one time when Professor Walter P. Canon was given or made a 
corresponding member, I believe, of the Soviet Cabinet of 
Science.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the only time?
    Mr. Grundfest. As far as I recall, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever teach at Princeton?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, I never taught at Princeton.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever study at Princeton?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any connection with Princeton?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, I worked during part of 1945 on 
research there.
    Mr. Cohn. At what laboratory there?
    Mr. Grundfest. In the biology laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that laboratory conducting any work for the 
government at that time?
    Mr. Grundfest. I presume it was government, it was what was 
called wound ballistics, which meant the study of how wounds 
were produced.
    Mr. Cohn. And at that time you were a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you address a Communist meeting in 1950, in 
New York?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you address a Communist meeting in 1952 in 
New York?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. You stated 
that you were not a Communist in 1952.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall any meeting in 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend any Communist meetings in 1952? 
You can talk to Mr. Frankle.
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall any Communist meetings that I 
ever attended in 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in the Communist form of 
government in 1952?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I am an American citizen, I believe in the 
American form of government, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe in the establishment of a 
Communist form of government in the United States?
    Mr. Grundfest. No. I don't understand what my beliefs have 
anything to do----
    Mr. Cohn. Will you answer the question or refuse to answer? 
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir, on the grounds of 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. To put it another way so it is clear, do you 
favor as of today the establishment of a Communist form of 
government in the United States?
    Mr. Grundfest. I have no special belief for communism, sir, 
and I refuse to answer on the basis of this infringes on any of 
my beliefs, under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. You assert the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Grundfest. Both the First and the Fifth.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you plan a trip to Europe in 1952? \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The subcommittee files contain a memorandum from Donald 
O'Donnell to Francis P. Carr, November 10, 1953:
    The following information was obtained from a confidential source.
    On August 15, 1949, Harry Grundfest filed an application with the 
State Department for travel in various countries aboard for attendance 
at an International Conference of Neurology and possibly lectures. A 
passport was issued to Grundfest and Grundfest's wife by the State 
Department on August 29, 1949. Grundfest and his wife did not depart 
from the United States until July 26, 1950.
    Subsequent to their departure, the State Department received 
information indicating that Grundfest and his wife were Communists. The 
following unfavorable information was received:
    1. According to an informant, Harry Grundfest was a member of the 
Shore Branch of the Communist Party in New Jersey. In February of 1944, 
he resided at 27 Ward Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey.
    2. According to an informant, in October of 1944 he was seen 
leaving a joint meeting of the Shore Branch and the Long Branch of the 
Communist Political Association, Monmouth County, New Jersey--the 
meeting having been held at the Long Branch YMCA.
    3. According to an informant, in 1942 Rose Danzig, Grunfest's wife, 
signed a Communist Party petition at which time she resided at 3903 
46th Street [Long Island City], Queens, New York. Grundfest in his 
application for employment at Fort Monmouth Signal Corps indicated he 
had resided at this address from December of 1941 to May of 1943.
    4. According to an informant, Jack Grundfest (Communist Party name 
Robert Frost) was a member of the Communist Party in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, and was at the time of membership in the University Medical 
Hospital at Little Rock. It is to be noted that this is probably Harry 
Grundfest's brother as Grundfest on his papers submitted at Fort 
Monmouth listed brother Jacob who was a medical student at Little Rock.
    5. Various affiliations and organizations:
      a. National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was listed as a 
Director on the Certificate of Information in February of 1943. In 
1944-45 member of the Executive Committee of the Science Committee of 
this organization. In 1949 he was on the Board of Directors.
      b. American Council for Democratic Greece. In the June 2, 1948 
issue of the Daily Worker, it lists Dr. Harry Grundfest who was the 
International Correspondent of the American Association of Scientific 
Workers as one who would discuss the status of Greek scientists as 
described in a memorandum submitted to the American Council for 
Democratic Greece from the American Association of Scientific Workers. 
Memorandum sets forth numerous instances of political persecution of 
leading scientists for their participation in the war-time resistance 
movement and criticism of the war royalist regime in Greece.
      c. American Committee for Yugoslavia Relief. According to an 
informant he was a member and on September 4, 1947 was listed as a 
sponsor.
      d. International Workers Order. According to an informant in the 
Fall of 1946, he was a member of the Board of the IWO, Lodge #607.
      e. Council for Pan American Democracy. According to an informant 
a press release of June 8, 1945 of this organization lists Grundfest as 
National Secretary of the American Association of Scientific Workers 
and a signer of a release and letter to Spruille Braden, the then 
American Ambassador in Argentina, urging general amnesty for all anti-
fascists in Argentina.
      f. The American Soviet Science Society. During 1944 and 1945, 
Grundfest was active in this organization which was an outgrowth of the 
National Council of American Soviet Friendship.
      (All of the above organizations cited by the Attorney General.)
      He has had contact with the Soviet Embassy in the United States 
and Soviet Nationalists in Russia, extent of contact unknown.
                                    Passport Denial
    On April 28, 1952, Grundfest requested that his passport be renewed 
by the State Department for both he and his wife. His request was based 
on the fact that he was chairman of the Medical Advisory Board of the 
Hebrew University and Hadassah. He stated that there was to be an 
International Symposium at the medical school in Jerusalem and he was 
invited. He was on the executive committee of the board and was 
planning a series of conferences in Israel concerning the problems of 
the medical school.
    A memorandum in the file indicated that he had also made contact 
with the State Department following up his request because his passport 
had not been granted and he desired the urgency as the meeting in 
Israel would be held in June of 1952, and he was not in accord with the 
State Department indication that he would not be granted renewal 
because of security. By letter dated June 5, 1952, State Department 
advised him that it had been decided that his proposed travel would be 
contrary to the best interests of the United States and that in view of 
these circumstances his passport was being retained in the State 
Department files.

    Under date of May 5, 1952, Senator Herbert Lehman sent the 
following letter to Ruth Shipley, Passport Division of the State 
Department:
      I have received an urgent letter from the National Executive 
Secretary of Hadassah, the Women's Zionists Organization of America, in 
regard to the refusal of a passport to Dr. Harry Grundfest,, Chairman 
of the Medical Advisory Board of Hadassah and the Hebrew University.
      I am not acquainted with Dr. Grundfest, who is an associate 
professor of Neurology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of 
Columbia University, nor do I know anything of his background. I am, 
however, well-acquainted with the reputation of Hadassah, as I am sure 
you are likewise. It is one of the finest organizations of its kind in 
the country with an unblemished reputation for integrity and 
patriotism.
      I would hope therefore that you would give the needs of this 
organization in respect to the issuance of a passport for Dr. Grundfest 
every proper consideration since Dr. Grundfest's presence in Israel is 
described by Hadassah as being vital to the success of the meeting 
which Dr. Grundgest is scheduled to attend.
      I will be glad to hear from you in this regard.
                        Yours very sincerely,
                        Herbert Lehman

    (Arrangements being made to obtain photostatic copy)
    This letter to Lehman was acknowledged by State Department on June 
23, 1952 in which it was stated that the passport was denied to 
Grundfest because it would be contrary to the best interests of the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, not to Europe, primarily; it was to 
Israel.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you issued a passport?
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you not originally issued a passport?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And was it revoked?
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What happened?
    Mr. Grundfest. The passport expired, or was about to expire 
or something of the sort.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it renewed?
    Mr. Grundfest. It was not renewed.
    Mr. Cohn. And the State Department declined to renew it?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, I was supposed to go to Israel to head 
a commission on a medical school there.
    Mr. Cohn. And the State Department declined to renew it?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody intercede with the State Department 
and ask them to issue that passport? \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Senator Herbert H. Lehman (Democrat-New York), who served from 
1949 to 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't know, it may be that the medical 
school authorities in Israel considered my presence there very 
important and you see I am chairman of the medical advisory 
board to the university school there and they may have, or 
somebody may have.
    Mr. Cohn. You are not connected with the Weitzman Institute 
in any way?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, I helped to plan at one time one of 
their biology buildings, but I don't know whether it has been 
built or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you in 1952 ask Senator Lehman or did anyone 
in your behalf ask Senator Lehman to write to the State 
Department and ask them to issue you a passport?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't know, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. You know Senator Lehman wrote a letter, do you 
not?
    Mr. Grundfest. I think probably he did, but I really don't 
know. I never saw a copy of anything like that.
    Mr. Cohn. You never actually saw a copy of the letter?
    Mr. Grundfest. Perhaps I did, I am not sure, and I don't 
recall.
    The Chairman. Before Lehman wrote that letter did he ask 
you whether you had been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Grundfest. I never had any contact with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Here is a copy of it.
    The Chairman. Did he ever ask you in writing or any other 
way whether you were a Communist?
    [Document was handed to the witness.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall having seen a copy of this, 
but maybe I did. Senator Lehman's answer is very clear that he 
doesn't know him, and he was doing that at the intercession of 
Hadassah.
    Mr. Cohn. I will ask that this letter be made a part of the 
record so it will speak for itself.
    The Chairman. Did Lehman ever ask you whether by mail or by 
telephone, or through any intermediary, whether you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Grundfest. I think the letter says.
    The Chairman. Did he or did he not?
    Mr. Grundfest. The letter says he did not, and I am sure--
--
    Mr. Cohn. The letter doesn't say that. The letter says he 
doesn't know you.
    Mr. Grundfest. That is it.
    Mr. Cohn. I might not know someone.
    Mr. Frankel. The letter does say something about the 
background.
    The Chairman. I don't have time to hear from counsel. We 
have three more witnesses to hear from.
    It is a simple question.
    Mr. Grundfest. He never asked me anything.
    The Chairman. Did he ever inquire either by phone, letter, 
or through an intermediary, whether you were a Communist before 
he wrote this letter?
    [Witness conferred with his, counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. He didn't inquire.
    The Chairman. Did he know that your passport, or that you 
were refused a passport because of Communist activities?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't know why I was being refused a 
passport.
    The Chairman. You don't know why you were refused a 
passport?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Weren't you ever notified?
    Mr. Grundfest. I was notified on a form letter, long after 
the event.
    Mr. Cohn. You were told that the issuance of the passport 
would be contrary to the best interests of the United States 
and therefore not being renewed, is that not right?
    Mr. Grundfest. This was sometime, and I don't remember how 
long, after the deadline for my going to Israel.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know, Professor Mather?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he one of the persons who helped obtain a 
position for you at Fort Monmouth, and did you give him as a 
reference?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a professor Detlev Bronk?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he another person you gave as a reference?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall, I might have. Professor 
Bronk; I worked in Professor Bronk's laboratory for some time 
and I know him very well.
    Mr. Cohn. I ask we receive photostatic copy of Dr. 
Grundfest's application for employment with the Signal Corps 
indicating Professor Mather and Professor Bronk and others were 
references for employment.
    The Chairman. That will be done.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I wanted to ask you about this: Did you in 
1952 sign a pledge which appeared in the Daily Worker, asking 
clemency for the convicted Communist leaders?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean you don't remember one way or the other?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall one way or the other.
    The Chairman. You say you don't know whether you did or 
not?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether you did or not?
    Mr. Grundfest. I don't recall whether I did or not, that is 
right.
    The Chairman. Would you think that you would have if that 
had been of sufficient importance or would that be just a 
routine matter that you are asking for clemency for the 
Communist leaders?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I am opposed to the kind of procedures that 
have been going on in many of our legal institutions, and I 
make no bones about it.
    The Chairman. Speak louder, please.
    Mr. Grundfest. If I signed anything, I was probably 
requested to do so.
    The Chairman. Were you opposed to the conviction of the 
eleven Communist leaders?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    The Chairman. You were? Were you opposed to the conviction 
of the Rosenberg?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that traitors should be 
convicted?
    Mr. Grundfest. I should modify my answer, sir. I was 
opposed to the imposition of the death penalty on the 
Rosenbergs.
    The Chairman. You were not opposed?
    Mr. Grundfest. I petitioned Eisenhower for clemency.
    The Chairman. You asked Eisenhower to grant clemency?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you read the testimony in the Rosenberg 
case first?
    Mr. Grundfest. Only such as appeared in the newspapers, and 
I believe the Times carried fairly complete accounts, and what 
impelled me primarily was Professor Urey's letter.
    The Chairman. Would you be opposed to the death penalty in 
all cases of treason?
    Mr. Grundfest. These are hypothetical questions, sir, and I 
would have to think in terms of specific questions.
    The Chairman. Were you opposed to the execution of those 
who were convicted of being war criminals over in Europe, so-
called Nazi war criminals? Were you opposed to their execution?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir, because I object to 
the question since it has nothing to do with the committee's 
functions.
    The Chairman. You refuse on the ground the committee does 
not have jurisdiction to ask you that question, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you opposed to the execution of the Nazi 
spies who landed in this country from a German submarine?
    Mr. Grundfest. The same answer, sir.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 
Just so you will understand the reason for the chair's order, 
you have stated that you are opposed to the execution of 
Communist spies, and you have said that you are not now a 
Communist, and I think in order to get whether you are being 
truthful and frank with the committee, we must know whether or 
not you take the same position toward Nazi spies.
    You are ordered to answer.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment 
and the First Amendment, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any Communist spy for whom you 
would favor the death penalty?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer under the same grounds, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attempted to indoctrinate your 
students? Did you ever attempt to indoctrinate your students in 
the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you attempted to indoctrinate your 
students in 1952 in the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Grundfest. No, I have not, and I don't have any 
students.
    The Chairman. In your lectures, did you ever attempt to 
indoctrinate students in the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Grundfest. Sir, I only lecture on neurophysiology.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    Mr. Grundfest. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask any of the students to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Grundfest. I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. On the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Grundfest. Yes, on the Fifth and First Amendments.
    The Chairman. Each time you refuse to answer, do I 
understand that you are invoking the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Grundfest. And the First.
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself under subpoena, 
and your counsel will be notified when you are to appear, and 
perhaps it will be some day next week. We will let your lawyer 
know.
    I have just one question. Do you think Communist teachers 
should be employed in colleges, and teaching students?
    Mr. Grundfest. I think, sir, it is an examination of my 
belief and I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You may leave.
    Will you stand and raise your right hand and be sworn. In 
this matter now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly swear 
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF HARRY PASTORINSKY

    Mr. Cohn. May we get your full name?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Harry Pastorinsky. H-a-r-r-y P-a-s-t-o-r-
i-n-s-k-y.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pastorinsky, where do you work now?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. At the Naval Air Test Station at Patuxuent 
River, Maryland.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I have been there about six years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have access to any classified material?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Confidential. I imagine everything on the 
base is confidential.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work before that?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I worked for the Board of Transportation, 
New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. And before that?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. For the Signal Corps at Philadelphia; 
originally it started at the army base, and was transferred.
    The Chairman. When did you leave the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. In 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Yes, sir, I am a graduate of City College.
    Mr. Cohn. In what year did you graduate?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. June of 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. While at City College were you a member of the 
Communist league?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you were not?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meetings of the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Steinmetz Society?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of Nathan Sussman?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Julius 
Rosenberg?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I read about him in the paper.
    Mr. Cohn. I suppose we all did. Did you know him in City 
College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know any other Harry Pastorinsky at 
City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, I was the only one, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Rosenberg at City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know William Mutterperl at City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Joel Barr, at City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Aaron Coleman at City College?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anyone ever ask you to?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever participate in any Communist 
activity whatsoever?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. We will tell you this for your protection. Under 
oath this committee has had testimony that you were a member of 
the Young Communist League at City College, and testimony was 
given by persons who were in the Communist League with you at 
City College, and so I think that you had better go and think 
over the whole thing very carefully.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I would like to say it is wrong.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had a loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. What is that?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have a loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Could I give the witness some advice? You are 
here without a lawyer, and we have a sizable number of perjury 
cases now which we are submitting to the grand jury, where 
witnesses come in and testify directly contrary to each other 
and it isn't our function to decide who is lying, and we must, 
however, submit the case to the grand jury and decide who 
should be indicted for perjury. It is a very serious matter.
    A number of people come in here and are somewhat 
embarrassed about some of their previous activities, and they 
are guilty of no crime when they come into this room, and they 
make the mistake of thinking that we picked their names out of 
a hat and know nothing about them. They think they can lie to 
the committee safely and get away with it, and one of our 
functions is to see that they don't do that.
    I have no way of knowing whether you are telling the truth, 
or whether the other witnesses are. A number of witnesses under 
oath have identified you, time and place, that you have been a 
member of the Young Communist League.
    It isn't my function to determine whether they are telling 
the truth or not.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. It is false.
    The Chairman. I would suggest that you do this: After you 
leave here today, you go over the whole background in your mind 
and if you decide that you are mistaken come back and let us 
know; and if you think they are lying, good.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Can I speak shoulder to shoulder to you 
and just ask you a question? Can you present the people there, 
and let them come right in here and say so?
    The Chairman. They will be presented and it isn't our 
function to present them to you.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Right now, let us get it right over here, 
and how can anybody say that when it isn't true and that is a 
lie?
    The Chairman. That is up to a grand jury, and you will have 
a right to see that.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I would like to see someone who says that.
    Mr. Cohn. You will see them.
    The Chairman. Your positive testimony is that you do not 
belong----
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Never.
    The Chairman. Let me finish my question. Your positive 
testimony is today that you do not belong to the Communist 
party, and that you never did belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Never.
    The Chairman. That you never were asked to join the party?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Never.
    The Chairman. And that you never were asked?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. I would have objected if anybody did, and 
I was born in this country and I don't think anybody has as 
much pioneering spirit to object to that, and if they 
associated with me they probably would be in a position like I 
am, where they help out other people.
    The Chairman. I just want to get the record completely 
straight. You say that you never either joined the Young 
Communist League or were never solicited to join?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And you never contributed to the Communist 
party or the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    The Chairman. As far as you know you never attended any 
meetings of either the Young Communist League or the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Pastorinsky. No, sir.
    I would like to mention here that before I got here, Mr. 
Ocker in industrial relations claimed I was here on my own and 
he gave me annual leave and I only have a few days of annual 
leave, and I am bringing it out right now so that I came here 
at my own expense, evidently, and I don't know what the 
procedure is. I was ordered to come before a congressional 
committee, and when the Congress calls I come on the double 
double, and I didn't know whether this was a court hearing or 
not and didn't know whether I was going to get paid, and I 
would like to be straightened out.
    The Chairman. Will you straighten out with his employer the 
fact the man had to come here and that should not be deducted 
from his annual leave? The staff will take care of your 
traveling expenses and you are entitled to witness fees.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Mr. Ocker wants a transcript of the whole 
hearing so he can judge whether I am coming to what it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Let him ask for that through channels and we will 
be glad to supply it.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. He thought I would have to present it. He 
wanted me to get a copy to present to him before I leave.
    The Chairman. Tell him he can't have it, it is an executive 
session, and he cannot have a copy of the transcript.
    Mr. Cohn. The thing won't be typed for days.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. That is what I told my boss.
    The Chairman. You can tell him the fact that you are called 
here doesn't in of itself mean you are guilty of any misconduct 
of any kind, and you can tell him and quote me as saying that. 
You can tell him that many of the people we call here are good 
loyal Americans and we must call anyone, however, where 
testimony involves them or where we think they can give us some 
information.
    You can tell him he cannot have a copy of the transcript. 
It is an executive session and he will not be entitled to a 
copy of this executive session testimony. If, however, you need 
a copy of this to protect yourself and to protect your job, if 
we are so informed we will arrange to violate the rule which we 
have in not giving out executive copies and give it to you. But 
I want to hear from him to this effect.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. He wanted me to tell it to you, so that I 
can bring it back to him.
    The Chairman. You couldn't bring it back up anyway.
    Mr. Pastorinsky. Someone mentioned I went to City College.
    The Chairman. I can't take any more time, and if he wants a 
copy he can ask for the copy. Have him write and ask for the 
copy and tell the reason.
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. In this matter 
now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Pataki. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF EMERY PATAKI

    Mr. Cohn. Can we get your full name?
    Mr. Pataki. Emery Pataki. P-a-t-a-k-i.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Pataki. Maxon Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Pataki. 257 West 86th Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any government work at this Maxon 
Corporation?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind, for what department?
    Mr. Pataki. Design engineering.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have access to any classified material?
    Mr. Pataki. Only restricted and confidential.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the brother of Ernest Pataki?
    Mr. Pataki. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. He is a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Pataki. I have no reason to believe that, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How friendly are you with your brother?
    Mr. Pataki. Well, not too friendly.
    Mr. Cohn. When is the last time you saw him?
    Mr. Pataki. Last night I saw him.
    Mr. Cohn. Last night?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, because he told me that he was called down 
here and he gave my name to this committee, and probably I 
would be called down also, and I already got the subpoena by 
that time.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you have--have you ever been involved in 
any kind of Communist activity?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known a Communist?
    Mr. Pataki. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Vivian Glassman before she married 
your brother?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you not know she was a member of the 
Rosenberg ring?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you read anything about her in the 
newspapers?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. What about that?
    Mr. Pataki. I only remember seeing her name once or twice, 
in connection with one of these trials as a witness.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you know she was named at the Rosenberg 
trials, as a close friend of the Rosenbergs?
    Mr. Pataki. That I didn't know, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never knew that?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever ask her whether she was involved in 
this?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir, I don't discuss these things with her.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever ask your brother?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never did?
    Mr. Pataki. I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. How often do you see your brother?
    Mr. Pataki. Well, probably once in three or four months.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think when you are working on classified 
government work that you should associate with a man who 
refuses to say if he is an espionage agent?
    Mr. Pataki. No, but it happens to be my brother, if that is 
what you mean, and I can't refuse.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: I realize that you can't 
blame a man for what his brother does, or what his relatives 
do, but your sister-in-law has been identified as a top agent 
of the Communist party.
    Mr. Pataki. A top agent of the Communist party?
    The Chairman. Don't act so surprised about it. Didn't you 
know that?
    Mr. Pataki. I didn't know that.
    The Chairman. Didn't you know she was accused of carrying 
money from the Rosenberg ring to Perl?
    Mr. Pataki. I have read that in the newspaper.
    The Chairman. That would make her one of the top agents, 
would it not?
    Mr. Pataki. Well, if that is what you mean, sir, all right
    The Chairman. You are fully aware of the fact?
    Mr. Pataki. I only read it in the paper.
    The Chairman. Don't try to talk while I am talking.
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are fully aware of the fact, aren't you, 
that she has been accused of being part of the Rosenberg spy 
ring, carrying money for that ring, and you are aware of that?
    Mr. Pataki. I read that in the newspaper.
    The Chairman. And you know that your brother has been 
accused of being a Communist?
    Mr. Pataki. That I didn't know. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Didn't he tell you that during the hearing 
yesterday he refused on the ground of self-incrimination to 
tell us?
    Mr. Pataki. No, he didn't.
    The Chairman. Don't answer until I get through.
    Mr. Pataki. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. That he refused on the grounds of self-
incrimination to tell us whether or not he is currently engaged 
in espionage?
    Mr. Pataki. He didn't tell me any such thing.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you what he was asked here 
yesterday?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you anything about his testimony 
yesterday?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. After you read in the paper that your sister-
in-law was a member of the Rosenberg spy ring, you visited at 
their home?
    Mr. Pataki. No, I didn't visit--I think after that, once I 
invited them to my summer home to show them the new improvement 
that I made, mainly my brother, and I wanted my brother to see 
it. By that time they were married.
    The Chairman. And they stayed there over a weekend, did 
they?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes.
    The Chairman. And did you talk at all about the Rosenberg 
trial?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Weren't you curious to know whether she was 
part of the Rosenberg spy ring?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir, I didn't ask any such questions.
    The Chairman. Weren't you a bit curious to know whether or 
not your brother's wife was a part of the ring guilty of 
treason?
    Mr. Pataki. I didn't ask any such questions.
    The Chairman. I said weren't you interested?
    Mr. Pataki. No, as a matter of fact I just wanted them to 
see the new house, my brother, and that is all.
    The Chairman. You had no interest, in other words, in 
whether or not your brother married someone guilty of treason?
    Mr. Pataki. No, I didn't say that. I certainly am.
    The Chairman. Well, did you ask him?
    Mr. Pataki. By the way, sir, did you say guilty?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Pataki. Well, that I am not aware of, I only knew----
    The Chairman. I asked whether you were interested.
    Mr. Pataki. She was accused?
    The Chairman. I asked you whether you were interested in 
knowing whether or not he married someone guilty of treason.
    Mr. Pataki. I was very sorry to hear that, sir, and I 
couldn't help it, and I was certainly very sad to know that.
    The Chairman. Answer my question. I said were you 
interested in knowing?
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, I was interested.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask him?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir, I never butt into his private 
business.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss your work with your 
brother?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir, never.
    The Chairman. How did he know what you were doing? He told 
us what you were doing.
    Mr. Pataki. As far as everybody knows, they know that I am 
in a place where they are engaged in government work, and that 
is public knowledge, and they publish----
    The Chairman. How could your brother know what type of 
equipment you were working on, unless you told him?
    Mr. Pataki. I don't think he knows that, sir, because I 
never told anyone.
    The Chairman. You didn't?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never discussed it with him?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir, nobody.
    The Chairman. Did he or anyone else ever ask you to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Pataki. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And you say you only saw Vivian Glassman, now 
Vivian Pataki, once since the Rosenberg trial?
    Mr. Pataki. I am not certain when was this Rosenberg trial, 
sir? The dates are a little difficult and I know they were in 
our summer place this last summer once, after two years they 
hadn't seen it, and I invited my brother to see it.
    The Chairman. In two years you have only seen her once?
    Mr. Pataki. This house, I mean.
    The Chairman. In two years have you only seen her once?
    Mr. Pataki. No, more than that.
    The Chairman. How many times?
    Mr. Pataki. Probably two or three times; three times.
    The Chairman. Is that the most, three times?
    Mr. Pataki. I can't say, but not too often, and I can't 
recall.
    The Chairman. The other two times were you in their home?
    Mr. Pataki. Once I was invited for a dinner and they got 
married. I couldn't refuse that.
    The Chairman. You may step down.
    Consider yourself under subpoena, and if we need you again 
the staff will phone you.
    Mr. Pataki. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
In this matter now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Jassik. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF CHARLES JASSIK (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         EMANUEL LAZAR)

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get the name of counsel?
    Mr. Lazar. Lazar, L-a-z-a-r Emanuel, E-m-a-n-u-e-l, 1819 
Broadway.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your name?
    Mr. Jassik. Charles J-a-s-s-i-k.
    Mr. Cohn. Counsel, you may not participate in the 
proceedings. However, your client is free to confer with you 
and ask your advice at any time and any time you feel he needs 
advice, you may tap him and give it to him.
    The Chairman. If I may say, if you feel that something of 
sufficient importance comes up so you want a private 
conference, a room will be arranged for you.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Jassik, where do you live?
    Mr. Jassik. 44 Overlook Road, Great Neck, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. And where are you employed?
    Mr. Jassik. Olympic Radio and Television.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any government contracts?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, sir, we do.
    Mr. Cohn. On what?
    Mr. Jassik. Communications equipment.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that for the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jassik. No, that is for the United States Air Force.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any work for the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jassik. I have never done any work for the Signal 
Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been employed by the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Jassik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been employed by the government?
    Mr. Jassik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have worked in private companies which have 
subcontracts from the government, is that correct?
    Mr. Jassik. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, your brother is Henry Jassik?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jassik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever participated in any Communist 
activities?
    Mr. Jassik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jassik. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Your brother, is he a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jassik. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your sister-in-law a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Jassik. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Simon Pearson?
    Mr. Jassik. I know the name.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever met him?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't say you know the name; you have met him.
    Mr. Jassik. Casually.
    Mr. Cohn. At family functions?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, at a wedding.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that the only occasion on which you met him?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you have no knowledge of any Communist 
activities on the part of your brother or sister-in-law?
    Mr. Jassik. Absolutely no.
    Mr. Cohn. That is correct?
    Mr. Jassik. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists?
    Mr. Jassik. One.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
    Mr. Jassik. I did know him. He was the president of the 
union at Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Jassik. Harry Hyman.
    Mr. Cohn. H-y-m-a-n?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Jassik. He made a point of it.
    Mr. Cohn. He would go around telling people?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. He was an open Communist?
    Mr. Jassik. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you personally hear him state he was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances was it?
    Mr. Jassik. I believe I heard him at an open union meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he say, what was the substance of his 
remarks?
    Mr. Jassik. I don't recall, it was several years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. But he said he was a Communist, and were there 
other occasions on which you heard him?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes, one or two instances.
    Mr. Cohn. What were they, do you recall?
    Mr. Jassik. No, they were just--he would come around to 
collect dues.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications office?
    Mr. Jassik. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Jassik. In March of 1946 to February of 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. What were the circumstances of your leaving 
there?
    Mr. Jassik. When I left, I went to work for another 
company, in which I used some of the skills which I had 
developed at Federal.
    Mr. Cohn. I have no more questions.
    The Chairman. Let me say that your name will not be given 
out unless you give it out yourself, and no one will know that 
you are here unless you tell them. Would you keep in mind the 
mere fact that you are called here doesn't mean that the 
committee has any conviction one way or the other on any 
activities of yours. We call many good loyal Americans here. 
Some of them we think could be of help in giving us information 
on other people and some of them have been accused here under 
oath of Communist activities. We have no choice but to call 
everyone who may be even remotely involved in what we are 
investigating here before us.
    So I repeat that and I hope you understand that the mere 
fact that you are subpoenaed is no reflection upon you one way 
or the other.
    If you meet the press on the way out and they ask you who 
you are, you can tell them or not tell them.
    [Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at one o'clock p.m.]













              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Morris Savitt testified in public session 
on December 14, 1953. Albert Fischler; James J. Matles (1909-
1975); Bertha Singer, and Terry Rosenbaum did not testify in 
public.]
                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:40 p.m., in room 110 Federal 
Building, Foley Square, New York City, New York, Senator Joseph 
R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, staff director; Thomas W. 
LaVenia, assistant counsel; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant 
counsel; and Harold Rainville, administrative assistant to 
Senator Dirksen.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Mr. Savitt, will you come forward and be sworn. Will you 
raise your right hand? In this matter now before the 
subcommittee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Savitt. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MORRIS SAVITT (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEONARD 
                           B. BOUDIN)

    The Chairman. What is your name, please?
    Mr. Savitt. Morris Savitt.
    The Chairman. Has your name ever been changed?
    Mr. Savitt. Yes.
    The Chairman. When?
    Mr. Savitt. In 1946 or 1947.
    The Chairman. Mr. Savitt, what is your occupation?
    Mr. Savitt. I am an electrical engineer.
    The Chairman. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Savitt. I am employed by Slocum and Fuller, 207 East 
32nd Street, New York City.
    The Chairman. Has that company any government work?
    Mr. Savitt. Not since I worked there.
    The Chairman. Where were you employed before you were 
employed there?
    Mr. Savitt. I was employed by the New York State Department 
of Public Works.
    The Chairman. How long?
    Mr. Savitt. Well, I started in April of 1947.
    The Chairman. Where were you employed before that?
    Mr. Savitt. I was employed at the Brooklyn Navy Yard from 
July or August of 1946, and before in the navy, oh, from May or 
June, then in the navy on duty in 1945 and 1946; and from April 
1941 until I went into the navy I was employed in Brooklyn, New 
York, in the Corps of Engineers, on a dredge.
    The Chairman. Are you a graduate of the College of the City 
of New York?
    Mr. Savitt. Yes.
    The Chairman. During any time when you were in the army or 
in the navy, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer on the grounds afforded me 
in the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of a Communist cell with 
Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer on the grounds set forth in 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. At the College of the City of New York were 
you a member of the Young Communist League together with Aaron 
Coleman?
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer on the grounds set forth in 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage activities 
against the United States?
    Mr. Savitt. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in sabotage activities 
against the United States?
    Mr. Savitt. No.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer upon the same grounds, the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is that on the ground that an honest answer 
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Savitt. I have answered the question. I plead the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you ever arrested?
    Mr. Savitt. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified material in 
the presence of anyone connected with the Communist party or 
Communist sympathizers?
    Mr. Savitt. What does ``classified material'' mean? The 
only material I worked on was restricted in the New York Naval 
Yard, that is the Brooklyn Navy Yard. I worked on some 
confidential matters.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss confidential, secret, or 
top secret matters either with or without authority with a 
known member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer on the grounds set forth in 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Since you have already answered a question 
dealing with whether or not you indulged in espionage, and you 
have answered that question as ``No,'' and since you already 
have answered a question whether or not you have been involved 
in sabotage, and you answered that question, ``No,'' you have 
waived the grounds set forth in the Fifth Amendment, and I now 
direct you to answer that question.
    Mr. Savitt. I refuse to answer the question upon the 
grounds set forth in the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You may be excused.
    [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee recessed. It 
resumed at 3 p.m.]
    The Chairman. Before we proceed, I have a few questions I 
would like to ask of your counsel. Have you ever discussed 
executive testimony with any representative of the newspapers?
    Mr. Katchen. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss executive testimony with 
Murrey Marder or Levitas? \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ A national reporter for the Washington Post, Murrey Marder 
covered Senator McCarthy's investigations for four years, beginning in 
January 1951. The other is possibly a reference to Anthony Leviero, who 
reported for the New York Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Katchen. No. I discussed other matters with them.
    The Chairman. Did you give out any names of persons who 
appeared in executive testimony?
    Mr. Katchen. No.
    The Chairman. Did you solicit any clients in this manner?
    Mr. Katchen. No.
    The Chairman. What bar associations are you a member of?
    Mr. Katchen. I am a member of the Monmouth County Bar 
Association, the federal and state bars of New Jersey and I am 
entitled to practice before the Treasury Department.
    The Chairman. Now, Mr. Fischler, will you raise your right 
hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear in this matter now 
before the committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Fischler. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF ALBERT FISCHLER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, IRA 
                          J. KATCHEN)

    The Chairman. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Fischler. I know two Louis Kaplans.
    The Chairman. Did you know either one was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know one Louis Kaplan at Monmouth?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. How well did you know the one at Monmouth?
    Mr. Fischler. Not very well. I knew him when he was 
organizing a project.
    The Chairman. Were you on first name terms with him?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. When did you first know Kaplan was a 
Communist agent?
    Mr. Fischler. I never knew that. One time I received a 
letter of the army questioning if I knew Kaplan was a 
Communist.
    The Chairman. Did you know if he was a Communist?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give Kaplan a copy of that 
letter?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever talk to him about it?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. I would like to advise you that we have 
certain information here which indicates that you can perhaps 
answer that question much better.
    Mr. Fischler. I am trying to think.
    The Chairman. You have not seen him for how long?
    Mr. Fischler. In the past three years.
    The Chairman. You have not seen him for three years?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you saw him?
    Mr. Fischler. Oh, roughly five years ago.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to be a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to attend any Communist 
party meetings?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of any organization which 
was then or has since been listed by the attorney general or a 
committee of the Congress as being subversive or a front 
organization?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. How long have you been in the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Fischler. From 1942 to 1952 with a brief interlude when 
I was not working.
    The Chairman. What was the reason for your not being 
employed?
    Mr. Fischler. I was suspended.
    The Chairman. When?
    Mr. Fischler. In 1950.
    The Chairman. What were the charges?
    Mr. Fischler. I was charged with associating with Communist 
party members, extremely close and friendly with Louis Kaplan, 
a member of the Communist party. I was said to have met 
frequently to prepare agendas and that I was an active member 
of the Monmouth County Citizens Association, which was 
Communist party dominated, and said to have associated in 
meetings of the Friends of Soviet Russia, and in October 1945 I 
was in the company of Louis Kaplan and two others, Ben Davis 
and Dr. William Spofford--Ben Davis was alleged to be a 
Communist party member and was said to be a Communist party 
member and organizer.
    The Chairman. He was an organizer?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet Ben Davis?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. How about Spofford?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone that you know at Monmouth who 
has the same name as yours?
    Mr. Fischler. There is.
    The Chairman. What is his name?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Spell it.
    Mr. Fischler. Well, it is spelled Albert.
    The Chairman. The same name appears in an FBI report. Do 
you know any other persons who are named Fischler?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Is he confused with you?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Were you active in the Progressive Citizens 
of America?
    Mr. Fischler. I was not.
    The Chairman. Were you active in the Monmouth County 
Citizens Association?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. How about Soviet Friendship meetings?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. You say there is another Albert Fischler?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes. I ran into him once at the infirmary 
down there at Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. You stated you were suspended. How long were 
you suspended?
    Mr. Fischler. I was suspended for seven months.
    The Chairman. Did you finally receive your back pay for 
that?
    Mr. Fischler. No. I was removed.
    The Chairman. What were the findings?
    Mr. Fischler. The findings were there were no grounds for 
reasonable belief that I was disloyal. However, my removal was 
necessary or was desirable from the interest of security.
    The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the charges?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. What happened to them?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't know. I don't have them.
    The Chairman. Who has them?
    Mr. Fischler. Mr. Katchen.
    The Chairman. I now ask that you supply photostats at 
committee expense of the copy of the charges and the decision 
of the board.
    Mr. Fischler. I may have a copy of the decision.
    The Chairman. How soon can you send it in? You can send it?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Saltzman will be cited for contempt.
    Mr. Katchen. Mr. Greene and I advised you we were not able 
to produce the transcript. The transcript is something he would 
need. Under the loyalty order regulations it is something not 
to be given out.
    The Chairman. You are ordered now to give photostatic 
copies to the committee. If he has it, it is not classified. We 
will pay for it. This is an order. We will give you one week's 
time to comply.
    Mr. Fischler. Please explain that, Senator.
    The Chairman. Make it up in photostats of all the 
documents, suspension order, letters of charges, a transcript 
of the hearings and the decisions, and send it to the 
committee.
    That is what you are ordered to do.
    Mr. Matles, would you be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that 
in the matter now in hearing before the committee you will tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Mr. Matles. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. MATLES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS ATTORNEY, 
                        DAVID SCRIBNER)

    The Chairman. Would you please state your full name and 
home address for the record?
    Mr. Matles. James J. Matles, 193 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, 
New York.
    The Chairman. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Matles. I am director of organization of the United 
Electrical Workers.
    The Chairman. As director, is one of the plants in your 
jurisdiction the General Electric plant at Schenectady, New 
York?
    Mr. Matles. I have here an affidavit and a letter for the 
record.
    The Chairman. Were you in the grand jury room when a vote 
was taken on an indictment?
    Mr. Matles. I will stand on my affidavit.
    The Chairman. Were you in the grand jury room when a vote 
was taken on an indictment?
    Mr. Matles. Judge Weinfeld is familiar with that matter and 
these claims and the questions.
    The Chairman. You will not argue and shout. This is an 
executive session of the committee and we are going to take 
your testimony. We would like to limit this to your testimony 
on the questions and the answers.
    Mr. Matles. Will I be able to make a copy?
    The Chairman. No. You will be allowed to examine a copy of 
the transcript when it is prepared, and you can note any 
corrections or disagreements.
    Now, tell us if you were in the grand jury room during the 
course of the investigation into a Communist conspiracy.
    Mr. Matles. Of course you know I wasn't.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Matles. I have sworn five affidavits on that subject. 
The answer is in them.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    Mr. Matles. Senator, are you aware of the grand jury 
procedures?
    The Chairman. Answer the question, please.
    Mr. Matles. Outside of what is in the affidavits, there is 
nothing else to state on the matter.
    The Chairman. The question is: Are you or are you not a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Matles. I decline and I want to give the grounds.
    The Chairman. You may give the grounds on which you refuse.
    Mr. Matles. I decline on three grounds. I decline because I 
challenge the authority of this committee to inquire into my 
beliefs under the First Amendment. I decline under the Fifth 
Amendment in that I cannot be compelled to be a witness against 
myself. I decline because you are not trying to conduct an 
investigation, you are trying to frame me.
    The Chairman. I tried to frame you?
    Mr. Matles. You asked the attorney general to indict me.
    The Chairman. When?
    Mr. Matles. In March of 1951.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer if you are a Communist 
on the grounds that it might incriminate you?
    Mr. Matles. I have said you have no legal authority in this 
proceeding. If you will show me legal authority, I will answer 
you. I said no on the grounds of the first amendment, and under 
the Fifth Amendment you cannot compel me to be a witness.
    The Chairman. You decline?
    Mr. Matles. I have the attorney general's statement of law 
on that.
    The Chairman. You will please----
    Mr. Matles. Attorney General Brownell said no person shall 
be compelled to be a witness against himself.
    The Chairman. Do you think your answer would incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Matles. I have answered the question.
    The Chairman. On six occasions the witness has been 
requested to answer. The witness refuses to use the Fifth 
Amendment. Therefore, he is directed to answer.
    Mr. Matles. I am no spy. I have never engaged in espionage. 
The officers of my union are not spies. Your counsel has tried 
to frame me.
    The Chairman. Are you a traitor?
    Mr. Matles. I am not. If you say so, you are a liar.
    The Chairman. I have asked you five times: Are you a 
Communist?
    Mr. Matles. Five times I have answered.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    Mr. Matles. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
previously stated.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified work?
    Mr. Matles. I am not a spy.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified work in a 
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Matles. I have never--I decline on my rights. You are 
not going to terrorize me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss any classified 
government work with any member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Matles. I have no access to classified work. I refuse 
to be trapped. You did it at Schenectady.
    The Chairman. Do you call yourself a decent citizen?
    Mr. Matles. I think any law-abiding person is a decent 
citizen.
    The Chairman. Do you call yourself a decent citizen?
    Mr. Matles. I said that you have no right to question my 
beliefs.
    The Chairman. Do you call yourself a decent citizen?
    Mr. Matles. Any man not tried or found guilty is decent.
    The Chairman. You are in executive session. Don't shout. I 
ask you this: You are in executive session because we have 
evidence you are a Communist and engaged in a Communist 
conspiracy. You are under oath. Do you think you are a decent 
citizen?
    Mr. Matles. I tell you, I have signed five affidavits 
regarding these questions.
    The Chairman. Are they true?
    Mr. Matles. I signed those affidavits under the penalties 
of ten years.
    The Chairman. Are they true?
    Mr. Matles. I decline under the Fifth Amendment. You are 
trying to railroad me.
    Mr. Cohn. The record shows of the proceedings involving 
this witness.
    Mr. Matles. I have here proof.
    The Chairman. Mr. Matles, when did you make the affidavit?
    Mr. Matles. In 1934.
    The Chairman. Did you execute a pledge of loyalty?
    Mr. Matles. I certainly did. If you will look into the 
papers, you will find I am loyal.
    The Chairman. I have requested that you answer questions 
five times.
    You will return at a future date when we will continue this 
matter. Mr. Cohn will advise Mr. Scribner of the date.
    [Adjournment.]

 TESTIMONY OF ALBERT FISCHLER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, IRA 
                     J. KATCHEN) (RESUMED)

    [The witness was previously sworn by the chairman.]
    The Chairman. You understand what you have been ordered to 
produce now?
    Mr. Katchen. I do.
    The Chairman. Now, you were off for seven months, did you 
say?
    Mr. Fischler. I said I was removed.
    The Chairman. And when were you removed?
    Mr. Fischler. In May of 1951.
    The Chairman. And where are you working today?
    Mr. Fischler. The Kollsman Instrument Company, Elmhurst, 
Queens, New York.
    The Chairman. And do you now work there?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is it classified work?
    Mr. Fischler. It is.
    The Chairman. And what is the classification--confidential, 
secret, or top secret?
    Mr. Fischler. The classification of the work is at various 
levels. It is chiefly confidential. I don't recall whether any 
of the material is classified secret, under the reports which I 
submit of the work I do.
    The Chairman. In other words, your reports are marked 
secret?
    Mr. Fischler. That is right.
    The Chairman. Now, after you were removed from the Signal 
Corps, on the ground of being a security risk, how long were 
you employed before you got your job at the Kollsman Instrument 
Company?
    Mr. Fischler. Well, that isn't the first job I have gotten.
    The Chairman. What was the first job you had?
    Mr. Katchen. May I consult for a moment?
    [The witness consulted his attorney.]
    Mr. Fischler. I think I might mention that I appealed the 
decision and I was reinstated.
    The Chairman. You appealed the decision from the First 
Army?
    Mr. Fischler. That is right.
    The Chairman. To the loyalty board at the Pentagon?
    Mr. Fischler. To the secretary of the army in Washington.
    The Chairman. Did you appear personally before the 
secretary of the army's board?
    Mr. Fischler. That is right.
    The Chairman. Who was on that board?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you know the names of any of the people?
    Mr. Fischler. I really don't recall.
    The Chairman. You don't know people on the board?
    Mr. Fischler. I don't recall the names. I had a list of 
them, and I believe the names appear in the transcript of the 
hearing. But it is quite a while since I have looked at that 
copy.
    The Chairman. You are ordered then to examine the 
transcript and send the names of the people on that board to 
the committee. The address of the committee is the Senate 
Office Building, room 101, Washington, D.C. Are you taking this 
down?
    Mr. Fischler. Since I don't have the transcript, Mr. 
Katchen can.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to examine that transcript 
and send to the committee the names of the members of the 
loyalty board that cleared you. Do you understand that?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes.
    The Chairman. So that there will be no question, you are to 
send them registered mail, room 101. Are you going to remember 
this, or write it down?
    Mr. Fischler. I thought Mr. Buckley was writing it down.
    The Chairman. It is room 101, Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. Do you understand that order?
    Mr. Fischler. I do.
    The Chairman. Have you any objection to complying with it?
    Mr. Fischler. I can't say at this time. I don't know what 
my rights are, and I don't know what the rights of the 
Department of the Army are in the matter, and I will have to 
learn before I can consider whether or not to comply.
    The Chairman. Do you think that you have a right to refuse 
to give the names?
    Mr. Fischler. I can't say until----
    The Chairman. In any event, you are ordered to produce 
them. We will give you until next Wednesday, a week from today. 
Do you understand?
    Mr. Fischler. Yes.
    Mr. Katchen. May I say it has been my impression that there 
is a Civil Service Commission loyalty review board decision, or 
a memorandum, issued May 7, 1952, known as Memorandum No. 45, 
which forbids the release to other persons in or out of 
government of any details of the loyalty hearings.
    The Chairman. I do not care what is in any loyalty review 
board memorandum. This man is ordered to produce certain 
information. He will produce it or his case will go to the 
grand jury. I do not care what Seth Richardson or anybody else 
had to say about this. They are not running this committee. The 
senators on the committee are running it.
    Where did you go to work after you left the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Fischler. Well, I had a few days' work at various 
places; first as a television repair man, and then I got a job 
as a draftsman in a public service electric and power company 
doing detailing on power plant constructions, unclassified 
work.
    The Chairman. How long have you been working in your 
present job?
    Mr. Fischler. My present job, about ten or eleven months.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Fischler. I am.
    The Chairman. Do you have a family?
    Mr. Fischler. I do.
    The Chairman. How old are they, the oldest?
    Mr. Fischler. I have two children, girls, twelve and seven.
    The Chairman. Any brothers or sisters?
    Mr. Fischler. My brothers, you mean?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Fischler. I have two brothers.
    The Chairman. Are they working in the government?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Are they working in any plants that handle 
government work?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Are your sisters?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Do you have any sisters?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. How long did your hearing in Washington take?
    Mr. Fischler. About a day, the better part of a day.
    The Chairman. Were any witnesses against you produced?
    Mr. Fischler. No.
    The Chairman. Did you produce witnesses?
    Mr. Fischler. I did.
    The Chairman. In other words, the only witnesses heard were 
the ones that you yourself produced?
    Mr. Fischler. That was the First Army hearing in Governors 
Island, and there were no witnesses at the hearing in 
Washington.
    The Chairman. That will be all.
    You will consider yourself under subpoena; we will want you 
back again. Just so there is no mistake, let me repeat the 
order. You will have until next Wednesday to give the 
committee--to be done by registered mail at the committee's 
expense--either the original copies of all of the papers that 
you have in your possession having to do with your loyalty 
hearing or your suspension, your appeal; the originals your 
attorney has or a photostatic copy of them.
    If your attorney does not want to go to the bother of 
photostating them, then you can send us the documents and we 
will have them photostated. If he has them photostated, the 
committee will pay for the cost of that. That will be mailed by 
you in time to be in the hands of the committee by Wednesday of 
next week. If you think that is insufficient time, tell the 
committee now.
    Mr. Katchen. Due to the intervening holiday, sir, and the 
fact I will not be able to see Mr. Green and consult with him, 
may I have a few days' more time?
    The Chairman. How such time would you consider reasonable?
    Mr. Katchen. A week from Monday, sir.
    The Chairman. That will be agreeable. The order will be 
changed to make it a week from Monday.
    Will you stand and be sworn. In the matter now in hearing 
before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Singer. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BERTHA SINGER (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWITZ)

    The Chairman. Mr. Rabinowitz is the counsel.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I wonder if this is the same inquiry you 
have been conducting for the last few weeks, because I have 
been unable to find any connection between this witness and any 
of the subjects which I have at least come in contact with 
within the last few months.
    The Chairman. This is the same inquiry, and the first few 
questions will give you a complete picture of why she is here.
    Your name is Bertha Singer?
    Mrs. Singer. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is that your married name or your maiden 
name?
    Mrs. Singer. Married name.
    The Chairman. And do you know a Benjamin Wolman?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes, I know him.
    The Chairman. And Diana Wolman?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you know them while they were working at 
the Signal Corps Laboratories?
    Mrs. Singer. I didn't know--when did they work there? When 
was it?
    The Chairman. Did you know them at any time when they were 
known to you as having been employed at the Signal Corps 
Laboratory? I may say I frankly at this moment do not know the 
particular dates they were working there; otherwise, I would 
tell you.
    Mrs. Singer. I didn't know Benjamin long, and I knew 
Diana--I am not sure of the year--about ten years. And Benjamin 
I knew only about five years, I think.
    The Chairman. What is your maiden name?
    Mrs. Singer. Bertha Cohen, C-o-h-e-n.
    The Chairman. You are teaching in New York now, are you?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes, Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know whether or not Diana Wolman 
or Benjamin Wolman were members of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer that.
    The Chairman. On what grounds?
    Mrs. Singer. The Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did they ever discuss with you any secret or 
other classified government work?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. They did not?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. What are you doing now?
    Mrs. Singer. I am teaching in P. S. 213 in Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. What classes do you teach?
    Mrs. Singer. Sixth year.
    The Chairman. And, roughly, how many students do you have?
    Mrs. Singer. Thirty-one.
    The Chairman. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. On the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Singer. That is right.
    The Chairman. Are you now a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. On the basis that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Singer. That is right.
    The Chairman. What does your husband do?
    Mrs. Singer. He is an attorney
    The Chairman. Is your husband a Communist?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Singer. That is right.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married?
    Mrs. Singer. Since 1932, twenty-one years--no, 1933; twenty 
and a half years.
    The Chairman. How long have you been teaching?
    Mrs. Singer. I was appointed in 1931.
    The Chairman. In 1931?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you care to say whether or not you feel 
Communists should be allowed to teach?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Singer. No, I would not care to discuss it.
    The Chairman. I guess we do not need your advice on it, 
anyway.
    Aside from the names Bertha Singer and Bertha Cohen were 
you ever known by any other name?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. Weren't you ever known by the name of 
Elizabeth Smith?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. Are you sure of that?
    Mrs. Singer. Positive.
    The Chairman. Did you have a name other than Bertha Cohen 
and Bertha Singer in any organization which you ever attended?
    Mrs. Singer. Never, no other name.
    The Chairman. I may say for your protection, the 
information we have is that your Communist party name was 
Elizabeth Smith. If this is true, I would suggest that you 
search your memory so you will not be guilty of perjury here.
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. In other words, you never were known as 
Elizabeth Smith?
    Mrs. Singer. Never.
    The Chairman. Did you have a first name other than Bertha?
    Mrs. Singer. Never.
    The Chairman. In the Communist party or in any other 
organization?
    Mrs. Singer. I was never known by anything else but Bertha 
Cohen. My middle name is Florence.
    The Chairman. How many brothers do you have?
    Mrs. Singer. Four brothers.
    The Chairman. What are their names?
    Mrs. Singer. Well, Bill--we call him Bill; his name is 
Morris Cohen.
    The Chairman. Is he known as Morris Cohen?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And the others?
    Mrs. Singer. Herbert Cohen, Arthur Miller----
    The Chairman. Is he a lieutenant in the army, or he was a 
lieutenant in the police department?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes, he was a lieutenant in the police 
department.
    The Chairman. And he was dismissed because of Communist 
activities?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. And your other brother?
    Mrs. Singer. Barney Martin.
    The Chairman. Two of them are named Cohen and two have 
changed their names, one to Miller and the other to Martin, is 
that correct?
    Mrs. Singer. That is correct.
    The Chairman. What does Barney Martin do now?
    Mrs. Singer. Well, Barney is on pension. He was a 
lieutenant in the police department, and he is on pension. He 
moved to Connecticut. I think--I am not sure, but I think he 
works in a bank. I am not sure.
    The Chairman. You do not know what city in Connecticut?
    Mrs. Singer. He moved about three weeks ago, so I am not 
sure.
    The Chairman. You do not know where he lives in 
Connecticut?
    Mrs. Singer. No, I do not know.
    The Chairman. Where is Arthur Miller now?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Would you read the question.
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Was Barney Martin born in Boston, 
Massachusetts?
    Mrs. Singer. No, Barney--shall I tell you where?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Singer. Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
    The Chairman. And what is his birthday?
    Mrs. Singer. January 4. He is going to be fifty.
    The Chairman. Where is Herbert Cohen now?
    Mrs. Singer. He is either in a hospital or home. He is 
leaving for the hospital today. He lives in Brooklyn. I think 
it is on Ocean Parkway.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    Mrs. Singer. He is a cab driver, and I don't know the 
company.
    The Chairman. And Morris Cohen?
    Mrs. Singer. He has a bar and grill on Fifth Avenue.
    The Chairman. Is Arthur Miller doing any government work at 
this time?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer anything relating to 
Arthur.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse. I still refuse.
    The Chairman. You still refuse?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you have any sisters working for the 
government?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. Any sisters teaching school?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. Have you been soliciting your students to 
join the Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. Well, no.
    The Chairman. Have you ever solicited any of them to join 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever solicited anyone to join the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Have you been an organizer for the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Is this refusal on the basis of the Fifth 
Amendment?
    Mrs. Singer. That is right.
    The Chairman. You understand that unless you state you are 
refusing on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, I assume that you 
are refusing on grounds unknown to the chairman of the 
committee; so that wherever you have in mind the self-
incrimination section of the Fifth Amendment, it is necessary 
for you to say so.
    Mrs. Singer. When I refuse, I should say that?
    The Chairman. Yes; otherwise, you see, we do not know what 
is in your mind. Have you ever contributed money to the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer, Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended Communist meetings 
with your students?
    Mrs. Singer. I refuse to answer, Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I think that that is all.
    Will you stand and raise your right hand? In the matter now 
in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF TERRY ROSENBAUM (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       VICTOR RABINOWITZ)

    The Chairman. What is your full name?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. Terry Rosenbaum.
    The Chairman. What kind of work are you doing now?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I am a teacher.
    The Chairman. Where do you teach?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I teach at the Samuel J. Tilden High School.
    The Chairman. What do you teach?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. Social studies.
    The Chairman. Did you know Benjamin Wolman?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds specified in the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. There are many things in the Fifth Amendment. 
Are you refusing on the basis of the self-incrimination section 
of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I base it upon the interpretation given by 
those patriotic Americans who wrote the Bill of Rights one 
hundred sixty-two years ago, that no person shall be compelled 
to testify against himself.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer the 
question, it might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer on the grounds that I 
have already given.
    The Chairman. You are refusing to tell the chair whether or 
not you feel that your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I have already indicated that I stand with 
those patriotic Americans who wrote the Bill of Rights as a 
protection for innocent people against inquisitions of this 
kind.
    The Chairman. You are refusing to tell me whether or not 
you feel that your answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I have already answered you, Senator.
    The Chairman. The question is whether you feel that your 
answer would tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I have already given you the answer.
    The Chairman. We will have the record show that the witness 
has been given an opportunity to tell the chair whether or not 
he thinks the answer to the question of whether or not he knows 
Benjamin Wolman would tend to incriminate him, and he has 
refused to tell me whether or not he feels the answer might 
tend to incriminate him. Therefore, he does not have any Fifth 
Amendment privilege as to this question. Therefore, he is 
ordered to answer whether or not he knows Benjamin Wolman and 
to identify Benjamin Wolman as a man who has worked in the 
Signal Corps handling classified work for the government and 
who has been heretofore identified before the committee in 
connection with Communist activities.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Rosenbaum. Is there a question pending?
    The Chairman. I just gave a resume of the record that this 
man has been ordered to answer a question and he has refused. 
He refused to tell me whether or not he feels the answer might 
tend to incriminate him. He was ordered to answer the original 
question and he refused to answer that. I think the record is 
complete as of now on that question.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. As far as your interpretation, senator.
    The Chairman. We will not argue it. The next question: Are 
you a member of the Communist conspiracy as of today?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer the question on the 
grounds specified in the Fifth Amendment, that no person may be 
compelled to testify against himself.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer that 
question, the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No person may be compelled to testify 
against himself; that is a specific and explicit use of the 
Fifth Amendment in the Constitution.
    The Chairman. Will you also have the record show that the 
witness refuses to tell me whether or not he feels the answer 
would tend to incriminate him. He is ordered to answer the 
question of whether or not he is a member of the Communist 
conspiracy as of today.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever had access to any classified 
government material?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed classified government 
material with anyone else?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard classified material, 
government material, discussed at any meeting where people 
known to you to be members of the Communist party were present?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer that question on grounds 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. No person may be compelled to testify 
against himself.
    The Chairman. So that you cannot plead ignorance of the 
chair's position, in view of the fact that you have said you 
never engaged in any espionage, you have waived the Fifth 
Amendment privilege as to the field of espionage. Discussion of 
classified material with people known to you to be members of 
the Communist party would be a phase of espionage, and 
therefore you are ordered to answer that question on the ground 
you have waived the Fifth Amendment as to that question. I 
assume that you persist in your refusal.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. That is quite correct.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended meetings of the 
Communist party with your students?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer the question on grounds 
specified in the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer the 
question the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer the question for the 
reasons already given.
    The Chairman. We will have the record show that the witness 
has been given an opportunity to answer whether or not he feels 
an answer to that question would tend to incriminate him, and 
he refuses to tell the chair whether or not he feels the answer 
might tend to incriminate him. He is therefore ordered to 
answer the question. I assume you persist in your refusal.
    Mr. Rosenbaum. Quite correct.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attempted to indoctrinate your 
students in the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer the question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer, the answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I stand with patriotic Americans in 
defending the Fifth Amendment, that no person may be compelled 
to testify against himself.
    The Chairman. You will have the record show again that the 
witness has been given an opportunity to tell the chair if he 
feels the answer might tend to incriminate him, and he refuses 
to tell the chair whether or not he feels the answer would tend 
to incriminate him. He is therefore ordered to answer the 
question of whether or not he has ever attempted to 
indoctrinate his students in the Communist philosophy. Have the 
record show that he sits mute and refuses to answer. Have you 
ever attended meetings of the Communist party at which your 
students were also present?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer that 
question, the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I stand on the position I have just 
indicated.
    The Chairman. Have the record show again, Mr. Reporter, 
that the witness refuses to say whether or not he feels the 
answer would tend to incriminate him, and therefore he is 
entitled to no Fifth Amendment privilege. Therefore, he is 
ordered to answer the question. Have the record show that the 
witness is sitting within six or seven feet of the chair and 
can clearly hear what the chair is saying and that he sits mute 
and refuses to answer. You heard everything I said, didn't you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit your students to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I refuse to answer on grounds specified by 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to answer, the answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Rosenbaum. I stand by the provisions of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Just so that the witness cannot plead 
ignorance at some future legal proceeding, he is notified now 
that unless the chair knows whether or not he feels the answer 
might tend to incriminate him, in the opinion of the chair he 
has no Fifth Amendment privilege; that obviously there are 
parts of the Fifth Amendment which have nothing to do 
whatsoever with his appearance here today. He is ordered to 
answer the question unless he tells the chair that he feels the 
answer will tend to incriminate him.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness has 
consulted with counsel from time to time.
    You may step down.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. May the witness answer that last point?
    The Chairman. I will not order the witness to answer the 
last question.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. There was a question before that.
    The Chairman. I am withdrawing the question. I think the 
record is very complete now.
    Just a moment. As a courtesy to the witness, I think that 
he should know that his case, obviously--as you know--will be 
submitted to the grand jury for indictment for contempt.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I do not exactly see the courtesy involved; 
however, thank you. If there is any, it escapes me at the 
moment.

TESTIMONY OF BERTHA SINGER (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                     RABINOWITZ) (RECALLED)

    The Chairman. Mrs. Singer, if you wanted to add anything to 
the record, you may do so.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. I did not get a chance to explain it to the 
witness and perhaps I might explain now on the record, that the 
senator suggested that when you answered questions, or rather 
refused to answer questions, with respect to the whereabouts of 
Arthur Miller, you did not specifically refer to the Fifth 
Amendment. The senator suggested that it be made clear on the 
record as to whether or not you are pleading the Fifth 
Amendment as the reason for your refusal to answer.
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. As I told counsel, even when we have a member 
of the Communist party before us, we feel that they are 
entitled to have everything above board so they will know what 
is being done. I informed your counsel that your not having 
pleaded the Fifth Amendment and having refused to answer where 
your brother is now and where he is working, that I would 
proceed to have you indicted for contempt unless you were 
pleading the Fifth Amendment. I did not want to have you leave 
here feeling you had pleaded the Fifth Amendment and not having 
had the record made clear. Now, if it was your intention to 
have pleaded the Fifth Amendment in your refusal to answer 
about Arthur Miller, you may so state in the record and we will 
consider that that is part of the record of your testimony.
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, all of the questions where 
you refused to answer, you were refusing on the ground that the 
answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes, the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. On the ground the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Singer. Yes.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Neither Michael Sidorovich nor Ann 
Sidorovich testified in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, staff director; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Raise your right hand and be sworn. In the matter now in 
hearing before the committee, do you swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL SIDOROVICH (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)

    Mr. Carr. Your name please?
    Mr. Sidorovich. My name is Michael Sidorovich.
    Mr. Carr. And address?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I live at 1225 East 124th Street, 
Cleveland, Ohio.
    Mr. Carr. Are you presently employed by the government?
    Mr. Sidorovich. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever employed by the government?
    Mr. Sidorovich. Well, I was on WPA at one time.
    The Chairman. Is that the only government employment?
    Mr. Sidorovich. That is the only direct government 
employment.
    The Chairman. How about indirect? You said ``direct.''
    Mr. Sidorovich. I worked for a firm that did government 
work.
    The Chairman. How recently was that?
    Mr. Sidorovich. About nine years ago, I would say.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that question on the 
basis of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be a 
witness against myself.
    Mr. Carr. Are you a member of the Communist party now?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that for the reason 
previously given.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Vivian Pataki, Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I don't recall ever having met this person.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Ernest Pataki?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I don't recall ever having met that person.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that question for the 
same reason.
    Mr. Carr. Were you in espionage with Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Sidorovich. With respect to Julius Rosenberg, I refuse 
to answer for the reason previously given. However, I never 
engaged in espionage with anybody of whatever name.
    The Chairman. What is that? I did not get that.
    Mr. Sidorovich. I say I have never engaged in espionage 
with anybody, whatever their name; but with respect to Julius 
Rosenberg, I refuse to answer for the reason previously given.
    The Chairman. Were you ever engaged in espionage with 
Julius Rosenberg?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Sidorovich. As I said, I have never engaged in 
espionage with Rosenberg or with anybody else.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss espionage with Rosenberg 
or anyone in that Rosenberg ring?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Sidorovich. I never discussed espionage with Rosenberg 
or with anybody else.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I don't recall ever having met him, Mr. 
Coleman or Aaron Coleman.
    The Chairman. Where are you working now?
    Mr. Sidorovich. I am employed by a private firm, Gas 
Machinery Company, Cleveland, Ohio.
    The Chairman. They are not doing government work?
    Mr. Sidorovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ANN SIDOROVICH (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, JOSEPH 
                             FORER)

    Mr. Carr. Your name is what?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Ann Sidorovich.
    Mr. Carr. And your address is Cleveland, Ohio?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. The same as your husband's?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Are you presently employed?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Have you been employed by the United States 
government at any time?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Never?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a woman named Vivian Glassman?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man by the name of Ernest Pataki?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Who is that?
    Mr. Carr. Ernest Pataki P-a-t-a-k-i.
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Carr. Not that you remember?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that question on the 
basis of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be a 
witness against myself.
    Mr. Carr. Were you engaged in espionage with Julius 
Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I have been married for twelve years.
    The Chairman. You did not work for the government at any 
time?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. At any time during my life.
    The Chairman. You did not, you say?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I did not.
    The Chairman. And your husband is now working for, what did 
you say?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. Gas Machinery Company.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I would like to change the answer to the 
question have I ever committed espionage with Julius Rosenberg. 
I have never committed espionage with anybody, whether his name 
was Rosenberg or anyone else.
    The Chairman. Were you ever present when Rosenberg or 
anyone else ever discussed obtaining government secret material 
or any classified material?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I didn't get that complete question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Sidorovich. The answer is no.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know Ethel Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know Ethel Rosenberg at Los Alamos? Did 
you ever see her at Los Alamos?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I have never been to Los Alamos.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Rosenberg was engaging in 
espionage which concerned the Signal Corps laboratories at Fort 
Monmouth?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I have no knowledge of anybody engaging in 
espionage at Fort Monmouth or anywhere else.
    The Chairman. That includes Rosenberg?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. It includes Rosenberg or anybody.
    The Chairman. You never heard Rosenberg discussing 
obtaining material from Fort Monmouth?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Sidorovich. No, I have never heard anyone say anything 
about any of those things.
    The Chairman. Just so we will have this absolutely clear in 
the record, you were never present at any time when Julius 
Rosenberg or anyone else discussed the matter of getting any 
information, any documents, or any material from the Signal 
Corps laboratories at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I have never been present when anyone, 
whether his name was Rosenberg or Smith or Peterson or anybody 
else, has ever discussed any espionage, whether at Fort 
Monmouth, Los Alamos, Washington, Cleveland, or any place else.
    The Chairman. Let us stick to the question: Discussed 
obtaining information, documents, or any other material from 
Fort Monmouth? And you can answer that yes or no.
    Mrs. Sidorovich. I have already answered no. I have never 
discussed or been in the presence of anybody discussing 
espionage any place or any time.
    The Chairman. Maybe you don't understand the question, and 
I will ask it again and ask you to state yes or no.
    Mr. Forer. It is not necessary to re-state it.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Sidorovich. My answer is no. I didn't understand what 
point you wanted to clear up.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Samuel Levine (1916-1985) did not testify 
in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 2:30 p.m. in room 357, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
    Present: Thomas W. La Venia (presiding), assistant counsel; 
Tom Hurley, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you give the stenographer your full 
name and address, please?

                   STATEMENT OF SAMUEL LEVINE

    Mr. Levine. Samuel Levine, 98 Beechwood Avenue, West 
Longbranch, New Jersey.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you born on May 2, 1916 in New York 
City?
    Mr. Levine. I was.
    Mr. La Venia. You are a graduate of the College of the City 
of New York?
    Mr. Levine. I am.
    Mr. La Venia. You were there in 1938 and 1939?
    Mr. Levine. 1938.
    Mr. La Venia. What I am going to do is I would like for you 
to give me chronologically your undergraduate and graduate 
education and your employment thereafter.
    Mr. Levine. I attended the City College from approximately 
1934 to 1938.
    Mr. La Venia. Your degree at that time?
    Mr. Levine. I received a bachelor in electrical engineering 
at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. Do you want me to continue on my education 
first?
    Mr. La Venia. Please, and then your employment.
    Mr. Levine. From 1946 to 1949 I attended graduate courses 
at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. I did not complete 
the work to obtain a degree. That is the sum total of my 
education.
    Mr. La Venia. Who were some of your instructors at 
Polytechnic?
    Mr. Levine. Dr. Ernst Weber, Professor Hoadley, I think it 
was. I can't recall any of the names at the moment.
    Mr. La Venia. Your file is pretty thick. Then were you at 
Brooklyn Polytechnic?
    Mr. Levine. 1946 to 1949.
    Mr. La Venia. Your employment, please.
    Mr. Levine. Starting--chronologically?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. My first employment was with Pomerance and 
Breines, architects, approximately September 1938 or later, I 
am not sure exactly, to about the summer of 1939.
    Mr. La Venia. Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. Albert A. Volk Company, sometime in late 1939 
to March 1940. From March 1940 to the present time, Signal 
Corps Engineering Labs, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
    Mr. La Venia. What did you start as in the Signal Corps 
Engineering Laboratories?
    Mr. Levine. I started as an engineering draftsman and was 
appointed in August of 1940 as a junior electrical engineer.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your first supervisor?
    Mr. Levine. As a draftsman?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. Well, one of the earlier supervisors was 
William Hudson. I don't think he was the first one. I don't 
remember the name of the first one.
    Mr. La Venia. Then when did you go from being a draftsman?
    Mr. Levine. Well, as I said, in August 1940 I was appointed 
as a junior engineer, a junior electrical engineer.
    Mr. La Venia. That is how you started in Monmouth, as a 
junior electrical engineer?
    Mr. Levine. No, I started as an engineering draftsman. I 
was made a junior electrical engineer.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your first supervisor when you became 
a junior electrical engineer?
    Mr. Levine. I think Melvin Baller.
    Mr. La Venia. Melvin Baller. And what section were you in 
then?
    Mr. Levine. I was in what is called the RPF section.
    Mr. La Venia. Then where did you go next?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I worked there for quite some time. Well, 
the RPF section----
    Mr. La Venia. What I want is your changes in grade, your 
changes in title and your supervisors.
    Mr. Levine. I was promoted to an assistant electrical 
engineer, I think in about March or April of 1941.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your supervisor then?
    Mr. Levine. I think it still was Melvin Baller.
    Mr. La Venia. Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. And I think that continued until about at the 
end of February 1942 I was sent on a trip for the government to 
the Panama Canal Zone for a period of three months.
    Mr. La Venia. And what were your duties in the Panama Canal 
Zone?
    Mr. Levine. My duties at that time were assisting in the 
installation of radars and in what we call the siting of radar, 
the determination of location of radars.
    Mr. La Venia. All right, then after the Panama Canal what 
did you do?
    Mr. Levine. I returned to the labs at the end of May 1942.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your supervisor when you went to the 
Panama Canal?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I was sent out from the laboratories, but 
my supervisor down there was--I guess it was really the Panama 
Canal department.
    Mr. La Venia. The government operates through persons 
living, breathing, with names and stuff and not through 
buildings and papers. So when I ask you those questions, I 
would like to have some names.
    Mr. Levine. Most of the time I reported to a Colonel Larew.
    Mr. La Venia. Who in Monmouth detailed you to go to Panama?
    Mr. Levine. John Slattery.
    Mr. La Venia. John Slattery?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. What is he?
    Mr. Levine. What is he now?
    Mr. La Venia. What was he then?
    Mr. Levine. He was one of the key project engineers at the 
time.
    Mr. La Venia. All right. Now you are back to Monmouth after 
the Panama Canal Zone as what?
    Mr. Levine. In the interim I was promoted to an associate 
electrical engineer.
    Mr. La Venia. And who became your supervisor then?
    Mr. Levine. When I came back, Mr Slattery.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your next supervisor after Mr. 
Slattery?
    Mr. Levine. Mr. Yamins, for a short period.
    Mr. La Venia. What is his full name?
    Mr. Levine. Haym G. Yamins.
    Mr. La Venia. After Mr. Yamins, who?
    Mr. Levine. After Mr. Yamins, Mr. Irving Stokes.
    Mr. La Venia. And after Irving Stokes?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I worked under Irving Stokes from the end 
of 1942, from about December of 1942 until probably 1948 or 
1949. And for a short time I was directly under Mr. Slattery 
again. He was at that time the chief of the branch and Mr. 
Stokes was the section chief under him.
    Mr. La Venia. Who followed Mr. Stokes as your supervisor?
    Mr. Levine. I said Mr. Slattery again for about a year.
    Mr. La Venia. Who followed Mr. Slattery?
    Mr. Levine. Then in 1950 I was transferred to the system 
section under Mr. Aaron Coleman.
    Mr. La Venia. And how long was he your supervisor?
    Mr. Levine. Until January 1952.
    Mr. La Venia. Then who became your supervisor?
    Mr. Levine. Then I took over his job and my immediate 
supervisor at first was Mr. Slattery, and then later Mr. 
Stokes.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, when you took over Mr. Coleman's job, 
what job was he assigned to?
    Mr. Levine. What job was he assigned to at that time?
    Mr. La Venia. No, what new job did he go to?
    Mr. Levine. What new job did he go to? I am not quite sure. 
He was sent off to a job which didn't require access to any 
classified information.
    Mr. La Venia. In January of 1952?
    Mr. Levine. At the end of January 1952.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever come back?
    Mr. Levine. Did he ever come back to the laboratory? No.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, in your work, of course, you have access 
to classified material, including top secret?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Was that material classified as top secret in 
some instances?
    Mr. Levine. Most of the work that I have had to do with, I 
would say 99.99 percent, has been secret or lower. In only one 
or two instances have I ever had access to top secret.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever see Mr. Coleman after he was 
separated from the labs in January 1950 and sent to another 
assignment? He wasn't actually separated, he was just detailed 
elsewhere?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I did.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did you see him?
    Mr. Levine. He visited me in my home.
    Mr. La Venia. You had taken over his job?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. There of course arose instances where there 
were matters known to him that you were trying to familiarize 
yourself with. Did you in the course of those visits or at 
other times after he had been detailed to another assignment, 
after January 1952, discuss any of the matters you were working 
on with Mr. Coleman?
    Mr. Levine. I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you positive of that answer?
    Mr. Levine. I am positive of that.
    Mr. La Venia. Going back to your school days, when you 
attended CCNY, did you know Julius Rosenberg when you were a 
student there?
    Mr. Levine. He was a classmate of mine.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Levine. He was also in a number of my classes.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you a member of the Federation of 
Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians?
    Mr. Levine. I am not at the present time.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever a member?
    Mr. Levine. I was, for a very short period.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that?
    Mr. Levine. In 1938 and 1939.
    Mr. La Venia. That is while you were a student?
    Mr. Levine. No, I was not a student at the time.
    Mr. La Venia. What chapter did you belong to, or branch, of 
the organization?
    Mr. Levine. New York chapter.
    Mr. La Venia. You say you were a member for a short time. 
Is there any reason why you resigned your membership or gave up 
your membership?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I just dropped out of it because I did 
not see any further point in belonging to a union for 
engineers.
    Mr. La Venia. Was Sobell, Morton Sobell, and Julius 
Rosenberg also members of that union to your knowledge?
    Mr. Levine. Not to my knowledge. At least, I don't recall 
them as members at the time.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know a William P. Goldberg?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I do.
    Mr. La Venia. Was he a friend of yours, and Aaron Coleman 
and Haym Gerber Yamins?
    Mr. Levine. We were all friendly at the time we worked in 
the lab.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know Stanley Berinsky?
    Mr. Levine. He worked with me for a short time for a while.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you visit with him socially?
    Mr. Levine. No, I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know a Joseph Weinstein?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I do.
    Mr. La Venia. Employed at the labs also?
    Mr. Levine. He is employed at the labs at the present time.
    Mr. La Venia. As a matter of fact, the other people, whose 
names I mentioned, the last two or three, are also employed at 
the labs?
    Mr. Levine. Well, Berinsky is no longer employed at the 
labs.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Goldberg?
    Mr. Levine. Goldberg has been suspended, and Yamins has 
been suspended.
    Mr. La Venia. Weinstein is still employed, right?
    Mr. Levine. Weinstein is still employed.
    Mr. La Venia. Carl Greenblum?
    Mr. Levine. He works for me.
    Mr. La Venia. Still there?
    Mr. Levine. He is still there.
    Mr. La Venia. Herman Raymond Stout?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, he is still there. He works for me.
    Mr. La Venia. Jacob Borsok?
    Mr. Levine. He is there and works for me.
    Mr. La Venia. Jacob Silverstein?
    Mr. Levine. Jacob Silverstein worked for me but he is now 
in the service.
    Mr. La Venia. Where is he, army or what?
    Mr. Levine. Navy. He has a commission in the navy.
    Mr. La Venia. Lester Petokoffsky?
    Mr. Levine. Petokoffsky, he is there and he works for me at 
the present time.
    Mr. La Venia. Solomon Lasky?
    Mr. Levine. He worked in the section at one time, but he 
was transferred out a number of years ago.
    Mr. La Venia. He is still with the laboratories?
    Mr. Levine. I think he is.
    Mr. La Venia. Leonard Pollock?
    Mr. Levine. Leonard Pollock, he is with the laboratories, 
but he doesn't work for me, though.
    Mr. La Venia. Benjamin Zuckerman?
    Mr. Levine. Benjamin Zuckerman, I know him.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know him socially?
    Mr. Levine. I have had very little to do with him socially.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever been in his home?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Has he ever been in yours?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Jack Okun?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I know him.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know him socially?
    Mr. Levine. I have seen him a number of times.
    Mr. La Venia. Has he been in your home?
    Mr. Levine. I think he has, once or twice.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you been in his?
    Mr. Levine. I think I have, once.
    Mr. La Venia. David Satinoff?
    Mr. Levine. The name is not familiar to me.
    Mr. La Venia. Benjamin Bookbinder
    Mr. Levine. He now works for me.
    Mr. La Venia. Allen Lovenstein?
    Mr. Levine. He works in the radar branch, but I don't know 
too much about him.
    Mr. La Venia. Fred Joseph Kitty?
    Mr. Levine. I don't know him.
    Mr. La Venia. You don't know him?
    Mr. Levine. I don't know him.
    Mr. La Venia. Never met him, never met him in your work?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. As a matter of fact, the majority of these 
names are people in your section, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever had a discussion with respect 
to clearances of any of the people I have just named to you 
whom you state are still employed in your section?
    Mr. Levine. Have I had----
    Mr. La Venia. A discussion regarding the security 
clearances of any of the persons that we have listed whom you 
have identified as still being employed in your section in the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Levine. The only one that I have had any discussion on 
is Carl Greenblum.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that?
    Mr. Levine. Just quite recently. He was temporarily--he 
lost his clearance and----
    Mr. La Venia. Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine [continuing]. And I was informed and discussed 
that with my immediate supervisor, Mr. Stokes.
    Mr. La Venia. He is the only one whose security clearance 
you have discussed with anyone in the past six months?
    Mr. Levine. I don't quite understand the question.
    Mr. La Venia. You are the supervisor of this section, are 
you not?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. In the course of your duties are the security 
clearances of the personnel in your particular section 
discussed with you?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. Well, I am told what the security 
clearances are. Is that what you mean?
    Mr. La Venia. And aren't you also told when there is some 
question that has come up about their security clearance?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. Well, I should amend that. I was told 
about the question about the security clearance of Stanley 
Berinsky. This was beyond the past six months, of course. He 
resigned some time ago. But the only other one of the ones--
well, I should say that William P. Goldberg was also discussed 
with me when he was suspended, and as I mentioned before----
    Mr. La Venia. How about Solomon Lasky?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, that was discussed with me.
    Mr. La Venia. And he is still employed there?
    Mr. Levine. He is not employed in my section. He was, I 
think, suspended for a while, but I think he has been----
    Mr. La Venia. But his security clearance was discussed with 
you, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Levine. Well, it was discussed--it may have been 
discussed at that time with Aaron Coleman, who was in the 
section at the time. But as his assistant I did learn about it, 
I learned there was some question about his clearance.
    Mr. La Venia. How well do you know Solomon Lasky?
    Mr. Levine. Not very well, except from the contact I have 
had in the section with his.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you offer any information or opinion 
about his security clearance in any discussion?
    Mr. Levine. No, not that I recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Yet it was discussed with you?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. Merely to tell me that there was some 
question about his clearance and for that reason he was 
transferred out of our section to another job.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Leonard Pollock?
    Mr. Levine. Leonard Pollock never worked for me or with me.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Benjamin Bookbinder?
    Mr. Levine. Benjamin Bookbinder, he works for me at the 
present time. There was no discussion about his clearance at 
any time.
    Mr. La Venia. In other words, he still has secret clearance 
and he is working on secret material?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Allen J. Lovenstein?
    Mr. Levine. He does not work for me, so I don't know much 
about him.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever work for you?
    Mr. Levine. No, he did not.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Fred Joseph Kitty?
    Mr. Levine. I don't know very much about him, either.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. Harold Ducore did not work for me, but was in 
another section.
    Mr. La Venia. How well did you know Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. I knew him fairly well.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, you elaborate. You tell us. We have it 
here. We want you to tell us about it.
    Mr. Levine. Well, in the last few years we visited--my wife 
and myself and his wife and himself exchanged social visits 
occasionally, and for a number of years we rode in the same car 
pool to work. Prior to that time, I had an occasional contact 
with him but not too frequently.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Levine, are you familiar with the purpose 
of these hearings into the Fort Monmouth situation, Signal 
Corps laboratories and related establishment?
    Mr. Levine. I certainly am.
    Mr. La Venia. Of course you realize that we are seeking to 
establish whether the facts that we have developed are 
accurate. In addition to that, in view of your present position 
as chief of the systems section branch, system section of the 
radar branch, we feel that there is some responsibility upon 
you to furnish us with as much information as you possibly can 
regarding various personalities. You just told us that you knew 
Mr. Ducore because he rode in the same car pool that you rode 
in.
    Mr. Levine. Also because we did see each other socially.
    Mr. La Venia. All right. Now, who are the other people in 
the car pool?
    Mr. Levine. Initially Harold Ducore was in the car pool, 
Aaron Coleman, Louis Volp, myself, and Jerome Corwin.
    Mr. La Venia. Was Jerome Corwin ever employed in your 
section?
    Mr. Levine. No, he was not.
    Mr. La Venia. Was the question of his security clearance 
ever discussed with you?
    Mr. Levine. His security clearance? No, it was never 
discussed with me.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever have any information, rumor or 
otherwise, regarding his security clearance?
    Mr. Levine. No, I have never had any information to that 
effect.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever visit socially with him?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I have.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you associate pretty closely with 
Rosenberg and Sobell?
    Mr. Levine. No, I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. You have never been to their homes even when 
you were in college?
    Mr. Levine. No, not to my recollection.
    Mr. La Venia. Or afterwards?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Has Sobell ever been in your home?
    Mr. Levine. My home? No.
    Mr. La Venia. Has he ever visited with you at any place, 
either officially or unofficially, since your employment with 
the government? Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Levine. He never visited me.
    Mr. La Venia. Think now. I am trying to be very fair.
    Mr. Levine. Morton Sobell did not visit me, but I have had 
a number of contacts with him.
    Mr. La Venia. All right. Explain those contacts.
    Mr. Levine. Well, the first contact I ever had with him was 
a sheer chance one in 1942. It was actually May 30, 1942. It 
happened to be the date I got married. That is the only reason 
I remember it. I met him on the train going from Washington up 
to New York. We said hello and we exchanged greetings and that 
is about all.
    Mr. La Venia. I am now going to ask you a specific 
question: Did Morton Sobell ever visit you at the Signal Corps 
Laboratories at Monmouth, New Jersey?
    Mr. Levine. He did not.
    Mr. La Venia. I will qualify that question by asking you if 
he ever did visit you at the Signal Corps Laboratories in 
connection with official business.
    Mr. Levine. He did not.
    Mr. La Venia. That is an answer that is a positive answer? 
You don't qualify that to the best of your recollection, you 
make that as a positive answer?
    Mr. Levine. I make one qualification. I did see him at the 
Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories in approximately 1947, 
but it was not in connection with his visiting me. I 
accidentally ran into him in the corridor where he was with a 
number of other engineers, from the Reeves Instrument 
Corporation, and they were on their way to visit at that time 
Aaron Coleman in connection with business.
    Mr. La Venia. He was your supervisor there?
    Mr. Levine. He was not my supervisor at that time. In 1947 
I was working under Mr. Stokes.
    Mr. La Venia. Is that the only time you have seen him at 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Levine. That is the only time I have seen him at 
Monmouth.
    Mr. La Venia. He didn't visit you in your home on his 
visits to Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Levine. He did not. At any time.
    Mr. La Venia. That is a positive answer?
    Mr. Levine. Positive answer.
    Mr. La Venia. Without any qualification?
    Mr. Levine. Without any qualification.
    Mr. La Venia. What organizations have you been a member of?
    Mr. Levine. I have been a member of the American Institute 
of Electrical Engineers, the Institute of Radio Engineers, the 
Armed Forces Communication Association--well, the Parent-
Teachers' Association in a local town.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you been known by any other name other 
than Samuel Levine?
    Mr. Levine. No, I have never been known by any other name.
    Mr. La Venia. Are those all of the organizations that you 
have ever been a member of?
    Mr. Levine. Except for the Federation of Architects that we 
discussed previously.
    Mr. La Venia. We covered that earlier. Have you been a 
member of any fraternal or social organizations?
    Mr. Levine. I think I was--during my high school days, I 
was a member of a social club in the neighborhood.
    Mr. La Venia. What was the name of it?
    Mr. Levine. I frankly can't remember the name. It was just 
an organization of a group of the boys around the neighborhood.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you a member of any organization at the 
College of the City of New York?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so. No, I should amend that. I 
was a member of the student chapter of AIEE.
    Mr. La Venia. AIEE?
    Mr. Levine. American Institute of Electrical Engineers.
    Mr. La Venia. I ask you this specific question: Were you a 
member of the American Student Union in City College?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever participate in the peace riots 
of the American Students Union at the City College?
    Mr. Levine. Peace riots?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. I may have witnessed them, but I don't recall 
being an active participant in them.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you a member of the Young Communist 
League at the College of the City of New York?
    Mr. Levine. I was not.
    Mr. La Venia. That is a positive answer, unqualified 
answer?
    Mr. Levine. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know any other Samuel Levine that 
attended the College of the City of New York at the same time 
you did?
    Mr. Levine. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, did you ever register for voting 
purposes as a member of the American Labor party, specifically 
in the years 1938 and 1939?
    Mr. Levine. I do not recall registering for any political 
party at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. I ask you to search your memory and if you 
can to give me a positive answer to that question. The question 
was: Did you ever register for voting purposes as a member of 
the American Labor party, specifically the years 1938 and 1939?
    Mr. Levine. I have no recollection of having registered for 
any political party at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Levine. There is a Louis Kaplan that is now employed in 
the laboratories, in the Thermionics branch. He is the only 
Louis Kaplan that I know.
    Mr. La Venia. Is it the same Kaplan that was in a car pool 
with Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. The Kaplan that I know?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever been outside of the United 
States, other than going to the Panama Canal?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I have been to Canada on official 
business.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever meet Dr. Harry Gruenfest up 
there?
    Mr. Levine. I have never heard of him.
    Mr. La Venia. You don't know Dr. Harry Gruenfest?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. You do not have a doctor in your title, do 
you?
    Mr. Levine. No, I do not.
    Mr. La Venia. Were there any other persons, including those 
named by us today, who you suspected of Communist affiliations 
or sympathies within your particular official and social 
circle?
    Mr. Levine. None of the persons that you have named that 
have been associated in my work or in my social circles--I have 
never suspected any of them or had any reason to believe that 
they were Communists or sympathetic to communism.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Levine. I am not now and I have never been a member of 
the Communist party.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
any organization that is sympathetic to the ideologies of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Levine. I have never been a member of any organization 
sympathetic to the ideologies of the Communist party.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever discussed classified material 
with persons who are members or were members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Levine. I certainly did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever discuss classified material with 
or without authority with persons not authorized to enter into 
the discussion?
    Mr. Levine. I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever present and observed or heard 
the discussion of classified material between persons, some of 
whom were not authorized to discuss the matters or were 
Communist party members or sympathetic to the Communist party 
ideologies?
    Mr. Levine. I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. When you worked for Aaron Coleman, did you 
ever notice that he had classified documents in his possession 
which he either was bringing back to the laboratory from his 
home or taking from the laboratory to his home?
    Mr. Levine. I never noticed any such occurrence.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you ever take classified documents to your 
home?
    Mr. Levine. Not in recent years.
    Mr. La Venia. When did you stop?
    Mr. Levine. Around 1946.
    Mr. La Venia. What caused you to stop?
    Mr. Levine. A policy set up within our own branch to the 
effect that no one was to take classified material home to do 
work at home.
    Mr. La Venia. Was that after Coleman's----
    Mr. Levine. I should amend this. There may have been times 
when I was authorized to act as a courier when I may have taken 
material home with me en route to a particular destination.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall any of those times when you 
were authorized to do that?
    Mr. Levine. I don't recall any specific instances.
    Mr. La Venia. Has Coleman ever visited you in your home?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. I mentioned that before.
    Mr. La Venia. During the periods of time when you were 
taking documents home, did Coleman ever visit you in your home?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, would you think a little bit and try to 
give us a more definite answer, please?
    Mr. Levine. I really can't say. I really don't know. I 
really don't think Coleman was present in my home at the time I 
may have had a classified document. I would like to state this, 
that the number of times I have had classified documents at my 
home were very few and far between. It was only in a case of a 
definite urgency of completing some work. I never kept them in 
my home more than overnight, and brought them back again. I 
frankly can't even recall any specific instances when I 
actually did. But I made the statement because I think there is 
a possibility that I did.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever in Coleman's home when he had 
documents, classified documents, in his home and discussed the 
documents with him or saw the documents there?
    Mr. Levine. I have been in Coleman's home, but I do not--to 
the best of my knowledge I have never seen any classified 
documents in his home nor did I ever discuss them.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever in his home in 1946?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. To refresh your recollection, it was around 
1946 that you discontinued bringing documents home.
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you then Mr. Coleman's assistant?
    Mr. Levine. I was not.
    Mr. La Venia. Was it brought to your attention that Mr. 
Coleman had been reprimanded for taking documents to his home?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, and it was after that occurrence that this 
rule was invoked.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever sign out to take home classified 
documents?
    Mr. Levine. Sign out?
    Mr. La Venia. Well, did you have to go through any security 
procedure signing the documents out of the laboratory?
    Mr. Levine. If I took classified documents out, I usually 
would have to have a pass on which the documents would be 
recorded.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, now, did that ever occur?
    Mr. Levine. I think that may have occurred in one or two 
instances.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that, prior to 1946 or subsequent to 
1946?
    Mr. Levine. Well, subsequent to 1946 I never took documents 
home to work on them, but I may have taken them on a trip, 
preparatory to going on a trip, and if I did at that time, I 
would have had a ``wiz'' pass made out for taking them out at 
that time. Prior to 1946 for a short period of time I did have 
one of these passes, which permitted me to take the documents 
out. However, I always signed for the documents that I did take 
out, within the section itself.
    Mr. La Venia. However, the pass itself was all that the 
guards were concerned with for you to take documents out at 
that particular period, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. In other words, the signing out was an 
internal matter and as far as the physical security and pass 
were concerned, your pass would permit you to take them out 
indiscriminately in so far as the guards are concerned?
    Mr. Levine. This special pass, that is true. But I do not 
recall ever using it more than on one or two instances at the 
most.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you actually ever remember taking any 
documents out of the laboratory?
    Mr. Levine. I can't recall any--I can't recall any specific 
instance.
    Mr. La Venia. Yet you can remember having done so?
    Mr. Levine. I think I did.
    Mr. La Venia. Can you remember any of the documents, what 
the subject matter was or what they dealt with? Just answer 
whether you can remember.
    Mr. Levine. I can't remember.
    Mr. La Venia. You can't remember any one?
    Mr. Levine. Not particularly.
    Mr. La Venia. Let's go back then a little bit to your 
travels outside the United States. We have Panama and what was 
the other place you mentioned?
    Mr. Levine. Canada.
    Mr. La Venia. Where in Canada?
    Mr. Levine. I visited the Ferranti Electric Company in 
Toronto, and then on this same trip I went to Ottawa, to the--
well, it is the army establishment, the Canadian army 
establishment in Ottawa.
    Mr. La Venia. Was it for the purpose of discussing any 
particular electronic development or research that was being 
conducted?
    Mr. Levine. It was for the purpose of discussing work that 
they were doing that was akin to the work we were doing.
    Mr. La Venia. Was that all in on one trip or were there two 
separate trips?
    Mr. Levine. This is all one trip. I went first to the 
Ferranti Electric Company, then to Ottawa and I went also to 
Montreal.
    Mr. La Venia. Who accompanied you on those trips?
    Mr. Levine. Mr. Charles Grossman.
    Mr. La Venia. Charles Grossman? Who was he?
    Mr. Levine. He is now working in my section.
    Mr. La Venia. Anybody else?
    Mr. Levine. Well, on the first leg of the trip, say to 
Ferranti, we were not accompanied by anyone, but from Ottawa to 
Montreal we were accompanied by a Canadian officer, the name of 
which escapes me at the moment.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know when this was?
    Mr. Levine. It is within the last two years, I think.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you take documents with you on those 
trips?
    Mr. Levine. No, I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you take any working model with you?
    Mr. Levine. I did not take anything.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you take any spare part?
    Mr. Levine. No, nothing.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you going to discuss our development or 
review the development of the Canadians?
    Mr. Levine. It was for the purpose of an interchange of 
information.
    Mr. La Venia. On any trips or during your entire employment 
with the Signal Corps, have you ever been charged with the loss 
of a classified document?
    Mr. Levine. I have not; never been charged with the loss of 
a classified document.
    Mr. La Venia. In your section, when you were assistant to 
Mr. Coleman or after you succeeded him, has that section ever 
been charged with the loss of a secret document or a classified 
document?
    Mr. Levine. To the best at my recollection, no.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know a Bob Martin?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I know him.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Levine. No, I do not.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know Joel Barr?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I know him.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did you meet Joel Barr?
    Mr. Levine. Joel Barr was a classmate of mine in CCNY. And 
later, I think in 1941 he worked at the Signal Corps 
Laboratories at Fort Monmouth and I met him again at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you visit socially with Joel Barr?
    Mr. Levine. I think I had social contacts with him.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, did you or didn't you? It is very 
important.
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. At his home?
    Mr. Levine. I think so.
    Mr. La Venia. And was he in your home?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Bob Martin?
    Mr. Levine. I have had very occasional contact with him but 
he never visited in my home nor did I ever visit--well, I 
should amend that. I may have visited not his but I may have 
gone to the house where he and a group of other boys lived, but 
I am not sure but I didn't go there to visit him.
    Mr. La Venia. In that group of boys, was Marcel Ullmann one 
of the group?
    Mr. Levine. Not to my recollection.
    Mr. La Venia. The name Marcel Ullmann means something to 
you. Didn't Bob Martin disclose classified material to Marcel 
Ullmann which was not on a need to know basis?
    Mr. Levine. I know of no such----
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know what I mean by a need to know 
basis?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. I know nothing about this, except on a 
rumor basis.
    Mr. La Venia. Tell me, what years have you met Barr at 
Monmouth, for how many years were you friendly with Barr?
    Mr. Levine. My only contact with Barr was in 1941 and 
perhaps January or February of 1942. After that I never had any 
contact with him.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you handling classified material at that 
time?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I was.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you take the materials home at that time 
that were classified?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. Did Joel Barr ever discuss classified 
materials with you?
    Mr. Levine. No, he did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever discuss your work with you?
    Mr. Levine. Not particularly, not to my recollection.
    Mr. La Venia. What years were you in Barr's home?
    Mr. Levine. Sometime in 1941. I am not sure.
    Mr. La Venia. I think you said the last time you saw Barr 
was in February of 1943?
    Mr. Levine. No, the last time I probably did see him was 
February 1942. The reason I say that is that after that I made 
my trip to Panama. When I came back from my trip to Panama he 
was no longer in the laboratories.
    Mr. La Venia. Where was he then?
    Mr. Levine. I don't know.
    Mr. La Venia. You have never seen him since?
    Mr. Levine. Never seen him since.
    Mr. La Venia. Never heard from him?
    Mr. Levine. Never heard from him at all.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you married?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I am.
    Mr. La Venia. What is your wife's maiden name?
    Mr. Levine. Mildred Rosner.
    Mr. La Venia. Where was your wife born?
    Mr. Levine. New York City.
    Mr. La Venia. Where were you married?
    Mr. Levine. We were married in Arlington, Virginia.
    Mr. La Venia. What was your wife's mother's maiden name?
    Mr. Levine. My wife's mother's maiden name? Minnie Epstein.
    Mr. La Venia. Minnie Epstein.
    Mr. Levine. Epstein.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did she come from?
    Mr. Levine. I think she came originally from Poland.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you meet her here in Washington?
    Mr. Levine. Mildred Rosner?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. No, I met her in the vicinity of Monmouth 
County.
    Mr. La Venia. Was she employed at Monmouth at the time?
    Mr. Levine. No, she was working in one of the local stores. 
Actually, she is related to me. She is a third cousin of mine.
    Mr. La Venia. What is your mother's maiden name?
    Mr. Levine. Sarah Hazenfrantz.
    Mr. La Venia. You stated that you were in a car pool with 
various people, including Aaron Coleman, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I was.
    Mr. La Venia. Aaron Coleman occasionally rode in that 
automobile with a briefcase, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I think he did but usually on the days he 
was going to school.
    Mr. La Venia. Did anybody ever indulge in what they called 
needling about carrying a briefcase and refer to secret 
documents, et cetera?
    Mr. Levine. Not to my recollection.
    Mr. La Venia. In riding in that car pool, since you were 
all employed at the same place, and since all of you no doubt 
had clearance of one kind or another, was there ever any 
discussion by you or Aaron Coleman of the work that you were 
performing, by either or you?
    Mr. Levine. Not to my recollection.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever visit Reeves Instrument Company?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I did.
    Mr. La Venia. And when you went to Reeves Instrument 
Company, did you discuss matters with Sobell, Morton Sobell?
    Mr. Levine. I did not discuss any classified matters with 
Morton Sobell, because I did not visit him at that point.
    Mr. La Venia. Let's see if we have----
    Mr. Levine. However--well, go ahead.
    Mr. La Venia. Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. However, I did visit Perry Seay, and during 
those visits Morton Sobell's desk was located immediately 
adjacent to Perry Seay's.
    I made a statement on this before the grand jury 
previously.
    Mr. La Venia. That is Perry Alexander Seay. We will get 
into the grand jury in a minute.
    Mr. Levine. But, as I say, I did not discuss any matters 
with Sobell in my visit to the Reeves plant, other than 
exchanging an actual greeting with him.
    Mr. La Venia. You have visited Reeves Instrument Company 
quite often?
    Mr. Levine. I wouldn't say quite often. Our work with them 
was during 1950 and possibly 1951. That is about all.
    Mr. La Venia. From 1948 to 1950 Aaron Coleman was your 
supervisor, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. No. He was my supervisor from January 1950 to 
January 1952.
    Mr. La Venia. Your particular section had a lot of work 
with the Reeves Instrument Company, isn't that correct, at that 
particular time?
    Mr. Levine. During 1950, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you his assistant from the date you just 
gave?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I was his assistant at the time.
    Mr. La Venia. And you would know of the various occasions 
that Aaron Coleman visited?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. And he, of course, went there to visit Perry 
Seay?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Again I am going to say something to you. We 
have gone through this Morton Sobell thing at length. Other 
than your volunteering on one occasion that you bumped into him 
on the train the day you got married, everything else we have 
gotten about Morton Sobell from you has been as a result of 
specific and prodding questions. We have gotten down to where 
the latest thing we have managed to elicit from you is the fact 
that you went to see Seay and coincidentally with that you 
accidentally bumped into Coleman.
    Mr. Levine. Not to Coleman, to Sobell. I have made that 
information in a complete statement to the FBI and the grand 
jury before.
    Mr. La Venia. What I want to make perfectly clear to you is 
that if I ask you a question about somebody, I may not word it 
exactly the way you would like to have it worded. However, I am 
trying my best to find out whether you are coming forward and 
telling us everything you know, or whether you are just sitting 
there and saying, ``Well, you find it out.''
    Up to now it has been a little difficult for us.
    Mr. Levine. Well, I am sorry. I didn't intend to do that at 
all.
    Mr. La Venia. I didn't say that in an admonitory sense. I 
am saying it to you so that you will realize we are trying to 
test veracity here, and one of the tests of veracity is when 
you ask a question you got the answer plus. A man has nothing 
to hide, I say that for your own benefit, that is all.
    Now, to go back to the grand jury. You, of course, recall 
when you were called before the grand jury.
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I do.
    Mr. La Venia. What year was that?
    Mr. Levine. 1951, I guess.
    Mr. La Venia. And that was in connection with--go ahead. 
You tell it.
    Mr. Levine. I was called to the grand jury in connection 
with a statement I had made concerning Morton Sobel.
    Mr. La Venia. And that statement was?
    Mr. Levine. Well, the best as I can remember, the statement 
I made was that in a number of visits during 1950 and perhaps 
in 1951, that I made up to Reeves, a few of the times in the 
company of Coleman and several times alone, on a number of 
those occasions Morton Sobell was actually sitting in the room 
while we were having discussions with Perry Seay. I implied at 
the time that it was possible that Morton Sobell may have had 
access to the work that we were doing. I also made a statement 
to the effect that in a visit to Reeves subsequent to the time 
when Sobell was picked up by the FBI, myself in the company of 
Herman Stout, who is a member of the section, had a discussion 
with the----
    Mr. La Venia. Wait until I find that. I can't find the last 
one on Stout.
    Go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. Had a discussion with, I guess you would call 
him the chief engineer or vice president of engineering, Mr. 
Harry Belloc, concerning the Sobell case. In fact, we 
specifically asked him whether he thought Sobell had any access 
to our project. He told us at that time that he felt that 
although he had a secret clearance he didn't feel that the 
security of our project had been compromised. However, the 
peculiar part of it is that he indicated to me and Stout----
    Mr. La Venia. Who?
    Mr. Levine. Belloc indicated to me and Stout at that time 
that he had been informed by the security people that before 
Sobell was picked up, that Sobell was suspected of being a 
Communist and was being watched, and that they were keeping him 
employed there to keep an eye on him. This was my recollection 
of what he said.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall the period of time that this 
discussion covers?
    Mr. Levine. I don't recall the--I think it covers the 
period prior to the time that Sobell was picked up. I mean the 
period when he was being watched. Is that what you are talking 
about?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. I don't recall any specific instance at all.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, there is a lot more to this about the 
grand jury. Go ahead. You were discussing the compromise of----
    Mr. Levine. We discussed the possible compromise of 
security with Belloc. As I said before, Belloc indicated to us 
and Perry Seay also that they did not feel that the security 
had been compromised although, as I have pointed out to you, 
Sobell, who was supposed to have been cleared for secret--in 
fact, everyone in this particular room, a group of engineers, 
as far as I was concerned, were supposed to be cleared for 
secret, and otherwise we should not have had a discussion 
there.
    But we felt there was a distinct possibility--actually 
Coleman and I discussed this point--we felt there was a 
distinct possibility that our project had been compromised.
    Subsequent to my preparing this statement I sent it forward 
through channels in the laboratory. In my statement before the 
grand jury I also discussed my prior encounters with Sobell, 
including the fact we were classmates, and I also discussed the 
number of times that I had actually come in contact with him, 
either accidentally or on business purposes, while on business.
    Mr. La Venia. Anything else?
    Mr. Levine. Well, at the grand jury, of course, I was asked 
questions about Rosenberg and about other people.
    Mr. La Venia. What were those questions and what were those 
answers?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I was asked if I knew Rosenberg, Sobell, 
Joel Barr, I think Dan Gear.
    Mr. La Venia. William Perl?
    Mr. Levine. William Perl.
    Mr. La Venia. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Levine. I don't remember being asked about her, but I 
may have been.
    Mr. La Venia. She is Vivian Glassman Pataki now.
    Mr. Levine. The name doesn't mean anything to me.
    Mr. La Venia. All right, go ahead.
    Mr. Levine. There were one or two other names they asked me 
about, but I don't remember. And they asked me whether I 
thought that any of those men were members of the YCL.
    Mr. La Venia. What was your answer to that?
    Mr. Levine. My answer was that the only one that I could 
say positively that I thought was a member of the YCL was 
Julius Rosenberg, but I couldn't make any positive statement 
about any of the others.
    Mr. La Venia. How well did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Levine. Aside from having been in a number of classes 
together, I don't think I knew him particularly well, more than 
I would know any other classmate.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know him while you were in the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think I ever came across him while I 
was in the Signal Corps.
    Mr. La Venia. In your discussions with Morton Sobell, did 
Sobell ever mention that he know Rosenberg? You were 
classmates. You know Sobell, but did he ever mention Rosenberg?
    Mr. Levine. I don't recall discussing that with him before.
    Mr. La Venia. You were quite positive in your statement 
before the grand jury that Rosenberg was a member of the Young 
Communist League. You recall that?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I recall that.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, did you know, while you were working in 
the Signal Corps, that Rosenberg was also employed in the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Levine. I had heard rumors to the offset that he was 
employed in around 1940 at Philadelphia.
    Mr. La Venia. You did not identify Joel Barr or Morton 
Sobell as being a member, or Willie Perl, for that matter, as 
being a member of the Young Communist League in your testimony 
before the grand jury?
    Mr. Levine. I did not.
    Mr. La Venia. You were specifically asked about Sobell and 
Barr, if this is correct here. Isn't that so?
    Mr. Levine. I probably was.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, were you asked about Coleman in the 
grand jury?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Levine. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know if Aaron Coleman was a Communist 
or a member of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. To the best of my recollection he was never a 
member of the Young Communist League. At least, there was 
nothing to lead me to believe that he was. I should put it that 
way.
    Mr. La Venia. All right. Now, do you know of any other 
people whose names we have mentioned here today, some of whom 
have been employed by you, who were members of the Young 
Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. I can't say that any of them were.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you know if they were?
    Mr. Levine. Would I know? Well, they might have been 
without my knowledge.
    Mr. La Venia. Which ones do you know are members of the 
Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. Of all the names? The only ones----
    Mr. La Venia. Of any names I mentioned.
    Mr. Levine. Rosenberg was the only one.
    Mr. La Venia. How about the names of people that you know 
who are employed either in the Signal Corps or related 
establishments who were or are members of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Levine. None that I know of.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, you have stated that you were not a 
member of the Young Communist League.
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. I ask you a specific question: Have you ever 
attended meetings of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. No, I did not. However, I did participate in 
what you would call bull sessions around the campus where we 
discussed socialism, communism, fascism, or any other subject 
under the sun.
    Mr. La Venia. Any further qualification?
    Will you tell me your source of information that Julius 
Rosenberg was a member of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. The only source of information would be from 
the man himself.
    Mr. La Venia. Don't tell me where it could be. You made a 
statement under oath before the grand jury and I now ask you 
what your source of information was.
    Mr. Levine. My source of information was based on the fact 
that he had approached me and asked me to join the Young 
Communist League.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you refuse?
    Mr. Levine. I did.
    Mr. La Venia. When did you refuse with relationship to the 
time of the request and the time of the refusal.
    Mr. Levine. Well, he requested me some time during prior to 
June of 1938 and I refused at the time he requested me.
    Mr. La Venia. And you are positive you never attended any 
meetings of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. I never attended anything that I would call a 
meeting of the Young Communist League.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, did you attend anything connected with 
the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. Nothing that would be specifically connected 
with the Young Communist League, although----
    Mr. La Venia. Since you are being very careful in 
qualifying your answers, apparently you have some information 
which you feel, if you gave us an unqualified answer, might 
reflect upon the veracity of your statement. Now tell us what 
that information is.
    Mr. Levine. Well, the only information is that which I gave 
you before, that I did participate in discussions on the 
campus.
    Mr. La Venia. When you say on the campus, do you mean 
standing on the sidewalk or standing under a tree or in a 
building on the campus? What do you mean?
    Mr. Levine. Sometimes standing right on the campus itself, 
on some benches there, say, or in the lunchroom. They had 
alcoves there, study alcoves, where there were discussions all 
over the place at the time, and as a curious individual, I 
listened on some of these discussions.
    Mr. La Venia. And offered opinion and argued?
    Mr. Levine. I may have. I don't really recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever attend as a part of a group, 
specifically a meeting in any specified place which was in any 
way connected with the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Levine. To the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. La Venia. How well did you know Bob Martin?
    Mr. Levine. Very casually.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever been in his home?
    Mr. Levine. I discussed this before. I don't really recall 
ever going to visit him, but I may have been in a house where a 
number of other fellows lived where Bob also lived, but I don't 
recall any specific instance.
    Mr. La Venia. How did you procure your employment with the 
Signal Corps?
    Mr. Levine. I filed an application.
    Mr. La Venia. Who suggested that you do that?
    Mr. Levine. Well, actually I filed an application with the 
second Civil Service district for various examinations and it 
was not aimed at any particular location. I received an offer 
as a result of being on the register from the Signal Corps and 
I accepted.
    Mr. La Venia. Who did you give as a personal reference, or 
references?
    Mr. Levine. At that time? I really don't recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you give Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Levine. I doubt it.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you give Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. I don't know Harold Ducore.
    Mr. La Venia. You don't know him?
    Mr. Levine. I didn't know him at that time, before I came 
to work for the Signal Corps.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, how well did you know Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. I know him fairly well.
    Mr. La Venia. You still know him?
    Mr. Levine. Still know him, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you visit with him in his home?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. He has visited in yours?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know him when his name was Ducorsky?
    Mr. Levine. No, I didn't know that.
    Mr. La Venia. And you still visit back and forth, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Levine. We haven't visited very recently.
    Mr. La Venia. What do you mean by very recently?
    Mr. Levine. Prior to his suspension we did visit, but 
subsequently to that I haven't seen him actually.
    Mr. La Venia. Has he ever worked for you?
    Mr. Levine. He has never worked for me, but he has worked 
with me.
    Mr. La Venia. He has worked with you?
    Mr. Levine. That is, on an equal plane. In 1942 we both 
worked, I think, in July of 1942, we worked on the project 
together for a short period of time.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he attend the College of the City of New 
York with you?
    Mr. Levine. He attended the College of the City of New 
York, but I did not know him during those years.
    Mr. La Venia. Isn't he a section chief in an associated 
project with yours, or wasn't he?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, he was a section chief in the same branch, 
in the radar branch.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know Albert Socol?
    Mr. Levine. I have heard of the name but I don't know him.
    Mr. La Venia. I don't recall your answer on Allen J. 
Lovenstein.
    Mr. Levine. I just know him out of contact in the 
laboratory.
    Mr. La Venia. Has he ever been in Ducore's home when you 
visited Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. No, he was not.
    Mr. La Venia. You were one of the early arrivals on the 
expansion of Fort Monmouth prior to World War II, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you immediately move down to the area?
    Mr. Levine. Did I immediately move down----
    Mr. La Venia. To the Monmouth area.
    Mr. Levine. Did I establish residence there?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you join the shore branch down there, the 
shore branch of the Communist party?
    Mr. Levine. Shore branch? No, of course not.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever solicited to join?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever hear of it?
    Mr. Levine. I never heard of a Communist party 
organization.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you a member of the United Federal 
Workers of America?
    Mr. Levine. No, I am not.
    Mr. La Venia. Or the United Public Workers of America?
    Mr. Levine. I am not and have never been.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know if Harold Ducore is a member?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I have heard, since his suspension, that 
he was at one time a member.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you a member of any cooperative 
organization in that area?
    Mr. Levine. No. I should amend that. There was at one time 
a proposal to start a cooperative in that area, but it never 
really came through. I was interested in it but it folded up 
and it never was established,
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever hear Ducore in your presence or 
while you were in his home make any remarks regarding 
communism?
    Mr. Levine. I have never heard him make any remarks of that 
nature.
    Mr. La Venia. He has been in your home, is that correct?
    Mr. Levine. He has a number of times.
    Mr. La Venia. And has his wife, Alyce, also been there?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, she has.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know that his wife, Alyce, also 
associated with Louis Kaplan at one time?
    Mr. Levine. No, I did not, no. I should amend this. I know 
what these charges were, and I know that this was one of the 
charges against him. But prior to hearing about the charges, I 
had no knowledge of this.
    Mr. La Venia. How many years did you associate with Ducore?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I have known him really since he came to 
the laboratory, since about, I guess 1941. But I didn't have 
very much social contact with him until he was married.
    Mr. La Venia. Which was when?
    Mr. Levine. I really don't remember exactly.
    Mr. La Venia. Several years ago?
    Mr. Levine. Several years ago and it was not really--it is 
only within the last three or four years, I would say, that we 
have actually had any social contact with him.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever have any suspicions of Ducore's 
pro-Communist tendencies?
    Mr. Levine. I would never have suspected Ducore of any pro-
Communist tendencies.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you have any suspicion of his wife's 
tendencies?
    Mr. Levine. Definitely not.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you familiar with his wife's activities 
in connection with the United Federal Workers of America?
    Mr. Levine. I was not familiar with them at all.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you familiar with the Ducore engineering 
laboratories, Inc?
    Mr. Levine. I have never heard of it.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know that he and Coleman organized 
that particular organization?
    Mr. Levine. No, I----
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know a Jerome Hayman?
    Mr. Levine. Jerome Hayman. No. Jerome Corwin, but not 
Jerome Hayman.
    Mr. La Venia. Were there any other places that you traveled 
outside the United States?
    Mr. Levine. Outside of the two that were mentioned before, 
no.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you correspond with any persons outside of 
the United States in any manner? What I mean by that is not 
only by letters, but telegrams or telephone calls, or whether 
messages are carried for you by someone else, or whether you 
use official means of transportation of messages.
    Mr. Levine. Through official means, in my official 
capacity, I have sent material to Great Britain, through 
official channels. They were on the distribution list for some 
of the work produced by our section.
    Mr. La Venia. What about other communications, 
correspondence, etc?
    Mr. Levine. Other than that type of communication, none.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, where are you staying in town, any 
place?
    Mr. Levine. I haven't made any plans. I was hoping to go 
home.
    Mr. La Venia. I think you should consider yourself still 
under subpoena and subject to call.
    There is one other question for the record. Do you know any 
close friends of Rosenberg who went to the Rome Air Force Base 
and assisted in setting up as an air force research and 
development center?
    Mr. Levine. Close friends of Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know anybody that went up there to 
that job?
    Mr. Levine. I know a number of people who went to work up 
there.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you mind giving us their names?
    Mr. Levine. Harry Davis--I know dozens of people there.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did they transfer from?
    Mr. Levine. They were formerly at the Watson Laboratories 
which was located in Eatontown, in the vicinity of our labs.
    Mr. La Venia. Those particular persons, have you heard of 
any of them being suspended or having their security clearances 
suspended and either finally revoked in their entirety or 
restored?
    Mr. Levine. The people working in the air force 
laboratories?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Levine. Yes, I have heard of Jack Okun, who was 
suspended and later restored, and Ben Zuckerman, who was 
suspended and at the present time I don't think has been 
restored. There were others but I really don't recall them.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know of any that went up to Rome whose 
clearances have been suspended?
    Mr. Levine. No, I don't.
    Mr. La Venia. Have you ever been reprimanded for any reason 
whatsoever while in government employment, officially 
reprimanded, that is?
    Mr. Levine. Well, the only reprimand that I have had, if 
you would call it a reprimand, has been for a violation which 
involved not properly closing a safe.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that?
    Mr. Levine. In 1952 sometime.
    Mr. La Venia. What was the reprimand? What did it consist 
of?
    Mr. Levine. I was given a one-day suspension without pay, 
which is the standard reprimand for the first offense of that 
nature.
    Mr. La Venia. I would think we have no more questions, sir.
    You may return to your home. You are under continuing 
subpoena. You will be notified by telephone or telegram, with 
as much notice as the committee can give you, when they desire 
to hear you again, if they so desire.
    Mr. Levine. Is it likely that I may be called tomorrow, to 
appear tomorrow?
    Mr. La Venia. I don't think so.
    Mr. Levine. Then I can return home without worry.
    Mr. La Venia. Thank you very much.
    [Adjourned at 4:00 p.m.]














              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--At the subcommittee's recommendation, 
Albert Shadowitz was cited for contempt for failing to answer 
certain questions. A federal appeals court dismissed his 
indictment on August 14, 1956. Shadowitz, Pvt. David Linfield 
and Sidney Stolberg testified publicly on December 16, 1953. 
Shirley Shapiro did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:00 p.m. in room 619, United 
States Court House, Foley Square, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director.
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    Will you stand and be sworn?
    In the matter now pending before this subcommittee, do you 
solemnly promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF ALBERT SHADOWITZ (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       VICTOR RABINOWITZ)

    Mr. Cohn. Will you give your full name, please?
    You will note Mr. Shadowitz is represented by Mr. 
Rabinowitz, Mr. Reporter.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Albert Shadowitz. At this point, I would 
like to inquire, if I may, as to the subject matter of this 
inquiry.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. The subject matter of the inquiry is as to 
Communist infiltration and subversion in government and in 
defense establishments; in companies doing government work.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would like to say, then, that under the 
provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and the 
Senate rules, this committee has no jurisdiction over that 
subject matter and I therefore object to the jurisdiction of 
the committee.
    To save time and to avoid the necessity of repeating this 
objection before each answer, may the record show that I object 
to all questions that may be asked of me in this inquiry on 
that ground, and I further wish to state that I am not now and 
have not been for over ten years an employee of any government 
department and have no information to give this committee on 
the subject.
    The Chairman. The objection, of course, is overruled.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Shadowitz, how do you spell your name?
    Mr. Shadowitz. S-h-a-d-o-w-i-t-z.
    Mr. Cohn. Your first name is Albert?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Albert.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Number One Adams Court, in Nutley, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation now?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I am an engineer.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom are you employed?
    Mr. Shadowitz. The Kay Electric Company.
    Mr. Cohn. K-a-y?
    Mr. Shadowitz. K-a-y.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any government work?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would say that they do a very small 
portion of government work.
    Mr. Cohn. For what branch of the service?
    Mr. Shadowitz. They don't do any security work, any 
classified work at all.
    Mr. Cohn. What branch of the government?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it army?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. One of the services?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would say that they may have done for 
various branches.
    Mr. Cohn. Have they ever done any for the army?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Army Corps, the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been with 
that company?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Slightly over a year.
    Mr. Cohn. Slightly over a year. And where were you before 
that?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Before that I was unoccupied for 
approximately a year.
    Mr. Cohn. And before that?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I worked at the Federal Telecommunication 
Laboratories.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time were you employed 
at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would say approximately eight years.
    Mr. Cohn. Eight years. You ended there when, around 1951?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You worked there from about 1943 to 1951?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you before 1943?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I worked at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, 
Maryland.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were at the Federal Telecommunications 
Laboratory, did you ever work on any government work?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For the Army Signal Corps?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I don't know. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. What type of work did you do?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Electronic engineering.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, it was for the Army Signal Corps, wasn't 
it?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. It was for the army?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I don't know that.
    Mr. Cohn. You know it was for the government and it was 
electronics?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, for the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have access to any classified work or 
information of any kind?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Up to what classification?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Could you clarify that statement?
    Mr. Cohn. I mean was it restricted, confidential, secret, 
top secret?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Well I don't remember which was the highest 
I ever handled, but I am positive I never handled top secret. I 
am not sure, but I think I may have handled secret.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory, were you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would like to make a statement on that, if 
I may, at this time.
    Mr. Cohn. All right.
    Mr. Shadowitz. In answer to this question, I am going to 
follow completely the course of action advised by Dr. Albert 
Einstein to everyone in general and by personal consultation to 
me in particular. I refuse to answer this question because it 
is in violation of the First Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did I understand you to say you had personal 
consultation with Einstein?
    Mr. Shadowitz. May I finish the statement?
    The Chairman. Did I correctly understand you to say that 
you had personal consultation with Einstein?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Proceed.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I will refuse to answer any question which 
invades my right to think as I please, or which violates my 
guarantees of free speech, and association. In addition, I 
specifically wish to object to the jurisdiction of the 
committee and to deny the right of this committee to ask any 
questions of me concerning political associations.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I beg your pardon.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have just indicated by my previous answer 
to this that this is the stand I will take on all questions 
relating to what I consider to be violations of the First 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not assert the Fifth Amendment in any way? 
You can consult with Mr. Rabinowitz.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have not asserted the Fifth Amendment at 
this point. I have asserted the First Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not assert the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You assert the First Amendment only, not the 
Fifth Amendment, and you refuse to answer the question in spite 
of the chair's order to you that you do?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you a few more questions, then, 
along the same line. At the time you were working on government 
work were you also from time to time attending meetings of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. It seems to me that this is just a means of 
circumventing the answer I have just given above to the next 
previous question, and I will refuse to answer any questions 
whatsoever.
    The Chairman. On the same ground?
    Mr. Shadowitz. On the same ground.
    The Chairman. All right. You will have to direct your 
refusal to each question, you understand. There can be no 
blanket refusal.
    Mr. Shadowitz. If you so wish, if that is the way it will 
make for greater efficiency, I will put that in after each 
statement.
    The Chairman. I understand each time you refuse, unless you 
indicate otherwise, you are refusing for the reasons which you 
have previously stated?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, that is correct.
    The Chairman. That will save us the time of going over the 
reason each time.
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have a statement to make on that. After 
personal consultation with Dr. Albert Einstein, with his full 
agreement and approval, I wish to object specifically to the 
jurisdiction of the committee to deny the right of this 
committee to ask any questions of me concerning espionage. I 
nevertheless voluntarily state that I have never engaged in 
espionage; that I have no personal knowledge of anyone else 
having engaged in espionage, and that I have no information 
whatsoever on this subject for the committee. This answer is 
given without in any respect waiving my objections to the 
jurisdiction of the committee.
    The Chairman. And on the question of espionage, did you 
ever discuss classified material, secret material or 
confidential materials with anyone known to you to be a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I believe that that question, again, is an 
attempt to circumvent the course of action which I have 
indicated I will follow at this hearing. That is, my refusal on 
any account to discuss matters which I believe are in violation 
of the First Amendment.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. May I have just a moment?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I wish to add the statement that, a 
voluntary statement, I have never at anytime disclosed 
classified material to anyone who was not authorized to receive 
it.
    The Chairman. Your version of authorized or unauthorized 
may be different from ours. Therefore, we will go into that 
question.
    The question is: Did you ever disclose any classified 
material to any member of the Communist party, anyone known to 
you to be a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have already answered that question twice, 
I believe. If you wish, I will go into it again.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you answer that yes or no?
    Mr. Shadowitz. No. I will not answer it yes or no, but the 
way I just answered it, which is I will refuse to answer any 
question which is in violation of what I conceive to be the 
First Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are refusing to answer that question?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Are you a Communist today?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds, that it is a violation of my rights under the First 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not the Communist 
party advocates the overthrow of this government by violence 
and force?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I must refuse to answer that on the basis 
that what I think on political matters is, I believe, my own 
business and I just don't care to discuss it with you, again, 
under the First Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think the Communist party a conspiracy 
rather than a political party?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I refuse to answer any questions along this 
line of attack for exactly the same reasons; namely, that I 
believe I have the right to think as I please about almost 
anything.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Mr. Hyman?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Approximately a year and a half ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attended Communist party meetings with 
Mr. Hyman?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds as I indicated.
    Mr. Cohn. Has Mr. Hyman been in telephonic communication 
with you in the last year and a half?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I don't think with me personally, but I 
think he may have called my home once about a year ago.
    Mr. Cohn. About what?
    Mr. Shadowitz. In connection with an insurance policy which 
I took out through him.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss classified material with 
Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Pardon me.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have never discussed classified material 
with Harry Hyman.
    The Chairman. When did you have this discussion you talked 
about with Einstein?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I had this discussion with Dr. Einstein last 
Tuesday, immediately after I had been served a subpoena by this 
committee.
    The Chairman. And he advised you not to give the committee 
any information?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is correct, yes.
    The Chairman. And you are following his advice rather than 
your counsel's advice today?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. Well, I have discussed this with Dr. 
Einstein, with Mr. Rabinowitz, with a number of other people, 
and voluntarily on my own this is the course I chose to follow.
    The Chairman. At the time you discussed this matter with 
Einstein, did you tell him that you were then or had been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I might say that he did not ask me and I did 
not volunteer any information whatsoever as to my political 
beliefs of any nature whether Communist, non-Communist or 
anything else.
    The Chairman. Well, you use that term political beliefs. 
You didn't discuss with him at all whether or not you were or 
had been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. No, sir, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss the type of work you were 
doing with him?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I don't know what you mean by that question. 
The type of work I am doing is just straight non-classified 
engineering work. I don't know what there is especial to 
discuss about it.
    The Chairman. That is the Kay Electrical Company?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you men need a badge or anything to got 
into the plant?
    Mr. Shadowitz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that plant located?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is located in New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the full name, Kay Electric?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Kay Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. Where in New Jersey?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Pinebrook.
    The Chairman. How many people do they employ, about?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I wouldn't know. I would have to hazard a 
guess.
    The Chairman. Roughly.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would say roughly on the order of fifty 
people.
    The Chairman. And as far as you know you don't need any 
pass or anything to get into the plant; anyone can come and go 
at will?
    Mr. Shadowitz. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And you don't know how much of their work is 
government work?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would say if there is any government work, 
that amount, A, is completely non-classified, and, B, it is a 
negligible percentage.
    The Chairman. I think I asked you this before, but just so 
this record will be clear you refuse to tell us whether or not 
you ever discussed any classified material, that is, I mean any 
material which was being worked upon for the United States 
government that was classified, either confidential or secret, 
with any member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I think I indicated in the statement I made 
that----
    The Chairman. Well, just are you refusing to answer that or 
not?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. I want it clear whether you are refusing to 
answer or not.
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss any classified material 
with anyone whom you know or thought to be a member of an 
espionage ring?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have already answered that I have never 
had any personal knowledge of anyone else having engaged in 
espionage and therefore the question could not apply to me. I 
have already answered that.
    The Chairman. You said you had no personal knowledge.
    The question is: Did you ever discuss any classified 
material with anyone whom you either knew or had reason to 
believe was a member of an espionage ring?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Well, I get the slight feeling that I am 
trying to be beaten down here. I make a blunt statement that 
not only have I never engaged in espionage, but that I have 
never had any knowledge of anyone else who was engaged in 
espionage, and once I have this blanket denial I don't see how 
you can ask me whether if it were so, something else would 
happen. I have never known anyone engaged in espionage, period. 
How could I possibly discuss anything with such a person if I 
didn't know such a person. I give you a great, big blanket 
refusal.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Would you mind repeating the question?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I answered that question. The answer is no.
    The Chairman. The answer is no. Did you ever have any 
information of any kind which indicated to you that anyone whom 
you knew was a member of an espionage ring?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I am sorry, sir. I am not trying to be cute 
or anything. I wonder if I could have that repeated to me.
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I answer that in the negative. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings of any kind, 
either Communist party meetings or other meetings, where there 
was discussed the subject of obtaining classified material?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have never attended any meeting of any 
kind where the question of obtaining classified documents was 
discussed, except such as were held by authorized people, 
people authorized to do so.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings of the 
Communist party where there was discussed the job of obtaining 
not only classified documents but classified information, 
material and documents, for either Communist party or for 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. In the spirit of the answer which I have 
previously given, and the way I feel psychologically, and on 
the advice of Dr. Einstein, I refuse to answer that question or 
other questions of a similar nature on the basis of the First 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I have just refused.
    The Chairman. You still refuse, I assume?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. From your knowledge of the Communist party, I 
am not asking you whether you belong to it or not but we all 
have knowledge of that party whether we belong to it or not, 
would you say that it is correct that a member of the party in 
good standing, handling classified government material, if 
ordered to turn over the material or the information, 
classified information, to other communists by the Communist 
party, would be bound to do so in order to remain in good 
standing in the party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Senator, that is a very simple question, and 
if we were here on equal terms I might be very tempted to 
answer it frankly. But in view of the fact that we are not, I 
can only say that I must refuse to discuss this matter with you 
on the basis of the First Amendment. I refuse to discuss any 
political matter with you or anybody else in a similar 
position.
    The Chairman. When you were working for the government, or 
working for any plant doing classified government work, were 
you under such discipline of the Communist party that if you 
were ordered to turn classified material over to members of 
that party, or members of an espionage ring, you would have 
done that, or could you have refused and still maintained your 
standing in the party?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
basis that it is a violation of my rights under the First 
Amendment of the Constitution.
    The Chairman. If as of today there came into your 
possession secret or confidential material, and the Communist 
party ordered you to turn it over to other members of the 
Communist party, or to a Communist espionage agent, would you 
disobey that order?
    Mr. Shadowitz. As President Roosevelt used to say to such 
questions, it is a very iffy question.
    The Chairman. What is your answer to it?
    [The counsel with the witness conferred.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I refuse to answer this question on two 
grounds. First, that it is purely hypothetical, and, second, 
that it violates my rights under the first Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did any member of the Communist party ever 
ask you about the type of work you were doing, ask you for any 
classified information or material?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Is that two questions or one question? May I 
have a reading of that question?
    [The Reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Would you rather separate that into two 
questions?
    Mr. Shadowitz. It seems there are two questions.
    The Chairman. We will separate it. Did any member of the 
Communist party ever discuss with you your work while you were 
working on classified material?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. May I answer that question now?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Shadowitz. I would like to say that no unauthorized 
person to my knowledge or recollection has ever asked me this, 
and as far as the political convictions of people who did ask 
me is concerned, on this I believe it is a violation of the 
First Amendment.
    The Chairman. How well do you know Einstein?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. How well do you know Einstein?
    Mr. Shadowitz. How well do I know Einstein? Personally?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Shadowitz. Not very well.
    The Chairman. You saw him last Tuesday to get advice on 
this hearing. When did you see him before that?
    Mr. Shadowitz. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. When did you see him before last Tuesday?
    Mr. Shadowitz. When did I see him before that? I never to 
my knowledge, but I doubt it.
    The Chairman. And you went to him solely for the purpose of 
getting advice as to what you should do here today?
    Mr. Shadowitz. Yes, that is correct.
    The Chairman. And did a member of the Communist party send 
you to see him?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Shadowitz. I went to see him of my own volition after 
having discussed it with absolutely nobody.
    The Chairman. In other words, no member of the Communist 
party----
    Mr. Shadowitz. Nobody advised me to go see him, nobody.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to return Wednesday morning 
at 10:30, in this room, unless the hearing is held in another 
room, in which case the officer at the door will notify you.
    Mr. Shadowitz. Is that all?
    The Chairman. Yes. You understand the order, do you not?
    Mr. Shadowitz. To be here Wednesday, at 10:20, this 
Wednesday.
    The Chairman. Yes, at 10:30.
    Mr. Linfield, will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Linfield. I do.

    TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE DAVID LINFIELD (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
                   COUNSEL, MORTON FRIEDMAN)

    Mr. Carr. Mr. Linfield, would you give your full name, 
please?
    Mr. Linfield. David Linfield
    Mr. Carr. Your address, please?
    Mr. Linfield. Murphy army hospital, in Waltham, Mass.
    Mr. Carr. And your attorney?
    Mr. Friedman. Morton Friedman, 401 Broadway, New York City.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you would give your phone number, 
too.
    Mr. Friedman. Worth 26851. I left it previously.
    Mr. Carr. You say the address is the army hospital in 
Waltham, Mass?
    Mr. Linfield. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Are you a patient there?
    Mr. Linfield. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. What is the cause? What is the reason for your 
present stay at the hospital?
    Mr. Linfield. Well, my foot is mending. I had a broken foot 
and it is mending.
    Mr. Carr. And is this a veterans hospital?
    Mr. Linfield. It is an army hospital.
    Mr. Carr. You are not in the Army now?
    Mr. Linfield. I am in the army now.
    Mr. Carr. You are in the army now?
    Mr. Linfield. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. What is your grade and station?
    Mr. Linfield. I am a private. My rank is private, and I am 
stationed at the hospital as a patient.
    The Chairman. Where were you stationed before you went to 
the hospital?
    Mr. Linfield. At Fort Dix, New Jersey.
    The Chairman. And were you drafted?
    Mr. Linfield. What was the question?
    The Chairman. Were you drafted?
    Mr. Linfield. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. When were you drafted?
    Mr. Linfield. On April 10, 1953.
    The Chairman. Where were you working when you were drafted?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. I was unemployed at the time I was drafted.
    The Chairman. Where was the place of your last employment?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Any time you care to.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. The Federal Telecommunications Laboratories 
in Nutley, New Jersey.
    The Chairman. When did you leave the Telecommunications 
Laboratories?
    Mr. Linfield. I ceased employment on December 19, 1952.
    The Chairman. December, 1952. And did you voluntarily 
resign or were you discharged?
    Mr. Linfield. I was discharged.
    The Chairman. After a loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel, sir?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Senator, I decline to answer that question 
because the answer might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you have access to top secret work when 
you were with Telecommunications Labs?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Senator, I decline to answer that on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Senator, I continue to decline on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. What was your security classification?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline----
    The Chairman. Your security clearance.
    Mr. Linfield. I decline on the same ground, senator.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Linfield. I continue to decline on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. On the ground that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. That is correct, Senator.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged in espionage at that time?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer, Senator, on the ground 
that the answer might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. On the ground of self incrimination, is that 
the ground?
    Mr. Linfield. As I stated, Senator, that it might tend to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you turn any secret or other classified 
material over to anyone known to you to be an espionage agent?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer, Senator, on the same 
ground.
    The Chairman. On the same ground, just to save the 
repetition, am I correct in assuming that in each instance you 
mean that you are refusing on the ground that your answer might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. That it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Linfield. What was the question?
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Linfield. Where? In New York City, Senator.
    The Chairman. How many brothers and sisters do you have.
    Mr. Linfield. Three, Senator.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Linfield. Three, Senator.
    The Chairman. What are they, brothers or sisters?
    Mr. Linfield. Two brothers and one sister.
    The Chairman. Are either of your two brothers or is your 
sister working either for the United States government or in 
any plant that is doing government work?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer that, senator, on the 
above grounds.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that.
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. I continue, Senator, to decline on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. What is your brother's first name?
    Mr. Linfield. What is your question, senator?
    The Chairman What is your brother's first name?
    Mr. Linfield. Seymour is one.
    The Chairman. Seymour?
    Mr. Linfield. That is right.
    The Chairman. And the other one?
    Mr. Linfield. Jordan.
    The Chairman. And is their last name Linfield?
    Mr. Linfield. Yes, Senator.
    The Chairman. Were you ever known by any name other than 
Linfield?
    Mr. Linfield. No, Senator.
    The Chairman. What is your sister's name now?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Hadassah, Senator, is her first name.
    The Chairman. Hadassah?
    Mr. Linfield. That is right.
    The Chairman. Spell it, please.
    Mr. Linfield. H-a-d-a-s-s-a-h.
    The Chairman. And is she married?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Yes, she is married, Senator.
    The Chairman. What is her married name?
    Mr. Linfield. Weingarten.
    The Chairman. Her name is Weingarten. Is her husband 
working for the government?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer that, Senator, on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. Allen.
    The Chairman. What is his address?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer that, Senator, on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer both questions, 
both the question as to whether or not he is working for the 
government now and also the question as to his present address; 
that is, if you know the address.
    Mr. Linfield. I would like to consult counsel.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer on the above grounds.
    The Chairman. Is Jordan, your brother Jordan, working for 
the government?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline on the above grounds.
    The Chairman. Do you think if you answered that question, 
it might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. That is the grounds upon which I decline, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. And is Seymour working for the government?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline on the above grounds, Senator.
    The Chairman. And you feel that if you were to answer that 
question, your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer that question on the 
above grounds.
    The Chairman. My question is: Do you feel that if you were 
to answer the question, that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer your present question on 
the grounds that that might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Just so there is no misunderstanding, you are 
now refusing to tell me whether or not your answer to the 
question of whether Seymour is working for the government would 
tend to incriminate you, is that right?
    If you do not understand this, just tell me.
    Mr. Linfield. I don't understand.
    The Chairman. We will start over again. Is Seymour working 
for the government?
    Mr. Linfield. I decline to answer that question on the 
above grounds.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer that 
question, your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Linfield. May I consult counsel, my lawyer?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Linfield. The grounds that I refuse to answer were that 
the answer might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. I think, so you cannot ever raise the defense 
of entrapment, at a future time, we have no desire to entrap 
you, and I am trying to ask the questions in as simple a form 
as I can, if we find that you know that Seymour is not working 
for the government, then that would mean that you are 
frivolously abusing the Fifth Amendment, and would be in 
contempt of this committee. The same is true of Jordan. The 
same is true of Mr. Weingarten.
    You have to have some reasonable ground in your own mind in 
order to take advantage of the Fifth Amendment.
    I understand after being so advised, you refuse to answer 
as to whether Allen Weingarten, your brother-in-law, Jordan 
Linfield, your brother, and Seymour Linfield, your other 
brother, are working for the government, and you are refusing 
on the grounds that your answer might tend to incriminate you; 
is that correct?
    Mr. Linfield. That is correct, Senator.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to return at 10:30 
tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Friedman. Tomorrow morning?
    The Chairman. Tomorrow morning at 10:30, and it will be in 
this room unless the room is changed. You will be notified of 
that by the guard or policeman in the building.
    Mr. Linfield. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you understand that?
    Mr. Linfield. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Shapiro?
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In this matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF SHIRLEY SHAPIRO

    Mr. Carr. Mrs. Shapiro, would you state your full name, 
please?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Mrs. Shapiro.
    Mr. Carr. What was your maiden name?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Cohen.
    Mr. Carr. C-o-h-n?
    Mrs. Shapiro. C-o-h-e-n.
    The Chairman. May I say I noticed you had someone with you, 
either your lawyer or father, or someone. If you want them 
present when you testify, you may have them present.
    Mrs. Shapiro. No. I consulted an attorney, but he was very 
busy.
    Mr. Carr. What is your address?
    Mrs. Shapiro. 340 East Houston Street, New York City.
    Mr. Carr. Where are you presently employed?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I am not employed right now.
    Mr. Carr. Where were you last employed?
    Mrs. Shapiro. At the Atlas Machinery Company. Do you want 
the full address?
    Mr. Carr. If you have it, please.
    Mrs. Shapiro. Do you want the full address?
    Mr. Carr. Please.
    Mrs. Shapiro. Atlas Shoe and Leather Machinery Company, 69 
Beekman Street, New York.
    Mr. Carr. Where were you employed before that?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Before that? Now, let's see. I will have to 
look that up. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. How long were you employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Two months.
    Mr. Carr. You began in----
    Mrs. Shapiro. September 14.
    Mr. Carr. And through October?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Through October, to November. Through 
October.
    Mr. Carr. The second of November, did you say?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Around November 14.
    Mr. Carr. What did you do at Fort Monmouth?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I worked for a Captain Arnold Mascolo, in the 
facilities section.
    Mr. Carr. Would you spell the name for the reporter?
    Mrs. Shapiro. A-r-n-o-l-d M-a-s-c-o-l-o. And he was the 
captain in charge of the facilities section of the enlisted 
department.
    Mr. Carr. And what did you do for him? What was your 
assignment?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Typing, a little bit of stenography, 
stencils, the usual filing.
    Mr. Carr. You were classified as a clerk?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Yes. It is a GS-2, because there weren't any 
GS-3 openings. So I took a GS-2 opening.
    Mr. Carr. Were you suspended in Fort Monmouth from your 
employment?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Yes. I was suspended November 13, around 
there, November 13, and then reinstated November 26, about that 
date.
    Mr. Carr. Why were you suspended?
    Mrs. Shapiro. No charges followed. I got this from them:

    This letter is to notify you that you are suspended from 
duty without pay by order of the Commanding General, Signal 
Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, pending adjudication 
of your case under paragraphs 10a and 16a, Public Law 733, 81st 
Congress; Section 6, Executive Order 10450, and in accordance 
with paragraph 23 of SR 620-330-1. Your suspension is effective 
22 October 1953.

    They said charges would follow within ten to fifteen days, 
but no charges followed and instead I was reinstated.
    Mr. Carr. You were reinstated on October 14?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I am not quite sure of the date.
    Mr. Carr. Were you reinstated before you left?
    Mrs. Shapiro. No, I left Fort Monmouth. I waited two weeks 
for a charge to come, and as they didn't come and I needed work 
very badly, I went home to New York. Then the charges came 
about a week after--wait a minute. I was reinstated 11-19-53.
    Mr. Carr. You were reinstated, then, after you had left?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Yes, after I had left. And then I resigned.
    Mr. Carr. You have no idea why you were suspended?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I have no idea.
    The Chairman. The charges never were sent to you at all?
    Mrs. Shapiro. No. I called up and spoke to someone in the 
G-2 Department, but they said they had no charges and that I 
was reinstated. They asked me to come back to work, but I 
refused because I was employed in private industry and 
resigned.
    Mr. Carr. Was there any indication that the charges were on 
security grounds?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Well, there were no charges, sir.
    Mr. Carr. I mean, the dismissal.
    Mrs. Shapiro. Yes, they said--well, this says so right 
here.
    The Chairman. Could we see those papers? I may say, I know 
nothing about your situation at all, except that we received 
the word you were suspended and we are curious to know why the 
suspension.
    Mrs. Shapiro. I got this: ``Immediate suspension is deemed 
necessary in the interest of national security.''
    The Chairman. Let me see all those papers, please.
    Mrs. Shapiro. Yes. And here is the reinstatement, 
reinstating me.
    [Documents handed by the witness to the chairman.]
    The Chairman. You are entitled to your back pay?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I wrote a letter to the secretary of the army 
stating that, because I had never received the charges and was 
suspended without pay, without notice, without anything. I felt 
I was--I wanted the remuneration for the period I had been 
suspended.
    The Chairman. Can you not think of any reason why this 
would be done?
    Mrs. Shapiro. I have absolutely no idea at all.
    The Chairman. What does your husband do?
    Mrs. Shapiro. My husband is overseas right now. He is in 
the Army.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been approached to join the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Labor Youth League?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Absolutely not. I have never been a member of 
any organization.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether any of your family have been 
connected with the Communist party or Communist fronts?
    Mrs. Shapiro. None of my immediate family. As far as the 
rest of the family goes, I have no contact with them 
whatsoever.
    Mr. Carr. And have no knowledge?
    Mrs. Shapiro. Have no knowledge of their whereabouts, do-
abouts, or anything.
    The Chairman. Anything further?
    May I say that the fact that you were called here does not 
indicate that the committee in any way thinks there was 
anything improper about your conduct. You were merely called 
because we were very curious to know why the sudden suspension 
and the sudden restoration. I may say this committee has no 
information of any kind about your background. Your name will 
not be given to the press by this committee as having been 
here. The only way anyone will know that you were here before 
this committee is if you tell them yourself, and you have a 
perfect right to do so. You can discuss as freely as you want 
to anything that occurred to this committee, but the committee 
members are bound not to.
    Mrs. Shapiro. Is this closed now as far as the committee is 
concerned?
    The Chairman. This is closed. You are excused from your 
subpoena. You are entitled to your witness fees and your 
travel.
    Would you raise your right hand. In this matter now in 
hearing before this committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Mr. Stolberg. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY STOLBERG

    Mr. Carr. Your name is?
    Mr. Stolberg. Sidney Stolberg.
    Mr. Carr. Your address?
    Mr. Stolberg. 27 North Rochdale Avenue, Roosevelt, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. Your present employment?
    Mr. Stolberg. The New Jersey Federated Egg Producers 
Cooperative Association, Inc. in Toms River, New Jersey.
    Mr. Carr. Toms River, New Jersey. Were you ever employed at 
Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Stolberg. No.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever stationed while in the army at 
Great Falls, Montana?
    Mr. Stolberg. No. I have never been in the service.
    Mr. Carr. You have never been in the service?
    The Chairman. Did you know Sergeant Ossoff?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know anyone by the name of 
Ossoff?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have never known anybody by the name of 
Ossoff.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know a Gene Fowler?
    Mr. Stolberg. How do you spell that?
    The Chairman. F-o-w-l-e-r, I believe.
    Mr. Stolberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Or any other spelling near that?
    Mr. Stolberg. No.
    The Chairman. You say you never worked for the Army Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, sir; I never have.
    The Chairman. And you were never in the military service?
    Mr. Stolberg. Never.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work for the government?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have never worked for the government.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Stolberg, are you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Stolberg. I have to decline to answer that question on 
the basis of the Fifth Amendment, because it may tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Carr. More specifically, were you a member of the Shore 
Branch of the Communist party?
    Mr. Stolberg. I have to repeat the same answer to that.
    Mr. Carr. Based on the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Stolberg. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Stolberg. Do I know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Carr. L-o-u-i-s.
    Mr. Stolberg. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Carr. Is he employed at the same establishment that you 
are?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, he is not.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know him when he worked at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I did not.
    Mr. Carr. How long have you known him?
    Mr. Stolberg. Mr. Kaplan was an employee of ours for four 
years preceding August of 1952, I believe. About four years.
    The Chairman. Will you name some of the people at Fort 
Monmouth with whom you are acquainted?
    Mr. Stolberg. I am not acquainted, sir, with anybody at 
Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. Were you ever acquainted with anyone who 
worked at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have never been acquainted with anybody 
who worked at Fort Monmouth.
    The Chairman. Well, the Shore Branch of the Communist 
party, as you undoubtedly know, was organized, among other 
things, for the purpose of infiltrating the radar labs at Fort 
Monmouth. If you belonged to that particular branch of the 
Communist party, you would have known someone from Fort 
Monmouth. Would that in any way refresh your recollection?
    Mr. Stolberg. I would have to decline to answer that 
question, if it was put as a question to me, on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. We will put it this way: Do you say that you 
never were acquainted with anyone known to you as an employee 
at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Stolberg. That is right. I never have known anybody.
    The Chairman. Did you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that Kaplan was a Communist?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss communism with him?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meeting 
with him?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever think Kaplan was a Communist?
    Mr. Stolberg. My association with him was in the business. 
We didn't discuss politics or have any social relations.
    The Chairman. I asked you that question because it was so 
generally known that Kaplan was a Communist. I just wonder if 
at the time he was employed for you you thought he was a 
Communist or not.
    Mr. Stolberg. I have to decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer that. On the ground of 
self incrimination?
    Mr. Stolberg. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel if you were to tell 
us the truth in answer to that question, that that might tend 
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Stolberg. Right. I would repeat the same answer, yes, 
sir.
    The Chairman. You say you will repeat the same answer. My 
question is: Do you feel if you were to tell us the truth in 
answer to that question, that answer might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Stolberg. I would have to decline it on the privileges 
granted me under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, I have to determine what you have in 
mind before we determine whether you will be ordered to answer 
the question or not. You see, you are not entitled to the Fifth 
Amendment privilege if you intend to perjure yourself. You can 
not decline because perjury might tend to incriminate you. You 
can only decline if you yourself feel that a truthful answer 
might tend to incriminate you. I will ask you the very simple 
question whether or not you thought Kaplan was a Communist 
while he was in your employ. You have declined to answer it. I 
now ask you the simple question, do you feel if you were to 
truthfully answer that question, that answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Stolberg. That is the interpretation, I would have to 
refuse to answer on those grounds.
    The Chairman. On the grounds that a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Stolberg. Those were not my words, your honor. Excuse 
me, those were not my words.
    The Chairman. I just want to find out what your answer is.
    Mr. Stolberg. I would refuse to answer on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment, whatever it might be, truthful or otherwise, 
in fact, might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. I think that is sufficient. Have you been 
attending Communist party meetings recently?
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer that on the same basis.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Stolberg. New York City.
    The Chairman. You lived in this country all your life?
    Mr. Stolberg. Yes, I have.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court 
has determined that the Communist party is not a political 
party but rather a conspiracy which teaches and advocates the 
overthrow of this government by force and violence, would you 
be willing to give to the FBI or any other government agency, 
any information which you have about the Communist party 
members of that conspiracy?
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer that on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer whether you would give 
information to the FBI?
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer the question you put to 
me.
    The Chairman. Well, would you be willing to give any 
information which you have about the Communist party or about 
Communists to the FBI?
    Mr. Stolberg. I would have to decline that on the same 
grounds. I am not an expert in this matter.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question. It 
can not incriminate you.
    Mr. Stolberg. I don't hear you very well.
    The Chairman. I say you are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Stolberg. Will you please repeat it again? I didn't get 
it.
    The Chairman. I will rephrase it for you so it will be very 
simple: Would you be willing at this time to give to the FBI 
any information which you have about Communists or the 
Communist party?
    Before you answer this, I want to make it clear that there 
is no inference in this question that you belong to the 
Communist party. Individuals who have never belonged to the 
Communist party, when violently anti-Communist, oftentimes 
would have information with regard to the Communist movement or 
about Communists. So I repeat, the answer to this question does 
not in any way indicate that you are a Communist. You are 
ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. All right, then. Just for your own 
information in view of the fact that you do not have a lawyer, 
you understand this will be submitted to the grand jury for 
contempt.
    Mr. Stolberg. I do.
    The Chairman. I would suggest that you obtain a lawyer to 
have him look after your interests.
    Did you ever hear discussed the work being done in the Fort 
Monmouth radar laboratories?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I never have. Only insofar as the 
newspapers and whatever information they made available.
    The Chairman. Did you ever obtain from or give to any 
members of the Communist party any classified government 
information or material?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear discussed at any meeting or 
group classified government information?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. You know what I mean by classified 
information, do you not?
    Mr. Stolberg. Secret information; is that what you mean?
    The Chairman. Secret, confidential or restricted.
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Within the past year, have you contributed 
money to the Communist party?
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer that on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you, during the past year, given any 
money to any tax exempt organization or institution, 
foundation?
    Mr. Stolberg. I think that I have. The Red Cross, I 
believe, the Boy Scouts is another.
    The Chairman. How about any foundation?
    Mr. Stolberg. Foundation?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Stolberg. I don't know what you mean by a foundation as 
distinguished from the Red Cross.
    The Chairman. Excluding the Boy Scouts and the Communist 
party and the Red Cross, have you contributed any money to any 
other organization in the past year?
    Mr. Stolberg. You have to say that over again. The way you 
say it, it makes me believe that maybe if I answer it the 
answer might be that I did contribute to the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Well, you refused to tell whether you had 
given any money to the Communist party, so I said this question 
excludes the Communist party. I ask you did you give any money 
to any organizations, and we are excluding the Communist party, 
the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts from the question.
    Mr. Stolberg. I must have given some. Offhand I can't 
remember. We have a number of drivers in the community that 
come up for the volunteer firemen, the ambulance service and 
stuff like that.
    The Chairman. Have you over the past ten or five years 
contributed to the defense of anyone accused of Communist 
activities?
    Mr. Stolberg. I would have to decline to answer that on the 
basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. How many people are employed in your plant?
    Mr. Stolberg. Mr. Chairman, I have been subpoenaed as an 
individual, haven't I? I mean, not because I am employed 
anywhere? The reason why I raise that is I would be objecting 
to answering questions about place of employment since--well, I 
don't think it comes under the, you know, the limitations of 
what the committee is supposed to do, and secondly I am not 
authorized to answer questions like that.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Stolberg. Well, we have, at the present moment about 
ten or twelve employees.
    The Chairman. How long have you been general manager of the 
New Jersey Federated Egg Producers Co-op?
    Mr. Stolberg. Approximately seven years.
    The Chairman. And are any of the other twelve employees 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Stolberg. I don't know.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't know that any of 
them are members of the party?
    Mr. Stolberg. That is right. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended Communist party 
meetings with any of the twelve?
    Mr. Stolberg. I would decline to answer that on the basis 
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is this particular co-op a tax exempt co-op?
    Mr. Stolberg. Until this year it has been, yes.
    The Chairman. Well, is it not tax exempt now?
    Mr. Stolberg. No. We, every year, must reapply for tax 
exemption. We are in the process of doing that. I have no 
reason to believe that we won't continue to be tax exempt.
    The Chairman. Do you think that a co-op who employs a 
general manager who is a functionary of the Communist party 
should be tax exempt?
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer that on the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that. That 
cannot incriminate you. Have the record show that the witness 
is ordered to answer it.
    Mr. Stolberg. One moment, please. I am sorry. I didn't know 
you wanted me to answer it.
    The Chairman. I just ordered you to answer the question.
    Mr. Stolberg. I decline to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. What volume of tax exempt business do you do, 
roughly?
    Mr. Stolberg. Our gross volume is about five million 
dollars a year. That doesn't mean that that is all tax exempt. 
I would have no way of breaking that down.
    The Chairman. What salary do you get?
    Mr. Stolberg. I earn $6,750 a year.
    The Chairman. Is that your only income from this 
corporation?
    Mr. Stolberg. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you have any income from any other source?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. How about last year? Did you have any income 
from any source other than that?
    Mr. Stolberg. No. I did not. I earned the same amount last 
year.
    The Chairman. And that is all reported in your income tax 
return?
    Mr. Stolberg. I receive expenses for work on behalf of the 
cooperative, which last year amounted to some--I think it was 
about $1400.
    The Chairman. And other than the $1400, did you receive any 
other money from the co-op?
    Mr. Stolberg. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. So your testimony is that last year you 
received approximately $1400 expense money, and in addition to 
that a salary of $6,000 or how much?
    Mr. Stolberg. A salary of $6,750.
    The Chairman. $6,750.
    You will be ordered to return tomorrow morning at 10:30 
a.m., to this room.
    Mr. Stolberg. You suggested that I have an attorney. It may 
not be possible to get one in such a short time.
    The Chairman. How much time do you want?
    Mr. Stolberg. I don't know. I may be back here at ten 
o'clock tomorrow morning, but I wouldn't know until I tried to 
contact an attorney.
    The Chairman. Well, if you cannot get an attorney by ten or 
10:30 tomorrow morning--do you want to get an attorney?
    Mr. Stolberg. Well, I think I ought to have one, yes.
    The Chairman. Would you prefer that we have you return 
Wednesday morning?
    Mr. Stolberg. I think it would be better, yes.
    The Chairman. All right. You will be ordered to be here 
Wednesday morning.
    Mr. Stolberg. At ten o'clock?
    The Chairman. Ten-thirty.
    Mr. Stolberg. Is any of the testimony given here available?
    The Chairman. It is all available to you or to your 
counsel. However, it is executive session testimony so it is 
not sent out. You may come in and examine it in detail at 
anytime you care to.
    We will recess now, and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:30 
in this room, in public session.
    [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to 
reconvene the following day at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 
15, 1953.]
















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--In executive session testimony on October 
22, 1953, later published by the subcommittee, Barry S. 
Bernstein identified himself as the former chairman of the 
Eastern Monmouth Chapter of the American Veterans Committee, 
which had attempted to expel Communists from its membership 
before disbanding in 1948. In his testimony he named Bennett 
Davies as an AVC member who had admitted having been a 
Communist. Ezekiel Heyman (1915-1993), Lester Ackerman, John D. 
Saunders (1926-2000), John Anthony DeLuca and Sam Morris 
testified in public session on December 17, 1953, and Saunders 
testified again in public on March 11, 1954. Sigmond Berger 
(1898-1965), Ruth Levine (1927-1962), Bennett Davies, Norman 
Spiro (1909-2000), Carter Lemuel Burkes, John R. Simkovich 
(1911-1961), Linda Gottfried, and Joseph Paul Komar did not 
testify publicly.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1953

                      United States Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                       New York, NY
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:00 p.m. in room 619, United 
States Court House, Foley Square, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director.
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    Mr. Heyman, would you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Heyman. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF EZEKIEL HEYMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                       MICHAEL B. ATKINS)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Heyman. Ezekiel Heyman.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Heyman. 255-22 74th Avenue, Glenn Oaks, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you worked at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Heyman. I have.
    Mr. Cohn. During what period of time, please?
    Mr. Heyman. Roughly between 1942 and 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. You left there in 1947?
    Mr. Heyman. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. What have you done since that time?
    Mr. Heyman. I have operated a stationery and toy store in 
New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. During the entire time?
    Mr. Heyman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when you 
were employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. On what ground do you refuse; the Fifth 
Amendment?
    Mr. Heyman. The Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you feel that an answer might tend to 
incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to be a witness against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Heyman. Very casually.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Heyman. The name strikes a chord. I don't know him. I 
believe he was employed there.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Heyman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in any illegal activity?
    By the way, you can consult with your counsel anytime you 
wish.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Heyman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What college did you attend?
    Mr. Heyman. College of the City of New York.
    Mr. Cohn. During what years?
    Mr. Heyman. 1932 and 1935.
    Mr. Cohn. You left there in 1935?
    Mr. Heyman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever reside at 10 Monroe Street?
    Mr. Heyman. Well, the number was not 10. It was actually 
14.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Julius Rosenberg live in that house?
    Mr. Heyman. I have read in the papers that he did.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not know him when he lived at that house?
    Mr. Heyman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attended Communist meetings with anyone 
still employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know members of the Communist party who 
are still employed at the Federal Telecommunications 
Laboratory?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse on what ground?
    Mr. Heyman. On the grounds that under my privilege under 
the Fifth Amendment, I refuse to be a witness against myself.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer that 
question, the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to be a witness against myself, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer the 
question, the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Heyman. I repeat, I refuse to answer that question, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question. 
Unless you feel that the answer might tend to incriminate you, 
you have no privilege to refuse.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Heyman. I maintain my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment, sir. I understand that under the Fifth Amendment I 
may not be forced to be a witness against myself.
    The Chairman. You may not be forced to be a witness against 
yourself if you feel that your testimony might tend to 
incriminate you. I have asked you the very simple question do 
you feel the answers might tend to incriminate you. If you want 
to refuse to tell me, just let me know.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Heyman. I don't choose to argue the matter with you, 
sir. If that is your interpretation, I will abide by it and 
refuse to answer the question under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, it is not a question of my 
interpretation. You see, as chairman of the committee, I must 
determine whether or not you are entitled to the Fifth 
Amendment. Before I can determine that, I must know from you 
whether or not you feel that if you were to answer the 
questions counsel asked of you, your answer might tend to 
incriminate you.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir. I refuse to answer on those grounds.
    The Chairman. In other words, you mean you are refusing to 
answer counsel's questions on the ground that you feel your 
answer might tend to incriminate you; is that correct?
    Mr. Heyman. That is the interpretation you give it.
    The Chairman. Well, is that----
    Mr. Heyman. That is the grounds under which I refuse to 
answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were working at the Federal 
Telecommunications Lab, did you work on government work?
    Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Army Signal Corps work?
    Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Classified?
    Mr. Heyman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How high a classification was the highest you had 
access to?
    Mr. Heyman. I honestly don't remember. I would imagine it 
was secret.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not have access to top secret as far as 
you recall?
    Mr. Heyman. Not as far as I recall.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed any classified 
material with anyone known to you to be an espionage agent or 
anyone whom you had reason to believe was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Heyman. I have never discussed any classified material 
with any unauthorized person.
    The Chairman. Your idea of authorized personnel and mine 
might be different. The question is did you ever discuss any 
classified material with anyone known to you to be an espionage 
agent or anyone whom you had reason to believe might be an 
espionage agent?
    Mr. Heyman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss any classified material 
with any members of the Communist party, with individuals known 
to you to be members or whom you thought were members?
    Mr. Heyman. Repeat that question, sir.
    The Chairman. Would the reporter read that?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    Mr. Heyman. I refuse to answer that question sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you have the witness back here on Thursday 
morning, at 10:30, in room 110, please?
    Mr. Atkins. Yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Ackerman?
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you 
solemnly swear that in the matter now in hearing before this 
committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Ackerman. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF LESTER ACKERMAN

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Ackerman. Lester Ackerman.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that A-c-k-e-r-m-a-n?
    Mr. Ackerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Ackerman. With Federal Telecommunications Laboratories 
at the Westchester County Airport.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Ackerman. 910 Gerard Avenue, Bronx, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you lived there?
    Mr. Ackerman. I have been in the house approximately twelve 
years, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. Ackerman. About twelve years.
    Mr. Cohn. About twelve years?
    Mr. Ackerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And where did you reside before that?
    Mr. Ackerman. 601 West 160th Street, Manhattan.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did you live there?
    Mr. Ackerman. Roughly, I would say about a year, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you live before that?
    Mr. Ackerman. Before that I was up at Napanoch, New York, 
for a period of time.
    Mr. Cohn. How long?
    Mr. Ackerman. I was up there, I would say, for a summer, 
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you before that?
    Mr. Ackerman. The address exactly, I don't know. It was on 
Anthony Avenue and 180th Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Would that be 2077 Anthony Avenue?
    Mr. Ackerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Ackerman. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever signed a Communist party nominating 
petition?
    Mr. Ackerman. I may have signed a nominating petition, sir, 
but not to my knowledge. That is, I might have signed a 
petition which was pertaining to a Communist nominee, and at 
the time I signed it I wasn't aware that it was for communism 
or anything of that sort, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, when did you become aware that it was for 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Ackerman. As a matter of fact, sir, I am still not 
aware that it had been a Communist nominee petition.
    Mr. Cohn. What makes you think it was?
    Mr. Ackerman. Well, the reason that I think it may have 
been is for the fact when I was called from Rye Lake to Nutley, 
the main plant, I had spoken with Mr. Johannsen, and 
indirectly, through him and the attorneys that are representing 
some of the fellows, it was told to me that a petition had been 
signed by me back in 1940. At the time I had been told, I had 
been searching my mind trying to visualize or trying to think 
of what it may have been that I had signed. Truthfully, sir, at 
this time, I am still not aware of the fact that I had signed 
anything. Now, if I did sign it, and it was for a Communistic 
nominee, I assure you it wasn't because of turning communism or 
some sympathizing with the Communist party. If I did signed it, 
I signed it because it was somebody I knew that may have asked 
me to sign it and, as you know, there are a number of people 
that will sign petitions and things. I personally don't believe 
in them. That is the only----
    Mr. Cohn. How do you account for the fact, then, if you 
don't believe in them, and are not sympathetic with the 
Communist cause, how do you account for the fact that you 
signed a Communist party petition which was plainly labeled as 
such in very large letters?
    Mr. Ackerman. Truthfully, sir, if I signed it, I signed it 
without reading it. If I read it and knew that it had any 
bearing with communism, a Communistic nominee or something, I 
would never had signed it. It may be if I did sign it, and I am 
under the impression now that I did sign it, I signed it 
because someone, whoever asked me to sign it, I knew.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember who it was who asked you to sign 
it?
    Mr. Ackerman. No, sir, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known any Communists?
    Mr. Ackerman. The only Communist I actually knew that I 
spoke with was Harry Hyman.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, everybody knew Hyman was a Communist?
    Mr. Ackerman. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you first come to know that Hyman was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Ackerman. Well, we worked together and it was a known 
fact in the place that Harry Hyman was in the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever tell you he was?
    Mr. Ackerman. No, he never told me directly that he was, 
although sometime--at the time we had the UOPWA union, and I 
was a steward at that time of the particular group that I had 
worked with over there, it was a known fact throughout the 
plant that Harry Hyman was with the Communist party and, sir, 
to me personally he has never approached me in any way 
referring to communism or asking for any monies.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear him state he was a Communist at 
any meeting?
    Mr. Ackerman. Well, I have heard him mention while we were 
at steward council meetings, while he was in conversation with 
other people, that he was with the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the first time that you heard him say 
that?
    Mr. Ackerman. Well, I would say that would be back in 1948. 
We were down at Broad Street and had moved to Nutley, the plant 
moved to Nutley, and I would say we were over in Nutley six or 
seven months before the time that I actually heard him say it.
    Mr. Cohn. That he was connected with the Communist party?
    Mr. Ackerman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it was pretty general knowledge around 
the plant that he was a Communist, that he said so himself, and 
made no bones about it?
    Mr. Ackerman. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. We will want you tomorrow for public session.
    Would you be in room 110, in this building, tomorrow 
morning?
    Mr. Ackerman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Berger?
    Would you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In this matter now before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Berger. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF SIGMOND BERGER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, BERT 
                            DIAMOND)

    Mr. Cohn. May we get the name of counsel?
    Mr. Diamond. Bert Diamond.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your office address?
    Mr. Diamond. I am with the International Union of 
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, 734--15th Street, 
Washington, DC.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you full time with the CIO?
    Mr. Diamond. I am in the legal department of that union.
    Mr. Cohn. And they have assigned you?
    Mr. Diamond. They have requested me to offer legal advice 
and assistance to those members of Local 400, IUE-CIO who wish 
to avail themselves of it and who discuss their cases fully and 
freely with me.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you available by telephone in this 
area, Mr. Diamond?
    Mr. Diamond. At the Belmont Plaza.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Berger, are you employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications Lab?
    Mr. Berger. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
employed there?
    Mr. Berger. Eight years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Berger. 951 East 179th Street, Bronx.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you lived 
there?
    Mr. Berger. Over ten years.
    Mr. Cohn. Over ten years?
    Mr. Berger. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you live before that?
    Mr. Berger. 2012 Honeywell Avenue, also the Bronx.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the East Concourse 
Club of the Communist party?
    Mr. Berger. I have never been a member of any club.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a subscriber to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Berger. I never subscribed. I never read it and I don't 
intend to.
    Mr. Cohn. You never have subscribed to it or read it?
    Mr. Berger. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever solicited anyone else to subscribe 
to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Berger. No, sir, truthfully.
    Mr. Cohn. We have nothing further.
    The Chairman. May I say that the fact that you were called 
here does not indicate the committee feels that you have or 
have not been guilty of any improper conduct. Names come up on 
which there is information that appears questionable, and we 
have no choice but to call----
    Mr. Berger. I am sorry; I can't hear you.
    The Chairman. I will put this off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. The record will show the witness appeared 
voluntarily and without receiving a subpoena.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Levine, would you raise your right hand 
and be sworn?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Levine. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF RUTH LEVINE (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, MORRIS 
                             FISH)

    Mr. Cohn. What is your name?
    Mr. Fish. Morris Fish, 122 East 42nd Street, New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your name?
    Mrs. Levine. Ruth Levine.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that Mrs. Levine?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You haven't been before the committee, Mr. Fish?
    Mr. Fish. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You cannot participate in the proceedings. 
However, your client is free to confer with you at anytime she 
wishes and anytime you think she requires advice you can stop 
and conduct a private conversation with her.
    Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Levine. 155 West 20th Street, in New York, New York 
11.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mrs. Levine. I am not employed at present.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you last employed?
    Mrs. Levine. December 13 was my last day of employment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you mean----
    Mrs. Levine. Two days ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you working December 13?
    Mrs. Levine. Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Cohn. And what were the natures of your duties there? 
That is, just roughly.
    Mrs. Levine. Well, my classification was technical clerk, 
and whatever came within the scope of that----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on government work?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work for the Army Signal Corps and 
others?
    Mrs. Levine. I don't know specifically which government 
work.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you have a clearance?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Up through secret, top secret?
    Mrs. Levine. I don't know through what. I believe it was 
through secret. I don't recall anything further.
    Mr. Cohn. I think the record will indicate it was top 
secret Mr. Chairman.
    Now, Mrs. Levine, how long did you work for the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mrs. Levine. Approximately ten-and-a-half years.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were there, were you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Of the what?
    Mrs. Levine. Of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you enlighten me on the Fourth Amendment?
    Mr. Fish. Do you want me to?
    Mr. Cohn. No. Why don't you enlighten her and she can 
enlighten me.
    The Chairman. You can talk with your lawyer.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Well, essentially it is the right of a person 
to be secure against unreasonable seizures and searches.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you say searched or seized you?
    Mrs. Levine. My person, my person, houses, and this is my 
person.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that your person has been unlawfully 
seized?
    Mrs. Levine. My thinking. It is the inquiry into my mind. 
That is the part of the amendment.
    The Chairman. May I say that you may refuse on as many 
grounds as you care to, of course, and there is no rule against 
you citing the Fourth Amendment or any other amendment.
    However, the only ground that the committee recognizes for 
refusal with the evidence before us in your case would be if 
you feel that your answer might tend to incriminate you. If you 
feel that it does, then you are entitled to Fifth Amendment 
privileges.
    Mrs. Levine. Would you please repeat that last part?
    The Chairman. I say if you feel that your answer might tend 
to incriminate you, then you are entitled to refuse by invoking 
the Fifth Amendment.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Well, I still assert the ground on the Fourth 
and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, the Fifth Amendment has many things in 
it, you understand. Are you invoking that part of the Fifth 
Amendment which provides that you need not be a witness against 
yourself if you feel the testimony might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mrs. Levine. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is that the section of it?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline on the grounds of the Fourth and 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. What were the circumstances of your leaving the 
Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mrs. Levine. Well, for quite a while, the traveling has 
been quite intolerable to and from New York. I keep losing car 
pools and one reason and another, and plus the additional 
emotional turmoil over this situation.
    Mr. Cohn. Plus the additional what? You were subpoenaed to 
come over here, is that right?
    Mrs. Levine. That was the----
    Mr. Cohn. Straw that broke the camel's back?
    Mrs. Levine. That is right.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. But I didn't receive a subpoena as yet. I have 
come down here voluntarily.
    Mr. Cohn. You were directed to come down here?
    Mrs. Levine. I have come down here voluntarily.
    The Chairman. You have not been suspended by your 
superiors?
    Mrs. Levine. Not as far as I know, no. I just had enough.
    The Chairman. Were you requested to resign?
    Mrs. Levine. I was not requested to resign.
    The Chairman. No one has asked you to quit your job or to 
resign?
    Mrs. Levine. No one has.
    The Chairman. And you resigned because, you said, of the 
emotional turmoil over this situation?
    Mrs. Levine. The traveling, the traveling has been very bad 
in the last few months, going in and out of the Lincoln Tunnel, 
particularly at night, the loss of the car pool. The department 
I was working in was moving to another location, and I was just 
about at enough on that, and then this came up.
    The Chairman. Will you say this is a correct statement, 
that if anyone is a member of the Communist party, in good 
standing, and if such a person is ordered by the Communist 
party to turn over information which he or she has to the 
Communist party, they would be obliged to follow that directive 
or would run the risk of being expelled from the Communist 
party?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that. It is not too clear 
to me anyway what you mean.
    The Chairman. If you are declining because it is not too 
clear, I will restate it.
    Mrs. Levine. I decline and it is also not too clear.
    The Chairman. Are you invoking the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Levine. The Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mrs. Levine. I have never engaged in espionage.
    The Chairman. At anytime?
    Mrs. Levine. At anytime.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take part in a conspiracy to 
commit espionage?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. No, never.
    The Chairman. The answer is no?
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the secret work which 
you were doing with any member of the Communist party?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is----
    Mrs. Levine. The answer is no.
    The Chairman. Actually, the reason you quit was because one 
of your superior officers called you in and told you that if 
you took the Fifth Amendment you would be discharged; isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Cohn. Don't fence with us.
    Mrs. Levine. I am not fencing. I mean, that is where you 
expect a direct answer. May I speak to my attorney, please?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Would you please repeat your question?
    The Chairman. Would you read it, please?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    Mrs. Levine. No, that is not correct. I was never told 
that.
    The Chairman. You were never told----
    Mrs. Levine [continuing]. That I would be discharged.
    The Chairman. Did any of your superior officers or the 
security officer or anyone discuss with you what might happen 
if you invoked the Fifth Amendment in answer to the question as 
to whether or not you are a Communist?
    Mrs. Levine. To the best of my knowledge, the company 
representatives said that they would take some action. That was 
all that was said.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you think that meant? Did you think that 
they would promote you?
    Mrs. Levine. Do I have to answer that?
    The Chairman. Well, yes. I would like to know why you quit. 
What action did you think they were going to take?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. I have no way of knowing what the action would 
be.
    The Chairman. Was your decision to quit based partly upon 
the fact that you were called and told that action would be 
taken against you if you invoked the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Levine. I think I indicated before that it was the 
culminating factor in having me quit. It was the straw that 
broke the camel's back.
    The Chairman. What salary were you getting?
    Mrs. Levine. Approximately $93 a week.
    The Chairman. How much?
    Mrs. Levine. $93 a week.
    The Chairman. Gross or net?
    Mrs. Levine. Gross.
    The Chairman. Are you married now?
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. Have you been married?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes, I have been married.
    The Chairman. Where is your former husband now?
    Mrs. Levine. Where?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Levine. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Was he a Communist?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know any other Communists still 
working in Telecommunications?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that on the ground of the 
Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. If the FBI came to you for information about 
other Communists handling secret work, would you give the FBI 
the information?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked by any member of the 
Communist party about the type of work you were doing, or did 
you ever discuss any of your work with any member of the 
Communist party?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline.
    The Chairman. Did you ever turn over any secret or other 
classified information to anyone known to you to be a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. On the basis of self incrimination?
    Mrs. Levine. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. I am having some difficulty hearing you. Did 
you ever turn any classified information over to anyone whom 
you knew to be an espionage agent or thought might be an 
espionage agent?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer that?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever belonged to the Nazi party?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Have you ever belonged to the Bund?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to answer that, 
the answer might incriminate you?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that.
    Mrs. Levine. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that. I want to 
tell you something, young lady. You can add if you like to the 
list of contempt cases that will go to jail, if you care to. 
You are not going to play with the Fifth Amendment. You 
belonged to a conspiracy designed to destroy the Constitution, 
and you are not going to frivolously take advantage of that 
Constitution. You understand that?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. If you want to add yourself to the list of 
those going to jail for contempt, you go right ahead and do it.
    I am now asking you the question: Do you feel that if you 
were to answer and tell me the truth as to whether or not you 
are or were a Bund member, that answer would incriminate you?
    You can talk to your counsel.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    The Chairman. Are you ready to answer now?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    The Chairman. Are you ready to answer now?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    The Chairman. Are you ready to answer?
    Mrs. Levine. The reason I decline to answer that question 
is on the basis of the Fourth Amendment questioning my 
political beliefs, but I have no hesitation in answering that 
question that I was not a member of the Bund.
    Mr. Cohn. She states her refusal is predicated on the 
Fourth Amendment, under which she feels her mind should not be 
subjected to any examination as to any beliefs whatsoever; 
however, if that objection is overruled, she does not assert 
the Fifth Amendment, but answers in the negative without 
hesitation that she was not a member of the Bund.
    The Chairman. And how about being a member of the Nazi 
party?
    Mrs. Levine. The same thing holds there.
    The Chairman. How about the Communist party?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline on the grounds of the Fourth and 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I just want to ask one or two short questions 
here, if I may.
    Can you tell me a little bit more about the type of work 
you did, the secret work? What did you work on?
    Mrs. Levine. In the last few years I was doing unclassified 
work. I am a little hard put to remember the work that I did 
before.
    The Chairman. What kind of unclassified work?
    Mrs. Levine. Commercial work.
    Mr. Cohn. Entirely?
    Mrs. Levine. No, I think there was some government 
contracts but they weren't classified, had no classification.
    The Chairman. Did it require a pass to get into the place 
here you worked?
    Mrs. Levine. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. Did it require a pass to get into the place 
where you worked?
    Mrs. Levine. A pass?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Levine. Yes. We had an identification card.
    The Chairman. And what is on that identification card?
    Mrs. Levine. Well, my name, I believe my badge number, the 
time card number. I think my classification was on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Your classification?
    Mrs. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you mean your clearance?
    Mrs. Levine. No; technical clerk.
    The Chairman. Does it state whether or not you have secret, 
confidential or top secret clearance?
    Mrs. Levine. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. As a matter of fact, you had top secret.
    Mrs. Levine. That is what you told me.
    The Chairman. Just give us an idea of what you did the last 
day you were in the plant.
    Mrs. Levine. The last day?
    The Chairman. Yes; what type of machinery, what type of 
paper did you work on.
    Mrs. Levine. I am not quite sure what your question is.
    The Chairman. Just tell us what you did the last day you 
were at work.
    Well, just think of a typical day the last week you were 
there. In other words, when you went to work in the morning, 
what did you do? Did you work on a machine? Did you work on a 
typewriter?
    Mrs. Levine. No. I didn't use any typewriter as part of my 
work.
    The Chairman. Just tell us what you did.
    Mrs. Levine. There is nothing to describe the work I did. 
It is clerical. Compilation of material into one place.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Well, there are four girls working with me for 
whom I prepared a lot of work, whether they had typing to do or 
whatever duties they had to perform in the work of the 
department. A lot of my work was supervising their work and 
handing out the work, making sure the routines of the 
department were functioning. That is essentially what it was. 
There are some other things I did, like compile some material.
    The Chairman. Well, we will get a report from your 
employers as to what you did. We won't take any more time on 
that, but there is just one final question:
    I think I have asked it before, but so that the record is 
clear, you refuse to tell us whether or not you discussed or 
turned over classified material to anyone whom you knew or 
thought to be an espionage agent; is that correct?
    Mrs. Levine. Just a moment, please.
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Would you please repeat the question?
    The Chairman. Would you read the question again?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. Well, I never did, and I declined before 
because of the basis of using the Fourth Amendment, inquiring 
into my person.
    The Chairman. You never turned any classified material--let 
us get this straight. Is it your testimony that you never 
discussed any classified material with anyone whom you either 
knew or thought might be an espionage agent? What is the 
answer? No?
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss secret material or other 
classified material with members of the Communist party?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. You never did?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss any classified material with 
Harry Hyman?
    Mrs. Levine. I decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. We will call another witness while you confer 
with your counsel.
    Mr. Fish. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Davies?
    Mr. Davies, would you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    Do you solemnly swear, in this matter now in hearing before 
this committee, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Davies. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BENNETT DAVIES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, MILTON 
                          H. FRIEDMAN)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Davies. Bennett Davies.
    Mr. Cohn. B-e-n-n-e-t-t?
    Mr. Davies. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. D-a-v-i-e-s?
    Mr. Davies. That is right.
    Mr Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Davies. 1314 Third Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Davies. I am a salesman.
    Mr. Cohn. Of what?
    Mr. Davies. I sell electrical appliances, home appliances.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work for any particular company?
    Mr. Davies. Yes, I do. I work for the Jersey Tire Company.
    Mr. Cohn. Jersey Tire Company?
    Mr. Davies. Tire, yes. It is a company that sells not only 
tires, but also electrical appliances.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they do any work for the government, do you 
know?
    Mr. Davies. No; they don't, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. They do no government work?
    Mr. Davies. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is the company located?
    Mr. Davies. I will say this: They do no government work to 
my knowledge. They may supply tires to some government 
institution.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know?
    Mr. Davies. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you been there?
    Mr. Davies. Since May of this year.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Davies. No. I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the government?
    Mr. Davies. Well, indirectly, I suppose you might say I 
did. I was in the Merchant Marine during the war, and during 
the time that I was in training, I was with the United States 
Maritime Service. I was stationed at Hoffman Island.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the only government service you have had?
    Mr. Davies. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for any contractor doing 
government work?
    Mr. Davies. Any contractor?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked for any company doing government 
work?
    Mr. Davies. Yes. I worked in a shipyard prior to that.
    Mr. Cohn. What shipyard was that?
    Mr. Davies. Let me see now. Todd-Erie Basin.
    Mr. Cohn. Todd-Erie Basin?
    Mr. Davies. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Davies. I believe it was 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time did you work there?
    Mr. Davies. I can't say for certain. It was about eight or 
nine months, around 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. Any other instance of work for any company which 
did government work?
    Mr. Davies. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Not from 1945 on?
    Mr. Davies. Well, not from 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. What companies have you worked for?
    Mr. Davies. Well, I didn't work for any company that has 
done government work at anytime outside of the time that I 
worked in the shipyard and the time that I sailed in the 
Merchant Marine.
    Mr. Cohn. For what company have you worked? That is, other 
than the one for which you are working now?
    Mr. Davies. I worked for Atlantic Appliance Company. I 
worked for Central Radio, which is also an appliance outlet. I 
worked for various distribution agencies for publications.
    Mr. Cohn. What publications?
    Mr. Davies. Well, these are agencies like Keystone Reader 
Service, which handles all publications. In other words, I was 
magazine salesman.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever visited the installation at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Is this a tough question?
    Mr. Davies. No, I am just trying to recall whether I ever 
have because I have driven through Eatontown, which goes past 
the entrance.
    Mr. Cohn. While you are thinking of that, let me ask you 
this: Have you been acquainted with anyone who worked at the 
Evans Signal Laboratory at Fort Monmouth at anytime?
    Mr. Davies. Well, I will have to decline to answer that 
question under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you one of the organizers of a Communist 
party cell consisting of employees of the Evans Signal 
Laboratory at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Davies. I will decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that any statement might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Davies. I will decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that any statement may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Albert Socol?
    Mr. Davies. Decline.
    Mr. Cohn. Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Davies. Decline.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in a Communist cell with any of those 
three people?
    Mr. Davies. Decline on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. What is your telephone number?
    Mr. Davies. Asbury Park 2-8151J.
    The Chairman. Have you made calls from that number to Fort 
Monmouth?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Davies. No, sir, I never have.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you lived at that address?
    Mr. Davies. I have been living there since I got out of the 
Merchant Marine, which was around June of--May or June--1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had Communist meetings in your 
home?
    Mr. Davies. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that any statement might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in communication with Communists 
working at Fort Monmouth within the last two months?
    Mr. Davies. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that any statement might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed with any member of the 
Communist party his work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Davies. I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever transmitted to the Communist party 
any information obtained from Communists working at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Davies. Would you mind repeating that, sir?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Davies. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a Communist today?
    Mr. Davies. I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. Have you been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Davies. No, sir, I have never been engaged in 
espionage.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you engaged in any illegal activity?
    Mr. Davies. Well, for the purposes of answering that 
question, I would like to ask what your definition of illegal 
activity is.
    The Chairman. You say you have never engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Davies. I stated that I have never engaged in 
espionage; yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever obtain any classified material 
from anyone at Fort Monmouth and passed that on to anyone who 
you knew or thought to be an espionage agent?
    Mr. Davies. No, sir, I have not. I have never received, 
transmitted, any information that--classified--excuse me. May I 
rephrase that, sir?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Davies. I have never received or transmitted any 
classified information from anyone to anyone at any time.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss in the presence of any 
members of the Communist party any classified material?
    You know what I mean by classified material, don't you?
    Mr. Davies. Yes. I assume--well, I assume that you are 
referring to government material.
    The Chairman. Either restricted, confidential, secret or 
top secret.
    Mr. Davies. Would you mind repeating the question, sir?
    The Chairman. I will repeat it. Did you ever discuss in the 
presence of any member of the Communist party any classified 
material?
    Mr. Davies. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Davies. Well, since I have already refused to state 
previously whether or not I am a Communist, and this question 
involves specifically that point in relation to the question of 
classified material, I would like to ask that you rephrase the 
question. Would you mind repeating?
    Mr. Friedman. May I?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Davies. On the question as to whether or not I ever had 
any discussions with any Communists, I decline to answer. On 
the point of classified material, I have never discussed any 
classified material with anybody. I know nothing about 
classified material.
    The Chairman. May I say, for your information, something 
off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself under continuing 
subpoena. Come back Thursday morning at 10:30, in this room.
    Mr. Friedman. Would it be premature, Senator, to ask now 
for the names of any persons who have testified against this 
gentleman?
    The Chairman. I think it would, because no action will be 
taken until they testify in public and you will have available 
all of their testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. Why don't you do this: Check tomorrow afternoon 
with Mr. Buckley and see how things stand for Thursday, because 
if we see we are running over and cannot get to you, we will 
spare you the trouble. We will know that better after the 
session tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you, very much.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Levine, we will proceed with you now.
    Will you and your attorney please come forward?

 TESTIMONY OF RUTH LEVINE (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, MORRIS 
                        FISH) (RESUMED)

    Mr. Cohn. What was the pending question?
    Mrs. Levine. To reconsider an answer to a question.
    Mr. Fish. I think the senator opened up the whole question 
and allowed her to determine whether or not, if she spoke about 
transmission of any material, she would either have to assert 
the privilege or answer it completely.
    The Chairman. In other words, she has to assert the 
privilege as to the entire area of espionage or else I will 
order to have her answer the specific questions on espionage.
    Mrs. Levine. I have reconsidered and I decline on that.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to.
    Mr. Cohn. We will excuse you until Thursday morning, until 
a little before 10:30, in room 110, downstairs.
    Mr. Fish. That will be Thursday, at 10:30, in room 110?
    Mr. Cohn. That is on the first floor in this building.
    The Chairman. In case there is any change of rooms, the 
officers here in the building will know.
    I have one final question. You say that you were not called 
in and told that you would be discharged if you invoked the 
Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Levine. As I said before, some action would be taken. 
What action was not indicated to me.
    The Chairman. You were not notified what action would be 
taken?
    Mrs. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. That will be all until Thursday morning.
    The Chairman. Mr. Saunders, would you raise your right hand 
and be sworn? In the matter now in hearing before this 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Saunders. I do.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. SAUNDERS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, BERT 
                            DIAMOND)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Saunders. John D. Saunders, S-a-u-n-d-e-r-s.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Saunders. 70 East Seventh Street, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Saunders. Federal Telecommunications.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Saunders. Since January 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that your only government employment?
    Mr. Saunders. I beg your pardon.
    Mr. Cohn. Has that been your only government employment?
    Mr. Saunders. It is the only employment.
    Mr. Cohn. The only government employment?
    Mr. Saunders. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been working on classified government 
work at anytime during that period?
    Mr. Saunders. I am a machinist. I don't know what is 
classified and what is not as a machinist.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Saunders. No, sir.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ In a public hearing on March 11, 1954, Saunders changed his 
testimony and said that while an employee at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratories he had joined the Communist party in 
1947 and remained a member until 1949. He further testified that after 
he volunteered this information to the FBI, the subcommittee, and the 
company, he had lost his security clearance and had been suspended from 
Federal Telecommunications in February 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Saunders. I have attended union meetings where they 
have had Communist literature, but not a Communist meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. You attended union meetings where they had 
Communist literature. When was that?
    Mr. Saunders. In that old union, the FAECT that Harry Hyman 
was president of.
    The Chairman. Was Harry Hyman president of the union for a 
while?
    Mr. Saunders. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Who distributed the Communist literature?
    Mr. Saunders. He just had it on a table next to him there.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Harry Hyman a Communist?
    Mr. Saunders. He offered me a Communist card to sign.
    Mr. Cohn. He offered you a Communist card to sign? When was 
that?
    Mr. Saunders. That was before the lab was moved to Nutley.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
    Mr. Saunders. It was about two years after I started there. 
About 1947, I think.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Albert 
Shadowitz?
    Mr. Saunders. He was the chief steward for the engineering 
group.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Saunders. I don't know. He never offered me any 
literature or anything so I couldn't say for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Who, besides Hyman, do you know to be a 
Communist?
    Mr. Saunders. That is the only one that I knew to be 
Communist. He is the only one that approached me with a card 
and told me that he was a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. It was pretty general knowledge that Hyman was a 
Communist, wasn't it?
    Mr. Saunders. It seemed to be, yes. I didn't know at that 
time, but later on I found out from a lot of the other people 
that he knew he was a Communist.
    The Chairman. Did you turn down the card when he offered 
you the Communist card?
    Mr. Saunders. Inasmuch as he was the president of the union 
and I was working there, and he seemed to have a pretty whole 
lot to say there, I didn't want to, maybe, jeopardize my job by 
telling him no right away, so I told him I would talk it over 
with my wife first and later on I told him I wanted to think it 
over, I didn't know much about the Communist party, and that I 
wanted to learn something about it, and stuff like that, and I 
kept putting him off. Later on he stopped asking me.
    The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that he 
being the president of the union, you couldn't insult him just 
offhand, you decided that would not be the smart thing to do, 
so you put him off and after a while he quit asking you to 
join?
    Mr. Saunders. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give him any money?
    Mr. Saunders. Well, he gave me the Daily Worker a few 
times, I bought it from him, and some pamphlets. He said, ``You 
don't know anything about it. Read up on it and see what it is 
about.'' I read it and I didn't like it very much and I told 
him not to bring it to me anymore.
    The Chairman. How about this card? I am rather interested 
in that. I would like to get your complete explanation on it 
because we have here a report to the fact that you did have a 
Communist party card, that one was issued to you, we have the 
number of it, and that sort of thing. So I would like to get 
all the details on that. In other words, your testimony is that 
you had no intention of joining the Communist party at that 
time?
    Mr. Saunders. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you pay him any money when he gave you 
the card for membership in the party?
    Mr. Saunders. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay any dues, did he ever come 
around and solicit any money for the Communist party?
    Mr. Saunders. He wanted some money, but I used to play 
cards with him and some other fellows, and so I said if I give 
him money for the party, I wouldn't have money with which to 
play cards.
    The Chairman. How long did you keep the card before you 
turned it back to him?
    Mr. Saunders. I didn't turn it back. I destroyed it.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Daniel Saunders your brother?
    Mr. Saunders. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Saunders. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. He is not?
    Mr. Saunders. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Has he ever been?
    Mr. Saunders. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known any other Communists besides 
Hyman?
    Mr. Saunders. Well, when I was in the ALP, I knew a Whacker 
that I read in the paper was a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. A what?
    Mr. Saunders. A Whacker. Charlotte Whacker, I think it was. 
She taught a first aid course there during the war.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you be outside for a while?
    Mr. Diamond. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you wait outside for a few minutes, Mr. 
Saunders, and then we will let Mr. Diamond know when we want 
you back. Is that all right, Mr. Diamond?
    Mr. Diamond. Yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Spiro, would you raise your right hand 
and be sworn? In the matter now in hearing before this 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Spiro. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF NORMAN SPIRO

    The Chairman. Would you give your name to the reporter?
    Mr. Spiro. Norman Spiro.
    The Chairman. Norman Spiro?
    Mr. Spiro. S-p-i-r-o.
    The Chairman. And where are you working at present?
    Mr. Spiro. Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    The Chairman. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Spiro. Three years, November 1950.
    The Chairman. Since November 1950?
    Mr. Spiro. I worked for the FTR before that.
    The Chairman. For who?
    Mr. Spiro. Federal Telephone and Radio. I was transferred 
to the laboratories November 1950.
    The Chairman. And you are working at the Telecommunications 
up until today?
    Mr. Spiro. Yes.
    The Chairman. And do you have access to classified 
material?
    Mr. Spiro. No. I think confidential, but I am not sure. But 
nothing higher than that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever register as a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Communist party?
    Mr. Spiro. Did I ever join the Communist party?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. Your first name is Norman?
    Mr. Spiro. Yes.
    The Chairman. We have received information that a Norman 
Spiro signed a Communist petition, a pledge to support the 
Communist party in the year 1941. Do you know whether or not 
you signed such a petition in 1941?
    Mr. Spiro. No. I don't remember. If it is, it is something 
that is completely out of my mind.
    The Chairman. Did you belong to Local 817 of the IWO?
    Mr. Spiro. I don't remember the lodge number, but I 
belonged to a IWO lodge.
    The Chairman. Was that a Communist-dominated outfit, the 
IWO?
    Mr. Spiro. I never was active in it. When I found out it 
was on the attorney general's list we resigned.
    The Chairman. What year did you resign? Do you recall that?
    Mr. Spiro. I don't know. I think it was 1948 or 1949, but I 
don't remember specifically. I am more sure it was in 1948, but 
I am under oath and I am not positive enough.
    The Chairman. When you applied for work with the FTR, or 
Telecommunications, you had to sign an application, and one of 
the questions was what organizations do you belong to. Did you 
list the IWO at that time?
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. Would you tell us why you didn't list that?
    Mr. Spiro. Well, I was a little ashamed of being associated 
with an organization that was listed as subversive. I thought--
I was hoping that it wouldn't come up. I had nothing--I wasn't 
part of the organization in any way except in their books.
    The Chairman. Did you register as a member of the ALP?
    Mr. Spiro. That is one of these--I don't know. If I did, it 
was before it was taken over by the Communists. If I did at 
all, that is.
    The Chairman. What year did the ALP split up, do you 
recall?
    Mr. Spiro. I don't know. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. At one time some of the--if we can use the 
phrase--non-Communist liberals were attempting, I believe, to 
take over the ALP and later a sizeable number of them withdrew 
with a blast at the ALP stating it was Communist dominated.
    Mr. Spiro. If I registered, it was before that period, if I 
did. But I may not have even then.
    The Chairman. I have here, and I have no way of knowing at 
this time that it is particularly accurate because I do not 
have photostats of the registration, information that you 
registered continuously in ALP from 1937 to 1946.
    Mr. Spiro. ALP?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Spiro. I am sorry, I don't think so. I am quite sure I 
didn't.
    The Chairman. When did you last--
    Mr. Spiro. 1946? That is late. They split up before that.
    The Chairman. Yes, they split up before that.
    Mr. Spiro. Look, I am sorry but I am quite sure that isn't 
right.
    The Chairman. In your opinion, when was the last time you 
registered ALP?
    Mr. Spiro. If at all, it was--gee, I couldn't put a year on 
it. Maybe 1940. If I did at all. I don't know whether I did.
    The Chairman. In 1948 were you at all active in supporting 
the ALP ticket? That is the year Wallace ran, you know.
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. You were not at that time? You say you were 
not active?
    Mr. Spiro. No. I said ``no,'' yes.
    The Chairman. You are sure you did not register ALP in 
1948?
    Mr. Spiro. Well, how sure can I be? I mean, I am as sure as 
I can be, yes. I am under oath and it means that it has to be 
absolute. As sure as I can possibly be, I did not register in 
1948. That is late.
    The Chairman. I am not asking you whether you supported a 
Democrat or Republican candidate for the presidency. I don't 
care. But I think it would be fairly easy to remember in 1948 
whether you supported Henry Wallace or not.
    Mr. Spiro. I didn't. I did not.
    The Chairman. I may say, I do not have evidence of 
registering in 1948. But I have a statement here from those who 
examined the files of the register from 1937 to 1946. Again, 
may I say that has not been confirmed by obtaining a photostat 
of the register which we can easily do.
    Are you sure you did not sign a petition pledging support 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Spiro. Yes. I am positive.
    The Chairman. That is something you wouldn't forget very 
easily, if you had.
    Dan, I wonder if you would get this alleged Communist 
petition from 1941 so this man can examine the signature on 
that. You will not be able to get that this week, I assume.
    Mr. Buckley. I can have it by Monday, I believe.
    The Chairman. You were born in this country, were you not?
    Mr. Spiro. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you have to sign an affidavit when you 
got your job?
    Mr. Spiro. What was that?
    The Chairman. I say, when you got the job at FTL, did you 
have to sign an affidavit?
    Mr. Spiro. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. Did you know Hyman, by any chance, Harry 
Hyman, head of the union?
    Mr. Spiro. I know who he is, but I didn't know him. In 
fact, I learned mostly about him waiting in the room outside.
    The Chairman. He was down before you came?
    Mr. Spiro. Well, I know of him. I didn't know him.
    The Chairman. He had left his job before you came with 
Telecommunications; is that right?
    Mr. Spiro. I don't know. Did he? He is just a name to me.
    The Chairman. He was head of the UEW.
    Mr. Spiro. Yes, I know that much, too.
    The Chairman. Were you at the plant when UEW was the 
bargaining agent?
    Mr. Spiro. Do you mean the Communist local?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Spiro. I don't know when they were put out.
    The Chairman. What year did you come there?
    Mr. Spiro. I came to FTL in 1950. Were they still there? 
Yes, I guess so. I mean, it doesn't mean too much to me.
    The Chairman. How about any brothers and sisters? Do any of 
them belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Spiro. I have no brothers and sisters.
    The Chairman. Is your father living?
    Mr. Spiro. Yes.
    The Chairman. He is not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Spiro. No.
    The Chairman. You never joined the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Spiro. No. There is one thing I would like to bring up. 
He mentioned it. I don't remember enough of it but just to make 
sure that the record is clear there was something--I can't spot 
the year too well, but it was 1937 or 1938 I did have something 
to do with a petition of the YCL at Brooklyn College. I 
mentioned it when we were speaking before, but I can't be more 
specific about it. It wasn't big. It was something local, 
something small. I don't even know to what extent I was 
involved in the thing. But just to make sure that there is no 
question here, I want to bring it up.
    If you find out anything about it, I would appreciate it if 
you would let me know. I don't remember what it is about.
    The Chairman. You never joined the YCL?
    Mr. Spiro. Not that I know of, no.
    The Chairman. We will want to have you come back when we 
get this copy of the Communist party petition in 1941 and have 
you examine the signature on that. I do not know when that will 
be. It may be at least several weeks.
    Mr. Spiro. Can you give me some more information about the 
locale or something? I don't remember anything at all in 1941.
    The Chairman. I don't have enough information on it, 
frankly.
    Mr. Spiro. I don't remember anything whatsoever about it in 
1941, just nothing.
    The Chairman. We will check and get that and let you look 
it over and see if it is your signature. You will be notified 
by somebody on the staff when we would like to have you come 
back.
    Mr. Spiro. All right.
    The Chairman. Mr. Burkes, would you raise your right hand 
and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Burkes. I do.

TESTIMONY OF CARTER LEMUEL BURKES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         BERT DIAMOND)

    The Chairman. Mr. Burkes, I am going to, if I may, give you 
a bit of advice before you start. We have had witnesses come in 
here day after day. They are guilty of no crime when they come 
before this committee. During the course of these hearings, I 
think up to this time we have some--this is just a rough 
guess--twenty cases we submitted to the grand jury, either for 
perjury or for contempt before this committee.
    Do not just assume that your name was pulled out of a hat. 
Before you were brought here, we make a fairly thorough and 
complete investigation. So I would like to strongly advise you 
to either tell the truth or, if you think the truth will 
incriminate you, then you are entitled to refuse to answer. I 
cannot urge that upon you too strongly. I have given that 
advice to other people here before the committee. They thought 
they were smarter than our investigators. They will end up in 
jail. This is not a threat; this is just friendly advice I am 
giving you. Do you understand that?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Your name is Carter Lemuel Burkes, 
L-e-m-u-e-l B-u-r-k-e-s?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you were born in 1919?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. At Stanton, Virginia?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Your residence is 66 Hillside Place, Newark, 
New Jersey?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are employed as a technician in the FTL?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you have access to secret material, do 
you?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have secret clearance?
    Mr. Burkes. I have secret clearance, sir?
    The Chairman. I said do you have secret clearance?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir. I am pretty positive I don't.
    The Chairman. You have access to confidential now?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Counsel just informed me that the file shows 
that a request has been made for access to secret. Have you 
ever attended a meeting of the Communist party?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to attend a 
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who asked you to attend?
    Mr. Burkes. I don't know the name of the person, sir. I 
don't remember the name of the person.
    The Chairman. How long ago was that?
    Mr. Burkes. I am not sure of the date, either. I do know it 
was either 1946 or 1947, right after I came out of the army, 
after I first started to work. I came out of the army in 1946 
and it was a few days or a few months before I began work, and 
I know it would have to be after 1946 but it could have been in 
1947.
    The Chairman. Well, as a matter of fact, were you not 
invited to attend Communist party meetings in 1950?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir. I wasn't invited in 1950 because--I 
wasn't invited in 1950 but I was invited in 1946 or 1947, 
something like that.
    The Chairman. Where were you working at that time?
    Mr. Burkes. I was working at the Garod Radio Corporation in 
Brooklyn.
    The Chairman. Was one of the people who worked with you the 
one who invited you to attend?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you do not know who that was?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir, and I didn't even know that the party 
was Communist, either. I only know the Communist party as the 
name Communist. I mean, I didn't know any of these different 
names that were common, subversive or anything like that. I had 
been in the army. Before I was in the army I was in school, and 
after I--When I was in the army, I didn't hear anything about 
it.
    The Chairman. Where were you working in 1947?
    Mr. Burkes. In 1947 I am sure I was still at Garod. I 
wasn't there too long. I wasn't there no longer than about 
seven months or so. I don't know whether I started work--I 
think I started work in the year that I came out of the army, 
in 1946. If I was there nearly about a year, I would have to be 
there in 1947.
    The Chairman. You purchased tickets to attend a Communist 
meeting in the year 1947, did you not?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir, I didn't purchase tickets.
    The Chairman. Before I ask you this question, let me give 
you some information. Let me say I have no desire to run the 
list of cases we have to submit to the grand jury up. We have 
the evidence here. That does not mean that you are lying, of 
course. People who gave this may be lying; I don't know. We 
have the evidence here that you invited people to attend 
meetings of the Communist party in Brooklyn, New York, in the 
year 1947, the first half of 1948. There are witnesses who will 
testify to that. Do you say that is not true?
    Mr. Burkes. Sir, did I understand you correctly? Did you 
say that I invited witnesses to attend the party?
    The Chairman. That you invited other people. I am not 
saying you did. I am telling you what the evidence we have is. 
That is all.
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir, I didn't invite anyone to attend any 
party.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have a meeting in your home, 
called for the purpose of discussing communism and the 
organization of the Communist party in this country?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Burkes. I am divorced, sir.
    The Chairman. When were you married?
    Mr. Burkes. I was married in 1943.
    The Chairman. And when were you divorced?
    Mr. Burkes. I was divorced this year, August of 1953.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did she ever go to a Communist meeting with 
you?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever make the statement that you 
would never fight in a war against Russia?
    Mr. Burkes. I didn't understand you, sir.
    The Chairman. I said did you ever make the statement that 
you would never fight in a war against Russia?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you subscribe to a paper called the 
Militant?
    Mr. Burkes. Sir, the Militant came to my house and I didn't 
know anything about the party. So I am pretty sure that I did 
not subscribe to it. I don't remember writing anything that 
would say send the paper to my house, or anything like that. 
But I do know the Militant did come to my house.
    The Chairman. Over what period of time, about?
    Mr. Burkes. I think I received about ten of them. I think 
they came out--I don't know whether they came out weekly or 
monthly. But I think I received about ten of them. They finally 
ran out and I was glad that they did.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you were getting it at 
your home, in what year?
    Mr. Burkes. 1947 would be the last time I had gotten it, I 
know.
    The Chairman. Did you attend OCS?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. At the Signal Corps?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And what year was that?
    Mr. Burkes. I attended OCS--I was inducted in 1941. I am 
pretty sure it was 1943.
    The Chairman. Did you become an officer then?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Burkes, we have information here, and you 
understand when I say we have information that is contrary to 
what you say I am not accusing you of perjury I am just 
informing you of what we have--I think you are entitled to know 
what evidence we have here and why you are called before the 
committee--the information we have here, the story we have 
here, the statements from other people, is that you did, after 
you came out of the service, in 1946 and 1947 become active in 
Communist activities, that you attended Communist party 
meetings, that you had meetings at home, your home, where, you 
discussed communism, that you invited other people to attend 
Communist meetings, but that after 1947, according to this 
record, you apparently dropped your connection with the 
Communist party.
    The people who have given us this story may be lying; I 
don't know. It isn't our job to determine who lies before this 
committee. It is our job to call in anyone who gives a story 
that is directly contrary to yours, and allow your lawyer to 
know what that testimony is, and then if it is clear that 
someone is lying we submit the matter to the grand jury and ask 
for an indictment.
    They have the Justice Department and FBI investigate it 
further and determine, if possible, who is guilty of perjury. 
In your case, I can see no reason why anyone would give this 
story on you. If someone hated you, and if they knew that you 
were active in the Communist movement in 1947, they would try 
to create the impression that you were still active in it as of 
today.
    If they do not hate you, if they don't dislike you, there 
is no reason why they should lie about you.
    I am just wondering if you can give us any information at 
all that would clear this up.
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir. I certainly would like to try to clear 
this up because I do know that I never attended any Communist 
meetings, and it is surprising to me that someone would say 
that.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Right after the war, the 
Communists were not held in as much disrepute by many as they 
are today. It was much easier to attend a Communist meeting 
then. Do you think it possible that you attended meetings that 
were unknown to you at that time to be Communist meetings but 
which actually were? In other words, can you think of any 
meetings now that you attended which in retrospect, looking at 
it back there, might have been Communist meetings even though 
they did not appear to be then?
    Mr. Burkes. I didn't attend any Communist meetings, I will 
say that. But about this Militant coming to my house, that is 
the thing that I am not so sure exactly--I don't believe that I 
signed anything saying for it to come to my house, but I didn't 
know anything about the Militant paper. And I certainly was 
glad when it stopped coming there. I think the person that I 
was talking to that wanted me to join the Communist party, he 
may have asked me about whether he should send the paper to my 
house or something like that. I don't think anyone gave me a 
card to sign or nothing like that. I am pretty sure of that.
    The Chairman. Let's get back to these meetings. Let's 
assume that you attended nothing in 1946 and 1947 that you knew 
was a Communist meeting at the time. That is, for the time 
being, take that for granted. Let's assume that you did not 
know you attended any Communist meetings at that time. Looking 
back now can you think of any meetings you attended which you 
now realize were Communist meetings?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir. Not any at all.
    The Chairman. Are you much of a--what would you call it--a 
meeting-goer?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir, I didn't go to any meetings, hardly, 
and I don't even belong to any lodges.
    The Chairman. And you are positive that you never invited 
anyone to attend meetings of the Communist party?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir; I am positive. I know that to be 
true, because if I--excuse me.
    The Chairman. You are sure that you never said that you 
would refuse to participate in a war against Russia?
    Mr. Burkes. No, sir. Could I add this, sir?
    The Chairman. Just one other question; Have you at all 
times preferred this system of government which we have here to 
the Communist system?
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir, I have always preferred this system 
of government to the Communist party.
    The Chairman. You understand, of course, it is no crime to 
prefer communism to our system. You have a right to prefer it. 
I am not saying you do, you understand.
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir; I prefer this kind of government to 
the Communist government.
    The Chairman. I do not think we will want you any further, 
but I wish you would consider yourself under continuing 
subpoena, and if we do want you for anything further we will 
get in touch with you.
    Mr. Burkes. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. And if anything further develops it your 
case, we will keep your lawyer informed.
    Mr. Burkes. Senator, the only thing that I would like to 
say, everything I have been saying is true and I don't want to 
perjure myself. The only thing, about the Militant paper, I 
don't know under what conditions it was that that came to my 
house. But I do know at the time, I do know that I didn't know 
if I asked someone to send it to me or someone said they were 
going to send it to me, I didn't know it was a Communist paper 
until later on. I was hoping that it would soon stop coming and 
it did.
    The Chairman. I think I understand you. You say as far as 
that is concerned, at this date, that being about six years 
ago, it would be impossible to state under oath whether or not 
you might have signed a subscription for it, but if you did, 
your testimony is that you did not know at that time it was a 
Communist inclined paper.
    Mr. Burkes. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. There is nothing further.
    The Chairman. Would you stand and be sworn? In this matter 
now in hearing before the committee, do you swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Simkovich. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. SIMKOVICH (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         BERT DIAMOND)

    The Chairman. Your name is John R. Simkovich?
    Mr. Simkovich. That is right.
    The Chairman. S-i-m-k-o-v-i-c-h?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You were born in Pennsylvania, is that right?
    Mr. Simkovich. That is right.
    The Chairman. Where are you working now?
    Mr. Simkovich. Federal Telecommunications Labs.
    The Chairman. And you do have access to classified 
material?
    Mr. Simkovich. Pardon me.
    The Chairman. Do you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. What classification? Secret, confidential?
    Mr. Simkovich. I believe the last clearance I had was top 
secret.
    The Chairman. The last was top secret?
    Mr. Simkovich. I believe that is it.
    The Chairman. Do you have a badge that shows that type of 
clearance you have?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. When have you last handled any top secret 
material?
    Mr. Simkovich. I don't believe I ever handled any top 
secret.
    The Chairman. How abut secret?
    Mr. Simkovich. I don't recall that, either.
    The Chairman. How about confidential?
    Mr. Simkovich. Well, specifically I don't recall handling 
that.
    The Chairman. Would you know in the type of work you are 
doing what the classification of the work is?
    Mr. Simkovich. The work I am on now is unclassified.
    The Chairman. Do you need a badge or pass to get into the 
plant where you now work?
    Mr. Simkovich. The normal company badge.
    The Chairman. Did you know Albert Shadowitz?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Simkovich. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Has he ever discussed membership in the party 
with you?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended Communist Meetings?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to attend any 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any of your close relatives, brothers, 
sisters, mother or father Communists?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is your father's first name John?
    Mr. Simkovich. That is right.
    The Chairman. And your mother's first name is Anna?
    Mr. Simkovich. That is right.
    The Chairman. How about Ernest Pataki, do you know him?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. To your knowledge is he a Communist?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You had no reason to believe that he was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you visited at his home?
    Mr. Simkovich. I was there once, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know his wife?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever met her?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know where Pataki is working now?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When did you last see Pataki?
    Mr. Simkovich. The day he left. I believe it was sometime 
in 1950.
    The Chairman. You have never seen him since then?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When was the last time that he was in your 
home, if ever?
    Mr. Simkovich. He never was in my home.
    The Chairman. How about Shadowitz?
    Mr. Simkovich. When was the last time I saw him?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Simkovich. About the middle of October of this year.
    The Chairman. Do you go back and forth to each other's 
homes?
    Mr. Simkovich. In all the time that I have known Shadowitz 
he has been at my home about two or three times, and I haven't 
been at his home more frequently.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Simkovich. I knew him from the union, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you consider him a Communist?
    Mr. Simkovich. I did not know him to be a Communist, no, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Wasn't it general knowledge around the plant 
that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Simkovich. That is correct. Well, the general feeling--
there were a lot of rumors in the place that he was.
    The Chairman. Did you have any social contacts with Hyman? 
In other words, did you ever go out any place with him, or did 
he come to your house or you go out to his house?
    Mr. Simkovich. He has never been to my home at all. As far 
as social contacts with him, he was one of a group of men from 
the place who played poker, and I played with them about two or 
three times.
    The Chairman. Who were the other people in that poker 
group?
    Mr. Simkovich. This was about five years ago, or four years 
ago. The only ones I can specifically remember now is a person 
named Hartnet, Richard Hartnet, and a person named Swanson, who 
worked in my department.
    The Chairman. And how often did you have these poker games?
    Mr. Simkovich. Well, I wasn't a regular member of these 
poker games. From what I understood, these poker games would 
occur possibly every month or two, and these two persons in my 
group would occasionally invite me and I accepted about two or 
three times.
    The Chairman. At that time did you have any reason to think 
that Hyman was a Communist?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, sir. This was just about the time that I 
became steward in the union. This was just about at the 
beginning.
    The Chairman. When did you first think that Hyman was a 
Communist, if you ever did?
    Mr. Simkovich. Just on the basis of the statements that 
were going around the place.
    The Chairman. When was that? What year, roughly?
    Mr. Simkovich. I can't remember exactly. To that question, 
I can't recall exactly.
    The Chairman. After the CIO got rid of the union of which 
Hyman was head, on the grounds that it was Communist 
controlled, what union did you belong to?
    Mr. Simkovich. I remained with the existing union, the 
accredited union.
    The Chairman. You remained with Hyman's union?
    Mr. Simkovich. Well, yes, with the accredited union, yes.
    The Chairman. When there was a contest between UOPWA, 
Hyman's union, which was kicked out of the CIO in 1950 because 
of alleged Communist control, and the IUE, which one did you 
support?
    Mr. Simkovich. Up to the time of the election I supported 
the existing union.
    The Chairman. You knew that it had been kicked out of the 
CIO because of alleged Communist control?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Did that disturb you at all to think that a 
Communist controlled union would be in charge of a plant 
handling government secrets?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes, it did, Senator. The reason why I 
remained is because when I first became a steward in the group 
I had no knowledge of anything political that had taken place 
in the chapter, and it was the feeling of most of the people 
there that the chapter had done an excellent job. I never had 
any contact with-not very much contact with the national.
    The Chairman. While you were supporting the UOPWA against 
the IUE, at that time you knew, did you not, that Hyman was a 
Communist or you at least had reason to believe that he was?
    Mr. Simkovich. I did not know that he was.
    The Chairman. Wasn't that general knowledge around the 
place?
    Mr. Simkovich. Well, it was generally rumored. As far as 
that point is concerned, when he signed a non-Communist Taft 
Hartley affidavit, everybody assumed either that he had never 
been a Communist or that if he had been he had resigned. 
Another point there was the general feeling that if he were, he 
certainly wouldn't be walking around the place free, even 
though he was just a sheet-metal worker.
    The Chairman. You say you never had any reason to suspect 
Shadowitz or Pataki were Communists?
    Mr. Simkovich. I never had very much to do with Pataki.
    The Chairman. You were in his home, weren't you?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right. From what you had to do with 
Pataki and Shadowitz, is it your testimony that you never had 
any reason to suspect that they were Communists?
    Mr. Simkovich. I never heard them make any statements 
advocating communism, if that is what you mean.
    The Chairman. No, I just mean did you have any reason to 
suspect that they might be Communists, any reason.
    Mr. Simkovich. Not specifically, no.
    The Chairman. Why do you say not specifically? Just 
anything at all. Anything that occurred that would have led you 
to suspect that they were Communists.
    Mr. Simkovich. Senator, at that time I was very new to 
unions, I had never had anything to do with unions before.
    The Chairman. I am not talking about unions, I am talking 
about these two men who have been identified as Communists.
    Mr. Simkovich. I had no way of identifying.
    The Chairman. Did anything ever occur that gave you any 
reason to believe that they were Communists?
    Mr. Simkovich. I had no way of identifying a Communist at 
that time.
    The Chairman. Then is it your testimony that you had no 
suspicion that they were Communists?
    Mr. Simkovich. No, it is.
    The Chairman. That is your testimony?
    Mr. Simkovich. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right. You will be excused for today. You 
will consider yourself under continuing subpoena. We will let 
you know if and when you are wanted back.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask all of you to be sworn. I 
will have to leave and the counsel will conduct the 
interrogation. Will you all raise your right hands. In this 
matter now in hearing before this committee do you each and 
individually solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I do.
    Mr. Morris. I do.
    Mr. DeLuca. I do.
    Mr. Komar. I do.
    Mr. Diamond. I represent two of them, Senator.
    The Chairman. We will take the young lady first.

                  TESTIMONY OF LINDA GOTTFRIED

    Mr. Buckley. May we have your full name?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Linda Gottfried
    Mr. Buckley. Your address?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Three Monroe Street, Waldwick, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. And your telephone number, please?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Allendale 1-5079.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you presently employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Buckley. In what capacity?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Secretary.
    Mr. Buckley. To whom?
    Mrs. Gottfried. To Sid Metzger.
    Mr. Buckley. What classification do you have? Have you 
access to classified work?
    Mrs. Gottfried. At present--well, I am cleared to 
confidential, and I have access to nothing higher than that.
    Mr. Buckley. Has a request been made for access to higher 
classified material?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I have been told that it has.
    Mr. Buckley. To what, do you know?
    Mrs. Gottfried. To secret.
    Mr. Buckley. How long ago was that request made?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, a year ago last summer.
    Mr. Buckley. And you have not been cleared for that as yet?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know why?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. That is your husband's name?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Noah Gottfried.
    Mr. Buckley. When did you marry him?
    Mrs. Gottfried. In June 1950.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is he employed?
    Mrs. Gottfried. At Electronic Research. Electronic Research 
Associates. He owns his own business.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is that located?
    Mrs. Gottfried. In Caldwell, North Caldwell.
    Mr. Buckley. Does your husband's firm have any government 
contracts, do you know?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't think it has.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you at present a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. What organizations have you belonged to?
    Mrs. Gottfried. YWA, that is all.
    Mr. Buckley. That is the most innocuous one. What about 
others? Were there others along the line in school or college?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you attend college?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. You never belonged to the Young Communist 
League?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I have not.
    Mr. Buckley. Or any other Communist or pro-Communist 
organizations that you know of?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Is your husband a Communist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he ever belonged to any pro-Communist 
organizations that you know of?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he ever indicated to you that he has 
belonged to such organizations?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, he has not.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the left-wing union at 
Federal Telecommunications at any time?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And what part did you play in that union?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Hardly any.
    Mr. Buckley. Merely a passive member, would you say?
    Mrs. Gottfried. That is right.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Harry Hyman?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Hyman to be a Communist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you have any reason to believe that he was 
a Communist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you talk with Hyman very often?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Not very often. I have spoken to him.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been in his home or he in your 
home?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I know I was never in his home, and I don't 
think he was ever in my home.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you sure about that, or not?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I am quite sure that he hasn't been.
    Mr. Buckley. What creates the doubt in your mind?
    Mrs. Gottfried. He might have possibly been there when I 
wasn't there.
    Mr. Buckley. No, to your knowledge.
    Mrs. Gottfried. To my knowledge he was never there.
    Mr. Buckley. Did any one ever tell you that he was there 
while you were away?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did anyone ever ask you to join the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you believe that Harry Hyman had a 
reputation around the Federal Telecommunications to be a member 
of the Communist party? Did you ever hear that?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I heard some rumors.
    Mr. Buckley. Rumors from whom, do you know? Was it just 
generally discussed?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I guess it was generally.
    Mr. Buckley. More or less common knowledge?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I wouldn't say common knowledge. I 
don't know anybody that knew that he was, and I didn't know 
that he was.
    Mr. Buckley. Exactly what did you hear about Harry Hyman's 
association with communism, if anything?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I heard more that he was a Red, 
something like that, which to me didn't mean much.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say Harry Hyman was a good friend or 
acquaintance or what category would you place him in?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I had just the barest acquaintance with 
him.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you heard from Harry Hyman since he has 
left Federal Telecommunications?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I haven't heard from him, but it was 
published in the paper that he called my husband's business and 
after we read it in the paper, my husband told me that he had 
called the business.
    Mr. Buckley. For what reason?
    Mrs. Gottfried. To sell insurance.
    Mr. Buckley. How long ago did he call, do you know?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know just when the call was.
    Mr. Buckley. Does your husband have insurance with Hyman 
now?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, he does not.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he ever have?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know any members of the faculty of the 
Jefferson School in New York City?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I don't.
    Mrs. Buckley. Does your husband?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, he doesn't.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of a member of the faculty 
named Frundlich?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes, he is our dentist.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know that he has taught at the 
Jefferson School in New York City?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. You knew that?
    Mrs. Gottfried. My husband--he isn't presently. That is why 
I said I knew no one who teaches there. To my knowledge he 
doesn't teach there now.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you merely have an association with him as 
patient and dentist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. You must know him pretty well, is that 
correct?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, just as a dentist.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you use him as a reference on your 
personnel security questionnaire?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know if I did or not. I doubt it.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, I mean 1952.
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Can you say categorically yes or no?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I can't, because I don't know any 
person that I used as a reference on that personnel security 
questionnaire.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think that he is a Communist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know anything about his politics.
    Mr. Buckley. You have not discussed politics with him?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you think he is a Communist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I don't think he is. I have no reason 
to think he is.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known any people you suspected 
of being Communists?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever done or said anything in your 
life which would give anyone the right to believe that you are 
a Communist or a Communist sympathizer?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know how other people interpret 
things that I say.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, for example have you said things which 
clearly indicated a sympathy for communism?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't think so.
    Mr. Buckley. Is your ideological outlook left, let us say?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, my outlook isn't left.
    Mr. Buckley. Is it Socialist?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I am not a political person.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, is it Socialist, Communist, right-wing, 
Republican or what is it?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I voted for Stevenson.
    Mr. Buckley. Whom did you vote for in 1948?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I didn't vote in 1948.
    Mr. Buckley. You were too young?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I think I was. Maybe I wasn't.
    Mr. Buckley. How old are you now?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Twenty-six.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Ruth Levine?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know her?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I know her quite well.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she a personal friend of yours?
    Mrs. Gottfried. She was.
    Mr. Buckley. Was? What do you mean by that?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I used to live in New York City and 
she did, and does, and I was more friendly with her then 
because we lived nearby. Now I live far away.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you see Ruth Levine out at your job very 
often?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. About how often would you say?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Now I don't see her more than once every 
few months.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have any reason to ever believe that 
Ruth Levine was a member of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. Did she ever express any political views to 
you?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. To you in the presence of any other people?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, she didn't.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say that Ruth Levine in your 
estimate is a good, loyal person?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. If Ruth Levine, for example, refused to say 
whether she ever engaged in espionage, would you still hold to 
that answer?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, from my knowledge of her, she is a 
loyal American.
    Mr. Buckley. I said if. Do you believe that people that 
come before congressional committees and refuse to answer 
questions concerning subversive activities are good, loyal 
Americans?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. You can't answer that question?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I would say that there is some room 
for doubt.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say a substantial amount of room or 
very little?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know how much.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think America's position in Korea was a 
justified position?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think our position concerning Europe 
today is justifiable, to trying to detain communism?
    Mrs. Gottfried. As much as I know about it.
    Mr. Buckley. But you are not convinced that a person that 
comes before a congressional committee and refuses to answer 
questions about communism or espionage, you are not convinced 
that that person----
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, I wouldn't be convinced.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you just try to think of all the 
organizations you have belonged to?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, outside--I think just the ones that 
we mentioned, the union and the YWCA and I belong to another 
union, I think it was IUE, back in 1943-44.
    Mr. Buckley. How often did you say you saw Frundlich?
    Mrs. Gottfried. About twice a year.
    Mr. Buckley. And you have known him how long?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Three or four years.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think you know him well enough to give 
his name as a character reference on your personnel security 
questionnaire?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, I guess not.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you happen to give his name?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, because he is--I liked him as a 
person, and he knew my husband.
    Mr. Buckley. Would it not be more natural to give the names 
of people who know you well?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, usually people give the names of 
doctors and dentists and people like that.
    Mr. Buckley. It would seem a little peculiar that you 
happened to pick out this particular doctor you have known for 
three years and have probably seen him about six times 
especially in light of the fact that he has taught at one time 
for the Jefferson School, a Communist school?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I didn't know it at that time.
    Mr. Buckley. When you gave his name, you didn't know that?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No.
    Mr. Buckley. When did you find out that he was? Who told 
you?
    Mrs. Gottfried. My husband told me subsequently.
    Mr. Buckley. How did your husband know that he had taught 
at the Jefferson School?
    Mrs. Gottfried. He had known him for quite some time.
    Mr. Buckley. Did your husband go to the Jefferson School at 
any time?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know. I don't think he had.
    Mr. Buckley. How did your husband happen to know him 
originally?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, as a dentist.
    Mr. Buckley. How did he happen to come around to the 
conversation where this man told him that he had taught at the 
Jefferson School, if that is the source of your husband's 
information?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't remember.
    Mr. Buckley. How often does your husband see this doctor?
    Mrs. Gottfried. The same as I do, just as a dentist, a 
couple of times a year.
    Mr. Buckley. And in that period of a couple of times a 
year, this dentist told your husband that he had taught at the 
Jefferson School, is that correct?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't think that is correct. I think my 
husband knew him for quite a few years, before I ever met my 
husband.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you and your husband happen to meet 
this particular individual?
    Mrs. Gottfried. Well, Dr. Frundlich is the father of a 
fellow that--Jules Frundlich--that my husband knew.
    Mr. Buckley. How did your husband happen to know him, this 
fellow Jules?
    Mrs. Gottfried. I don't know. This was many, many years 
ago, many years before I met Noah.
    Mr. Buckley. And has your husband to your knowledge ever 
been a member of the Communist party? I think I asked you that 
before.
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, he hasn't, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he ever told you that he has been, or has 
anyone else ever told you that he has been?
    Mrs. Gottfried. No, he hasn't, and no one else has told me.
    Mr. Buckley. That will be all.

                 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH PAUL KOMAR

    Mr. Buckley. What is your full name?
    Mr. Komar. Joseph Paul Komar.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your address?
    Mr. Komar. 553 Washington Avenue, Nutley.
    Mr. Buckley. And telephone number?
    Mr. Komar. Nutley 25342.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you presently employed?
    Mr. Komar. Federal Labs, as a wireman.
    Mr. Buckley. How long have you been employed there?
    Mr. Komar. January 3, 1951.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have clearance at the present time?
    Mr. Komar. I don't know nothing about it.
    Mr. Buckley. It is confidential. You are also cleared I 
notice, up to secret. That is effective April 7, 1953. What 
organizations have you belonged to, Mr. Komar, in your life?
    Mr. Komar. The church choir.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't have to go that far back.
    Mr. Komar. That is when I was a school child, and a 
religious organization known as the Young Men's Religious 
Society, but they were active in and around the church.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever belonged to any other 
organizations in your lifetime?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever belong to the International 
Workers Order?
    Mr. Komar. This is the only union I ever belonged to, the 
IUE.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever belonged to the International 
Workers Order?
    Mr. Komar. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Specifically, have you ever belonged to 
International Workers Order Lodge 2129?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your father, do you know?
    Mr. Komar. No, he was United Mine Workers of America.
    Mr. Buckley. Have any members of your family ever belonged 
to such an organization?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have any relative with an identical 
name as yours?
    Mr. Komar. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. And you are not now?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever belong to any Communist fronts?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You know what they are, of course?
    Mr. Komar. I suppose so, but to my estimation, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you or haven't you? Have you ever 
belonged to any?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Never have?
    Mr. Komar. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Komar. I just saw him walking through the shop.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever speak with him?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he ever speak to you?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear anything about his 
reputation out at the Federal Telecommunications?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir; just what I read in the paper about his 
case, lately.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever heard any one discuss Harry 
Hyman?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Even after the name appeared in the paper, you 
never heard any one discuss the case?
    Mr. Komar. When I started to work with Federal in 1951, I 
was sent to Bellville to work as a wireman. As he walked 
through, I heard, you know, the fellow workers saying that he 
was a union member.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear them say that he was a 
Communist as well as a union member?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir; just that UOPA, or whatever they called 
it.
    Mr. Buckley. You never heard anyone refer to him as a 
Communist party member or Communist organizer?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear anyone say anything good 
about the man?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Anything about him? All you heard them say was 
that he was a union organizer?
    Mr. Komar. That is right.
    Mr. Buckley. After his name appeared in the paper recently 
what did people say? What did you hear people say about him 
then?
    Mr. Komar. Nothing.
    Mr. Buckley. No one even discussed it?
    Mr. Komar. No, what I heard people say around me was what 
was in the paper, that he admitted that he was a Communist and 
this and that.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear any of this fellow's friends 
out there at that particular time say that they knew he was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir; I don't even know his friends.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear any of his enemies or 
anybody else? They passed no judgment on his political 
convictions, is that right?
    Mr. Komar. That is right. It is like I told you. I only saw 
the man going through the Bellville Plant about twice, and I 
didn't speak to him or have any contacts with the man.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you deliberately avoid speaking to him?
    Mr. Komar. No. He never came up to me, or I never avoided 
him. My co-workers told me that he was something in some kind 
of a union, that his all. A member or staff member or something 
like that. And when I started to work for this company in 
January, well, as you know, the first thing you are on 
probation for forty-five days. After my probation was over, I 
joined this 400 IUE.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you never belonged to the 
International Workers Order?
    Mr. Komar. No. This is the first time I am really employed 
like that full time, I could say. Because from high school I 
went to the service and from the service I came out here to 
Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. How long were you in the service, Mr. Komar?
    Mr. Komar. Two years, regular army.
    Mr. Buckley. Honorable discharge, of course?
    Mr. Komar. That is right. I came out as a T-4, or a 
corporal at the time. They changed the grades round.
    Mr. Buckley. Did anyone ever call you a Communist?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know any Communists?
    Mr. Komar. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you know a Communist if you met one?
    Mr. Komar. I don't think so.
    Mr. Buckley. If a man said for example I think the Soviet 
Russia is a great country and the United States is a wrong 
country in Korea and Earl Browder is a fine guy, do you think 
he would be a Communist?
    Mr. Komar. Supposedly, but I have no proof he was a 
Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. What would you think?
    Mr. Komar. I would think he was a Communist, speaking like 
that, if he was an American.
    Mr. Buckley. If he wasn't an American?
    Mr. Komar. If he was an American.
    Mr. Buckley. I think you can go, Mr. Komar.
    Mr. Komar. Thank you.

                TESTIMONY OF JOHN ANTHONY DeLUCA

    Mr. Buckley. What is your full name?
    Mr. DeLuca. John Anthony DeLuca.
    Mr. Buckley. Your address?
    Mr. DeLuca. 403 Thirtieth Street, Fairlawn.
    Mr. Buckley. And telephone number, please?
    Mr. DeLuca. Fairlawn 4-3053.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you presently employed, Mr. DeLuca?
    Mr. DeLuca. Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Buckley. In what capacity?
    Mr. DeLuca. Machinist.
    Mr. Buckley. And what clearance do you have?
    Mr. DeLuca. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know if it is secret, top secret, 
confidential?
    Mr. DeLuca. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. No one ever told you?
    Mr. DeLuca. No one ever told me.
    Mr. Buckley. You would have access automatically to 
confidential material because your plant has been given general 
confidential clearance, I understand, at least it is up to 
that. And confidential or below.
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, things that are stamped confidential----
    Mr. Buckley. Do you see things stamped confidential?
    Mr. DeLuca. Usually not.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, actually yes in a way. I mean bolts and 
screws and things like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen anything stamped 
confidential in your life?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Working with this particular organization?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen anything stamped secret?
    Mr. DeLuca. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Top secret?
    Mr. DeLuca. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you active in the left-wing union at 
Federal Telecommunications?
    Mr. DeLuca. I was active in the FAECT chapter of Local 231.
    Mr. Buckley. How active were you?
    Mr. DeLuca. I was a steward at the beginning. Then I ran 
for secretary. I was secretary--I was elected secretary about 
three times, two or three times.
    Mr. Buckley. While you held office in the union, were you 
aware of the fact that your union was following the Communist 
party line in practically every issue that was before the 
American people?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, are you talking about OPWA?
    Mr. Buckley. That is right, UOPWA.
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, as far as UOPWA was concerned, and our 
union was concerned, what we did was we set up our own 
censorship board. All material came out from UOPWA, we censored 
it before we distributed it to the membership.
    Mr. Buckley. The general background of your organization 
was such, though, isn't this true, that it was generally looked 
upon as a Communist union?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, before the CIO threw them out.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you with them before the CIO threw them 
out?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you compromise the fact that you were 
an officer of a local union that was generally known as a 
Communist union with Americanism?
    Mr. DeLuca. At that time before we were thrown out, it was 
considered a left-wing union as such.
    Mr. Buckley. And you were an officer of Local 231?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever make any objection to the fact 
that the union was following the Communist party line?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, at our executive board meetings, I was 
always in disfavor with our policies. That was one of the 
reasons why I wasn't nominated by the executive board to run 
for office.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you be considered an anti-Communist 
member of that union?
    Mr. DeLuca. I gave them enough trouble.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you be considered anti-Communist or pro-
Communist or just in between?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, never pro-Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. In between, would you say?
    Mr. DeLuca. In between. I never--actually, in looking back 
on my own follies, I never took a more dynamic stand against 
communism.
    Mr. Buckley. You never did?
    Mr. DeLuca. A more dynamic.
    Mr. Buckley. Except in the union?
    Mr. DeLuca. In the union I tried my best to keep it clean.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the executive board at 
any time?
    Mr. DeLuca. Should we break that up? Of what?
    Mr. Buckley. Of Local 231.
    Mr. DeLuca. Of Local 231 and the FTL chapter.
    Mr. Buckley. You were?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. You knew Albert Shadowitz?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you have any reason to believe that Albert 
Shadowitz was a member of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mr. DeLuca. He confused me completely.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you believe the man was a Communist 
conspirator?
    Mr. DeLuca. I didn't even know what actually he really 
believed in, because down at the executive board meetings nine 
times out of ten he would be in my side and then there are 
times when he would have a totally different type of thinking.
    Mr. Buckley. How would you classify this man, as a good, 
loyal, patriotic American or someone that you would have a 
doubt about?
    Mr. DeLuca. I would say more than 50 percent of the time I 
suspected that he was part of the Communist party.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he the type of individual to whom you would 
entrust the security of the United States?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, I have never been faced with that 
position.
    Mr. Buckley. If you were faced with that problem, that 
Albert Shadowitz would have something to do relating to the 
security of this country, is he the type of man you would place 
in a position where he could effect the security of our 
country?
    Mr. DeLuca. No, I don't think I would.
    Mr. Buckley. Because of his generally espoused views, is 
that correct?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Now, do you know of any one who suspects 
Albert Shadowitz as being a Communist traitor?
    Mr. DeLuca. Any one who suspects?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes. Has any one ever said to you, ``I think 
Albert Shadowitz is a Communist?''
    Mr. DeLuca. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever said to anyone that you thought 
Albert Shadowitz is a Communist?
    Mr. DeLuca. I might have.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, I knew him through the union. When I came 
there they were just starting to organize federal.
    Mr. Buckley. Before answering the next question, I am going 
to suggest that you be very careful with your answer. How many 
times did Harry Hyman ask you to attend with members of the 
Communist party cell at FTL?
    Mr. DeLuca. Will you repeat that last part again?
    Mr. Buckley. How many times did Harry Hyman ask you to 
attend meetings of the Communist party cell which was organized 
at FTL? As I say, think very carefully before you answer that 
question.
    Mr. DeLuca. Can I break it down?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes, you can answer it any way you want.
    Mr. DeLuca. You see, I was asked by Harry Hyman to attend--
well, Harry Hyman was one of them to attend a discussion group, 
so-called discussion group, at Webster Hall in New York, 
somewhere. I suppose that is what you mean.
    Well, he had these cards where he would hand them out, you 
see, Harry did.
    Mr. Buckley. Was the discussion being sponsored by the 
Communist party?
    Mr. DeLuca. No, not directly.
    Mr. Buckley. Who was sponsoring it?
    Mr. DeLuca. That I don't remember.
    Mr. Buckley. What was the discussion about?
    Mr. DeLuca. Political nature.
    Mr. Buckley. How long ago did that happen?
    Mr. DeLuca. Good question. I would say between the year 
1947-'48--gee, that is hard. It is a rough question.
    Mr. Buckley. We have testimony here, Mr. DeLuca, that you 
have told various individuals, all of whom are your fellow 
employees at FTL and other people, that Harry Hyman invited you 
to attend meetings of the Communist party. Now, I want you to 
search your mind very, very thoroughly and make certain that 
you give an accurate answer to that. I will tell you why. If he 
did not ask you to attend these meetings and people have 
testified that you told them that he did, then somebody is 
committing perjury. We have testimony before us from three 
different individuals who have stated that you told them at 
various times that Harry Hyman asked you to attend Communist 
meetings. Now, is that true or is it not true? Did he ever ask 
you to attend a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. DeLuca. He asked me to join the party.
    Mr. Buckley. He asked you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. DeLuca. Wait a minute. Let me see if I can trace it. I 
would say roughly 1946.
    Mr. Buckley. What was your answer when he asked you to 
join?
    Mr. DeLuca. I wouldn't join.
    Mr. Buckley. You would not join. Did Harry Hyman have any 
reason to believe that you might be susceptible to that 
particular movement?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, Harry Hyman was always an organizer.
    Mr. Buckley. Would he ordinarily come up to a man that he 
thought might be anti-Communist and ask him if he wanted to 
join the Communist party? Did he have any reason to believe 
that you might want to join?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, I was very active in the union at that 
time.
    Mr. Buckley. But you were fighting the Communists, you say, 
in the union. Right? Doesn't it seem somewhat inconsistent to 
you that, in fighting the Communists, he would ask you to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. DeLuca. That was before, and the dates are different. 
You see, he had asked me to join the party about 1946, and I 
was elected to the vice presidency of Local 231 in 1949, you 
see.
    Mr. Buckley. From that you certainly could assume beyond 
any question that Harry Hyman was a Communist, correct?
    Mr. DeLuca. I told everybody that. That is, before Taft-
Hartley.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know of any one else who was invited 
to join the Communist party by Hyman?
    Mr. DeLuca. No, I don't know of anyone else who was invited 
to join the party. But I knew that Harry Hyman had circulated 
these cards.
    Mr. Buckley. What type of cards?
    Mr. DeLuca. Webster Hall business.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know anyone else who received one of 
those cards?
    Mr. DeLuca. I think Sam Morris did.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of anyone else at Federal 
Telecommunications who can name Harry Hyman as a Communist?
    Mr. DeLuca. No. I am awfully sorry. I don't mean to laugh. 
The reason why I laughed is because Harry Hyman boasted of 
being a Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. He boasted of being a Communist?
    Mr. DeLuca. He boasted. He told everyone, anytime, 
anywhere. In other words, before Taft-Hartley--when he had to 
sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit, we had a membership meeting on 
whether to sign the affidavit or not, he told everybody he was 
a Communist from way back when and related his whole story and 
even cried.
    Mr. Buckley. He made no bones about the fact that he was a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. DeLuca. He made no bones at all. But after Taft-Hartley 
I don't remember a case where he has admitted to that extent.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of any people at Federal 
Telecommunications with whom he has been in contact since he 
left there?
    Mr. DeLuca. That is rough. He sold a lot of insurance to a 
lot of people there.
    Mr. Buckley. I don't care whether he is selling insurance 
or the Communist party. That could be a cover for subversive 
activities.
    Mr. DeLuca. True.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of any one that he has been in 
contact with since he left there?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Who?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, to my knowledge, there is Red Pauly.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you give their full names, if you know 
them?
    Mr. DeLuca. It is William Pauly, and in Bellville. He is a 
sheet-metal worker.
    Mr. Buckley. His last name is what--Bellville?
    Mr. DeLuca. That is our other building. Bellville is the 
branch.
    Mr. Buckley. Does Pauly work at Bellville?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Who else, for example, besides Pauly?
    Mr. DeLuca. R-e-i-t-e-r, Edward Reiter.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you any reason to suspect that Pauly or 
Reiter might be Communists?
    Mr. DeLuca. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say in your estimation they are 
good, loyal Americans?
    Mr. DeLuca. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How long a period of time did this Hyman have 
the general reputation of being a Communist conspirator?
    Mr. DeLuca. Well, he talked about his being a party member 
since the time the union started. In fact, when he ran for 
office he let everybody know that he was a Communist. I mean, 
as I said, he boasted about it.
    Mr. Buckley. Would that be a period of about five years, 
would you say, or four years, or more?
    Mr. DeLuca. You see, what I can't remember is the exact 
date that federal was organized, that he actually ran for the 
official head.
    Mr. Buckley. Is it fair to say that for a long, long period 
of time Harry Hyman was known as an open and avowed Communist?
    Mr. DeLuca. I would say for a long period of time.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Deluca, we will want you to testify on 
Thursday morning. Your testimony will concern Harry Hyman. We 
will ask you similar questions to those asked tonight, the fact 
that you know he was a Communist party member, that he asked 
you to join the Communist party, and that it was general 
knowledge for a long period of time. It will have to do with 
the fact that you knew Harry Hyman to be a member of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. DeLuca. All right.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your address?

   TESTIMONY OF SAM MORRIS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, BERT 
                            DIAMOND)

    Mr. Morris. Sam Morris, 90 Martha Avenue, Clifton, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your telephone number?
    Mr. Morris. I have none at home.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you presently employed, Mr. Morris?
    Mr. Morris. Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Buckley. What capacity?
    Mr. Morris. Planning clerk.
    Mr. Buckley. Planning what?
    Mr. Morris. Clerk.
    Mr. Buckley. You have clearance up to what?
    Mr. Morris. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know if you have secret or top secret 
clearance?
    Mr. Morris. I really don't know, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever see anything stamped confidential?
    Mr. Morris. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever see anything stamped secret?
    Mr. Morris. I don't recall if I have seen secret.
    Mr. Buckley. Or top secret?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party, Mr. Morris?
    Mr. Morris. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever belonged to any Communist 
fronts?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What unions have you belonged to, Mr. Morris?
    Mr. Morris. At present IUE Local 400, and prior to this 
WPWA Local 231.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Ernest Pataki?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Albert Shadowitz?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How well did you know Albert Shadowitz?
    Mr. Morris. Just enough in work to exchange the time of day 
with. Nothing on the outside or any social contacts of that 
nature.
    Mr. Buckley. How often during the week, let us say, would 
you see Shadowitz?
    Mr. Morris. I would say probably at least once a day, 
maybe, and maybe some days not at all. But on the average it 
might have worked out about once a day.
    Mr. Buckley. When would you talk to him, Mr. Morris, about 
lunch time or something like that?
    Mr. Morris. Various times during the day, including lunch.
    Mr. Buckley. What would the conversations generally be 
about?
    Mr. Morris. Generally it would be about nothing at all, 
except the conditions we were involved in at the time, union 
labor relations, on a union basis.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Albert Shadowitz ever give you any reason 
to believe that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Never?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Any view he might have expressed that might 
have been interpreted as Communist in nature?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What, for example?
    Mr. Morris. Well, I recall the time we had a newspaper in 
the place put out by the union on which his views differed from 
some other people, mine included, on the publication of an 
article dealing with slave labor camps in Russia. He was 
against this.
    Mr. Buckley. He was opposed to the publication of an 
article concerning slave labor camps in Russia?
    Mr. Morris. Right.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he tell you why he was opposed to the 
publication of such an article?
    Mr. Morris. Well, the subject was beat around the bush, I 
mean by a number of people, and his particular reasoning, I 
don't know, except that that--well, I wouldn't say he 
personally but it seems that his side in a sense throughout the 
point that the paper should express the views of bad conditions 
in the south here in the United States.
    Mr. Buckley. He wanted to talk about bad conditions in the 
south but completely forget about bad conditions in Soviet 
Russia, is that correct?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Was anything ever published about conditions 
in the South?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Was anything ever published about conditions 
in Soviet Russia?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir. As I recall, I don't remember any.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say that Shadowitz's objection to 
the publication of an article about slave labor conditions 
might have prevented its publication?
    Mr. Morris. Well, I am beginning to feel that that article 
was published--I wish I could place my finger on it. What 
happened here was the editor of the paper at the time was 
Shadowitz but in a sense another boy named Staschover was doing 
the work and it was Staschover who wanted the article 
published. The thing got so far as the executive board of which 
I was a member, took a position upholding Staschover. I can't 
recall whether he went ahead at this point and put the article 
in.
    Mr. Buckley. Has Shadowitz ever done or said anything else 
which would indicate that he was a Communist or Communist 
sympathizer?
    Mr. Morris. I don't recall any.
    Mr. Buckley. For example--when did you first get to know 
him?
    Mr. Morris. A number of years back, on the basis of the 
union situation. I would say about nineteen--well, the union 
came in about 1945 so I guess it was about 1947. That is a 
rough guess.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he ever discuss Russia, for example?
    Mr. Morris. Not with me, no, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. With anyone else that you know of?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Was his view on the slave labor camps in 
Russia the only view he ever expressed which might lead you to 
believe that he was a Communist or Communist sympathizer?
    Mr, Morris. That is about all.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know Ernest Pataki?
    Mr. Morris. I guess even less than Shadowitz. I knew him 
enough to speak to him and say hello to him. That is about all.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you consider Pataki a Communist?
    Mr. Morris. He always struck me as just a quiet guy. I 
never had any conversations I can ever recall with him on any 
subject, as a matter of fact.
    Mr. Buckley. Then in your estimation would you say that so 
far as you know he is not a Communist?
    Mr. Morris. The only bearing I have on him is that he 
seemed continually, although I can't pinpoint any definite 
position, at union membership meetings, where he took that line 
of pro-Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. You can not recall any?
    Mr. Morris. Any specific instances, no.
    Mr. Buckley. When were you invited to attend meetings of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. I never was invited to attend meetings of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Buckley. Or anything resembling meetings of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. Never. Never got the invite.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you pretty closely associated with Harry 
Hyman?
    Mr. Morris. Our association was purely on the basis of 
labor-relations in the place. I was chief steward of the union 
when he was president of the union there. On this basis we had 
many talks together, based on union relationships and that is 
as far as it went. I had heard him mention at one time that he 
was a Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. You heard him mention that?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. Morris. This goes back a number of years to when the 
union was in the company and was now in the process of 
organizing. I was in my department this one particular day, 
which was R-9 department, when he came in and a general 
discussion took place with him and I was in the discussion.
    Mr. Buckley. Who else was there, do you remember?
    Mr. Morris. I remember a fellow named Ed Reiter.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he still with Telecommunications?
    Mr. Morris. Yes. As I remember it, this fellow told Harry 
that I would not belong to the Union because of Red domination 
in the union, and then he turned around and asked, asked Harry, 
``Are you a Communist,'' and that was all that was to it. 
Following that, at the steward's meeting, the situation came up 
where the stewards took a position, or it might have been the 
executive board, took a position of telling Harry to keep his 
Communistic activities out of the plant. The basis of 
organization we felt was hurting us.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Hyman at any other time admit to you or 
any one else that you know of that he was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. He never admitted to me at any time and that 
was the only time I ever heard him mention it.
    Mr. Buckley. That was the only time you ever heard him 
mention that he was a member of the Communist party, at this 
little particular gathering or meeting?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Was it commonly accepted by the people at 
Federal Telecommunications as a fact that Hyman was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. There wasn't much dispute about it?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, because of his expressed views 
and so on he was openly considered to be a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of anything that Hyman has ever 
done at Federal Telecommunications to impair, let us say, 
national security or anything of that type?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know if he ever did any agitating that 
was beyond the band of good union activity? Let us say to stir 
up dissension, hatred and ill-will?
    Mr. Morris. Well, there was one time that, in quoting Mr. 
Joe Hansen in the place, and action took place by the people, 
in which I was involved in and Harry Hyman, and all the people 
of the shops, which Mr. Joe Hansen classified, after it took 
place, at that time, he said he knew that the union was 
dominated. I didn't have the feeling then when I participated 
in it, and I don't have that feeling now about that particular 
action in a sense a work stoppage during coffee time to see Mr. 
Joe Hanson.
    Mr. Buckley. Was it your opinion that Mr. Hyman was, let us 
say, more interested in the cause of the Soviet conspiracy in 
this country than in the cause of the working man?
    Mr. Morris. He was very outspoken by continually saying 
that what he was doing was for the working man. I mean in so 
many words, just like that. I don't know how true it is, but 
there was a story going around that he turned down a couple of 
jobs as foreman in order to serve as the workingman. These 
might be factual stories or not, I don't know. But the stories 
did circulate.
    Mr. Buckley. You recognize the distinction between honest, 
legitimate union activity and union activity carried on by 
Communist traitors which has as its purpose the destruction of 
our government. Would you say that this Hyman who has been 
named as a Soviet conspirator before this committee was 
carrying on that union activity to advance the cause of the 
Soviet Union in this country or to advance the cause of the 
workingman?
    Mr. Morris. In Federal?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Morris. It was the labor man.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, would you say that was 
paramount in his mind, the cause of the working man and that 
the Soviet conspiracy was of no consequence?
    Mr. Morris. No. I don't know what was in his mind, but I 
know of the actions he participated in and asked action on was 
for the labor man, in my feeling.
    Mr. Buckley. You would say legitimate labor activity?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever tell the FBI or any other federal 
security agency that Harry Hyman, who was an employee of 
Federal, stated that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You have told them that?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. As I remember it, yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. I just want to be sure about that. Did I ask 
you if you were ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. I asked you that?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have your family, any members of your family 
ever been members of the Communist party? Or of Communist 
fronts, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you any brothers?
    Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. Two brothers.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do they reside?
    Mr. Morris. They live in California. One has been there for 
about fifteen years and one about seven years, I suppose.
    Mr. Buckley. Were they ever to your knowledge members of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever had reason to believe they might 
have been?
    Mr. Morris. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Morris, we will want you in open session 
on Thursday morning to testify to the fact that Harry Hyman 
stated publicly that he was a Communist, and feel that is a 
great pleasure and opportunity for you to help expose a 
Communist traitor.
    Mr. Morris. I certainly feel that it is part of my duty to 
do this. I have no objection to that.
    Mr. Buckley. The interrogation will concern only anything 
that you might possibly know about Harry Hyman and nothing 
else. There are several other people here ready to do the same 
thing so you won't be alone.
    [Whereupon at 5:45 p.m. the committee adjourned.]

















              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--In its annual report in January 1954, the 
subcommittee noted that some of its investigation into 
``subversion, Communist infiltration and espionage in the 
defense effort'' had ``passed from the staff and executive 
session development'' but had not yet gone to public hearings. 
The subcommittee took executive session testimony from 
employees at Griffiss Air Force Base, but never made that base 
the subject of public hearings. Located just outside of Rome, 
New York, Griffiss was established in 1942 as an Air Combat 
Command installation. During World War II it served as a 
staging depot for aircraft bound for Europe, and housed several 
research operations. When the depot mission ended after the 
war, its research functions expanded. The base eventually 
closed in 1995.
    Wilber R. LePage (1911-1996), Martin Levine, John 
Schickler, David Lichter, Albert Burrows (1915-1984), Seymour 
Butensky, and Kenneth John Way did not testify in public 
session.]
                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 3:47 p.m. in room 124, United 
States Court House, Foley Square, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director; 
and James Juliana, staff investigator.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. LePage, would you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee do you 
solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. LePage. I do, sir.

                 TESTIMONY OF WILBUR R. LePAGE

    Mr. Cohn. May I get your full name?
    Mr. LePage. Wilbur Reed LePage.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the first name?
    Mr. LePage. Wilbur.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. LePage. I am professor of electrical engineering, 
Syracuse University.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
teaching at Syracuse?
    Mr. LePage. Since 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any teaching at the Griffiss 
Air Base?
    Mr. LePage. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you teach at the Griffiss Air Base?
    Mr. LePage. I taught there in the spring term, 1952, and I 
am now teaching there.
    Mr. Cohn. You are now teaching there?
    Mr. LePage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you teach at Griffiss?
    Mr. LePage. Employees of the air base. They are enrolled in 
an official university course.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked on any government projects 
yourself other than this teaching?
    Mr. LePage. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work for the navy, on a navy project?
    Mr LePage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. At Syracuse?
    Mr. LePage. Not at Syracuse, no. We had been working on 
Signal Corps exclusively at Syracuse.
    Mr. Cohn. Signal Corps?
    Mr. LePage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know a man by the name of Fay Marvin?
    Mr. LePage. Fay Marvin?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. LePage. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. You never met?
    Mr. LePage. I have no knowledge of him.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me.
    Mr. LePage. I have no recollection of such a person.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this the first time you ever heard the name?
    Mr. LePage. I believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you look at this picture, look at the first 
person and see whether you recognize him?
    Mr. LePage. No, I do not. I do not recognize the man.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you
    The Chairman. Mr. LePage, we are going to resume the public 
hearing now.
    [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the committee recessed executive 
session to go into open hearing; after which, at 4:20 p.m. the 
executive session continued in room 110.]
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

            TESTIMONY OF WILBUR R. LePAGE (RESUMED)

    The Chairman. Roy, I think you were examining Mr. LePage.
    Mr. LePage. Before we go on, I made a mistake in the 
testimony as to what we were working on or for whom we were 
working. We are working primarily for the air force. We did 
work for the Signal Corps, a number of years, approximately one 
year ago. In my previous testimony I had just said Signal 
Corps.
    The Chairman. And you are now teaching both at Griffiss Air 
Base and also Syracuse University?
    Mr. LePage. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Professor, I am going to hand you a picture 
and ask you if you recognize anyone you know in that picket 
line?
    Mr. LePage. I cannot place any one, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. You do not know any of these people?
    Mr. LePage. I believe I do not.
    The Chairman. And you do not know a Fay Marvin?
    Mr. LePage. I have no recollection of knowing such a 
person.
    The Chairman. Just so there is no question about that, the 
first man in this picket line has been identified as Fay 
Marvin. So you neither know Fay Marvin by name nor do you 
recognize the first man in this picket line?
    Mr. LePage. That is correct.
    The Chairman. We will mark this as Exhibit 1, LePage.
    [The photograph was marked Exhibit 1, LePage, and filed 
with the committee.]
    The Chairman. In 1949 you worked for the navy, did you?
    Mr. LePage. No. I was at Syracuse in 1949.
    The Chairman. Were you doing any navy work at that time? 
Was there any navy project at Syracuse?
    Mr. LePage. As far as I can recall, we have had no navy 
project at Syracuse.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you do not have a 
lawyer here, Doctor, I want to tell you that we do have 
considerable testimony about close friendship, close 
association, with Fay Marvin on your part. When I tell you 
this, that does not mean that I think that you are not telling 
us the truth, you see, I merely tell you what other witnesses 
have said so that you will have that in mind when we ask you 
about Fay Marvin and these other matters.
    Mr. LePage. That doesn't bother me a bit because I am so 
sure I don't know this man.
    The Chairman. I am not trying to bother you, but as a 
courtesy telling you what the other testimony is. Is there any 
other LePage up at Syracuse University?
    Mr. LePage. Not that I know of. I believe there is another 
LePage in Syracuse, however.
    The Chairman. You do not know what his first name is, do 
you?
    Mr. LePage. I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you know a Lillian Reisner?
    Mr. LePage. I believe I do not.
    The Chairman. You think you do not know her either?
    Mr. LePage. No.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, there is no other LePage 
who is a teacher or professor at Syracuse University?
    Mr. LePage. As far as I know, that is correct.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Nate Sepatello?
    Mr. LePage. I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear of him?
    Mr. LePage. I have no recollection of that name.
    The Chairman. You never heard of Fay Marvin?
    Mr. LePage. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. LePage. I did not.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. LePage. I have not been.
    The Chairman. You never contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. LePage. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And never belonged to any organizations that 
have been listed as fronts for the Communist party by the 
attorney general or the House committee?
    Mr. LePage. I believe not.
    The Chairman. Doctor, I think that we have nothing further 
to ask of you. Apparently it must be the other LePage that this 
information is on. I may say that the mere fact that you were 
called here is no indication that the committee has any opinion 
at all, any thought, that you have been guilty of any 
misconduct. Our task, when we go into one of these 
investigations, is to call any one about whom we get 
information. Your name will not be given to the press by this 
committee. The only way any one will know that you were here is 
if you tell them yourself. You have a perfect right, however, 
to talk to anyone about your appearance. You can tell them 
anything you care to. I want to make it clear, however, that no 
one will know you were here unless you, yourself, discuss it.
    For the benefit of any of the people in the room, that has 
been the order of the committee under penalty of contempt of 
the committee, that no one divulges what goes on in this room 
except the witness himself.
    Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor LePage.
    The Chairman. Mr. Martin Levine.
    Would you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Levine. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF MARTIN LEVINE

    The Chairman. Mr. Levine, in view of the fact that you 
don't have a lawyer, I would like to give you the advice which 
we try to give every witness who appears without a lawyer, and 
that is this: Witnesses come before this committee day after 
day and oftentimes they are guilty of no violation of the law 
when they come into this room. It is no violation of the law to 
attend Communist party meetings, it is no violation of the law 
to be a Communist, unless you know that the party advocates the 
overthrow of this government by force and violence.
    Time after time witnesses come here and they think we have 
picked their names out of a hat, they think we know nothing 
about them. They make the mistake of talking and not telling 
the truth. So I want to just give you a bit of legal advice--I 
happen to be a lawyer myself and was a judge for some time--and 
that is that you do not underestimate the ability of our 
investigators, that you either tell the truth or refuse to 
answer the questions.
    Mr. Levine. One thing I wanted to be clear on: I 
understand, speaking to the gentleman who called me in, that I 
will get no copy of this proceeding, but that in the morning it 
will be possible for me to read it and take notes on it.
    The Chairman. You can examine the testimony at any time you 
care to.
    Mr. Levine. I can take notes here?
    The Chairman. Yes, any notes you care to take. You may come 
in and examine the testimony at any time you care to. You will 
not be given a copy, because the rules of the committee provide 
that in executive session no copies of the testimony be given 
to anyone, because once a copy is given to you, it can be 
circulated and it is no longer executive testimony.
    Your name is Martin Levine, right?
    Mr. Levine. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you worked at the Griffiss Air Base?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. I am in a suspended status right now, 
without pay.
    The Chairman. And have letters of charges been served on 
you?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. And what are you charged with?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I am charged--well, I have broken them 
down in three groups. I am charged first with the fact that I 
received mail in 1948 from the Socialist Workers party, of 
which I had previously answered. I am also charged with some 
statements which they attribute to me, which I believe were 
mistakes, relative to this, relative to communism, and I am 
also charged with certain slight security violations of which I 
think will be cleared up once I talk.
    You know, I haven't had a hearing yet, a regular board 
hearing. And I am also charged with what happened to have been, 
I guess, an omission on a standard application form for 
employment.
    The Chairman. Were you charged with taking classified 
documents out of the plant?
    Mr. Levine. No, I was not charged with that and I have 
never done that. Anything above restricted. Up to restricted I 
have.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take any confidential or secret 
documents home with you?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. On no occasion?
    Mr. Levine. On no occasion.
    The Chairman. Were you at any time a member of the 
Communist party unit in Hazelton? That is near Rome, New York.
    Mr. Levine. No, never.
    The Chairman. Do you know where Hazelton is?
    Mr. Levine. No. I didn't even know there was one up there.
    The Chairman. I said do you know where Hazelton is.
    Mr. Levine. Hazelton? No. Hazelton branch post office is 
the branch that I get my mail at, but I don't know of any place 
called Hazelton.
    The Chairman. When you were suspended were you accused of 
being a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Levine. No, they just accused me of being sympathetic, 
which of course I am not.
    The Chairman. Have you a copy of the letter of charges?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you this with you?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Could I see those? Incidentally, when were 
you suspended?
    Mr. Levine. This second suspension, the morning of the 
24th. I received the charges officially as of the morning of 
the 24th.
    The Chairman. The 24th of November?
    Mr. Levine. November, that is right.
    I get those back, do I? [Document handed to chairman.]
    The Chairman. Yes. Had you been previously suspended?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. And you were cleared and reinstated?
    Mr. Levine. I want to get some notes here and then I can 
answer that. The first time I was suspended, I received no 
charges whatsoever. I suspect that the first and the last 
charge cited the cause of it, because I had received a letter 
prior to this about a month prior to my first suspension asking 
me about those questions, of which I answered. And I have a 
copy of that with me. But I never knew officially what it was.
    One month later, not having charges, I was reinstated in 
the job without clearance and couldn't even work on restricted.
    The Chairman. The date of that was what?
    Mr. Levine. The official date was the latter part of 
November, I think November 28, but I am not too sure of the 
date.
    The Chairman. Of what year?
    Mr. Levine. 1951. And six months--what happened was six 
months later--well, after this one month I went to Washington 
twice, trying to get a hearing, you know, to talk to them. They 
never gave me a hearing. And then the second time that I was 
down there I was told, ``It is all cleared up,'' reinstated 
with full clearance, and I went back to work.
    The Chairman. In other words, there was no letter of 
charges served on you the first time?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. In the letter of charges that the army air 
force served on you in November of this year you are charged 
with association with the Communist party. Do you know where 
they got the information to the effect that you were 
associating with the Communist party?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I read over those charges, and I think 
this is due to this 1948 affair. At that time I took a course 
in political science at the College of the City of New York.
    No, excuse me. That is a correction. It is Brooklyn 
College. It was in the February to June term of the year 1948. 
And at that time, if you recall, the election, everybody was 
saying Truman was not going to run and a lot of dark horses 
were getting into this thing, and we were given the option on 
writing on civil rights, the civil rights proposal, Truman's 
committee on civil rights, or on the presidential candidates, 
and I elected to write on the presidential candidates.
    Subsequently, I wrote to all political parties, all 
candidates directly, these included men like Senator Taft. I 
even wrote a letter to Eisenhower, Earl Warren, Dewey, Harold 
Ickes, practically everyone who I thought there may be a 
possibility of, and subsequently I received tons of mail on 
this. I have some samples here which weren't destroyed when I 
was cleaning out my stuff in my mother's place in Brooklyn.
    I also went down at that time and attended these open 
meetings where they were discussing candidates. And I prepared 
my paper.
    The Chairman. Were some of those meetings Communist 
meetings?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I was asked this over the phone, and I 
said ``Well, I don't really remember.'' I mean, it is a hard 
thing to remember.
    First of all, I don't know what would be considered 
Communist meetings. I do know I attended all kinds of meetings 
and I might as well say they were open Communist meetings, too. 
I really don't know.
    The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that you 
attended Republican meetings, Democratic meetings, and checking 
into the candidates, and that you may have also attended 
Communist meetings.
    Mr. Levine. Right. You know, you walk into these open 
meetings, you sit down, somebody gives you a speech, and they 
discuss it. Also, they talk about a newspaper in those charges. 
They say I subscribed to it. Actually, I don't remember this 
one in particular, but anything they wanted to send me for 
nothing I put myself on their mailing list, if you know what I 
mean.
    The Chairman. The information here would indicate that you 
attended what have been known as closed Communist meetings.
    Mr. Levine. No, I never attended.
    The Chairman. And which only a member of the Communist 
party or someone there on the invitation of a Communist party 
member could attend.
    Mr. Levine. I never attended any such meetings.
    The Chairman. There is a great raft of statements here from 
your co-workers, as you undoubtedly know from the charges that 
were filed against you, to the effect that you preach the 
Communist doctrine and tried to convince your co-workers that 
communism was the answer to the world's ills, and that you 
indicated that you were a member of and loyal to the party.
    Mr. Levine. What was that last?
    The Chairman. The statements indicate, I am not saying that 
you are not telling the truth, I have never met these men, 
either; but the statements, a sizeable number, indicate that 
you either were a member of or loyal to the Communist party. 
Can you think of any reason why your co-workers would sign 
false statements about you?
    Mr. Levine. No. I can't think of any reason. I think that 
under any examination all those statements would be proved to 
be false. As I mentioned previously, I am very much interested 
in political affairs of all kinds, and I believe if checked by 
any group, investigating body, they will find that not only am 
I anti-Communist but also anti-sympathetic to all their aims 
and even anti-Marxist. This has been all through my life as far 
as I can remember.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: The statements we have 
here, the affidavits here now, are to the effect that you 
attended or you were identified and seen at nine different 
Communist party meetings.
    Mr. Levine. I was seen at nine?
    The Chairman. Would you say that is incorrect or correct?
    Mr. Levine. Well, during what period was this?
    The Chairman. I am sorry, I don't know. I just have a 
summary of the affidavits.
    Mr. Levine. I don't know. If this is back in 1948, as I 
said, I don't know. If it is since then, I haven't attended any 
meetings.
    The Chairman. When was the last time you attended a 
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Levine. Well, I don't know if they were Communist. You 
keep saying Communist.
    The Chairman. I am sorry.
    Mr. Levine. Meetings which would be considered possibly 
left-wing. I believe the last time was in 1948.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone at the Griffiss Air Base 
who, in your opinion, is a Communist?
    Mr. Levine. No, none that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you attend those meetings--I have been 
referring to them as Communist meetings and you have been 
referring to them as left-wing meetings--with any co-workers 
from Griffiss Air Base?
    Mr. Levine. No, because I was at that time a student at 
Brooklyn and in fact I used to go by myself, actually.
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone at Brooklyn College whom 
you had reason to think might be a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Levine. No, no.
    The Chairman. Who went with you to those meetings that you 
refer to?
    Mr. Levine. I usually went myself. I might have gone with 
some of my fellow students, you know, we just went down like 
slumming, if you know what I mean. You see, we had the time and 
we thought the election might--we only went if we had the time 
and we thought the election might be interesting, and I thought 
it would help me in my paper.
    The Chairman. At that time the paper was on what?
    Mr. Levine. On presidential candidates in 1948.
    The Chairman. Have you that paper available?
    Mr. Levine. No, I haven't it available, I am sorry to say.
    The Chairman. Where was that paper?
    Mr. Levine. It was turned in to the political science 
professor at Brooklyn College.
    The Chairman. Who was your professor?
    Mr. Levine. I am not sure, but I think it was Dr. Gusta 
Farro. It was a woman.
    The Chairman. Dr. Gusta Farrell?
    Mr. Levine. Dr. Gusta Farro.
    The Chairman. Farro or Farrell?
    Mr. Levine. I would guess Farro but I am not sure.
    The Chairman. This is in 1948?
    Mr. Levine. That is right.
    The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that you 
only attended these meetings which might have been Communist 
meetings because you were writing a paper on presidential 
candidates?
    Mr. Levine. That is right. And I also was very much 
interested. I mean, I want you to understand that I am 
interested in all these philosophical things, these big 
questions in our day at that time, too.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. Let's go back on the record and ask another 
question: You have been denied access to secret material, have 
you?
    Mr. Levine. Recently, yes, just with the suspension.
    The Chairman. And that suspension, you said, I think, was 
in November?
    Mr. Levine. November.
    The Chairman. After this investigation started.
    Mr. Levine. They said it had nothing to do with your 
committee. But it has been my impression that it had to do with 
it. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Did you ever urge any of your co-workers--I 
know this is not new to you, you have been asked this by the 
loyalty board before--did you ever ask your co-workers to read 
the article ``Communist Doctrine and the Free World''?
    Mr. Levine. Do you mean the book? Yes, I recommend that 
book. In fact, I would recommend that even you read it, because 
this book happens to be anti-Marxist. I have the book with 
me.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Marguerite J. Fisher, ed., Communist Doctrine and the Free 
World: The Ideology of Communism According to Marx, Engels, Lenin, and 
Stalin (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1952).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. Who is the author?
    Mr. Levine. Dr. Marguerite Fisher of Syracuse University. 
This book contains excerpts from Marx, Engels, Lenin and 
Stalin, and it is tied together in chapter groupings, 
explaining the philosophy and showing why it was wrong. That is 
right, why it really isn't actually true, and showing their 
real intent. So actually it is an anti-Marxist book. That is 
why, as you know, I thought the charge was very amusing.
    The Chairman. There was considerable trouble over in 
Schenectady, in regard to a Communist-controlled union, or a 
union that was allegedly controlled by the Communists. Did you 
take any part in that?
    Mr. Levine. No, I had absolutely no part in it. And 
furthermore, it mentions an article in the charges, and I don't 
recall the article, and I don't want to re-read it, you know, 
take it out of the library, because I figure that wouldn't be 
fair, in total. But I am sure if I made any comments about that 
article, if you will read the charge, if you will put the 
punctuation in the right place, as I said before that I am 
interested in political affairs, that I might have made a 
statement--of course I don't recall this article, I am 
insisting on that--that I might have said the actions of the 
people in doing what they are doing only tends to further 
Communist aims.
    In other words, certain ridiculous actions will further 
their sins. And I am opposed to them.
    The Chairman. Did you know Mabel Jiminis?
    Mr. Levine. No, I have no knowledge of him. I might have 
seen him but I don't even know if I did or not. I don't even 
know who he is.
    The Chairman. Did you know any of the officials of Local 
301 which is alleged to be a Communist-controlled union?
    Mr. Levine. No, I know no officials that I know are 
officials anywhere.
    The Chairman. And you say definitely you never took any 
classified material from the laboratory to your home?
    Mr. Levine. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you ever make notes?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. That is, from classified documents?
    Mr. Levine. This is common. In other words, as an engineer 
my job was to study and synthesize and come out with answers to 
certain problems. As such, I copied it down. But all those 
notes were guarded by me very carefully, in fact, the next 
charge that you read----
    The Chairman. I am not reading from the charges now.
    Mr. Levine. Well, they mention that there. They even go so 
far, when I went down to this--in school, my grammar was 
extremely poor, and as such I used to rewrite my material a few 
times to correct all the grammatical mistakes. And in the case 
of taking this technical writing group, I don't remember if it 
was handwritten if I brought it to her, or typed. I don't 
recall, but at that time I told her to take care of it because 
it was classified. You see, the air force has some very 
peculiar rules. I think they are peculiar. I mean, I realize 
now it was wrong on my part. But we were required to keep in 
our files all restricted matter separate from all confidential, 
separate from all secret. Now, certain things are interrelated, 
and as such I always felt it would be better to keep in one 
file everything that I did, because these things were products 
of my mind, the syntheses.
    The Chairman. Again when I tell you what reports I have, 
you understand I am not trying to evaluate or to pass upon the 
truthfulness of those who give the reports. We have a report 
here to the effect that you copied pertinent portions of secret 
documents, took them home, that you attempted to get access to 
highly classified information for which you had no use in your 
work. What would you say about that?
    Mr. Levine. I never took anything home, I mean, that was 
above restricted, as I mentioned before. And in addition, that 
other statement about reading things that I had no business to 
read----
    The Chairman. Not reading it, but attempting to get hold of 
it.
    Mr. Levine. I have never done anything of the sort. I mean, 
my supervisors will----
    The Chairman. Let me advise you strongly on something: With 
this tremendous wealth of information here, as I say, I don't 
know whether these people are lying or not, you have no lawyer 
here, so don't make the mistake of lying to us. We have a 
tremendous staff of investigators. So either tell us the truth 
or just say nothing at all. We have right now, as a result of 
this investigation, perhaps, conservatively fifteen or twenty 
indictments. I don't care to add to that list unless it is 
necessary. The information here is that you copied secret 
material, and took that out of the plant. Did you ever----
    Mr. Levine. No, I never did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever copy from a secret document?
    Mr. Levine. I said I took notes from it. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you take those notes out of the plant?
    Mr. Levine. No, they are always kept in my safe, locked.
    The Chairman. In the laboratory?
    Mr. Levine. In the lab.
    The Chairman. You never had any in your home or apartment, 
you are sure of that?
    Mr. Levine. I am positive I never had.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Levine. I was married.
    The Chairman. Are you living alone now?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. In fact, I am living at the base. They 
have barrack apartments for single men and I am living there.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Miss Reva Blake?
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever ask her to type classified 
material for her and leave off the classification of secret or 
confidential, whatever it was?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. That is also a charge, as I was trying to 
bring out before. A problem came up, and I don't want to 
discuss the problem because I was told I shouldn't discuss what 
specifically it was, and I decided that I had a solution, what 
I thought would be a solution to this problem. And as such I 
sat down and prepared a technical report or note, it depends on 
what they decide to call it, and discussed it with my 
supervisors and they felt there was some merit in it, and I 
then went, after preparing it, to Mrs. Blake and asked her to 
proofread it, correct the English, put it in the proper form. 
At the time I told her it was classified, that she should take 
care of it, you know, since there was no classification mark on 
it.
    The Chairman. Did you tell her to leave off the 
classification?
    Mr. Levine. Yes, because as I mentioned before, I always 
wanted at the time to keep one in my file.
    The Chairman. Now, I will ask you some other questions and 
the mere fact that I ask them, you understand, does not 
indicate that I think you are guilty of these acts, but the 
charges are here so I must ask you.
    Did you ever boast to your co-workers that you were a 
procurer for women?
    Mr. Levine. A number of months ago there was a famous Jelke 
case and in various conversations with people and in joking 
around we mentioned things like this. But there is no truth in 
it or anything like that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever sell pornographic literature?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Levine. Going back twenty years in my life, as a kid, 
as a young boy----
    The Chairman. I am not concerned with what you did as a 
kid.
    Mr. Levine. I am going back into the last twenty years of 
my life, I have never done anything of the sort. But in a 
joking way I have said ``You can always do it,'' you know, as 
men are prone to do.
    The Chairman. I am getting back now to the official charges 
filed against you. Charge No. 6 is that you falsified your 
official records in that you stated you had attended the 
College of the City of New York during the period 1946 to 1950 
and received a degree in August 1950. Is this charge a correct 
charge?
    Mr. Levine. Well, the charge actually, I went to Brooklyn 
College where I took my pre-engineering from 1946 to 1948. I 
was told that on a 57 form, one standard application for 
federal employment, that I had left it off. Well, of course I 
don't remember, but since then I have filed a number of 
standard forms 57, and I believe in checking on those you will 
find that I have always mentioned Brooklyn College. I mean, I 
think that was just a slight omission. It seems to have been 
made when I went down to Watson Laboratories.
    The Chairman. What degree did you get?
    Mr. Levine. A bachelor of electrical engineering.
    The Chairman. So you do hold a BA at this time?
    Mr. Levine. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Well, may I say to you, as you know, I have 
never seen you before you came into this room here today, and I 
know nothing about you whatsoever except what we have in these 
affidavits. I have no way of knowing whether the people who 
furnished these affidavits are telling the truth or whether you 
are. They will be called in and put under oath. If there is a 
direct contradiction between their testimony and yours, we do 
not determine who is guilty of perjury. All we determine is 
that someone is guilty of perjury, and we submit the case to 
the Justice Department for further investigation and subsequent 
submission to the grand jury. All I can say in your case is 
that there would appear to be a very definite contradiction. 
However, these affidavits are not under oath. What will develop 
when they are brought in under oath, I won't know.
    May I say this, also, that if and when the witnesses are 
called in, anything that is presented against you will be 
available to you so that you will not be blindly indicted for 
anything you didn't do. I would strongly urge, however, that 
for your own protection that you think this matter over and if 
you discover you made any mistake here today, that you come 
back and correct the record, because once our record goes to 
the Justice Department, if there is perjury there, there is an 
indictment, period.
    Mr. Levine. I realize this.
    The Chairman. We have no interest whatsoever in getting 
additional indictments.
    Mr. Levine. No, it is nothing. I mean, you see, I would 
like to make a statement. You see, I have been very personally 
confident that I can clear myself of all these charges if 
anybody would hear me. You seem to have mentioned before about 
a hearing board, but I never went before a hearing board, as I 
explained.
    The Chairman. They will call you before a board as a result 
of these charges.
    Mr. Levine. Since in my past I have done actions which 
definitely will prove, I feel, to anybody who can think at all, 
that I am neither Communist nor sympathetic to them in the 
least, on that basis I feel confident this will all be cleared 
up. People, I feel, make mistakes when they write testimony, 
and I think when it comes out in the open it will all be 
cleared up.
    The Chairman. Have you written any articles or any 
documents other than this thesis which you sent in to Brooklyn 
College?
    Mr. Levine. Yes. Very interestingly enough the day before I 
was suspended, I sent a letter to the Bulletin of the Atomic 
Physicist. I don't know if you are acquainted with it. I am a 
subscriber to it. I am also a subscriber to The Reporter, the 
Forbes Business Magazine. In the evening I work as an 
investment salesman, by the way.
    The Chairman. I might say that you can have The Reporter. 
The Reporter, as far as we know is the successor to Amerasia, a 
strictly Communist-line paper. The editor is a Mr. Ascoli. He 
is a Russian who takes it upon himself to try and crucify 
anyone who hurts the Communist party line. The Reporter, may I 
just make this statement so the record will be clear, had been 
distributed by the State Department until Senator McCarran got 
on the floor of the Senate and exposed the fact that it was a 
strictly Communist-line paper. At that time the State 
Department said they were cutting off the distribution of The 
Reporter.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Max Ascoli (1898-1978) was an Italian anti-Fascist who 
immigrated to the United States in 1931. He held a Ph.D. from the 
University of Rome and taught at the New School for Social Research in 
New York City. From 1949 to 1968 he edited and published The Reporter, 
a self-described liberal magazine. The Reporter devoted its entire June 
6, 1950 issue to ``McCarthyism,'' and thereafter regularly ran articles 
critical of the senator's investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We received information that they may not have followed 
that. I merely mention that.
    Mr. Levine. You asked me about the report that I made for 
Brooklyn College. I haven't got the report, but I have certain 
notes. As you realize, during this period, at Brooklyn College 
and at City College----
    The Chairman. We have about eight witnesses waiting for us. 
I wonder if you would submit to Jim or Don here any writings or 
any documents that you think might be of help to the committee.
    Mr. Levine. I would like to keep these documents. If you 
have another secretary, I would like to put it into the record 
if you are interested in it.
    The Chairman. Yes, we are interested in it. Could you make 
a copy of anything? Don't just take excerpts from it to make a 
copy, make a copy of the entire document. Will you consider 
yourself under continuing subpoena?
    Mr. Levine. Should I remain down here?
    The Chairman. No, we will let you know if and when we will 
want you to return. We will want to call in the other witnesses 
first.
    Have you ever subscribed to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Levine. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever received it?
    Mr. Levine. No, I purchased it at various times. For 
example, there was a strike at Brooklyn College in reference to 
that Knickerbocker-Davis affair. I recall that. And right after 
the strike it was a very amusing thing to buy the Journal 
American and the Daily Worker and compare their stories. Both 
were completely erroneous, of course, in my opinion. I mean, I 
have opinions. It was amusing to show the people who were there 
how newspapers can modify the truth.
    The Chairman. Did you ever obtain Political Affairs? That 
is the official organ of the Communist party.
    Mr. Levine. Not that I can recall.
    The Chairman. I mean in your work at school or in any other 
way.
    Mr. Levine. Not that I can recall.
    The Chairman. We will let you know if we want you again. 
You are entitled to your travel expenses and your witness fees 
for your day's appearance. Tomorrow the hearings will start at 
10:30. You will not be called tomorrow. You will not be called 
but you are welcome to be here if you care to.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Schickler. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF JOHN SCHICKLER

    The Chairman. Your name?
    Mr. Schickler. John Schickler.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Schickler. No.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Schickler. In Strasbourg, Germany.
    The Chairman. And when were you naturalized?
    Mr. Schickler. 1932.
    The Chairman. 1932.
    Mr. Schickler. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And when did you come to this country?
    Mr. Schickler. 1927.
    The Chairman. Did your family come with you?
    Mr. Schickler. No, I wasn't married.
    The Chairman. Are you married now?
    Mr. Schickler. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You were not married before you came to this 
country?
    Mr. Schickler. No.
    The Chairman. And where are you working now?
    Mr. Schickler. I work in the Griffiss Air Force Base.
    The Chairman. Have you been suspended?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are working on precision instruments, is 
that right?
    Mr. Schickler. Right, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me advise you, again, in view of the fact 
that you do not have a lawyer, either tell us the truth or 
refuse to answer. Otherwise, you will get into an awful lot of 
trouble. I am just advising you on that. I have never met you 
before and I know nothing about you except the reports here 
which cover your activities.
    Have you ever attended any Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to attend any?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever joined the Communist party?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist party when 
you came to this country?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you a member when you were in Germany?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell any of your co-workers at 
Griffiss Air Base that you were a Communist?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are members of your close family Communists?
    Mr. Schickler. No.
    The Chairman. Can you think of any reason why your 
coworkers would refer to you as a ``well-known Communist''?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any enemies down there that you 
know of who might give this information on you just to get you 
in trouble?
    Mr. Schickler. No.
    The Chairman. Has your boss or the security officer called 
you in and questioned you about any claimed Communist 
activities?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is this the first time you have been 
questioned about whether or not you are a Communist?
    Mr. Schickler. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. So that no one ever before has questioned you 
about this?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have clearance for top secret 
material?
    Mr. Schickler. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You understand the distinction between top 
secret and secret? You have clearance for everything they have 
there? Is that right?
    Mr. Schickler. I am cleared for secret, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How about top secret?
    Mr. Schickler. No, I don't think so. I have no such--no, I 
don't think so.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Schickler. No.
    The Chairman. Mr. Schickler, just so you will know who we 
are talking about, Harry Hyman has been identified as an 
undercover agent for the Communists. He was the president of a 
union in Local 231, Federal Telecommunications. You do not know 
him?
    Mr. Schickler. No, I never heard of him.
    The Chairman. Is there another John Schickler working at 
Griffiss that you know of?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is there another man by the name of Schickler 
working there?
    Mr. Schickler. No, I do not think so.
    The Chairman. You cannot think of any reason why any of 
your co-workers would sign affidavits saying that you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that you are not a 
Communist now and never have been?
    Mr. Schickler. Never.
    The Chairman. You never attended any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you subscribe to any Communist publication 
such as the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Schickler. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I think we have no further questions. May I 
say that the fact you are called here is no indication that the 
committee has any opinion about you one way or the other. We 
are investigating Communist infiltration and espionage at the 
various plants and when we receive information about any 
individual we are bound to call him. It is no more pleasant for 
us than it is for you. I may say that your name will not be 
given to anyone else unless you give out the name yourself.
    I wish you would consider yourself under continuing 
subpoena until we call in the other people who have given 
information in this case. If we want you to return, we will let 
you know and give you the time.
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand? In 
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Lichter. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF DAVID LICHTER

    The Chairman. Your name is David Lichter?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You have been working at Griffiss Air Base, 
right?
    Mr. Lichter. Right.
    The Chairman. I understand you have been suspended?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes.
    The Chairman. When were you suspended?
    Mr. Lichter. When?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Lichter. I think it was May first.
    The Chairman. May first of this year?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. Well, that was the second suspension. I 
was suspended once and taken back to work and this is the 
second time.
    The Chairman. What were you suspended for?
    Mr. Lichter. Well, I have the charges, if I can show them 
to you.
    The Chairman. Could I see them?
    Mr. Lichter. These are the first charges, and the second 
one is a repetition of them which I don't have [handed to the 
chairman].
    The Chairman. You were suspended the first time, when did 
you say?
    Mr. Lichter. It was some time last year, I don't remember 
exactly. Maybe November or December?
    The Chairman. Of last year?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Then you were reinstated when?
    Mr. Lichter. I was reinstated a month later.
    The Chairman. And then you were suspended again in May of 
this year?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. Not in May. I mean suspended--did I say 
May? December first I meant to say.
    The Chairman. December of last year you were suspended 
first. You were reinstated a month later?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes.
    The Chairman. And then you were suspended in May of this 
year?
    Mr. Lichter. Did I say May? December first, this mouth.
    The Chairman. December first of this month?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have only been suspended 
now about two weeks, roughly?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever sign a petition pledging support 
for the Communist party?
    Mr. Lichter. Pledging support for the Communist party? No, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Did you say no, sir?
    Mr. Lichter. No, sir. What do you mean by support, may I 
ask?
    The Chairman. Well, did you ever sign a petition in which 
you named a Communist party member as your choice, in which you 
pledged you would support that candidate at the general 
elections?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't remember signing any Communist party 
petition.
    The Chairman. That is something you normally would 
remember. If I signed a Democratic petition I would remember 
it.
    Mr. Lichter. I signed a lot of petitions. Many times people 
would come in, with a big sheet with all kinds of names, and 
they would ask me to sign, maybe it was a customer, and they 
would say I want to get somebody on the ballot and maybe I 
signed it. I don't believe I signed it.
    The Chairman. You say maybe a customer. What were you 
doing?
    Mr. Lichter. I held down two jobs at that time. I used to 
work day time and then I would rent out amplifiers. I have a 
letter here from a congressman in Philadelphia who used to rent 
those amplifiers from me.
    The Chairman. Amplifiers?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. Record players for music and for public 
address.
    The Chairman. You would rent those out to individuals?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. And I answered these charges. I had 
references from the Chamber of Commerce at Coatsville, which I 
never got back.
    The Chairman. If you signed a number of pledges to support 
the Communist party, you would normally remember that, would 
you not?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't remember I signed them even. Because I 
wouldn't sign any Communist papers.
    The Chairman. Do you recall signing a pledge to support 
Earl Browder for the presidency of the United States?
    Mr. Lichter. No, I don't remember signing it.
    The Chairman. Were you in favor of having Earl Browder as 
president at any time?
    Mr. Lichter. I certainly was not.
    The Chairman. Do you just sign anything shoved before you?
    Mr. Lichter. Well, if I would see it was for Communists, I 
would not.
    The Chairman. The Communist party petition, I don't have 
one with me, is--the ones you are alleged to have signed--
roughly that large [indicating], or a little larger, with the 
huge black letters across the top, ``Communist party nominating 
petition,'' letters about an inch or an inch and a half high.
    Mr. Lichter. I don't believe I signed it.
    The Chairman. Were you ever shown the petition and asked 
whether or not it was yours?
    Mr. Lichter. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Don, would you make it a point to get the 
three petitions he allegedly signed? One was on March 9, 1940, 
at which he listed his address as 556 South 57th Street, 
Philadelphia. Another was for a Communist party candidate named 
Joseph Bougher for the office of congressman. That is the first 
one, the dates that I gave you.
    The second one nominated Walter Lowenfel and Ethel Williams 
for office of representatives to the General Assembly, on the 
Communist ticket, and the third is a nomination paper pledging 
support for Earl Browder for the office of president of the 
United States. There is another one nominating James Ford for 
the office of vice president of the United States. I believe 
that is the same one that named Browder as president. And Carl 
Reeve for the office of United States senator.
    If we could get those, Don, I think the police department 
in Philadelphia can give us those, it will be satisfactory.
    Did you ever live at 506 South 57th Street?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, sir; I did.
    The Chairman. Who is Reba Whiteman?
    Mr. Lichter. The first time I saw her was around 1939. She 
came in to buy a record player off of me. I don't think I spoke 
to her more than ten minutes in all my life.
    The Chairman. Was she a Communist?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't know, sir.
    The Chairman. Did she get you to sign the Communist 
petitions, if you remember?
    Mr. Lichter. No, I don't remember signing anything for her.
    The Chairman. Well, now, she swore to the fact that you 
signed them for her. Do you have any comment on that?
    Mr. Lichter. No. There is a possibility, but I don't 
remember it.
    The Chairman. Did the police department in Philadelphia 
ever send you a questionnaire asking whether you had signed 
these nominating petitions?
    Mr. Lichter. No, sir. I never received any form from them 
or any questionnaires. If I would, I would have come over there 
and answered it.
    The Chairman. In other words, you never got a questionnaire 
from the Philadelphia Police Department?
    Mr. Lichter. No. Neither did my wife.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, I am sure of that. That is the best of my 
knowledge, I am sure of it, because I would have gone over 
there and answered it.
    The Chairman. Were you handling any secret material before 
you were suspended?
    Mr. Lichter. No, sir. The only secret material I handled 
was during the war. I was out on a transmitter that they used 
to drop over to Europe to the guerrillas there. And since that 
time, after that time about two or three weeks I worked on it, 
I don't ever remember working on secret material.
    The Chairman. What do you work on now?
    Mr. Lichter. I work on maintenance power supplies, I 
develop them. I developed one before I left.
    The Chairman. You said you are working at what?
    Mr. Lichter. Before I left I finished a power amplifier.
    The Chairman. What are you working at since you are 
suspended?
    Mr. Lichter. I do television work, if I can get a 
television set to repair for the neighbors I do it, but I don't 
do much. I haven't earned any money so far.
    The Chairman. Did you belong to the IWO for a while?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Did you drop out when you learned it was a 
Communist outfit?
    Mr. Lichter. Well, they told it to me as an insurance deal, 
and I was supposed to get benefits similar to the Blue Cross. 
If I would be sick, they would pay me sick benefits.
    The Chairman. When you discovered it was a Communist 
organization did you drop it?
    Mr. Lichter. No, they started to come around for 
collections and I got suspicious. At that time my kid was sick 
and my wife used to take him for treatment to the doctor 
gratis.
    The Chairman. No, when you found out it was a Communist 
organization did you drop out?
    Mr. Lichter. I didn't know it was Communist.
    The Chairman. Did you ever learn that it was?
    Mr. Lichter. The first time I learned about it was when I 
received these questions with a list, with about a hundred 
different organizations and my wife pointed out to me that I 
belonged to that.
    The Chairman. Do you still belong to it?
    Mr. Lichter. No, sir, I only belonged to it maybe three 
months or four. Then they started coming and bothering me about 
collections, I just didn't make any more payments when they 
come to collect.
    The Chairman. How about your brother, Hyman Lichter? Is he 
a Communist?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't know. I haven't seen him for many, 
many years.
    The Chairman. Haven't you seen him for a while?
    Mr. Lichter. I probably didn't see him for about twelve or 
fifteen years.
    The Chairman. We are not blaming you for anything your 
brother did.
    Mr. Lichter. I didn't know my brothers until I came to this 
country. They left when I was a kid or an infant. We never got 
along and I never bother with them.
    The Chairman. So whether he is or not, you wouldn't know, 
and in any event you haven't seen him for about twelve years.
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. Or any of my other brothers.
    The Chairman. He isn't working for the government, is he?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't know. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Who is Louis Saylor?
    Mr. Lichter. He has a store in Philly. He is selling 
electrical stuff and repairing radios and televisions.
    The Chairman. Is he a close friend of yours?
    Mr. Lichter. No, he is not a close friend of mine. I used 
to do his work for him.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't know. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't give 
him as a character reference.
    The Chairman. I understand that you were for a while a 
member of the United Federal Workers of America, which has been 
cited as under Communist leadership. I understand that your 
answer to that is that you may have belonged to it but you knew 
nothing about its Communist domination, and that you only 
belonged to it for a short period of time. Is that your answer?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. Maybe two months or maybe more. When they 
was to collect the fifty cents I paid them, and when they did 
not come I fell out. I belonged to the NFFE and when they come 
I would pay them the fifty cents and when they didn't come I 
wouldn't bother with them.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Lichter. I was born in the Ukraine part of Russia.
    The Chairman. When were you naturalized?
    Mr. Lichter. I don't remember exactly. Maybe 1936 or 1938. 
I don't remember, sir.
    The Chairman. Any brothers and sisters left over there?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. I left a sister and a brother there.
    The Chairman. Has any member of the Communist party ever 
insisted that you perform any act, with a threat that if you 
did not they would take vengeance on your sister and brother?
    Mr. Lichter. I haven't heard from them probably--I know 
they were killed, because at that time they were surrounded and 
there wasn't a paper--all of them were killed. I never heard 
from them even before the war.
    The Chairman. What year was this that they were killed?
    Mr. Lichter. I believe they were killed probably between 
1943 and 1944 when the German occupation forces were there.
    The Chairman. In other words, the German occupation forces 
killed both your sister and brother?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear from them before that?
    Mr. Lichter. I used to hear from them after I was here, I 
would say the longest, five years. After that five years, I 
never heard from them anymore.
    The Chairman. In other words, five years after you left you 
heard from them. How did you hear that they were killed?
    Mr. Lichter. I didn't know they were killed. I read in the 
paper at that time that they were surrounded.
    The Chairman. That the town was surrounded?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. And they captured even the troops that 
were there. They were all killed.
    The Chairman. What town were they in at that time?
    Mr. Lichter. It was--it is hard to pronounce it. It is 
Pertichev, or something like that.
    The Chairman. And that is the town from which you came, is 
that right?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us why you were suspended and 
reinstated and you would be again suspended on the same 
charges, or is there something new?
    Mr. Lichter. Well, the only thing new is that I belonged to 
the International Workers Order. They didn't charge me with 
that, and I didn't know it until I got the list of names. I 
always thought it was some kind of an insurance organization. 
As a matter of fact, they told us that they were under 
supervision by a federal agency the same as any other 
insurance.
    The Chairman. I do not think you understood the question. 
You were suspended last year, you were reinstated, and you say 
you were suspended again this year on the same charges. Do you 
know why they would suspend you on the same charges?
    Mr. Lichter. No.
    The Chairman. Have you the charges that you were suspended 
on this year?
    Mr. Lichter. No.
    The Chairman. Did they file charges on you this year?
    Mr. Lichter. They did, sir.
    The Chairman. Where are they?
    Mr. Lichter. I left them with counsel who is going to 
appeal the case for me at a meeting they will have to have.
    The Chairman. You left those with your lawyer?
    Mr. Lichter. Yes. I can tell you it is exactly the same 
charges, except I told them that I belonged to the 
International Workers Order and they added it, and this union. 
That is all. No other charges.
    The Chairman. You are informed that you will consider 
yourself under continuing subpoena. If we want you again we 
will notify you and give you sufficient time. No one will know 
that you have been here unless you tell them yourself. You have 
a perfect right to tell anyone anything you care to about the 
hearing. The members of the committee will not give out any 
name, however, and will not discuss your case with any one at 
this time. In case we need you we will call you.
    Call the witness in and I will swear them now and Mr. 
Buckley will question them.
    I am sorry that we kept you gentlemen waiting so long. May 
I say for your benefit the fact that you are called here does 
not mean that this committee has any thought one way or the 
other as to whether or not you have done anything improper. We 
have the very unpleasant task of calling everyone who has been 
named, some of then rightly and some of then wrongly, as having 
been engaged in Communist activities. We have found in many 
cases the witnesses who said so were wrong. Your names will not 
be given to anyone else unless you give them out yourself. You 
have a perfect right to do that. I am going to leave and Mr. 
Buckley is going to try to out this questioning as short as 
possible.
    We didn't think the earlier witnesses would take so long. 
Some of you may have engagements for this evening and would 
prefer leaving and coming back. If so, we will--there are 
sixteen people here--we could easily let a number of you go if 
some of you would rather come back some other time. Are there 
any of you that would rather wait and come back at some future 
date?
    Well, I will swear you all and Mr. Buckley will question 
you. Will each raise your right hand and be sworn? In this 
matter now in hearing before this committee, do you each and 
individually solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    [All witnesses present were duly sworn.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Burrows?

                  TESTIMONY OF ALBERT BURROWS

    The Chairman. Mr. Burrows, you are Mr. Albert Burrows?
    Mr. Burrows. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever invited to attend a meeting of 
a Communist cell which was led by Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Burrows. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Harry Hyman is a 
Communist?
    Mr. Burrows. I would say yes.
    The Chairman. I am not asking you whether you attended the 
meeting, but did anyone ever ask you to attend a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Burrows. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know Sam Morris and John DeLuca?
    Mr. Burrows. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did they ever tell you that Hyman was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Burrows. I would say no, but that was open knowledge.
    The Chairman. In other words, that was general knowledge 
around the plant?
    Mr. Burrows. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you one of the shop stewards in 231?
    Mr. Burrows. I believe I was for a short time, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you know Mr. Curran?
    Mr. Burrows. Yes.
    The Chairman. And did you hear Curran ask Hyman at one time 
whether or not Hyman was going to attend a certain Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Burrows. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know whether Curran was Communist?
    Mr. Burrows. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. I normally do not ask witnesses to guess 
about something, but were you of the opinion that Curran was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Burrows. It was a pretty generally held opinion and I 
shared it, but I had no actual knowledge of it.
    The Chairman. Is it also true that the following people 
were pretty generally considered to be Communists, all officers 
of Local 231: Max Goldfran, president; Morton Cooper, vice 
president; William Moden, treasurer; Alla Puerla, executive 
board; and Jules Korchien, delegate to the CIO.
    Would you say that those people were all pretty generally 
known as Communists?
    Mr. Burrows. I don't remember most of them, to tell you the 
truth, but it was the opinion at the time that the only ones 
who got to be officers of 231 were Communists. However, this 
turned out not to be true in some cases.
    The Chairman. Ernest Pataki, who married Vivian Glassman, 
who has been identified as a member of the Rosenberg spy ring, 
was, I believe, an organizer for the local. Did you know him?
    Mr. Burrows. Yes.
    The Chairman. Was he generally considered a Communist?
    Mr. Burrows. A mixed opinion. I considered him one.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you this question: The mere 
fact that I ask it, you understand, does not carry any 
implication. But have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Burrows. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the party?
    Mr. Burrows. Yes.
    The Chairman. Who asked you to join?
    Mr. Burrows. That was many years ago. It was not at 
Federal.
    The Chairman. Would you remember who it was?
    Mr. Burrows. No, no I don't--well, I am thirty-eight now. I 
guess I was about fifteen or sixteen then.
    The Chairman. Have you attended any Communist meetings in 
the last fifteen years?
    Mr. Burrows. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Burrows. No. Not knowingly. I know some of the money we 
contributed to the union went there.
    The Chairman. You haven't seen Hyman since he left the 
plant, have you?
    Mr. Burrows. Intermittently he would reappear there for 
some reason, but I didn't speak to him. I have had no contact 
with him, no actual contact, no social contact.
    The Chairman. We have been checking the telephone calls and 
we find that he has called the Griffiss lab a great number of 
times. I don't recall the number. Would you have any idea who 
he might be calling there? That is of special significance in 
view of the fact that he has been named as an undercover agent.
    Mr. Burrows. No, I don't. But I do know that his contact 
with people at Fort Monmouth went back to about a year or a 
year and a half before he left Federal. I do know that in the 
union organization and the lab, where some effort was made, 
that Hyman did mention contacts at Fort Monmouth in 
conversations there. With him it was pretty hard to distinguish 
the difference between his union activities and his Communist 
activities. He held them to be one and the same, and I know he 
has dealt with them on that basis.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you would do this: I wouldn't 
like to keep all these people waiting while we get a detailed 
statement. I wonder when you go back today if you would go back 
in your mind on any contacts that he had in the past who are 
still at Fort Monmouth and write them down. I know that the 
average man does not like to be in a position of informing on 
his co-workers, but we had Hyman before us, and as I say, he 
has been identified as an undercover agent for the party. We 
find he has made a vast number of long distance calls to almost 
every secret radar installation in the country, phone calls 
which were apparently costing him more than what he makes in 
this insurance business, which would appear to be a front. It 
appears very, very clear that he has some espionage contacts at 
Griffiss, at Fort Monmouth, at various places. So I wonder if 
you could just sit down and think of who his contacts are and 
write them out, write out the names. It won't involve you in 
any way at all. Even though you may think that the man is 
completely innocent, keep this in mind, that the most dangerous 
agent is the man who looks like a Sunday School teacher.
    So if you would try and figure out who his contacts were, 
and write them down and send those to the committee, we would 
appreciate it very much.
    Mr. Burrows. I can't help you there, Senator McCarthy, I 
don't know.
    The Chairman. Cannot you think of any of the people he has 
contacted?
    Mr. Burrows. No, but I will tell you what might yield some 
information. During all this time he was very friendly with a 
great many people. I fought Hyman bitterly about the union from 
the time it started because of his Communist associations. He 
just didn't put any confidence in me of any kind. A lot of what 
I have learned about him and his associations I learned through 
other people. At that time he was very familiar with Julian 
Leibner. He is president of the local now, and apparently he 
has had quite a change of heart. He was very sympathetic to 
Harry. And Sam Morris. To my knowledge, neither of these people 
is or was a Communist, but they might be in a position to give 
you actual names. They were so intimate with him.
    I know Liebner, in particular, was very friendly with Harry 
Hyman and he might be able to help in that way.
    The Chairman. We will perhaps want to talk to you if we get 
more time.
    Mr. Burrows. There is one more name I wanted to add here, 
the name of Pat Dornay. I don't know what he is. I wouldn't put 
any kind of label on him at all. But he would know what Hyman's 
associations were or he could know. Let's put it that way. He 
worked very intimately with him. He was an engineer. And the 
other people and myself, we were not engineers. We were in the 
shop group.
    The Chairman. Would you get hold of this man, Dan, when you 
can, and see if he is friendly or unfriendly?

                 TESTIMONY OF SEYMOUR BUTENSKY

    Mr. Buckley. What is your full name?
    Mr. Butensky. Seymour Butensky.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your address?
    Mr. Butensky. 62 Peters Place, Red Bank, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. Your telephone number there?
    Mr. Butensky. Red Bank 6-0593-R.
    Mr. Buckley. What organizations have you been a member of, 
Mr. Butensky?
    Mr. Butensky. I can't remember. I think in college I 
belonged to a house plan.
    Mr. Buckley. What college did you go to?
    Mr. Butensky. Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Buckley. What years did you attend?
    Mr. Butensky.1947 to 1951.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of any clubs or 
organizations at the college?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. None at all?
    Mr. Butensky. None at all.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you remember the Labor Youth League?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. The Young Communist League?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Any left-wing groups?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Progressive citizens of America for Wallace?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No youth groups for Wallace?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No organizations of that type, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Butensky. That is right, Mr. Buckley.
    Mr. Buckley. With what party has your father been 
affiliated, what political party?
    Mr. Butensky. Democrat party.
    Mr. Buckley. All his life?
    Mr. Butensky. I believe so.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your father's first name?
    Mr. Butensky. Morris.
    Mr. Buckley. M-o-r-r-i-s?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Butensky. 693 Hopkinsson Avenue, in Brooklyn.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he reside there in 1939, '42 and '43?
    Mr. Butensky. I think so. I am not too sure.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he resided there for a long period of 
time?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes. I can't remember but it must be about 
fourteen or fifteen years.
    Mr. Buckley. Where did he reside before that time?
    Mr. Butensky. 125 Dumont Avenue.
    Mr. Buckley. Brooklyn?
    Mr. Butensky. Brooklyn.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your father ever been active in the 
affairs of the Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know how your father came in 1939, '42 
and '43 to sign nominating petitions for the Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your father ever held Communist meetings 
in his home?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. To your knowledge has your father ever stated 
that he was sympathetic to the Communist party or communism?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or Marxism?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your father ever entertained any guests 
who appeared to be Communists?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How many uncles do you have?
    Mr. Butensky. Well, how many offhand?
    Mr. Buckley. Well, no. Actually, how many uncles do you 
have.
    Mr. Butensky. I have my father's brother, Uncle Dave.
    Mr. Buckley. What is it, your father's brother?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes. Dave Butensky. He resides also at 693 
Hopkinson Avenue.
    Mr. Buckley. Any others?
    Mr. Butensky. Uncle Louis but he passed away.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that your mother's brother?
    Mr. Butensky. No, that is still my father's side. And I 
have an uncle--I forgot his name, because I am not too familiar 
with his family. I never even go see them. And then on my 
mother's side I have a Joe, Joe Grossgold.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Any other uncles?
    Mr. Butensky. Uncles, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you happen to know whether any of your 
living uncles or the uncle who was deceased were at any time 
sympathetic to the Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Your uncle, the one who apparently resides 
with your father or in the same place where your father resided 
in 1943 signed a Communist party nominating petition. That was 
in one of the same years in which your father signed such a 
petition. Do you know how your uncle came to sign such a 
petition?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have any of your uncles ever expressed views 
which were Communistic or sympathetic to the Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen the Daily Worker in your 
home?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What type of publications have you seen in 
your home?
    Mr. Butensky. Well, we read the Times, the News and the 
Mirror. 
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen Political Affairs?
    Mr. Butensky. No. And we also read the Sun. That is right, 
the Sun.
    Mr. Buckley. What about PM?
    Mr. Butensky. I have never seen it at my house.
    Mr. Buckley. What about the Compass?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. The New York Post?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What party is your mother affiliated with?
    Mr. Butensky. Democratic party.
    Mr. Buckley. What about your sister Sylva?
    Mr. Butensky. I believe she is Democratic party.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your sister Sylvia ever impressed you as 
being Communist?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know why she registered in 1944 as a 
member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What do you do at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. I am an instructor of radar at Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Buckley. Of radar?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. With whom do you reside at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. With Mrs. Mansen
    Mr. Buckley. Would you give her address?
    Mr. Butensky. 62 Peters Place, Red Bank, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that a rooming house?
    Mr. Butensky. A rooming house.
    Mr. Buckley. Who else resides there?
    Mr. Butensky. There are two women there, two elderly women, 
a Mrs. Jones or a Miss Jones, I am not too sure, and a Miss 
Birch.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do they work, or do they work?
    Mr. Butensky. They probably work in town some place. I 
don't know where they work.
    Mr. Buckley. Who do you associate with at Fort Monmouth, 
socially?
    Mr. Butensky. With Stan Propper, a Milden Simpsky, and a 
Jim Succaro.
    Mr. Buckley. Have any of these people ever given any 
indication of being Communists or sympathetic to communism?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Has any one ever approached you concerning 
your work at Fort Monmouth, for information relating to it?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know of any Communists at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or people sympathetic to the Communist party 
or movement?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Anyone who you ever thought was a Communist? 
Think clearly on that. You attended Brooklyn College, correct?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. There were quite a few Communists at Brooklyn 
College when you were there. I know that as a personal fact. 
There were many students on the campus and some faculty members 
who had a long-standing reputation of being at least pro-
Communist if not out-and-out Communists. Did you know any 
people who were either Communists or pro-Communists at any 
place in your life?
    Mr. Butensky. I can't think of any people. Well, there were 
some teachers there.
    Mr. Buckley. Some teachers where?
    Mr. Butensky. Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Buckley. Who appeared to be Communists?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know whether they were Communists or 
not, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No, I say appeared to be.
    Mr. Butensky. Appeared to be.
    Mr. Buckley. Why did you form that opinion?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know. Just their general approach to 
the subject matter.
    Mr. Buckley. Who were they?
    Mr. Butensky. There was one who was a classics teacher. I 
don't recall his name. I mean, it is a long time back.
    Mr. Buckley. When were you graduated from Brooklyn College?
    Mr. Butensky. June 1951.
    Mr. Buckley. That is not so far back, two years ago. I was 
graduated from college a long time ago, but I can remember the 
names of most of my professors and instructors. If you thought 
there was a classics instructor or professor who appeared to be 
Communist, I should think you might remember that. Did you have 
the man as an instructor for classes, or professor?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And you cannot remember his name?
    Mr. Butensky. I can't at the present time. Maybe if I think 
about it.
    Mr. Buckley. I tell you what you do. You think about it.
    By Monday of next week you address a letter to this 
committee setting forth that man's name.
    Now, have any of your former instructors or professors at 
Brooklyn College contacted you in any way since you were 
graduated from Brooklyn College?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you attend any social organizations or 
clubs in the Fort Monmouth area? Are you a member of any 
associations or clubs in that area?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What newspapers do your friends read?
    Mr. Butensky. They read the News, the Mirror, Journal 
American. I read the Sun because I like to look at the civil 
service.
    Mr. Buckley. Now, concerning your father, has he ever 
actively campaigned for any political party?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir; I can't remember at any time that he 
did campaign.
    Mr. Buckley. If your father were called before this 
committee and asked if he were ever a Communist, how do you 
think he would answer?
    Mr. Butensky. He would say no.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you discussed this matter with your 
father?
    Mr. Butensky. No, I never discussed it.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever recall your father going out to 
attend any kind of meetings?
    Mr. Butensky. I know now that he attended the VFW meetings 
once in a while. That is the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever recall your father going out to 
attend meetings which were obviously of a Communist character?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How is it, Mr. Butensky, that we have evidence 
before this committee that in 1943, '44 and '49 groups of 
Communists met in your father's home?
    Mr. Butensky. That is a lie.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, the person who gave us the 
information perjured himself?
    Mr. Butensky. I should think so.
    Mr. Buckley. Now old is your sister Sylvia now? 
Approximately.
    Mr. Butensky. She must be about thirty years old.
    Mr. Buckley. What does she do for a living?
    Mr. Butensky. She is a housewife.
    Mr. Buckley. What does her husband do?
    Mr. Butensky. A dental officer, I think.
    Mr. Buckley. In the army?
    Mr. Butensky. No, in the New York State. He is a dentist 
and doing research work.
    Mr. Buckley. That is his full name?
    Mr. Butensky. David Smith.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does he work?
    Mr. Butensky. Well, he lives up in Albany, where he works, 
I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You have never read that name in the 
newspaper?
    Mr. Butensky. Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Buckley. H-y-m-a-n.
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you read the New York Daily News and 
the New York Times and World Telegram and Sun and other 
newspapers. This man's name has appeared in the newspaper 
rather extensively of late. How well do you read these news 
papers?
    Mr. Butensky. Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Buckley. Hyman. Harry Hyman.
    Mr. Butensky. I have no knowledge of that name.
    Mr. Buckley. How often have you read the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Butensky. I have never read a Daily Worker.
    Mr. Buckley. How often have you had it in your hands?
    Mr. Butensky. I have never had it in my hands.
    Mr. Buckley. Has any one ever solicited you to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. And you say you have never known any 
Communists?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do you spend your weekends?
    Mr. Butensky. I spend them at home in New York.
    Mr. Buckley. With your friends, obviously, and family?
    Mr. Butensky. With my family.
    Mr. Buckley. Has any one inquired about the nature of your 
work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Not even your family?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes, my family just asked me how I was doing, 
that is all.
    Mr. Buckley. What has your father asked you about your 
work?
    Mr. Butensky. Nothing.
    Mr. Buckley. Nothing?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't think he can even understand it.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he asked you what you do?
    Mr. Butensky. Well, actually he just asked me what I am 
teaching, and I tell him I teach radar. That is all.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you take any papers home when you go home 
at week-ends?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever taken any papers out of the Fort 
Monmouth reservation for any reason?
    Mr. Butensky. No, sir. I leave it over there. I do all my 
work over there, all my studying.
    Mr. Buckley. What classification do you have?
    Mr. Butensky. Classification?
    Mr. Buckley. Are you classified to what, secret, top secret 
or what?
    Mr. Butensky. I believe it is secret.
    Mr. Buckley. Has your mother ever inquired as to the nature 
of your work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No. They are not too much concerned about it.
    Mr. Buckley. Your sister Sylvia?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Your uncles?
    Mr. Butensky. My uncles, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you discuss your work with anybody at all 
outside Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No, I don't. I don't discuss my work outside.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, your family appears to have 
very slight interest in what you do?
    Mr. Butensky. That is right.
    Mr. Buckley. Do they have any interest?
    Mr. Butensky. Well, they just that I am well and that is 
all. That is about all. But they never inquired about my work.
    Mr. Buckley. Does anyone who visits your home, either near 
Fort Monmouth or here in Brooklyn or New York City ever attempt 
to find out what you are doing at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. No one has ever tried to find out what you are 
doing at Fort Monmouth? Is that right?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How old are you now?
    Mr. Butensky. Twenty-three.
    Mr. Buckley. What does your father do for a living?
    Mr. Butensky. He is an operator. He sews pants up the 
seams, but I don't know exactly.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he a member of the union?
    Mr. Butensky. I believe so.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that Dubinsky's union? \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ David Dubinsky, president of the International Ladies Garment 
Workers Union (ILGWU) from 1932 to 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that right?
    Mr. Butensky. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Whom did you give as character references when 
you went to Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. I forgot. That is a long time ago. Dr. 
London.
    Mr. Buckley. What is his first name?
    Mr. Butensky. George is an orthodontist.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is he located?
    Mr. Butensky. Brooklyn. 187 Joralemon. Who else did I give 
you?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes?
    Mr. Butensky. I can't recall. I think I gave a Dr. Louis 
Brockman
    Mr. Buckley. What is your opinion on the Korean War?
    Mr. Butensky. I think it is a war which is justified.
    Mr. Buckley. For the United States to take an active part 
in it, is that right?
    Mr. Butensky. That is it, yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been in the service?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your present status with the selective 
service?
    Mr. Butensky. 4-F.
    Mr. Juliana. Would your employment at Fort Monmouth, do you 
think, eliminate you from military service because of the 
nature of your work?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't think you would qualify as an 
occupational deferment?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did I ask you, Mr. Butensky, if you have ever 
been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. You asked me that. I said no.
    Mr. Buckley. Any Communist fronts?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Did anyone ever approach you to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. How about any Communist front organizations at 
Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Butensky. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you remember that professor's name?
    Mr. Butensky. I was thinking of his name. No, I don't 
recall. Maybe if I take a look at my books I can.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think that anyone who is a member of 
the Communist party should be employed in a vital installation 
such as Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Butensky. No. If they are a member of the party, then 
they should be fired at will.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you say that concerning people who also 
belong to Communist front groups?
    Mr. Butensky. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Butensky.
    Mr. Butensky. Is there anymore that you wanted?
    Mr. Buckley. Pardon me?
    Mr. Butensky. Is there anymore that you want to say to me? 
Today or next week?
    Mr. Buckley. No, I don't think we will see you again. Thank 
you.

                 TESTIMONY OF KENNETH JOHN WAY

    Mr. Juliana. Where are you now employed, Mr. Way?
    Mr. Way. Cole Signal Laboratory, at Fort Monmouth, part of 
Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your position there?
    Mr. Way. Electrics engineer.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Way. I do.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your classification?
    Mr. Way. In civil service? GS-12. Is that what you mean?
    Mr. Juliana. Yes.
    Mr. Way. Or do you mean my position in the organization?
    Mr. Juliana. No, that is all right. You have access to--
what is your clearance?
    Mr. Way. Secret.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Way. Well, in the various installations there, to the 
various laboratories, I started in 1940, in the middle of 1940. 
It has been over thirteen years now.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Way. I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of any party whose 
purpose was against better interests of the United States?
    Mr. Way. No, I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever a member of the National Council 
for the Prevention of War?
    Mr. Way. Well, now, you say member. I receive or have 
received various publications, have subscribed to them. I have 
not joined the organization necessarily. In the case of the 
specific one you mentioned, I would not say I was a member. If 
I received their publication, which is peace action, you would 
not interpret that as being a member, would you? I have never 
signed up as a member. I merely subscribe to their publication.
    Mr. Juliana. You are only a subscriber and never an actual 
member of the organization?
    Mr. Way. No, I don't think they would consider that and I 
don't think anybody would consider that as a member of the 
organization. As far as I am concerned, I am only subscribing 
to the publication.
    Mr. Juliana. How much does the subscription cost you?
    Mr. Way. I don't know. I could find out at home, but it is 
a very small amount.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you still subscribe?
    Mr. Way. I believe my subscription is still current.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you first subscribe to this 
organization?
    Mr. Way. I have been receiving that for a number of years. 
I can't say exactly.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you subscribe to this organization for any 
particular reason?
    Mr. Way. Partly for information, that is, to keep myself 
informed about both sides of the question. I am interested in 
general in peace, in the various ways of achieving peace. I am 
interested in the various views of various organizations for 
that purpose, and primarily for information. I would not want 
it to be thought that because I subscribe to that that I was a 
pacifist or a thoroughgoing pacifist. On the other hand, I am 
not a thoroughgoing militarist. I am interested in the problems 
of peace and the various reasons for achieving it and that is 
the reason for my taking it.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever contributed any money to that 
organization, other than paying for your subscription?
    Mr. Way. I don't believe I have, no. The subscription is 
the only thing I have ever given them, to the best of my 
recollection. Pardon me, could I ask, is that on any list? I 
have never seen that on any subversive list. Is there anything 
subversive about that magazine?
    Mr. Juliana. I don't know if that is on the attorney 
general's list or not.
    Mr. Way. I mean, if there is any organization whose 
publications I am receiving that is not an acceptable 
publication for civil service employees to receive, I would 
like to know it.
    Mr. Juliana. The best way for you to find out is to contact 
your nearest Civil Service Commission office and they have the 
power to advise you whether or not a particular organization 
has been cited by the attorney general.
    Mr. Way. We have distributed at our laboratory every so 
often, at least once a week by the attorney general a list of 
subversive organizations and it has never been listed there. Is 
that adequate proof?
    Mr. Juliana. I wouldn't say it is adequate proof, but that 
list is a very representative list of subversive organizations 
in this country.
    Mr. Way. I thought it was all inclusive.
    Mr. Juliana. No, I don't think it is all-inclusive. In 
fact, it isn't all-inclusive.
    Mr. Way. I wasn't aware of that.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever a member of the Esperanto 
Association of North America?
    Mr. Way. Yes. In fact, when I was working in New York City 
here, I attended meetings of the Esperanto. I don't know the 
name of it. But the local Esperanto in New York City, up in the 
Hotel New Yorker. Is that in that same category?
    I never saw that on the list.
    Mr. Juliana. What were the nature of the meetings you 
attended?
    Mr. Way. For the purpose of promoting international 
language. Esperanto is an international language. It was partly 
social. I am not currently a member of that. I don't receive 
their publication.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you cease receiving their publication for 
any reason?
    Mr. Way. Lack of interest, moving to a different location. 
When I left New York City I dropped out. That is all. There is 
another organization, and I don't know whether I am still 
considered a member or not. I had been a member of the 
International Auxiliary Language Association. I don't know 
whether I have even received any bill for membership dues 
lately, but up to a few years ago I was a member of that. That 
more or less replaces my interest in Esperanto, because it is a 
more recent and a broader, and I think it is a better 
international language.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you speak more than one language?
    Mr. Way. I am very poor at languages. I have studied 
French, I can read it very poorly. Although I belong to the 
Esperanto group at one time and the other group either 
presently or up to the recent past have never learned to speak 
either of those. Esperanto I have known but have practically 
forgotten. But the language of the international auxiliary 
association, known as Interlingu, I can read that after a 
fashion. I have not studied it but it is so simple that anybody 
can pick it up if you have had any foreign language at all. I 
have had English, French and Latin, and for that reason, since 
it is based on those roots, I can read most of it.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you belong to any other organizations than 
these?
    Mr. Way. I have until the recent past. Now, let's see.
    Mr. Juliana. Speak a little clearer. Have you ever belonged 
to any organizations that were declared subversive by the 
attorney general?
    Mr. Way. No, I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. You have seen the list?
    Mr. Way. Yes, I have seen the list.
    Mr. Juliana. You never belonged to any organization that 
appeared on that list?
    Mr. Way. I never belonged to any of those organizations.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Way. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. You have never been a member of the party?
    Mr. Way. I have never been a member of the party. You asked 
about what other organizations. This slipped me again. Until 
about four years ago I was a member of United World Federalist, 
Inc., and after dropping out of that I continued to receive 
various of their publications until--well, as a matter of fact, 
I think my subscription to the Federalist just ran out and I 
have not renewed it.
    Mr. Juliana. When you attended the meetings of the 
Esperanto Association of North America in New York City, was 
the subject matter of Soviet espionage ever discussed?
    Mr. Way. Frankly, I wouldn't know. I would doubt it very 
seriously. But I wouldn't know for the simple reason that a 
good deal of the meetings took place in Esperanto and I didn't 
understand Esperanto very well, so I wouldn't know. I would say 
I doubt it very seriously. In fact, I didn't know very many 
people in the group. The people I knew I had no reason to 
suspect that they had anything to do with that.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not Esperanto is used 
as an instrument for Soviet Espionage in European countries?
    Mr. Way. I haven't the faintest idea. I do not know.
    Mr. Julian. You have never been told this by anyone?
    Mr. Way. I never have. I believe Esperanto was used in a 
movie, Idiots Delight. Do you recall Idiots Delight several 
years ago? It was used in part of that movie because they 
wanted a language that sounded like a foreign language and they 
didn't want to offend any of the foreign countries or foreign 
nationals, or what have you. So they used Esperanto as an 
unusual tongue.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of any one presently employed at 
Fort Monmouth, where you are employed at in the laboratory, 
that are Communist party members or Communist party 
sympathizers?
    Mr. Way. Not as far as I know.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you, in any of your activities, whether 
it be the two organizations we have already discussed or any 
other activities, indulged in anything detrimental to the 
betterment and the better interests of the United States?
    Mr. Way. No, I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Way. I was, at Waterbury, Connecticut.
    Mr. Juliana. And your wife?
    Mr. Way. Yes. She was born in a town not far from there, 
Thomastown. I think she was born in Norfolk, Connecticut. I am 
not positive. Somewhere in that area. She lived for a while in 
Thomastown. My first wife, likewise had lived for a long time 
in Waterbury, Connecticut. I am not positive whether she was 
born there or not. But to the best of my recollection she was a 
Connecticut girl.
    Mr. Juliana. Well, Mr. Way, I think that will be all. We 
want to thank you for coming down. I don't think we will be 
needing you or calling you again. But if we do, we certainly 
will give you plenty of notice.
    [Whereupon at 6:48 p.m. the hearing adjourned.]












              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Irving Israel Galex (1921-1985), Harry 
Lipson (1909-1975), Seymour Janowsky, Harry M. Nachmias (1912-
1983), Curtis Quinten Murphy, Martin Schmidt, and David 
Holtzman did not testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory was convened at 10:30 a.m., 
pursuant to recess, in room 1402 of the United States Court 
House, Foley Square, Mr. James N. Juliana, staff investigator, 
presiding.
    Present: James N. Juliana, staff investigator.

                STATEMENT OF IRVING ISRAEL GALEX

    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Galex, will you state your full name 
please, for the record?
    Mr. Galex. Irving Israel Galex.
    Mr. Juliana. Where are you currently employed?
    Mr. Galex. I am employed at the Evans Signal Laboratory. I 
believe it's a section of Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your position?
    Mr. Galex. I'm a draftsman.
    Mr. Juliana. And how long have you been employed at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Galex. Well, I have been there since July 1950, at this 
latest date, but I worked there when I got out of the army in 
1945.
    Mr. Juliana. 1945. Was that the first time you started 
employment at Monmouth?
    Mr. Galex. No, at Evans Signal Lab.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you work before you went into the 
service?
    Mr. Galex. I worked in 1941 and 1942 in the post engineers, 
in the carpenter's shop.
    Mr. Juliana. As a civilian?
    Mr. Galex. As a civilian employee, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. And then where were you employed?
    Mr. Galex. That's the one time I have been working for the 
government.
    Mr. Juliana. After this employment from 1941 to 1942, did 
you go into the service at that time?
    Mr. Galex. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Juliana. What clearance do you have in your present 
position, security clearance?
    Mr. Galex. Well, I can hold up to secret work.
    Mr. Juliana. Up to secret?
    Mr. Galex. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. Including secret?
    Mr. Galex. Including secret.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you classify your present position as 
one involving sensitive material as far as the war effort goes? 
You see documents classified as secret. If those documents were 
available to some enemy agents they would be very important and 
of a serious nature, do you not think so?
    Mr. Galex. The serious nature of what? I don't follow you.
    Mr. Juliana. You are employed as a draftsman?
    Mr. Galex. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. If the information that comes into your 
possession during the course of your work was to fall in the 
hands of a foreign power not our ally, that information would 
be of great importance to them to receive.
    Mr. Galex. Yes, if I ever had any information like that.
    Mr. Juliana. Well, do you have information of that nature?
    Mr. Galex. No.
    Mr. Juliana. What type of information do you come into 
possession of in your job?
    Mr. Galex. I just take information from higher up than me.
    Mr. Juliana. What is the nature of it? I mean you are a 
draftsman. What is the nature of the secret documents that you 
get into your possession in the course of your work?
    Mr. Galex. I don't know. Really, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. You know what the document has. You have a 
document in front of you.
    Mr. Galex. As far as I know I have only worked on non-
classified material. That's all I can tell you.
    Mr. Juliana. You did not work on classified material?
    Mr. Galex. I do drafting work. See, if we have a work 
order--well, I don't know. I don't know how to answer you that 
question. You see, it may be that I am not allowed to tell 
these things out. See, I work for the government. I have to 
protect the government as best as I possibly can. If I take an 
oath to work for the government I am not allowed to tell 
anything out, you know, I don't know who, what, and when, so I 
don't really--you see, it is a hard thing to say.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you handle secret documents every day in 
the course of your work?
    Mr. Galex. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Juliana. What is the classification of the documents 
that you normally handle?
    Mr. Galex. I don't even handle documents. I don't handle 
any documents.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't handle any documents in the course 
of your work?
    Mr. Galex. No.
    Mr. Juliana. In the course of your work as a draftsman you 
do at times though----
    Mr. Galex. I get instructions from higher-ups, that's all I 
can tell you, to do drafting on certain things.
    Mr. Juliana. But normally you don't have documents come 
into your possession that you work from?
    Mr. Galex. Definitely not.
    Mr. Juliana. I was just trying to establish if your 
position was a highly sensitive one as far as the security of 
the country was concerned?
    Mr. Galex. Oh, yes. I understand. Now I understand.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever made any statements while you 
have been employed at the Evans Lab against the war effort of 
the United States government?
    Mr. Galex. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you in favor of the war effort of the 
United States government?
    Mr. Galex. I am in favor of whatever the United States 
government advocates.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Galex. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been asked to join?
    Mr. Galex. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of anyone at the lab who may be a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Galex. No, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been affiliated with any 
organization which to your knowledge was declared subversive by 
the attorney general?
    Mr. Galex. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever made any statements approving of 
Russian occupation of the satellite countries, such as Poland, 
Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Galex. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you in favor or were you ever in favor of 
Russia's occupation of these countries?
    Mr. Galex. No, I wasn't.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever gotten into any lengthy 
discussion with your fellow employees concerning Russian and 
Russia's power as a leading or one of the leading countries of 
the world?
    Mr. Galex. No. I mean we see newspaper clippings, small 
discussions, but I have never been in favor or anything like 
that.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't recall ever making any pro-Russian 
statement?
    Mr. Galex. No, I never made any pro-Russian statements.
    Mr. Juliana. And you would consider yourself to be a 
definite loyal American?
    Mr. Galex. Definitely, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. And not leaning towards being pro-Russian or 
in favor of some of the things that Russia has done since World 
War II?
    Mr. Galex. Absolutely.
    Mr. Juliana. If you knew, Mr. Galex, of an individual at 
Evans Lab who you thought was pro-Russia or pro-Communist, 
would you report him to the proper authority?
    Mr. Galex. Oh, I definitely would.
    Mr. Juliana. At the lab? I mean the security officer?
    Mr. Galex. You mean if I definitely knew he was pro and so 
forth and belonged to an organization or something like that. 
Oh, sure. I don't think he should be working there.
    Mr. Juliana. All right, Mr. Galex, fine. I don't think we 
will need to call you again, but in the event we do we will get 
in touch with the authorities and they can notify you.
    Mr. Galex. That will be perfectly all right with me.

                   STATEMENT OF HARRY LIPSON

    Mr. Juliana. Will you state your full name for the record, 
please?
    Mr. Lipson. Harry Lipson.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Lipson, what is your present position?
    Mr. Lipson. Glass blower.
    Mr. Juliana. Where?
    Mr. Lipson. Over in Evans Signal Corps.
    Mr. Juliana. And how long have you been at Evans Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Lipson. Six years and it will be two months as of the 
20th of this month.
    Mr. Juliana. Prior to your employment at Evans, were you 
employed at Fort Monmouth in some other installation?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever employed by the government 
before that?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you in the military service?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir. I have lost my boy in the last war.
    Mr. Juliana. Where do you reside, Mr. Lipson?
    Mr. Lipson. Wanamassa, New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. Spell that, please.
    Mr. Lipson. W-a-n-a-m-a-s-s-a.
    Mr. Juliana. You reside there with your family?
    Mr. Lipson. My wife, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. You lost this son in the war?
    Mr. Lipson. That's right, eleven months in the service 
only.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that World War II, or the Korean War?
    Mr. Lipson. World War II.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have any other children?
    Mr. Lipson. A daughter.
    Mr. Juliana. And what is her name?
    Mr. Lipson. Her name is, oh, Eisenberg, Miriam Eisenberg.
    Mr. Juliana. Where does she live, Mr. Lipson?
    Mr. Lipson. She lives in Newark.
    Mr. Juliana. Newark, New Jersey?
    Mr. Lipson. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Does she or her husband work for the 
government?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir. He is in the used car business.
    Mr. Juliana. And she is a housewife?
    Mr. Lipson. Housewife. Two children.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you at any time been approached to join 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Lipson. Never.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party or any other Communist front organization?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir. I would never even think of it. I 
belonged to the Odd Fellows, years ago. A fraternal 
organization.
    Mr. Juliana. Concerning your daughter, Mrs. Eisenberg, do 
you know whether or not she has ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Lipson. No, sir, I don't know. I remember years ago she 
belonged to a social club.
    Mr. Juliana. What social club?
    Mr. Lipson. Group of girls, you know. I don't know. I 
didn't even know what it was like.
    Mr. Juliana. Where was that?
    Mr. Lipson. Newark, somewhere in Newark. That was years 
ago, when she was a kid.
    Mr. Juliana. You formerly lived in Newark?
    Mr. Lipson. Oh, yes, I lived in Newark for practically all 
my lifetime.
    Mr. Juliana. At this time how old was your daughter?
    Mr. Lipson. At what time.
    Mr. Juliana. At the time she belonged to the social club.
    Mr. Lipson. Almost ancient. Only a kid going to high 
school. You know they have those fraternities in high school.
    Mr. Juliana. Wasn't the club associated with her high 
school activities?
    Mr. Lipson. No. A group of girls, four or five girls sort 
of getting together. As a matter of fact, I really don't know 
it's called a social club. I never took much interest anyway. I 
was always working, you know, all hours.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you have suspected that may have been a 
Communist club?
    Mr. Lipson. No, oh, no. Definitely not.
    Mr. Juliana. On the contrary as far as you are concerned?
    Mr. Lipson. Oh, no, definitely.
    Mr. Juliana. How long has she been married to Eisenberg?
    Mr. Lipson. Let's see, he came back from overseas--well, 
she was married before he went overseas, I mean before he went 
in the service. My oldest grandson is now ten and she must be 
married about fourteen years, somewheres around there.
    Mr. Juliana. How old is she, Mr. Lipson?
    Mr. Lipson. I'm married thirty-five. She must be about 
thirty-three, somewheres around there, somewheres around that. 
You know, you can't remember. I don't keep no record of it.
    Mr. Juliana. Since she has been married and living away 
from you, have you been close to her. Does she visit you 
regularly?
    Mr. Lipson. No. Well, I'll tell you. We come out there 
occasionally to see the grandchildren and her. I don't know how 
you people are. You know, you are more attached to 
grandchildren than your children, as a matter of fact, so 
that's why we come out there.
    Mr. Juliana. You have a normal father-daughter relationship 
with her. You visit her and she visits you?
    Mr. Lipson. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether her husband, Mr. Eisenberg 
was ever involved in any Communist activities?
    Mr. Lipson. No. He never was. I'm quite sure.
    Mr. Juliana. You are pretty sure of that?
    Mr. Lipson. Oh, yes, I'm quite sure.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think if your daughter and son-in-law 
were involved that you would know?
    Mr. Lipson. Were what?
    Mr. Juliana. Say they were involved in some Communist 
activities, do you think you would know about it?
    Mr. Lipson. I suppose I would. I don't go into the private 
affairs. You know what I mean. My relationship with my daughter 
and my son-in-law is--I'm the kind of a man I don't want to get 
into their personal affairs too much because it's a healthier 
condition. That's my philosophy. So I really wouldn't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of any people employed at Evans 
Signal Lab who are either Communists or pro-Communists?
    Mr. Lipson. No.
    Mr. Juliana. If you did know----
    Mr. Lipson. If I did know--probably they wouldn't even 
divulge to me, most likely.
    Mr. Juliana. Say you are suspicious of their activities 
there. Would you report to the proper authorities?
    Mr. Lipson. I certainly would.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think that anyone who had or still has 
any Communist sympathies should be employed at any installation 
at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Lipson. Definitely no. Definitely no.
    Mr. Juliana. What security clearance do you have, Mr. 
Lipson?
    Mr. Lipson. I have--I don't I know. The last time I looked 
in my 201 file, have good clearance.
    Mr. Juliana. To what classification? Is it secret? Top 
secret?
    Mr. Lipson. No. No. I don't think it's top secret. As far 
as my work is concerned I don't think it falls in that line. I 
am just servicing, like making glass apparatus for the 
engineers there and socially I don't get very intimate with 
them anyway, just pertaining to the work. You may be in my 
language, horsing around a little bit, or kidding around. 
That's about the size of it. But I wouldn't know. I was the 
only glass blower at one time, until recently, until last 
couple of years. I didn't even have time to talk anything else 
but glass.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Lipson, let me say that the fact that we 
have called you here----
    Mr. Lipson. That's what I like to know.
    Mr. Juliana. The fact that we have called you here does not 
indicate that you are guilty. We are trying to fairly cover the 
entire picture and we call a lot of witnesses to try to 
complete the picture, so the fact that you are here does not 
mean that you are guilty in any way of anything. It is just 
that we want to----
    Mr. Lipson. My wife is worried stiff about it.
    Mr. Juliana. We just wanted to clearly look into the whole 
situation and as fairly as we possibly can do the job. We want 
to thank you for coming and being of help to us and I don't 
think we will need you in the future, but if we do we certainly 
will give you the opportunity of time and so forth.
    Mr. Lipson. Can I ask you a question?
    Mr. Juliana. Sure.
    Mr. Lipson. Supposing, just supposing, if I was to get out 
of the Signal Corps Service and want to get a job in a private 
industry as I originally come from--I originally used to work 
with Westinghouse in Bloomfield--would that have a reflection 
on me, by appearing before the committee?
    Mr. Juliana. Nobody knows except your superiors at Fort 
Monmouth that you have appeared here. We are not going to tell 
anybody. If you want to tell anybody, that's up to you.
    Mr. Lipson. Oh, no, definitely no.
    Mr. Juliana. We will tell no one.
    Mr. Lipson. Here's the question I would ask: Would that be 
marked against me, against my efficiency rating in the Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Juliana. It definitely should not be a mark against 
you. Do you have any indication that it will be?
    Mr. Lipson. I'm just guesswork, just speculation. That's 
about all.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you mean that there is a possibility that 
they will mark your 201 file that you appeared and the fact 
that you appeared may----
    Mr. Lipson. May be a reflection on the efficiency rating.
    Mr. Juliana. It definitely should not. It definitely should 
not.
    Mr. Lipson. Could you definitely say, that is, write to my 
supervisor that it isn't so, or rather whatever authorities 
handle that stuff?
    Mr. Juliana. Could I write? Here is what you can do. I 
can't write to your supervisor. When you return if you want to 
you can tell your supervisor exactly what went on here.
    Mr. Lipson. I thought we were not supposed to divulge 
anything.
    Mr. Juliana. You can tell your supervisor anything you want 
to tell him. You can tell Colonel Sullivan there, the head of 
G-2, anything you want to tell him.
    Mr. Lipson. I don't know much about Fort Monmouth; as far 
as my immediate branch is concerned.
    Mr. Juliana. If you want to you may tell your supervisor, 
or if he likes he can call one of the members of the committee 
to verify the fact that you were here and were cooperative with 
the committee.
    Mr. Lipson. The reason I want to have it cleared, in case--
you can never tell--if I happen to get a job in private 
industry would that be a reflection, my appearance before this 
committee, on my application for a job?
    Mr. Juliana. Definitely should not.
    Mr. Lipson. I worked in the Westinghouse during the war, 
glass blowing, and therefore I was cleared over there. In other 
words, I am practically cleared twice.
    Mr. Juliana. The fact that you are here should never be 
made part of any of your record and should have no reflection 
whatsoever.
    Mr. Lipson. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Juliana. Thanks very much.

                 STATEMENT OF SEYMOUR JANOWSKY

    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Janowsky, will you state your full name 
for the record?
    Mr. Janowsky. Seymour Janowsky.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you reside?
    Mr. Janowsky. Asbury Park during the week. Sometimes on 
weekends in Patterson.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your present position?
    Mr. Janowsky. Electronic engineer. I'm not sure whether 
it's electronic or radio. It's a technicality. G-11 Army 
Services Electrostandards Agency at Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been employed there?
    Mr. Janowsky. I first came there in July 1949. I worked 
there until January 1951. I was drafted at the end of January, 
did two years in the army, of which time in April of 1951 I was 
returned to Fort Monmouth in active military status and I was 
stationed there until January of 1953 and I believe it was in 
March of 1953 I went back to my present position.
    Mr. Juliana. As a civilian?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. When you were there in the military were you 
doing the same job as you are doing as a civilian?
    Mr. Janowsky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you doing work as an engineer?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes, part of the time. My first, I'd say, 
year and two months I was.
    Mr. Juliana. Prior to 1949, did you ever work for the 
government?
    Mr. Janowsky. As a postal employee once. It was at 
Christmas, you know, Christmas extra. I'm not sure of the exact 
year.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you in the military service during the 
World War II period?
    Mr. Janowsky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have an assignment with the 
Atomic Energy Commission?
    Mr. Janowsky. I had an assignment with the Signal Corps in 
conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission. I was out at the 
Yucca Flats Proving Grounds. Nobody ever told us whether it was 
atomic energy or Signal Corps. I believe it was Signal Corps 
working in conjunction with the atomic energy. Of course, all I 
worked with was Signal Corps people.
    Mr. Juliana. How long were you there?
    Mr. Janowsky. I left in, I think, it was April--we flew out 
of New York about April 10, 1953, yes, 1952, and we left there 
sometime in June of 1952.
    Mr. Juliana. At that time were you in the military?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. And that was out at Nevada?
    Mr. Janowsky. Mercury Proving Grounds, Nevada.
    Mr. Juliana. What security clearance do you have now?
    Mr. Janowsky. Well, up until December 15th I was told that 
I had a restricted security clearance and being that there is 
no more restricted classification I assume I have no clearance. 
It's been something which is in doubt. I believe I had no 
clearance up until a short period of time ago when I was 
granted restricted clearance.
    Mr. Juliana. With whom do you reside now?
    Mr. Janowsky. Richard Kolchin.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you spell that please?
    Mr. Janowsky. Richard, R-i-c-h-a-r-d. Kolchin, K-o-l-c-h-i-
n
    Mr. Juliana. What does he do?
    Mr. Janowsky. He is an engineer at the Watson area of the 
Signal Corps Laboratories, field engineering branch.
    Mr. Juliana. You said that you spent weekends in Patterson 
sometimes.
    Mr. Janowsky. Sometimes, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that to visit your family?
    Mr. Janowsky. The intent is more than one reason. I come 
home to visit my friends. Most of my friends still do live in 
Patterson, and most of my social contacts are in that area, so 
I come there. As to why I visit, it's hard to say I visit for 
any particular reason, because you do a number of things when 
you come in.
    Mr. Juliana. Does your family live in Patterson?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes. Well, my immediate family, my mother and 
father do.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Janowsky. Cooper Union.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you graduate from there?
    Mr. Janowsky. 1949. I am going to school now, also.
    Mr. Juliana. Where?
    Mr. Janowsky. Newark College of Engineering at night for my 
master's.
    Mr. Juliana. What organizations do you belong to?
    Mr. Janowsky. Right now, none.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't belong to any veterans' group?
    Mr. Janowsky. No. I was given an honorary membership card 
when I first was drafted in the Jewish War Vets. I got that the 
first day, while I was leaving in fact, but I don't assume that 
is a membership.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you belong to any engineering fraternities 
or clubs or professional organizations?
    Mr. Janowsky. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been approached by anyone, Mr. 
Janowsky, to become a member of the Communist party or any 
other Communist front organization?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. You have never been a member of the Communist 
party or any Communist front organization?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not any of the other 
members of your family have ever been affiliated with a 
Communist or Communist front organization?
    Mr. Janowsky. Well, I was notified by the Navy Security 
Board that my mother and father, sister, and an aunt and 
uncle--and I only have one uncle, so that tied it down, were 
members of some organization that were on the list and upon 
asking them I assume it's the International Workers Order, 
their fraternal organization, which they belong to. I haven't 
spoken to my aunt and uncle since then. I see them once or 
twice a year if they're over at the house. I haven't been over 
to their house in I don't know how long.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ask your parents if they belonged?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. And they said they had belonged?
    Mr. Janowsky. They had belonged. As to whether they had or 
did or do, I didn't ask. I asked if they were ever any members 
of any organization. I didn't tell them anything about my 
security being lifted or getting a letter of any sort. I just 
asked them casually and they told me that the International 
Workers Order had been put on that list.
    Mr. Juliana. I don't know if you are familiar with it, but 
the IWO is an insurance organization actually. That's what it 
is. It gives out very cheap insurance. Do you know whether or 
not your parents may have included you in the membership in the 
IWO? Your sister was a member, you say?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, I don't think my sister was a member.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't think she was?
    Mr. Janowsky. No. As far as I know she wasn't active in 
that organization at all. As far as the insurance goes, there 
is only one insurance policy I know my father has and that's 
with the Metropolitan Life.
    Mr. Juliana. When you asked your parents if they were 
members of the IWO----
    Mr. Janowsky. I didn't ask them whether they were members 
of the IWO. I asked them what organizations they belonged to.
    Mr. Juliana. And they said the IWO?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ask then why or what their affiliation 
was with the IWO?
    Mr. Janowsky. I'll tell you I didn't ask, but they told me.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you please tell us. We are just trying 
to get all the facts. Actually it may even help you rather than 
serve as a----
    Mr. Janowsky. I'm here to tell you what I can. They sort of 
put it up to me this way: They are old people. Most of their 
friends--well, you can't say they are not English-speaking 
friends, but let's say they are people that speak with accents, 
speak Jewish a good portion of the time and as a result they 
more or less stick with a particular close group of friends and 
my father himself is an individual who has very, very, very 
little to do other than work. He has no hobby, no interests, 
other than singing and I believe this group did possess a 
singing group and he used to go down to see them.
    That's what they said to me. Their friends were there and 
therefore they were there.
    Mr. Juliana. When you discussed it, though, with your 
parents they did not mention the insurance phase of it?
    Mr. Janowsky. No. In fact I'll speak very frankly with you. 
The first time I found out anything about that was either this 
week or sometime last week. The Times carried an article about 
the New York State IWO. There's an order out to either disband 
them or something on that order. They mentioned something about 
insurance laws. That's the first time. So I don't believe--I 
have never asked specifically, but I can say that being that my 
father doesn't write too well, occasionally he will ask me to 
fill out a dividend card for insurance and he does carry an 
insurance policy with the Met Life. That's the only one I have 
ever seen.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever seen any correspondence from the 
IWO to your parents?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, I don't think I have ever noticed 
anything. The individual makeup of my life in the house--I'm 
never there when the mail comes up. Right now I'm just about 
never there.
    Mr. Juliana. Did your parents tell you that they paid dues 
and if they did what amount did they pay?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, they never discussed that.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you have a brother Joseph?
    Mr. Janowsky. Father Joseph.
    Mr. Juliana. Your father is Joseph?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes. No, brother.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your sister's name?
    Mr. Janowsky. Estelle, Estelle B.--she's married--Estelle 
B. Friedberg.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't have a brother?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your mother's name?
    Mr. Janowsky. Netti.
    Mr. Juliana. Seymour, do you know whether or not your 
parents ever signed any Communist party nominating petitions?
    Mr. Janowsky. Well, I assume my mother couldn't.
    Mr. Juliana. Could not?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, because she's not a citizen. I don't 
think a non-citizen is allowed to sign any such thing. As far 
as my father goes I wouldn't know. I would just like to say 
this right now: This is one thing I don't know how it came to 
happen. There has never been anything said about it. My father 
speaks very, very little to me or to anyone in the house 
concerning world affairs. He is a loner in that respect. He has 
never spoken to me about anything political. The only thing he 
has ever considered as far as my own business has been, is 
economical advice, in other words, as to how to handle money 
affairs.
    Mr. Juliana. How old are your parents?
    Mr. Janowsky. I believe my father is sixty-three and my 
mother, I think, is sixty-one. I'm not too sure. I'd say within 
plus or minus a half a year.
    Mr. Juliana. Were they born in this country?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir. My mother was born in Austria-
Hungary. I don't know what part of what country it is now. And 
my father was born in the Russian part of Poland.
    Mr. Juliana. Are they naturalized citizens?
    Mr. Janowsky. My father is. My mother isn't.
    Mr. Juliana. Were they married in the States or abroad?
    Mr. Janowsky. In the States.
    Mr. Juliana. You mentioned before when we were talking 
about the IWO that you learned about it when the navy advised 
you of it. In what regard did the navy advise you of it?
    Mr. Janowsky. Well, I'll tell you the story from when it 
first started. When I got back from Mercury, Nevada--that's 
while I was in the army--I was back for about a month and we 
were just starting to write up the reports on the data we had 
taken.
    I was pulled out of the lab one afternoon within a half 
hour, shipped out to another company, and told my clearance was 
lifted, and I stayed in another company for the rest of my stay 
in the army, which was about seven more months.
    Now, in the interim I had approached G-2 at Fort Monmouth 
to ask what had happened, why. I was told that I wouldn't be 
told why, and then I started asking whether or not I could have 
my old job back at Fort Monmouth. I knew, even though the job 
itself doesn't entitle the use of much classified information, 
that some clearance would be necessary. So I approached G-2 
again and they told me to go through the regular applications 
and notify my adjutant of the story, and come down and see G-2 
there.
    So I was rehired back at Fort Monmouth at my old job, my 
old position.
    About a month after that--I think I came back on March 15, 
around there, and about April 15 I received a statement of 
charges from the navy loyalty board at 90 Church Street, 
indicating those statements that I told you before. The 
statements were that my mother, father, sister, aunt, and uncle 
had participated actively in organizations classified as 
subversive by the attorney general.
    Mr. Juliana. What I am trying to establish is why did the 
navy advise you. Were you working on a navy project?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, no. That's one thing I neglected to say. 
This place where I worked, the Armed Services Electrostat 
Agency is a joint agency. There is army, navy, and Air Corps 
feeding in, so they split up the funds and therefore split up 
the payroll about equally, and I am assigned to navy payroll 
and I am handled through navy personnel so I assume that is why 
I go through the navy loyalty board.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have a hearing before the loyalty 
review board?
    Mr. Janowsky. What I did, in the letter it said if I want a 
hearing I must reply within thirty days, at which time I sent 
them about a seven or eight-page letter stating my case, 
telling them some of the things I have told you here, plus 
more. And at the end I also said I'd be glad to appear for a 
hearing if it is deemed necessary. And they told me I could 
have counsel. About fifteen or thirty days later I got a letter 
from the navy loyalty board, the one who I told you I had 
written a letter to, stating in so many words that after 
reviewing the evidence in the case that the board had believed 
that there was no doubt as to my loyalty to this country 
whatsoever, and also with the note that this action was subject 
to final approval by the secretary of the navy.
    Mr. Juliana. Was your clearance subsequently returned to 
you?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. It never has been?
    Mr. Janowsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. It never has been since then?
    Mr. Janowsky. Except, I'd say, about two or three months 
afterwards for no reason or other I was told that I had 
restricted clearance, but the full clearance was never 
returned.
    Mr. Juliana. Prior to the time, that it was taken from you, 
your clearance, what was it?
    Mr. Janowsky. I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Was it secret, do you think?
    Mr. Janowsky. I think it was secret. We had a board there, 
while I was in the army that is. They had a board and everybody 
in that outfit I think was cleared for secret and they had an 
interim clearance board and my name was up on the board.
    Mr. Juliana. Seymour, do you know of any organizations that 
your mother has belonged to? Do you know whether or not she has 
ever belonged to any Communist organizations or any Communist 
front organizations?
    Mr. Janowsky. You mean other than this IWO?
    Mr. Juliana. Yes
    Mr. Janowsky. Other than the IWO, no.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think if she was a member that you 
would know about it?
    Mr. Janowsky. I think they would have told me when I asked 
them.
    Mr. Juliana. At the time that you asked then about the IWO?
    Mr. Janowsky. Yes. I had asked them not whether they were 
members, but whether they were or ever had been.
    Mr. Juliana. You have not been living closely with your 
parents since 1949?
    Mr. Janowsky. Since I got out of school, yes, since 1949.
    Mr. Juliana. Does your mother read and write and understand 
English well, or would you say poorly?
    Mr. Janowsky. She doesn't write much at all, period. She 
reads English, seemingly so, because I always see her reading 
the papers, fiddling around with those more so than my father.
    Mr. Juliana. How about speaking? Does she speak the English 
language very well?
    Mr. Janowsky. Oh, yes, the both of them do that, but, as I 
said before, I find among their friends they speak Jewish 
preferably rather than English.
    Mr. Juliana. Seymour, let me say to you that the fact that 
we have called you does not indicate any guilt on your part. We 
have these bits of information that we like to clarify.
    The fact that your parents admitted that they were active 
or belonged to the IWO, I doubt that is a reflection on you. It 
may not even be a reflection on their sincerity or their 
loyalty to the United States government.
    It is, though, a Communist policy to implicate people such 
as your parents, who, down deep in their heart are just as 
loyal as you or I possibly, but, nevertheless, they have been 
subjected to this organization, to them which is purely a 
little social gathering, but they may have been contributing 
some money or given a quarter or fifty cents in a collection 
which may have gone to the Communist party. Who knows?
    We want to thank you for being here. We are not going to 
disclose the fact that you have been here to anybody. If you 
want to that is perfectly all right. You are at liberty to do 
so and if you want to advise your superior when you return, 
that's perfectly all right.
    Mr. Janowsky. He knows, anyway.
    Mr. Juliana. Thank's a lot for coming in and being 
cooperative with us.
    Mr. Janowsky. Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

                 STATEMENT OF HARRY M. NACHMIAS

    Mr. Juliana. For the record will you please state your full 
name?
    Mr. Nachmias. Harry Max Nachmias
    Mr. Juliana. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Nachmias. Full address, 183 Garden Road, Shrewsbury, 
New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. Where are you now employed?
    Mr. Nachmias. At the Squire Signal Laboratory.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your position there?
    Mr. Nachmias. I am a general engineer. I have a title 
change. I was a chemical engineer but I got a change in 
position where I supervise the work of other engineers and so 
the classification people have changed it to general engineer.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your security clearance?
    Mr. Nachmias. Through secret.
    Mr. Juliana. Through secret?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Nachmias. College of the City of New York.
    Mr. Juliana. And when did you graduate?
    Mr. Nachmias. In 1935.
    Mr. Juliana. What course did you take?
    Mr. Nachmias. I took a course in liberal arts and graduated 
with a bachelor of science in chemistry.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, hadn't heard of him until I read 
about him in the newspapers.
    Mr. Juliana. Was he a student at City College at the time 
you were there, do you know?
    Mr. Nachmias. I don't know. I think that I read in the 
papers that he got out in, '41 or '42, wasn't it?
    Mr. Juliana. I believe it was the late '30s.
    Mr. Nachmias. Was it late '30s? I'm not sure, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. In any event you never knew him at City 
College?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you a member of the Young Communist 
League at City College?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I was not.
    Mr. Juliana. Was the organization active on the campus at 
that time?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes. They had signs around the place and you 
always saw a group of guys in a part of the building we called 
the alcove downstairs. There were signs ``Join the Young 
Communist League,'' and they always used to pull strings and 
things, of one thing or another. Kind of an obnoxious group.
    There was one fellow in my chemistry class. I think it's 
the only one whose name I got to know.
    Mr. Juliana. What was his name?
    Mr. Nachmias. Harry Starobin.
    Mr. Juliana. Will you spell that?
    Mr. Nachmias. S-t-a-r-o-b-i-n.
    Mr. Juliana. What was his first name?
    Mr. Nachmias. I don't remember.
    Mr. Juliana. Was it Joseph?
    Mr. Nachmias. It may have been.
    Mr. Juliana. Was he the individual who was employed by the 
Daily Worker as a writer?
    Mr. Nachmias. I think I read that he was somewhere in the 
Daily Worker, editor-writer. I am not sure.
    Mr. Juliana. Currently in Europe behind the Iron Curtain.
    Mr. Nachmias. I don't know where he is now. All I know is 
what I read about it.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you read this about him?
    Mr. Nachmias. During the trial of some Communists who 
were--I think they were put in jail, weren't they, about two or 
three years ago?
    Mr. Juliana. You mean the eleven national committee members 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Nachmias. I think Foster was among them and that gang. 
This fellow, incidentally, was suspended while he was in that 
class. That's how we got to know him. You know the fellows were 
buzzing around Starobin was suspended. We all knew he was a 
Communist from the way he carried on.
    Mr. Juliana. He was suspended from the City College?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes, sir. There were a number of students who 
were suspended at that time. Three pulled some kind of a riot 
or strike against--your remember the umbrella incident with 
President Robinson. What was his name? Robinson. It was said he 
was one of the instigators.
    Mr. Juliana. How friendly were you with Starobin?
    Mr. Nachmias. I was not. I found him undesirable as a 
matter of fact.
    Mr. Juliana. You only knew him on the campus?
    Mr. Nachmias. As a campus student, yes. His work bench was 
next to mine. That's how I knew him.
    Mr. Juliana. You knew him, however, as one of the leaders 
in this Young Communist League and the Communist element at 
CCNY?
    Mr. Nachmias. All I know about him was he was a Communist. 
Whether he was a member of the organization I don't know. The 
reason I know that is because people referred to him as a 
Communist and he would make remarks in class about it wouldn't 
be long before America will be taken over. He was kind of 
obnoxious. None of our class seemed to pay much attention to 
him. At least I didn't.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have lunch with him?
    Mr. Nachmias. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Ever visit his home?
    Mr. Nachmias. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he ever visit yours?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever socialize with him?
    Mr. Nachmias. I had nothing to do with him outside of the 
class.
    Mr. Juliana. Who, other than Starobin, did you know was a 
Communist at City College?
    Mr. Nachmias. There was one fellow whose name I couldn't 
possibly remember today. He was there, because every time you 
went through the alcoves he was making a speech of some kind or 
talking to a group of guys or arguing. Of course, we were kind 
of crowded at City. We had to eat at the stand-up benches in 
the lunch room and most of us brought our lunch at the time. 
This was an uncomely looking fellow. He was a typical Communist 
that you see cartoons about. He was always shoving his head 
into groups trying to start a conversation. As an individual I 
found him very obnoxious.
    He was the only other one that I knew to be a Communist, 
although there must have been others around.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know an individual by the name of Sy 
Gerson?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been approached to become a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did anyone at City College ever approach you 
to join the YCL?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of any Communist 
front organization?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir. I haven't been a member. I am not a 
member of any political organization, never have been.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever registered showing preference 
for the American Labor party in a political election?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I don't think so.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you reside----
    Mr. Nachmias. I might add at that point--I don't know 
whether it's applicable, but I have voted both Republican and 
Democratic, depending on who was running and what slate he was 
running on.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever vote ALP?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever vote for any candidate that was 
running on the ALP ticket?
    Mr. Nachmias. I voted for Fiorello LaGuardia, but he was 
running on the Fusion ticket at the time if I recall correctly.
    Mr. Juliana. When was that?
    Mr. Nachmias. Let's see. It was in the '30s, I guess. I'm 
not too sure of the date.
    Mr. Juliana. Late '30s? After you got out of college?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes, I think it was after I got out; '30, I 
don't know, six or eight.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you reside in 1939?
    Mr. Nachmias. '39? Let's see, I was married in '38 and 
until 1940 we lived in Greendale which is a part of Queens, 
Greendale, Long Island, for two years. That's right, '38 to 
'40. Do you want me to go on?
    Mr. Juliana. Yes. I was going to ask you.
    Mr. Nachmias. Then we moved to Carroll Street in Brooklyn 
which is the Eastern Parkway section. The reason for that was 
my wife was employed as a dental secretary and it was more 
convenient that we have a residence near her job because she 
had to go home and prepare dinner and all that sort of thing.
    Mr. Juliana. What address did you live at on Carroll 
Street?
    Mr. Nachmias. Carroll? Let's see. Gosh, 1040 or something 
like that. It was on the corner of Albany--Carroll and Albany. 
It was right on the corner.
    Mr. Juliana. What address did you live?
    Mr. Nachmias. 1460 Carroll. It just came to me.
    Mr. Juliana. What address did you live at in Greendale?
    Mr. Nachmias. I remember that one. That was our first home; 
7121 65th Street, in Greendale.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your wife's name?
    Mr. Nachmias. Elsie. Maiden name is Saper.
    Mr. Juliana. When were you married?
    Mr. Nachmias. In 1938 in August.
    Mr. Juliana. Did your wife ever register showing preference 
for the American Labor party?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, not that I know of.
    Mr. Juliana. You have told me that as far as you know 
neither you nor your wife ever registered indicating preference 
for the American Labor party?
    Mr. Nachmias. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you sure now? Try to recall, because we 
have information that you did register showing preference in 
the American Labor party in 1939 and 1940, 1941; both you and 
your wife. If you did, say so because----
    Mr. Nachmias. I really don't remember, sir. I wouldn't be 
afraid to say so because at the time--as I say, I've always 
tried to vote in a way that we got a better government in New 
York City and if LaGuardia was on the American Labor party it's 
possible that I did. But I don't believe that I have. I always 
felt that I registered, usually registered Democratic, and more 
recently we live in Shrewsbury. My wife is registered 
Republican and I have to wait. They have a rule that I have to 
wait two years to change over from Democratic to Republican for 
registration purposes.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have any----
    Mr. Nachmias. May I ask if the American Labor party has any 
connection with the Communists or am I out of order? I don't 
want to take up any of your time.
    Mr. Juliana. I think I can say that evidence has been 
presented to various congressional committees showing that the 
American Labor party was completely dominated in New York City 
by the Communist party. That is a matter of public record. It 
has been printed in the newspapers and congressional committees 
have received that information from witnesses and from 
documentation.
    Mr. Nachmias. And yet a man like LaGuardia ran on that 
party. I mean we all felt that he certainly gave New York the 
most honest government they ever had.
    Mr. Juliana. Did LaGuardia run on the ALP ticket or on the 
Fusion ticket?
    Mr. Nachmias. I think I voted for him on the Fusion ticket.
    Mr. Juliana. I don't know, I wasn't in New York at the time 
so I don't know what LaGuardia ran on in any particular years.
    Mr. Nachmias. Well, I might add this: If I had any 
knowledge that the American Labor party or any party--say 
tomorrow it was shown that the Republican party had Communists, 
had been dominated by the Communists, I certainly would want no 
part of it. May I be permitted to make an aside here?
    Mr. Juliana. Sure. Go ahead.
    Mr. Nachmias. Again I am conscious that I am taking up your 
time. At the same time I want to put myself on record. I was 
born in Europe. My family consists of four brothers and myself 
and my parents. My parents worked very hard to get us out of 
Europe because they felt to come to America would be going to a 
land of fair opportunity so these isms, socialism and 
communism, have always been something abhorring to us because 
they don't represent what we're looking for in life.
    Certainly there is the type thing in Europe--we're Jews, by 
the way, we're Greek Jews--type of thing in Europe where 
somebody could make a statement about a man only because of his 
ancestry or his origin and you had to swallow it and you had to 
stand for it. And the opportunities weren't the same.
    A fellow couldn't get an education and become somebody 
unless you were very wealthy and very influential, so my mother 
and father both worked very hard to try to get us into a place 
where we might have an opportunity. Unfortunately, my brothers 
didn't go as far in education. They were a little older when we 
came here. They felt we had to go to work. But our entire 
family can stand any kind of an investigation. Communism is 
something that we feel is not only foreign, but inimical to the 
best interests of God-fearing and hard-working people and 
that's the kind of stock we came from.
    Mr. Juliana. Harry, do you know of any other individual who 
has the same name as you?
    Mr. Nachmias. Well, there is a nephew I have. You mean in 
government?
    Mr. Juliana. No, anywhere.
    Mr. Nachmias. There was a Nahmias, Jerome Nahmias, who was 
in the weather bureau. I don't know where he is now. I never 
met him. I used to read his articles when I was in the 
meteorological section of the laboratory. He is a weather 
forecaster, I believe. I don't know what the connection is. I 
have never gotten in touch with him.
    Mr. Juliana. I am just wondering whether or not there is 
another man with a name the same as yours who may have been 
involved in registering and showing preference for the ALP.
    Mr. Nachmias. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Your father isn't of the same name?
    Mr. Nachmias. No. His name was Max. My father didn't vote. 
He was old and illiterate and he couldn't become a citizen.
    Mr. Juliana. In 1941 do you recall ever signing any 
Communist party nominating petitions?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I never signed any Communist 
petitions.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you reside in 1941?
    Mr. Nachmias. On Carroll Street.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you recall ever having seen a Communist 
party nominating petition?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you recall anyone in the neighborhood ever 
circulating them or coming and asking you if you would sign a 
petition?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know what a Communist party nominating 
petition looks like?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, I don't, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. It is clearly identified at the top with the 
words ``Communist party Nominating Petition,'' and then it 
usually lists the candidates that are on the petition. It lists 
their names and the position for which they will run. Then down 
towards the bottom there are usually spaces for maybe fifteen 
or twenty-five individuals to sign their name and address. You 
never recall signing one?
    Mr. Nachmias. I don't recall seeing one or signing one.
    Mr. Juliana. If you did, would you tell me?
    Mr. Nachmias. I certainly would.
    Mr. Juliana. Here is the thing: These petitions we can get 
as a document and present as evidence and we can prove that 
your signature is on there by comparing handwriting specimens.
    Mr. Nachmias. I never signed any.
    Mr. Juliana. You never signed any?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. And you are sure of that?
    Mr. Nachmias. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. You have never been a member of any 
organization which you knew to be Communist or Communist 
controlled?
    Mr. Nachmias. No, sir, I never have.
    Mr. Juliana. How about your wife?
    Mr. Nachmias. She never has.
    Mr. Juliana. Never a member of any social groups or 
neighborhood clubs or anything like that?
    Mr. Nachmias. I'm afraid we are not very good neighbors. 
The only social group we made was the one called ``Mr. and 
Mrs.'' at the local Synagogue in Red Bank, and we dropped out 
of that because we couldn't always get a babysitter to attend 
their functions.
    I don't know of any other group.
    In the school, of course, I joined the Spanish club which 
was a language-fostering club. I studied Spanish and I wanted 
to talk, but I didn't stay in that too long.
    I used to drop in on the Chemistry Society every once in a 
while. I was not a regular member.
    Mr. Juliana. All right, Harry. I think that concludes the 
interrogation.
    We wanted to have you here to speak with you to try to 
clear up some of these facts that we have before us. I don't 
think we will need you again. However, if we do, we will advise 
the army, who can get in touch with you like they did in the 
past; but I am pretty sure we will not be calling you.
    Thanks a lot for coming.
    Mr. Nachmias. I'm very happy to come and help in any way I 
can.
    I want to say I was a little scared when I came. I guess we 
all got that way. I didn't have any idea what it was about, but 
you made me feel at ease and I am grateful for that.
    Mr. Juliana. Thanks a lot, Harry.
    Mr. Nachmias. Thank you, sir.

               STATEMENT OF CURTIS QUINTEN MURPHY

    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Murphy, will you state your full name for 
the record, please?
    Mr. Murphy. Curtis Quinten Murphy.
    Mr. Juliana. How do you spell that middle name?
    Mr. Murphy. Q-u-i-n-t-e-n.
    Mr. Juliana. Where do you reside, Mr. Murphy?
    Mr. Murphy. 525 Logan Street, Brooklyn.
    Mr. Juliana. And where are you employed?
    Mr. Murphy. Evans Signal Laboratory, Belmont, New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been there?
    Mr. Murphy. I have been there since 1942 except for the 
time that I was in the army.
    Mr. Juliana. When were you in the service?
    Mr. Murphy. I went in the service January 1943 to November 
1945.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, I went to early school in North Carolina; 
then in New York City.
    Mr. Juliana. Where in New York City?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, public school was in Brooklyn and I went 
to college at CCNY.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you get out of CCNY?
    Mr. Murphy. I spent my last year in CCNY in June 1951.
    Mr. Juliana. 1951?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you start at college?
    Mr. Murphy. 1938.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Murphy, you started at CCNY in 1938?
    Mr. Murphy. That's correct.
    Mr. Juliana. And when did you graduate?
    Mr. Murphy. In 1951.
    Mr. Juliana. Then your education was interrupted?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir, it was; the army. Then I went to 
work. Finally I went to City College for, I think, two and a 
half years. Perhaps it was two years. Then I went to work, got 
married, went in the army. During the army I was sent to Newark 
College of Engineering for about, I suppose, six weeks. Then I 
came out and I believe it was in 1946 that I started back to 
City.
    After that time I entered an extension at Rutgers at Fort 
Monmouth, and I studied for my master's at Rutgers.
    Mr. Juliana. While you were at City College did you know 
Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know that he was a student at City 
College?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever a member of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know that the Young Communist League 
was active on the campus of City College?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. At the time that I entered there I 
believe I did know that. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I 
knew that.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever asked to join?
    Mr. Murphy. I believe I was asked, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. By whom? Do you recall?
    Mr. Murphy. That's kind of a tough question to--offhand I 
don't recall the name. I remember a couple of times being asked 
by a couple of the students there. There seemed to be a small 
group of them. They were quite active around 1938.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever attend any meetings of the YCL?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I didn't. Oh, YCL. I was going to say 
sometimes they had a harangue on the campus----
    Mr. Juliana. Just a public gathering?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. I have stopped by at some of those.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you recall the names of any of the 
individuals that were active in the YCL at City College?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I really don't. At the time I wasn't 
too much interested. As a matter of fact, other than I knew 
these things were happening and didn't pay too much attention.
    Mr. Juliana. Where and when were you born, Mr. Murphy?
    Mr. Murphy. I was born in Bolivia, North Carolina, December 
13, 1919.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been employed at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Murphy. Since 1942. I believe the month was April.
    Mr. Juliana. That employment was interrupted for military 
service?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. And what service were you in?
    Mr. Murphy. I was in quite a few. I was at a reception 
center here in New York.
    Mr. Juliana. Was it with the army?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. That was the only military service, in the 
army? You never served in the navy or Marine Corps?
    Mr. Murphy. All my service was in the army.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you a member of any organizations when 
you were at City College?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. What organization?
    Mr. Murphy. The Douglass Society.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that the Frederick Douglass Society?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. That's the whole name.
    Mr. Juliana. What type of an organization is that?
    Mr. Murphy. It was composed entirely by Negro students and 
they were interested in things happening to the Negro. I mean, 
in civil rights. That was one of the big things they were 
interested in. And once in a while they would give a social 
function. I think that occurred about once a year.
    Mr. Juliana. Was that organization in any way infiltrated 
by the Communists that you know of?
    Mr. Murphy. Not to my knowledge. I remember at about the 
time that I entered there was a big discussion that came up 
about--well, I think about that time some of the white students 
were asking for membership and there was a big fight in the 
organization, not that they objected to the members coming in 
as whites, but the fellows who were leading the fight felt that 
they were Communists and they felt if they came in the group 
that they would try to control the organization along the 
Communistic policies and they fought that tooth and nail on 
that basis; not because of any racial determinations.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of any members of the society that 
were Communists or Communist sympathizers?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, I heard that prior to my being--this is 
something I heard; I didn't know this--that one of the men, I 
think a fellow by the name of Louis Burnam was a Communist. 
That was a name that I always heard.
    Mr. Juliana. You heard that he was a Communist while you 
were a member of the society?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir; yes.
    Mr. Juliana. While you were a member did you know of any 
other members that were Communists?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Who was the top man of the society?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, at the time that I entered as close I can 
remember it would be Harold Belt. I think he was the president.
    Mr. Juliana. B-e-l-t?
    Mr. Murphy. B-e-l-t. Following him I believe it was Johnnie 
Cutlar. You tax my memory. This is as close as I can remember. 
I know they were leaders in the group at one time or another.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever have any leading position in the 
society?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir. I was just--never was active--nothing 
more than a member.
    Mr. Juliana. You did not believe the society to be 
Communist-controlled or dominated?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I certainly didn't.
    Mr. Juliana. You did not know it to be a Communist 
organization?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, not in the least.
    Mr. Juliana. When you applied for employment at Fort 
Monmouth did you list a Benjamin Bluford as a character 
reference?
    Mr. Murphy. I believe I did, sir,
    Mr. Juliana. When was that? At what time did you list him 
as a character reference?
    Mr. Murphy. I believe I listed him on a number of 
applications.
    Mr. Juliana. How well do you know Mr. Bluford?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, as a matter of fact, I knew him during my 
school, the time that we were in school, and since then we 
worked--he does work for Evans Signal Laboratory and I see him 
occasionally. I mean, we see one another perhaps on the average 
of once every two months or something of that sort.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know anything of his activities?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, other than he was a member of the 
Douglass Society. I don't know of any other activities that he 
may----
    Mr. Juliana. You don't know of any organizations that he 
may belong to?
    Mr. Murphy. At the present time?
    Mr. Juliana. Yes.
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Or at any time?
    Mr. Murphy. I'm pretty certain that he was a member of the 
Douglas Society, or at least he attended some of the meetings.
    Mr. Juliana. Other than that, you don't know of any other 
organizations?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you consider Bluford to be a loyal 
American?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir, to the very best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Juliana. What security clearance do you have at your 
present position?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, as far as I know I have up to secret.
    Mr. Juliana. Is there another individual employed at Fort 
Monmouth by the name of Curtis Murphy that you know of?
    Mr. Murphy. Not that I know of. I know there are other 
Murphies there. I don't know of another Curtis Murphy.
    Mr. Juliana. How do you spell your middle name?
    Mr. Murphy. To the best of my knowledge I spell it
Q-u-i-n-t-e-n.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever expressed to any of your co-
workers opinions in any way favoring Russia or communism or 
being anti-American?
    Mr. Murphy. I have said this: I have said that I thought 
that these Communists who were being tried should be tried in 
accordance with our courts. That might have been interpreted as 
being in favor of communism.
    Actually, I feel that no one, whether he is criminal or 
otherwise, should not be given the benefit of our courts.
    Mr. Juliana. Don't you think that the Communists that were 
tried and convicted were given the benefits of the judicial 
system?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir; yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. Juliana. Certainly they were given a fair trial and 
they were given every right of appeal.
    Mr. Murphy. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. As far as the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Murphy. That's right, yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think that they were given a fair 
trial?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir, I certainly do.
    Mr. Juliana. That is the policy that you advocate for the 
Communists?
    Mr. Murphy. Or anyone else. I wasn't excluding them. This 
is a general opinion that I have.
    Mr. Juliana. So if you made such a statement actually that 
is not anti-American?
    Mr. Murphy. Well, I wouldn't think so, but I have discussed 
it occasionally with people and they had other ideas. They felt 
that all of this business of going through the courts was 
something that they shouldn't be permitted to do; and I feel 
rather strongly about our court procedures. I have been 
subjected to a certain amount of treatment and I didn't think 
it was in accordance with our judicial system.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you believe, though, that the Communists 
were given a fair trial?
    Mr. Murphy. I certainly do.
    Mr. Juliana. You were in favor of the way that was handled?
    Mr. Murphy. In favor of exactly the way it was handled, 
yes, sir; yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Could you, though, have made some statements 
that these people interpreted as meaning that you were not in 
favor of the way that they were being tried?
    Mr. Murphy. I really don't believe I could have, sir. I 
certainly don't remember every detail thing that I have said, 
but to the best of my knowledge I certainly don't think that I 
have said anything other than this sort of thing.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, other than, as I said, I was asked a 
couple of times in school to join this YCL group.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't recall who asked you?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, not at the moment, I certainly don't.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't recall the names of any of the 
individuals who were members of the YCL?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, other than in conjunction with this 
follow Louis Burnham. I've heard that he was a member.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Louis Burnham?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I didn't know him. I understand he 
graduated before I came to the City.
    Mr. Juliana. Has anyone ever asked you to join any 
Communist front organization such as the Civil Rights Congress, 
the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, or any 
others?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. You are not or never have been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think that anyone who is employed at 
Fort Monmouth or any other government installation who is or 
has been a member of the Communist party or any Communist front 
organization should be retained in their government employment?
    Mr. Murphy. Who is or who have?
    Mr. Juliana. Has been a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Murphy. If they are Communists now, definitely not. I 
really haven't been able to make up my mind about a person who 
is an ex-Communist. I think some of these people who have been 
ex-Communists have been rather helpful to some of the 
investigating committees.
    Mr. Juliana. What if they haven't been helpful; say, an 
individual was a member of the Communist party up to 1948 and 
he has told no one about it and he no longer is a member of the 
Communist party, but he is working at Fort Monmouth. Do you 
think he should continue to work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Murphy. I think I would object to him working there as 
I see it now. You ask a question that I haven't thought of 
offhand. I think I would object.
    Mr. Juliana. If this individual came forth and advised the 
FBI of all the facts that he possibly could, you would say 
well, possibly he should continue?
    Mr. Murphy. That's right, yes, sir. Yes, sir, I believe I 
would be of that opinion.
    Mr. Juliana. If you know of a Communist or a Communist 
sympathizer who was working at Fort Monmouth would you advise 
the proper authority?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. You ask me about Communist sympathizer. To 
me I don't see so much difference between them. Could you 
explain this?
    Mr. Juliana. By Communist sympathizer I mean an individual 
who preaches Communist ideologies, who believe in them, but who 
actually has never been a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Murphy. Well, as far as I can see I would lump him with 
the----
    Mr. Juliana. With the Communists?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't think they should be employed by the 
government?
    Mr. Murphy. No, sir, no, sir. I don't; no, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Murphy, we want to thank you for coming 
and being of some help to us. The fact that we have called you 
is no occasion that you are guilty. We wanted to call you to 
clear up some of the facts that we had obtained.
    I want to thank you for being helpful to us.
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Glad to be of any help that I 
possibly can. If I can help you again, I would be only too glad 
to.

                  STATEMENT OF MARTIN SCHMIDT

    Mr. Juliana. Give your mane to the reporter.
    Mr. Schmidt. Martin Schmidt.
    Mr. Juliana. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Schmidt. 45 Branchport Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your present position?
    Mr. Schmidt. I'm a welder.
    Mr. Juliana. Where?
    Mr. Schmidt. Squire Laboratories. Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. What security clearance do you have?
    Mr. Schmidt. Gee, I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Is it up to secret?
    Mr. Schmidt. I think so. I'm not sure.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you come in possession of classified 
documents?
    Mr. Schmidt. Well, the highest classified document I ever 
recall seeing was blueprints and they were just restricted. 
They weren't marked secret.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you see blueprints daily, or is it very 
infrequently?
    Mr. Schmidt. Infrequently in my case. Welders don't work 
with blueprints as a rule.
    Mr. Juliana. What was your wife's name?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yolanda German.
    Mr. Juliana. And the last name was German?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. When were you married?
    Mr. Schmidt. 1944.
    Mr. Juliana. How did you meet your wife?
    Mr. Schmidt. At a wedding; my stepmother's sister's 
wedding.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you have a long courtship?
    Mr. Schmidt. Six months.
    Mr. Juliana. Are you well acquainted with your wife's 
family?
    Mr. Schmidt. I am now, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you before you married her?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your father-in-law's name?
    Mr. Schmidt. Anthony.
    Mr. Juliana. Anthony German?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. What does he do for a living?
    Mr. Schmidt. He is retired. He was a glass maker.
    Mr. Juliana. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Schmidt. He lives with me.
    Mr. Juliana. Where is that again?
    Mr. Schmidt. Branchport Avenue, Long Branch.
    Mr. Juliana. Did your father-in-law ever live in Perth 
Amboy, New Jersey?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that where your wife lived when she married 
you?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. How many sisters does your wife have?
    Mr. Schmidt. Let's see. I have to count them off. Four.
    Mr. Juliana. How many brothers?
    Mr. Schmidt. Charles--three, Tony. Wright.
    Mr. Juliana. Three brothers?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. You currently live with your father-in-law and 
who else?
    Mr. Schmidt. My wife and mother-in-law.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your mother-in-law's name?
    Mr. Schmidt. Esther.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been approached by anyone to be 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Has your wife ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, sir, she never has.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not your father-in-law 
has ever been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Juliana. Your father-in-law was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. When was he?
    Mr. Schmidt. I think in 1947 is the last time he was a 
member.
    Mr. Juliana. When were you married?
    Mr. Schmidt. 1944.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you live with your father-in-law from 1944 
to 1947?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Juliana. In the same house?
    Mr. Schmidt. Not all the time, no. We lived by ourselves 
for a while.
    Mr. Juliana. When you married your wife did you know that 
her father was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you find that out?
    Mr. Schmidt. After I was married.
    Mr. Juliana. How long after?
    Mr. Schmidt. Oh, I guess maybe a month or so afterwards.
    Mr. Juliana. How did you come to find out? Did they tell 
you or did someone else tell you?
    Mr. Schmidt. I guess it just come about through everyday 
speaking, I guess. I really don't know how I found out exactly.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he actually admit or tell you that he was 
a member of the Communist party at that tine?
    Mr. Schmidt. Not till 1951.
    Mr. Juliana. He did not tell you that he was a member until 
1951?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, and I never asked him till then.
    Mr. Juliana. But you knew in 1944 that he was a member?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Now did you know?
    Mr. Schmidt. Like I said, through general conversation.
    Mr. Juliana. Just through general conversation?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. He never told you?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Schmidt, was your mother-in-law ever a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. That I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. When you were told that your father-in-law was 
a member, he did not include your mother-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. He just said that he was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. You don't know if your mother-in-law ever was?
    Mr. Schmidt. Well, I don't believe she ever was what they 
call a card-carrying member, if that's what you mean. Is that 
what you mean?
    Mr. Juliana. Well, was your father-in-law a card-carrying 
member?
    Mr. Schmidt. He was, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Was your mother-in-law a card-carrying member? 
You don't believe?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I don't believe she was.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you believe that she had the same 
sympathies as your father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. She did not?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Did she have opposite opinions as far as 
Communist or Communist ideologies is concerned from your 
father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. I would say yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not any of your 
sisters-in-law or brothers-in-law was a Communist?
    Mr. Schmidt. I had one brother-in-law, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. What is his name?
    Mr. Schmidt. Tony.
    Mr. Juliana. Tony German?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Schmidt. I think it's in Long Island somewheres. I 
don't know exactly.
    Mr. Juliana. Long Island, New York?
    Mr. Schmidt. Jamaica.
    Mr. Juliana. Jamaica, Long Island?
    Mr. Schmidt. I couldn't tell you exactly.
    Mr. Juliana. What is his wife's name?
    Mr. Schmidt. Glass.
    Mr. Juliana. What does he do for a living?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Has he ever worked for the United States 
government?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't believe so, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Have any of your brothers-in-law or sisters-
in-law worked for the United States government?
    Mr. Schmidt. You mean outside of military, outside of 
military service? I don't believe any of them have.
    Mr. Juliana. Has your father-in-law ever worked for the 
government?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Juliana. As far as you know your wife was never a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Has she ever expressed say Communist 
sympathies to you?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. She has no sympathies with them at all.
    Mr. Juliana. Prior to your marriage, or since your 
marriage, either one or the other?
    Mr. Schmidt. Prior to my marriage we never talked of those 
things, but since we have been married and all this come up she 
is definitely against it.
    Mr. Juliana. When did your father-in-law first join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't know sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you say it was many years before 1947 
or----
    Mr. Schmidt. Oh, yes. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. In other words, he was a card-carrying member 
for many years?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Five, six, maybe even ten?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, I would say so; yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know how he joined the Communist party? 
What brought it about?
    Mr. Schmidt. I think the depression brought it about 
really. That's the main idea that I got.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not your father-in-law 
ever reported the fact to the FBI that he was a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, I did.
    Mr. Juliana. You told the FBI?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Did your brother-in-law ever report the fact 
to the FBI?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't know.
    Mr. Juliana. Is your brother-in-law a Communist as of 
today?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. When did he stop being a Communist?
    Mr. Schmidt. He was thrown out of the party.
    Mr. Juliana. When?
    Mr. Schmidt. That I don't know, but he told me in 1951 that 
he was thrown out. Not that he was thrown out in 1951; that's 
when he told me.
    Mr. Juliana. Has your wife closely associated with her 
brothers and sisters since you married her?
    Mr. Schmidt. Well, Tony, no. We very seldom see him. The 
others we see not too often, but quite often. The one we see 
mostly is her brother by the name of Charles.
    Mr. Juliana. Has she been closely attached to her mother 
and father?
    Mr. Schmidt. I would say she was more closely attached to 
her mother than to her father.
    Mr. Juliana. When you married your wife in 1944 where were 
you working?
    Mr. Schmidt. Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. And you were at that time living with your 
mother-in-law and father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I was living with my folks.
    Mr. Juliana. For how long?
    Mr. Schmidt. All my life I was with my folks.
    Mr. Juliana. I mean after you were married. You started to 
live with your mother-in-law and father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. About a year after we were married.
    Mr. Juliana. Some time in 1945 or a year after you were 
married you started to live with your in-laws? At that time you 
were employed in Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes sir.
    Mr. Juliana. At that time your father-in-law was a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. You did not know it as such, but you thought 
from conversations that he was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's right, yes.
    Mr. Juliana. At that time in 1945 you did not think that 
your mother-in-law was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Schmidt. Right.
    Mr. Juliana. And she in many instances disagreed with your 
father-in-law as far as communism was concerned?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you think that under those circumstances as 
I just related, you should have been allowed to work for the 
United States government?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. The fact that your father-in-law was a member 
of the Communist party at that time and you were living in the 
same house with him did not in any way affect your own personal 
beliefs or activities, is that right?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. It isn't right?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I mean it didn't affect----
    Mr. Juliana. The answer then is yes to my statement?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. It did not affect you?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Your thinking or your opinions or your 
activities?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. It did not affect?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, didn't have any affect.
    Mr. Juliana. So therefore you think that you still should 
have been retained on the U.S. government payroll, is that 
right?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. After you told the FBI of your father-in-law's 
activities, did they later interview your father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. They have never interviewed your father-in-
law?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. Would you like to hear my whole story? How 
this all came about; how I happened to go to the FBI? If you'd 
like to, I'd tell you.
    Mr. Juliana. I'd like to hear you but I don't want to keep 
you or the other fellows too long.
    Fine. I would like to hear it. I was going to say if it 
would take some time maybe we could hear it later.
    Mr. Schmidt. No, this won't take long.
    Mr. Juliana. Make it as brief as possible and we can get 
you fellows back.
    Mr. Schmidt. One year we were having a Christmas party down 
in the shop. We had office party down a Forth Monmouth. I was 
going home and one of the fellows says to me, ``You better 
watch out. They're after you because of your in-laws.''
    I says, ``Who's after me?''
    He says, ``The FBI.''
    I thought I better go see just what it is and find out what 
the story is, so I went down and told them just what was what 
with me so far as my connection with the family was concerned, 
and things like that.
    Mr. Juliana. That's the story?
    Mr. Schmidt. That's the story.
    Mr. Juliana. In other words, the FBI was investigating 
you----
    Mr. Schmidt. So I understand.
    Mr. Juliana. So you understand because of your father-in-
law's activities?
    Mr. Schmidt. At the time I went down there I asked them if 
they were and they said they were not investigating me.
    Mr. Juliana. Your father-in-law has not gone to the FBI. Do 
you think that he would tell the FBI his whole story about 
communism?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't know whether he has a story to tell 
really.
    Mr. Juliana. If he was a member for many years he has 
something to tell them, and it's his duty to tell them.
    Mr. Schmidt. Probably.
    Mr. Juliana. It's his duty to tell them as an American, as 
a citizen, as an individual enjoying the liberties.
    Mr. Schmidt. He probably would.
    Mr. Juliana. It's his duty actually in his loyalty to you 
and is his responsibility to you as a son-in-law, I think. 
Nevertheless, I think you would be doing an honorable thing if 
you got him to give the complete facts to the FBI.
    Mr. Schmidt. They seem to have most of the facts.
    Mr. Juliana. But not from him, right?
    Mr. Schmidt. No, I guess not. I don't know where they got 
them.
    Mr. Juliana. I would just like to make this suggestion. You 
can take it for what it is worth, but the FBI has a job to do 
and any help that they can get from you or your father-in-law 
would be greatly appreciated. Do you agree with me?
    Mr. Schmidt. I agree with you up to the point where you say 
I should be the one to tell him.
    Mr. Juliana. Does your father-in-law know that you are here 
today?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. He most likely has a pretty good idea of why 
you are here?
    Mr. Schmidt. I suppose so. I didn't really know myself. I 
thought it was in the course of something else.
    Mr. Juliana. I just merely offer that as a suggestion. You 
can do anything you want to. You can tell him what we mentioned 
here, or you don't have to tell him. We are not going to tell 
anybody. You can do whatever you like, but I think it would be 
a very nice gesture.
    Mr. Schmidt. The reason why I said that was, being the FBI 
has this information and knows where he's at, if they wanted to 
talk to him they could just walk right in and talk to him at 
any time.
    Mr. Juliana. I understand that. All right. Your father-in-
law never asked you to become a Communist?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he ever try to indoctrinate you on 
communism?
    Mr. Schmidt. No.
    Mr. Juliana. How old a man is your father-in-law?
    Mr. Schmidt. Oh, he's seventy-four--I guess he is--seventy-
five; something like that.
    Mr. Juliana. Where was he born?
    Mr. Schmidt. Hungary.
    Mr. Juliana. Is he a naturalized citizen?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Is there anything else now, Mr. Schmidt, that 
you would like to add? You mentioned that you thought there was 
some other reason why we were calling you. What was that 
reason?
    Mr. Schmidt. I thought it was because of this Coleman that 
lives across the street from me.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Coleman?
    Mr. Schmidt. I don't know him, no. I never even spoke to 
the man.
    Mr. Juliana. But you know he lives across there?
    Mr. Schmidt. Since the papers came out. That's the only 
reason.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Schmidt. I never went to college.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever in the military service?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I'm physically handicapped.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Schmidt, there is a possibility that the 
committee may want to call you back, but if we do we certainly 
will advise you and give you plenty of notice, and advise the 
proper authorities at Fort Monmouth as we did this time in 
getting you here.
    Mr. Schmidt. May I ask you a question?
    Mr. Juliana. Sure.
    Mr. Schmidt. Would you advise me to quit my job?
    Mr. Juliana. Would I advise you to quit?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. No, I wouldn't advise you to quit your job. 
You mean because of the testimony you have given?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, of all this----
    Mr. Juliana. No, I wouldn't advise you to quit your job. If 
you are doing a service to the United States government, if you 
are earning an honest living and doing an honest job, I 
wouldn't advise you to quit; no.
    Mr. Schmidt. No, but my in-laws tie up all the time. You 
get tired of it, you know.
    This happened once before. I don't know if you know it or 
not. I was up before a loyalty board.
    Mr. Juliana. You had a hearing before a loyalty review 
board at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes. Did you know that?
    Mr. Juliana. No, I didn't.
    Did they completely clear you of any charges?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Were you ever suspended from Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes, I was for six months.
    Mr. Juliana. You were suspended and then reinstated after 
this loyalty review board?
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes. Would you like to see my reinstatement 
papers?
    Mr. Juliana. No. That's all right.
    Were you reimbursed during the period that you were 
suspended?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I went out and got other employment.
    Mr. Juliana. Is there anything else now that you would like 
to add?
    Mr. Schmidt. No. I haven't anything else to say.
    Mr. Juliana. Thanks a lot for coming.
    If we want you again, we will give you plenty of notice.

                  STATEMENT OF DAVID HOLTZMAN

    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Holtzman, would you state your full name 
for the record, please?
    Mr. Holtzman. David Holtzman.
    Mr. Juliana. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Holtzman. 152 Atlantic Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Holtzman. I am employed at G-4. Fort Monmouth, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Juliana. What is G-4?
    Mr. Holtzman. That is one of the sections in headquarters 
for supply, logistics, and services.
    Mr. Juliana. You are a civilian employee?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. How long have you been employed at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Holtzman. Well, I'll have to explain this. Originally I 
worked for the Army Audit Agency assigned to the New York 
office and stationed at the Fort Monmouth residency of the Army 
Audit Agency; that is, I audited the books of the property, in 
Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Juliana. When was that?
    Mr. Holtzman. I came to Fort Monmouth in February '49 and I 
worked for the Army Audit Agency till about May of '51.
    In May of 1951 I was offered a better job at Fort Monmouth 
and I transferred to Fort Monmouth and was assigned to the G-4 
section.
    Mr. Juliana. Who offered you this better job at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Holtzman. Fort Monmouth. You mean what individual?
    Mr. Juliana. Any individual?
    Mr. Holtzman. Colonel Fechter. He was the----
    Mr. Juliana. How do you spell it?
    Mr. Holtzman. I think, it's F-e-c-h-t-e-r, and Colonel 
Bowsky.
    Mr. Juliana. Now do you spell it?
    Mr. Holtzman. B-o-w-s-k-y.
    Mr. Juliana. Colonel Fechter was a lieutenant colonel at 
that time. Col. Bowsky was a full colonel.
    Prior to 1949 were you employed for the army?
    Mr. Holtzman. For the army, yes. I worked for the Army 
Audit Agency from 1945 until 1949 working out of New York 
office traveling.
    Mr. Juliana. Prior to '45 were you employed by the U.S. 
government?
    Mr. Holtzman. I was in the army, from '42 to '45; and I 
started to work for the government in '41.
    Mr. Juliana. Where were you originally employed by the 
government?
    Mr. Holtzman. Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Juliana. What capacity?
    Mr. Holtzman. I was a clerk-typist.
    Mr. Juliana. What branch of the government?
    Mr. Holtzman. The army. I have always worked for the army.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you go to college?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Where were you educated?
    Mr. Holtzman. I went to high school in New York; Morris Jay 
School, and then in night school.
    Mr. Juliana. In New York City?
    Mr. Holtzman. In New York City.
    Mr. Juliana. In one of your application forms that you 
filled out, either originally when you were seeking employment, 
or afterwards as you go through government employment, did you 
ever list a Louis Kaplan as a character reference?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Who is this Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Holtzman. He is a fellow that I knew in New York. I 
used to play a lot of handball in New York and I was pretty 
good, and I'd go to the park on Saturdays and Sundays to play 
ball. That was my main diversion, I'd say, and he would play 
there, too. But I was pretty good, as I say, and I think he's a 
little bit older than I am. Eventually I began playing ball 
with these men that were older than I was because I could beat 
the younger boys, you understand. I played ball there up till 
about the time I left New York for Washington. I got married 
and left. And while I lived in Washington I was in the army. I 
think he worked for the government and he would come to 
Washington on occasion while he was working for the government. 
I don't know whether the army or the navy. He worked for them. 
And he had no place to stay so I let him stay at my house oh, 
about three or four times I guess, that he slept over at my 
house. It was very difficult to find a place to stay, and I 
don't know when the application, when I mentioned his name, 
whether it was '45 or '41.
    I don't know which it was, but the only reason I mentioned 
his name in '45 was I knew him. He had come on business to 
Washington and all my friends were gone, I mean boys that I had 
grown up with. I had a few friends. And I put his name down. I 
didn't know him from anybody else.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you first meet him in the park 
playing handball?
    Mr. Holtzman. Sometime in I guess '36, '37.
    Mr. Juliana. Where was that, New York City?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, New York City.
    Mr. Juliana. What does Louis Kaplan do now, do you know?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir. I think he has something to do with 
eggs, selling eggs, or egg co-op.
    Mr. Juliana. Was he ever employed at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Holtzman. I don't know. I know he worked for the 
government and I came to Washington for the government, but I 
don't know whether it was for Fort Monmouth or for the navy. He 
was a big--he had a good job.
    Mr. Juliana. He had a good job with the government?
    Mr. Holtzman. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. This was in 1941 that you moved to Washington?
    Mr. Holtzman. That's right.
    Mr. Juliana. And he would come to Washington on business 
trips and would stay at your place overnight or as long as he 
was in Washington?
    Mr. Holtzman. I think he stayed about one night at a time. 
He didn't come too often. I'd say about three or four times.
    Mr. Juliana. Now long did you live in Washington?
    Mr. Holtzman. Three years, '42 to '45.
    Mr. Juliana. How many times did he stay with you during 
that period?
    Mr. Holtzman. I'd say about three, four times.
    Mr. Juliana. When you left Washington, you returned to New 
York City?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he visit you in New York City?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir, never visited me in New York City. 
What happened, I came back to New York and a week after I got 
out of the army I got this job with the Army Audit Agency, and 
I was on travel status, First Army area. I was on travel 
status. I was married. And we moved in with my mother oh, about 
five or six months and then we moved into my mother-in-law's 
house for about the same period of time, till we found an 
apartment on 122nd Street and Broadway, I think was the number, 
521, West 122nd Street, I believe, right off Broadway. A four-
room apartment, as so many of them have. And I was on travel 
duty constantly. You couldn't go anywheres. We couldn't have 
any friends in. Nobody could actually visit us. First of all we 
had no room; second of all we had two children. And one has 
always been sick, of course, but I was out and when the 
opportunity arose for a residency to be established they 
decentralized the Army Audit Agency and I knew they were 
setting up residencies.
    I said the first change I get I am going to move out. When 
I heard about the residency, the Fort Monmouth appealed to me 
the most, because Fort Monmouth is a very nice place, rather 
than Dix or Schenectady, somewheres; I asked them to send me to 
Fort Monmouth to work, which they did. They were very nice to 
me and I was assigned to the residency.
    Mr. Juliana. When did you move to the Fort Monmouth area?
    Mr. Holtzman. '49
    Mr. Juliana. After you moved to the Fort Monmouth area, did 
you see Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Holtzman. I think I saw him about two or three times. 
Once he bought a new house. I think it was Neptune I think he 
lives, and I saw the house. I saw him again. I saw his more 
than once, but not too many times.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he ever visit your house?
    Mr. Holtzman. I think he came over one time.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you ever visit his?
    Mr. Holtzman. As I say, that one time to see the new house.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know his friends? Did you know any of 
his friends?
    Mr. Holtzman. Not here. Those people that played ball, I 
knew.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Solomon Lasky?
    Mr. Holtzman. Never heard of him.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did you know that Louis Kaplan was a Communist 
party member?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Never knew it?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know today that he was one?
    Mr. Holtzman. I don't know whether he is. I have read about 
him and the reason why I know is because of this mix-up we had 
at Fort Monmouth where they had a Louis Kaplan dismissed or 
subpoenaed and they said it was this Louis Kaplan who lived in 
Neptune, I think they mentioned, or Asbury Park.
    Mr. Juliana. The Louis Kaplan that you know, that you gave 
as a character reference, is the Louis Kaplan that has been 
identified as a Communist?
    Mr. Holtzman. I think so, yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he ever talk to you about communism?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Did he ever ask you to become a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. He never in any way mentioned communism?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Dr. Harry Grundfest?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Joseph Percoff?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know any individuals now employed at 
Fort Monmouth who are members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know of any who are Communist 
sympathizers?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know any who were members of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. If you knew that Kaplan was a Communist, would 
you have associated with him?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Would you have had him at your home in 
Washington?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    I was in the army most of the time while I was in 
Washington as an enlisted man and he came to D.C. to stay and 
there was no place to stay in Washington at this time. I 
couldn't very well refuse; four rooms.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know Kaplan's wife?
    Mr. Holtzman. I met her about the same time. Ruthie I think 
her name is.
    Mr. Juliana. How did he know that you were in Washington?
    Mr. Holtzman. I guess everybody knew that I got a job in 
Washington, in '41, that I was going to Washington. I was very 
happy when I got the job.
    Mr. Juliana. How do you account for the fact that he got in 
touch with you after you went to Washington? Who gave him your 
address, in other words?
    Mr. Holtzman. It may have been any number of people that 
played ball with me so far as I know.
    Mr. Juliana. Where did you play handball?
    Mr. Holtzman. Crotona Park. There were a tremendous number 
of people playing. They built those handball courts.
    Mr. Juliana. Did Kaplan live in your neighborhood?
    Mr. Holtzman. I really don't know if he did or not. He 
probably lived somewhere in the Bronx. I lived on 176th Street 
and Belmont Avenue for years and years.
    Mr. Juliana. What is the address on 176th Street?
    Mr. Holtzman. 655 east.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you know if any members of your family have 
been Communists?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you have any brothers?
    Mr. Holtzman. I had two brothers. One was killed in the Ski 
Troops in Italy. The other one is in New York.
    Mr. Juliana. Any sisters?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir. My father--he died at the same time 
that my brother was killed in Italy. We were all in the army at 
the same time, all three of us.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Holtzman, do you think that anyone who has 
been a Communist or who has been a Communist sympathizer should 
be employed by the U.S. government?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. If you had known that Louis Kaplan was so 
involved would you have put him as a character reference?
    Mr. Holtzman. No. sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Never in any way has he tried to indoctrinate 
you into communism?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. How about your wife?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. On all of these occasions where he has visited 
with you has your wife been present?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, I think so.
    Mr. Juliana. I am not going to hold you----
    Mr. Holtzman. I understand. Yes, because as soon as I was 
married he left. Every time he came she cooked supper for him.
    Mr. Juliana. Did Kaplan ever ask you to do anything as a 
personal favor? Get information for him of a minor nature, or 
do anything which made you think: Why does he ask me to do 
this?
    Mr. Holtzman. No. sir.
    Mr. Juliana. When was the last time that you saw Kaplan?
    Mr. Holtzman. It must have been about a year ago, I guess, 
about a year ago. I think that's about when he got a house.
    Mr. Juliana. He asked you to come over and see his new 
house?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes.
    Mr. Juliana. Has he contacted you telephonically or 
otherwise?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir. I haven't spoken to him I guess, 
since that time. I haven't seen him or spoken to him really.
    Mr. Juliana. What is your position again at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Holtzman. I'm an auditor for G-4.
    Mr. Juliana. Auditor for G-4. Auditor for the army?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Civilian auditor for the army?
    Mr. Holtzman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Do you handle classified documents?
    Mr. Holtzman. Well, I'll have to explain that I guess. Up 
till 1953 I had no clearance at Fort Monmouth at all. In 1953 
the colonel asked that they get me clearance. I guess they 
processed it, I don't know, but they told me I was cleared. 
They made me a courier. They'd get some classified information 
in and I was the courier for G-4 and they'd put the papers in 
an envelope, seal it, and I'd take it to G-2 or to the signal 
office. That's for up to secret. Top secret courier was a Major 
Norman in my office.
    About two months ago--I don't know if I am allowed to tell 
this or not.
    Mr. Juliana. It will be all right.
    Mr. Holtzman. We have this P.O.M., Preparation for Overseas 
Movement unit, and in connection with supplies we must insure 
that these small organizations that they are going to send some 
place have their supplies ready or en route to them when they 
go, and as a result I have to make sure that our technical 
services as the quartermaster has given them everything they 
need and the ordnance and the medics, and the chemists, and 
then when I know that they have given them whatever they need, 
then I tell G-3, which is the organization that is on top in 
connection with P.O.M. that so far as were concerned they are 
ready.
    Now, the classification in this connection is, of course, 
when the unit is going to go. It's some sort of restricted, or 
confidential orders, and that started, I'd say, about a month 
ago, and they assigned me to it, which is a logical thing, to 
coordinate and insure that the supplies are ready.
    Mr. Juliana. Have you ever been suspended in your position 
with the army?
    Mr. Holtzman. No, sir.
    Mr. Juliana. Mr. Holtzman, we may or may not call you back, 
but if we do we will go through the channels over at Fort 
Monmouth. I don't think we will, but if we do we will give you 
plentyof time and so forth. We want to thank you for coming and 
being as helpful as you have.
    Mr. Holtzman. Thank you very much.
    [Adjourned at 1:17 p.m.]












              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Daniel G. Buckley (1921-1991) had 
previously served as an investigator for the Senate 
Subcommittee on Privileges and Election, from October 15 to 
December 8, 1951, when it was investigating Senator McCarthy's 
intervention in the 1950 Maryland and Connecticut Senate 
elections. The subcommittee sent Buckley to Wheeling, West 
Virginia, to interview those who had heard McCarthy's original 
charges of Communists in the State Department. He was one of 
three staff members hired on a temporary basis who were let go 
when the subcommittee completed its work. Three weeks later, on 
December 27, 1951, Buckley released a statement to the press 
asserting that he had been fired for reporting evidence that 
exonerated McCarthy, and portrayed the subcommittee as part of 
a campaign to discredit the senator's fight against Communist 
subversion.
    In a memorandum to the subcommittee's chairman, Senator Guy 
Gillette, on January 11, 1952, staff director John P. Moore 
wrote that Buckley had personally written or dictated all the 
reports of his interviews with witnesses in Wheeling, which had 
been cited in the subcommittee's report, and that after 
reviewing the draft report Buckley had expressed, ``without 
reservation, enthusiastic agreement with its contents'' to 
others on the staff. Moore added that: ``Mr. Buckley's 
relations with the staff when he left appeared to be good. He 
was in the office as late as December 22, 1951, had lunch with 
the chief clerk and spoke to the chief counsel on the 
telephone. The chief counsel was trying to help him get another 
position.'' Telephone records indicated that Buckley had made 
frequent contact with Senator McCarthy's office prior to 
issuing his accusatory press release.
    Buckley became an assistant counsel for the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations on February 1, 1953, and served 
until February 28, 1955. He later helped create the New York 
State Conservative party and returned to the Senate in 1971 as 
legislative assistant to Senator James Buckley.
    Joseph John Oliveri (1908-1986); Philip Joseph Shapiro 
(1910-1992), Samuel Martin Segner, Joseph Linton Layne, and 
Harry William Levitties did not testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                       FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The staff interrogatory commenced at 10:30 a.m. in room 
110, United States Court House, Foley Square, Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel to the subcommittee, presiding.
    Mr. Buckley. May we have your full name?

                STATEMENT OF JOSEPH JOHN OLIVERI

    Mr. Oliveri. Joseph John Oliveri.
    Mr. Buckley. And your address?
    Mr. Oliveri. 153 Pavilion Avenue, Long Branch. And I have 
an address also here in New York.
    Mr. Buckley. May we have that, please.
    Mr. Oliveri. 143-19 Ash Avenue, Flushing.
    Mr. Buckley. Where did you reside in 1940, Mr. Oliveri?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, in 1940 I was living on 81st Street, in 
Jackson Heights.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you employed, incidentally?
    Mr. Oliveri. At the time----
    Mr. Buckley. No, now.
    Mr. Oliveri. Now?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Oliveri. I am now employed with the C & M branch, Fort 
Monmouth, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to remind you, Mr. Oliveri, that the 
oath you took the other day is still in full force and effect. 
What position do you hold there?
    Mr. Oliveri. I am a unit chief of the shock and vibration 
instrumentation unit.
    Mr. Buckley. What type clearance do you have?
    Mr. Oliveri. Secret.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Oliveri, are you now or have you ever been 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known any Communists?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know anyone you might suspect of 
having been a member of the Communist party or sympathetic to 
communism?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Where were you educated, Mr. Oliveri?
    Mr. Oliveri. At NYU.
    Mr. Buckley. And when were you graduated?
    Mr. Oliveri. 1934.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know anyone at NYU you might have 
suspected of being a Communist?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever meet anyone who was pro-Russian?
    Mr. Oliveri. I can't say definitely, no.
    Mr. Buckley. How old are you now?
    Mr. Oliveri. I am forty-five.
    Mr. Buckley. And in your forty-five years you have never 
met anyone either at New York University or any other place 
that you might suspect of being pro-Communist, pro-Russian?
    Mr. Oliveri. Offhand, I can't remember.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever read the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Oliveri. I came across it once or twice.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you come across it?
    Mr. Oliveri. I picked it up in a subway station.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever go out and purchase the Daily 
Worker?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did anyone ever give you the Daily Worker to 
read?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did anyone ever attempt to recruit you into 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of any Communist 
fronts?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. What organizations have you belonged to in the 
last twenty-five years?
    Mr. Oliveri. The NFFE.
    Mr. Buckley. What is that?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is a federal employees' union.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that the left-wing group?
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't know whether it is, or the right-wing 
group.
    Mr. Buckley. Will you give me the full name of the 
organization? It is the United Public Workers of America? Is 
that it?
    Mr. Oliveri. No. That is the Federal Employees Union.
    Mr. Buckley. What other organizations?
    Mr. Oliveri. I belong to the IRE at one time when I was 
going to school.
    Mr. Buckley. What is the IRE?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is the IEE--wait a second. It is an 
engineering organization.
    Mr. Buckley. IWE?
    Mr. Oliveri. No. That is the Institute of Electrical 
Engineers.
    Mr. Buckley. IEE is?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes. I couldn't recall it offhand.
    Mr. Buckley. Any other organizations?
    Mr. Oliveri. None.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you a member of any organizations today?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. No fraternal organizations?
    Mr. Oliveri. None whatsoever.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever had any insurance with the 
International Workers Order?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. What political party have you been affiliated 
with since 1935, we will say, or have you been affiliated with 
a number of parties?
    Mr. Oliveri. Just the Democratic party.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you signed Democratic party nominating 
petitions in those, let us say last twenty years?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your middle initial?
    Mr. Oliveri. John.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know any Communists around 1940?
    Mr. Oliveri. I may have come in contact with them, but I 
don't know whether they were Communists or not. It is like 
meeting a lot of people that you come in contact with. Whether 
they were communists or not, I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you mind writing out your signature, Mr. 
Oliveri?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes [complying with request].
    Mr. Buckley. I assume this was the way you wrote your 
signature in 1940, is that right?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is right.
    Mr. Buckley. How do you account for the fact, Mr. Oliveri, 
that your name appears in a Communist party petition in 1940 in 
New York City?
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't remember signing it.
    Mr. Buckley. I am asking you. You don't remember signing 
it?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. This signature is the same signature as 
appears on the petition, incidentally. I can verify that for 
you right now.
    Mr. Oliveri. Okay, but I don't remember signing any such 
petition.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you indiscriminately go around and sign 
anything that was thrown before you?
    Mr. Oliveri. I sometimes sign things which they ask me to 
sign, and I sign them.
    Mr. Buckley. If it were a Communist petition you would have 
signed it then?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. How does your signature appear on this 
Communist party nominating petition?
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't remember signing any such thing. If I 
remembered, I would have admitted it right in the beginning.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you been asked about this before?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. By nobody?
    Mr. Oliveri. By nobody.
    Mr. Buckley. Where were you working in 1940? At Fort 
Monmouth, weren't you?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, I started in August of 1940.
    Mr. Buckley. August 28?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley. And the elections were held in the fall of 
1940 in November. And you signed the petition in September 
1940.
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't remember that petition. What was the 
petition on?
    Mr. Buckley. A petition to place on the ballot members of 
the Communist party. They were running for public office in New 
York State.
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, you got me stumped. I don't recall it. 
As I said before, if I had recalled it, I would have mentioned 
it.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you any brothers or sisters, Mr. Oliveri?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes. I got three sisters.
    Mr. Buckley. No brothers?
    Mr. Oliveri. No brothers.
    Mr. Buckley. Are your three sisters married or employed?
    Mr. Oliveri. Two are married and one is employed as a 
dressmaker.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you let me have your married sisters' 
names, please?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And addresses.
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes. Mrs. Cathryn Adams, 69-11 148th Street, 
Kew Garden Hills, Flushing.
    Mr. Buckley. I would like to ask you a question about this 
particular sister. Has she, to your knowledge, ever been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. What does her husband do for a living?
    Mr. Oliveri. Her husband is working on the premises. He is 
sort of an assistant superintendent of the buildings there.
    Mr. Buckley. At Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, this is in Flushing.
    Mr. Buckley. Where they reside he is the superintendent of 
the buildings?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is right, assistant superintendent.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he a Communist or has he ever been one to 
your knowledge?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. You have never heard him discussed as a 
possible Communist, have you?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he expressed any views to you of a 
Communist nature?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your second sister's name?
    Mr. Oliveri. Mrs. Margaret Pampella.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you spell that for the reporter, please.
    Mr. Oliveri. P-a-m-p-e-l-l-a.
    Mr. Buckley. And where does she reside?
    Mr. Oliveri. She lives at--I think I have her address--8637 
123rd Street, Richmond Hills, Long Island.
    Mr. Buckley. What does her husband do for a living?
    Mr. Oliveri. He works for the transportation department.
    Mr. Buckley. In New York City?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Is this sister or is her husband to your 
knowledge now or have they ever been members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your third sister's, name and where 
does she reside?
    Mr. Oliveri. Genny Oliveri, at 143-19 Ash Avenue, Flushing.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is she employed?
    Mr. Oliveri. She works as a dressmaker.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she a Communist to your knowledge?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. Was your father ever a Communist?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. Your mother?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Any of your relatives or friends?
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't know. No, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. I am just wondering why. The reason why I 
asked this question is for this particular reason. If somebody 
came up to you and asked you to sign a Communist party 
nominating petition in 1945, that person, I assume, knew you. I 
assume also the person might think that you would be willing to 
sign that petition, because I think you will agree most 
Americans would be highly insulted----
    Mr. Oliveri. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley [continuing]. If a Communist came up and said 
``Will you sign a Communist party nominating petition?'' If I 
were you, Mr. Oliveri, I would search my mind most thoroughly 
on that subject and try to think back to 1940.
    Mr. Oliveri. I am trying to, and I can't remember it. I am 
willing to admit anything----
    Mr. Buckley. No, only admit what you know to be true.
    Mr. Oliveri. That is, what is true. But to my knowledge I 
can't recall that petition. If I ever did sign one--as a matter 
of fact, it is so that I can't remember. I don't remember.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever read the New Masses?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen a copy of it?
    Mr. Oliveri. I have heard of it, but I never read it.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever see a copy of it?
    Mr. Oliveri. I have probably seen a copy of it, but I never 
paid much attention to it because I didn't know the 
publication.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever have it in your hands?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Buckley. Political Affairs?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a reader of the Daily Compass in New 
York?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. The New York Post?
    Mr. Oliveri. The New York Post I read.
    Mr. Buckley. Every day?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not every day, no. Whenever I get my hands, in 
the doctor's or some place.
    Mr. Buckley. PM?
    Mr. Oliveri. PM, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Oliveri. Which one? There are two Louis Kaplans.
    Mr. Buckley. Not Louis----
    Mr. Oliveri. The one at Evans Laboratory is the one I know.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he presently there?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know the Louis Kaplan that appeared 
before this committee yesterday in open session?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know anyone who has appeared before 
this committee in open session?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You know no one?
    Mr. Oliveri. Who?
    Mr. Buckley. You know no one, is that right?
    Mr. Oliveri. No one, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you been following this pretty closely in 
the newspapers?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, I have read it. Some of the names were 
familiar, let me put it that way.
    Mr. Buckley. What names?
    Mr. Oliveri. For example, Joel Barr.
    Mr. Buckley. Joel Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Why was that name familiar? And who else's 
name, before we go into that, was familiar?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, I am trying to think.
    Mr. Buckley. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Rosenberg out there, Julius 
Rosenberg?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Alfred Sarent?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir. Joel Barr I knew casually, by sight.
    Mr. Buckley. What was your connection with Joel Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. None whatsoever.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you knew him casually.
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, he used to come into our room where we 
was working. I was working as a draftsman then, and the name 
struck me because of the first name, the way it was spelled J-
o-e-l, Joel.
    Mr. Buckley. Precisely what was your connection with Joel 
Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. I had no connection whatsoever.
    Mr. Buckley. I mean, if it were a very slight connection, 
say slight.
    Mr. Oliveri. All I know about him was that he worked across 
the hall from me and he used to come in and talk to the boys 
once in a while.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he talk to you?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. What boys did he talk to?
    Mr. Oliveri. The boys in the drafting room.
    Mr. Buckley. Try and speak of the individuals he talked to, 
because Joel Barr is a notorious Soviet spy and an enemy of 
this country. I would be interested in knowing who he was 
familiar with or friendly with.
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't recall. I am not trying to avoid the 
questions, I am trying to give you what I remember.
    Mr. Buckley. I am going to suggest this, that you also 
search your mind in that, because we are going to have you back 
here. I want to know precisely and this committee wants to know 
precisely the individuals with whom Joel Barr was friendly, if 
you know any of them or can recall any of them.
    Again, perhaps you can perform a great service to your 
country by trying to recall that detail. We will take a few 
minutes while you try to think back and recall the people with 
whom he was in contact with in your particular department.
    Can you recall any names?
    Mr. Oliveri. I could give you some of the names of the 
people that worked in my department at the time.
    Mr. Buckley. Could you say with accuracy that he talked 
with them, with any of these people?
    Mr. Oliveri. No. All I could say is that they were the 
people that were working in the department, and I saw him once 
or twice, that is about all. I had never had anything to say to 
him.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Joel Barr ever say to you ``Hello''?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever speak----
    Mr. Oliveri. Because, look, at that time that was back----
    Mr. Buckley. Just a moment. How did you happen to know he 
was Joel Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. Just by the name. I heard the name mentioned.
    Mr. Buckley. Did someone say to you that is Joel Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr Buckley. Who said that?
    Mr. Oliveri. I can't remember who said that but they told 
me it was Joel Barr.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you ever introduced to Joel Barr?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I recall.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever strike up a conversation or he 
strike up a conversation with you?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I recall.
    Mr. Buckley. Who were the people in your particular office 
the time Joel Barr used to stop in?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, there was a Joe Hobko.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you spell that name?
    Mr. Oliveri. I don't know whether I can spell all these 
names.
    Mr. Buckley. Do as best you can.
    Mr. Oliveri. H-o-b-k-o. A Mr. Ranke, Clarence Ranke.
    Mr. Buckley. R-a-n-k?
    Mr. Oliveri. R-a-n-k-e, I believe it is. And Oliverson.
    Mr. Buckley. O-l-i-v-e-r-s-o-n?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is right.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you make a list of people that you can 
recall and particularly of any with whom Joel Barr may have 
entered into conversation and send that to me registered mail 
in room 160, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.? I will 
write it out for you.
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes, I will do that.
    Mr. Buckley. Will you do that?
    Mr. Oliveri. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Even if you come up with a negative answer, 
would you please send me the negative answer. You don't have to 
bother to send it registered. Just send it regular mail, let us 
say, by next Wednesday. That is enough time, isn't it? This is 
Friday.
    Mr. Oliveri. I will try to recall as many as I can.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Harold Ducore
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Haym Yamins?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Joseph Levinsky?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Sidney Glasssman?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I recall, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Is there any possibility you may have known 
Sidney Glassman?
    Mr. Oliveri. I may have come in contact with him, but I 
don't recall the name.
    Mr. Buckley. Does that mean actually nothing to you?
    Mr. Oliveri. Right now it means not a blessed things.
    Mr. Buckley. You seem to have quite a little doubt about 
it. Is there any doubt in your mind?
    Mr. Oliveri. There are a lot of Glassmans.
    Mr. Buckley. Sidney Glassman.
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I recall, no,
    Mr. Buckley. Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Oliveri. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Sidney Stohberg?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been questioned by security 
officers at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Oliveri. I have been investigated, but not questioned.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been suspended?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you ever called in by security officers 
at Fort Monmouth and asked any questions?
    Mr. Oliveri. They have come to me and asked to find out 
some questions about other people.
    Mr. Buckley. I mean concerning any of your possible 
activities in the past.
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No questions were ever asked, is that right?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of the Shore Club, S-h-o-r-
e?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir; only through the papers.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever contributed any money to any 
organizations, either of a Communist or pro-Communist nature?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How many children do you have, Mr. Oliveri?
    Mr. Oliveri. I am single.
    Mr. Buckley. With whom do you live?
    Mr. Oliveri. I live in Long Branch, that is where I reside 
and I have a home here in New York.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you share your home in Long Branch or in 
New York with anyone?
    Mr. Oliveri. My mother and sister live in the home in New 
York, that is all. And I live in a room in Long Branch.
    Mr. Buckley. Is it a rooming house?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not exactly. These people just take a boarder 
in once in a while.
    Mr. Buckley. Who are the people?
    Mr. Oliveri. Mr. and Mrs. Hanschuk, or something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Does anyone else at Fort Monmouth reside 
there?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. And you, in other words, board at their 
residence, is that right?
    Mr. Oliveri. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley. Have these people ever given any indication 
that they might be Communists?
    Mr. Oliveri. Not that I know.
    Mr. Buckley. What type of reading material do you see 
around the house?
    Mr. Oliveri. Once in a while they leave some flower 
magazines upstairs or a Reader's Digest or something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever seen any reading matter in any 
other part of the house?
    Mr. Oliveri. Newspapers. That is about all.
    Mr. Buckley. What newspapers?
    Mr. Oliveri. Well, the local newspaper. That is the Asbury 
Press, or the New York Journal or probably a Tribune, or 
something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Do these people ever ask you about the nature 
of your work at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever take any classified documents home 
with you?
    Mr. Oliveri. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever?
    Mr. Oliveri. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. All right.
    Mr. Oliveri, will you send me that information I asked for? 
You may send it by regular mail to that address. That is 160, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
    Mr. Oliveri. Daniel G. Buckley?
    Mr. Buckley. Correct. At 160 Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Oliveri.
    Mr. Oliveri. Do you think I will have to appear again?
    Mr. Buckley. We will see. We will let you know if it is 
necessary.
    May we have your full name for the record?

               STATEMENT OF PHILIP JOSEPH SHAPIRO

    Mr. Shapiro. Philip Joseph Shapiro.
    Mr. Buckley. And your address?
    Mr. Shapiro. 913 Fifth Avenue, Asbury Park.
    Mr. Buckley. Your telephone?
    Mr. Shapiro. Asbury Park 1-1909.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to remind you, Mr. Shapiro, that you 
are still under oath, the oath that was administered the other 
night. It is still binding and in full force and effect. Are 
you married, Mr. Shapiro?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you live at the New Jersey address with 
your wife and family?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you separated?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Not divorced but separated?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have any children?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What are their ages?
    Mr. Shapiro. One is eleven and one is five, going on six.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you employed, Mr. Shapiro?
    Mr. Shapiro. At Evans Signal Laboratory, Belmar, New 
Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. What position do you hold there?
    Mr. Shapiro. I am a chemist.
    Mr. Buckley. What clearance do you have?
    Mr. Shapiro. I have secret military clearance, and AEC-Q 
clearance.
    Mr. Buckley. Exactly what does Q clearance mean?
    Mr. Shapiro. It allows you to have access to restricted 
data from the Atomic Energy Commission.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you graduated from Brooklyn College, Mr. 
Shapiro?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know a David Sacher at Brooklyn 
College?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Louis Leo Kaplan at Brooklyn 
College?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been questioned by security 
officers at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been suspended?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the American Veterans 
Committee?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Whereabouts? In what location?
    Mr. Shapiro. In New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. What town?
    Mr. Shapiro. I lived in Long Branch at the time.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that the chapter of the American Veterans 
Committee which obtained a reputation of being exceedingly 
left-wing?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think so.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear anybody say that that 
chapter was left-wing?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Buckley. You never read that the newspapers, or heard 
anyone say that it was?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Who are some of the other members of that 
organization? Is that particular chapter or branch disbanded 
now?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Buckley. Who are some of the other people in that 
organization, who were they? People, let us say, who worked at 
Fort Monmouth and who were in that chapter.
    Mr. Shapiro. I think I know two people who are under that 
category. There was a Mr. Max Katz and Mr. Berry Bernstein, I 
think.
    Mr. Buckley. How active were you in that AVC chapter?
    Mr. Shapiro. I wasn't active at all. I went down to some of 
the meetings.
    Mr. Buckley. And politics were discussed and policies were 
discussed at those meetings, correct?
    Mr. Shapiro. At times, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What was the nature of these discussions?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, there in general the discussions related 
to the role of the veteran in the post-war period. There was 
also quite a lot of to-do about the future of the AVC itself. 
There seemed to have been two factions there, trying to get the 
control, and there was quite a squabble about that at that 
time.
    Mr. Buckley. What else?
    Mr. Shapiro. I think the usual type of thing you can expect 
at veterans' organizations to speak about.
    Mr. Buckley. Some people might say they were discussing 
social progress rather than politics. What did they discuss 
that would fall under the so-called line of social progress?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think they were interested in a 
veteran becoming adjusted to his post-war, post-military life.
    Mr. Buckley. What about campaigns and discussions at this 
particular chapter of the AVC which had absolutely no relation 
to the advancement or the progress of the veteran but rather to 
stirring up all kinds of suspicions and hatreds and ill-will in 
this country, matters far outside the scope, we will say of 
legitimate veterans' activities?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't recall discussions of that type.
    Mr. Buckley. You do not?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Why was this particular branch or chapter 
disbanded?
    Mr. Shapiro. I really don't know. I think it is because 
there gradually became a lack of interest in the society.
    Mr. Buckley. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Shapiro, that the parent 
organization was very much disgusted with the local chapter 
because of its Communistic and extreme left-wing views on 
practically every issue which came before them?
    Mr. Shapiro. I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Buckley. You know nothing about that?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. You never heard any discussion relating to 
that, never?
    Mr. Shapiro. No. As a matter of fact, I left the 
organization. I don't know exactly how it fits in with the loss 
of the chapter, but I really don't know anything about what 
went on between the parent organization and the chapter because 
I wasn't too active in it.
    Mr. Buckley. About how many meetings would you say that you 
attended?
    Mr. Shapiro. Perhaps a half dozen.
    Mr. Buckley. I just forget the name of the individual but 
it was some officer of that local chapter who was not a 
veteran, but who was generally considered a Communist. Do you 
remember his name?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I didn't know there was such an individual
    Mr. Buckley. Before you spoke about two factions inside the 
organization. What constituted the two factions?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, as I understood it, there was I suppose 
a Communistic faction who was interested in gaining control of 
the organization.
    Mr. Buckley. And a faction which was anti-Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Which faction did you line up with?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I certainly lined up with the anti-
Communistic group.
    Mr. Buckley. Actively and openly?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I wasn't active either way.
    Mr. Buckley. There are people who have come before this 
committee and who have stated you aligned yourself with the 
Communist faction be guilty of committing perjury?
    Mr. Shapiro. I would certainly say so.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say that some of your fellow members 
of that organization would come before this committee and state 
that you were in the corner of the Communist faction?
    Mr. Shapiro. I can think of no reason. I remember when I 
attended the meetings I made no verbal statements of any type. 
I was there, I listened and I didn't say anything because I 
didn't feel too strongly about it one way or the other.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Shapiro, are you now or have you ever been 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir. I have never been and I am not now.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever signed any Communist party 
nominating petitions?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known any Communists?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You have never known any Communists?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You have never known any individual who was 
formerly a Communist who today is no longer a Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't know if this is so or not.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, would you state categorically that you 
have never known a Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. I have never known anyone whom I knew was a 
member of the party, no, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known anyone who told you he was 
a Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You never have?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, it is a matter of what you mean by 
knowing.
    Mr. Buckley. Suppose I came to you and said five years ago 
or ten years ago I was a Communist. Has anyone ever said that?
    Mr. Shapiro. I have heard people state at a meeting in the 
American Veterans Committee that they were a Communist. But I 
didn't know this person personally.
    Mr. Buckley. Who was that person or who were those people?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't recall the names.
    Mr. Buckley. That is a most important thing. One thing that 
impresses me very much is the fact that people when they come 
before this committee and who really could be helpful, such as 
giving a name, can never, never recall the names. Did you tell 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation that you knew of these 
individuals who said they were Communists?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Why not?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, nobody has ever asked me before and I 
didn't think it was too important.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think that it is the duty of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation to send a questionnaire to 160 
million Americans and ask them if anybody has ever told you 
that they were a Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. Did something----
    Mr. Buckley. I say, do you think that it would be 
appropriate for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct 
a personal survey among the 160 million Americans to find out 
what one of these 160 million Americans have been told by 
somebody else that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, of course it is impractical.
    Mr. Buckley. Don't you think you had some kind of a duty as 
an American citizen to report this individual to the proper 
security agencies, particularly engaged in the type of work you 
are engaged in, and particularly considering that the 
Communists in the Fort Monmouth area represent a very distinct 
threat to the security of the Western World?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I didn't think it was my duty to report 
it, no, I am sorry.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you think it was your duty to report the 
fact that two or three men were plotting to kill another 
individual and were about ready to put that plot into actual 
effect?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Buckley. You would?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Why would you distinguish between two or three 
men plotting to kill one man or a half dozen men plotting to 
destroy an entire civilization? Of course you know Communists, 
I assume, are bent upon the destruction of the Western World as 
we know it.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I accept that premise.
    Mr. Buckley. Okay. Now, accepting that--and I assume you 
have accepted it for a long time--I am going to give you the 
benefit of the doubt on that particular little point. Why was 
it that you did not report the activity of these individuals 
who boldly, apparently, announced that they were Communists, to 
the proper security agencies in this country?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I suppose there is a certain inertia 
about doing something like that, and also since they had not 
actually outlawed the Communist party, they haven't violated 
any United States laws. So I didn't know it was my duty to 
report that.
    Mr. Buckley. If they have not violated any United States 
laws, how do you account for the fact that practically the 
entire leadership of the Communist party has been imprisoned 
after due conviction by American courts and juries?
    Mr. Shapiro. In that case they were convicted of something 
which--let's say they were convicted of a crime and therefore 
they were sent to jail.
    Mr. Buckley. How do you think Communists would ever be 
prosecuted if people who know of Communists do not reveal their 
identities to the proper authorities?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I suppose you can argue that point, and 
certainly you have a point there. But there is always an 
inertia about doing anything like that. I, for one, just did 
not. I mean, I don't know if I can explain it in any greater 
detail than that.
    Mr. Buckley. About how many people admitted they were 
Communists?
    Mr. Shapiro. I remember one particular person.
    Mr. Buckley. Who was that person?
    Mr. Shapiro. I am sorry I don't know his name. I don't even 
think I knew his name at the time.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he hold any high position in the AVC in 
your town?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think so.
    Mr. Buckley. Under what circumstances did he happen to 
admit that he was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, at this particular meeting the 
discussion came up as to what side the local chapter should 
take in this interorganization controversy, and this particular 
person was defending the Communist viewpoint. I wouldn't say 
Communist viewpoint. I would say defending the faction that was 
interested in gaining control. In defending it, he stated that 
he was a Communist.
    Mr. Buckley. I may not be absolutely accurate in this, but 
I believe when you first came in I asked you whether or not you 
knew that this chapter had gained the reputation of being left-
wing and so on, or was generally known to have left-wing 
tendencies and you said no. Do you remember?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, which faction won out in the AVC?
    Mr. Shapiro. I believe it is the non-Communist faction.
    Mr. Buckley. Then why was the AVC, do you know, disbanded 
by its parent organization?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't know whether it was or not. I didn't 
know that. If it was, I didn't know it.
    Mr. Buckley. How many other Communists have you known in 
your life?
    Mr. Shapiro. I haven't known any, personally.
    Mr. Buckley. Any person other than this man who said to you 
``I am a Communist''?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he say that to you directly?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, he spoke out at the meeting at which I 
attended.
    Mr. Buckley. In a very brazen fashion he got up and said 
``I am a Communist''?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Mr. Max Katz or Bernie Bernstein, to your 
knowledge, object to the fact that there were Communists in the 
AVC?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think that they did as I did, side 
with the non-Communist faction. But I don't think they objected 
at that time to this person.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, would you say that you, Mr. 
Katz and Mr. Bernstein were willing to tolerate these 
suspicious characters?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, certainly we tolerated them, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Tolerated them?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. About what year was that, would you say?
    Mr. Shapiro. 1947 or '48, approximately.
    Mr. Buckley. And at that time it was very evident, we all 
will assume, that the Soviet Union was out to dominate the 
world?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And knowing that, and knowing that this man 
said ``I am a Communist,'' you felt no duty to report that to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well the fact that I didn't indicates that 
that is the way I felt, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. We have testimony, Mr. Shapiro, and I am going 
to tell you the nature of this testimony that we have so that 
you will know what we have about you, that you have expressed 
views which have been declared to be exceedingly sympathetic to 
the Communist cause. Is that true or is it false?
    Mr. Shapiro. That is false.
    Mr. Buckley. It is false?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever held any view which would 
indicate sympathy towards communism?
    Mr. Shapiro. I want to say that I realize full well that 
communism is a menace in the United States.
    Mr. Buckley. You realize that now?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I have always felt that way. However, I 
might have expressed a sympathy with allowing them to talk, 
because I feel that while they are a menace, we should allow 
them to make themselves known, we should know what they are 
talking about, and we should treat them in accordance with our 
laws. I probably have said that. I don't think there is 
anything wrong with that.
    Mr. Buckley. You have expressed views, I understand, on 
America's relationship with Soviet Russia, and in the 
expression of those views has it been said that on many, many 
occasions your sympathies were not with the United States?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, this is certainly untrue.
    Mr. Buckley. That is untrue? In other words, you would say 
that if two other individuals have stated that under oath, that 
they have committed perjury?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, sir; I would state that definitely,
    Mr. Buckley. What clubs were you a member of at Brooklyn 
College, Mr. Shapiro?
    Mr. Shapiro. I was a member of the Society of Biology and 
Medicine and the Chemistry Club. That is all.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you ever a member of the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever attend any of the meetings?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know any Communists at Brooklyn 
College?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know anyone at Fort Monmouth today whom 
you suspect to be disloyal?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say that all your friends and 
associates at Fort Monmouth are good, loyal Americans?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. I asked you about membership in the Communist 
party, didn't I? Did I ask you if you are now or have ever been 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, you asked me and I said no.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever express any opinion on America's 
position on Korea?
    Mr. Shapiro. I suppose so.
    Mr. Buckley. Can you remember exactly what some of your 
earlier statements were on America's position in Korea?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I can't recall any specific statement. 
If you want to know my feelings on America's position in Korea, 
I can tell you.
    Mr. Buckley. Put it this way: What was your general 
attitude, without recalling specifically an exact quotation, on 
America's position in Korea at the early stages of that war?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I felt that America was in a peculiar 
position in that they had gone into Korea to prevent the over 
running of the country, and then were in a position where they 
couldn't win and they couldn't pull out. I suppose I have 
expressed that position, that they were in a difficult 
position.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever expressed, and I want to have 
you think very clearly on this, Mr. Shapiro, have you ever 
expressed any view which could honestly be construed as holding 
you to the pro-Soviet view on Korea?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I am sure that was not true. I would like 
to say this, that everybody, no matter what they feel, very 
often are critical of government policy or of a government--of 
the way things are happening. This critical attitude is true of 
every one of us, I am quite sure. I think there is nobody in 
the United States that hasn't at one time or other expressed a 
critical attitude toward the government. I don't think there is 
anything wrong with that. I think that is part of the play of 
democratic processes, and I probably have done so.
    Mr. Buckley. I agree with you, I believe legitimate 
criticism is proper. I think, however, that criticism of 
America's policy in Korea at a time American boys are bleeding 
and dying is very improper. Just as I would think during World 
War II anyone, no matter how right he thought he might have 
been, and expressed the thought that America should not be in 
that war, was conducting himself improperly. There has been 
testimony that your views of Korea could honestly be construed 
as pro-Soviet views. I just want to remind you, Mr. Shapiro, 
again, and I don't like to have to do this, that you are under 
oath, and it is going to be to your advantage to be as 
forthright as possible in that particular issue. Now, I would 
like to know exactly how far this criticism went.
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, let me say this: that I have never been 
associated with Communistic activities, I don't agree with 
them, I dislike them, and I am perfectly in accord with the 
general policy of the United States. I realize the menace that 
Russia is, and I don't want to be associated in any way with 
any group or with any policy that smacks of the slightest bit 
of anti-Americanism. This I want to make very clear.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, would you get back to answering the 
question, though. Exactly what was the nature of your criticism 
of American efforts in Korea? I will put it this way: Did you 
criticize America's efforts in Korea as unnecessary and make 
statements which, for example, would indicate that you felt 
that it was a war for profits and things of that type?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir, I don't think America's venture into 
Korea was improper, I don't think it was done for any 
profiteering purposes. I think that it had to be done. It is 
just unfortunate that they were unable to do the job right and 
really go above the 38th Parallel when they had the 
opportunity.
    Mr. Buckley. Are those the views, Mr. Shapiro, are those 
the views which you have always expressed on Korea?
    Mr. Shapiro. This is what I think, and I have not changed 
it. If I criticized some portions of it, it certainly was not 
my general tenets.
    Mr. Buckley. These are the things you think now, but what I 
want to know is, are these the things which you have always 
thought and the views you have always expressed?
    Mr. Shapiro. Inherently, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. I will tell you now, Mr. Shapiro, somebody has 
committed perjury before this committee on that particular 
point.
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I am perfectly willing to--I want to say 
another thing.
    Mr. Buckley. I will put it this way: What is the severest 
thing you said about American policy in Korea?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't remember any exact statements I have 
made. As a matter of fact, I speak about politics very seldom. 
It is not something that I go out and talk about. If I have 
said something at some time or other, I don't remember it and I 
don't recall any exact instance of it.
    Mr. Buckley. Is it possible that you did say some things 
that were very uncomplimentary about American policy in Korea 
that could be construed by some people as being pro-Soviet?
    Mr. Shapiro. To my way of thinking, no. I may have made a 
critical statement of something or other which somebody might 
have construed, but I can't think it is possible because it is 
antagonistic to my general ideas of the thing.
    Mr. Buckley. Whom did you support for president in 1948?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think I voted in the last--this is in 
1948?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes. We had Wallace, Truman and Dewey.
    Mr. Shapiro. I would say this, that while I was quite 
interested in Wallace, I did not vote for him. I am not sure 
whether I voted or not, but my sympathies lay with Truman in 
the long run.
    Mr. Buckley. How were you identified then with the Wallace 
movement in New Jersey, in what capacity?
    Mr. Shapiro. I am not identified with it in any capacity.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you known to be with an organization 
known as the Independent Citizens for Wallace, or Wallace for 
America?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you attend any Wallace meetings?
    Mr. Shapiro. I attended one meeting, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How much did you contribute to the Wallace 
campaign?
    Mr. Shapiro. Nothing.
    Mr. Buckley. Not a penny?
    Mr. Shapiro. Not a penny.
    Mr. Buckley. Either directly or indirectly?
    Mr. Shapiro. Either directly or indirectly. Nothing.
    Mr. Buckley. How often have you read the Daily Worker, Mr. 
Shapiro?
    Mr. Shapiro. I never read it.
    Mr. Buckley. I say how often in your life have you read it.
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think I have ever read it.
    Mr. Buckley. Political Affairs? Have you ever read that?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. New Masses?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever belonged to any organizations 
which have been cited as subversive by the attorney general or 
any other governmental agency?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know any people today who could be 
honestly held to be pro-Soviet?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. Could you at any time in your lift have been 
held as extremely sympathetic or sympathetic, we will put it 
that way, sympathetic to communism?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. And you have never written or made any 
statements which would indicate that particular type of view?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Any statements in particular?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever written anything for 
publication?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you say that you have been known 
generally as a vigorous anti-Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. As anti-Communist?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think I have been known as anything 
politically, frankly.
    Mr. Buckley. What issues which came up before the America 
Veterans Committee on your hometown did you take a particular 
stand on?
    Mr. Shapiro. I took no active participation in the American 
Veterans Committee at all. I attended a few meetings.
    Mr. Buckley. Was it a few meetings?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I attended the--Well, I don't know the 
exact number. I attended some meetings. I don't recall ever 
having gotten up and spoken or expressed my views at any of 
those meetings.
    Mr. Buckley. If a vote were taken on some issues, and I 
understand votes were taken, is it your testimony here today 
that you were on the non-Communist side--I won't say anti-
Communist, I will say sort of a neutral non-Communist side--or 
were you on the Communist side?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I was never on the Communist side.
    Mr. Buckley. On any issue?
    Mr. Shapiro. On any issue.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harvey Hyman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Joel Barr?
    Mr. Shapiro. The name is familiar, but I don't know him. I 
remember hearing the name.
    Mr. Buckley. He worked at Fort Monmouth at one time and is 
now inside Soviet Russia.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Joseph Letivsky?
    Mr. Shapiro. I have heard the name. I don't know him.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't know him. Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Vivian Glassman Pataki?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Eleanor Glassman Butner?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Sidney Stoglberg?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Sidney Glassman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Louis Sarant?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Bennett Davis?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Those names mean nothing to you, right?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No. Well, I have heard him mentioned, but I 
don't know him.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of Herbert S. Bennett?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Herbert Benowitz? Did you ever hear of him?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Seymour Butensky?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. James Scott?
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. James P. Scott?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Fred Daniels?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I know two or three Daniels. I don't 
remember their first names.
    Mr. Buckley. A Daniels out at Fort Monmouth, a Fred Daniels 
out at Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Shapiro. There is a soldier who worked with our group.
    Mr. Buckley. This man has a very important job out there. 
Hans Inslerman?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Max Feinstein?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. I asked you about Harvey Hyman, didn't I?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. William Johnstone Jones?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. His middle name is J-o-h-n-s-t-o-n-e.
    Mr. Shapiro. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Jack Okun?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Julius Rosenberg?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I have heard the name, but I don't know 
him.
    Mr. Buckley. You didn't know Ethel Rosenberg either?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of anyone today, Mr. Shapiro whom 
you have any reason to suspect is disloyal to the United 
States?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. And have you ever known anyone in your life 
who might be placed in that category?
    Mr. Shapiro. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Shapiro. I 
am sorry you were inconvenienced the other night. We will try 
to see that nothing like that happens again. Would you please 
tell Mr. Segner to come in. Thank you for coming.

               STATEMENT OF SAMUEL MARTIN SEGNER

    Mr. Buckley. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Segner. Samuel Martin Segner.
    Mr. Buckley. Will you spell it, please.
    Mr. Segner. S-e-g-n-e-r.
    Mr. Buckley. Your address, please.
    Mr. Segner. 409 West End Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to remind you, Mr. Segner, that the 
oath which you took the other night is still in full force and 
effect.
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your telephone number at Long Branch?
    Mr. Segner. Long Branch 6-336944.
    Mr. Buckley. With whom do you live in Long Branch?
    Mr. Segner. My wife.
    Mr. Buckley. Does anybody else live in the house? Is it a 
house or apartment?
    Mr. Segner. It is a house. It has an apartment upstairs.
    Mr. Buckley. Who lives upstairs?
    Mr. Segner. Mr. and Mrs. Boblyers. I am not sure how to 
spell his last name.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is he employed? Do you know?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Segner. Well, Cole's Signal Laboratory, which is part 
of Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Buckley. What position do you hold there?
    Mr. Segner. Electronic engineer, GS-11.
    Mr. Buckley. What clearance do you have?
    Mr. Segner. I have secret.
    Mr. Buckley. Secret?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How old are you now?
    Mr. Segner. Twenty-seven.
    Mr. Buckley. What years did you attend City College?
    Mr. Segner. I started City College in 1944.
    Mr. Buckley. Was it '44 you started?
    Mr. Segner. I think so. I think it was September 1944 up to 
June 1946--wait a minute.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you start in 1942 and go to '44?
    Mr. Segner. Yes, '42 to '44 and then from '46 to '48 again. 
That is right. I am sorry.
    Mr. Buckley. While you were at City College, did you know 
Gabriel Greenhouse?
    Mr. Segner. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know him now?
    Mr. Segner. No. I never heard the name, to tell you the 
truth.
    Mr. Buckley. All right. Abraham Wilson? Did you know him?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Philip Shapiro?
    Mr. Segner. No. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Allen Lowenstein?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Stanley Revsin?
    Mr. Segner. Revsin?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Segner. Let me see. He once worked at Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Segner. Yes, I knew him.
    Mr. Buckley. Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know Revsin?
    Mr. Segner. I really don't know him in college, but when he 
came down here I met him again. You see, my wife was commuting 
at the time and his wife commuted so I used to see him in the 
mornings when they would be taking the train. And then I met 
him once more recently at Federal for some meeting on 
microwave. You know, that new technique.
    Mr. Buckley. You met him at Federal at Nutley, New Jersey?
    Mr. Segner. That is right. I went up there to attend a 
meeting on microstrip. That is the name of the meeting.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he employed there?
    Mr. Segner. No, he is employed by the Signal Corps, I 
believe. He works out of New York. I think that his mother got 
sick or something and he moved back to New York.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he ever expressed any political views in 
your presence?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you start at Fort Monmouth August 31, 1948
    Mr. Segner. That sounds like the date.
    Mr. Buckley. About that time?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. It was either that or the first of 
September.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your father's name?
    Mr. Segner. It is either Jack or Jacob. He calls himself 
both. And Segner.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your mother's name?
    Mr. Segner. Clara.
    Mr. Buckley. Segner?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do they reside?
    Mr. Segner. 3024 Avenue W, Brooklyn, New York.
    Mr. Buckley. How long have they resided there?
    Mr. Segner. Well, in that particular apartment I don't 
think they have resided more than a couple of years. Before 
that they lived on Avenue X--you see, it is a government 
project, so they moved from a large apartment when my kid 
brother got married to a smaller one.
    Mr. Buckley. Avenue X.
    Mr. Segner. Yes. I don't remember the number right now.
    Mr. Buckley. In Brooklyn?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. And before that at 123 Ten Eyck Walk in 
Brooklyn.
    Mr. Buckley. Brooklyn.
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Now long did they live at that address?
    Mr. Segner. We lived there for a very long time. We moved 
there when I started junior high school.
    Mr. Buckley. That was about, what would you say, fifteen 
years ago at least?
    Mr. Segner. Yes, something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Twelve or fifteen.
    Mr. Segner. Yes. I was thirteen at the time, and I am 
twenty-seven now, so it is about fourteen. It is about that 
time. And then about 1950, I mean I can't place it exactly, 
maybe a year plus or minus, they moved to Avenue X and then to 
the other place.
    Mr. Buckley. While you were at City College did you attend 
meetings of the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Of any Communist or pro-Communist groups or 
organizations?
    Mr. Segner. No, never.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever attended any anyplace?
    Mr. Segner. No, never, not of anything like that.
    Mr. Buckley. What type of meetings have you attended that 
might be political in nature?
    Mr. Segner. I attended the AIEE, which is an engineering 
organization.
    Mr. Buckley. No, I say political in nature.
    Mr. Segner. I was a member of AVC, the last six months in 
school.
    Mr. Buckley. At City College?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. And I attended two meetings there, but 
then I gave up.
    Mr. Buckley. What other groups that were political in 
nature?
    Mr. Segner. No. I mean, if you consider AVC political, then 
that is the only one that I can think of.
    Mr. Buckley. Whom did you support for president in 1948?
    Mr. Segner. Truman.
    Mr. Buckley. You did not support Henry Wallace?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever wear any Wallace In '48 buttons 
on your coats or anything?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. What political parties have you registered in?
    Mr. Segner. Let me see. I don't think I ever registered in 
the Democratic party in New York. I think I registered in the 
Liberal party because at the time, you know, there was this 
Tammany Hall business going on and supposedly if you were a 
liberal Democrat you should register as a protest vote against 
Tammany Hall.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever register in the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Segner. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Buckley. Can you be positive?
    Mr. Segner. Let me ask you this: When did LaGuardia run? 
No, I was too young. No, I was too young. No, I am positive I 
never registered in the American Labor party.
    Mr. Buckley. You are positive?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. Because the only time I would have 
registered is if I was eligible to vote for LaGuardia.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. What does your father do for a living?
    Mr. Segner. He is an operator in a dress factory. Do you 
know what that is? In other words, he runs a machine, that is 
all.
    Mr. Buckley. Does your mother work?
    Mr. Segner. No. She hasn't worked since we were kids.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever hear your mother and father 
discussing politics?
    Mr. Segner. They are not that way. I mean, most of the time 
they discuss troubles or furniture or something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. How often do you see the Daily Worker in your 
home?
    Mr. Segner. I never saw it in my home.
    Mr. Buckley. You never saw it in your home?
    Mr. Segner. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know your mother and father were 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Segner. No, and I don't believe it, either.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been asked about that?
    Mr. Segner. No, I have never been asked about that.
    Mr. Buckley. Never?
    Mr. Segner. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. Did your mother and father ever tell you that 
in 1939 and 1941 and 1945 they signed Communist party 
nominating petitions? Would you believe that?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't believe it.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know their signatures?
    Mr. Segner. I guess I do.
    Mr. Buckley. If you saw their signatures on a petition, a 
Communist party nominating petition, would you have any 
question about it?
    Mr. Segner. I would doubt it.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, when you saw their signatures 
you would still doubt that they were their signatures?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you think somebody forged their 
signatures?
    Mr. Segner. Well, it would either be forged or gotten by 
trickery, but I wouldn't believe that my father ever registered 
anything but Democratic and my mother the same way.
    Mr. Buckley. What about signing Communist party nominating 
petitions. You know what a nominating petition is, of course?
    Mr. Segner. Well, does that mean you nominate someone to--
--
    Mr. Buckley. You merely put your name on a piece of paper 
and in substance state ``I will support the candidates of this 
party in a general election,'' and it is a legal means by which 
a political party gets the names of its candidates on the 
ballot.
    Mr. Segner. I don't believe that they would ever do such a 
thing.
    Mr. Buckley. Why are you so emphatic about that?
    Mr. Segner. Well, it is just one of these things. I mean, 
my father and mother, they just don't feel that way. They don't 
think maybe Communists are as horrible as the Nazis say, but I 
don't think they would ever think that way.
    Mr. Buckley. Have they ever expressed any view to you, any 
view which might be construed as pro-Soviet?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Pro-Communist or Communist?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Why do they think that the Communists are less 
horrid and less brutal than the Nazis are?
    Mr. Segner. Well, to start with, we are Jewish. That is the 
first answer, and whatever relatives they did have in Poland 
were wiped out, as far as we know.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think they would still consider the 
Communists to be a brutal, totalitarian sort of people? Do you 
consider the Communists to be brutal and horrible?
    Mr. Segner. Yes, I think I do. I think they are just as bad 
as the Nazis, now, in the light of recent events. You can see 
that.
    Mr. Buckley. How recently did you come to the conclusion 
that they might be just as bad as the Nazis?
    Mr. Segner. Well, along about when I got out of the navy.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that, 1946?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. And I joined the reserve because I was 
pretty sure at the time there was going to be another war 
coming up. It began to look pretty hopeless then. And then 
various times you think that maybe things are getting better.
    Mr. Buckley. Was there ever a time in your life when you 
thought that the Communists were nice, gentle people?
    Mr. Segner. I don't know. Maybe as a kid or something. You 
know, you hear stories once in a while. But I think in general 
you know.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever think they were a kind people 
trying to uplift humanity, or did you ever express a view of 
that nature?
    Mr. Segner. Maybe as a kid I once said so. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Now would you define a kid? Up to what year?
    Mr. Segner. Until about the time, I guess, I got out of the 
navy.
    Mr. Buckley. And how old were you then?
    Mr. Segner. I was somewhere around twenty, close to twenty.
    Mr. Buckley. Would it be fair and accurate to say that you 
have in your life expressed views which could be construed as 
pro-Communist?
    Mr. Segner. Well, it depends by whom.
    Mr. Buckley. By an average person of ordinary intelligence 
or better.
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever express the view that these 
Communists might not be so bad after all, in substance, words 
to that effect, that they were progressive and that they were 
social minded and so on?
    Mr. Segner. No, I never said anything like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Anything even resembling that slightly?
    Mr. Segner. The only thing I might have said is maybe they 
are better than the Nazis, but I don't think I ever said 
anything like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Not at City College or any other place? Now, 
think very clearly on that.
    Mr. Segner. Well, I don't think I ever said anything like 
that.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't think you did. Can you say 
categorically that you did not?
    Mr. Segner. Here is what I mean: In comparison to what 
could I say such a thing?
    Mr. Buckley. Just a general statement.
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't think I would ever say that as a 
general statement.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, you asked the question in comparison to 
what. Comparing it to anything you want. Comparing it to 
something else, if you ever said that. Have you ever lauded the 
Communists?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't think I ever said anything.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever expressed the view that they 
were socially minded, trying to uplift the minds.
    Mr. Segner. No, never.
    Mr. Buckley. Never?
    Mr. Segner. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. You never thought they were nice people, then 
is that correct or incorrect?
    Mr. Segner. What do you mean by they? Do you mean the 
Communist government? The idea of communism?
    Mr. Buckley. Well, first we will take the idea and then we 
will take individuals.
    Mr. Segner. Okay.
    Mr. Buckley. We will take the idea. Have you ever expressed 
the view that the idea might be all right?
    Mr. Segner. I may have said that the idea was all right if 
you want to live like ants, in that kind of a social structure. 
But that is about the only thing I would ever say about them.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, then, that would not be an idea that 
would express any kind of approval of communism, would it?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't think it would.
    Mr. Buckley. Now how about Communist individuals, knowing 
they were Communists, and I understand you have known 
Communists. Have you ever expressed----
    Mr. Segner. I don't think I have ever known any Communists.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't?
    Mr. Segner. Since I have come to work for the government, I 
know that I have not known any Communists and I have stayed 
away from them.
    Mr. Buckley. In your lifetime have you known any 
Communists?
    Mr. Segner. I may have. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, have you? I mean, you ought to know, you 
ought to be able to remember if you met a Communist.
    Mr. Segner. How far back?
    Mr. Buckley. If I met some vulturous creature who was out 
to destroy my civilization, I would remember that very 
distinctly.
    Mr. Segner. But if you met a vulturous character you would 
know him. At the same time, if that vulturous character never 
appeared that way----
    Mr. Buckley. I am saying somebody you knew to be a 
Communist. I don't care if it is twenty years ago, five years 
ago or yesterday. Have you ever known any one?
    Mr. Segner. Well, there is possibly a couple who may be. I 
don't know. All I know is I have stayed away from them as soon 
as I got out of the navy.
    Mr. Buckley. Who were those people?
    Mr. Segner. Well, I am not sure now, you see, whether they 
are Communists or not. I do know that they are active, they 
were in some sort of a Puerto Rican cause, or something, I 
heard.
    Mr. Buckley. What were their names?
    Mr. Segner. I think their names were Greenberg.
    Mr. Buckley. First name?
    Mr. Segner. Sam.
    Mr. Buckley. Sam Greenberg.
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Who else?
    Mr. Segner. His wife Bessie.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do they reside?
    Mr. Segner. I don't know. They live somewhere in Brooklyn.
    Mr. Buckley. Can you be more explicit than that?
    Mr. Segner. Right now they live in a good part of Brooklyn. 
I know it is a nice place because I once went to visit their 
new house.
    Mr. Buckley. What type of business is this man in?
    Mr. Segner. I think he is in the construction business.
    Mr. Buckley. In Brooklyn?
    Mr. Segner. Brooklyn.
    Mr. Buckley. The name of his firm?
    Mr. Segner. I think it is his own firm.
    Mr. Buckley. Greenberg Construction Company?
    Mr. Segner. No, I mean it is either construction, or store 
fronts, something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. Where did he live at one time? What was his 
address at one time?
    Mr. Segner. At one time he lived not too far from me, about 
a mile or so it would be. They lived near there.
    Mr. Buckley. Approximately what street? If you can give the 
street and number, so much the better.
    Mr. Segner. I can't give you the street and number.
    Mr. Buckley. Anybody else?
    Mr. Segner. No, those were the only people I suspect and 
when I went to work for the government and when I got out of 
the navy, I knew that those were the kind of people who maybe 
they meant well but----
    Mr. Buckley. Have you seen them since you have been working 
for the government? You said you went to see them.
    Mr. Segner. You just said see.
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Segner. Okay. I saw them at two social affairs, just 
saw them and said hello and went away.
    Mr. Buckley. Where were these social affairs?
    Mr. Segner. I also told my wife not to have anything to do 
with them.
    Mr. Buckley. Where were the social affairs?
    Mr. Segner. One was I think my wedding.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. Segner. Let's see. We just celebrated our third 
anniversary.
    Mr. Buckley. 1950, then?
    Mr. Segner. Yes, 1950.
    Mr. Buckley. When was the second time?
    Mr. Segner. I think they were at my kid brother's wedding, 
too.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. Segner. He has been married maybe a year or two, 
something like that.
    Mr. Buckley. When did you visit their new house?
    Mr. Segner. When their daughter was sixteen. They had a 
phonograph that wasn't working and I drove over to try and set 
it up.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. Segner. I was married at the time, so it was between 
1950 and now, and it was probably--say half-way between 1950 
and now. That is as close as I can come.
    Mr. Buckley. 1951 and a half. Was it 1952?
    Mr. Segner. It may have been. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Was it 1953?
    Mr. Segner. You mean just this last year?
    Mr. Buckley. The last twelve months. It was between January 
first and December 18.
    Mr. Segner. I am pretty sure it was 1953.
    Mr. Buckley. But it could have been 1952.
    Mr. Segner. It could have been 1952. I set it somewhere in 
there. In other words, somewhere in there.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you went over to fix a what?
    Mr. Segner. A--he had bought his daughter for her sweet 
sixteen an automatic record changer and it wasn't working.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you happen to have this change of 
heart?
    Mr. Segner. Pardon me?
    Mr. Buckley. When did this change of heart take place? At 
one time you felt you would have nothing to do with such 
people.
    Mr. Segner. When I say nothing to do, if a guy says hello 
to me I will say hello back to him, and if he asks me to fix 
like his radio or something, this was just a plug that was 
faulty, I would try to do such a thing.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you go to his house?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. There is nothing wrong. There was plenty 
of other people there.
    Mr. Buckley. Who was there?
    Mr. Segner. I took my car, so I think I took my mother and 
father, myself, my wife.
    Mr. Buckley. Your mother, father, yourself and wife?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Four people. Who was at the Greenburg's when 
you got there?
    Mr. Segner. I think somebody in their family, a relative of 
one of theirs. In other words, I think her sister or something.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't remember her name, or do you?
    Mr. Segner. I am trying to think. I would forget--you see 
we know them by funny names, and I am not sure. It is something 
like----
    Mr. Buckley. It isn't Shadowitz?
    Mr. Segner. No, no. It is a girl's name, something you 
would call a girl, Shelley, or something like that. But it 
wasn't her real name, I know.
    Mr. Buckley. When you got there was the machine that you 
were supposed to fix really broken?
    Mr. Segner. It wouldn't work so then he took it out and 
said ``To hell with it,'' if I couldn't fix it, he was going to 
take it out. He took it to the guy who sold it to him and I 
guess the guy came and gave him a new cord or something.
    Mr. Buckley. How long were you in that particular house at 
that time?
    Mr. Segner. Enough to have coffee and cakes and see that 
the machine was working.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you talk about anything going on at Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Segner. To tell you the truth, he never even, I think, 
even tried to ask me about anything at Fort Monmouth. In fact, 
at that time I think those people began to see their mistake.
    Mr. Buckley. Don't you think it is rather bad policy to 
associate with people of that type, particularly concerning the 
type of job you have, even casually or infrequently? You must 
admit that is bad policy.
    Mr. Segner. Pardon me?
    Mr. Buckley. I think you will agree with me that it is bad 
policy to go to the homes of people that you suspect to be 
Communists, particularly when you are working on secret work 
for the Signal Corps.
    Mr. Segner. I am cleared up to secret. I have never touched 
anything above confidential, and I didn't even know that.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Segner, as a matter of pure intellectual 
honesty, don't you think you would agree that it is bad policy 
to go to the home of a person whom you suspect to be a 
Communist, when you have a secret clearance?
    Mr. Segner. Well, let's put it this way: I think that I am 
grown up enough so that I know I wouldn't ever say anything 
that could let that man in on anything.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't think it is bad policy to associate 
with people whom you think to be Communists?
    Mr. Segner. I think it is bad policy to associate with 
people whom I think are Communists, but by association I don't 
mean just saying hello.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't call going into their house and 
having coffee and fixing a machine that is broken association?
    Mr. Segner. No, it is not.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't think that is an association?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't think that is an association.
    Mr. Buckley. What would you call it?
    Mr. Segner. An association would be where you would, say be 
talking to someone.
    Mr. Buckley. You didn't talk to this man when you went to 
his house?
    Mr. Segner. You say hello, how are you, your daughter is 
having her sweet sixteen and something like that, and this is a 
nice apartment.
    Mr. Buckley. You know, Karl Fuchs, when he was spying on 
the Western world, gave explicit instructions that Soviet 
agents were only supposed to contact him once every six months, 
you see. So he probably could very well say he had no 
association or he only saw the man once every six months, so 
what is that.
    Mr. Segner. Well, your definition of association comes in 
here. Like probably you are sitting here, and let's say you 
work for Senator McCarthy and you met a lot of guys here who 
probably are Communists. You are not associating with them.
    Mr. Buckley. I would say most of them are. But if I worked 
with Fort Monmouth in a top secret or secret lab, secrets we 
will say, and I know that somebody who lived a mile from my 
house was a Communist, I would not touch that man with a ten-
foot pole for the simple reason I would not want to place 
myself in the category of being declared a security risk, and 
secondly I would not want to possibly be placed in a position 
where I would tell this filthy traitor any secret concerning 
the United States of America by any device or means which he 
might employ. Two reasons. You see, people can be declared 
security risks, because of their associations. No matter how 
casual.
    Mr. Segner. Well, okay then, wait a minute. If you are 
going to call me that----
    Mr. Buckley. I am not calling you that.
    Mr. Segner. No, but if you are going to call me that, when 
Eisenhower was over in Europe, didn't he meet a lot of 
Russians? What does that mean?
    Mr. Buckley. Surely, that was his job to meet Russians, as 
it is my job to sit here week after week and meet Communists 
and people who are not Communists. That is my job. And if the 
FBI wants a transcript of anything that goes on here, anything 
that can help them, I am more than happy to supply it, and I 
would get on the stand anywhere in America and say I have seen 
in the last six months probably two hundred Communists.
    Mr. Segner. You have been associating with them.
    Mr. Buckley. On a far different basis. I don't go to their 
homes as you did, sit down and have coffee with them and fix a 
machine.
    Mr. Segner. Wait a minute. When I had coffee I was sitting 
by myself with my wife. He was out running around.
    Mr. Buckley. You and your wife were in the room and nobody 
else in the room?
    Mr. Segner. No. There were people walking back and forth.
    Mr. Buckley. What about Bessie? Did you talk with her?
    Mr. Segner. I asked her how the kids were.
    Mr. Buckley. She didn't ask you how you were doing at Fort 
Monmouth, did she?
    Mr. Segner. No, never. I think those people also realize 
that I work for the government, they shouldn't ask me such 
questions.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, Communists, you know, I imagine that 
Julius Rosenberg knew that Greenglass was in the army and he 
asked him a lot of questions. In fact, so many questions that 
the Soviets got the atomic bomb, many years ahead of time. Many 
times, that is their job to ask questions.
    Mr. Segner. Well----
    Mr. Buckley. Anybody else you knew?
    Mr. Segner. No, these were the only people I ever suspected 
of being Communists.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know anybody today, any contacts?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. No matter how casual.
    Mr. Segner. No, not even as casual as that. These people I 
happen to know because the doctor who lived under me when I was 
a little kid, you see, he had a wife and we used to go up to 
the country with these people as little kids and his wife's 
sister was this woman Bessie. That is all.
    Mr. Buckley. Was the doctor a Communist?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not. No one else in that family had 
anything. In fact, you know during the war all the members of 
that family hated the Russians even then.
    Mr. Buckley. That was nice of them.
    Mr. Segner. Well, let's put it this way, if your sister was 
a Communist, could you cut her kids? Sure you didn't like her, 
you didn't want to talk politics, you had no use for her, no 
use for her politics, but at the same time when the kids 
birthday comes up you have to give them a present.
    Say it was your niece or nephew, wouldn't you give them a 
present? What have you got against the kid? You can't blame the 
kid for what the parents do.
    Mr. Buckley. If I had a mother or sister who was a 
Communist traitor I would certainly disown them completely and 
thoroughly and never have anything to do with them. I want to 
ask you this question: What is the name of these people again?
    Mr. Segner. Greenberg.
    Mr. Buckley. How often do you, your mother and father visit 
these people or these people visit your mother and father?
    Mr. Segner. Well, my mother and father probably see them 
once or twice a year.
    Mr. Buckley. Do they stop over at your parents' home?
    Mr. Segner. They may. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. Do your parents visit them?
    Mr. Segner. Sometimes. I don't know. I don't think it is 
too often. I think most of the time it is just--you see, these 
people own a place that you give, you know these places up in 
the Borscht circuit, that is what you call the Catskill 
Mountain area, and they give them old furniture or stuff like 
that.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know, Mr. Segner, even in the most 
casual sort of way any one that you suspect even slightly of 
being pro-Soviet or pro-Communist or Communist today?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Definitely not.
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Segner. No. I have heard of Aaron Coleman. I notice he 
is up in radar branch.
    Mr. Buckley. You never met him?
    Mr. Segner. I once tried to get a job up there. I may have 
met him. I may have met him. I don't know. I once tried to get 
a job in radar branch. That is about all.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think you probably did meet him?
    Mr. Segner. I may have. I met a guy named Gene. Do you know 
who Gene was? You ought to know.
    Mr. Buckley. I know most of the people out there.
    Mr. Segner. If you know most people, do you know who Gene 
was? Some guy named Gene was supposed to be a big wheel there, 
and I tried to get a job.
    Mr. Buckley. You think there is a possibility that you met 
Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Segner. There is a possibility I may have seen him at 
that one time. He may have been around while I was interviewed.
    Mr. Buckley. Actually you are pretty sure you did, aren't 
you?
    Mr. Segner. You see I was being interviewed by this guy 
Gene. You must know his last name by now. He was giving me this 
test about what I know about this and what I know about that.
    Mr. Buckley. And Coleman walked in?
    Mr. Segner. Coleman may have walked in.
    Mr. Buckley. He probably did, didn't he?
    Mr. Segner. I think so.
    Mr. Buckley. The chances are that he did?
    Mr. Segner. Okay, the chances are.
    Mr. Buckley. Then he did, didn't he?
    Mr. Segner. Let's see. The first I met only Gene.
    Mr. Buckley. You did meet Coleman, isn't that a fact?
    Mr. Segner. I met him once, okay. Probably.
    Mr. Buckley. You did, didn't you?
    Mr. Segner. I was so involved in Gene at the time that I 
wasn't interested in any other guy. Gene was the guy that I had 
to get the job with.
    Mr. Buckley. If you want to give a forthright answer----
    Mr. Segner. Okay, I met him that one time when I tried to 
get a job there.
    Mr. Buckley. Why did you beat around the bush so much on 
that? Seriously, why did you?
    Mr. Segner. Well, the way you guys are going in the papers, 
of course I was wondering if I ever did meet Coleman as soon as 
I saw the name, and I knew that it was the radar branch and I 
recalled going to get a job there.
    Mr. Buckley. Was that the only time you ever met Coleman in 
your life?
    Mr. Segner. Absolutely the one and only time if--I guess it 
was him.
    Mr. Buckley. Before you were sure it was Coleman. First you 
were very uncertain.
    Mr. Segner. Here is what happened. I told you, I was 
interested in what Gene was talking about to me.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, did you meet Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Segner. I think a guy walked in to the room, you see, 
and when he stayed a while and left again, and I was 
introduced. That is about as far as it goes.
    Mr. Buckley. And you were introduced to----
    Mr. Segner. Okay. I was introduced to Aaron Coleman. I 
don't remember the guy's name. He was the big wheel there.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to ask you a very simple question: Do 
you know, and you are under oath, whether you ever met Aaron 
Coleman? Or did you ever meet Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Segner. Okay. I definitely did meet him then.
    Mr. Buckley. That is a truthful answer?
    Mr. Segner. Okay, that is a truthful answer.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Coleman before you went there?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Never heard of him?
    Mr. Segner. You mean before I went there? Well, I knew he 
was head of the branch.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you know that?
    Mr. Segner. Well, I knew the guy who I was trying to get--
you know, you know this guy Lester Petkoffsky.
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Segner. So at the time, I was in SG branch at Cole's, I 
was doing a fairly low-level engineering job and learning not 
much. So I was trying to get out. I figured you come out, you 
got to get some decent experience or else you are never going 
to get anywhere. So this guy Lester told me that his boss was a 
real go-getter and they worked and in his branch they had good 
work and they might have an opening. I went up there. I went up 
there twice, not once.
    Mr. Buckley. How many times did you meet Aaron?
    Mr. Segner. The first time it was strictly Gene see? He saw 
me, he saw that I didn't know anything about radar, and he said 
come back some other time.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you meet Aaron Coleman more than once?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not. He must have been the third 
man, and I only met the first time.
    Mr. Buckley. What was your conversation with Coleman about?
    Mr. Segner. Absolutely nothing. Gene was testing me.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Segner. No. I never heard of his name until it came out 
in the Long Branch Record.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Joel Barr?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Segner. No. I don't know any of the names, even.
    Mr. Buckley. Any of the names you have seen in the 
newspaper, did you recognize the names?
    Mr. Segner. No. The only name I recognized was this guy 
Coleman.
    Mr. Buckley. You never meet Julius Rosenberg, did you?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Or David Greenglass?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Or anyone involved in that subversive mess?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Segner. When I went to Rutgers, he was in my class in 
Rutgers in at least a couple of terms.
    Mr. Buckley. How well did you get to know Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Segner. I never got to know him well at all. He was in 
a high position and all I know is he was pointed out to me as 
being a guy with a much higher rating then the rest of us.
    Mr. Buckley. How many were in your class at Rutgers?
    Mr. Segner. I don't know. But you can look it up. It is 
close to fifteen.
    Mr. Buckley. About fifteen?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. A small class.
    Mr. Segner. It started out as a large class and then, you 
know the way it is, as you run, more and more guys disappear.
    Mr. Buckley. Then you got to know Ducore didn't you?
    Mr. Segner. No, I didn't get to know Ducore. I got to know 
him by sight.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever say hello Harold?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Hello, Mr. Ducore?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he ever say hello Mr. Segner?
    Mr. Segner. No, he never said that. There is only one thing 
he ever said directly to me in my whole life. When I was 
getting married, I was telling one of my friends I was getting 
married, and he was sitting in the back of the room and said 
``You better have your wife go to a dentist and make sure her 
teeth are okay.'' He never said hello to me or anything else.
    Mr. Buckley. What did you say to him when he said that?
    Mr. Segner. I laughed at that.
    Mr. Buckley. And no conversation ever beyond that?
    Mr. Segner. No, no conversation ever beyond that, and I 
don't consider that knowing when a guy yells out something at 
you.
    Mr. Buckley. I would agree with you on that score. We are 
in agreement on that.
    Mr. Segner. Nor would I consider it knowing Aaron Coleman 
when I just was introduced to him while another guy was giving 
me a quiz.
    Mr. Buckley. Who introduced you to Aaron?
    Mr. Segner. I guess it was this guy Gene. You must know his 
last name. I don't know it.
    Mr. Buckley. Getting back to Ducore. You say you were with 
Ducore in the same class for about two semesters, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. I guess so. You can look up the Rutgers 
records at the fort and they will tell you exactly how many 
classes we were in. In other words, some of the boys were in 
the same class at the same time and sometimes they split us up.
    Mr. Buckley. How many classes did you have out at Rutgers?
    Mr. Segner. Let me think now. Ten.
    Mr. Buckley. Ten classes?
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Ten different courses, is that right?
    Mr. Segner. Yes. Ten courses. I don't know when Ducore came 
in. For all I know it could have been two years. He might have 
been in my class all through. But at one time he was pointed 
out to me as being a big wheel. He is a section chief or 
something.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Ducore ever talk to anybody? Or was he a 
very quiet, reserved sort of chap?
    Mr. Segner. I don't think it was that he was reserved, it 
was just that the rest of us were P-1s and he was a section 
chief.
    Mr. Buckley. Was he a snob?
    Mr. Segner. I don't know. In other words, you are asking me 
about a man who I had no interest in, whose name I first 
heard----
    Mr. Buckley. Except for the fact that he is a fellow 
student in a class of fifteen students and you work both at the 
same place, Fort Monmouth. I have been in classes of 150 
students in my life and before the semester was over--I don't 
think I am overly friendly, but I got to know most of them.
    Mr. Segner. Then you weren't in an engineering class, 
because in an engineering class you just get to know a couple 
of guys who you do homework with.
    Mr. Buckley. Let's go to the next question. Do you know 
Jack Okun?
    Mr. Segner. No. That name I never even heard before.
    Mr. Buckley. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Alfred Savant?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Vivian Glassman?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Eleanor Glassman?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever belonged to any Communist or 
pro-Communist organizations?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever written anything for 
publication?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Ever been on the editorial staff of any 
newspaper?
    Mr. Segner. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you expressed views within the last five 
or six years which might be construed as pro-Soviet?
    Mr. Segner. By whom?
    Mr. Buckley. By anybody.
    Mr. Segner. Okay, then, let me put it this way----
    Mr. Buckley. Excuse me. By anyone over twelve years of age 
with an average IQ or better.
    Mr. Segner. Can I answer it this way?
    Mr. Buckley. And it may be answered any way you desire.
    Mr. Segner. If you believed in Roosevelt's New Deal and 
Truman's Fair Deal, I don't think you would consider them as 
being pro-Soviet. But if you believed that anything at all to 
do with Russia or recognition of the Russian ambassador by, say 
Roosevelt, was terrible, then you might consider them that way. 
I think it is strictly up to you.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever criticize America's war effort in 
Korea?
    Mr. Segner. No. Definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. I will tell you the type of person who is pro-
Soviet.
    Mr. Segner. Pardon me?
    Mr. Buckley. You are apparently an intelligent person. You 
have an engineering degree.
    Mr. Segner. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. I think the type of person who is pro-Soviet 
is one who denounces America's position in Korea, denounces 
America's position in Europe, and as a matter of fact any time 
there is a difference of position between America and Soviet 
Russia, finds himself on the totalitarian side, which is the 
Soviet side, or finds himself very often on that side.
    Mr. Segner. Right.
    Mr. Buckley. On the issues that confront the world today 
and confronted the world in the last ten years, have you found 
yourself from time to time expressing views to your friends and 
associates which could honestly be construed by those 
individuals as pro-Soviet? And you are under oath.
    Mr. Segner. If they were the kind of person who, say, 
believed that the Soviet government is so horrible that we 
should have joined up with Hitler----
    Mr. Buckley. I am not----
    Mr. Segner [continuing]. And attack the Russians, then they 
might think what----
    Mr. Buckley. Let us not be ludicrous. Let us try to be 
reasonable, honest and forthright. When I ask you a question I 
am not asking you for some absurd example----
    Mr. Segner. Okay, then, the answer is no, I didn't say 
anything that anybody could construe as pro-Soviet.
    Mr. Buckley. You are sure about that?
    Mr. Segner. Yes, I am sure about that.
    Mr. Buckley. And then if people came here to testify that 
you did, you would say that they committed perjury or are you 
committing perjury, which?
    Mr. Segner. Well, I would say that if you recall something 
which I don't even know about now, and under the 
circumstances----
    Mr. Buckley. Listen, just a minute. You know what your 
whole general attitude has been better than any other living 
human being. Other people can only report what you had said 
from time to time. And if they report things of that nature, 
are they committing perjury when they say that you have made 
pro-Soviet statements? Is that perjury on their part?
    Mr. Segner. It is misinterpretation on their part.
    Mr. Buckley. What have you said that could have led them to 
that possible belief?
    Mr. Segner. I don't know. Give me an example.
    Mr. Buckley. I am not giving an example. It is not my 
position to do that.
    Mr. Segner. I cannot think of anything, except as I say, in 
comparison between the Nazis and the Communists. That is the 
only thing I can possibly think of where I might have said 
``Well, maybe they are a little better.'' But I think that has 
been proven questionable.
    Mr. Buckley. Weren't your statements longer than a little 
bit? Wasn't there a time when you looked upon the Communists in 
the most favorable light? Isn't that true?
    Mr. Segner. I don't think I did. I think I looked at the 
Russians as an ally during the war.
    Mr. Buckley. Just a second. I want you to think about this. 
Is it true or is it false, and I don't want an ``I don't 
think'' answer, that there was a time in your life when you 
looked upon the Russians and Communists in particular with a 
great deal of sympathy?
    Mr. Segner. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Is that false?
    Mr. Segner. No, I don't think it is false. I think I looked 
upon them only as an ally during the war, and I think that is 
the way anybody else would have looked at them, and that they 
had to be helped to win the war.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you admire their ``progressiveness''?
    Mr. Segner. Do you mean in bringing, say--well, if you 
asked me historically, do I think they made quite an 
accomplishment, in other words, in taking the people as 
primitive as the people who came out under the czars up to 
where they were during the war, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What do you think of their gas chambers? Is 
that progress?
    Mr. Segner. No, definitely not.
    Mr. Buckley. Concentration camps? Is that progress?
    Mr. Segner. No, that is not progress. But we did not know 
about that.
    Mr. Buckley. The annihilation of every single freedom that 
we know, religious freedom, press, assembly, speech, the free 
ballot; is that progress?
    Mr. Segner. No, that is not progress.
    Mr. Buckley. But you think they have advanced from the days 
of the Czar?
    Mr. Segner. From an engineering point of view, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. They build more bridges?
    Mr. Segner. They build more bridges. They build dams.
    Mr. Buckley. And they have bigger and better jails today 
than they had in 1915, we will say. They can build bigger jails 
and bigger bridges, right.
    Mr. Segner. When I was a kid and all these movies were 
going on when they showed you about the Russians fighting, and 
all, you get the idea maybe they have accomplished something.
    Mr. Buckley. I will agree with you that probably as far as 
engineering is concerned today they can build better gas 
chambers to kill more people and they can build bigger bridges 
and bigger jails and concentration camps. They have more unique 
methods, perhaps, to destroy human freedom there than before.
    Mr. Segner. Probably they even beat Hitler.
    Mr. Buckley. If that is progress and advance of 
civilization----
    Mr. Segner. Wait a minute.
    Mr. Buckley. Pardon me. I asked you how they had progressed 
and you said as far as engineering is concerned.
    Mr. Segner. Right. They can build railroads.
    Mr. Buckley. Railroads and jails and concentration camps.
    Mr. Segner. When you say progress of America, what do you 
consider our progress? The fact----
    Mr. Buckley. I will tell you what I consider our progress: 
the fact that this is a nation of 160 million individuals, of 
every conceivable background, who live generally in peace and 
harmony, generally. People are growing intolerant of Communist 
traitors and they should be. But if a man in America tries to 
be a fair, honest and honorable citizen, he has nothing to 
fear. That is great progress. That is great progress over, what 
we will say what would happen to a man a hundred years ago or 
what happened in Nazi Germany in comparison to that. What is 
happening in Soviet Russia today?
    Mr. Segner. We are just beginning to learn that.
    Mr. Buckley. To learn what?
    Mr. Segner. Look, until that war was over, you see, the 
Russians were our allies, and the reports that came back were 
more or less favorable. It was only after it was over that we 
began to realize that some day these are the boys we are going 
to have to get after, and then and only then was enough 
studying started to look into these people and begin to see 
what is in back of this nice dam program, to know that slave 
labor was used to build these tremendous dams.
    Mr. Buckley. Mr. Segner, would you say that there were some 
people with enough intelligence in America in 1943, and 1945 to 
know that the Communist was a spy and traitor then just as he 
would be a spy and a traitor in 1953? A spy and traitor doesn't 
change his stripes because we are at war. At the same time we 
were at war with Soviet Russia, you had your spies stealing 
secrets from America, and doing that for the destruction of 
America.
    Thank you very much for coming over. Will you send in Mr. 
Layne, please.

                STATEMENT OF JOSEPH LINTON LAYNE

    Mr. Buckley. May we have your full name for the record?
    Mr. Layne. Joseph Linton Layne.
    Mr. Buckley. And your address?
    Mr. Layne. 116 Fifth Avenue, Neptune City, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. Your telephone number?
    Mr. Layne. Asbury Park 2-7597-J.
    Mr. Buckley. Where are you presently employed, Mr. Layne?
    Mr. Layne. Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories at Fort 
Monmouth.
    Mr. Buckley. How long have you been employed there?
    Mr. Layne. Since March 1942.
    Mr. Buckley. What clearance do you have?
    Mr. Layne. At the moment unclassified.
    Mr. Buckley. What had you had?
    Mr. Layne. Up to secret.
    Mr. Buckley. That was up until when?
    Mr. Layne. I think two days prior, two working days prior 
to October 21, 1953.
    Mr. Buckley. What position did you hold at that time, in 
October?
    Mr. Layne. My position was classified as photographic 
engineer.
    Mr. Buckley. And what position do you hold today?
    Mr. Layne. I have been reinstated to the same position, but 
without access or clearance to classified matter.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to remind you, Mr. Layne, that you are 
under oath, the oath administered the other evening is still in 
force and effect.
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you ever given a copy of the charges that 
were made against you at the time of your suspension?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. You never received any such statement of 
clearance?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did anyone ever tell you verbally what the 
charges constituted?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the United Federal 
Workers of America?
    Mr. Layne. At Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes.
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you hold any official position in the 
organization, beyond that of member?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you attend any of its meetings?
    Mr. Layne. I attended one meeting.
    Mr. Buckley. One meeting?
    Mr. Layne. As I recall, yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What Communists did you know in that 
organization?
    Mr. Layne. I don't know of any.
    Mr. Buckley. You knew of no Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No reason to suspect that certain people were 
Communists?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you think the United Federal Workers of 
America was a good, old-fashioned American organization? A good 
American organization?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. You did? You never had any reason to suspect 
that it was a subversive Communist front?
    Mr. Layne. Not at all.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you been reading the papers in the last 
few weeks? The newspapers?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you recognized the names of anyone who 
appeared before this committee as friends or associates of 
yourself?
    Mr. Layne. No, none of them have been any friends of mine.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever met these people anyplace?
    Mr. Layne. I recognized the names of two people who were 
members of the same union that you mentioned?
    Mr. Buckley. Who were they?
    Mr. Layne. Ullmann and--I don't know their names, but 
Socol.
    Mr. Buckley. Marcel Ullmann and Albert Socol?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How well did you know Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Layne. Merely as, I believe, an officer in the union.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever visit his home?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. On how many occasions?
    Mr. Layne. Only one occasion that I recall.
    Mr. Buckley. When?
    Mr. Layne. It is difficult to say. I don't recall.
    Mr. Buckley. When? I believe that you do recall. I will be 
perfectly frank with you.
    Mr. Layne. I don't recall.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, start thinking. When you saw Marcel 
Ullmann's name in the paper you started thinking about your 
contact or association with Marcel Ullmann and you knew you 
were coming here and you have known that for about the last ten 
days or two weeks. I think as a reasonable man you have been 
thinking exactly when you visited his home and how many times.
    Mr. Layne. I am trying to think approximately what year. 
That is about as close as I can come to what or to when I 
visited his house. Perhaps about seven years ago.
    Mr. Buckley. About 1947?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, about that time.
    Mr. Buckley. Could it have been as late as 1948 or 1949?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. 1948?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you visited there once.
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you positive about that?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Think very clearly before you give a definite 
answer, Mr. Layne.
    Mr. Layne. It may have been twice.
    Mr. Buckley. And it could have been three times, could it 
not?
    Mr. Layne. No, it couldn't have been frequently.
    Mr. Buckley. It could have been as many as a half dozen 
times, couldn't it?
    Mr. Layne. No, it could not.
    Mr. Buckley. It could not?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You are positive about that?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, I am positive.
    Mr. Buckley. Absolutely positive?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How many times did Marcel Ullmann visit you?
    Mr. Layne. He never did.
    Mr. Buckley. What was the purpose of these visits to Marcel 
Ullmann's residence?
    Mr. Layne. At one time I took pictures of his baby. I do 
photography as a hobby, I freelance. And one time to pick up or 
to find out--I think it was to pick up a government 
publication.
    Mr. Buckley. What were the other times?
    Mr. Layne. Those are the only two times I recall.
    Mr. Buckley. What government publication did you go to pick 
up?
    Mr. Layne. It was a publication on either preparing or 
writing a grievance, the forms or the routine in preparing to 
write a grievance.
    Mr. Buckley. What grievance did you have against the 
government?
    Mr. Layne. I didn't have any grievance against the 
government. I felt that on a particular job that I had at work 
I was not being treated the way I would have liked to have been 
treated.
    Mr. Buckley. Why did you go to Marcel Ullmann about this?
    Mr. Layne. Because I thought that he was acquainted with 
the Civil Service rules and regulations.
    Mr. Buckley. Nobody else you knew was acquainted with the 
Civil Service rules and regulations?
    Mr. Layne. Yes. I attempted to get them from someone in the 
personnel--I guess they would be in the personnel office, but 
they said that they didn't have it.
    Mr. Buckley. Who was that person?
    Mr. Layne. I don't know by name.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she still there?
    Mr. Layne. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. So who told you to go to Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Layne. Nobody told me to go to him.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you happen to go to him?
    Mr. Layne. Because I thought that as he was acquainted with 
the Civil Service rules and regulations, he might have been 
able to help me in giving me that brochure or folder or 
whatever it was.
    Mr. Buckley. Who told you that he was acquainted with Civil 
Service rules and regulations?
    Mr. Layne. Well, I had that impression.
    Mr. Buckley. How did you gain that impression?
    Mr. Layne. I believe he was an officer of the union, and as 
such, on that basis I felt that he was acquainted with them.
    Mr. Buckley. Weren't there other officers in the union?
    Mr. Layne. I guess there were.
    Mr. Buckley. Why did you select this particular officer?
    Mr. Layne. I think he was the one who asked me to join.
    Mr. Buckley. The union?
    Mr. Layne. Yes. I think he was the one.
    Mr. Buckley. And you joined?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And you got to know Marcel Ullmann pretty 
well, didn't you?
    Mr. Layne. Not very well.
    Mr. Buckley. You got to know him far better than a speaking 
acquaintance, and as a matter of fact moderately well, is that 
not true?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir. I knew very little about him.
    Mr. Buckley. Well, you knew him.
    Mr. Layne. I knew that he was an officer of the----
    Mr. Buckley. You must have known him if you went to his 
house. You must have known he existed.
    Mr. Layne. Yes. I knew him as an employee of the 
government. That is how I got acquainted with him.
    Mr. Buckley. Was he with the government at that time?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. At Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Now, did you know he was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Layne. I did not.
    Mr. Buckley. You did not?
    Mr. Layne. I did not.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever have any reason to suspect that 
was so?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No reason?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Is it true or is it false that you knew that 
he was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Layne. I did not know.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you ever engaged in a conspiracy to 
commit espionage which is distinct from espionage itself?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you handed over, handed over to Marcel 
Ullmann or to anyone else, particularly Marcel Ullmann, 
anything which you should not have handed over to him?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. At no time?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. When was the last time you were in contact 
with Marcel Ullmann?
    Mr. Layne. I think the time that I took the pictures of his 
baby.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Marcel Ullmann tell you to stop contacting 
him?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or meeting him?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you suggest to him the possibility that it 
might not be a good idea?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How many times did you and Marcel Ullmann 
discuss classified work?
    Mr. Layne. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever discussed classified work with 
any individual?
    Mr. Layne. Beyond my activities within the fort, no.
    Mr. Buckley. Nobody that was not authorized?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. In your estimation is Marcel Ullmann a good, 
loyal, patriotic American?
    Mr. Layne. I have no reason to doubt that he isn't.
    Mr. Buckley. When a man comes before this committee in 
public session and refuses to tell us whether or not he was 
engaged in espionage in the United States, does that change 
your opinion or did it change your opinion?
    Mr. Layne. I formed no opinion on that. It doesn't change.
    Mr. Buckley. In other words, if a man comes before this or 
any other duly constituted governmental committee and refuses 
to say whether or not he is a spy, that doesn't change your 
opinion from the point where you think he is loyal and so on to 
the point where you think he might be a traitor?
    Mr. Layne. I have no opinion on that.
    Mr. Buckley. No opinion on that?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you a spy?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or a traitor?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How many times have you taken classified 
information out of Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Layne. I never have.
    Mr. Buckley. Never in your life?
    Mr. Layne. On official capacity, yes.
    Mr. Buckley. And while you were taking out in an official 
capacity, did you happen to use an unofficial way?
    Mr. Layne. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. When you and Marcel Ullmann were talking 
together at Marcel Ullmann's place of residence, what were you 
talking about besides taking the child's picture, if that was 
the purpose of your visit?
    Mr. Layne. That was the sole purpose of my visit.
    Mr. Buckley. When you went to get this book on grievances, 
what were you talking about besides grievances?
    Mr. Layne. Nothing else.
    Mr. Buckley. Why did you think you had a grievance? Be 
specific now. I asked you that before, but specifically why did 
you think you have a grievance?
    Mr. Layne. All right. I was working with a particular 
project, assigned to me in camp. The project was transferred 
from one laboratory in the agency to another. I was transferred 
with it. I was responsible for all of the work with regard to 
that project. Job descriptions soon after I was transferred 
were issued in the group or unit that I worked with. And 
according to the job description that was given to me, the new 
one, it indicated that I was responsible to somebody else for 
the work on the project to which I was assigned. I felt that 
that person to whom I was responsible had no information or 
very little information, at least was not as well acquainted 
with the particular project that I was working with for me to 
be responsible to him.
    Mr. Buckley. All right. That is sufficient. Do you know 
Dorothy Sevusch?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know a Dorothy Sevusch?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know of anyone's name ending in U-S-C-
H? Can you think of that?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or beginning S-E-V? You have never heard of 
anyone beginning with that name?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Florence Dingerhut?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You don't know her?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. You are positive about that?
    Mr. Layne. I am positive about that.
    Mr. Buckley. Or some similar name?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of the Woodmen Club?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Ever hear of the Shore Branch of the Communist 
party, or the Shore Club?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You never heard of that?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Never heard the name in the paper?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You didn't read the name in the paper this 
morning or at any time since we have been having these 
hearings?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of Irwin Korr?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Would you know anyone by the name of Lenowitz?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or Benowitz?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of the Walt Whitman Club?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever hear of the Communist Political 
Association?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know Albert Socol?
    Mr. Layne. I believe he was the party that came around and 
collected the dues.
    Mr. Buckley. For the union?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What else did he collect when he collected the 
dues?
    Mr. Layne. That is all.
    Mr. Buckley. How often did he come around to collect the 
dues?
    Mr. Layne. I don't know. I think it was every month.
    Mr. Buckley. And how many times would you say he came 
around in all?
    Mr. Layne. Well, I think I must have been a paid member for 
about what----
    Mr. Buckley. Paid member of what?
    Mr. Layne. Of this union--for about, my guess would be 
perhaps eight months, seven or eight months.
    Mr. Buckley. So he stopped around eight times to ten times, 
right?
    Mr. Layne. I am not sure whether he collected the dues from 
me regularly. It may have also been somebody else.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Ullmann ever visit your home?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever visit Socol's home?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did Socol impress you as a good, loyal, 
patriotic American?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you have any reason to suspect he was a 
Communist traitor and spy?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you know he was discharged from Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You never knew he was discharged from Fort 
Monmouth?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. As a subversive?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. When was the last time you saw Socol or had 
any kind of a telephone or other kind of discussion with him?
    Mr. Layne. Sometime during the approximately eight months 
that I was a member of the union.
    Mr. Buckley. When was that?
    Mr. Layne. As I say, I hardly recall by year.
    Mr. Buckley. Approximately when?
    Mr. Layne. Maybe seven or eight years ago.
    Mr. Buckley. 1947, about?
    Mr. Layne. About that time.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you talked with Marcel Ullmann on the 
telephone?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. At no time?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or with Socol?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know anyone by the name of Korr?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Or any similar name?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the Shore Branch of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Louis Kaplan?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir. Wait, there is a Kaplan that I know who 
works at Camp Evans.
    Mr. Buckley. Now? Right now?
    Mr. Layne. I believe that he is still employed by the 
government.
    Mr. Buckley. That is Louis Leo Kaplan. I am talking about 
Louis Kaplan the Communist. If you knew him, there would be no 
doubt about him in your mind.
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You say you don't know him?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever belong to the Young Communist 
League?
    Mr. Layne. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. Any Communist or pro-Communist organizations?
    Mr. Layne. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. Any organizations cited as subversive by any 
official agency of the United States government or any state 
government?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a Wallace supporter in 1948?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. You belonged to the Progressive Citizens of 
America?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. The New Jersey counterpart of that 
organization?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you contribute money to Wallace?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. To his campaign?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What did you do to support Henry Wallace?
    Mr. Layne. I believe I voted for him.
    Mr. Buckley. That is the extent of your support of Henry 
Wallace?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever vote for any Communist candidates 
for public office?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever sign any Communist nominating 
petitions?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Just so there can be no mistake about some of 
your answers, I am going to ask you a couple of questions over 
again.
    Did you ever know an Irwin Korr?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know a Dorothy Sevush?
    Mr. Layne. Never.
    Mr. Buckley. A Florence Fingerhut?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever attend any meetings of the Shore 
Branch of the Communist party?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings in 
your life?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known a Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Anyone who was pro-Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever think Marcel Ullmann was pro-
Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, I did not.
    Mr. Buckley. You didn't know he was a spy?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Was there any reason why anyone could 
legitimately say that you are a Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. No reason?
    Mr. Layne. No reason at all.
    Mr. Buckley. You never expressed any view that might lead 
someone to think you are a Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever read the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. New Masses?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Political Affairs?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. New York Post?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Every day?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever attend meetings of the Walt 
Whitman Club?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What were you suspended for?
    Mr. Layne. I don't know.
    Mr. Buckley. You have never learned?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harry Green, a lawyer down in New 
Silver, New Jersey?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Layne. I have seen his name in the paper.
    Mr. Buckley. Has he ever given you any advice?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Why was there such a long problem to decide 
that the answer to that question was no?
    Mr. Layne. Because I had seen him but he never had given me 
any advice.
    Mr. Buckley. Where had you seen him, at a meeting or at his 
office?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What was the nature of the meeting?
    Mr. Layne. To discuss my situation of suspension at the 
laboratory.
    Mr. Buckley. When you got there you didn't discuss it with 
him?
    Mr. Layne. I did discuss it with him.
    Mr. Buckley. You talked with him, had a conversation with 
him?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think Harry Green is a Communist?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know his daughter?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you meet Ira Kachen?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you discuss your case with Ira Kachen?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he give you advice?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. What did he tell you to do?
    Mr. Layne. He told me to tell the truth.
    Mr. Buckley. That was good advice. Green didn't tell you to 
tell the truth or anything else, did he?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you think that Green was involved in this 
thing purely out of--do you think he had any subversive reason 
for being involved in time cases?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How long ago was this meeting held?
    Mr. Layne. Which meeting?
    Mr. Buckley. The one in Kachen's office or in Green's 
office.
    Mr. Layne. About ten days ago.
    Mr. Buckley. Ten days ago? Who attended the meetings?
    Mr. Layne. Mr. Kachen, Mr. Green and myself.
    Mr. Buckley. That is all?
    Mr. Layne. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Is there any reason why they are not 
representing you today?
    Mr. Layne. No. I didn't hire them at all.
    Mr. Buckley. Did they give you any possible reason why you 
were discharged?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How long were you in Green's office?
    Mr. Layne. Approximately an hour.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you intend to go back there again after you 
have been here today, I suppose?
    Mr. Layne. I intend to consult with Mr. Kachen.
    Mr. Buckley. Fine. Do you intend to consult with Mr. Green?
    Mr. Layne. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did they advance any reasons as to why you 
were suspended?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Or any alleged reason?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Are they just as amazed about this thing as 
you are?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, in my case.
    Mr. Buckley. And you are completely amazed, are you?
    Mr. Layne. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you learned when you will be supplied 
with the charges against you?
    Mr. Layne. I beg your pardon.
    Mr. Buckley. Has anyone told you when the charges which 
have been made against you will be given to you?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have any idea when they will be given 
to you?
    Mr. Layne. No.
    Mr. Buckley. Thank you for coming, Mr. Layne.
    Will you tell Mr. Levitties to come in, please.

              STATEMENT OF HARRY WILLIAM LEVITTIES

    Mr. Buckley. That is your full name, Mr. Levitties?
    Mr. Levitties. Harry William Levitties.
    Mr. Buckley. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Levitties. I live at the present time at 1020 
Bendermere
Avenue, in Wanamassa, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. What is your telephone number?
    Mr. Levitties. Benernere 3-4326-J.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you currently employed at Fort Monmouth, 
Mr. Levitties?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you suspended?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. On what date?
    Mr. Levitties. October 21, I believe it was.
    Mr. Buckley. And when were you reinstated?
    Mr. Levitties. November 18.
    Mr. Buckley. November 18?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you working on classified material now?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What classification did you have before you 
were suspended?
    Mr. Levitties. You mean what was my----
    Mr. Buckley. Clearance.
    Mr. Levitties. I had clearance up to and including secret.
    Mr. Buckley. Up to and including secret?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes.
    Mr. Buckley. Where were you born, Mr. Levitties?
    Mr. Levitties. I was born in Russia.
    Mr. Buckley. December 15, 1906 is that correct?
    Mr. Levitties. It is 1907, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. December 15?
    Mr. Levitties. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley. I want to remind you, Mr. Levitties, that 
today you are under oath, the oath that was administered last 
Wednesday night still being in effect.
    Mr. Levitties, were you an employee of the Philadelphia 
Electric Company in the 1930s?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Were you a member of the Communist party when 
you were employed by the Philadelphia Electric Company?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you take part in activities which were 
Communist in nature?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Pro-Communist in nature?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Pro-Soviet?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you now or have you ever been a Soviet 
sympathizer?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you now a Communist?
    Mr. Levitties. I am not, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever distribute any type of pamphlets 
or any other handbills or anything of that type in your life; 
pamphlets or handbills?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You never handed anything of that nature out, 
is that correct?
    Mr. Levitties. That is correct.
    Mr. Buckley. What did you think of Lenin?
    Mr. Levitties. I had no thoughts about him, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you have pictures of Lenin hanging up in 
your room?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. At any time in your life?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you spoken favorably of Soviet Russia?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. At no time in your life?
    Mr. Levitties. To the best of my knowledge, no, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. People who say you have spoken favorably of 
Soviet Russia, in your estimation would those people be 
committing perjury if they were under oath?
    Mr. Levitties. I think they would, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Would they or wouldn't they?
    Mr. Levitties. They would.
    Mr. Buckley. You have a brother Irving?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Is Irving a Communist?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. How do you know he is not a Communist? Did you 
ever ask him?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did he ever tell you he wasn't a Communist?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Actually you don't know whether he is or is 
not, but you assume that he is not?
    Mr. Levitties. I am certain he is not, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does he work now?
    Mr. Levitties. He works in the motion picture theater as a 
projectionist.
    Mr. Buckley. Was your wife born a Lithuanian?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she a naturalized citizen?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she a Communist?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Could anyone have legitimately ever questioned 
your loyalty to the United States government? Do you want me to 
repeat the question?
    Mr. Levitties. I don't understand it, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Could anyone have honestly ever doubted your 
loyalty or questioned your loyalty to the United States of 
America?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Aaron Coleman?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Albert Socol?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. If you have been reading the papers of late, 
you have read the names of various individuals who have 
appeared before this committee. Do you recognize any of those 
names as people whom you knew?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have a copy of the charges which have been 
placed against you been supplied to you?
    Mr. Levitties. No charges were made against me, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Concerning the suspension, no charges?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you expecting that a copy of the charges 
will be given to you soon?
    Mr. Levitties. I have no idea, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. You are reinstated, is that correct, but not 
on classified material?
    Mr. Levitties. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever know a man by the name of Ewell?
    Mr. Levitties. What is his name, sir?
    Mr. Buckley. The last name is spelled E-w-e-l-l.
    Mr. Levitties. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever in your life speak favorably of 
Soviet Russia?
    Mr. Levitties. I am sure I haven't, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you ever visit the Shore Club?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know what that is?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Joseph Levitsky?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Harold Ducore?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever handed over directly or 
indirectly secrets relating to the United States to any 
individual?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever committed espionage?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever engaged in a conspiracy to 
commit espionage?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever engaged in any illegal 
activities?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever joined any Communist or pro-
Communist groups?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Is there any grounds upon which one could 
suspect that you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. By statements or otherwise?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever contributed any money to the 
Communist conspiracy?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you presently have relatives in Russia?
    Mr. Levitties. I don't know whether they are living or 
dead. I had relatives when we came to this country.
    Mr. Levitties. Does your wife presently have relatives in 
Lithuania or what was once Lithuania?
    Mr. Levitties. I doubt that there are any of them living.
    Mr. Buckley. Have Communists or anyone else brought any 
pressure to bear on you, stating that if you did not cooperate 
that vengeance would be wreaked upon your relatives in those 
countries, Russia or Lithuania?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. And you categorically and emphatically deny, 
is this correct, that you have ever been a member of the 
Communist party or engaged in any subversive activities?
    Mr. Levitties. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. If people testified to that effect under oath, 
would those people be committing perjury?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you criticized America's efforts in 
Korea?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. American policy in Europe?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you support Henry Wallace in 1948?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Whom did you support? Truman or Dewey or 
Wallace?
    Mr. Levitties. I did not vote in 1948, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know any Communists?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known any?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you know anyone today whose loyalty to the 
United States government you suspect?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Have you ever known anyone?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Do you have any other brothers and sisters in 
this country?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What are their names?
    Mr. Levitties. I have a brother whose name is Saul.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does he reside?
    Mr. Levitties. He lives in Bradley Beach, New Jersey.
    Mr. Buckley. Is he with Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Where is he employed?
    Mr. Levitties. He is self-employed as an electrical 
contractor.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you have any other brothers?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Any sisters?
    Mr. Levitties. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. What is her name?
    Mr. Levitties. My oldest sister's name is Edith Korach.
    Mr. Buckley. Where does she reside?
    Mr. Levitties. Philadelphia.
    Mr. Buckley. Is her husband employed by the government?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir; he is a businessman.
    Mr. Buckley. Any other sisters?
    Mr. Levitties. I have another sister whose name is Francis.
    Mr. Buckley. Is she married?
    Mr. Levitties. She is divorced.
    Mr. Buckley. What is her last name?
    Mr. Levitties. Anchor.
    Mr. Buckley. A-n-k-e-r?
    Mr. Levitties. I think it was spelled A-n-c-h-o-r.
    Mr. Buckley. Is her husband employed by the government?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Buckley. Are either of your sisters employed by the 
government?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Are any members of your family Communists?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. And you say that you never handed out any 
pamphlets or handbills?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever sign any Communist party 
nominating petition?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever engage in any Communist party 
activity?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Levitties. No, sir.
    Mr. Buckley. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Levitties.
    Mr. Levitties. Thank you, Mr. Buckley.
    [Adjourned at 1:20 p.m.]












        TRANSFER OF OCCUPATION CURRENCY PLATES--ESPIONAGE PHASE

    [Editor's note.--In 1945, Elizabeth Bentley (1908-1963) 
told the FBI that during World War II she had served as a 
courier between Soviet agents and a Communist cell in 
Washington headed by Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and William 
Ullman. They provided information passed along from a group of 
government officials, and although Bentley had not met them 
all, she identified Treasury Department officials Harry Dexter 
White, V. Frank Coe, and William H. Taylor as part of the 
group. To handle the volume of material passing through the 
group, Ullman, who lived in Silvermaster's house, had set up a 
darkroom in the basement to photograph the documents rather 
than copy them by hand. Some of the individuals whom Bentley 
identified were mentioned in the KGB cables intercepted and 
deciphered by the Venona project, although William H. Taylor's 
name was not among them.
    Alvin W. Hall, director of the Bureau of Engraving and 
Printing, testified in public session on October 20, 1953. 
Although discussed at that hearing, William H. Taylor did not 
testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                        MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1953

                                       U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:00 p.m., room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, presiding
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota
    Present Also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator; Thomas 
W. La Venia, assistant counsel; Robert Jones, assistant to 
Senator Potter; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Present from the Department of Army: General C. C. Penn, 
special assistant to the secretary of the army.

  TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. TAYLOR (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          BYRON SCOTT)

    Senator Mundt. Mr. Taylor, will you stand and be sworn.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Taylor. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Scott is your counsel?
    Mr. Taylor. That is right.
    Senator Mundt. You my begin by identifying yourself and 
identifying your counsel.
    Mr. Taylor. My name in William Henry Taylor, 3120 51st 
Street N.W. and I am assistant director of the Middle East 
Division of the International Monetary Fund. This is my 
counsel, Byron Scott.
    Senator Mundt. All right, Tom. You may begin and ask Mr. 
Taylor some questions in connection with the current hearing, 
regarding our loan of our monetary plates to the Russians in 
the concluding days of the late war.
    What we are trying to do is find out as much as we can so 
we can issue a final and factual report on that.
    Mr. Taylor. Would it be agreeable to you if I started with 
a narrative statement in my own words.
    Senator Mundt. If you will make it brief.
    Mr. Taylor. I shall try to make it brief.
    I went into North Africa with the landing troops in 
November 1942, and there I had my first experience with 
invasion currency. The invasion currency used at that time was 
what the army called the yellow seal dollar. That invasion 
currency was withdrawn from troop circulation shortly after the 
opening days in North Africa and we went on a franc basis. It 
was in Africa that it was first called to my attention that 
some of the finance officers were receiving back more francs in 
exchange for the dollar method than paid out.
    Upon my return to Washington in March of 1943, sometime 
after that particular date--I don't recall the exact date--I do 
remember an informal meeting in the War Department at which 
General Carter, the general then in charge of the finance 
division, Department of Army, in which I told army some 
restrictions had to be placed upon the amount of remittances 
soldiers could make from overseas and they were obviously 
remitting back more than their pay.
    I remember that General Carter protested against my 
limitation of soldier's remittances and he gave as an 
illustration why be could not support such limitations that his 
sergeant in an overseas post had won $1,500 on a Saturday 
afternoon in a poker party, and there should certainly be no 
limitation in remitting legitimate money to the United States.
    Shortly after the middle of 1943, in the early part of 
1943, the army approached the Treasury Department as to 
printing of invasion currency. This was the first real invasion 
currency we had used. It was invasion currency not to be 
denominated in terms of dollars and cents. The original plates 
run off as dollars and cents currency was a secret operation 
and no one, not even the Treasury Department, had any 
understanding where the currency was to be used.
    I remember riding on the street car down to work and 
reading that the allies had invaded Sicily, and calling Alvin 
Hall, director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and 
telling Alvin Hall, whom we had been conferring with, this is 
where we use the invasion currency. Then and only then did we 
get orders from the army to put terms of lire from this 
particular currency. This currency had to be on the beachhead 
of Sicily within a fortnight.
    In Italy we began to get the first indication, and I must 
say at this time that hindsight is better than foresight--we 
began to get the first indication that the flow back might 
occur because in Italy some of the G.I.'s and military 
personnel sent back sums vastly in excess of what they had 
received in pay.
    The British were in on the planning of the lira from the 
beginning and all of the Allied currency that we printed 
thereafter was appointed an Allied endeavor in which no secrets 
were kept from the British in our currency printing and they in 
turn had no secrets regarding the printing of theirs. Shortly 
thereafter, arrangements were made for redemption. The 
arrangements for redemptions, sir, are largely a question of 
army accounting procedures. This is not a subject to which I am 
terribly familiar. Certainly, the Treasury Department's views 
were never sought and never solicited on this particular 
subject. The army executed it overseas, the same procedures it 
intended to use in regard to financial transactions within the 
domain of the United States, or such other foreign areas as 
they had been in, for example, China, Philippines, Guam or the 
Panama Canal. The procedures used overseas were proper and 
longstanding regarding the army.
    Treasury views were never solicited. As I said, treasury 
views were sometimes offered as in the meeting in General 
Carter's office in 1943 in which I first suggested some 
limitation placed upon amount, etc.
    From printing lira, the army then asked the treasury to go 
into full scale production in regard to franc currency, German 
mark currency. We conferred with the British about the Austrian 
shilling.
    I was authorized by the treasury with some of the 
governments in exile to find out whether these governments had 
adequate military currency on hand if a military invasion of 
their particular country should take place. I remember in the 
case of France, a government in exile, but they had no currency 
provisions whatever and the British undertook to provide 
British currency and the invasion of Denmark with AM Crown 
currency. We conferred with Belgium, the Dutch, and other 
countries and had new currencies issued.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, as to the case in point. That gives us 
an interesting point on the Berlin-Russian situation.
    Mr. Taylor. My connection with the German mark currency had 
mainly to do with the printing of that currency here in the 
United States. I was a technician that tended to be the liaison 
man, as they called him, between the War Department, Treasury 
Department and Alvin Hall, the printer and engraving and 
printing director.
    Mr. La Venia. You were the representative of the treasury?
    Mr. Taylor. I was a representative of the Treasury 
Department, sir. I recall that in our division in the Treasury 
Department we had to do such as printing, blocking out a rough 
model of what the currency might look like, the German words 
used, the fact that AM should appear, which means Allied 
Military, or our people like to think American Military. AM 
could be used for either one or the other. We turned over rough 
hand drafts to Alvin Bell, who then turned them over to the 
engravers and they turned out very wonderfully. Hall was very 
distrustful and felt he could not handle an order of this 
magnitude, the army setting the number of units printed and 
asking almost infinite amounts of currency, which in our view 
would carry through four or five invasion armies. He said we 
had to be prepared with new currency for all of Germany if the 
Germans should inflate their currency to such an extent we 
would have to declare it non-valid. Certainly, this was a 
military item which must be taken into consideration. The idea 
of mark currency was that it would be used by all of the allied 
troops.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Taylor, I know you are trying to be very 
helpful. Did you attend the conference of April 14, 1944, as a 
result of which conference the plates, negatives and positives 
were finally turned over to the Russian government?
    Mr. Taylor. Where was this conference? Where did it take 
place?
    Mr. La Venia. In the Office of the Secretary of the 
Treasury.
    Mr. Taylor. Who was supposed to have been present?
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall any such conference?
    Mr. Taylor. I recall no such meeting I attended. I am not 
saying that I wasn't there, but it is ten years old. I don't 
recall attending such a meeting where Russian representatives 
were supposed to be present.
    Senator McCarthy. Might I suggest that you ask whether he 
ever attended any meetings in regard to the printing project at 
which Russian representatives were present.
    Mr. Taylor. The answer to that is very simple. I never 
remember attending any meeting with the Russians at which the 
question of AM Currency was discussed either in the treasury or 
outside the treasury.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you aware that there were any meetings 
between representatives of the Treasury Department and 
representatives of the Russian government?
    Mr. Taylor. I think it was pretty common knowledge in the 
Treasury Department that Mr. Morgenthau was carrying on high-
level discussions with members of the War Department and 
members of the Russian embassy staff. As far as I can recall, I 
attended none of these meetings.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you attend a meeting on April 14, 1944, 
that is the day the decision was made to turn over the plates 
in the secretary's office, which Barry Dexter White presided?
    Mr. Taylor. I can't recall ever having attended such 
meeting, sir, and if there were representatives of the Russian 
government or Russian embassy present, I would certainly say I 
was not present.
    Mr. La Venia. This a different meeting, not with Russian 
representatives. This is strictly a departmental meeting in the 
treasury between yourself, Mr. White, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Luxford, 
and I believe Gromyko.
    Mr. Taylor. I don't recall ever having been present at a 
meeting in the treasury office where a Russian representative 
was present.
    Mr. La Venia. You have in your general brief statement 
discussed the occupation experience of the finance officers in 
the French currency prior to this joint operation discussion. I 
take it that to your mind one of the outstanding defects 
appeared to be the circulation of the currency in a manner that 
would be a detriment to the financial interest of the U.S. 
government.
    Mr. Taylor. As I say, hindsight is better than foresight. 
It is easier to see defects of the army system of accounting 
after something has taken place. When I said I had this 
discussion with General Carter in 1943, I wouldn't say it was a 
problem I was personally very excited about. At that time it 
was something carried out by the individual GIs and I couldn't 
see in that regard why the army redeemed more for the 
individuals than they paid out to them.
    Mr. La Venia. Nonetheless, one of the things that seemed to 
concern everybody about the Allied military mark printing was 
the question of accountability?
    Mr. Taylor. It certainly never worried the Treasury 
Department. The Treasury Department was doing a printing job at 
the request of the War Department. The Treasury Department was 
never asked, as far as I am aware, of the accountability for 
this currency or how the finance officers issued it and the War 
Department would have resented it.
    Mr. La Venia. That was not the question. My question was: 
It appears that one of the primary considerations in 
everybody's mind was the question of accountability. I didn't 
ask whose responsibility it was, who considered it, who gave it 
thought, whether they were responsible or not.
    Mr. Taylor. I am not sure that my answer wasn't directed to 
that particular question.
    Mr. La Venia. Suppose I rephrase the question. Everyone, 
whether responsible for accountability or not, did have some 
concern for accountability of occupation currency.
    Mr. Taylor. Well, I am sorry, but I am not able to catch 
exactly what you are driving at.
    Mr. La Venia. Well, in your original statement you said 
that you had discussed with finance officers the use of francs 
in the North African invasion and they talked about trying to 
restrict the amount of money that could be sent home by GIs, 
problems involved like the man who won maybe $1,500 in craps 
games, and then you went on to different discussion which dealt 
with the problem of control of this money in an occupied 
country. I took it to understand that regardless of whose 
responsibility it was, everyone concerned with this picture 
realized the problem of accountability in printing occupation 
currency and in its circulation. Am I correct?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, I think that if you are stating that that 
is what I had said, you are stating somewhat more than I had 
said.
    I said North African finance officers expressed some 
concern because they found out some GI's were remitting to the 
United States more than they had received in pay, and this 
concern I expressed to the War Department when I got home in 
General Carter's office.
    Mr. La Venia. You related it for what reason?
    Mr. Taylor. For some limitations to be placed upon the 
amounts individual GI's could send home through army 
facilities. They turned in local currency getting dollars paid 
out in U.S. currency. This didn't seem to be very considerable 
concern to the army.
    The Chairman. Why were you concerned? What did you think 
was wrong?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, as a treasury man, I didn't feel, 
one, that it would be honest or fair on my part to engage in 
black market operations in regard to currency or supplies in my 
position, nor did I think I should transmit money home I 
received from army sources. In fact, I never transmitted money 
home under any circumstances.
    I didn't think it was part of the army program to fight a 
war in which boys were allowed to transmit money home they did 
not receive from the finance officers but had come from outside 
activities. I didn't think this was part of army policy.
    Mr. Carr. Did I understand you, Mr. Taylor, in your answer 
before we got into the questioning--do I understand you to say 
that during the discussion of the Allied mark, the setting up 
of Allied mark accountability did not seem to be a prime 
concern of the treasury at that time?
    Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
    Mr. Carr. And I think your statement was it would not have 
been a concern of the army at that time?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think I said that.
    Let's divide accountability. The treasury does have 
accountability, the accountability of treasury for what it 
prints at the insistence of army. The treasury has got to 
account as to where this currency is, how packaged, how 
numbered, the serial number, where this currency is until it is 
turned over to Army Transportation Corps, then the army takes 
over. The army has accountability from there on out. The army 
did not desire and did not solicit our advice as far as I 
understand as to accountability from the time they received the 
currency. The treasury definitely had accountability up to that 
point. As I understand the operation, we were printing currency 
at the request of the army. We had accountability, for example, 
of seeing that the workmen, primarily Alvin Hall, didn't take 
currency outside of the plant, accountability of seeing first 
run of currency, that those sheets were properly destroyed, 
proper supervision and records made, printing accountability, 
but it doesn't go beyond that as far as I am aware--printing in 
treasury.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Taylor, do you recall over the period of 
months when the Russian representatives were trying to get the 
negatives and the printing plates, etc., a concurrent question 
also arose. Now, you may not have had anything to do with the 
rate of exchange----
    Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. And that rate of exchange also accounted for 
the delay in arriving at an agreement. Is that correct?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think so.
    Mr. La Venia. That was my impression.
    Mr. Taylor. In fact, I don't recall that the Russians were 
asked about the rate of exchange.
    Mr. La Venia. I have here an exhibit, which are the minutes 
of a meeting held in Mr. McCloy's office. This exhibit sort of 
summarizes all of the activities up to that date, that is 25 
April 1944, after the authority for delivery, and I would like 
to read from it and ask you if this recalls to your mind the 
same impression you had at that time. It reads as follows:

    The U.S.S.R. had apparently not expected to discuss a mark 
rate for the period of military operations, during which they 
envisage no special need for a rate of exchange, but for a 
post-hostilities period. Mr. Taylor said that Soviet approach 
to such matters is apparently very different from that of US-UK 
authorities. The Soviets have shown no interest in a supply of 
A.M. marks for the initial period and have asked that the US-UK 
authorities expect to do with proposed records regarding use of 
A.M. marks at that time. The Soviets have objected to the word 
``liability'' in connection with the use of A.M. marks and have 
asked if this means liability for redemption for A.M. mark 
currency by the Allies.

    Now, I have read from this exhibit and I would like you to 
expand, if you will, on that as to exactly what it means to 
your mind.
    Mr. Taylor. In the first place, let me say I had no meeting 
with Soviet representatives in regard to this particular 
problem. Any view that I may have been expressing in the War 
Department as representing the Soviet view came from somebody 
else in the Treasury Department.
    The question of liability in this particular instance, I 
would assume, is a question that is being raised and posed for 
the problem and solution by the War Department because they 
would be the issuing authority, not the Treasury Department.
    Mr. La Venia. Let me see if I can clarify my question a 
little better. Was it your impression at that time that the 
Soviet representatives were not concerned with rate of exchange 
and wished to avoid the use of the word ``liability'' because 
they never had any intention of getting involved in redemption 
of this currency, directly or indirectly, to the reimbursement 
of their allies who made the redemption. I am asking you if it 
was your impression.
    Mr. Taylor. I think again we are using ``liability'' in two 
terms. The army has a liability, feels a liability to whom it 
pays soldiers currency. This liability is not only giving 
currency but also taking it back in exchange for dollars.
    Then you are speaking here of a larger question and that is 
the question of the liability of the issuing authority for the 
currency in general. Suppose we had gone into Germany and we 
had found in effect there was no mark currency in circulation 
or Germany was flooded with mark currency, which we had to take 
into consideration. Under those circumstances we would have to 
provide new currency for that country. What would be the 
liability for that currency? The answer is that neither the 
British nor Americans faced up to that particular problem. They 
weren't willing to face up to it. In a country that was an 
enemy country, lots of strange ideas are floating around at 
that time. The liability to individual soldiers is a liability 
the army feels personally and that differs from liability for 
currency issuance.
    Mr. La Venia. This is no doubt a very good explanation of 
the theory surrounding the word liability in connection with 
occupation currency. However, I ask you now, when you made this 
statement, as a result either of information gained directly or 
indirectly by you, whether or not it was your impression that 
the Soviet Union was uninterested in a rate of exchange and 
definitely wished to avoid the use of the word ``liability'' 
because you had the impression that they at no time intended to 
reimburse any of its allies for any of the currency printed and 
issued by the Russian government? Just ``yes'' or ``'no.'''
    Mr. Taylor. Well, I am very hesitant to answer ``yes'' or 
``no.'' If I may be given the courtesy of an explanation. It 
was certainly my impression that from word that I had received 
from others that the Russians were not interested in the rate 
of exchange. The question of liability of any currency turned 
over to them was a question they were unwilling to discuss 
ahead of the fact.
    Senator Mundt. Which would indicate they didn't intend to 
assume any liability for it?
    Mr. Taylor. Sir, I would hesitate to draw conclusions ten 
years after a conversation. I don't know what my impression was 
at that particular time.
    Senator Mundt. But you do recall they refused to discuss 
liability?
    Mr. Taylor. Refused to discuss the rate of exchange. 
Liability for the overall--as I understand and remember, 
neither the Americans nor British took any position on ultimate 
liability.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, at the time, let's say in the latter 
part of 1943 and up through June 1944, what was your title in 
the Treasury Department? What position did you hold?
    Mr. Taylor. I occupied the position of assistant director, 
one of four assistant directors, of the Division of Monetary 
Research of the Treasury Department.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was your immediate supervisor?
    Mr. Taylor. My immediate supervisor was Harry Dexter White.
    Mr. La Venia. When did you first become employed in the 
Treasury Department?
    Mr. Taylor. January 1941.
    Mr. La Venia. Who did you report to at that time?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Harry Dexter White.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you personally acquainted with Mr. White 
before your employment in the Treasury Department?
    Mr. Taylor. I may have met Mr. White in November of 1940. 
Prior to that time I have no knowledge of meeting Mr. White.
    Mr. La Venia. Did Mr. White interview you for employment in 
the Treasury Department?
    Mr. Taylor. That is my impression, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. After you were interviewed, did he give you 
to understand that you would probably go to work in the 
Treasury Department.
    Mr. Taylor. I didn't want to go to work for the Treasury 
Department, but I went to work for the Treasury Department.
    Mr. La Venia. And he was your supervisor?
    Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
    Senator Mundt. You say you didn't want to go to work----
    Mr. Taylor. I was a college professor, and if I might say 
so, I took considerable pride in being a college professor. I 
was my own boss, could set my own hours within limitation of 
class instructions, had a very happy life. I came to Washington 
on sabbatical leave from the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. I 
was pledged to return in February 1941. I came to Washington in 
order to interview government officials to receive information 
available to the public on the Far East. I was surprised that 
every department in so-called Far Eastern experts, I was 
offered half a dozen jobs in Washington. Most of them I brushed 
off because I wasn't interested in becoming a government 
official. When the Treasury Department offered me a job for six 
months and only providing----
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall how you were contacted by the 
Treasury Department? They didn't solicit----
    Mr. Taylor. As I recall, sir, I had been to the Commerce 
Department, Agriculture Department, some other departments in 
Washington in regard to Far Eastern publications and somebody 
said a division in the Treasury Department was also doing some 
work in regard to it. This turned out to be the Division of 
Monetary Research. I went to the Division of Monetary Research 
and asked for Far Eastern publications. Whether I saw Mr. White 
or somebody else first, I couldn't say positively. Certainly, I 
had a conversation with Mr. White. Mr. White was very 
interested in what he considered to be my expertness as a Far 
Eastern specialist and wanted me to go to work in the Treasury 
Department in regard to that particular subject.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, to whom was Mr. White responsible during 
your period of employment?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. White. One, to the under secretary and two, 
to the secretary.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Daniel Bell was under secretary during 
the entire period you were in the treasury?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes. Mr. Morgenthau was secretary until, it 
must be in the record somewhere, he was succeeded by Mr. 
Vincent.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, can you name some of the other employees 
of the Treasury Department that were involved in these 
particular discussion had on the Allied military mark?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir, Secretary Morgenthau, Under Secretary 
of the Treasury Bell, Assistant Secretary White, General 
Counsel Randolph Paul. I think there was certainly myself and a 
chap by the name of Leman Aarons, Ansel Luxford, legal 
department, William Thomlinson from the Division of Monetary 
Research.
    Mr. Cohn. Harold Glasser?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think Harold Glasser had anything to do 
with AM currency. He may after I left. I left Washington the 
beginning of May 1944 and who took over these problems after 
that, I don't know because I wasn't here.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Mr. Coe?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think Mr. Coe. I have no recollection 
of Mr. Coe having anything to do with this.
    Mr. La Venia. Sonia Gold?
    Mr. Taylor. On a very minor level, maybe. I don't recall 
her participating.
    Mr. Cohn. William Ludwig Ullman?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think Mr. Ullman----
    Mr. Cohn. When you say you don't think, the records 
contradict that?
    Mr. Taylor. I am not relying on records. My recollection is 
that he didn't have anything to do with it.
    Mr. Cohn. Your recollection is he didn't?
    Mr. Taylor. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this?
    Mr. Taylor, who got you the job in the government 
originally?
    Mr. Taylor. I have just tried to explain that, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. White?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, Mr. White.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, who helped you get that job with Mr. White?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't remember that anybody helped.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you and I go over this before the grand jury?
    Mr. Taylor. We did, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did we find out that a Communist spy interceded? 
I think the question asked you before the grand jury was the 
names on your Form 57, and as a result of the original question 
developed a situation where you had received a letter from 
someone named as a Communist spy indicated that he had 
interceded with the people down in the Treasury Department and 
some regulations could be waived and you could go right to 
work.
    Mr. Taylor. I think the situation, as I recall it, you are 
referring to a letter from Mr. Ullman.
    Mr. Cohn. William Ludwig Ullman?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes. He wrote a letter in December after I was 
interviewed in the Treasury Department putting a concrete 
proposal before me.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't he tell you that he had waived certain 
requirements and you could go right to work?
    Mr. Taylor. I think what he indicated was that I could go 
to work without the usual waiting period.
    Mr. Cohn. When I asked you that question before the grand 
jury didn't you deny that you knew Mr. Ullman?
    Mr. Taylor. My impression was that I didn't meet Mr. Ullman 
until I went to work in the Treasury Department.
    Mr. Cohn. And didn't it develop that he had written you a 
letter addressing you by your first name and signed by his 
first name stating he had gotten a waiver of a certain time 
period and you could get right down there?
    Mr. Taylor. I think the time period involved was whether I 
met him in November 1940 or met him in January 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. That might be a very important time. That might 
involve whether you met him on the job or whether a member of a 
Communist spy ring, cutting through a lot of red tape----
    Mr. Taylor. As I recall the discussion, the time period 
involved was 1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't the Form 57 have a date? Could we resolve 
that?
    Mr. Taylor. I was asked to get the Form 57 and it was 
pointed out there was no date on the Form 57.
    The Chairman. How did that come about?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't know.
    Senator Mundt. Did you procure that Form 57 for the grand 
jury at that time?
    Mr. Taylor. As far as I am aware.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that Mr. Ullman was a Communist at 
that time?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Mr. White was under Communist 
discipline?
    Mr. Taylor. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster as a 
Communist?
    Mr. Taylor. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Silvermaster?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, I went to school with Silvermaster, 
University of California.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him socially in Washington?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been in Nathan Gregory 
Silvermaster's house?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. That brings up a very interesting point.
    Senator Mundt. Have you ever been in his basement?
    Mr. Taylor. I was asked that question before and the 
recollection of what I said then, I would like to say now. That 
I have a hazy impression of having been in the Silvermaster 
basement because I know that Ludwig Ullman who was living with 
Mr. Silvermaster was interested in machine tools and he had a 
lathe and I recall having seen a lathe. Now, the lathe could 
only be in one place in my mind, in the basement. I don't 
recall being in the basement.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember any photographic equipment?
    Mr. Taylor. None, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. None whatsoever?
    Mr. Taylor. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Harold Glasser?
    Mr. Taylor. I met him in 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him socially?
    Mr. Taylor. After 1943, socially and in connection with our 
job in the Treasury Department.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Frank Coe?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him socially?
    Mr. Taylor. I couldn't say, sir. I don't recall ever being 
in Frank Coe's house or Frank Coe being in mine, unless you 
call luncheon knowing him socially.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever in anyone else's home at the same 
time he was there? Were you ever in the Silvermaster home at 
the same time he was there?
    Mr. Taylor. On one occasion Silvermaster had a cocktail 
party at which two or three hundred agriculture county agents--
--
    Mr. Cohn. Let's skip that one right there. Were you ever at 
any smaller gathering in the Silvermaster home?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. I have had dinner in the Silvermaster 
home.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was there?
    Mr. Taylor. I think on one occasion Mr. White was there. 
There were always people in and out of the Silvermaster home. I 
don't recall all the names or positions.
    Mr Cohn. Let's find out who?
    Mr. Taylor. On one occasion Mr. White.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever there when Mr. Glasser was there?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. William Ludwig Ullman.
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Ullman lived with Silvermaster.
    Mr. Cohn. How many occasions were you in the Silvermaster 
home?
    Mr. Taylor. I would say between the time I came to work for 
the government, which was January 1941 and the time I left the 
government, December, 1946, I probably was in the Silvermaster 
home on six occasions.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know that any of these people whose 
names we have mentioned were Communists?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any suspicion that they were 
Communists?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do--never talk politics?
    Mr. Taylor. I was never in the habit of going around 
suspicioning people.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Taylor, you were living and working with a 
group of Communist spies. You, yourself, were named as a man 
who furnished information to a Communist espionage ring. You 
know that?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. That has come to my attention. The 
lady who made the allegation is completely unknown to me----
    Mr. Cohn. Forgetting the lady's allegations. When I was 
questioning you before the grand jury you completely denied 
knowing a man before going to work for the government and 
later, I remember, information the FBI produced--a letter from 
Ullman addressing you by your first name and signed by his 
first name, indicating that he was cutting through a lot of red 
tape, pulled out the stop gap, and for you to get down to work. 
After that questioning, I question the credibility of the 
witness.
    Mr. Taylor, can you give the committee any explanation for 
the intimate business with a group of Communist spies and you 
did not know a single one of them were Communists?
    Mr. Taylor. Sir, I was working in the Treasury Department.
    Mr. Cohn. You weren't at work when you were over at the 
Silvermaster home--the man who was the ring leader in this spy 
group?
    Mr. Taylor. The best I can say, sir. I had no knowledge 
that any of these people were Communists at the time of my 
association with them and I am certainly not a Communist now 
and never have been.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been under Communist discipline?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Ullman, Mr. White, pull out stops, cut 
red tape to get you in because they knew you were someone they 
could rely upon under their Communist discipline?
    Mr. Taylor. When I went to work, Mr. White was the division 
chief in charge of the division. Mr. Ullman was his 
administrative assistant.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did they take the trouble to rush you down 
there?
    Mr. Taylor. I don't think there was any trouble.
    Mr. Cohn. You agree you got the special letter calling you 
by your first name and signed by his last time, wherein he had 
gotten the waiting period waived, wouldn't you call that going 
to great trouble?
    Mr. Taylor. All the waiving of the waiting period is, as 
far as I am aware, it means the Secret Service carried through 
an investigation of every person in the Treasury Department and 
they waived the procedure so I could come to work immediately 
and investigate after I came to work. It does not lift any of 
the consequences that would follow from the investigation.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they make an investigation?
    Mr. Taylor. As far as I am aware, they did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they ever question you about your 
relationship with these people?
    Mr. Taylor. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever questioned by anyone other than the 
grand jury and FBI?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have a loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Taylor. The international employees loyalty board set 
up under supplement to the executive order of the president. 
That has just been set.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you have had a hearing?
    Mr. Taylor. The hearing is to be sometime in the future.
    Senator Mundt. Are you quite sure, Mr. Taylor, that you 
never sat in a meeting in 1944, in April, at which there were 
members of the Soviet Finance Delegation present?
    Mr. Taylor. It is to the best of my recollection that I was 
never present at any meeting in the Treasury Department where 
Soviet representatives were present where the question of AM 
currency was discussed, and I don't think that my memory is 
faulty in this particular regard.
    Senator Mundt. I don't think I can pronounce those names 
correctly, but in addition to you and Mr. White, who were 
supposed to have attended such meeting, there were Mr. Smirnov 
and a Mr. Chechulia, both of whom are listed as members of the 
Soviet Finance Delegation.
    Mr. Taylor. If there was any such meeting, sir, I certainly 
have no recollection of it. I am testifying to the best of my 
recollection. I would have no reason to say otherwise because I 
would have no reason to hide the fact I discussed it with the 
Russians if I did.
    Counsel, what is the date of the meeting?
    Mr. La Venia. April, 18, 1944.
    Senator Mundt. Do you keep a diary?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Taylor, the chairman would like you to 
look at that and it might refresh your recollection.
    Senator Mundt. It is supposed to be a memorandum over your 
name.
    Mr. Taylor. I would not like to say this meeting didn't 
take place. I would like to make two comments. One, the meeting 
was in Mr. White's office and not in Mr. Morgenthau's office 
and this is a meeting at which evidently Mr. White is 
explaining the views in regard to the rate of exchange and not 
the question of issuance of currency. Certainly I must have 
written this memorandum. Certainly if I wrote the memorandum I 
must have been there. I have no recollection of this meeting 
taking place, sir. This is the meeting of April 18, 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it look like a regular memorandum made in 
the course of business, a memorandum from the treasury file?
    Mr. Taylor. I have no reason to doubt its authenticity, no, 
sir.
    Senator Mundt. There is nothing particularly damaging in 
it. It indicates that the Russian finance people were at the 
treasury discussing with treasury official their problems at 
that time.
    Mr. Taylor. I am not trying to say I was not present. I was 
directing my remarks to the fact I don't think I was present at 
any high level meeting where the question of making the plates 
available or not was discussed with the Russians or sounding 
out the Russians on the rate of exchange. Mr. White is doing 
all the explaining, it seems, and the Russians are remaining 
silent. This is a meeting that evidently to my mind is not 
important.
    Senator Mundt. Did you ever hear Mr. Hall or Mr. Bell voice 
any skepticism about making the plates available to Russia?
    Mr. Taylor. Oh, yes. This was quite an issue in the 
Treasury Department. The question of making the currency or 
making the plates available to the Russians became a very 
debated issue and when it--I don't know, before or after the 
decision to make the plates available, Mr. Hall took very 
violent exception primarily on the grounds that a man who 
prints currency from currency plates doesn't make that plate 
available to anyone else; that if he makes it available, there 
is no telling what other people will do with it; that you lose 
complete control; that in his experiences in printing he had 
never run across a situation of this kind. Mr. Bell took Mr. 
Hall's position on this and I wrote a memorandum to the 
secretary of the treasury over Mr. Bell's signature setting Mr. 
Hall's argumentations out in detail, what this particular side 
of the issue was.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Bell and Mr. Hall raised no question as 
to making the currency in unlimited amounts available to the 
Russians?
    Mr. Taylor. As I understand the question, in turning over 
the plates we would lose control and there would be no way of 
telling the amount; that if they had the machine they could 
flood the market.
    Senator Mundt. They had no objection to supplying them with 
currency, so they apparently were relating their objection to 
the use of plates on the question of accountability and 
liability.
    Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
    Senator Mundt. And you prepared that memorandum for the 
secretary of the treasury over Mr. Bell's name?
    Mr. Taylor. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Mundt. Voicing Mr. Hall's objection?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. I think you have been asked the question and 
have already answered it. Are you now or have you ever been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Taylor. No, sir.
    Senator Mundt. Have you ever been a member of a friend 
organization cited by the attorney general?
    Mr. Taylor. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    Senator Mundt. At no time in your association with the men 
mentioned previously who were under Communist discipline or 
Communist functionaries, did you in any way suspect any of 
them?
    Mr. Taylor. No. sir. I did belong at one time, for a period 
of about one year, to the International Professional 
Association, which has subsequently been told to me was 
dominated by and under control of Communists. It is not on the 
attorney general's list but I would like you to know that 
allegation has been made. I have denied that it was dominated 
by Communists or used by Communists when I was associated with 
it, which was early in its career.
    Senator Mundt. That was prior to your coming with the 
government?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. I don't think you ever answered the 
question: Did you ever notice anything strange or Communistic 
or pro-Soviet, in the conduct or Mr. Frank Coe?
    Mr. Taylor. I worked with Mr. Coe when he was assistant 
director of the division and later director of the division and 
I had no reason to believe by anything he did or anything he 
said that he was a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Mundt. Did you work with Mr. Coe after he had been 
called up before the loyalty board and after coming under 
public investigation?
    Mr. Taylor. I am not sure.
    Senator Mundt. When did you leave your connection with Mr. 
Coe?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Coe? December of last year--November and 
December when he went before the grand jury and public session 
of a Senate investigating committee. My relationship with Mr. 
Coe ceased at that particular time.
    Senator Mundt. Were you with Mr. Coe at the time he 
testified in the Hiss case?
    Mr. Taylor. Not as a witness.
    Senator Mundt. Connected with him in the treasury at the 
time he was before the House committee?
    Mr. Taylor. I wasn't aware he testified in the Hiss case.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you recall the fact that after charges were 
made against Alger Hiss, after Elizabeth Bentley had named you 
and Mr. Coe and others in a Communist spy ring, the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities held a hearing, at which 
Mr. Coe among others was a witness.
    Mr. Taylor. I knew Mr. Coe testified in regard to the Miss 
Bentley hearing.
    Mr. Cohn. That was part of the hearing.
    Mr. Taylor. I didn't know he testified in regard to the 
Hiss hearing. I knew he testified in regard to Miss Bentley but 
I knew nothing about Hiss.
    Mr. Cohn. That was the testimony I had reference to.
    Mr. Taylor. I did offer to appear before that committee in 
1948 and I offered twice and the chairman sent me a letter 
finally in the middle of September which said I could appear. 
When I telephoned the committee they had suspended hearings 
that very day.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Taylor, for the record, coincidentally 
with your employment in the Treasury Department was Harold 
Glasser also employed there?
    Mr. Taylor. Harold Glasser was in the treasury long before 
I was. I went to work January 1941 and I don't think I met 
Harold Glasser until 1943.
    Mr. La Venia. The question is was he employed there while 
you were there?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. William Ludwig Ullman? During the same period 
or any portion?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. V. Frank Coe?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Sonia Gold?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. I have no further questions.
    Senator Mundt. Frank, any other questions? That will be all 
then for the day, Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. You will be available Wednesday morning if 
we want to call you in public hearing?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. You will continue under subpoena until we 
dismiss you.

 TESTIMONY OF ALVIN W. HALL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND 
                            PRINTING

    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hall. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Hall, for the record will you give your 
complete name and your position with the government?
    Mr. Hall. A. W. Hall, director of the Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing.
    Senator Mundt. And you have held that position since when?
    Mr. Hall. Since December 1924.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Hall, I don't believe you brought your 
memorandum of April 14 and April 15 with you that deal with the 
meeting regarding the turning over of the Allied military mark 
printing plates and the glass negatives and the positives to 
the Russian representatives. However, I believe you have read 
them quite recently, have you not?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, I have.
    Mr. La Venia. I think you perhaps can tell us very briefly 
exactly the part you played or were required to play in this 
entire transaction.
    Mr. Hall. Well, it is very difficult to give you a verbatim 
report on the contents of the memorandum not having them before 
me, but I can relate in generalities how I was involved in the 
matter.
    The bureau was asked to produce a military mark currency 
for General Eisenhower when he was preparing for the invasion 
of France and Germany. The quantities that were named were so--
--
    Mr. La Venia. Could I interrupt? The preparation of the 
particular currency you are talking about for General 
Eisenhower, at that time it was contemplated turning it over to 
the Allied military troops. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. And he happened to be commander in chief?
    Mr. Hall. The man preparing for the invasion and he had to 
have some circulating medium. The order was too large for the 
bureau and we were not equipped to do the printing. It was 
impossible to print the invasion currency by the intaglio 
method so we had to resort to a cheaper process commonly 
referred to as lithograph printing. Our equipment was so 
limited that we found it necessary to enlist the services of a 
private printing plant in Boston, Massachusetts, so we prepared 
the designs and started printing. While we were in the process 
of printing the request came to us to submit the Russians 
copies of--duplicates of the printing plates--referred to at 
that time as printing plates.
    Well, we saw that it would be impossible to make printing 
plate presses we hadn't seen or were not acquainted with the 
printing process they were employing and furthermore, we felt 
to submit to the Russians or send to the Russians duplicates of 
the plates being used by the private concern in Boston would be 
a violation of a long-standing custom of not surrendering 
security printing plates to any other plant than the plant 
actually doing the printing.
    There was some reluctance on the part of the Treasury 
Department in responding to the Russian request for so-called 
printing plates. I returned to my office and prepared a 
memorandum which I thought would convince the Russians they 
shouldn't have the material. That memorandum, I think, is in 
the record dated March 3, 1944. There were several reasons for 
setting up these very strenuous objections on our part. One was 
that it would be a violation of the custom of surrendering 
printing plates to two concerns printing the same. The other 
was----
    Mr. La Venia. If you did that you would lose the chance to 
fix responsibility?
    Mr. Hall. That is right--lose responsibility for 
accountability, and the other objection was that we felt the 
Russians would have difficulty in matching the colors. We were 
employing four colors on the face, two colors on the back and 
if they put two kind of currency with variations in color, it 
might confuse the handlers of the currency. They wouldn't know 
if it were genuine or counterfeit.
    As I said previously, there was some reluctance on the part 
of the Treasury Department in going along with this request to 
the Russians, so that memorandum was written in the strongest 
terms to try to discourage the whole proposition. The reason 
was I prophesied some difficulties arising after the thing 
became public information, but all arguments we presented could 
not convince the Russians they shouldn't have copies of the 
plates.
    Mr. La Venia. I would like to show you the photostatic copy 
of memo dated March 3, 1945 and ask you if that is the 
memorandum you refer to.
    Mr. Hall. This is.
    Mr. La Venia. We have that marked Exhibit 1. Proceed Mr. 
Hall.
    Mr. Hall. As I remember on one occasion an offer was made 
to furnish the Russians any amount they wanted and it would be 
shipped to them either by ship or airplane in time for the 
invasion, but they insisted upon getting copies of the plates 
and in due course the secretary of the treasury had a 
conference in his office and directed that I turn the material 
over to the Russians, which I did, and subsequent to that 
directive on the part of the secretary I was given an office 
memorandum signed by D. W. Bell confirming the secretary's 
decision.
    Mr. La Venia. As I show you memorandum of a conference of 
April 14, 1944, and ask you if this is the memorandum you refer 
to as being prepared by you?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, I prepared that.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Hall, I call your attention to the third 
page, first paragraph of that page.
    Mr. Hall. That is a correct statement.
    Mr. La Venia. That was the oral direction received from the 
secretary.
    Mr. Hall. Yes, I remember that he touched me on the 
shoulder and said, ``Do everything you can to give the Russians 
what they want.''
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Chairman, may we have this marked as 
executive exhibit no. 2?
    Senator Mundt. Mark that as executive exhibit no. 2.
    Mr. Hall. I think I have gotten to the point for the 
authority to release the material. If you want me to give you 
any details about the transaction from that point on, I will be 
glad to give them to you.
    Mr. La Venia. That was then actually done?
    Mr. Hall. Yes. Not knowing what process they were employing 
we made negatives and positives of each component part of the 
notes and we sent specifications of the paper, of the ink, the 
water mark, all details and specimen books of the currency we 
had printed in this country. We turned that over to the 
Russians at the Russian embassy.
    Senator Mundt. Here in Washington?
    Mr. Hall. In Washington.
    Senator Mundt. All of which, except by adept printers and 
engravers making the currency, could not be distinguished from 
the currency we were supplying to our people?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct. Our arguments about the 
variation in color were more hypothetical than anything else. 
We tried to enter objection to discourage them.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Hall, this Allied military mark was a 
four-plate front and two-plate rear. That is necessary for the 
color protection of the note?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. That particular type of note being a 
lithograph note, the major protection against counterfeiting 
would be the multi-color process?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. In a lot of your experience, would you say 
that it is impossible to counterfeit a note of this type by the 
use of photo engraving?
    Mr. Hall. No, I would not say it is impossible.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you say it is highly impracticable?
    Mr. Hall. Difficult not highly impracticable. Cameras today 
can do a pretty good job of separating colors.
    Mr. La Venia. At that time, in 1944, would it have been 
very difficult?
    Mr. Hall. It depends upon the person who approaches the 
project. A technician might succeed in making a pretty good 
job. For a run of the mill printer, it might be extremely 
difficult. We went as far as we could in inter-relation of 
colors to try to protect it against counterfeiting.
    Mr. La Venia. The primary reason for using the four plate 
front, face, and the two plate rear of the note was that the 
main security from counterfeiting flows from the multicolor 
process?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. That security from counter-photo engraving 
method as well as photography methods?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. Throughout the documents in our possession it 
appears that Mr. White, Harry Dexter White, and Secretary 
Morgenthau was known to you?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, they were known to me.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you tell us what part he played, to 
your direct knowledge, in this entire negotiation?
    Mr. Hall. Well, as I recall, almost every session I 
attended in the Treasury Department, Mr. White was present and 
he had quite a lot to do with the whole project as I recall it.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you say that he was perhaps the main 
representative from the main treasury in those negotiations, 
reporting to the secretary of the treasury?
    Mr. Hall. He was reporting directly to the secretary, but 
he, as I remember the organization chart, was under Under 
Secretary D. W. Bell. D. W. Bell was next in line to the 
secretary but Harry Dexter White had access to the secretary as 
did other assistant secretaries in the Treasury Department.
    Mr. La Venia. Did V. Frank Coe enter into negotiations?
    Mr. Hall. I don't remember his sitting in meetings, but I 
have seen him in the treasury building.
    Mr. La Venia. Sonia Gold?
    Mr. Hall. I have never met her. I have seen her name on 
documents; that paraphrases of cables come through in which we 
had some interest, and her name appeared as having received a 
copy of it.
    Mr. La Venia. Would you recall seeing on the distribution 
of the memo you received that a carbon copy was going to Frank 
Coe?
    Mr. Hall. I couldn't say definitely whether Frank Coe was 
on there.
    Mr. La Venia. William Ludwig Ullman?
    Mr. Hall. I don't remember Ullman.
    Mr. La Venia. Glasser?
    Mr. Hall. Glasser, I think he received copies of them.
    Senator Mundt. How about Mr. Taylor who testified?
    Mr. Hall. I don't know whether Mr. Taylor received copies 
of documents that I received as paraphrases of cables. Mr. 
Taylor was associated with the project as I remember from the 
very beginning and going through the files I discovered he had 
taken a memorandum that I had written and reworded it and had 
his initials and my initials and Harry White's initials on the 
bottom as having been the author. The substance was taken from 
the memo I had written.
    Senator Mundt. Was that your memo protesting?
    Mr. Hall. No, it was in connection with delivery dates and 
other matters.
    Mr. Carr. Did you disagree with the end result of the 
changing of the memorandum?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The paraphrases came to me just for general knowledge and 
we seldom had to take any action at all. They were just for our 
information.
    Senator Mundt. The questions was: When he rewrote the 
memorandum, did the rewriting change the contents?
    Mr. Hall. No, he carried the thought through.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Hall, throughout the entire negotiations 
you opposed, in the light of your experience, the transfer of 
the printing plates or negatives to the Russian government?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. There were two reasons for your opposition. 
One was the technical attempt to reproduce similar currency 
would fall short because of climactical conditions and other 
conditions, the colors would be off and that reason goes to the 
very heart of it in that it would be impossible to detect 
counterfeit from genuine and that would be a very important 
consideration in light of your experience?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. And your second reason for opposing it was 
the impossibility of accountability?
    Mr. Hall. Yes. May I add this one point. I was afraid to 
send the material to Russia, if we did, the Forbes Company 
would stop printing.
    Mr. La Venia. In the use of the word accountability, one, 
the Forbes Company would want to go off bond. Accountability 
between the Bureau of Engraving and the Forbes Company would be 
effected.
    Another accountability which concerned you very much was 
that it would be difficult to have accountability from the 
Soviet government to the Allied powers in the way of 
reimbursement for the actual money printed.
    Mr. Hall. The actual contract with the Forbes Company was a 
sub-contract. We had as much interest to protect our own 
interest as to protect the Forbes interest.
    Mr. La Venia. The second point of accountability, I 
believe, you raised very strongly left no doubt that in turning 
over the plates there would be no provable way this government 
and her allies could get reimbursement from the Soviet Union.
    Senator Mundt. The second objection you had in turning over 
the plates to Russia was that we would have no idea the volume 
printed and the ultimate liability against the United States 
and no way of telling the Russians printed so much and they 
would assume this much liability?
    Mr. Hall. On the other hand, I have been informed, and I am 
speaking now from information that came to us since this thing 
developed, that the currency was not a liability of the United 
States government.
    Mr. La Venia. That is an issue in controversy.
    I believe, Mr. Hall, on your last remark, that bit of 
information with respect to the authority of the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing to turn over the plates, that is what 
you mean by liability and accountability in that sense.
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. However, it is clear in your mind that in 
actual practical dollars that were turned over before by 
ourselves and our allies for currency redemption of currency 
actually printed by the government----
    Mr. Hall. I am not thoroughly acquainted with that 
operation and I can't speak intelligently there.
    Mr. La Venia. But you were concerned?
    Mr. Hall. I was concerned.
    Mr. La Venia. Although that concern was not officially 
yours, being one of the conferees who made the plans before 
turning over the plates, that was one of the things that 
concerned you?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. There is no doubt in your mind about that?
    Mr. Hall. No, sir.
    Senator Mundt. When that printing apparatus was sent by you 
to the Russian government here in Washington, the embassy, was 
that the same paraphernalia, apparatus, boxes of supplies that 
ultimately came out in the news as a result of Casey Jordan?
    Mr. Hall. That was part of it. The shipment to the embassy 
was very small items, the positives and negatives, and 
specifications and the like. In addition to that, Senator, 
about five plane loads of material, barrels of oil, barrels of 
dry color to compound the inks, we furnished the material for 
making the inks. We loaded five planes which took off for 
Russia. According to Tracy Jordan's testimony, he saw some of 
the planes passing through Great Falls, Montana, and wrote that 
article. As he brings out in the record, one of the planes was 
supposed to have crashed and we had to make up a duplicate 
shipment. We never got evidence that the plane did crash, but 
we made it available just the same. We had each plane numbered 
and knew what each plane carried.
    Mr. La Venia. During your dealings with the representatives 
of the main treasury, you did have some reservations with 
regard to some of these representatives, did you not?
    Mr. Hall. Well, only one person that I feel was perhaps a 
little on the ``pinkish'' side.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was that person?
    Mr. Hall. Harry White.
    Mr. La Venia. Harry Dexter White?
    Mr. Hall. Yes. The reason I make that statement, on one 
occasion during the war he brought seven Russians down to the 
bureau and showed them around and took them out to lunch. He 
seemed to be very friendly. Maybe I was unfair in making that 
deduction.
    Mr. La Venia. You made those deductions a long time ago?
    Mr. Hall. In the early days. In those days it wasn't too 
serious a crime to be on that side a little bit. He was, I 
felt, very liberal and a little on the pinkish side. My first 
impression, I related that to my wife as a matter of fact.
    Senator Mundt. Which would tend to increase your 
reservation as you saw him pretty active in the process of 
urging this transaction.
    Mr. Hall. He was very active. I learned after the hearing 
in 1947 that he had been going to the Russian embassy at night 
and after hours. That confirmed my opinion that he was on the 
liberal side. He was the only person I felt that way about.
    Mr. Cohn. The others you didn't know about one way or the 
other?
    Mr. Hall. I had little dealing with them. I didn't meet Mr. 
Taylor until after he came back from the Far East. He had been 
a prisoner of war for some months over there, lost forty or 
fifty pounds, very sympathetic. I felt he was a loyal 
individual. I knew nothing about the man except the conferences 
we had.
    Mr. Carr. In connection with the five airplanes that sent 
the material to Russia in, after you had received oral 
directions from the secretary saying ``I'll do what you can to 
expedite this thing'' or words to that effect, that sort of 
pressure was exerted upon you? What pressure did you exert upon 
your men to hurry up this operation once you received 
directions?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. As I remember, I asked the secretary if 
he wanted us to work double time on it. As I remember his 
wording, he said, ``We want them put on triple time if 
necessary to get them over there as quickly as possible.'' We 
did just that. After we had prepared them we had to wait for 
the Russians three or four days to come pick them up and take 
it away.
    Mr. La Venia. You have been director of the Bureau of 
Printing and Engraving for twenty-four years?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. You have had considerable experience in the 
printing of securities and currency and no doubt maintain very 
close liaison with the American Bank Note Company as well as 
the Forbes Company because of the type of work you do. Would 
you say, one, that you are one of the better informed men in 
this particular business?
    Mr. Hall. No, I am afraid I would not want to say that.
    Mr. La Venia. We will say it for you. Do you know of any 
occasion in history where a government has turned over its 
printing plates for the printing of any kind of currency of its 
own that would be used by it to another government?
    Mr. Hall. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any occasion where any government 
turned over its currency plates for any reason whatsoever to 
another government?
    Mr. Hall. I have no recollection of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know where a private currency printing 
firm has ever done that?
    Mr. Hall. No, I don't. As a matter of fact, the American 
Bank Note Company and another bank company have printed on the 
letterhead when they accept contract the plates will not be 
removed from the premises.
    Senator Mundt. Of course, if they found any private concern 
doing that, that would be a great matter of concern to our 
government to step in at once. It would probably be a criminal 
offense.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4:45.]














        TRANSFER OF OCCUPATION CURRENCY PLATES--ESPIONAGE PHASE

    [Editor's note.--Elizabeth Bentley (1908-1963) also 
testified in a public hearing of the subcommittee on October 
21, 1953.]
                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 10:30 a.m., room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Thomas W. La Venia, assistant counsel; and 
Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Miss Bentley. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH BENTLEY

    Mr. La Venia. Miss Bentley, taking you back to January 
1944, a meeting you had in Schrafts in New York, Fifth Avenue 
at 46th Street, one of the places you met your Soviet contact--
--
    Miss Bentley. I met him in so many places I can't remember 
which restaurant it was.
    Mr. La Venia. That was Bill.
    Miss Bentley. His code name was Bill. As to whether or not 
he was Russian, I gathered from his accent that he was from one 
of those places.
    Mr. La Venia. And he relayed certain instructions to you?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. What were those instructions?
    Miss Bentley. Well, on the date--I am not sure if it was 
the end of the preceding year or whether this was January. I 
think January is the correct time. It was after the death of 
[Jacob] Golos, and he died the tail-end of 1943, so I am 
placing it just after that.
    As I said I cannot place it any closer than after the death 
of Golos, which would be either December 1943 or January 1944, 
along in there, and Bill, at one of our meetings--I met him 
almost every two weeks--told me the Russians were very much 
interested in American occupation currency being printed for 
Germany in the event of victory and that he would very much 
like to get samples of it; that I was to relate that to 
Silvermaster, either [Nathan] Gregory Silvermaster or Ullman or 
Mrs. Silvermaster or all three; that they were to put the 
pressure on Harry Dexter White to get these samples for them.
    I did that. I went to the Silvermaster home. I can't recall 
off-hand whether all three were there but I believe they were. 
I talked the situation over with them and they said they would 
get to work on it. Sometime subsequent to that, I don't think 
it was the next time, that would have been two weeks, but it 
might have been a month after that they gave me two or three 
samples of American occupation marks which were wrapped in 
newspaper. They told me they were very important; that I must 
be very careful; that they had been taken illegally from the 
files and must be returned; that I could only have them for the 
purpose of photographing.
    Senator Mundt. Who gave you the occupation money?
    Miss Bentley. I can't recall whether it was Gregory 
Silvermaster or Lud Ullman. One of the two.
    Senator Mundt. Either Silvermaster or Ullman?
    Miss Bentley. Yes. They emphasized that they must be 
returned. I gathered they perhaps had a serial number or there 
was a list of them. Anyway, the fact seemed to be they would be 
noticed.
    I took them back to Bill and told him what must be done. 
Either the next time or the time after he returned them to me 
saying they were useless as he was unable to photograph or do 
anything constructive with photography. Therefore, pressure 
must be put on Harry White to get the Americans to turn over 
the plates themselves to Russia, so I relayed the instructions 
back to Silvermaster.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you return the marks to Silvermaster?
    Miss Bentley. I returned the marks, yes. I was going to say 
I continued to remind him of the fact the plates must be turned 
over and I presume they were because after a while the pressure 
came off.
    Mr. La Venia. When you say him, do you mean Ullman?
    Miss Bentley. Either Ullman or Silvermaster. My 
recollection is that both of them were present all of the 
times, but I met them so often.
    Senator Mundt. Which one was in the Treasury Department at 
that time?
    Miss Bentley. Neither was in the Treasury at this time. 
Ullman had been in the treasury originally but he had been 
drafted into the air force and had gone through Officers 
Training School and had been stationed, due to the influence of 
George Silverman, transferred to the Pentagon.
    Mr. La Venia. Miss Bentley, let me see if I can refresh 
your recollection a little bit. As I recall, Ullman was a major 
in an administrative set-up over at the Pentagon.
    Miss Bentley. Now, it varied. He went in as a second 
lieutenant and he gradually rose until I believe he retired in 
the rank of major. I am not sure if he was a major at that 
point.
    Mr. La Venia. He and Silvermaster lived together?
    Miss Bentley. The house, I believe, belonged to the 
Silvermasters and he was a boarder, but he did contribute to 
the insurance on the house and whether he owned a piece or not, 
I am not sure.
    Mr. La Venia. The important thing is Ullman and 
Silvermaster lived in the same house?
    Miss Bentley. Mr. and Mrs. Silvermaster and Ullman shared 
the same house.
    Mr. La Venia. Don't you recall that at about the time of 
these negotiations it was impossible to contact White directly; 
that he was frightened of surveillance, etc. and that you had 
to relay the word to White through Ullman and Silvermaster to 
get the notes and put the pressure on?
    Miss Bentley. Not only that, I never contacted White 
directly.
    Mr. La Venia. To get it clear, you originally got 
instructions, relayed by Bill, and you went to see Ullman and 
Silvermaster in the Silvermaster home, where they both lived, 
and told them of the instructions and to get the notes?
    Miss Bentley. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. They, of course, contacted White because 
White wanted to remain aloof from the ring. He didn't want to 
expose himself. Finally, Ullman delivered the notes to you in 
the Silvermaster home wrapped in newspaper?
    Miss Bentley. My recollection is Ullman. It could have been 
Gregory Silvermaster or both there at the same time.
    Mr. La Venia. Ullman delivered them wrapped in newspaper in 
the Silvermaster home and then you took them to Bill and you 
had instructions from Ullman that while he was nervous about 
the whole thing, if you could get the notes back as soon as 
possible so they wouldn't be noticed being missing.
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Thereafter, Bill gave you back the notes and 
said they couldn't be counterfeited; that it was very difficult 
to do because of the fact of the various colors.
    Miss Bentley. He didn't mention counterfeit. He said they 
couldn't be photographed sufficiently well to make use of the 
photographs.
    Mr. La Venia. Don't you recall you had another conversation 
with Silvermaster, who is an expert in photography----
    Miss Bentley. Not Silvermaster. He didn't know one end of 
the camera from the other.
    Mr. La Venia. Ullman. He told you because of the colors it 
would be difficult to forge them?
    Miss Bentley. No, I don't think he did because I don't 
think I knew about the inks at that point.
    Mr. La Venia. After you returned them, you had instructions 
from Bill, not only the comment he made about the difficulty in 
photography, but he also gave you instructions to pass word on 
through Ullman and Silvermaster for White to continue to put 
the pressure on for the delivery of the plates to Russia?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. In other words, since they couldn't 
photograph the notes, it was very important that the plates be 
delivered?
    Miss Bentley. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. That was the indication made to you?
    Miss Bentley. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall at the first meeting with Bill 
whether he passed instructions on to you--whether Bill 
indicated the purpose in procuring the notes was for forgery?
    Miss Bentley. He did not say it in so many words. The 
implication was definitely there.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this. After the death of 
Golos, before that you had no contact with Bill?
    Miss Bentley. No, I met Bill just after Golos' death.
    Senator Mundt. What were the circumstances of your meeting 
Bill?
    Miss Bentley. I had an alternate contact arranged with the 
Russians in the event of Golos' death. It was a girl. I met 
her, I think, four days after Golos' death and she introduced 
me to Bill. I knew him only by that name.
    Senator Mundt. And from then on you took your instructions 
from Bill?
    Miss Bentley. Except if Catherine took his place. She was a 
very minor figure.
    Senator Mundt. You never actually saw Harry Dexter White?
    Miss Bentley. The only place I have seen him was at the Un-
American Activities Committee hearings.
    Senator Mundt. That was the only place your Washington 
trail crossed? That was Whittaker Chambers?
    Miss Bentley. Oh, no. I had several of his people. Victor 
Perlo, he had once. Kramer was another one of his. I think 
Harold Glasser. A number of the old war group I inherited.
    The Perlo group that came up out of the Department of 
Agriculture.
    Senator Mundt. In those days you didn't know Chambers was 
doing the same kind of job?
    Miss Bentley. I knew there was a man doing that kind of job 
who had turned sour back in the late '30s. They referred to him 
as somebody who had turned sour. They never gave him a name. If 
they had they wouldn't have called him Chambers.
    Mr. La Venia. Miss Bentley, to your knowledge were the 
following persons some of the espionage agents?
    Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. William Ludwig Ullman?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Harold Glasser?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. V. Frank Coe?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. William H. Taylor?
    Miss Bentley. Yes. That was part of the Silvermaster group.
    The Chairman. And you knew them personally?
    Miss Bentley. No, not personally. I dealt with one or two 
people in the group.
    Mr. La Venia. I will ask you about each one personally.
    William Ludwig Ullman?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Harold Glasser?
    Miss Bentley. No.
    Mr. La Venia. William H. Taylor?
    Miss Bentley. No.
    Mr. La Venia. The two you knew were Ullman and 
Silvermaster. Did you know V. Frank Coe?
    Miss Bentley. No.
    Mr. La Venia. The two you knew were Silvermaster and Ullman 
and you learned about these others through them or other 
Communists?
    Miss Bentley. There is Mrs. Silvermaster or the Perlo 
group, Charles Kramer.
    Mr. La Venia. You knew him too?
    Miss Bentley. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. You knew George Silverman?
    Miss Bentley. I met him once at the Silvermasters.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you remember what his function was in all 
this?
    Miss Bentley. Well he had a double function. Triple really. 
He had the function of relaying information which he acquired 
at the Pentagon because he was stationed there. Not stationed 
there, worked there. He also gave references to people who 
wanted to get better jobs from a productive standpoint and he 
also contacted people that I didn't know personally and got 
information from them.
    Mr. La Venia. Harry Dexter White you said you didn't know 
personally?
    Miss Bentley. No, I saw him once in a hearing.
    Senator Mundt. We will dismiss the witness temporarily.
















        TRANSFER OF OCCUPATION CURRENCY PLATES--ESPIONAGE PHASE

    [Editor's note.--Walter F. Frese, director of the 
Accounting Systems Division at the General Accounting Office, 
did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The following staff interview convened at 11:00 a.m., 
pursuant to notice, in room 101 of the Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C.
    Present: Robert Jones, executive assistant to Senator 
Potter; Thomas W. La Venia, assistant counsel; Karl H. W. 
Baarslag, research director; LaVern Duffey, staff assistant; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

                  STATEMENT OF WALTER F. FRESE

    Mr. La Venia. Would you give the stenographer your full 
name, please?
    Mr. Frese. My name is Walter F. Frese.
    Mr. La Venia. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Frese. I reside at 4818 DeRussy Parkway, in Chevy 
Chase, Maryland.
    Mr. La Venia. Where are you employed now?
    Mr. Frese. I am employed at the General Accounting Office 
now.
    Mr. La Venia. It is my understanding, Mr. Frese, that you 
have come forward voluntarily to discuss certain items within 
your knowledge with the subcommittee, is that correct?
    Mr. Frese. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. And you do not desire to have counsel present 
for that purpose?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. If at any time you feel that the questioning 
gets into an avenue where you might want counsel, or consult 
with counsel, you should so indicate and we will stop.
    Mr. Frese. I see.
    Mr. La Venia. You were at one time employed in the Treasury 
Department?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that?
    Mr. Frese. From 1935 to January of 1948, roughly; there may 
be a month or two difference there.
    Mr. La Venia. What was your first employment there?
    Mr. Frese. My first employment was as an accountant with 
the Bureau of Accountancy of the Treasury Department.
    Mr. La Venia. Will you chronologically give your changes of 
employment and station, please?
    Mr. Frese. I will have to do this a little approximately 
from memory.
    From 1935 to 1937 I was accountant in the Bureau of 
Accounts, in the special accounting organization that was set 
up to account for the funds appropriated under the emergency 
relief program.
    In 1937 I believe I left to resume a previous employment I 
had on the teaching faculty of the University of Illinois for 
one year.
    I then came back to the treasury after that year, and again 
became an accountant on the general staff of the Bureau of 
Accounts, not related to any particular program this time. That 
would be 1938, and I might be just a little off in my years 
here.
    From 1938 until 1940 I continued in that employment, or was 
it 1941. It was 1941 the war broke out. In the year 1941 I was 
asked to take a special assignment to do accounting work in 
connection with the Stabilization Fund arrangements that were 
entered into between the United States Treasury Department, the 
treasury of Great Britain, I understand, and the government of 
China, which was a special fund set up to attempt to stabilize 
Chinese currency.
    I left on that assignment in May of 1941.
    Mr. La Venia. You mean you left the United States?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, on that assignment, in May of 1941, for 
Hong Kong, and from May of 1941 to December of 1941 at various 
times I was in Hong Kong and Chungking working on setting up 
accounting procedures for the Stabilization Fund that was 
created at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did you live in Chungking?
    Mr. Frese. In Chungking I lived at two different places; 
first the so-called Chaoling House upon the hill, and later the 
party with whom, or the Chinese government made arrangements 
for a home on the other side of the river. The exact address I 
don't know, and I don't know that it had an address. There was 
a house set up for this group that I was with.
    Mr. La Venia. Will you proceed?
    Mr. Frese. Then I went to Hong Kong about August, and I was 
in Hong Kong at the time it was attacked in December, December 
8, over there, on that side of the date line, and I was there 
when Hong Kong fell on December 25, and after a period of about 
a week or two I was interned by the Japanese to a civilian 
concentration camp, the Stanley Camp in Hong Kong, on the 
Island.
    There was a preliminary period of interment in a Chinese 
hotel of about two weeks. My lot there was the same as all 
civilians.
    Mr. La Venia. Where did you go from the Stanley Camp?
    Mr. Frese. I was repatriated.
    Mr. La Venia. How long did that take?
    Mr. Frese. I got back here the latter part of August of 
1942, and that would be about two months I think on the water.
    Mr. La Venia. Where was your repatriation, and your 
transportation from Hong Kong to where?
    Mr. Frese. From Hong Kong to Lourenco Marques, Portuguese 
East Africa, and there the Gripsholm picked us up.
    Mr. La Venia. That was the first group that came back on 
the Gripsholm?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. And you came in with the eastern group?
    Mr. Frese. That is right. Following that assignment after I 
got back, I went to work as an assistant to Mr. D. W. Bell, 
under secretary of the treasury, and acting fiscal assistant 
secretary.
    Mr. La Venia. About when was that?
    Mr. Frese. That was August of 1942. I got back into my 
normal kind of work again, which was on accounting procedures.
    Mr. La Venia. How long did you stay in Treasury Department?
    Mr. Frese. From then until January of 1948, and I did have 
an intermediate job as head of their so-called fiscal service 
operations and methods staff, which was procedure work in 
connection with the fiscal operations of the treasury, and I 
joined the General Accounting Office in January of 1948 when 
the joint program for improving accounting in the federal 
government was launched as a result of cooperative 
understandings between the comptroller general, the secretary 
of the treasury, and the director of the Bureau of the Budget, 
and I was the first head of the new accounting systems 
division.
    Mr. La Venia. Was William Henry Taylor in the same camp 
with you at Stanley?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. He came back on the Gripsholm with you?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. When did you first meet Mr. Taylor?
    Mr. Frese. A very short time before we went on the trip.
    Mr. La Venia. What was his position?
    Mr. Frese. He was an economist in the Division of Monetary 
Research.
    Mr. La Venia. How were you picked for this trip?
    Mr. Frese. Mr. Bell.
    Mr. La Venia. That is Dan Bell you are talking about?
    Mr. Frese. D. W. Bell, yes, no longer with the treasury, 
and Mr. Bell said that he felt that it was a good idea for the 
treasury to send one of its regular old line accountants along 
on this trip to help this group in setting up the accounting 
procedures for this fund. He asked me if I would take the job, 
and I was somewhat reluctant, but nevertheless did.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, you traveled through China with Taylor?
    Mr. Frese. To some extent, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was in the group?
    Mr. Frese. The head of the group, the American member of 
this Stabilization Fund, was Mr. Emanuel Fox, and he is now 
dead, and he died shortly after getting back to the United 
States as I understand it, while I was interned. There were 
also Chinese members of the boards, Mr. K. P. Chen was one, and 
he was the head of the Shanghai Commercial Bank, and Mr. Tsu 
Yeepei.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was he?
    Mr. Frese. He was, and incidentally, Mr. Chen was a member 
of this board, and Mr. Pei was also a member of the board, but 
was, I don't know his exact title, but he was one of the head 
men of the Bank of China. And Mr. Hsi Te Mou. The British 
member of the board was Mr. E. L. Hall-Patch. At various times 
I traveled or associated with all of those men.
    The one most prolonged trip I took prior to the 
commencement of actual operations when the Chinese members were 
surveying the economic conditions, and so on, as a basis for 
their beginning operations, was with Mr. C. P. Chen, and Mr. 
Hsi Te Mou and Mr. Pei, also. There were all three of those.
    Mr. La Venia. Just briefly give us the years of your 
contact with Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Frese. As I say, I met him on practically the eve of my 
departure. It was some time after Mr. Bell told me of the 
assignment.
    Mr. La Venia. That would be around May of 1941 until when?
    Mr. Frese. Well, he told me about the assignment a little 
ahead of May. I just don't recall just when it was, and it was 
not too long. I met him somewhere in there, and we traveled 
together going over. Of course, I was associated with him in 
the undertaking over there. Since we got back, I have, aside 
from seeing him on the street one day not too awfully long ago, 
possibly six months ago, I think I have seem him only once.
    Mr. La Venia. You mean since you got back, even though you 
were both working in the Treasury Department, you did not see 
him over there?
    Mr. Frese. In the Treasury Department, I am sorry, I saw 
him in the Treasury Department, but our work took entirely 
different paths after I got back, and I was no longer 
associated with him in a working capacity, and I did see him in 
the hall. I am sorry; that was a misstatement.
    Mr. La Venia. Before you left, were you or did your 
employment in any way have anything to do with Harry Dexter 
White?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir. I met him. Mr. Bell suggested before I 
left that I should meet him, and I went to his office one day 
before I left and met him and talked to him for about, I should 
judge, ten or fifteen minutes, which is the only time that I 
have ever talked to him.
    Mr. La Venia. Did your work in any way bring you in contact 
with Nathan Gregory Silvermaster?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr . La Venia. Harold Glasser?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Solomon Adler?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Was he on that trip?
    Mr. Frese. He came over as some kind of a special assistant 
to Mr. Fox, while we were over there, and so I saw him at 
various times over there, and it was toward the latter part of 
our stay over there.
    Mr. La Venia. Was he also interned?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, he left with Mr. Fox, and they left on 
the first night on evacuation planes out of Hong Kong.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, in your association with Mr. Taylor on 
the trip, after you got there, and of course in the prison 
camp, were you always in close proximity, more or less?
    Mr. Frese. I beg your pardon. In the prison camp; is that 
your question?
    Mr. La Venia. All of the way.
    Mr. Frese. Well, that varied to some extent. I will give 
you a little explanation of that.
    Mr. La Venia. Just say it varied. What I am trying to get 
at, Mr. Frese, is that there were many hours spent together and 
you fellows did a lot of talking.
    Mr. Frese. We lived in the same hotel together and we were 
thrown together.
    Mr. La Venia. And you sort of bared your souls to each 
other, I would say.
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir, we lived very closely together at 
different times.
    Mr. La Venia. During the course of any of your 
conversations----
    Mr. Frese. I would say from August, he was put in charge of 
the Chung Ming branch of the board's activities.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you go to Chung Ming?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir. I had made a previous trip there, but 
not with him, and so during that interval we were not together, 
but we were together at different times.
    Mr. La Venia. During the course of your association and 
intimate conversations which I am sure ensued when men spend 
time together like that, was there any conversation by Mr. 
Taylor that you felt would be of interest to this committee 
regarding his associations with various people, such as Harry 
Dexter White, Ullman, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold 
Glasser, or Elizabeth Bentley, and was anything like that 
discussed?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir. I know that he was of course close to 
Mr. White because, Mr. White's division formulated the policy 
for this undertaking, and he was also a close friend and 
working associate of Mr. Ullman.
    Mr. La Venia. Now you say you know that, and do you know 
that from conversations with him or how?
    Mr. Frese. Oh, yes, I heard him speak of Mr. Ullman as a 
close friend, and he worked with him, and they worked in the 
office side by side, as I recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he say anything of Silvermaster?
    Mr. Frese. I never heard him speak of Mr. Silvermaster.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Mr. White, with respect to Mr. 
White?
    Mr. Frese. He never spoke of Mr. White very much, other 
than as a boss.
    Mr. La Venia. Now; what information do you have, or what 
conversations have you had with Mr. Taylor that you feel would 
be of interest to this subcommittee, which as you know has 
conducted extensive inquiry into subversion in the Treasury 
Department, involving most of these people that I have 
mentioned?
    Mr. Frese. What I would say is somewhat in retrospect. I 
felt that as a general proposition in retrospect he spoke in 
admiration of the magnificent job the Russians were doing in 
helping us win the war. At that time of course that was not too 
unusual.
    Mr. La Venia. Can you think of some of the things he said?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I can't think of anything very 
specific; just general conversations, and I might say that 
about the same thing about the resistance of the Chinese 
Communists. He spoke somewhat admiringly of the job they were 
doing, as a general proposition.
    Mr. La Venia. The job of resisting what?
    Mr. Frese. The Japanese at that time.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he make the same laudatory comments 
regarding the western powers?
    Mr. Frese. I would say so. I gathered his comments were 
directed at--I didn't gather he singled them out particularly, 
or spoke in any way derogatory to the western powers. It just 
seemed to me that he possibly emphasized the role of the 
Russians quite a bit.
    Mr. La Venia. What people did he associate with in China 
other than the staff already mentioned?
    Mr. Frese. Well, there was very little association with 
anyone else that I recall.
    Mr. La Venia. How about American newspaper correspondents?
    Mr. Frese. He was friendly with them, and he was friendly 
also with American businessmen.
    Mr. La Venia. How about Teddy White; was he over there at 
that time?\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Theodore H. White (1915-1986) was Time magazine's 
correspondent in China during World War II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Frese. I just don't recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know who Theodore White is?
    Mr. Frese. Oh, yes; the New York Times. I think he was over 
there at the time, but I don't recall that he had any 
association with him. There was a good deal of his activities, 
his trip up to Shanghai and his trip to Kumming that I don't 
know about, and he made a special trip up to Shanghai before 
the board's operations started. Meisling was the Associated 
Press man in Hong Kong at the time. He knew him as I did, and I 
don't think there was any particular close association. Mr. 
Mackay of the National City Bank of Shanghai, I understand he 
had quite a bit of dealing with him up in Shanghai.
    Mr. La Venia. Let me ask you this. En route, did he discuss 
with you the fact that he had been given the names of people 
that you could contact that would be of assistance to him?
    Mr. Frese. I want to make sure I understand your question.
    Mr. La Venia. On the route to China, or even after he got 
there, did he ever say to you that he had been given the names 
of various people, either through Harry Dexter White, or 
others, that he could contact that might be of some help to 
him?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I don't recall that.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, in the Japanese prison camp, were there 
any incidents there that would be of interest to this 
committee?
    Mr. Frese. I don't know of any incidents that would be of 
direct interest to this committee. I might say, and it has no 
connection at all, he and I did not got along too well in the 
concentration camp, and that was a personality clash 
proposition. We pretty much went our separate ways. But I don't 
know of any instance.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you make any trips out of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, up to Chungking and to Kunming.
    Mr. La Venia. When you went to Kunming did he visit the 
province governor of Kunming?
    Mr. Frese. He wasn't with me when I went there.
    Mr. La Venia. When he went to Kunming, did he ever tell you 
he visited the province governor of Kunming.
    Mr. Frese. I just don't recall.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever tell you?
    Mr. Frese. He could have.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever tell you that the province 
governor of Kunming was more in sympathy with the Communist 
armies, rather than with the Nationalist armies?
    Mr. Frese. I don't recall that, sir. I don't recall his 
telling me.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever tell you that the province 
governor of Kunming objected to the Flying Tigers being based 
down in that province?
    Mr. Frese. No, he did not. Were the Flying Tigers there at 
that time?
    Mr. La Venia. The Flying Tigers were at Kunming from 1937 
on.
    Mr. Frese. That is right. I was thinking of something else. 
That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, did he ever make any trips up to the 
northern provinces?
    Mr. Frese. He went to Shanghai.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever go any further north than that?
    Mr. Frese. No, that special trip to Shanghai was the only 
one.
    Mr. La Venia. After he got back from those trips, did he 
discuss having met personalities other than those in the 
particular stabilization group?
    Mr. Frese. Yes. Now, just who they were, I don't recall. Of 
course, he spoke a good deal of Mr. Mackey, that is the 
National City Bank man up there, the top man, with whom he 
apparently dealt quite a bit.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he travel alone on those trips?
    Mr. Frese. On that trip he did.
    Mr. La Venia. The northern trip?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. To the northern provinces.
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir, to Shanghai.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know for a fact that the northern 
provinces were the provinces opposing the Nationalist 
government in their own civil war, and they were the Communist 
troops?
    Mr. Frese. I knew that at that time, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Was it usual or unusual for him to have made 
that trip alone, and should he have taken other people along?
    Mr. Frese. I would say it was not unusual in the 
circumstances. It was made right after the freezing of Chinese 
and Japanese assets.
    Mr. La Venia. I don't recall at that time we were rendering 
military aid to the Chinese Nationalists.
    Mr. Frese. I don't think we were.
    Mr. La Venia. After you came back to the Treasury 
Department, after your internment, do you recall during the 
period of time you were in the Treasury Department the military 
assistance we were then giving to the Chinese armies, or any 
discussion about it, not with Taylor necessarily?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I did not participate in any of that.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall him making any remark with 
respect to the aid being given to the Nationalist government 
after you fellows got back to the States?
    Mr. Frese. I don't remember.
    Mr. Baarslag. I only had a question. Do you remember 
whether Mr. Taylor had any American associations or other 
friendships outside of your group, newspaper correspondents?
    Mr. Frese. That question was asked, and I did not recall 
any. There were no close friendships. We both knew Vaughan 
Meisling, and some of the others, and of course the 
newspapermen were interned with us in the camp, and that 
included [Joseph] Alsop and Wilson.
    Mr. Baarslag. Was Israel Epstein in that camp?
    Mr. Frese. There was an Epstein in the camp.
    Mr. Baarslag. Do you know whether it was Israel or not?
    Mr. Frese. I did not know that fellow. He was kind of a 
mysterious character in the camp. As I recall, there was some 
talk about his being under an assumed name, and I think he may 
have gone under a different name at the camp.
    Mr. Baarslag. He was a newspaper man of some sort, though, 
wasn't he?
    Mr. Frese. That was the story on him, and we had some 
mysterious characters in the camp, and he was one of them. I 
don't recall whether he went under that name or not. But there 
was something about him, but I don't recall that Taylor was 
particularly friendly with him or knew him.
    Mr. Baarslag. Do you recall the names of any of the other 
mysterious characters that were there, associated with Epstein?
    Mr. Frese. It is my recollection he was kind of a lone 
wolf, and it may not be the same man. I am not at all sure.
    Mr. La Venia. Both of you gentlemen were in the teaching 
profession at one time or another, both you and Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Frese. That is true; he more recently than I.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever get around to discussing how two 
former men from that profession wound up in the Treasury 
Department?
    Mr. Frese. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever get around to discussing how two 
former men from that profession wound up in the Treasury 
Department?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever get into any discussion with him 
on how you got your job and how he got his job in the Treasury 
Department?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, we did not. I drew a distinction in my 
own mind, pretty sharp distinction between that Division of 
Monetary Research and the old line treasury, and they were 
relatively newcomers of strong academic flair; while I taught 
accounting, I did not regard myself primarily as an academic 
man.
    Mr. La Venia. What is your definition of an academic flair?
    Mr. Frese. It is my impression, without ever having checked 
their background, that these men were economists, doctors of 
philosophy, and that kind of thing, who were previous to a 
considerable degree, and in a field that I know nothing about. 
My field was accounting, and I knew nothing about it as an 
expert.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you feel there was something extra 
liberal in their views and attitudes?
    Mr. Frese. I would say so, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Was that what you meant when you said 
academic flair?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, I meant that it would be my impression that 
most of them would have had academic or teaching backgrounds, a 
good many of them.
    Mr. La Venia Did he ever discuss with you the fact that 
William Ludwig Ullman and Nathan Gregory Silvermaster assisted 
him in getting into the Treasury Department?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, he did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever discuss Harry Dexter White as 
being of any assistance in getting into the Treasury 
Department?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, he did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever discuss his reluctance in coming 
with the treasury?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Did he ever discuss his visits to the 
Silvermaster and Ullman home with you?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Or Harry Dexter White's home?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, you are presently employed over at the 
General Accounting Office as what?
    Mr. Frese. Director of the Accounting Systems Division.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you quite positive that you have told us 
everything about William Henry Taylor that you know about with 
respect to his association and possible friendship with persons 
known to be Communist sympathizers or subversives or espionage 
agents?
    Mr. Frese. To the best of my knowledge I have, to this 
point.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever write any letters home when you 
were on this trip with Mr. Taylor?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, I wrote letters to my wife.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you know if any of those letters are still 
available?
    Mr. Frese. I could look, but I doubt it.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever write letters to friends back in 
the Treasury Department while you were over there of a personal 
nature?
    Mr. Frese. I may have written one or two.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall whether in those letters, and 
possibly in letters to your wife, you made any comments 
regarding Mr. Taylor that would not be favorable to him at this 
time? I mean by that, maybe at that time you thought they were 
favorable, but in the present light they are unfavorable?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I am sure that I did not. I had all I 
could do to get pretty short letters off to my wife, and I 
don't believe that I ever mentioned him very much.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you have anything?
    Mr. Jones. I have no questions.
    Mr. Baarslag. I have one more question and perhaps you have 
answered it. Did you have any idea how Mr. Adler was selected, 
and did Mr. Adler ever tell you the basis of how he happened to 
be on that stabilization board, or how he had gotten the job?
    Mr. Frese. Mr. Fox, who was the American member of that 
board, I believe, personally asked for Mr. Adler. I am not too 
sure of that. He was in that Division of Monetary Research, 
too.
    Mr. La Venia. A question has been suggested. Have you ever 
been in William Henry Taylor's home?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever meet Mr. Taylor's family?
    Mr. Frese. Oh, yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Where was that?
    Mr. Frese. Of course, I have met his family before we left.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you ever attend any social functions at 
which he was present and you were present?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir. Wait a minute. I want to make sure I am 
right on that. Yes, I of course attended a number of social 
functions, particularly in China, where we as American 
representatives----
    Mr. La Venia. I mean in the United States.
    Mr. Frese. The only thing I can think of is that he did 
invite me to his home about three years ago.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you go?
    Mr. Frese. We did not go. Subsequently he and his wife 
called at our home.
    Mr. La Venia. What was the reason for not going, do you 
recall?
    Mr. Frese. I don't recall exactly. There was no real desire 
to go, and I don't particularly like the fellow.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you aware at that time of the 1948 House 
Un-American Activities Committee hearings?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I was not.
    Mr. La Venia. Dealing with Dexter White?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. He has been in your home, and do you know how 
many times he has been in your home?
    Mr. Frese. That is the only time that I can recall that he 
was ever in my home. Now, his wife and son were in our home 
while we were both locked up, and she came out to see my wife 
to exchange news, and so on, if any, about our plight, I guess. 
But I don't recall any other time, and certainly not since we 
got back. Now, there may have been something just before we 
left when we first met each other, that we got together, but I 
don't recall ever being in his home.
    Mr. La Venia. You knew nothing about his association with 
people other than William Ludwig Ullman and Harry Dexter White, 
is that correct, with respect to these known subversives that 
have received considerable public attention in the past few 
years?
    Mr. Frese. Pardon me for delaying. I am trying to think of 
something. I don't think of anyone, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, Mr. Frese, were you ever interviewed by 
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding this?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, think carefully; how many times were you 
interviewed by those agents?
    Mr. Frese. About Mr. Taylor?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Frese. Only once that I recall.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that?
    Mr. Frese. I just can't tell you; I would guess four or 
five months ago, and I just can't tell you the exact time.
    Mr. La Venia. Where was that?
    Mr. Frese. In my office.
    Mr. La Venia. This is the first time?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Either through their questioning, or 
otherwise, did they indicate to you how they had heard about 
you and so forth?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, they did not.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall what their inquiry was, and 
what your answer was?
    Mr. Frese. I may not recall all of it. I know that I tried 
to give them all of the background I possibly could.
    Mr. La Venia. Suppose you give it to us as briefly as 
possible, please.
    Mr. Frese. Well, they asked me a good many of the same 
questions you asked me here today, and I told them about how I 
got to know him, and how I was associated with him, and the 
history of our internment together.
    Mr. La Venia. Of course, we haven't covered very much about 
your history of internment except the period and the place, and 
there does not seem to be much in there excepting that, so far 
as you told us up to now. I realize that that is in response to 
questions, and I am just going into it now to see if there is 
anything I did not try to bring out.
    Mr. Frese. If you can help me to bring that back, I will 
appreciate it, because I talked very informally to them.
    Mr. La Venia. How long has it been?
    Mr. Frese. I should judge an hour.
    Mr. La Venia. At your home?
    Mr. Frese. At my office. And I did go into our experience 
together in the concentration camp in a good deal more detail.
    Mr. La Venia. About the seamen that tried to change the 
rules around the camp, and did you go into that?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, he and I were on opposite sides of the 
issue, Taylor and I.
    Mr. La Venia. He agreed with the seamen in the share the 
wealth program, shall we say?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, and as a matter of fact, he and the 
seamen were on opposite sides, and he did not like the way they 
were handling the cooking, and I thought they were doing all 
right. I was active trying to help the seamen in a job that I 
had taken on at that time, as sort of comptroller of the food 
that we had, and I resented his implications that these boys 
were not doing the best they could. He made some veiled 
accusations that they were snitching some of the food, and of 
course when people are hungry day in and day out, tempers get a 
little bit hot, and we had some words about some of those 
things.
    Mr. La Venia. Trying to limit this thing to things that 
might be of interest to us, did they discuss William Ludwig 
Ullman in the interview with you?
    Mr. Frese. I don't exactly recall, but it seems to me that 
they probably did.
    Mr. La Venia. Did they discuss Nathan Gregory Silvermaster?
    Mr. Frese. I don't believe so, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Did they discuss Harry Dexter White?
    Mr. Frese. I don't believe they did that, either, but I am 
just----
    Mr. La Venia. Did they discuss any of his travels in China 
when you were left behind?
    Mr. Frese. Taylor's travels in China while I was left 
behind?
    Mr. La Venia. Yes.
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, but I believe I gave them the whole 
chronology of the whole thing, and I think that was certainly 
mentioned.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you keep a diary while you were over in 
China?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I did not. I started to at one time, 
but I just could not keep it up, and what little I had I 
destroyed before the Japanese took us in.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, I think that you answered this. Did they 
discuss Harry Dexter White with you?
    Mr. Frese. I don't believe they did.
    Mr. La Venia. Did they discuss Elizabeth Bentley?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Did they discuss his visits to the home of 
Ullman and Silvermaster?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir, I don't believe they did.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you give them any information at that 
interview that you have not given here?
    Mr. Frese. I probably did, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Do you recall what it was?
    Mr. Frese. I don't recall there was anything that was in 
point. In an effort to cooperate, I told them in a great deal 
of detail about the chronology of our experience over there, 
and I delved a little bit more in detail about some of the 
incidents in the camp.
    Mr. La Venia. Has Taylor ever contacted you and told you 
that he expected you would eventually be interviewed by 
investigators?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Of any nature?
    Mr. Frese. He has not.
    Mr. La Venia. I mean in the past.
    Mr. Frese. No, sir; he did contact me only with reference 
to trying to recall some financial transactions in the camp 
dealing with an advance of funds we got from the Japanese, and 
which we made available to different people in the British 
community before we left. He called me and asked me, I think, 
also about whether I had intended filing any claim for which I 
felt we might be entitled to under a law that was passed with 
regard to prisoner compensation.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, let me ask you this: Did you state to 
the bureau agents when they interviewed you that ``I was 
wondering when you were going to get around to seeing me''? Did 
you make that statement?
    Mr. Frese. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. La Venia. ``I was wondering when you were going to get 
around to seeing me''?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Did you know that William H. Taylor has been 
mentioned since 1948 as being a subversive and espionage agent?
    Mr. Frese. I read his name in the paper in connection with 
the Elizabeth Bentley story, and that is all that I knew.
    Mr. La Venia. Are you presently the subject of any loyalty 
investigation?
    Mr. Frese. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. You are up on loyalty charges, are you not?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir. No, I am being investigated for 
clearance in connection with our work.
    Mr. La Venia. When did that start?
    Mr. Frese. A few months ago.
    Mr. La Venia. Were you ever the subject of any loyalty 
hearings or loyalty charges or security hearings?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. These next questions are just the usual, and 
so they don't mean anything insofar as we ask them of 
everybody, and it doesn't mean that we have information that 
you are or are not accused of being a Communist. Have you ever 
been or are you now a Communist?
    Mr. Frese. No, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. We appreciate your coming over.
    [Thereupon at 11:55 a.m., the above matter was concluded.]














    SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE IN DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRY

    [Editor's note.--Since several engineers who had worked at 
the Army Signal Corps facility at Fort Monmouth had also worked 
at the General Electric Company plant in Schenectady, New York, 
the subcommittee expanded its investigation to include 
Communist activity in defense-related industries. In 1949, the 
Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) had expelled the 
United Electrical Workers (UE) for being Communist led. The UE 
was the subject of hearings by the House Un-American Activities 
Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, and as 
early as September 1950, Senator McCarthy had accused the union 
of filing false non-Communist affidavits with the National 
Labor Relations Board, and asked, ``If the Communist party 
masquerading as a labor union cannot be tolerated in the family 
of the CIO, why should it be tolerated in the plants of General 
Electric, Sylvania, Westinghouse, or RCA?''
    On November 19, 1953 the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations held a televised hearing from Boston, focusing 
on Communists at the GE plant in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. On 
December 9, GE instituted a policy of suspending any employee 
who invoked the Fifth Amendment before a congressional 
committee. Sidney Friedlander, Robert Pierson Northrup, Arthur 
Lee Owens, Joseph Arthur Gebhardt, Emanuel Fernandez, and 
Gordon Belgrave (1917-1987) were discharged after they invoked 
the Fifth Amendment at a public hearing on February 19, 1954.
    Jean A. Arsenault, a former Communist-turned-FBI informant, 
also testified publicly on February 19. Theresa Mary Chiaro 
(1916-2000), Albert J. Bottisti (1914-1997), Anna Jegabbi 
(1914-1982), Emma Elizabeth Drake, Henry Daniel Hughes, Abden 
Francisco, Lawrence Leo Gebo (1907-1975), William J. Mastriani 
(1907-1967), John Sardella (1905-1962), and Rudolph Rissland 
did not testify in public.]
                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                        Albany, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., pursuant to notice,, in 
room 437 of the Federal Building, Albany, New York, Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; C. George 
Anastos, assistant counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director; 
Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; and Robert Jones, 
research assistant to Senator Potter.
    Present also: Russell White, security coordinator, and 
Bernard White, counsel for General Electric.
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order.
    We have before us a representative of the Immigration 
Bureau of the Navy Department and representatives of security 
at General Electric here at their request. They will not take 
part in the questioning at all.
    Mr. Arsenault, will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Arsenault. I do, sir.

                 TESTIMONY OF JEAN A. ARSENAULT

    Mr. Cohn. Will you give your full name, please.
    Mr. Arsenault. Jean A. Arsenault.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Arsenault, you have been employed by General 
Electric Company?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you employed by General Electric 
Company?
    Mr. Arsenault. I was employed in the summer of 1951, until 
approximately the end of January 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, where did you work when you were with 
General Electric?
    Mr. Arsenault. Office service.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was there ever a time in your life when you 
were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there a time in your life when you were 
closely affiliated with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us when you first became 
affiliated with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Arsenault. In 1949, in the summer.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you break that entire affiliation 
completely?
    Mr. Arsenault. In February of 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there a time within that period of your 
affiliation with the movement that you were actually a member, 
a dues-paying member, of the party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Arsenault. From September of 1949 to September of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were a Communist, did you come to know 
any other Communists who were employed at General Electric?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us their names?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you, please?
    Mr. Arsenault. Paul Hacko, P-a-u-l H-a-c-k-o; Charlie 
Rivers, R-i-v-e-r-s; Gordon Belgrave, B-e-l-g-r-a-v-e; Joseph 
Gebhartd, G-e-b-h-a-r-t-d; Rudy Ellis, E-l-l-i-s; Sidney 
Friedlander, F-r-i-e-d-l-a-n-d-e-r; Robert Northrop, N-o-r-t-h-
r-o-p; Arthur Owens, O-w-e-n-s; Dante DeCesare, D-a-n-t-e D-e-
C-e-s-a-r-e; Manny Fernandez, M-a-n-n-y F-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z; and 
Emery Pesko, E-m-e-r-y P-e-s-k-o.
    I will bring out that these last names, there may be a 
slight variation.
    Mr. Cohn. Your spellings are phonetical?
    Mr. Arsenault. They may be.
    Ray Watkins, W-a-t-k-i-n-s; and Lillian Garcia, G-a-r-c-i-
a.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? Before we go into this I 
would like, if I could, to get some general picture from some 
of you gentlemen here as to how security is handled. I will put 
it this way: How do you get rid of a man, if he is a member of 
the union in good standing, when you find he is a Communist? If 
the union does not recognize that, how do you get rid of him? 
Who could answer that?
    Mr. Russell White. Mr. Arsenault can probably tell himself 
because he was one of those relieved. I am Russell White, 
security coordinator for the company. In the first place, 
Senator, we have no information such as has been given here.
    The Chairman. I am saying, How do you get rid of a man if 
you know he is a Communist and if the union says, ``I won't go 
along with you''?
    Mr. Russell White. We don't know that he is a Communist.
    The Chairman. Take one you know is a Communist, as of 
today. I am asking you.
    Mr. Cohn. Take a man who has invoked the Fifth Amendment 
before a congressional committee on present day party 
membership and has been named as a Communist under oath.
    Mr. Russell White. To my knowledge, we don't have anyone.
    The Chairman. I am asking you a very simple question. I am 
not asking you whether you have Communists there.
    One of you can answer this: If you know a man is a 
Communist--let us take John Jones--and you know he is a 
Communist today, how do you get rid of him?
    Mr. LaForge. I can testify as to the witness here.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone here who can tell me how you 
go about getting rid of a Communist?
    Mr. Russell White. If you will allow us to take the 
assumption that we know the man is a Communist, on the back of 
every application form is an affidavit. Now if we have that 
proof that he is a Communist, he can be dismissed for 
falsification of his application form--and has been--if that is 
what you are seeking.
    The Chairman. Is that the only way you can get rid of him?
    Mr. Russell White. I don't know of any other way that it 
has been done.
    The Chairman. Let us say he becomes a Communist after he 
has signed his application. I am just trying to find out 
whether your hands are tied up here and whether our laws are 
such that you cannot get rid of Communists or whether you can. 
I am not trying to cross-examine you.
    Mr. Russell White. I feel, frankly, and have so written in 
public statements that legislation of some type is necessary to 
assist us in the removal of subversives from unclassified areas 
of a plant.
    The Chairman. Now to get back to this question: Let us say 
a man becomes a Communist after he gets a job over there, so he 
has not falsified his application. Let us assume that you know 
he is a Communist and let us assume that you have had an 
undercover agent of the bureau sitting in meetings and 
collecting his dues. Let us assume the union does not go along 
with you in the idea of getting rid of him. Then can you fire 
him, and what procedure is necessary?
    Mr. Bernard White. I am counsel from the company. That 
problem would be put up to the division manager of the division 
where the man is working and he would have authority to fire 
the man.
    The Chairman. You say he would have authority?
    Mr. Bernard White. He can fire the man after considering 
the circumstances.
    The Chairman. What redress does he have through the union 
then?
    Mr. Bernard White. The union could file a grievance in an 
attempt to arbitrate the question of whether the man has been 
discharged in accordance with the union contract.
    The Chairman. Does the union contract provide that you can 
get rid of a man who is a bad security risk?
    Mr. Bernard White. We have several different contracts with 
different unions, and the provision that would be involved 
would be whether the man has been discharged for obvious cause. 
I think those two words are in the major contracts. I do not 
believe we have ever faced an arbitration or have had an 
arbitration on this particular point, but the thing that has 
given us some concern is whether we could establish that the 
man was a Communist or not to the satisfaction of the 
arbitrator so that he would go along.
    The Chairman. Is there a clause in the contract which gives 
you the right to fire a man if you find that he has been 
attending Communist meetings or signing Communist pledges?
    Mr. Bernard White. There is nothing as such in the 
contract. I am talking from just recollection. I am not that 
familiar with our contracts, but I do not believe there is 
anything in there.
    The Chairman. If there is nothing like that in the 
contract, could anyone tell me why it is not in the contract?
    Mr. Bernard White. Well, I couldn't. I have never 
participated in negotiations with the union as to the contract.
    The Chairman. Could you put it this way, that you are 
negotiating with a Communist-controlled union and they will not 
consent to that in the contract?
    Mr. Bernard White. I don't know. That is carried on in New 
York at national negotiations, and I don't know.
    The Chairman. How recently have you had occasion over here 
to get rid of a man because you thought he was a Communist?
    Mr. Bernard White. I don't know that; you would have to 
find that out.
    Mr. Russell White. Now you have changed your statement.
    The Chairman. I have changed my question. I have asked a 
million questions, and I am asking additional questions. We are 
not in a game here; I am just asking for information.
    Mr. Russell White. The first case----
    The Chairman. I am asking you about a different case now. 
When did you last get rid of a man for Communist activities?
    Mr. Russell White. I think Mr. Arsenault might have been 
the last one in the Schenectady area.
    The Chairman. How long ago was that?
    Mr. Russell White: February of this past year I believe. 
Would that be correct?
    Mr. Arsenault. 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Arsenault--by the way, when you left 
General Electric, were you a party member?
    Mr. Arsenault. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You had left the party, is that correct?
    Mr. Arsenault. The party dropped me in 1950, and the 
statement that I signed when I made that application was ``Were 
you ever or are you presently''--my understanding is that was a 
recent addition to the application form.
    Mr. Cohn. Now let me ask you this: Did you find naming 
names for us--by the way, you named twelve names.
    Mr. Arsenault. Those were the ones that I can say were 
actually in the party, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You can positively identify those people as 
members of the party?
    Mr. Arsenault. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And they are people who were working at General 
Electric, is that right?
    Mr. Arsenault. They were, to my last knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. And I assume some of them were working on 
government contracts. Would that be right?
    Mr. Arsenault. Well, that I couldn't say, as to the nature 
of their jobs.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when you were working at General Electric 
yourself, did you see any of these persons whom you have named 
as Communist party members working at General Electric?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first furnish information to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation?
    Mr. Arsenault. April of 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. In April of 1953. And you gave them the names and 
so on?
    Mr. Arsenault. Very detailed.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know, some of those people are 
still working there?
    Mr. Arsenault. The last I heard, quite a few of them are 
still working there.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Arsenault, let me ask you this: While 
you were a Communist, did there ever come to your attention in 
discussions with any leaders of the Communist party any 
situation indicating that the Communists might have infiltrated 
the Knolls Laboratory?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you tell us about that?
    Mr. Arsenault. In a conversation I had with a Mr. Jack 
Wandell, who was in the party at the same time I was, was in my 
union and who also helped me organize in the various fronts----
    Mr. Cohn. Is this the Mr. Wandell who was with the Daily 
Worker at one time?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, he wrote numerous articles for the 
Daily Worker also. He stated in a conversation we had that we 
had some of our people at the Knolls Laboratory. Now he did not 
elaborate on that, and referring to ``our people'' he meant the 
Communist party. In that period of time, because of security 
reasons, I couldn't ask him any further information.
    Mr. Cohn. It was obvious to you from the contention of the 
thing that that is what he was referring to?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, that there were Communist party----
    Mr. Cohn. He was a Communist and you were a Communist?
    Mr. Arsenault. Although we were both out of the party at 
the same time, we were still closely associated. I could state, 
as did a former chairman at Schenectady, you don't have to be 
in the party to be a good Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know yourself what the Knolls 
Laboratory is and what it does?
    Mr. Arsenault. It is atomic research.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a laboratory which is building the atomic 
submarine and various highly classified projects, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Arsenault. I understand that the submarine is out at 
Hartford, is it not? It was my understanding that there was 
research work being done at the Knolls Laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. It is clear that the work is highly classified at 
that laboratory?
    Mr. Arsenault. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Cohn. It is one of the really sensitive spots?
    Mr. Arsenault. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this: You have this situation 
here of Communists working, let us say, for the movement not on 
any classified material but working merely on government work 
and working at General Electric. Are there any Communists who 
hold positions of responsibility in the United Electrical 
Workers Union or in any steps in the employer-employee 
relationship who have as subordinates, responsible to them, 
people who are working on highly classified material?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir, you have the shop stewards and 
also Friedlander who is on the executive board.
    Mr. Cohn. He is one of the people you have named as a party 
member?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. He is on the executive board?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would Friedlander be the boss, insofar as this 
phase of labor and management situation is concerned, of other 
persons who are working on classified material?
    Mr. Arsenault. Let me put it this way, Mr. Cohn: Now a 
steward in the shop itself can have his security and have men 
under him who are working in classified work. Now if they have 
a grievance with the foreman that they cannot settle on the 
floor, the shop steward writes out a grievance and also takes 
it to the board member. In the process of that, the worker and 
the shop steward have to find out all of the details of the 
actual job--say punching out a stencil--and they have to know 
what it is; if they are not making their rate or whatever the 
grievance happens to be. Now when this goes up to the executive 
board meeting where they discuss these grievances to see just 
how they should proceed, should they try to pull out the shop 
or how should they proceed down in forty-one where they 
negotiate, there at that board meeting would sit Friedlander 
and he could just sit there smoking his pipe and get all of 
this classified information which would have to come up in 
order to properly evaluate the grievance.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say, as one who has been in the 
Communist movement and is out of it, that that presents an 
extremely dangerous situation?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. So as a practical matter, it might be well and 
good to be careful to whom you give clearances; but if those 
people who have clearances are responsible in the way you have 
outlined and must be in communication concerning their 
classified work with people who are Communists and don't have 
clearance, you have six of one and half a dozen of the other.
    Mr. Arsenault. You have a nice setup.
    The Chairman. Your position is, I gather, that even though 
a Communist does not have clearance to handle classified 
material, if he happens to be in the right position in the 
plant he will nevertheless have access to it through the people 
who have the clearance.
    Mr. Arsenault. In the union, sir, either as a shop steward 
or as an executive board member. If you notice, many of these 
people I named were either shop stewards or--most of them were 
shop stewards. That is one of the prime things when any 
Communist that is sent in to a plant or happens to have a job 
in the plant is to do, to become a shop steward as soon as 
possible.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hear in the Communist party from the 
leadership that they were particularly interested in placing 
Communists in General Electric?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes. The Schenectady area is one of the 
concentration points of the New York State Communist party.
    Mr. Anastos. Mr. Arsenault, were you ever a member of the 
American Labor party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you consider the American Labor party 
Communist-dominated?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Anastos. What positions did you hold in that party?
    Mr. Arsenault. I was on the county committee of the 
Schenectady County American Labor party and also on the state 
committee of the American Labor party. I was also on the 
Upstate Council and the Capital District Council of the 
American Labor party.
    Mr. Anastos. During what years?
    Mr. Arsenault. That was from 1950 until I left the 
Schenectady area in June of 1952. I believe my term on the 
state committee was just up this summer when they had their new 
elections to elect a new state committee.
    Mr. Anastos. Was it well recognized among the members of 
the American Labor party that it was under the control and 
domination of the Communist party?
    Mr. Arsenault. The top leadership in Upstate New York are 
or were Communists.
    Mr. Anastos. Were there any employees of General Electric 
in the American Labor party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir, the ones I named. Any member in 
New York State who is a Communist and is of voting age is also 
in the American Labor party. I should add here, also, that 
another individual that works at the plant there is Harold 
Rolands. Although he is not a member of the Communist party, he 
is a very close friend of Friedlander and follows Friedlander's 
guidance in both shop activities and political activities. He 
is a member of the American Labor party.
    Another former member that worked at the plant is Ray 
Watkins.
    Mr. Anastos. What was Ray Watkins' position there at 
General Electric?
    Mr. Arsenault. That I do not know. He was there a short 
time and he had some trouble with the union. He left it and got 
thrown out of the union. He is presently working at the Mica 
Company.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Arsenault, how were you taken into the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Through the American Labor party.
    Mr. Jones. Through the American Labor party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Who approached you?
    Mr. Arsenault. Jack Wandell, Lillian Garcia, and Marshall 
Garcia.
    Mr. Jones. That was in 1949?
    Mr. Arsenault. In 1949, in December.
    Mr. Jones. In other words, you came into the American Labor 
party and the Communist party at the same time?
    Mr. Arsenault. Very little difference in time, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Were you introduced to some sort of an 
indoctrination course when you came into this American Labor 
party and Communist movement?
    Mr. Arsenault. Well, I was in a study group of the 
Communist party, yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Would you describe for the committee the topic 
that this study group gave to you at that time?
    Mr. Arsenault. It was a very basic course and did not last 
too long. The first one was a small group. Lillian Garcia was 
in charge of it, and it was the basic classics of Marxism, the 
Manifesto.
    Mr. Jones. Did they get into infiltration at all?
    Mr. Arsenault. In the respect that both Lillian Garcia and 
Marshall Garcia stated that they were sent up from New York to 
infiltrate the Schenectady plant.
    Mr. Jones. Was the purpose of this infiltration for 
purposes of espionage?
    Mr. Arsenault. That I do not know, sir.
    Mr. Jones. What were the purposes of infiltrating?
    Mr. Arsenault. For one thing it is an important plant, a 
basic industry, which is a concentration point with the 
Communist party anywhere. The second thing is that it has a UE 
Union, which is left wing, and in there it is the militancy of 
the UE as far as pulling out and stuff like that.
    Naturally they will try to get as many members in there as 
they can because the idea is not only to capture positions in a 
union but it is also to build up the militancy of the workers 
by pulling them out for an hour or an afternoon or shutting 
down or pulling out the crane fellows, to build up the 
militancy, because it is not trade union activity in itself--
Lenin is against that--but you have to build up militancy to 
bring them over into the political activities. You have to get 
them out of the chair first before you can put then into street 
fighting outside.
    Mr. Anastos. Were you ever associated with the Schenectady 
Film Society?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Can you tell us about its activities?
    Mr. Arsenault. I organized that.
    Mr. Anastos. You organized it?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. When was that?
    Mr. Arsenault. I started to kick the idea around in 1950, 
after the elections in 1950, and it didn't gel as far as any 
definite ideas were concerned until 1951. Then I finally got it 
organized and it started out. The basic idea was to try to make 
money for the American Labor party. That was on the 16-
millimeter basis, but another purpose was to activate new 
people into activity because once you activate them in one form 
of activity, it is a process of activating them in other types 
of activity.
    We finally did get a new group of people together, 
primarily new people, and out of that group evolved the 
Schenectady Film Society. Instead of having 16-millimeter, out 
of pure luck we were able to stumble into a theater and work it 
that way.
    Mr. Anastos. Were there any employees of General Electric 
connected with this film society?
    Mr. Arsenault. Not directly, as far as the basic work. 
Naturally the people, our people in the UE shop in the union, 
plugged the film society as much as they could. But you see, 
there is another thing; you don't try to get the same people 
active in many different things, you have them active in one 
thing and you let them stay there and you activate new people, 
or else you are just leading the same people.
    Mr. Anastos. Were there any employees from the Knolls 
Laboratory connected with this Schenectady Film Society?
    Mr. Arsenault. On our master list, approximately five 
hundred people received our bulletin, there were twenty or 
thirty people from the Knolls Laboratory who received our 
bulletin each time.
    Mr. Anastos. Did they ever attend any of these film 
showings?
    Mr. Arsenault. I assume they did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have their names?
    Mr. Arsenault. I don't have the master list anymore.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think you would recognize any of the 
names?
    Mr. Arsenault. I doubt it, because although I kept master 
control, I delegated it.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this Schenectady Film Society still in 
existence?
    Mr. Arsenault. I don't know. It continued last year, but I 
didn't see it in the paper this year.
    Mr. Cohn. What is its last known address? Do you know that?
    Mr. Arsenault. We had only different homes, and it was on 
Washington Avenue, Jack Dillingham.
    The Chairman. Where do you think their records might be as 
of now?
    Mr. Cohn. Where do they keep their mailing list?
    Mr. Arsenault. The last person who had everything when I 
left was Jack Dillingham.
    Mr. Cohn. Jack Dillingham?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he live up in Albany or Schenectady?
    Mr. Arsenault. Schenectady; 43 Washington Avenue, I 
believe.
    Mr. Anastos. What types of films did this society show?
    Mr. Arsenault. Well, different countries. It would show 
more or less average classics that would be innocuous to 
anybody. Also, we would bring films from eastern Europe, and 
Russian films, also, such as Alexander Nevsky. That was a 
classic example of that.
    Mr. Anastos. Was there any propaganda?
    Mr. Arsenault. Oh, yes. Nevsky is a very good propaganda 
film. It was made by Eisenstein in his manner, and although it 
had very little propaganda it was a good example of Russian art 
as far as movie making.
    Mr. Anastos. Were there ever any pamphlets issued by this 
film society for the purpose of getting across pro-Communist 
propaganda?
    Mr. Arsenault. Well, we issued the one pamphlet when we had 
our exhibit down at the hobby show. That is the way we had to 
work that in order to get these people newly activated into it. 
We had each one write out what he thought the purpose of the 
film society was and then we pulled out the best sentence or 
group of words from each one of their statements and put it in 
on the inside page in order to bring out what we wanted to say.
    The Chairman. From your testimony, I do not understand that 
the entire five hundred were members of the Communist party
    Mr. Arsenault. No, sir, it was just anybody that sent in 
for the mailing list.
    The Chairman. And I assume that some of the people who were 
on the mailing list had no knowledge that it was Communist 
dominated?
    Mr. Arsenault. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And again I assume the success of that film 
society was dependent to some extent on keeping some of the 
rank and file from knowing it was Communist?
    Mr. Arsenault. That is right, sir.
    The Chairman. I ask you those questions merely in 
connection with your statement that twenty people from Knolls 
were on the mailing list. The fact that they were on the 
mailing list would not in and of itself indicate they were 
Communists or sympathizers of communism.
    Mr. Cohn. It might be an indication that is worth 
exploring, certainly.
    Mr. Arsenault. Certainly it would be.
    Mr. Jones. Who was your contact man with the main group of 
Communists out of New York?
    Mr. Arsenault. Out of New York? Upper New York you mean?
    Mr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Arsenault. Now what it was toward the end was that 
Fialkoff was going down. F-i-a-l-k-o-f-f, I believe that is the 
spelling.
    The Chairman. Was he working at GE?
    Mr. Arsenault. No, sir. He is a full-time organizer of the 
party. I believe he is in Jamaica, Long Island, at the present 
time.
    The Chairman. He was the contact between the Communists in 
GE and the Communist party in New York?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir. Any organizer when they go to an 
area automatically become chairman of the party. Towards the 
end before he left, he was making weekly trips to New York.
    Mr. Jones. You would contact him every week, or he would 
contact you every week?
    Mr. Arsenault. No, he would contact--it would go to him to 
come up and then it would go to the county committee. Then 
whatever particular branch I happened to be in, it would come 
down through the county committee.
    Mr. Jones. What other Communists in New York did you meet 
through Sy Fialkoff?
    Mr. Arsenault. None through him; none directly through him, 
although in New York I met other Communists.
    Mr. Jones. Who were some of those people?
    Mr. Arsenault. Betty Gannett, Arnold Johnson, V. J. Jerome, 
and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in the secondary leadership of the 
party.
    Mr. Anastos. What was the name of this person DeCesare that 
you mentioned before?
    Mr. Arsenault. The full name of that person was Dante 
DeCesare. He was employed in the General Electric Company as a 
shop steward. He was on the county committee of the Communist 
party. Also, he had some brothers--Sabetino DeCesare was one--
who were at one time members of the Communist party. And also 
his father, Carl DeCesare, was an old party member from away 
back. In the case of Sabetino, when he was in Albany or 
Schenectady.
    Also their wives, like Sabetino's wife, Mary DeCesare, and 
Dante's wife, Lorain DeCesare, who worked at GE.
    Mr. Anastos. Was Mary DeCesare a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir; both the husbands and wives.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did she work?
    Mr. Arsenault. That I don't know definitely.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this very briefly, and I want 
to hurry along. When you were in the Communist movement, did 
you know Freedom of the Press as a Communist front 
organization?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And Tri-City?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. The Schenectady County Youth Committee against 
the Mundt Bill?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Labor Youth League?
    Mr. Arsenault. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You know them all as Communist front 
organizations being pushed by the party?
    Mr. Arsenault. And YPA, Capital District, Negro Labor 
Council, and all of those organizations.
    The Chairman. I have just one other question. In view of 
the number of Communists who were working at GE while you were 
there and in view of the positions which they held, would you 
say that the Communist party had rather complete information 
for about all of the operations at the GE plants?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir, and at one time they even had 
their own personnel on the staff in the UE office: Mike Perlan 
who was compensation lawyer; Emil Rasnovich who was the office 
manager; and at one time Rudy Ellis, who is in Texas now, was 
shop coordinator of the Communist party, and his wife worked in 
the union office.
    The Chairman. If I have this picture clearly in mind, your 
testimony then in substance is this: That while many of these 
people were not handling secret material themselves, take the 
number of them who were shop stewards and the man on the 
executive board, and you feel that the Communists were in such 
a position that even though they themselves might not have 
clearance for secret or top secret material that they did have 
a complete picture of everything that was going on?
    Mr. Arsenault. Yes, sir, very complete.
    The Chairman. You do not think there were any secrets from 
the Communist party at GE?
    Mr. Arsenault. No, sir; their security is too wishy-washy 
for that.
    The Chairman. I want to admonish everybody in the room that 
no one--even under pain of contempt of the committee--will 
reveal that Mr. Arsenault was in the room today. No one is to 
discuss the fact that Mr. Arsenault was here with anyone else 
in the plant. That is, your superior officer or anyone. If the 
information gets out, I will know who to hold responsible. Do 
you follow that?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Friedlander, would you be seated. We will get 
a chair for your counsel.
    Let us get the name of counsel.
    Mr. Novak. Leon Novak, 301 Liberty Street, Schenectady.
    The Chairman. Will the witness stand and be sworn.
    Will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in 
this matter now before the committee that you will tell the 
truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Friedlander. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY FRIEDLANDER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          LEON NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. You will have to speak up. May we have your full 
name, please?
    Mr. Friedlander. Sidney Friedlander, F-r-i-e-d-l-a-n-d-e-r.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Friedlander. Scotia, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the address?
    Mr. Friedlander. 210 Riverside Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Counsel, for your benefit, since you have not 
appeared before the committee, you cannot participate in the 
proceedings. However, your client is free at any time at all to 
confer with you and get advice from you, either here or outside 
if you wish to step out in the hall and talk privately. Just so 
indicate to the chair and that will be done.
    Now, Mr. Friedlander, where are you employed?
    Mr. Friedlander. General Electric Company.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do there?
    Mr. Friedlander. I am a machinist, machine repair.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been 
working for General Electric?
    Mr. Friedlander. About just under thirteen years.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked on any government work?
    Mr. Friedlander. Not that I know of. I wouldn't know. I 
don't believe so; it has all been machine repair.
    Mr. Cohn. Hasn't some of that involved machine repair on 
things involving government contracts? You don't know that?
    Mr. Friedlander. I wouldn't know about that. I have never 
worked in the classified area, so I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Friedlander, are you today a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Friedlander. I am afraid I will have to reserve the 
right to refuse to answer on the grounds of the First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. The committee does not recognize the first one as 
a valid ground for refusing to answer. Do you refuse to answer 
on the ground that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Friedlander. Under the Fifth Amendment, and in addition 
under the First.
    The Chairman. He has that right under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Friedlander. Not that I feel that there is anything 
incriminating in this particular thing, but that I still 
reserve the right to----
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Friedlander. I think there is nothing incriminating in 
my actions. However, I reserve the right to refuse to answer 
this question. If you had not interrupted, I would have said 
that. There is nothing in my actions that is incriminating, but 
I refuse to answer the particular question.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is the answer yes? Do you feel that your 
answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. Under the Constitution, yes.
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to the privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you hold the position of shop steward in 
the union?
    Mr. Friedlander. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Which union is that?
    Mr. Friedlander. United Electrical Workers Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that Local 301?
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What are your responsibilities as shop steward?
    Mr. Friedlander. To handle grievances of workers, in 
general.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do the workers whose grievances you handle 
all work in the same section in which you work?
    Mr. Friedlander. Just how do you mean that?
    Mr. Cohn. Where are they physically located at General 
Electric?
    Mr. Friedlander. In the machine repair gang.
    Mr. Cohn. Only in the machine repair gang, and you have no 
jurisdiction outside of that?
    Mr. Friedlander. I have jurisdiction over other groups, but 
I personally do not handle grievances except when they are 
referred to me to be handled through the union office. In other 
words, I cannot investigate grievances in any other section 
except my own.
    The Chairman. Do you handle the grievances of anyone 
working in classified material?
    Mr. Friedlander. That I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You may talk to counsel any time you want.
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I would say yes, it is quite possible.
    Mr. Cohn. In what shop, particularly?
    Mr. Friedlander. There is one small group upstairs that is 
somewhat considered classified, let us put it that way.
    Mr. Cohn. When you say ``upstairs,'' what do you mean by 
that?
    Mr. Friedlander. Above the floor that I work on.
    Mr. Cohn. In what number of buildings?
    Mr. Friedlander. Seventeen.
    Mr. Cohn. Building No. 17?
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me get this picture clear now. You handle 
the grievances for some people working in classified material, 
is that correct?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. And in handling their grievances, you, of 
necessity, would have to know what type of work they were 
doing?
    Mr. Friedlander. Not necessarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Could there be an instance where you would have 
to know that?
    Mr. Friedlander. It is very unlikely, because these are 
mostly tool makers and it is usually a question of whether it 
is their turn to be upgraded.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it conceivable that you would have to know 
anything about the work they are doing to intelligently handle 
the grievance?
    Mr. Friedlander. Not necessarily, no.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't mean ``not necessarily,'' but----
    Mr. Friedlander. I have never handled a grievance in that 
manner and I----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any idea what kind of work is going 
on upstairs?
    Mr. Friedlander. Tool work.
    Mr. Cohn. Of a classified nature?
    Mr. Friedlander. It is generalized, and I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You know it is classified material?
    Mr. Friedlander. I haven't the faintest notion.
    Mr. Cohn. You know it is of a classified nature?
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it possible that a grievance could arise on 
the part of somebody working up there which would lead you to 
inquire to some extent?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is not possible.
    Mr. Cohn. That is not possible?
    Mr. Friedlander. No.
    The Chairman. You mean you are handling the grievance of a 
man working in this building seventeen, I believe you said, and 
you don't know anything about the work they are doing?
    Mr. Friedlander. I know they are doing tool room work and I 
know the nature of the grievance, if I can explain.
    The Chairman. Just answer my questions; you can explain it 
later on.
    You mean you know nothing about their work except they are 
doing tool room work?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you say you can handle their grievances 
and decide whether or not they should be upgraded without 
knowing what they are doing?
    Mr. Friedlander. Precisely, except that they are doing tool 
room work for a certain period of time. The character of the 
grievance around tool makers rarely revolves around their work; 
it revolves around the period of time that they have been 
working at a particular classification.
    The Chairman. Doesn't it also involve their efficiency?
    Mr. Friedlander. Now----
    The Chairman. Does it also involve their efficiency in 
their particular job?
    Mr. Friedlander. Well, we have a different setup there 
where it is automatic progression--the contract calls for 
automatic progression--and once a tool maker goes on the job he 
automatically progresses step by step.
    The Chairman. Then you say that even though a man is 
completely incompetent and inefficient, he is entitled after a 
certain period of time to be upgraded, is that correct?
    Mr. Friedlander. That would be true if they ever put him in 
the tool room. That is right. Usually a fellow--the procedure 
in GE is a little different. A fellow graduates from the 
apprentice course, and there is automatic progression from the 
time he comes off the course until the time he operates.
    The Chairman. In passing upon this grievance, all you have 
to do is check his work sheet to know the date he came in 
there?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is that all?
    Mr. Friedlander. We get very few grievances, and I don't 
recall ever having a grievance from that particular group 
because it has been so automatic.
    The Chairman. How about any other group?
    Mr. Friedlander. Other groups, yes. We have groups that are 
not in the tool room downstairs, non-classified.
    The Chairman. Is that the only grievance that you handle, 
the question of upgrading?
    Mr. Friedlander. From the tool room, yes, sir.
    Possibly there would be a question of overtime or a holiday 
grievance. A fellow might say that we have a clause in the 
contract, for example, which says that if a fellow comes in 
late the day after a holiday or leaves early before a holiday 
the company does not pay him for that particular holiday.
    The Chairman. Your testimony today under oath is that you 
can handle a grievance of these people working in classified 
work and that you do not have any idea what they are working 
at, no knowledge whatever, but you merely know they are in the 
tool room, is that correct?
    Mr. Friedlander. You see----
    The Chairman. Just answer that question yes or no.
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes, because I don't handle their 
grievance directly; their steward handles it. Only the guy that 
processes it through the business office and the steward give 
me the grievance, and I pass it on.
    The Chairman. Listen to this question so that there can be 
no claim of being misunderstood at a subsequent proceeding. It 
is your testimony that you know nothing whatsoever about the 
work in this classified shop except that they are doing tool 
work, and beyond that you know nothing about their work?
    Mr. Friedlander. Precisely.
    The Chairman. Nothing whatsoever?
    Mr. Friedlander. Nothing whatsoever.
    The Chairman. And you never talk to them about their work?
    Mr. Friedlander. Never.
    The Chairman. At any time?
    Mr. Friedlander. At any time.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any Communist party 
meetings with any of the people from that shop?
    Mr. Friedlander. I am afraid I will have to reserve my 
rights under the First and Fifth Amendments again.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to tell us the 
truth about whether or not you attended Communist party 
meetings with people working in this classified shop that that 
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. Could I have that question again?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    [The witness consulted with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. Pardon me while I consult with counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes.
    The Chairman. Now, you are also on the executive board of 
the UE, are you?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. And as it member of the executive board do 
you in some cases constitute what you would call an appeal 
board for workers who have grievances?
    Mr. Friedlander. It could happen--I think it has happened 
once or twice--where a case has been referred to the entire 
executive board.
    The Chairman. Do you have in your mind as of today a fairly 
complete picture of the type of work being done by GE, not only 
in your shop but in the other shops?
    Mr. Friedlander. I am afraid nobody has that; it is a very 
varied plant.
    The Chairman. Your answer is, No, you do not?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is right.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed with people in other 
shops of GE the type of work that they are doing?
    Mr. Friedlander. Some, yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed with anyone working 
in classified work the type of work they are doing?
    Mr. Friedlander. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never have?
    Mr. Friedlander. No, sir. We make a point of not doing 
that.
    The Chairman. Do you know any other Communists at GE?
    Mr. Friedlander. Again, please.
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
of the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Friedlander. Of course not.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mr. Friedlander. Of course not. We have a very definite 
policy in the union which would indicate that it would be our 
duty to expose any such activity.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with members of the 
Communist party any classified work being done at GE?
    Mr. Friedlander. On the character of the question, I stand 
on my constitutional rights under the First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 
Since you have waived your privilege under the Fifth Amendment 
when you told me you never engaged in espionage or sabotage, 
you are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Friedlander. I have not waived any privilege under the 
question of espionage because that is a question of activity.
    The Chairman. I do not intend to argue with you. You are 
ordered to answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I get the connotation now.
    No, I have not, and I have not talked with or done any 
espionage with anybody, of any kind.
    The Chairman. Now I will ask you the question: Did you ever 
discuss with any members of the Communist party work being done 
at GE?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will reserve my rights under the First 
and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    The Chairman. So that counsel will understand the chair's 
position, in view of the fact that this is the first time 
counsel has appeared before this committee, may I point out to 
you that the chair takes the position that when a witness 
waives the Fifth Amendment privilege in regard to espionage he 
waives not only to the specific question, but he waives as to 
all questions in the area of espionage.
    Discussing classified material with members of the 
Communist party comes within that area, and therefore it is the 
chair's position that he has waived the privilege insofar as 
any question having to do with espionage is concerned. For that 
reason he is ordered to answer. If he does not answer I will 
recommend that he be cited for contempt and his case be given 
to the grand jury.
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. The answer is no.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear Communists discussing 
classified work being done at the GE plants, at a Communist 
meeting or any other place?
    Mr. Friedlander. May I have the question again?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Friedlander. The answer is no.
    The Chairman. Do you know Sy Fialkoff?
    Mr. Friedlander. The name doesn't sound familiar, and I 
know a great many people.
    The Chairman. F-i-a-l-k-o-f-f.
    Mr. Friedlander. I know a great many people. I will have to 
wait and think about it.
    Can you identify him in any way? I can't seem to recall the 
name.
    The Chairman. He has been identified as a Communist party 
organizer and as chairman of the Communist party of Troy, about 
1948 and 1949. Then he was chairman of the Communist party in 
Schenectady about 1951. He is now in Jamaica, Long Island.
    Does that refresh your recollection?
    Mr. Friedlander. I must refuse to answer on the grounds of 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Did you know Harold Klein?
    Mr. Friedlander. I presume that is also in the same 
category, and I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with Harold Klein or 
Fialkoff the work that was being done at the GE plants?
    Mr. Friedlander. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist party meetings 
with them?
    Mr. Friedlander. I must refuse to answer on the grounds of 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not the Communists 
have tried and are still attempting to infiltrate and get their 
people into the GE plants?
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings at 
which was discussed the necessity, from the standpoint of the 
Communist party, of getting their members into the GE plants?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether one of the purposes of 
the Communist party is to attempt to get their men into GE 
plants for the purpose of keeping track of what is going on 
there and the manufacturing that is being done?
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights under 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you have the task of reporting anything to 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my rights under the First 
and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Is a part of your job within the party to 
report to the Communist party anything about the work at GE?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Friedlander. May I ask why?
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Friedlander. Can you repeat the question?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    The Chairman. The reason you have been ordered to answer is 
that you have waived your privilege so far as that question is 
concerned.
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. Of course the answer is no, except that 
there is an implication there beyond the original question.
    The Chairman. Then you don't feel that the answer to that 
question would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. What do you mean?
    The Chairman. Do you feel that the no answer may tend to 
incriminate you?
    [The witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. The formulation as I get it is: Do I feel 
that my answer of no, I don't intend to incriminate myself--is 
that the way it was put?
    The Chairman. I will ask you the question again.
    Do you feel that your answer, the one you just gave, will 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. No.
    The Chairman. In the last two minutes you refused to answer 
the question, telling the committee under oath that you felt 
that your answer might tend to incriminate you. Were you lying 
then? Were you perjuring yourself then?
    Mr. Novak. I don't know what you are referring to.
    The Chairman. Let the witness answer.
    I asked you the question a minute ago and you refused to 
answer on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment, the question that 
you have just answered now. You told me then that you felt the 
answer might tend to incriminate you, and I ordered you to 
answer the question and then you answered it ``No.'' I ask you 
now if you feel that your answer would tend to incriminate you 
and you say now, No, it does not intend to incriminate you. I 
wonder when you are lying to me.
    Mr. Friedlander. They were two entirely different 
questions, and I was lying in neither case.
    The Chairman. Will you go back and read the original 
question to the witness.
    [The record was read by the reporter.]
    The Chairman. Did you think the answer to that might tend 
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. The answer to that previous question, I 
said no.
    The Chairman. You say no, it would not tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Friedlander. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Why did you tell me within the last two 
minutes that you are refusing on the ground of self-
incrimination?
    Mr. Friedlander. The same question, you mean?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Friedlander. Because I misunderstood the question. 
Obviously, I misunderstood just what you were asking. The 
question was rather complexly formulated, and completely 
misunderstood the meaning of the question.
    The Chairman. Now, do you believe in the capitalist form of 
government or the Communist form of government?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
under the First and Fifth Amendments. That is a question of 
belief.
    The Chairman. Are you pledged to support the Communist 
party in its attempt to bring about a Communist society in this 
country?
    Mr. Friedlander. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. As a member of the Communist party, are you. 
to use your position at General Electric to help bring about 
that Communist society?
    Mr. Friedlander. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Friedlander. That is a political question, and I will 
refuse to answer.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know a Jack Wandell?
    Mr. Friedlander. Under the same provision, I will stand on 
my constitutional rights.
    Mr. Jones. To your knowledge, is Jack Wandell a Communist?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Dante DeCesare?
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a citizen of the United States?
    Mr. Friedlander. The answer is obviously yes.
    Mr. Jones: Would you as a citizen oppose any group 
advocating the violent overthrow of this government?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I believe that comes under the heading of 
a political question, and I would stand on my constitutional 
rights.
    Mr. Jones. Would you as a citizen oppose any group that 
tried to overthrow the government in Washington?
    Mr. Friedlander. These are questions of opinion and belief, 
and I stand on my constitutional rights.
    Mr. Jones. Does the Communist party stand for the violent 
overthrow of the government?
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights.
    The Chairman. When you say you stand on your constitutional 
rights----
    Mr. Friedlander. Under the First and Fifth Amendments. If 
you wish me to repeat that in each case, of course I will.
    Mr. Jones. Do you have any knowledge of any Communist 
activities at General Electric?
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights.
    Mr. Jones. Do you have any knowledge of any espionage 
activities at General Electric?
    Mr. Friedlander. Definitely, no.
    Mr. Jones. That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. If the Communist party directed you to obtain 
classified information from someone at General Electric, would 
you do so?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Friedlander. I will stand on my constitutional rights 
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Jones. Did you serve in the armed services?
    Mr. Friedlander. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Mr. Friedlander, you will consider yourself 
under subpoena. You will be recalled later. Your counsel will 
be told when you will be recalled.
    There is just one question: Do you think Communists should 
be allowed to work on classified material?
    Mr. Friedlander. It is a question of opinion, and I must 
stand on my constitutional rights under the First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. Your answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights under 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you think the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
has that meaning.
    The Chairman. Do you think that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. I will say yes to that.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know any Communists, Mr. Friedlander?
    Mr. Friedlander. I stand on my constitutional rights under 
the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Jones. Do you feel. that a truthful answer to that 
question would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Friedlander. In view of the present atmosphere, yes, 
association has tended to incriminate.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    Mr. Novak. My phone number is 43155, Schenectady.
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, may I say that in these cases we 
try to accommodate the lawyers as much as possible. If you are 
not satisfied that your client is to appear at a certain day, 
and you are tied up in court work, if you will let us know, we 
will try and shift the witnesses about so that we can 
accommodate you. We have so many that we can do that.
    Mr. Novak. I understand that, Senator, surely.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Chiaro. I do.

                TESTIMONY OF THERESA MARY CHIARO

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Theresa Mary Chiaro.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you spell that?
    Mrs. Chiaro. C-h-i-a-r-o.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Chiaro. 2512 Vranken Avenue, V-r-a-n-k-e-n.
    Mr. Cohn. In Schenectady?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mrs. Chiaro. General Electric Company.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been with 
General Electric?
    Mrs. Chiaro. I believe it is seven years today.
    Mr. Cohn. And where in General Electric do you work?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Campbell Avenue Building, Guided Missile 
Department.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a security clearance?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Up to what?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Secret.
    Mr. Cohn. Up through secret?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you had that 
clearance?
    Mrs. Chiaro. I don't know just how long it took to go 
through after I was employed, a matter of a few weeks. I would 
say for the last seven years.
    Mr. Cohn. Substantially, for the seven-year period?
    Mrs. Chiaro. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You are working on guided missiles. For what 
branch of the service is that?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Army ordnance.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, in the year 1942, did you sign a Communist 
party nominating petition?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this the first time you have heard anything 
about this?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. It has never been suggested to you, you have 
never been asked before whether or not in 1942 you signed a 
Communist party nominating petition?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure that you did not sign one?
    Mrs. Chiaro. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't signed 
anything. I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer.
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it conceivable to you that you could have 
signed a Communist party nominating petition?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Knowing that it had been anything of that type 
I would not have signed.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been asked about this before is 
that right?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Chiaro, I will say for your benefit and 
for the benefit of the security officers here that I do not 
think they should arrive at any conclusion against this young 
lady because she has been called, until we get the petition she 
allegedly signed. We have found in the past that sometimes 
people with a name that appeared to be about the same had 
signed petitions, and upon being confronted with it they find 
it is not their signature. If upon the production of the 
petition it is found she did sign it, I think that will be a 
rather important matter; otherwise, I do not think that you 
should arrive at any conclusion at all merely because she has 
been called here.
    Mrs. Chiaro, I know nothing about you at all except that we 
do have the information that someone by the same name that you 
give, living at the same address, has signed a petition 
pledging support of the Communist party and a Communist 
candidate. The fact that we have that information is no proof 
that it is true. We often find, as I say, upon running it down 
that it is a different person. Sometimes we find forgery of 
names and such.
    We are going to get that petition, and we will want you to 
come back and identify your signature or tell us it is not your 
signature on it, because if you did sign a petition pledging 
support to the Communist party, I am sure you will agree it is 
a rather serious matter.
    You understand we do not give the names of any witnesses to 
the press. I do not know if they are going to be hanging 
outside this door or not. So if you talk to them or refuse to 
talk to them, the only way they will get your name is if you 
give it out yourself.
    Where were you when they came to get this petition?
    Mrs. Chiaro. I have no idea. I live in Schenectady.
    The Chairman. Do you have a phone number there?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is your testimony today that you do not 
recall ever having signed a Communist petition and that you 
would not sign one if you had any suspicion that you were 
signing a Communist petition?
    Mrs. Chiaro. That is right.
    The Chairman. You never attended any Communist meetings?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist 
party?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No, I haven't been.
    The Chairman. Or the Young Communist League?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    The Chairman. When we get this petition, we will have you 
come back and check your signature. Would you recognize your 
own signature?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes.
    The Chairman. Could you come back at two thirty. We will 
have the petition here.
    Stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in 
this matter now before the committee that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Bottisti. I do.

                TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. BOTTISTI

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name?
    Mr. Bottisti. Albert J. Bottisti, B-o-t-t-i-s-t-i.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Bottisti. Right now I live on Schenectady Road, Stop 
16, at Dulver Avenue; before I lived at 816 Culver Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you employed at General Electric?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you been employed 
there?
    Mr. Bottisti. About thirteen years, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you have a clearance, a security 
clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you had clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. Probably about two years, or a year and a 
half to two years.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not have it before that?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Why didn't you have it before that?
    Mr. Bottisti. Well, I used to work in 81, and then from 
there there I went to what they called the foundry, in Building 
10, and we didn't have to have any clearance. And then being 
that, I went in this new job which is a cabinet shop. With the 
job I have, I go around to different work on the buildings and 
I have to have a slip in order to get in, a clearance slip.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever denied clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. I don't get you.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever refused clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you in 1946 sign a Communist party 
nominating petition?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Bottisti. Positive, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever signed a petition pledging 
support of the Communist party?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Or a Communist candidate?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.
    The Chairman. May I say that we have what purports to be 
your signature on a petition pledging support of the Communist 
party. I know you want to see it, too, because you say you 
never signed a petition, and you want to know whether your name 
was forged. We will bring in the original petition or a 
photostat of it and let you have a chance to examine it so you 
can tell us whether it is your signature or not. We will have 
that here this afternoon at 2:30. Could you come back at 2:30?
    Mr. Bottisti. If you say so.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, we do not give the name of any 
witness to the press, one of the reasons being that the mere 
fact that a witness is called before the committee may create 
the impression that we feel he is guilty of improper loyal 
conduct. We have to call many people here who are good, loyal 
Americans, but we call them because they can give us some 
information about other people or we have information about 
them which turns out not to be true in the end. So we feel it 
would be unfair to give the names to the press. The only way 
anyone will know you were here is if you yourself tell them.
    Mr. Bottisti. Thank you. I will be back at 2:30.
    The Chairman. Do you have secret clearance or top secret?
    Mr. Bottisti. I had top secret, and then they gave me--and 
I don't know if you are familiar with this badge--this one 
which is confidential.
    The Chairman. The card designates what kind of clearance 
you have?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes.
    [The witness was excused.]
    Mr. Cohn. Would you indicate on the record that Mr. 
Arsenault has identified Mr. Friedlander as the Sidney 
Friedlander to whom he referred as a member of the Communist 
party in the course of his testimony, having looked at him.
    The Chairman. I think we will take a break for lunch. We 
will resume at two o'clock this afternoon.
    Just so you will understand the procedure, after every 
executive session we talk to the press. The reason for that is 
that we have found in the past--like today when we have fifteen 
or twenty people--if we do not talk to the press, some newsman 
calls you at eleven o'clock at night and someone else at twelve 
and finally they get a story from someone. That way you get 
very conflicting stories. For that reason, I give them all a 
resume of the testimony, but we do not give the names of any 
witnesses at all.
    We have the prohibition against any of you testifying about 
any of this, except insofar as you must do it in your work. And 
even then, as far as Mr. Arsenault is concerned, we have a very 
strong agreement with him that no one will know he was here; so 
I do not want you to even discuss his name, even to your 
superiors, except insofar as you have arranged to get us 
further information from your department.
    [Whereupon, a recess was taken at 12:30 p.m., the hearing 
to be resumed at 2:00 p.m.]

                          AFTER RECESS

    [The hearing reconvened at 2:30 p.m.]
    The Chairman. Mrs. Chiaro, would you sign your name on that 
paper we have given you?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes, sir.

                TESTIMONY OF THERESA MARY CHIARO

    The Chairman. Did you ever reside at 730 Bridge Street?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you write 730 Bridge Street, Schenectady, 
also, if you will?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Yes.
    [Witness signed her name and address on a card.]
    The Chairman. I want to show you this petition, Mrs. 
Chiaro, and ask you whether this is your signature on this 
petition.
    Mr. Cohn. Referring the witness to a Communist party 
nominating petition in 1942, and the name Theresa Chiaro, 730 
Bridge Street.
    Mrs. Chiaro. It doesn't look very much like my signature.
    Mr. Cohn. Look at the name of the other witnesses and look 
at the name of the subscribing witness, and see if anything 
rings a bell.
    Mrs. Chiaro. You mean this is the petition I am supposed to 
have signed?
    Mr. Cohn. I wonder if you would examine that closely and 
tell us whether or not that is your signature.
    Mrs. Chiaro. I am supposed to have signed something with 
this heading on it?
    Mr. Cohn. This is an exact copy of the document which we 
have. You understand we did not see you sign this and we have 
no way of knowing whether that is your signature at this point 
or not, and we have not submitted it to any handwriting 
authority or a handwriting expert who can say whether or not 
that is your signature. I may say if you signed a Communist 
party petition, and I think if you did, it is something 
important enough so that you would remember it.
    Mrs. Chiaro. I certainly could understand that.
    Mr. Cohn. If you did sign it, it is a pledge to support the 
Communist party, and their candidates. Anyone who is pledged to 
support the Communist party, obviously we are concerned about 
their handling secret material. If you did not sign it, or if 
someone forged it, then there will be a prosecution for 
forgery, because no one has a right to forge your name to 
something as serious as that. And let me call your attention to 
the person who circulated this.
    Mrs. Chiaro. None of these names are familiar to me.
    Mr. Cohn. They are all at different addresses, I note.
    Mrs. Chiaro. None of the names are familiar.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know this man, Arthur Mitchell, who is the 
man who allegedly gave it to you to sign? Do you know Arthur 
Mitchell?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No, I don't, and it does not look like my 
signature, and I doubt very much if I would have signed 
anything with that heading on it.
    Now, do you think anyone could have handed this to me with 
that maybe covered up, or if that--it does not look like my 
signature, but it would have to be analyzed, but offhand I 
would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. In any event, as far as you are concerned, you do 
not ever remember having signed this?
    Mrs. Chiaro. I would have signed that at 730 Bridge Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Not necessarily. You may have signed it at any 
place at all, but gave your address as 730 Bridge Street.
    Mrs. Chiaro. I wonder if that 730 Bridge Street is in the 
same handwriting.
    Mr. Cohn. It would appear that the word ``Schenectady'' is 
in the same handwriting, that the signer did not fill it in, 
and the names of those who signed it, you find it is in a 
different handwriting, all of them. Actually I am not a 
handwriting expert, but I note the ``T'' and ``H'' would appear 
to be almost the same, and the ``B'' in the ``Bridge Street'', 
and the same with the ``G.'' It is a rather unusual way of 
making a ``G,'' and they seem to coincide. I would assume you 
and I would gain nothing by just discussing it.
    Mrs. Chiaro. I do not recall ever signing this.
    Mr. Cohn. You never belonged to any Communist organization?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No, sir, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever associated with any Communists?
    Mrs. Chiaro. Not to my knowledge that I would know they 
were Communists, no.
    The Chairman. May I say to the security officer, we will 
have the handwriting checked and give you a report on the 
outcome of that. If this is a forgery, then this man Arthur 
Mitchell is guilty of false oath, and his case should be 
submitted to the grand jury; if it is not a forgery, you can 
take it up further with your employee.
    Mr. Cohn. Thanks very much, and we will be in touch with 
you.
    The Chairman. Did anyone ever invite you to attend a 
Communist party meeting?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No.
    The Chairman. Nor to join the Young Communist League, or 
anything like that?
    Mrs. Chiaro. No, I don't recall anything, or having 
attended any meetings of any type.
    The Chairman. You are Mrs. Chiaro and not Miss Chiaro?
    Mrs. Chiaro. That is right. I am divorced.
    The Chairman. How long ago were you married?
    Mrs. Chiaro. In 1939.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Unless you tell someone, 
no one will know that you were here.
    Mrs. Chiaro. It could have been a scribble, but it does not 
look to me like my signature, and I don't think I ever signed 
my ``T's'' that way. It looks a little unusual to me. Right 
offhand I would say no.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.

                TESTIMONY OF ALBERT J. BOTTISTI.

    Mr. Cohn. Were you residing in 1946 at 916 Cutler Street?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you write 916 Cutler Street?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    [The witness wrote his name and address on a pad of paper.]
    Mr. Cohn. Would you let us see it?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Now let me ask you, Mr. Bottisti, is it your 
testimony now that you did not sign a Communist party 
nominating petition?
    Mr. Bottisti. I did not sign it if I knew anything about 
it.
    The Chairman. You do not sign anything without knowing what 
you are signing, do you?
    Mr. Bottisti. That is right.
    The Chairman. Let me show you this. You have unusual 
handwriting, and is this your signature?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You state this is your signature?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. It would appear to be.
    Mr. Bottisti. It would appear to be, anyway, but I did not 
sign it in that form like that, sir; anything like that, I 
would read it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Harold Kline?
    Mr. Bottisti. There is a Mr. Art Kline.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know the names of the other people who 
signed this petition?
    Mr. Bottisti. James R. Whitman, Vincent Iovalla, and Robert 
Trion. This name sounds familiar to me a long time ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Vincent Iovalla?
    Mr. Bottisti. He used to work in the foundry there at the 
time. It is a long time ago, but I don't recall it, and I 
couldn't say for certain.
    The Chairman. If you read the top of this, it is something 
that you do not sign just as a matter of form ordinarily, ``I, 
the undersigned, hereby state that I am a duly qualified voter 
of the political unit for which this nomination for public 
office is hereby made, and that my place of residence is truly 
stated opposite my signature signed hereto, and I intend to 
support in the election, and I do hereby nominate the following 
named persons as candidates for nomination for public office, 
to be voted for at the election to be held on the fifth day of 
November, 1946, and I select the name Communist party as a name 
of the independent body making the nomination.''
    Now, the man nominated for governor is Robert Thompson, and 
he is presently in jail, a fugitive for a number of years, and 
captured by the FBI in the Sierras, and the lieutenant governor 
has been convicted, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. I think he got a severance.
    The Chairman. Benjamin Davis is in jail, and Bella Dodd has 
testified that she was a Communist at that time. Mario Gudoni, 
comptroller of New York State, is rather famous as a Communist. 
I am just wondering now. You say it is your signature?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. It is the signature on this Communist party 
petition.
    Mr. Bottisti. Did they present me with something like this 
when I signed it?
    The Chairman. I would not have any idea, but if it was your 
signature on this, unless someone forged it, and they 
apparently did not because you have an unusual handwriting, are 
you in the habit of signing things without reading what you 
sign?
    Mr. Bottisti. Well, I will tell you; sometimes I am and 
sometimes I am not. We have been signing so many things for 
stuff down here. For instance, here a couple of weeks ago they 
signed papers out for raising up dust, and stuff like that, you 
see.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the United Electrical 
Workers?
    Mr. Bottisti. United Electrical Workers, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You may sit down again. Is everyone at the 
shop a member of the union?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, everyone--I think there is about one or 
two that aren't in our department.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people are there in your department?
    Mr. Bottisti. Offhand I could not tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give me an approximation?
    Mr. Bottisti. Fifty of us.
    Mr. Cohn. About fifty?
    Mr. Bottisti. Forty or fifty.
    Mr. Cohn. Are they all working on classified material?
    Mr. Bottisti. Oh, no, some are and some aren't.
    Mr. Cohn. What is it, about half and half?
    Mr. Bottisti. It isn't half and half. I think there is 
about in one section, there is only a few, six or seven of 
them.
    Mr. Cohn. Six or seven working in classified material?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are those working in classified material members 
of the United Electrical Workers?
    Mr. Bottisti. I could not tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first join?
    Mr. Bottisti. I joined when it first came out, when I first 
was in, when I got hired in the GE. It must have been about a 
couple of weeks or a month after I got in that I was joining, 
and I have been in it ever since.
    Mr. Cohn. About what year was that?
    Mr. Bottisti. Let me see----
    Mr. Cohn. Just give me an approximation.
    Mr. Bottisti. About ten years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that that union, United Electrical 
Workers, is under Communist domination?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not know that?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard that alleged?
    Mr. Bottisti. I have heard it lately, but I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know? Doesn't it come to your attention 
that the heads of that union, Mr. Matles, and Mr. Emspak, have 
on repeated occasions refused to answer, claiming privilege 
against self incrimination, whether or not they were members of 
the Communist party, and on the National Committee of the 
Communist party of the United States? Hasn't that ever come to 
your attention? \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ James Matles (1909-1975), UE director of operations, and 
Julius Emspak (1904-1962), secretary-treasurer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Bottisti. I never bothered, because I paid my dues 
because it is almost 100 percent union, in our department, and 
I just go about my business.
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't the fact--you are a good American?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you consider yourself such?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't the fact that the heads of your union, 
the national heads of your union are among the top leaders in 
the conspiracy to overthrow this government, is not that a 
matter of concern to you?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And your dues are going to further their 
activities.
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't that a matter of concern to you?
    Mr. Bottisti. You said it, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You had an election a short time ago as to 
who would be the bargaining agent, and do I understand that the 
UE was selected by the workers as the bargaining agent? Do you 
know?
    Mr. Bottisti. I did not get you.
    The Chairman. You had an election here some time ago to 
choose the bargaining agent.
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Was UE selected as the bargaining agent?
    Mr. Bottisti. I am pretty sure they were. I don't bother 
with it, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you vote in that election?
    Mr. Bottisti. I don't know, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you recall whether you ever voted to 
determine who the bargaining agent would be?
    Mr. Bottisti. I very seldom vote, and I very seldom bother 
with it.
    The Chairman. Do you recall whether you ever voted?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, I don't, sir. We signed for the raising 
of the duties, and things like that, that they would go around 
to all of us in the shop, and as far as going up to the place, 
no, because I never go up there.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. In your case we 
will give your employer some problem. If he decides that you 
signed a petition pledging support of the Communist party as 
late as 1946, I assume that he would not want you handling 
secret material.
    Now, your name is on this, and you say it is your signature 
and on top of it there is a huge sign saying ``Communist party 
Nominating Petition,'' and if there is any light you can shed 
on that at all, can you think of any way that your name might 
have gotten on this?
    Mr. Bottisti. No.
    The Chairman. I assume you do not go around signing even 
the Democrat petition or Republican petition without knowing 
what you sign?
    Mr. Bottisti. You are right, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, I, being a Republican, would 
not go out and sign even a Democrat petition, and you certainly 
can not compare that to the Communist party.
    Mr. Bottisti. At the time when that was there, I didn't 
have that special work, that special button, and I just had 
this button, and I still don't remember signing it, and in fact 
if I knew it was that, I would never have signed it.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Do you think anyone who 
knowingly signed a Communist party nominating petition should 
be given secret clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. They would know that they were, no, sir.
    The Chairman. I am not talking about your case.
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you testify this morning that you had had 
a top secret clearance at one time?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. By General Electric?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, and I still have.
    Mr. Anastos. You still have a top secret clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, I beg your pardon. It isn't top; it is a 
blue top.
    Mr. Anastos. What is that?
    Mr. Bottisti. Confidential.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever have a top secret clearance.
    Mr. Bottisti. I did have one, yes, sir. I had one and you 
were supposed to appear in the buildings so many times. The way 
my job is, I fix all of these machines, drafting machines.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you have the top secret clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. They took my fingerprints five or six months 
go, I think; I am not sure offhand.
    Mr. Cohn. Five or six months ago?
    Mr. Bottisti. Probably a little better than that now.
    Mr. Cohn. For a top secret clearance?
    Mr. Bottisti. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What color?
    Mr. Bottisti. Red, white, and it had crosses on it.
    The Chairman. Why did you lose the top secret clearance if 
you once had it?
    Mr. Cohn. You did have one which was higher than the one 
you have now?
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And it had a red top?
    Mr. Bottisti. It had squares on one side, and there was a 
red square and a white or blue square and I was brought down to 
this one here.
    Mr. Cohn. It was reduced.
    Mr. Bottisti. Yes, sir. You are supposed to spend so many 
times there.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know why it was reduced?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any other organization 
besides the United Electrical Workers?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have they ever asked you to join any other 
organization?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have they ever asked you to sign any petition of 
any kind?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. They have not?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is your shop steward?
    Mr. Bottisti. We have got a fellow named as Smitty, and his 
last name I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you know a man by the name of Paul Nagey?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never met him?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And you say this man Kline you never met?
    Mr. Bottisti. No, I don't recall the name now.
    The Chairman. Harold Kline.
    Mr. Bottisti. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. That will be all for the afternoon, and we will 
let you know if we have any need for you later.
    The Chairman. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear 
int his matter now before the committee, that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF ANNA JEGABBI

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Mrs. Anna Jegabbi.
    Mr. Cohn. And you live at 206 Front Street, Schenectady?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
working there?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Off and on, is that what you want?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. About twelve years off and on.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a security clearance from General 
Electric?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. How high up?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I think it was about five months back.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a confidential clearance?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the highest you ever had?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I took a picture to get another badge, but I 
have been out sick.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you had that clearance?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know. It is three years I have been 
in the government working.
    Mr. Cohn. In the government building?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you work on in general terms?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Drill press.
    Mr. Cohn. I assume you do work on classified material?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you ever sign a Communist party 
nominating petition?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure you did not?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. That is the truth, I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever reside at 307 Front Street?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you live there in 1942?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I could not say.
    The Chairman. You are sure you did not sign a Communist 
party nominating petition?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I never signed any paper.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we trouble you to just sign your name?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Surely.
    Mr. Cohn. And would you write 307 Front Street, too?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you have your social security card on you?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    The Chairman. I want to ask you again, you are under oath, 
and we do not have any desire to have any more perjury cases, 
we have too many already in this investigation----
    Mrs. Jegabbi. That is the truth. I am telling you nothing 
but the truth, and I lived in that neighborhood all of my life.
    The Chairman. And you never signed a petition?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Never, I swear to that. That isn't my 
writing.
    Mr. Cohn. Look at the ``J'' on your social security card.
    The Chairman. While I am not a handwriting expert, it 
appears to be identical.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I never signed any kind of a paper.
    The Chairman. Are you sure that is not your handwriting?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. That isn't my handwriting.
    The Chairman. I would like to have the security officer 
look at that, will you, and just compare the social security 
card with the name on the petition. I am not asking your 
comment.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I even see my sister's name here, and this 
isn't her handwriting either.
    The Chairman. What is her name?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Lena Neapolitan.
    The Chairman. Where is she working now?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. She never worked in her life. She never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the United Electrical 
Workers?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, in the GE.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been a 
member?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Just since I worked there.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that that union is under Communist 
domination?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know. Everybody belongs to it, and so 
I mean--I just pay my dues, and that is it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that it has been alleged that that 
union is under Communist domination?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know anything. I do what everybody 
else does.
    Mr. Cohn. But that is not answering my question, whether 
you do what everybody else does. Has it ever come to your 
attention--you have heard of Mr. Matles and Mr. Emspak, have 
you not?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I haven't heard the first one, and maybe the 
second one.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you heard of Mr. Emspak? Don't you know he 
has publicly and repeated on occasions invoked the Fifth 
Amendment following an accusation that he was a member of the 
National Committee of the Communist party, and that has been 
widely publicized up here, and didn't that ever come to your 
attention? Be candid with us about it?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I never even gave that a thought, and I just 
paid my dues like every other member.
    Mr. Cohn. Madam, you consider yourself a good American, is 
that right?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a matter of concern if you are paying 
dues to a union that is headed by one of the top members of a 
conspiracy to overthrow this country?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Naturally.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that is the factual situation, now, and I 
don't know how you can tell us you don't pay any attention to 
that. That is the fact.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Lillian Garcia?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I work with a Lillian, but I can't tell you 
her last name.
    Mr. Jones. What is her last name?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know.
    Mr. Jones. How long have you known this Lillian?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. She has been in there about three years.
    Mr. Jones. What does she look like?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. She is short and thin and sort of a blonde.
    Mr. Jones. Is her last name Garcia?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. It is not that.
    Mr. Jones. You don't know what her last name is?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. No.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Sidney Friedlander?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know anybody by that name.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Charlie Rivers?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. May I ask you this. I realize that you are 
not responsible for the policies of the UE, and I also 
understand that someone who wants to work at GE perhaps would 
feel that he or she had to join that particular union, 
regardless of what you thought of the union, but you still have 
not answered counsel's question, and that is, do you think that 
UE is Communist dominated. Keeping in mind that you are not 
responsible for UE, I want to get your opinion.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. The union, if you don't join the union in the 
shop, you have got no chance of fighting for your rights or 
anything, and that is why everybody joins.
    The Chairman. Let us make this clear. You are not accused 
of anything here. You understand that. We are having many good, 
fine American people here, before us, but they can give us some 
help, and that is what they are here for.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. If I can, I will.
    The Chairman. When we ask you whether you think UE is 
Communist dominated, I gather you think we are blaming you for 
the UE. We are not. I know one woman over there does not run 
the UE. But you have had a chance to know something about this 
particular union.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Just from hearsay, and they say it, but after 
all, they say that about other unions, too.
    The Chairman. What is your thought on it. Do you think it 
is Communist dominated?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I would not know, because you talk to 
somebody else from the CIO, and they call them Communists, and 
you talk to the UE, and they call them Communists, and you 
don't know who to blame in the shop. Of course, you join the 
one that has got the majority, and you don't just go against 
the one union in there.
    The Chairman. You have got confidential clearance. That 
means that you should have fairly good judgment, and you should 
be able to recognize Communists when you see them, or you 
should not have that clearance. I ask you this: Do you think 
from your observation of the activities of the UE, what you 
have heard your fellow workers say, and what has gone on at 
meetings, do you think the Communists are influencing the 
policy of that union or dictating to it? Let me have your own 
thought on it.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. As far as you are concerned----
    Mrs. Jegabbi. We just have a shop steward, and we go to 
that, and we don't have anything to do with the upper-ups or 
anything like that.
    The Chairman. You are perfectly satisfied with the UE, are 
you?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't think so, anyway.
    The Chairman. You are perfectly satisfied with the UE, are 
you?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Well----
    The Chairman. I asked you a question. I said are you 
perfectly satisfied with the UE?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. Did you vote to make UE the bargaining agent?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    The Chairman. You know it has been accused of being 
Communist dominated.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Well, just from what I read in the papers, 
and I really don't know if it is true or not.
    The Chairman. Well, do you think that someone who reads in 
the paper constantly that his union is Communist dominated, and 
knows it was kicked out of the CIO because it was allegedly 
Communist dominated, and then who votes to make that union a 
bargaining agent, to make that union the bargaining agent in a 
plant which is handling, secret and top secret and confidential 
material for defense--do you think that person is using good 
judgment, and should herself have clearance to handle 
confidential material? Do you think so?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you meant to answer what you did. 
I just got through describing your activities and asked if you 
think such a person would have good judgment, and you said ``I 
don't think so,'' I assume you did not intend to make that 
answer.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know anything about the union; all I 
do is pay my dues, and I don't have----
    Mr. Cohn. Does the fact that part of those dues might go 
into the treasury of the Communist party bother you?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Naturally, if I knew who is a Communist 
party, I would never be in, if I was definitely sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Can't you read the public testimony of Mr. 
Emspak, one of the heads of that union, and the testimony of 
people who knew him as a member of the National Committee of 
the Communist party, contributing huge sums of money to it? 
That is available and that is a matter of record. Part of the 
money comes from you.
    Mr. Jones. Did you look over this form that they put before 
you a few minutes ago?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Jones. Did you notice these names which are on here?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Anthony DiNato?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. No, I don't.
    Mr. Jones. Priscilla Michael?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. No.
    Mr. Jones. Lena Neapolitan?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. That is my sister.
    Mr. Jones. Where does she live?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. 206 Front Street. I mean it is Gaughlin now. 
She is married.
    Mr. Jones. How about Rose DiNegro?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. She is a neighbor.
    Mr. Jones. Are any of these persons here known to you as 
Communists, or Communist sympathizers?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Not a one.
    Mr. Jones. Did your sister ever speak to you about signing 
this petition?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Never.
    Mr. Jones. Did you sign this petition?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. No.
    Mr. Jones. Did you sign this social security card?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Did you sign this duplicate of your social 
security card?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have never seen 
three signatures more identical than these three before us 
here.
    The Chairman. I am not a handwriting expert, and it looks 
like her signature, but on the other hand, it looks as though 
the same person did sign all of the last three names.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I swear to that I never did.
    The Chairman. I would not want to even try to pass on it. 
All I can say for the benefit of the GE representatives here is 
that I frankly think it is a fantastic picture, and I know that 
none of you gentlemen individually are responsible for this. I 
think it is a fantastic picture to have people handling 
confidential material who vote to make a Communist dominated 
union the bargaining agent in a plant where you have top secret 
material, and who are active in supporting that, and I know 
nothing about this young lady personally. The membership in the 
UE certainly should not indict anyone, because I know you have 
got a lot of very, very good people over here who in order to 
keep their jobs have to belong. But when you have someone who 
may or may not have signed a petition pledging support to the 
Communist party, I would not want to say that you were not 
telling the truth.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I swear. I will appear any time you want me 
to, if that is anything, and as for my sister, she never worked 
a day in her life. She has been a home keeper for all of her 
life, and I can't understand it.
    Mr. Jones. How do you explain these signatures?
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I don't know, and I can't imagine anyone 
using my name, and I can't imagine it.
    The Chairman. If we need you any further, we will call you. 
I do not think that we will.
    Mrs. Jegabbi. I will be glad to come back.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee, that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Drake. I do.

               TESTIMONY OF EMMA ELIZABETH DRAKE

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name?
    Mrs. Drake. Emma Elizabeth Drake.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you live at 35 North J Street, Schenectady?
    Mrs. Drake. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you employed at General Electric?
    Mrs. Drake. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been?
    Mrs. Drake. I started in 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you have your clearance badge with you?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes, my GE badge, you mean.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Drake. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we see that for a moment? That is a 
confidential badge, with a blue top. Is it Mrs. Drake?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes. I am a widow now.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your husband's name?
    Mrs. Drake. James Franklin Drake.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Drake, did you ever sign a Communist 
party petition?
    Mrs. Drake. No, I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mrs. Blake. I don't believe I ever did.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you oblige us here and just sign your name 
and your address for us?
    The Chairman. And 35 North J Street.
    Mrs. Drake. Do you want the town?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    The Chairman. Before we let you go, if you want to think it 
over, we have a petition here which you signed, Communist 
petition, and the signature is identical to yours.
    Mrs. Drake. When was that?
    The Chairman. You have been testifying under oath.
    Mrs. Drake. When was that, sir, that I signed it.
    The Chairman. In 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. We will show you the petition.
    The Chairman. You are here without a lawyer, and let me 
give you some advice. I want to give you some advice if I may. 
Witnesses come into this room day after day, and they are 
guilty of no crime when they come in here, and it is not a 
crime to sign a Communist nominating petition, you understand, 
and no crime at all, but they leave guilty of the crime of 
perjury, and somebody comes in here and perjures himself, and I 
have no choice in the matter. I have got to submit the case to 
the attorney general, and it goes from there to the grand jury. 
So it is very important that you either tell the truth, or not 
answer at all, and I tell you that because you are here without 
a lawyer. We will show you the petition which has your 
signature.
    Mrs. Drake. I had no idea probably at the time I signed it. 
I had no idea I was signing it.
    The Chairman. Look at it and tell us now whether you signed 
it.
    Mrs. Drake. I don't know what it was all about.
    The Chairman. Is that your signature?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes, that is my handwriting. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that your husband's signature above yours?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes, exactly.
    Mr. Cohn. Having looked at this, do you now recall having 
signed this petition?
    Mrs. Drake. I don't recall, no, I don't.
    The Chairman. Do you want to change your testimony now?
    Mrs. Drake. I signed it, so I will say yes, I did, because 
that is my signature, and that is my husband's signature.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody ever question you before and ask you 
whether you had signed this petition?
    Mrs. Drake. Not to my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody from the navy or army?
    Mrs. Drake. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this. Are you a member of any 
union?
    Mrs. Drake. I am CIO.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a member of the CIO?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What local is that?
    Mrs. Drake. 301.
    Mr. Cohn. That is United Electrical Workers?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. That is not CIO anymore. It was thrown out of the 
CIO, was it not?
    Mrs. Drake. Well, what do you mean?
    Mr. Cohn. It is not a CIO union, is it?
    Mrs. Drake. Well, I [belonged] to the CIO union on Liberty 
Street, United Electrical Union; that is the name of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Local 301?
    Mrs. Drake. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mrs. Drake. I went to elementary school, and then they sent 
me over to Noke Street School.
    The Chairman. Did you graduate from high school?
    Mrs. Drake. No.
    The Chairman. How many years did you go to high school?
    Mrs. Drake. I went to the Noke Street School. That is just 
like a vocational school, and I went up there until I was 
eighteen.
    The Chairman. And what courses did you take there?
    Mrs. Drake. Well, the general course, spelling and the 
general things.
    The Chairman. What kind of work are you doing now at the 
plant?
    Mrs. Drake. I am running a little machine.
    The Chairman. What do you turn out in that machine, do you 
know?
    Mrs. Drake. Well, what I do, I would not know. I would not 
know about what to call it, if I could describe it to you. I 
would not know to tell you. I do continuity work, and it is 
cards on wire, real fine wire, and I have to check it, and if 
anything is wrong with it, the machine will stop.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you very much, madam.
    The Chairman. Unless you give out your name, no one will 
know you were here. We do not give out the names of the 
witnesses. If you do not give out your name, no one will know 
it. If the newspapermen ask you for your name, you can tell 
them your name or you do not need to do that.
    Mr. Hughes, would you stand and raise your right hand. Do 
you solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hughes. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF HENRY DANIEL HUGHES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          LEON NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, can we get your full name?
    Mr. Hughes. Henry Daniel Hughes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside, Mr. Hughes?
    Mr. Hughes. 960 Strong Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that in Schenectady?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you employed at General Electric?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been 
employed there?
    Mr. Hughes. Since September of 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't have it with me.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of a clearance do you have?
    Mr. Hughes. Blue.
    Mr. Cohn. That is confidential?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what building do you work?
    Mr. Hughes. 269.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work do you do?
    Mr. Hughes. A machinist operator, turn lathe.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, have you ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I don't understand.
    Mr. Cohn. I will try to make it clear. Are you now or have 
you ever been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not been?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever signed a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended Communist meetings?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you been a member of the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure about that?
    Mr. Hughes. What do you mean by American Labor party?
    The Chairman. Do you know what we mean by it? Do you know 
what the American Labor party is?
    Mr. Hughes. That is a Communist organization, isn't it?
    The Chairman. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever signed or ever registered as a 
member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    The Chairman. I wonder, Mr. Hughes, if you would sign your 
name there for us. Did you ever live at 1016 Strong Street?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Would you write your name and 1016 Strong 
Street after it?
    Mr. Cohn. Henry D. Hughes, and 1016 Strong Street.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    [The witness wrote his name and address on pad of paper.]
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married, Mr. Hughes?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your wife's first name Ruth?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right.
    The Chairman. You say you never signed a Communist 
petition?
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowing, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you sign something as important as a 
pledge to support the Communist party without knowing it, do 
you think?
    Mr. Hughes. If I have, I did not know it.
    The Chairman. How far did you go in school?
    Mr. Hughes. Second year of high school.
    The Chairman. What type of work are you doing now?
    Mr. Hughes. Screw machine operator.
    The Chairman. Do you think anyone who pledged himself in 
writing to support the Communist party should have confidential 
clearance?
    Mr. Hughes. If they did it in knowing, but I don't know, 
but I don't remember.
    The Chairman. Let us assume he did it without knowing. Let 
us assume he is so careless that he pledges to support the 
Communist conspiracy and signs his name without paying any 
attention to it. Do you think that that might make him rather 
dangerous to handle secret and confidential material?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Keep in mind that a man does not have to be a 
Communist spy to do damage to the country, and if he is so 
careless that he supports the Communist party without knowing 
it, that makes him dangerous also.
    Now, my question to you: Do you think a man who assumes he 
is a good loyal American, but who is so careless about what he 
signs that he pledges in writing to support the Communist party 
and Communist candidates, do you think he should be handling 
confidential material dealing with the life and death of this 
nation?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't think he should if he knew what he was 
doing.
    The Chairman. We are going to show you this petition, and 
ask you if you want to change your testimony.
    Mr. Hughes. I don't remember it.
    [Document shown to the witness.]
    The Chairman. Is that your signature, Mr. Hughes?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, it is.
    The Chairman. There is no doubt about it being your 
signature, is there?
    Mr. Hughes. It looks like my signature.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it look like your wife's signature under 
that?
    Mr. Hughes. It looks like her writing, yes.
    The Chairman. Can you think of any reason why you would 
sign that without knowing what you were signing?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, actually I don't remember signing it, 
anything like this, during the time of my stay at 1016 Strong 
Street, and I don't know how my signature got on it.
    The Chairman. Do you normally sign papers without reading 
them?
    Mr. Hughes. No, unless there is something that doesn't 
concern much or something like that, like a bill or something.
    The Chairman. Will you look at the name of the man at the 
bottom who circulated it, and tell me whether you know him or 
not?
    Mr. Hughes. That is my name there.
    Mr. Cohn. The subscribing witness at the bottom.
    Mr. Hughes. Hattie Lewis.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the United Electrical 
Workers?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been a member of that?
    Mr. Hughes. Ever since joining the company.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether that union is Communist-
dominated.
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the first time you ever heard anyone 
suggest that the Communists control that union, and you heard 
that or read it before?
    Mr. Hughes. I have seen in the paper different things, and 
I don't remember it quite clearly what it is, but as far being 
a Communist union, I never heard of anything pertaining to 
that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of Mr. Matles or Mr. Emspak?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never heard of them?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of Mr. Mastriani?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of Mr. Friedlander?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know any of them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard the names or seen the names?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't recall right away, no. Probably I have 
read it in some paper or something, but it slipped my memory.
    The Chairman. Did you know a Henrietta Levine?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    The Chairman. Never met her?
    Mr. Hughes. Not knowingly, no.
    The Chairman. She swears that you signed this under oath, 
and that she circulated it. If you don't know her, and if you 
never met her, she is guilty of perjury.
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know, no, as far as that goes. She had 
to be----
    The Chairman. Are you perfectly satisfied with the UE?
    Mr. Hughes. How is that?
    The Chairman. You are perfectly satisfied with the UE and 
you do not think it is Communist dominated?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't think it is, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you vote to make the UE the bargaining 
agent?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't get that.
    The Chairman. Did you vote to make the UE the bargaining 
agent for the employees in the plant?
    Mr. Hughes. For the employees in the plant?
    The Chairman. You know what I mean, the election to decide 
who the bargaining agent would be.
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know if I did or not, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, if you were voting today, as to whether 
or not the UE should represent you as your bargaining agent, 
would you vote to keep them on as a bargaining agent?
    Mr. Hughes. Which way you mean, bargaining?
    The Chairman. To represent you.
    Mr. Hughes. To represent me in employment service, you 
mean?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Hughes. As far as I know about them, surely, I don't 
know anything else wrong with them.
    The Chairman. You are not disturbed about an organization 
kicked out of the CIO on the ground it was Communist 
controlled, and it has been labeled as a Communist controlled 
organization, being in control in a plant of handling secret 
and top secret and confidential material. That does not disturb 
you at all?
    Mr. Hughes. If it was a Communist outfit, or something like 
that, it would. I did not know it was.
    The Chairman. You have heard that it was, have you not? 
Haven't you?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, through the papers, yes, not by no one 
just coming out and telling me.
    The Chairman. You know it was kicked out of the CIO because 
it was allegedly Communist controlled.
    Mr. Hughes. I read that in the paper, and I don't know 
whether it was.
    The Chairman. You still say that you are perfectly 
satisfied to have that union representing the employees of the 
plant?
    Mr. Hughes. How is that?
    The Chairman. You still say that you are perfectly 
satisfied to have that union representing the employees at the 
plant?
    Mr. Hughes. If it is that way, I don't see why they should 
be, but I don't know, and I don't know that much about it, and 
I can't say whether it should or should not be.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee, that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Francisco. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF ABDEN FRANCISCO

    The Chairman. Would you sign your name and address, please?
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Francisco. Abden Francisco.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Francisco. 418 Broadway.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Francisco. I work in General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at A and O? Is that the division in 
which you work?
    Mr. Francisco. I work there.
    Mr. Cohn. Aeronautical and Ordnance?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Francisco. In Spain.
    The Chairman. Are you a citizen now?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. When were you naturalized?
    Mr. Francisco. In 1941.
    The Chairman. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Francisco. I came here November 30, 1919.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the United Electrical 
Workers, Local 301?
    Mr. Francisco. I am a member of the union.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever sign a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Francisco. Never I signed it, nothing.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you write the address under your name, 418 
Broadway?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, sir.
    [Signature handed to counsel.]
    The Chairman. You are sure you never signed a Communist 
petition?
    Mr. Francisco. I never signed it.
    The Chairman. You are under oath, and you understand if you 
lie you are guilty of perjury, and you will be subject to spend 
a long time in jail. You understand you are under oath, and if 
you are not telling the truth, you will be guilty of perjury?
    Mr. Francisco. I told you the truth. I never signed it. I 
have nothing to do with the Communist party or nothing.
    The Chairman. We will now show you a Communist petition 
with the name Francisco on it, and ask you now if you signed 
that.
    [Document shown to witness.]
    The Chairman. Did you sign it?
    Mr. Francisco. Where is this?
    The Chairman. Did you sign that? Look at it.
    Mr. Francisco. I never signed anything for the Communist 
party. I never have been in the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Look at the document I gave you and look at 
the name Francisco, and tell us now whether or not you signed 
that.
    Mr. Francisco. In 1946?
    The Chairman. Did you sign it at any time? That is dated 
1946.
    Mr. Francisco. Well, I never did, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that your signature?
    The Chairman. Let me point out so there is no doubt in your 
mind. I point out the name Francisco, Abden, and the question 
is whether or not that is your handwriting. Did you sign that?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes.
    The Chairman. You did sign it or you did not?
    Mr. Francisco. I don't know. Is this for the Communist 
party?
    The Chairman. This is for the Communist party.
    Mr. Francisco. I never signed anything for the Communist 
party, because I no belong to the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Does that look like your signature?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, it looks like my signature.
    The Chairman. Do you know or can you read this name here?
    Mr. Francisco. This is Higino Hermida. Yes, I know this 
fellow.
    The Chairman. Did he get you to sign this petition?
    Mr. Francisco. No.
    The Chairman. If he forged your name on here, he is going 
to go to jail.
    Mr. Francisco. I no sign anything in this place.
    The Chairman. He swears that you did.
    Mr. Francisco. I no sign that.
    The Chairman. Where is this man, Hermida?
    Mr. Francisco. He is working at GE.
    Mr. Cohn. He works there at GE now?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, he works there now.
    The Chairman. Do you know what kind of a card he carries? A 
blue one?
    Mr. Francisco. No, I don't know.
    The Chairman. Is he a good friend of yours?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, this is my friend.
    The Chairman. He is your friend?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to a Communist meeting with 
him?
    Mr. Francisco. I never belonged to the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to a Communist party meeting with 
Hermido?
    Mr. Francisco. Maybe a long time ago, and I don't know. I 
never belonged.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to a Communist meeting, and did 
he ever take you to a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Francisco. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever ask you to become a Communist?
    Mr. Francisco. Oh, yes, he asked me and I say I don't want 
it.
    Mr. Cohn. When did he ask you?
    Mr. Francisco. It was a long time ago, six or seven or 
eight years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did he ask you, at work, or at home, or 
where?
    Mr. Francisco. It was at home.
    Mr. Cohn. At your house?
    Mr. Francisco. Yes, in my house.
    Mr. Cohn. He asked you to become a Communist, and you said 
you would not become a Communist?
    Mr. Francisco. And I said no, never, never, and of course I 
don't like the business.
    The Chairman. There is nothing further. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Cohn. May we get the name of counsel?
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee, that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I do.

    TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH ARTHUR GEBHARDT (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
                    COUNSEL, SCOTT K. GRAY)

    Mr. Cohn. What is your address, Mr. Gray?
    Mr. Gray. 5 First Street, Troy, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. And your full name, Mr. Gebhardt?
    Mr. Gebhardt. Joseph Arthur Gebhardt.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you living at 139 State Street now?
    Mr. Gebhardt. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Counsel, the rules of the committee are 
that you can not participate in the proceedings directly. 
However, your client is free to confer with you at any time at 
all during the proceeding when he feels he needs your advice, 
and he can confer with you privately and whisper or step in the 
back or anything along those lines, so you can have private 
consultation, and he can get the benefit of your advice. At any 
time you are free to consult with your counsel.
    Now, Mr. Gebhardt, where are you employed?
    Mr. Gebhardt. General Electric Company.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been 
employed by General Electric?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I have been employed since 1939 with time out 
for being in the army.
    Mr. Cohn. Since 1939 with time out for being in the army?
    Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where in General Electric do you work now?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I work in Building 273.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had a clearance?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I am sorry, but I will have to invoke my 
privileges under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer whether or not you have ever 
had a security clearance?
    Mr. Gebhardt. On the basis of the Fifth Amendment, that 
nobody is required to give evidence against himself.
    The Chairman. What kind of a card do you carry? I am not 
speaking of a Communist card. What kind of card do you carry in 
the plant, your badge?
    Mr. Gebhardt. The same one everybody else does.
    The Chairman. May we see it?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I don't have it. I have my GE identification 
card.
    The Chairman. What color badge is that?
    Mr. Gebhardt. Here it is.
    The Chairman. He does not have a security clearance, I 
understand. Are you a member of the Communist party as of 
today?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I am afraid I will have to refuse to answer 
that question on the basis of my rights under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will have to refuse to answer that question 
on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you engaged in espionage during the last 
week or month?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will have to refuse to answer that question 
on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been the treasurer of the Communist 
party in Schenectady?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will have to refuse to answer that question 
on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you working on unclassified government 
contracts now?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will have to refuse to answer that on the 
basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you transmitted to certain persons in the 
Communist party classified information which you picked up at 
the General Electric Plant?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think anyone who refuses to tell 
whether he is engaged in espionage against his country should 
be working and paid by that country?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. Do you think anyone who refuses to tell 
whether he is engaged in espionage against his country on the 
grounds that the truth would tend to incriminate him should be 
doing a job for and be paid by that very country?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gebhardt, did you transmit classified 
information concerning the national defense of the United 
States to a woman named Adalaid Bean?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will have to refuse to answer that question 
on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Adalaid Bean?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
of my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your wife named Mary Gebhardt?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I regard questions about my wife, between 
myself and my wife confidential and I will have to refuse to 
answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. I think what her name is is not confidential. You 
have marital privilege, and you can confer with counsel on the 
basis of any confidential communication between your wife and 
you, but not as to her name.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. My wife's name is Mary.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your wife a member of the Communist party?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I consider that a privileged communication 
between my wife and myself.
    The Chairman. Was she a member of the Communist party 
before you married her?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I will regard all questions about my wife--
this one question, my marital privilege and the basis of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. There is no marital privilege prior to your 
getting married, not that I know of. You plead the Fifth 
Amendment on that?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I also invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you one of the Communist party 
representatives in Local 301 of the United Electrical Workers?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you induced fellow employees at General 
Electric to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you induced fellow employees of General 
Electric to commit espionage?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my privilege under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the witness is 
cooperative.
    The Chairman. Is your wife working in GE?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I regard that as a confidential thing between 
my wife----
    The Chairman. I said is your wife working at GE?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a citizen, Mr. Gebhardt?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Jones. As a citizen, would you oppose any group 
advocating the violent overthrow of the government?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. Did you serve any period of time in the armed 
services?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I did not hear the question.
    Mr. Jones. Did you serve in the armed services during World 
War II?
    Mr. Gebhardt. Did I?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Jones. Did you at any time oppose a group who were 
advocating the violent overthrow of this government? In other 
words, was not Japan and Germany trying to overthrow this 
government?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you subscribe to the Daily Worker at the 
current time?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you take the Daily Worker with you to the 
General Electric plant?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you served as a member of the state 
committee of the American Labor Committee?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Does your wife work for GE?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Gebhardt. I beg your pardon?
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    You are ordered to answer the question.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. She is not working at the General Electric 
Company.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
    Were you working at General Electric yesterday?
    Mr. Gebhardt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your salary?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Gebhardt. I get $2.291/2 an hour.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your gross last year, just 
approximately? The best you can. I do not want exact figures.
    Mr. Gebhardt. It was somewhere in the neighborhood, I would 
say, of somewhere, I think as far as I can remember, somewhere 
between four and five thousand dollars.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of that money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think an espionage agent should be 
working over there in the plant doing the kind of work you are 
doing?
    Mr. Gebhardt. I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You may leave. You will consider yourself 
under subpoena, and you will be called back later.
    Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in this matter 
now before the committee, that you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Fernandez. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF EMANUEL FERNANDEZ (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          LEON NOVAK)

    The Chairman. The record will show Mr. Novak is appearing 
as counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Fernandez. Emanuel Fernandez.
    Mr. Cohn. You reside at 1712 Heldeberg Avenue?
    Mr. Fernandez. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live there?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Fernandez. 145 Washington Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you been employed 
at General Electric?
    Mr. Fernandez. Twelve years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work now, specifically?
    Mr. Fernandez. Building 10.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work do you do?
    Mr. Fernandez. Grinding.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any kind of clearance?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    Mr Cohn. Have you ever done any work on government jobs?
    Mr. Fernandez. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know whether you have or not?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all.
    The Chairman. Do you have a badge?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Could we see the badge?
    Mr. Cohn. That is not classified. You do not know whether 
any of the work you are doing is for the government or not?
    Mr. Fernandez. I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Fernandez, are you a member of the 
Communist party? You may consult with counsel any time you 
wish.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't feel that I can answer the question 
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer 
might tend to incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment. That 
is the only ground on which you can refuse.
    Mr. Fernandez. Also I don't want to bear witness against 
myself at any time.
    The Chairman. Do you think the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Fernandez. As I said before, I don't want at any time 
to have to give testimony against myself.
    The Chairman. The question is, do you think your answer 
might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Cohn. You can confer with counsel.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes.
    The Chairman. The answer is yes?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, I refuse to answer; it would 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You think it might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Is the Communist party paying your lawyer for 
you?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know anything about it.
    The Chairman. Pardon me?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Who got your lawyer for you?
    Mr. Fernandez. Well, just 301, the union lawyer.
    Mr. Cohn. Local 301.
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Do you hold any position in 
Local 301?
    Mr. Fernandez. Executive board member.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a board member?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In Local 301?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are any of the members of Local 301 with which 
your board has anything to do, do any of them have clearance, 
security clearance of any kind?
    Mr. Fernandez. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know one way or the other?
    Mr. Fernandez. I could not be positive.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether any of them work on 
classified jobs?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are any of the people over whom you do have 
some jurisdiction, as a board member, members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Fernandez. I never discuss politics with the people 
outside of the union business.
    Mr. Cohn. That is not answering my question. My question 
is, are there any of the people in Local 301 working at General 
Electric with whom you have dealings, members of the Communist 
party, and that is something that you know or you don't know or 
you claim the Fifth Amendment about.
    Mr. Fernandez. I claim the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground that an answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Fernandez. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever committed espionage?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know what espionage is?
    Mr. Fernandez. Well, just whatever I read in the papers.
    The Chairman. Do you know what is meant by espionage, and 
you are answering a question under oath. You said you never 
engaged in espionage, and do you know what we mean by 
espionage, and if not, you had better not answer that question 
until you find out.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I would like to have you explain it to me.
    The Chairman. Then we will break it down. Did you ever pass 
any classified information or material on to any member of the 
Communist party, secret, top secret, confidential?
    Mr. Fernandez. I was never in on any secret work.
    Mr. Cohn. That does not make any difference.
    The Chairman. The question is, did you ever pass any 
classified information or material on to a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Fernandez. I had no information about it.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the work being done at 
GE with members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Fernandez. I only discussed with people I work with 
when I have agreements relating to the contract.
    The Chairman. The question is, did you ever discuss your 
work at GE or the work being done there with any members of the 
Communist party, either inside or outside of the plant?
    Mr. Fernandez. I never discussed it outside of my own 
people, and it was just on grievance procedure with the union 
policy, and so I haven't discussed it with anybody.
    The Chairman. You still haven't answered my question. The 
question is, have you ever discussed your work or the work 
being done at GE with members of the Communist party, and I do 
not care whether they are part of your gang or not. It is a 
very simple question.
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't think, I never discussed my work 
with anybody outside or inside.
    The Chairman. Is your answer that you never did discuss 
your work?
    Mr. Fernandez. As far as I can recollect.
    The Chairman. Or any of the work at the plant with members 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Fernandez. With anybody.
    Mr. Cohn. Did people you deal with by virtue of your union 
position ever discuss the work they were doing with you?
    Mr. Fernandez. Only in grievance procedure.
    Mr. Cohn. On the grievance procedure?
    Mr. Fernandez. On the matter of grievances, that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any of those people who discussed with you 
on a matter of grievance, members of the Communist party?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. What was the question again?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I could not say because I don't know the 
people's politics, and I never ask them, and they don't ask me.
    Mr. Cohn. You are under oath here, and you are sworn to 
tell the truth, and is it your testimony under oath that not 
one person, a member of Local 301, who came to you to talk to 
you about a grievance, was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Fernandez. What do you mean, in my own department, or 
what?
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody, at General Electric, whoever spoke to 
you about a grievance.
    Mr. Fernandez. As far as I know, I don't know their 
politics.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, look here, did you ever attend a Communist 
party meeting?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with people who work at General Electric now?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that under my privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. If you attended a Communist party meeting with 
Communists who work at General Electric, and if one of those 
Communists is working at General Electric came to you with a 
grievance some time, you would know that he was a Communist, 
and you could answer my question. I would like to have that 
answered, and the question is, are any of the people with whom 
you have had dealings on grievances, members of the Communist 
party?
    The Chairman. Yes, or no, or you don't know, or the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with any person who has come to you in connection with any 
grievance?
    Mr. Fernandez. There are two questions in one, now.
    Mr. Cohn. No, it isn't two questions in one. It is a very 
simple matter. You deal with grievances and people come to you, 
and you review their cases, and you talk to them. Were any of 
those persons----
    Mr. Fernandez. I am sorry. I don't review the cases with 
the people themselves.
    Mr. Cohn. You see their names, don't you?
    Mr. Fernandez. I only review the case with the shop 
stewards, and either make a case out of it or drop it.
    Mr. Cohn. Any of the shop stewards, did any of the shop 
stewards ever attend the Communist party meeting with you?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether they attended?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know where they are.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any shop steward ever attend a Communist 
party meeting with you?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know their politics.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting?
    The Chairman. Read the question to him, and answer the 
question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Fernandez. Can I consult my lawyer on that?
    Mr. Cohn. You can consult your lawyer on any question.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Read the previous question to him.
    [Previous question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Cohn. What is your answer to that question?
    Mr. Fernandez. On the shop stewards?
    Mr. Cohn. Did any shop steward ever attend a Communist 
party meeting with you?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know their politics, and so I don't 
know.
    The Chairman. You can answer that question, Mister. You are 
not going to play with this committee.
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't want to play with this committee.
    The Chairman. You were asked a civil question. You answer 
the question, do you hear me? The question is, have any of the 
stewards ever attended a Communist party meeting with you.
    Tell us yes or no. You know.
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't know. The only meetings I attend 
with those fellows is at the union hall, at the Local 301 
meetings.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party 
meeting?
    Mr. Fernandez. That is the only meetings I go to.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with any shop steward?
    Mr. Fernandez. Local 301 meetings, union meetings.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with 
any shop steward.
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you call a meeting of the underground shop 
workers branch of the Communist party within the last year?
    Mr. Fernandez. What kind of a meeting?
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I stand on the First and Fifth Amendment on 
the ground it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Whereabouts?
    Mr. Fernandez. Waterbury, Connecticut.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Fernandez. Thirty-six.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Fernandez. Part in Spain and part in New York.
    The Chairman. When were you in Spain?
    Mr. Fernandez. From I think it is 1919 up to 1932.
    The Chairman. From 1919 to 1932?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you participate in the Spanish civil war?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    The Chairman. Where were you then, in the United States?
    Mr. Fernandez. In the United States, yes.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school in Spain, what 
school?
    Mr. Fernandez. Just the grammar school.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school in this country?
    Mr. Fernandez. Schenectady, New York.
    The Chairman. The name of the school.
    Mr. Fernandez. Edison School in Park Place.
    The Chairman. Did you graduate from high school?
    Mr. Fernandez. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How many years did you go to high school?
    Mr. Fernandez. I didn't go to high school.
    The Chairman. Did you go to vocational school?
    Mr. Fernandez. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you go beyond grammar school?
    Mr. Fernandez. No.
    The Chairman. What kind of work are you doing now?
    Mr. Fernandez. I am a grinder.
    The Chairman. How much do you get per hour?
    Mr. Fernandez. On piecework basis.
    The Chairman. How much do you get per month or per week?
    Mr. Fernandez. I get around between $78 and $80 a week.
    The Chairman. Do you think Communists should be working for 
the government?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment, might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend a Communist party meeting at the 
home of Sidney Friedlander on June 20, 1951?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a subscriber to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer under the Fifth 
Amendment. It might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you signed Communist party nominating 
petitions?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me, under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you contribute money to the Communist party?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Fernandez. I feel it may incriminate me, and so I 
refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Paul Hacko?
    Mr. Fernandez. I have heard of him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hear he was a Communist?
    Mr. Fernandez. No, I just heard he was working in the 
plant.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists out at the plant?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer that question; it may 
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Sidney Friedlander?
    Mr. Fernandez. I see him as a board member in 301.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him to be a Communist?
    Mr. Fernandez. I don't inquire into his business or 
politics, and I refuse to answer that on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you serve on the same board with Mr. 
Friedlander?
    Mr. Fernandez. I serve on the same board with thirty-three 
board members.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Friedlander one of the board members?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are one of the board members?
    Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think Communists should be working in 
the job that you are in?
    Mr. Fernandez. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Cynthia Alkoff?
    Mr. Fernandez. It might incriminate me under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself under subpoena and 
you will be called back later. We will get in touch with your 
lawyer when we want you.
    Will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in 
this matter now before the committee, that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Northrop. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PIERSON NORTHROP (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
                      COUNSEL, LEON NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Northrop. Robert Pierson Northrop.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address?
    Mr. Northrop. 2224 Turner Avenue, Schenectady.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Northrop. At GE.
    Mr. Cohn. You work at General Electric. For how long a 
period of time have you been working there?
    Mr. Northrop. Just about four years.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had security clearance?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work on any unclassified government work?
    Mr. Northrop. On any unclassified--none of our work is 
classified.
    Mr. Cohn. Is any of your work government work?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether it is or not? What do you do?
    Mr. Northrop. I am a punch press operator.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know if any of the work you do is in 
connection with any government contracts or not?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are you a shop steward in the union, in 
Local 301?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    By the way, you have a right to confer with your lawyer at 
any time you wish.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. I should like to refuse to answer that 
question on the basis of the First and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you think it is incriminating to be a 
member of the Communist party?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. I think that I should decline to answer that 
question.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question. 
I am not asking you whether you are a member. I am asking you 
whether you think it is incriminating to be a member of the 
Communist party.
    Let us make it broader, so it will cover the Fifth 
Amendment. Do you think it would be incriminating or degrading 
to be a member of the Communist party.
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. We have no objection at all or no complaint 
at all about the conduct of counsel, and I think he is 
conducting himself as counsel should. I think he is advising 
his client freely, and I think it is a good idea. We have no 
objection at all.
    Mr. Cohn. You can talk to your lawyer at any time at all.
    The Chairman. The question is, do you think it would be 
incriminating or degrading to be a member of the Communist 
party. I realize you may get yourself in bad with the party by 
answering that, but I have got to insist that you answer it.
    Mr. Northrop. I think it would be incriminating, yes.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege, then.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Northrop, you say that you are a shop 
steward in Local 301, is that right?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are any of the people with whom you have 
contact, by virtue of that position, working on classified 
material?
    Mr. Northrop. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know one way or the other?
    Mr. Northrop. I am pretty sure no one in my group is 
working on classified material.
    Mr. Cohn. Nobody in your group. What is your group, 
exactly?
    Mr. Northrop. My group is the group that produces--it is 
called index punch press, and we index laminated iron.
    The Chairman. What is some of the classified material being 
produced by GE at the present time?
    Mr. Northrop. I am not acquainted with what is classified 
and what is not classified.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any of the material that is 
being produced, either classed secret or top secret or 
confidential or restricted or the general nature of the work, 
or electronic material, or radar material, or atomic energy, or 
what?
    Mr. Northrop. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. You know nothing about that?
    Mr. Northrop. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether GE is producing any radar 
material?
    Mr. Northrop. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. In talking with the other men?
    Mr. Northrop. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether they are producing any 
electronic material for the military department, or the 
Department of Defense?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know anything about that.
    The Chairman. You never talked about that to any of your 
coworkers?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard that discussed at a 
meeting of the Communist party?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. No, I haven't heard any of that discussed at 
all.
    The Chairman. Have you attended any Communist party 
meetings?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that question on the 
basis of the First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You say you do not know whether or not GE is 
producing any electrical equipment for the military?
    Mr. Northrop. Well, I don't know what kind of equipment 
they are producing, and I have no contact with anything except 
my own department.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone of the other departments?
    Mr. Northrop. Do I know any people in the other 
departments?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Northrop. I know people who I come in contact with in 
the union.
    The Chairman. In other departments?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss their work with them?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never do?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never do?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir, I don't.
    The Chairman. You never have talked about their work with 
anyone outside of your department, is that right?
    Mr. Northrop. I have never discussed, or I don't have any 
occasion to discuss anybody else's job or the details of their 
job outside of my own department.
    The Chairman. Would you read the question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Northrop. The only discussions that I have with people 
pertain to grievances, and I don't have any occasion since I 
only represent the people in my own department.
    The Chairman. Just what do you have to do with a grievance?
    Mr. Northrop. I handle grievances for the people in my own 
particular group.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the executive board, Mr. 
Northrop?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Sidney Friedlander?
    Mr. Northrop. Sidney Friedlander is the executive board 
member in my section.
    Mr. Jones. How long have you known Friedlander?
    Mr Northrop. Roughly seven or eight years, I think.
    Mr. Jones. Is he a member of the Communist party, or a 
Communist sympathizer?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Jones. I want you to answer these questions just yes or 
no, and remember now, Mr. Northrop, that you are under oath. Do 
you know Paul Hacko?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, I know Paul Hacko.
    Mr. Jones. Is Paul Hacko a member of the Communist party or 
a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know anything about him.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Charlie Rivers?
    Mr. Northrop. Well, I knew Rivers slightly when he was 
here.
    Mr. Jones. How about Dante DeCesare? Do you know him?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. I know several DeCesares in town, but I don't 
know who Dante DeCesare is.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Lillian Garcia?
    Mr. Northrop. No, I don't recollect any person like that.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know of any Communists employed with the 
General Electric plant?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. Well, I decline to answer that on the basis 
of the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the Communist party, Mr. 
Northrop?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Jones. Have you ever been approached to be a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Jones. Have you ever attended any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Jones. Did you ever sign any Communist petitions?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Northrop. I am enrolled in the American Labor party.
    Mr. Jones. Who enrolled you in the American Labor party?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know that anyone enrolled me in the 
American Labor party. When enrollment time came, I enrolled.
    Mr. Jones. Do you recognize this petition here?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir, I don't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever circulate a Communist party 
petition, nominating petition?
    Mr. Northrop. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Jones. You said you knew Paul Hacko. How well do you 
know Paul Hacko?
    Mr. Northrop. Very slightly.
    Mr. Jones. How did you meet him?
    Mr. Northrop. In the course of union activities.
    Mr. Jones. In the course of union activities?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. In what respect, and how would you do that?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't recall just the circumstances that I 
did meet him.
    Mr. Jones. You met Sidney Friedlander the same way?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Did Sidney Friedlander introduce you to the 
Communist party and bring you in the party?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that on the basis of the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Just one question. The other day you may have 
read that the president of the United States indicated that he 
felt that anyone who took the Fifth Amendment before a 
congressional committee in regard to Communist activities and 
espionage activities should not be working for the United 
States government. Would you feel that should be extended to 
plants such as GE doing government work?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Northrop. Well, I feel that a person should have a 
right to invoke the First and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You have not answered that. We have given the 
witness full privilege to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and the 
question is--do you understand the question and do you remember 
the question, or understand it?
    Mr. Northrop. I thought I did, but perhaps I don't.
    The Chairman. Will you answer, then? I will restate the 
question. We are not talking about right to invoke the Fifth 
Amendment. We recognize that right, and if we did not, we would 
not allow you to invoke it, you understand. The president the 
other day said he felt that people who invoked the Fifth 
Amendment with regard to Communist activities or espionage 
activities should not be given the privilege of working for the 
government. Now you think that that should be extended to 
plants such as GE which are doing government work?
    Mr. Northrop. No, I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. You feel that Communists should be allowed to 
work at the GE plant, do you?
    [Witness consulted with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. What is your answer to that? If you do not 
recall the question, I will restate it for you. Do you want me 
to restate the question?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that Communists should have the 
right to work for GE while GE is doing government work?
    Mr. Northrop. I decline to answer that on the basis of the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you been connected with the Schenectady 
Film Society?
    Mr. Northrop. No, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Has your wife been connected with it?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know.
    Mr. Anastos. You do not know if your wife has been 
associated with the Schenectady Film Society?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know whether she has been a member of 
the Schenectady Film Society.
    The Chairman. Where does your wife work?
    Mr. Northrop. She is a housewife and she stays at home.
    Mr. Anastos. Is Mrs. Michael Fox your mother in law?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes.
    Mr. Anastos. Has she been associated with that society?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, she has been associated with that.
    Mr. Anastos. Is the purpose of that society to show foreign 
films, including Soviet and satellite films for propaganda 
purposes?
    Mr. Northrop. I don't know what the purpose of the club 
was.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you attended any of those?
    Mr. Northrop. I have never been in any of those pictures.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Northrop, have you any grievance against 
this government? Do you have any special grievance against this 
government?
    Mr. Northrop. I have no special grievance.
    Mr. Jones. Other than the usual that we all have. Do you 
feel that you are getting a fair shake in life here in this 
country?
    Mr. Northrop. I certainly do.
    Mr. Jones. Did you serve in the armed services?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Did you fight against a common enemy?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Why in the name of God in heaven do you stand 
here before this committee and take the Fifth Amendment when we 
ask you whether you are a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Northrop. Because I feel that question might 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Jones. I should be proud on the other side of the table 
to say categorically and emphatically no, and is there any 
reason why you should not?
    Mr. Northrop. Because I feel that the question may 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. There is no question when a witness takes the 
Fifth Amendment as to being a member of the party, and that is 
the strongest testimony that you can get that he is a member, 
and you can not get stronger testimony, because the witness 
says, ``If I told the truth, it would incriminate me'', and if 
he were not a member, he could say no, and it would not 
incriminate him. So he says, ``I can't tell you the truth or it 
would incriminate me'', and it can mean only one thing, that 
you are a member and it can not be used against you in a 
criminal court.
    I sincerely hope that we have a new policy at General 
Electric or in the Defense Department and get rid of every one 
who takes the Fifth Amendment.
    I do not think that we can use people working for the 
government who are part of a conspiracy designed to overthrow 
it. But I guess we gain nothing, arguing that here.
    You are excused, and you will be called at some later time.
    I have one question. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Northrop. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Novak. A number of the members of the union who are 
under subpoena here I shall be representing. How are you 
planning your time, if I may ask?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    [Thereupon at 4:30 p.m., a recess was taken until Friday, 
November 13, 1953, at 10:00 a.m.]

                      AFTER EVENING RECESS

    [The hearing reconvened at 7:20 p.m.]
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order.
    You will raise your right hand. In this matter now before 
the committee, do you solemnly swear that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Gebo. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE LEO GEBO (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          LEON NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. Can we get your full name, please?
    Mr. Gebo. Lawrence Leo Gebo, G-e-b-o.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Gebo. 1301 Van Cortlandt Street, Schenectady.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Gebo. General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Gebo. Thirteen and a half years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, in Building 46, I think through the war, we 
had a red badge.
    Mr. Cohn. What was that; secret?
    Mr. Gebo. That is government work. I guess it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Secret clearance. When did you last have 
clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. I left there in 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1946?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not had clearance since that time?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir, I never have.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Julius Emspak?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Gebo. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Gebo. I have only been at meetings with him and he has 
had meetings at our hall.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been with him socially?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of William J. 
Mastriani?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know Mr. Mastriani?
    Mr. Gebo. He is our chief shop steward.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, he chairs the meetings on the stewards.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him well?
    Mr. Gebo. I know him personally.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known him socially?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never known him socially?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Leo Grandro?
    Mr. Gebo. I know Leo Grandro, our business agent.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him socially?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you known Mr. 
Mastriani?
    Mr. Gebo. I would say about eight or nine years.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Mastriani a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. That I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you care?
    Mr. Gebo. Do I care if he is a Communist?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Gebo. Well, if he was a Communist, I would certainly 
care.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever asked him whether or not he is one?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. What has he told you?
    Mr. Gebo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not he has ever testified 
before any congressional committee?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, I know he testified before the Kersten 
committee.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he do under oath when he was asked 
whether or not he was a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. That I can't tell you. I wasn't present at it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't he ever testify publicly?
    Mr. Gebo. No, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you never heard that he 
claimed the Fifth Amendment when asked if he were a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. I have heard that he had.
    Mr. Cohn. How does that affect your judgment as to whether 
or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. On the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Gebo. Well, on the Fifth Amendment, if a fellow is 
guilty under the Fifth Amendment, I think he should be 
prosecuted, and if he is innocent----
    Mr. Cohn. Suppose someone is asked whether or not he is a 
member of the Communist party and he refuses to answer; what 
does that mean to you?
    Mr. Gebo. How do I feel about it?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Gebo. I don't know. I wouldn't know what to say there, 
and I know the Fifth Amendment. If he wants to use the Fifth 
Amendment, that is up to him. I wouldn't use it; I have nothing 
to hide and I wouldn't use it.
    Mr. Cohn. You are not a Communist and you do not have to 
use it, is that right?
    Mr. Gebo. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. If he uses it, doesn't that lead you to believe 
he has something to hide and he is a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. No, because I went to him and I asked him and he 
told me he wasn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Why didn't he say so when he was asked under oath 
before a legally authorized responsible body of government?
    Mr. Gebo. I can't tell you why he didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. You sit on union councils with Mastriani, don't 
you?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And with Emspak? He is head of UE; one of the 
heads of UE, on a national basis?
    Mr. Gebo. He is a national officer.
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't the fact that Emspak has been named as a 
member of the national committee of the Communist party concern 
you?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, it bothers me, and I have wondered about it, 
and I asked about it, and I couldn't find anything out about 
it. As far as I know he is not a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know he is not a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. On repeated occasions publicly he refused to 
answer whether or not he is a Communist and he has been named 
in sworn and uncontradicted testimony as one of the top 
Communist leaders in this nation.
    Mr. Gebo. I have read to that effect, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. But you still don't think he is a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. No, he has never been convicted and I don't think 
he is a Communist until he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Unless somebody is convicted, you don't think he 
is a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, I don't think he is a Communist and he 
never was convicted. If he was convicted and tried and he was a 
Communist, then I would say that he is a Communist, and I 
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Since only about thirty people in the country 
have been convicted, under the Smith Act, as leaders of the 
Communist party, is it your testimony that you regard those 
thirty as Communists but nobody else? Is that right? Only the 
ones who have been convicted?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, if I had any doubt about somebody, I would 
certainly go to him and ask him.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever asked Mr. Emspak?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. How is that?
    Mr. Gebo. I haven't been that close to him to ask him.
    Mr. Cohn. You said you have been at meetings with him.
    Mr. Gebo. I certainly have.
    Mr. Cohn. And you hold office in a union in which he is one 
of the national officers and you have a big responsibility to 
your membership, don't you?
    Mr. Gebo. I am an executive board member and I am not an 
officer.
    Mr. Cohn. You feel a responsibility, don't you, to the 
people you represent?
    Mr. Gebo. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you would be disturbed, would you not, if one 
of the top national officers of that union to which your local 
is responsible were a member of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mr. Gebo. I would.
    Mr. Cohn. Why haven't you asked Mr. Emspak about that?
    Mr. Gebo. As I stated before, I have never been that close 
to Emspak to ask him.
    Mr. Cohn. As a member of the executive board, do you come 
in contact with any union members who do have clearances now 
and who do work on classified material?
    Mr. Gebo. No, the members in Turbine where I worked, there 
are six board members and none of us have clearances.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not just talking about the board members; I 
am talking about the cases of union members which are presented 
to the board in some way or another when these union members 
are working on classified material and have clearance.
    Mr. Gebo. No, I have never discussed anything like that 
with anybody, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    Mr. Cohn. I will ask him again, sir.
    Have you ever, in your position, as a member of the 
executive board, had any contact with the case of any member of 
your union who had a clearance who was working on classified 
government work?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I haven't, because I don't go in on 
grievances of that procedure. The steward on my shift, the 
third shift, has a case where you have to have clearance, and I 
can't get into those buildings, and I have a different badge. 
They take it up with their board member O'Day.
    Mr. Cohn. They take it up with their board member?
    Mr. Gebo. Mr. O'Day.
    Mr. Cohn. Does their board member have security clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, he would; yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, Townsend in Building 46.
    Mr. Cohn. He is a member of the UE?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir, he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Gebo. That is all I can think of right now.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your sworn testimony that you never 
directly or indirectly have come in contact with any matter or 
procedure involving a member of UE who does have a clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I don't discuss their cases at all.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about whether you discuss the 
cases. I am asking you whether directly or indirectly you have 
ever had contact with any employee in UE, or his case, and that 
employee has a clearance in GE, and there is a clearance of the 
employee?
    Mr. Gebo. If I understand the question correctly, you are 
asking me if I have ever discussed a case with somebody who has 
a clearance in the building; no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody in UE who has clearance? Do 
you know anybody in the United Electrical Workers Union who is 
working in the General Electric plant who has clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, Allen Townsend.
    Mr. Cohn. He is the only one you know in the whole plant?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, no, there would be more than that. I know 
some of the fellows in the Building 46 because I worked there, 
but now whether they are there right now I don't know. I 
couldn't give you their names.
    Mr. Cohn. You know some who you met at Building 46, is that 
right?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, the fellows in 46, some of them are there 
yet since when I worked there in 46.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew them and you know them now?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do any of those persons still have security 
clearance?
    Mr. Gebo. Anybody that works in 46 has to have.
    Mr. Cohn. So they still have it?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever asked to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir, I never was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever asked to attend a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Gebo. No, sir, I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you aware of the fact UE was expelled from 
the CIO as a Communist-dominated union?
    Mr. Gebo. I am aware that we weren't seated at the 
convention and we withdrew.
    Mr. Cohn. On what ground weren't you seated?
    Mr. Gebo. That I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. No? Now, now, you can tell us that, can't you?
    Mr. Gebo. If I knew I would tell you, I would be glad to 
tell you. I know that we weren't seated at the convention in 
Cleveland, I think it was, in 1949.
    The Chairman. Why?
    Mr. Gebo. And I think the reason why is that they were 
going to throw them out, throw us out of the UE.
    Mr. Cohn. Why is that?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, why, I don't know. I wasn't there.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't have any idea?
    Mr. Gebo. I have an idea, let me get this straight now.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't waste our time, now.
    Mr. Gebo. I will try to--I understand now, this is the way 
I understand it, and I am going to give it to you as straight 
as I understand it. At the convention in Cleveland in 1949 they 
wouldn't pay their per capita and they weren't seated and the 
reason was, I think, they were going to be thrown out because 
of Communist domination. That is the way I understood it.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Do you feel that UE is 
Communist dominated?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I don't. It is impossible for our local, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. If it were Communist dominated, as the CIO 
claimed, would you say it would be a very dangerous situation?
    Mr. Gebo. I would, but that part, I mean our local, it is 
impossible for it to be that way.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists in your local?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. No one that you suspect of being a Communist?
    Mr. Gebo. I have heard rumors.
    Mr. Cohn. No one that you personally--you seem to be an 
intelligent young man--is there anyone whom you suspect of 
being a Communist in the local?
    Mr. Gebo. I suspected a few, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Who?
    Mr. Gebo. Well, I would say Friedlander I suspected but I 
can't prove anything, and I have nothing to prove it.
    Mr. Cohn. Anyone besides him?
    Mr. Gebo. No, I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. He is the only one in the whole union?
    Mr. Gebo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Mr. Mastriani? Does he occupy an 
important position in the union?
    Mr. Gebo. He is chief shop steward.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that one of the important positions in the 
union?
    Mr. Gebo. He presided over the stewards' meeting, and was 
chairman of the steward meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. He is the head of the stewards?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. The chief shop steward?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That is one of the key positions in the local?
    Mr. Gebo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. If he were a member of the Communist party would 
you regard that as a serious situation?
    Mr. Gebo. I certainly would.
    Mr. Jones. Now, the name----
    The Chairman. You may step down. If we need you further, we 
will call you.
    The Chairman. You will raise your right hand. In this 
matter now before the committee, do you solemnly swear that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Mastriani. I do.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. MASTRIANI (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                          LEON NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. May we get your full name?
    Mr. Mastriani. William J. Mastriani, M-a-s-t-r-i-a-n-n-i.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Mastriani. 791 Francis Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. You may confer with counsel anytime you wish.
    Where are you employed?
    Mr. Mastriani. GE, Schenectady.
    Mr. Cohn. General Electric?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
employed there?
    Mr. Mastriani. June 17, 1923.
    Mr. Cohn. Since 1923?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had clearance?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Never at any time you have been there?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work do you do there?
    Mr. Mastriani. I am a welder.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a welder?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir, right now.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any work on any government 
contracts?
    Mr. Mastriani. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking necessarily about classified 
contracts; I am talking about any kind of work which was being 
done by GE under government contract.
    Mr. Mastriani. Gee, I don't remember. During World War II 
yes, I did in World War II.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you undoubtedly have, but you 
don't recall what it was?
    Mr. Mastriani. In 1942 and during World War II I think I 
did. I worked on some transmitter work.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you hold office in Local 301?
    Mr. Mastriani. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the chief shop steward?
    Mr. Mastriani. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. And as such all of the stewards are responsible 
to you, and you preside at the stewards' meetings?
    Mr. Mastriani. At the stewards' meetings, but they are not 
all responsible to me.
    Mr. Cohn. You preside, you are the chief shop steward and 
you preside?
    Mr. Mastriani. At stewards' meetings, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Mastriani, are you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Mastriani. Well, I stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendment, constitutional rights.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refuse to answer the question on the 
ground the answer might tend to incriminate you under the Fifth 
Amendment?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on the First and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Answer counsel's question. Do you feel that 
if you were to answer that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. You can confer with counsel any time you want to
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. It tends to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You feel that an answer might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Mastriani. That is right.
    The Chairman. You understand, of course, that if you are 
not a Communist, as of today, that you simply say no, and that 
could not incriminate you; you understand that, don't you?
    The reporter can't hear when you shake your head.
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, I understand.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Mastriani, have you been a Communist 
party member during the entire period of your employment by 
General Electric?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendment; it tends to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you held office in the Communist party of 
the United States?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth as it 
tends to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you within the last month attended Communist 
party meetings?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments; it tends to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know persons presently employed at General 
Electric who are members of the Communist party?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendment, 
it----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this question: In view of the 
fact that the Communist party has been labeled by our highest 
court as a conspiracy designed to destroy this country, do you 
think that a member of that conspiracy should be working in a 
plant which is doing government work, and therefore indirectly 
drawing salary from the government?
    Mr. Mastriani. I would like to ask counsel.
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I feel I will stand on the First and Fifth; 
it tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. How old are you?
    Mr. Mastriani. Forty-six years old.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Mastriani. I was.
    The Chairman. Whereabouts?
    Mr. Mastriani. Schenectady, New York.
    The Chairman. Where did you get your education?
    Mr. Mastriani. Schenectady schools. Harrison School, 
McKinley School and Hamilton School.
    The Chairman. Where is Edison School?
    Mr. Mastriani. That is in the Fifth Ward of Schenectady, on 
Broadway.
    The Chairman. Did you go to high school?
    Mr. Mastriani. I did not, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you go to some technical school?
    Mr. Mastriani. Just vocational school at night.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have a professor who was a 
Communist--you can answer that.
    Mr. Mastriani. I don't know, I don't know what they are.
    The Chairman. Was there any professor that you knew to be a 
Communist or thought was a Communist?
    Mr. Mastriani. I never had any professor at all, I just had 
a teacher.
    The Chairman. A teacher then.
    Mr. Mastriani. A machine shop teacher, that is all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have a teacher who was a 
Communist?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I feel that I want to stand on my First and 
Fifth, it would tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have refused to answer whether or not you 
know any persons working at General Electric who are party 
members. Do you know--I will ask you: Do you know any employees 
at General Electric who have security clearance who are members 
of the Communist party with you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand; it might incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the work which you do or 
the work being done at GE with members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mastriani. Will you repeat that, Senator?
    [Question read by reporter.]
    Mr. Mastriani. Let me confer.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. That tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you have something against this nation?
    Mr. Mastriani. I certainly have not.
    The Chairman. Why would you belong to a Communist 
conspiracy then? You seem to be, you look like a normal person, 
and you are forty-six years old; why do you belong to a 
Communist conspiracy?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth; it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you think the Communist system is better 
than ours? It is no crime if you do. If you think the Communist 
system is better than ours, don't be ashamed of it, and tell 
us.
    Mr. Mastriani. Mr. Senator, you see I don't know how to 
answer those things, you know damn well I tell the truth, I 
don't. I have no use for that system at all; I believe in our 
system.
    The Chairman. Then, why would you belong to the Communist 
party? You see if you don't belong to it, you merely say I 
don't belong to it, and if there is a time you broke with the 
party, you can tell us when you broke with the party. All the 
evidence we have is that you are still an active member of the 
Communist conspiracy, and you are given a chance to deny that. 
We call you into a secret session so you can do it, and the 
public isn't present so they will not know what questions you 
will be asked.
    I am just curious to know why you are afraid or ashamed to 
tell us you are a Communist, if you are one, and if you are not 
one you can say so. If you are a Communist, and if you are 
dedicated to the Communist cause, then you should be proud of 
that, no matter how wrong it is. If you are not a Communist, 
then you should frankly say ``I am not.''
    I just wonder what is wrong with this movement you belong 
to. You people come in here and take the Fifth Amendment, and 
you take advantage of the American Constitution to protect a 
Communist conspiracy and let me ask you again: Do you think it 
is criminal or--strike that.
    Do you think it is incriminating or degrading to be a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mastriani. Will you repeat that again?
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [Question read by reporter.]
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I feel it is incriminating.
    The Chairman. To be a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed--strike that.
    Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mastriani. I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed the work you are 
doing at GE with members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mastriani. That tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
    Mr. Mastriani. Pardon me, sir?
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
    Mr. Mastriani. I didn't quite hear you.
    The Chairman. I say you will be ordered to answer.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. Will you read the question?
    The Chairman. Counsel, you can discuss this freely, just so 
the witness will understand the position of the chair, I have 
asked you whether or not you have ever engaged in espionage, 
and therefore you have waived the Fifth Amendment in so far as 
the field of espionage is concerned, and my next question is: 
Have you ever discussed the work you have done at GE with 
members of the Communist party?
    For your protection I can tell you we know you have, and we 
have the testimony of people who attended those meetings, and 
we know you have discussed the work in GE with Communists. I 
tell you that for your protection so you can't say at some 
future legal proceeding you have been trapped.
    My question is now: Have you ever discussed the work done 
at GE with members of the Communist party? You are ordered to 
answer that, and you don't have the Fifth Amendment privilege 
as to that; you have waived that.
    If you want to discuss the matter with counsel, you may do 
so.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. Mr. Senator, I haven't discussed my work 
with anybody, I do not work on any work.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you discussed the work of people of other 
employees at General Electric with them, in the course of your 
duties as chief shop steward?
    Mr. Mastriani. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. You never have?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Your sworn testimony is that as chief shop 
steward at General Electric, for the United Electrical Workers 
Union, you have never once had occasion to discuss any work, 
any member of your union is doing with them?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do as chief shop steward?
    Mr. Mastriani. I work in the shop. You mean my duty as 
chief steward?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Mastriani. I preside at stewards' meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. What is discussed at stewards' meetings?
    Mr. Mastriani. Problems contained in our contract, 
grievance procedure.
    Mr. Cohn. Do any grievances ever involve work being done as 
to whether it is being done right or done wrong or too fast or 
too slow or anything else?
    Mr. Mastriani. Only pertaining to a grievance, that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. In pertaining to a grievance?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you have to know something about the work 
when that grievance comes up?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Nothing at all?
    Mr. Mastriani. Only pertaining to prices, safety, or 
health, or involving the health.
    Mr. Cohn. And knowing all of those things, don't you have 
to have some general idea what the work is?
    Mr. Mastriani. Not what the work is. For example, if a guy 
is running a drill press, he is running a drill press, and he 
has got to put out so many pieces, so much per hundred; and 
anything pertaining to prices.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know who is working in which shop among 
your members?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, I don't know every one of them.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there any list? Does your union maintain a 
membership list?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir, we have a check-off list.
    Mr. Cohn. You have a check-off list?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you have any idea who is working in what 
part of General Electric?
    Mr. Mastriani. Of all of the members?
    Mr. Cohn. Of any members.
    Mr. Mastriani. I know mostly our stewards, where they are 
working, but of all of the members I couldn't possibly tell 
you. There are eighteen or twenty thousand.
    Mr. Cohn. If you wanted to find out, could you?
    You are the chief shop steward and you are under oath, and 
I want to know if you want to find out where Johnson, a member 
of your union is working, can you find that out?
    Mr. Mastriani. Just by check numbers, and we have----
    Mr. Cohn. I don't care how; I am asking you, can you find 
out?
    Mr. Mastriani. Well, I think we can, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there any doubt in your mind about that?
    Mr. Mastriani. Well, there are times when we check through 
the check-off list and we find out what building they are 
probably in, but whereabouts, we just can't tell.
    Mr. Cohn. You can find out what building they are in?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir, through the check-off list.
    The Chairman. How many Communists, to your knowledge, are 
working in GE?
    Mr. Mastriani. I don't know of any Communists.
    The Chairman. You don't know of any Communists at all?
    Mr. Cohn. Your sworn testimony before us under oath is that 
you don't know of any person working at General Electric who is 
a Communist?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I want to tell you, counsel, I don't know 
how to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Just tell the truth.
    Mr. Mastriani. I am telling the truth and I don't want to 
be incriminated in any way, and I still stand on my Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer the question?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in any illegal 
activities in connection with the Communist party, or 
Communists, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. You have not?
    Mr. Mastriani. No, sir.
    The Chairman. All right, then, you will be ordered to 
answer the question. You are not entitled to the Fifth 
Amendment in view of the fact you have stated that you are not 
engaged in any illegal activities in connection with the 
Communist party or Communists. What Communists do you know?
    Again may I say, just so that you cannot at any future 
legal proceeding you did not know the position of the chair, 
you are only entitled to the Fifth Amendment if the answers 
might incriminate you, and you have told me now that you never 
engaged in any illegal activities in connection with the 
Communist party or Communists. Therefore you have waived the 
amendment in so far as questions concerning the Communist party 
is concerned.
    So you are now asked the question: What Communists, if any, 
do you know in GE? And you are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. Can I ask for some legal advice?
    The Chairman. Of course you can, any time you want to.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    The Chairman. In case you want to have a private conference 
with the witness at any time at all, you have a perfect right 
to do so.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Novak. Could we have a private conference.
    [Witness and his counsel left the room for a private 
conference.]
    Mr. Mastriani. Could I get the last question, please?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I don't know of any.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any meetings with any 
Communists?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Novak. I would like to rise to a question of law here. 
You have taken the position right along that once the door is 
open, that thereafter a witness can no longer invoke a 
Constitutional immunity, once that is done.
    The Chairman. Or put it this way: I have taken the position 
that when you waive the privilege, you waive it not merely as 
to the specific question, but you waive it to the area of 
investigation. If I say to the witness, ``Have you engaged in 
espionage'' and he says, ``No,'' then he has waived the 
privilege as to all questions bearing on espionage. I asked him 
whether he engaged in any illegal activity in connection with 
the Communist party or Communists, and he said, no, he did not, 
and that means that any questions he might answer in regard to 
his connection with the Communist party he could in no way 
incriminate himself, so that therefore he does not have any 
Fifth Amendment privilege there. And may I say this, this does 
not involve a question of waiver. This involves a situation in 
which he has told us in effect that he could not be 
incriminated by the questions about his Communist activities. 
If when I asked him whether or not he had engaged in any 
illegal activities, then if he said, ``Yes,'' of course I could 
not pursue the matter further. But he has positively told us 
no, he did not engage in any illegal activities, and therefore 
I intend to ask him just so that there can be no possibility of 
any question of entrapment later, I intend to ask him a great 
number of questions about his Communist activities. We know 
about them, and either he is going to answer truthfully or he 
will be prosecuted for perjury; if he does not answer, I intend 
to have him cited for contempt on each and every question he 
refuses to answer.
    Mr. Novak. There is only one problem I have. You see, the 
law I have is a very tenuous one; at best it is not an easy law 
to separate and to get to definitive answers. Now, there are 
two areas which I am wondering about in this connection. Of 
course, when you pose it on the basis that he has no longer 
indicated a fear by indicating he is not engaged in any illegal 
activity, that is separate from another question of whether 
there is an open door policy involved here. My understanding on 
this latter point which does not seem to be as pertinent now is 
that unless there is an admission of some guilt, there is not 
an open door. In other words, there has to be an admission of 
wrongdoing before a person can be told that now that you have 
waived, you must proceed to testify. But putting that aside, 
you come back again to the question of illegal activity.
    There is the problem which arises of the incrimination 
which may flow merely from the connotation of opprobrium of the 
term ``Communist,'' and not alone from illegal activity, you 
see. That in itself is one which a person may seek to escape. 
He can do that by merely invoking his privilege. You see, it is 
a very narrow issue to speak about incriminating, in the sense 
of a wrongdoing, and there is another issue of being labeled as 
such, which a person may seek to escape by invoking that 
privilege. Do you get the point I am making, Senator?
    The Chairman. I do, but I may say that I have been living 
with this Fifth Amendment so long----
    Mr. Novak. A lot longer than I have.
    The Chairman [continuing]. That as of now, I would say Mr. 
Mastriani is in some trouble unless he wants to tell the truth. 
I intend to, as I say, give you this as a courtesy to counsel, 
I intend to give him the choice now of either perjuring himself 
or putting himself in contempt in any number of questions. I 
have no sympathy for a Communist, and I have no sympathy for a 
man who is serving the Communist cause. I feel no sympathy to 
this man at all and I intend to now proceed.
    Now that he does not have the privilege of the Fifth 
Amendment, I want him to either tell me the truth or perjure 
himself, or put himself in contempt. As I say, I just tell you 
this as a courtesy to counsel who has been very much a 
gentleman during all of these proceedings. Do you recall the 
question I asked you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I want to say this. You have said a lot of 
things here, and I still like to ask my counsel for legal 
advice.
    The Chairman. You may do that.
    Mr. Mastriani. And I just don't care for the inference. You 
say----
    The Chairman. You may talk to counsel as often as you want 
to and you can have a private conference.
    Mr. Novak. Do you want to go back into the room now? You 
have reached a crucial point, and I think you should take your 
time.
    The Chairman. Are there any witnesses out there whom you do 
not represent?
    Mr. Novak. I think that I represent all of them.
    [The witness and his counsel left the room for a private 
conference.]
    The Chairman. Have you decided to answer the question?
    Mr. Mastriani. Senator I stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. As to what question?
    Mr. Mastriani. The last question.
    The Chairman. What was the last question?
    Mr. Mastriani. Will he read it?
    The Chairman. Do you think your answer to the last question 
might incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir, I do.
    The Chairman. What was the last question?
    Mr. Mastriani. I think it was if I engaged in any illegal 
activity.
    The Chairman. You answered that question and you said you 
did not engage in any illegal activity. You told me you had not 
engaged in any illegal activity in connection with the 
Communist party, and that question is answered, and the next 
question was, ``Are you now a member of the Communist party.''
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you engaged in any illegal activities----
    The Chairman. He has answered that. I want to have that 
understood. Did you ever attend any Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my Fifth Amendment; it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know any members of the Communist 
party at GE?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments; it tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you think an answer to that might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you think an answer to that might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I, Fifth Amendment, I think it does.
    The Chairman. You think the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. Under the Fifth Amendment, yes.
    The Chairman. You say yes?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Just a few minutes ago you told us you did 
not know any Communists at GE. Did you think that that answer 
might tend to incriminate you when you said no?
    Mr. Mastriani. I will stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendment, Senator.
    The Chairman. You do not have any Fifth Amendment privilege 
as to perjury. A few minutes ago we asked you whether or not 
you knew any Communists at GE and you said ``No,'' and did you 
think that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I certainly do.
    The Chairman. What is that?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Did you think that that answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. May I ask some legal advice?
    The Chairman. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, it does. I stand on my Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You think the answer you gave----
    Mr. Mastriani. I tell you I am a little nervous, no use 
kidding about it, and I like to give the right answers, but I 
am nervous about it, and I might as well tell you the truth 
about it.
    The Chairman. Mister, you have got reason to be nervous.
    Mr. Mastriani. I have no reason to be nervous.
    The Chairman. You have some reason to be nervous. You start 
telling the truth, and you need not be nervous. Do you think 
that that answer that you gave when I said, ``Do you know 
Communists at GE'' and you said ``No,'' when I asked you the 
question did you know any Communists at GE and you said no, do 
you think that that answer that you gave might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. I do.
    The Chairman. You think it might tend to incriminate you 
because it was perjury, or because it was the truth?
    Mr. Mastriani. It tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Because the truth would incriminate you?
    Mr. Mastriani. It still tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Well, on what grounds? You said you did not 
know any Communists, and you have not a Fifth Amendment 
privilege as to perjury, and you said you did not know any. If 
that was the truth, it could not incriminate you.
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Have you attended any Communist party 
meetings in the last two months?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments, it tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Have you attended any Communist parties where 
there was discussed the work being done by GE?
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my First and Fifth 
Amendments, it tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question again.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my Fifth Amendment, it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Have you met with members of the Communist 
party in the last six months?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendments, it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my Fifth Amendment, it tends to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. How many members of the Communist party 
working at GE do you know?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Mastriani. It tends to incriminate me; I stand on the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Mastriani. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth Amendment, it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my Fifth Amendment, it 
tends to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone engaged at GE in 
espionage?
    Mr. Mastriani. The First and Fifth Amendments, it tends to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Mastriani. I still stand on my Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Mastriani. May I confer with counsel?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Mastriani. I stand on my First and Fifth, it tends to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Have you discussed with other members of the 
Communist party the necessity, or rather their plan for 
engaging in sabotage in case of war with the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mastriani. The First and Fifth Amendments, it tends to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Belgrave. I do.

TESTIMONY OF GORDON BELGRAVE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEON 
                             NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Belgrave. Gordon Belgrave.
    Mr. Cohn. You live at 2649 First Avenue?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Schenectady?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked at 
General Electric?
    Mr. Belgrave. How long have I worked there?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Belgrave. Sixteen years approximately.
    Mr. Cohn. You have had a security clearance at any time 
during those sixteen years?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked on any unclassified government 
work?
    Mr. Belgrave. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not have a way of telling whether the work 
is for the government or not, is that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Belgrave, do you hold any office in Local 
301?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't do anything of importance there?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belgrave. On that question I have to stand on my First 
and Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You can't stand on the First Amendment before 
this committee. You can refuse to answer under the Fifth 
Amendment if you feel the answer might tend to incriminate you. 
Is that your position?
    Mr. Belgrave. I think that it might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party 
during the entire period of your employment by General 
Electric?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is the same type of question. I refuse 
to answer on the ground the answer might tend to incriminate 
me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any persons working with you at 
General Electric who are members of the Communist party? You 
can talk to your counsel any time.
    The Chairman. May I say to counsel also, even though your 
client does not think it necessary to talk to you, if a 
question comes up and you think that he needs your advice, be 
completely free to talk to him.
    Mr. Novak. I am aware of that, but when these men ask me to 
come in in their behalf, I told them I don't know what goes on 
in their minds, or what they think, and if they have reason to 
want to resort to legal counsel they can turn to me to do so, 
as they do.
    The Chairman. I just wanted you to know that as you sit 
there, if you think your advice would be helpful, be perfectly 
free to confer with them.
    Mr. Belgrave. What was the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Read the question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Belgrave. I think that I will stand on the Fifth and 
First Amendments on that, too.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. May I ask counsel, do you know if your last 
witness was born in this country?
    Mr. Novak. He said he was born in Schenectady.
    The Chairman. You were born in this country?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend a meeting of the Communist party 
on June 20, 1951?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is another type of question, the First 
and Fifth Amendment on that, too, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a subscriber to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Belgrave. I subscribe to many different things, but on 
that question I think that I will stand on the First and Fifth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. You say the First Amendment. What privilege 
do you claim?
    Mr. Belgrave. The Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know any people working at General 
Electric who have security clearance?
    Mr. Belgrave. I suppose. What do you mean, do I know them. 
The fellows I work with, you mean, in my shop?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody, any fellow employee at 
General Electric who has a security clearance?
    Mr. Belgrave. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Are any of them members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belgrave. I could not tell you. I have to say the same 
thing, because I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean, you don't know. If you don't 
know, you say you don't know, and if you have attended 
Communist meetings with them, then you do know, and you tell us 
yes or no, or you claim the privilege.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belgrave. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with any fellow employee at General Electric?
    Mr. Belgrave. I stand on the Fifth Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting 
with any fellow employee at General Electric who had security 
clearance?
    Mr. Belgrave. What was the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Read the question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Belgrave. Well, sir, I will stand on the Fifth 
Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in any illegal activities--
--
    The Chairman. In connection with the Communist party or 
Communists, and you may want to consult your counsel before you 
answer that.
    Mr. Belgrave. I think that I will stand on the Fifth 
Amendment, sir, and I don't know what you are trying to get at.
    Mr. Cohn. You can not stand on the Fifth Amendment because 
you don't know what anyone is trying to get at. We try to put 
the questions in English, and if you don't understand, you tell 
me, and I will make it clearer.
    Do you understand the question?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your answer?
    Mr. Belgrave. I refuse to answer on the basis of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. On the ground you feel your answer might tend to 
incriminate you, is that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mr. Belgrave. I think that our union is quite clear on 
that, sir, and I support that statement that the union made, 
and I have not engaged in espionage.
    The Chairman. You never engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in sabotage?
    Mr. Belgrave. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Then did you ever discuss your work with any 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belgrave. I don't know if I ever have or not, sir; I 
discussed my work with various people.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss the matters or anything 
concerning GE work with anyone known to you to be a member of 
the Communist party, or whom you thought might be a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings 
where the work at GE was discussed?
    Mr. Belgrave. I will stand on the Fifth Amendment on that, 
sir.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Do you think a truthful answer to that 
question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Belgrave. I don't think it would, no.
    The Chairman. All right, then; you are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Belgrave. What was the question? Have I ever done what?
    The Chairman. You said you did not think the answer would 
tend to incriminate you, and is that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right. I am sorry. Maybe it is 
because I am a little nervous, but I didn't hear the question.
    The Chairman. We will make allowance for that, then. The 
question will be read.
    [The question was read by the reporter as follows:

    Did you discuss the matters or anything concerning GE work 
with anyone known to you to be a member of the Communist party, 
or whom you thought might be a member of the Communist party?]

    Mr. Belgrave. I stated that I never discussed my work that 
way, no.
    The Chairman. Is your answer no? You have to answer. You 
are shaking your head.
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    The Chairman. The answer is no?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    The Chairman. So that there will be no question about this, 
you are claiming at some subsequent time that you misunderstood 
the question. Let me repeat it. Did you ever attend a meeting 
of the Communist party or a meeting of Communists at which 
there was discussed the work being done at GE, and I would 
suggest that you think it over before you answer the question.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belgrave. I would say no.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. Did anyone ever ask you to join?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is no?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is my answer, the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Communist party?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belgrave. I stand on my Fifth Amendment to that.
    The Chairman. As to whether you ever joined?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belgrave. I will stand on my Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. I read in the paper today that the UE issued 
a statement condemning sabotage and espionage, saying they 
would not countenance it, and they did not approve of it. Let 
me ask you this: Would you think that if a man came in here and 
refused to tell whether or not he was engaged in espionage and 
sabotage on the ground that the truth would tend to incriminate 
him, do you think that such a man should be kept on in a 
position of power in the UE, and assume that were to happen.
    Mr. Belgrave. Well, I think what I think is not pertinent, 
and I have to stand on the Fifth Amendment on that.
    The Chairman. You stand on the Fifth Amendment on that?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. On the ground the answer might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you condemn any member of the UE who 
would engage in sabotage and espionage?
    Mr. Belgrave. I think the statement is clear on that, that 
we were asked----
    The Chairman. I am asking you.
    Mr. Belgrave. Any espionage I would condemn, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How about sabotage?
    Mr. Belgrave. And sabotage, too.
    The Chairman. You realize if a man were not guilty of 
sabotage, and he was asked a question whether he engaged in 
sabotage, he could say no, and that would not incriminate him; 
you understand that, do you not?
    Mr. Belgrave. I don't quite follow you on that.
    The Chairman. Let us put it this way. If I were to ask you 
now whether or not you robbed a bank in San Francisco last 
night, you would merely say no, because you were not there, 
isn't that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. It would not incriminate you, would it?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. The only way your answer would incriminate 
you would be if you were there and took part in the bank 
robbery, is that not true? You understand that, do you not?
    Mr. Belgrave. Yes.
    The Chairman. So if I say to you, are you guilty of 
sabotage, and you say no, because you feel that you are not 
guilty of sabotage, is that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. It would appear so, yes.
    The Chairman. And you answered no.
    Mr. Belgrave. Are you asking me?
    The Chairman. You answered the question already, and I said 
the reason you said no was because you felt you had never 
engaged in sabotage, is that not right?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. You did not take the Fifth Amendment on that.
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. I asked you if you are guilty of espionage 
and you said no, because you felt you were not guilty of 
espionage, isn't that right?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. If you felt you were guilty of espionage, you 
could have taken the Fifth Amendment, could you not? There is 
no question about that, is there?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. I am not trying to trick you in any answer.
    Mr. Belgrave. No. I follow you. I am sorry. You expected an 
answer every time.
    The Chairman. When I said, are you guilty of sabotage and 
espionage, you said no, because you feel that you were not 
guilty of it, is that not right?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is right.
    The Chairman. And when a man refuses to answer, does not 
that indicate to you that he must be guilty of sabotage or 
espionage?
    Mr. Belgrave. Not necessarily?
    The Chairman. You think not?
    Mr. Belgrave. No.
    The Chairman. Why do you say that?
    Mr. Belgrave. Well, I think it takes--what I think is not 
important.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Belgrave, there are ten or twelve persons 
who preceded you here today at executive session, and all of 
whom were under oath, just as you are. Now, if one of them were 
to say that you were a Communist, would they be lying?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belgrave. On that I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. Then if one of them were to say that you were 
not a Communist, would they be telling the truth?
    Mr. Belgrave. I invoke the Fifth Amendment on that.
    Mr. Jones. Would not there be a conflict of testimony 
there, and therefore perjury?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is not for me to say.
    Mr. Jones. In other words, you would believe that one of 
those who had indicated that you were a Communist, in prior 
testimony, would be telling the truth?
    Mr. Belgrave. That is also a question that I will invoke 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You are excused.
    The Chairman. You will consider yourself still under 
subpoena, and we will let your counsel know when you are to 
appear again.
    Will you stand and be sworn, please. In this matter now 
before the committee, do you solemnly swear that you will tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Mr. Owens. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR LEE OWENS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEON 
                             NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name?
    Mr. Owens. Arthur Lee Owens.
    Mr. Cohn. O-w-e-n-s?
    Mr. Owens. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You reside at 127 South Church Street?
    Mr. Owens. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Owens. 1023 Chrysler Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Schenectady?
    Mr. Owens. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Owens. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Owens. Approximately six years.
    Mr. Cohn. Six years; and have you ever had clearance?
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Not that you know of?
    Mr. Owens. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not you work on government 
contracts?
    Mr. Owens. I don't know of any. I haven't any idea that I 
do.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know whether you do or whether you 
don't?
    Mr. Owens. No.
    Mr. Cohn. And now you say you are working there?
    Mr. Owens. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Owens. The turbine building; that is 273.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Owens. I think that question tends to incriminate me, 
and I stand on the First and Fifth Amendments of the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Jones. What country were you born in, Mr. Owens.
    Mr. Owens. In the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know or can you name for us any persons 
working at General Electric with you who you know to be members 
of the Communist party?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Owens. It tends to incriminate me, and I stand on the 
First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any persons working at General 
Electric who you know for a fact do have security clearance, 
and work in buildings where classified material----
    Mr. Owens. Repeat that, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know or are you acquainted with any 
persons who work at General Electric who you know work on 
classified material, and who work on----
    Mr. Owens. Well, sir, I have been so disinterested in other 
individuals working in the GE that I haven't found out, and I 
don't know, and I look at a person's badge and there are 
various colors of badges there, and I don't know what one color 
means.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any friends among the employees of 
General Electric?
    Mr. Owens. To me, sir, a friend is a person that one can 
deeply depend upon, and as such, I would not exactly say so.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you acquainted with any of your fellow 
employees at General Electric?
    Mr. Owens. Am I acquainted with any employees in General 
Electric? Quite a few of them, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are any of those with whom you are acquainted 
working on government projects, classified government projects 
in any buildings or any areas where they are doing classified 
government work?
    Mr. Owens. Well, sir, I would say this, I don't know what 
is a government project.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that some people at General Electric 
work on classified non-public work? Do you know that?
    Mr. Owens. I don't know what classified work is, and so I 
couldn't answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. How about confidential work or secret?
    Mr. Owens. I don't know what that is, and I never did that 
myself, that I know. I may be doing it now.
    The Chairman. What kind of work are you doing now?
    Mr. Owens. I am welding, pipe welder in the Turbine 
Building, 273.
    The Chairman. You are in the Turbine Building?
    Mr. Owens. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you work in turbines?
    Mr. Owens. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Are those turbines for the army or the navy?
    Mr. Owens. I haven't the slightest idea, sir.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Owens. I am forty-one.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you graduate, or what school did you 
graduate from?
    Mr. Owens. Vandergrift.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that?
    Mr. Owens. That is Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a high school or college?
    Mr. Owens. Well, high school, I think, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you born?
    Mr. Owens. Montgomery, Alabama.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave Montgomery, Alabama?
    Mr. Owens. I don't know, sir. Very young, and I don't know 
the exact age.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your mother still living?
    Mr. Owens. My mother died when I was born, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And is your dad still living?
    Mr. Owens. My father died, I heard, in Birmingham, and one 
of my relatives before I left home more than twenty-five years 
ago told me that my father was dead, and I don't know myself.
    The Chairman. You know you were born in this country?
    Mr. Owens. No, sir, I don't know it. I was told that I was 
born in this country.
    The Chairman. Tell me, when did you join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Owens. Sir, that question may tend to incriminate me, 
and I stand on the First and Fifth Amendments of the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn. If you are a member of the Communist party, are 
you ashamed of it? I would think that if you were a member of 
the Communist party, if you think the Communist party is good 
for your race, or for the nation, that you should be proud of 
it, and you should say ``Sure I am a Communist.'' Take a man 
like Earl Browder; he gets up before a committee and he never 
takes the Fifth Amendment and he says ``certainly, I am a 
Communist, and I think the Communist party is good for this 
country,'' and you can't help but have some respect for a man 
no matter how wrong you may think he is who has got enough guts 
to stand up for what he believes is right.
    If you are a Communist, you must be a Communist because you 
think that is good. Why be ashamed of what you stand for?
    Mr. Owens. Sir, I think that question tends to incriminate 
me, and I stand on the First and Fifth Amendments of the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Jones. I would like to know how he can seek protection 
of the flag if there is a question whether he was born under 
the flag.
    The Chairman. I think he is entitled to the Fifth 
Amendment. Is there anything further?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Owens. Sir, that question may tend to incriminate me, 
and I stand on the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you pay dues to the Communist party?
    Mr. Owens. That question may tend to incriminate me, and I 
stand on the First and Fifth Amendments.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage? You can 
consult counsel if you care to.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. I don't want to trap any of these witnesses. 
I ask them about this question of sabotage and so on; I intend 
to go into details of what they have given other members of the 
Communist party, and I think that you are perfectly free in 
advancing them as to the waiver of the Fifth Amendment, so that 
they will know what they are doing.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Owens. Would you repeat the question again?
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Owens. No, sir, not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Have you ever given information to any 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist meetings where 
there was discussed the defense of this country?
    Mr. Owens. What is that?
    The Chairman. The defense of this country. Will you read 
the question?
    [Question read by reporter.]
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of, sir.
    The Chairman. You never discussed with Communists any of 
the weapons, or any of the defense weapons of our military?
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in any sabotage?
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings 
where espionage or sabotage was discussed?
    Mr. Owens. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. You say not that you know of. Do you mean 
that you might have attended meetings or Communist meetings 
where they discussed espionage, and you wouldn't know it?
    Mr. Owens. If I had, I would know it, but I don't know of 
any.
    The Chairman. Did you ever talk to Communists about the 
work that you or anyone else is doing at GE?
    Mr. Owens. No, sir; about the defense work, repeat that 
again, sir.
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [Question read by reporter.]
    Mr. Owens. In answering that question, sir, the work that I 
or anyone else is doing there, I will have to consult my 
lawyer.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Owens. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You may step down.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. You will raise your right hand. In this 
matter now before the committee, do you solemnly swear that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Sardella. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF JOHN SARDELLA

    Mr. Cohn. You are Mr. John Sardella?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. S-a-r-d-e-l-l-a?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you live at 505 South Avenue, Schenectady?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir. 822 Michigan Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live at 505 South Avenue?
    Mr. Sardella. Just a little bit after I came back from the 
service.
    The Chairman. Did you ever sign a petition pledging that 
you would support the Communist party?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have a clearance from navy, is that correct?
    Mr. Sardella. From the army.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Sardella. No, I was born in Italy.
    The Chairman. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Sardella. In 1934.
    The Chairman. When were you naturalized?
    Mr. Sardella. In 1935, I was naturalized by my father.
    Mr. Cohn. This is a confidential blue badge. For the record 
the badge is a confidential clearance.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the Communist party?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to sign a pledge to 
support the Communist party?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you would do this for me, would 
you sign your name on that piece of paper and would you put the 
address of 505 South Avenue down on that?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    [The witness wrote his name and address on a piece of 
paper.]
    [The paper was given to the chairman.]
    The Chairman. We want to show you a pledge to support the 
Communist party, signed by John Sardella, 505 South Avenue, and 
will you look at that and tell us whether or not you signed 
that petition?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that your signature?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Look at the heading of that. What is that, the 
top of it, what does it say?
    The Chairman. Read the top, the large black letters at the 
top, will you?
    Mr. Sardella. It says the Communist party.
    The Chairman. You signed that, did you?
    Mr. Sardella. I can't remember if I signed that.
    The Chairman. Is that your signature, and do you recognize 
it?
    Mr. Sardella. It looks like my signature, but I can't 
remember signing that.
    The Chairman. Is there any doubt that that is your 
signature?
    Mr. Sardella. I don't think it is my signature.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you, do you know Mr. Stanley M. 
Baregman?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never heard of him?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, he has sworn under oath that this is 
your signature.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he say it is his signature?
    The Chairman. Do you know Stanley M. Baregman?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never heard of him?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, either you are guilty of perjury or he 
is guilty of perjury.
    Mr. Cohn. Look at that, you know that is your signature, 
don't you? Look at the way you just signed it, and see how the 
two also go up off the line. It is obviously your signature, 
isn't it?
    The Chairman. Let us see your social security card.
    [The card was given to the chairman.]
    The Chairman. I just want to tell you, Mr. Sardella, that 
one of you is guilty of perjury. This man swore to the fact 
that this is your signature, and if he is guilty of perjury, he 
is also guilty of forgery.
    Mr. Sardella. I can't remember signing anything like that.
    The Chairman. This is the first time I have seen you, and 
it isn't my job to sit here and decide whether you are guilty 
or the other man is. Someone is. It is a very important matter. 
We intend to submit this to the grand jury and you understand 
that signing that is no crime but if you come in here and 
perjure yourself, it is a crime.
    Now, looking at the signature, either it is yours or it is 
a perfect duplicate of it. We are going to submit that to 
handwriting experts, and have them determine whether or not it 
is your signature, and if it is----
    Mr. Sardella. I don't think that that is my writing.
    The Chairman [continue]. If it is, it means that you are 
lying. I know and any jury will know that you can't 
inadvertently sign a pledge to support the Communists.
    Mr. Sardella. Not as far as I know, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say that is not your 
signature?
    Mr. Sardella. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you have not signed the petition?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir,
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the United Electrical 
Workers?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long have you been a member?
    Mr. Sardella. Since 1941 or 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that that union is under Communist 
domination?
    Mr. Sardella. Not as far as I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear that?
    Mr. Sardella. What I read in the paper, that is the only 
way I hear it.
    Mr. Cohn. You have read that in the papers?
    Mr. Sardella. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Does that bother you?
    Mr. Sardella. Why should it bother me for?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you consider yourself a good American?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you want to contribute your money to an 
organization which is giving it to the Communist movement?
    Mr. Sardella. The only reason I belong to the organization 
is because the organization is supposed to protect the workers, 
and that is the only reason I belong to it.
    Mr. Cohn. You pay dues, don't you?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How much dues do you pay a year?
    Mr. Sardella. $2.50 a month.
    Mr. Cohn. How much a month?
    Mr. Sardella. $2.50 a month.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, doesn't it bother you if part of that money 
is given by UE to the Communist party? Doesn't that bother you?
    Mr. Sardella. How do I know they are Communists?
    Mr. Cohn. I am asking you whether or not it would bother 
you if that money were going to the Communist party?
    Mr. Sardella. Sure it would bother me if I know it went to 
the Communists, but the only reason I join the union is because 
I figure the union is going to protect the working man, and 
that is the only reason I belong to it.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there any other unions you could belong to?
    Mr. Sardella. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are aware of the fact that the UE was 
kicked out of the CIO because it was Communist controlled? Are 
you aware of that fact?
    Mr. Sardella. They weren't.
    The Chairman. Did you hear that?
    Mr. Sardella. I read it in the paper.
    The Chairman. I am not blaming you for the policies of the 
UE. I know good, loyal people belong to the UE, but I would 
like to find your attitude toward this Communist controlled 
organization, however, if you have got confidential clearance.
    Now, the time came when----
    Mr. Sardella. I tell you the truth, I don't go once every 
three years to union hall. That is how much I am in the union.
    The Chairman. There was a time when there was an election 
to determine whether the UE would represent the workers or not. 
Did you vote in that election?
    Mr. Sardella. When was that? I didn't get your right 
question?
    The Chairman. Do you recall when there was an election to 
determine whether or not the UE would be the bargaining agent 
for the people at GE?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you vote in that election?
    Did you vote to have the UE the bargaining agent?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You did?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel that UE should 
represent you and the other workers?
    Mr. Sardella. Yes, sir, that is right.
    The Chairman. Despite the fact that it has been kicked out 
of the CIO because it is Communist controlled?
    Mr. Sardella. I never was in the union anyway, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think a union that is Communist 
controlled can properly represent you, and in other words, do 
you think a Communist-controlled union is the type of union you 
want representing you?
    Mr. Sardella. Well, the way I feel about it is this, sir, 
it wasn't there when I went to work, and it is the only union I 
know, and it represents us, and it is the way I feel about it, 
to help me whenever I need a little help; if anything happens 
to the job or anything like that, that is what I belong for.
    The Chairman. Even if it is Communist controlled.
    I have nothing further. I would like to tell you something 
if I can. Your bosses are going to determine some time or other 
whether or not you will be able to handle confidential material 
and if I were your boss I would say to you very frankly--and I 
never met you before and I have no personal feeling toward 
you--I would no more give you access to confidential material 
than I would cut my throat.
    You express no interest whatsoever in the security of this 
nation, and you say you don't care whether the UE is Communist 
controlled, and the only interest you have, you say, is whether 
or not they can help you out sometime.
    Now, certainly a Communist organization might be able to 
help you out today, but if they destroy this nation in the end 
they are awful bad for you. If that is the attitude you take, 
you have a perfect right to do it and it is no crime for you to 
take that attitude, but you should not be handling confidential 
or secret material which affects the life and death of this 
nation.
    You should have some feeling of responsibility to your 
country, and some feeling of responsibility to the government 
which is paying you a very good salary and you just got through 
telling us that you voted to have an organization represent you 
which you knew was kicked out of the CIO because it was 
Communist controlled.
    I am not arguing with you at all. I just want to have the 
record, absolutely clear, that I, as chairman of this 
committee, think that no man who takes the attitude that you 
do, should be handling secret material. It is a privilege and 
not a right.
    You may leave.
    Mr. Jones. I think you are a pretty lucky fellow to be in 
this country.
    Mr. Sardella. I done my share and everything, and I was in 
service as much as anybody else.
    Mr. Jones. I don't doubt that at all, but there are still 
thousands upon thousands that would like to be in your shoes.
    Mr. Sardella. I have done my share, and I never done 
anything against the country, and I never intend to do anything 
against the country. I will do my best, and----
    The Chairman. If you decide that you were not telling the 
truth about signing the Communist petition, contact the counsel 
and we will let you change your story; and have a handwriting 
expert examine it, and if we find that you signed that, as you 
apparently have, your case will be submitted to the Grand Jury 
for an indictment for perjury, and I would suggest that you get 
yourself a lawyer.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. You will raise your right hand. In this 
matter now before the committee, do you solemnly swear that you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mr. Rissland. I do.

TESTIMONY OF RUDOLPH RISSLAND (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEON 
                             NOVAK)

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full, name, please?
    Mr. Rissland. Rudolph Rissland, R-i-s-s-l-a-n-d.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you live at 74 Hagh Avenue, Schenectady?
    Mr. Rissland. H-a-g-h Avenue, Schenectady.
    Mr. Cohn. You work with General Electric?
    Mr. Rissland. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you worked there?
    Mr. Rissland. Since 2/2/42.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever had clearance?
    Mr. Rissland. During the war I worked on jet planes.
    Mr. Cohn. You worked on jet planes during the war?
    Mr. Rissland. Not planes, but the motor, the engine.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are you now or have you ever been a 
Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never have been a Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you hold office in Local 301?
    Mr. Rissland. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Rissland. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Rissland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to attend a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Rissland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists?
    Mr. Rissland. No, not to the best of my knowledge, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever paid any dues or money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't----
    The Chairman. You can talk to your lawyer whenever you want 
to.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Rissland. I don't believe I have ever paid any.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any doubt about it?
    Mr. Rissland. No, not unless in some trick way I 
contributed on a collection or something like that for 
something, but I am positive I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. You are positive you haven't?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you don't know any Communists?
    Mr. Rissland. No, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Mastriani?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Rissland. Through the union activity and working with 
him.
    Mr. Cohn. You know him pretty well?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, fairly well.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think he is a Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I don't. I think he is an anti-Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that most anti-Communists refuse to 
answer on the grounds of self-incrimination whether they are 
members of the Communist party; that that is a sign of anti-
Communism?
    Mr. Rissland. I wouldn't say--what was the question again?
    Mr. Cohn. I say you think he is an anti-Communist, and I 
want to know if you think an anti-Communist will refuse to 
answer before a duly authorized committee?
    Mr. Rissland. I think some anti-Communists will, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You do think they will?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You think that shows a person is an anti-
Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. I won't say that shows a person is anti-
Communist but I don't think it shows him a Communist, either.
    The Chairman. Let us get this straight. You were asked 
whether you are a Communist.
    Mr. Rissland. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you said no.
    Mr. Rissland. That is right, I am not.
    The Chairman. You realize that when you are not a 
Communist, and telling the truth, it can't incriminate you, can 
it?
    Mr. Rissland. Well----
    The Chairman. Do you feel that you are incriminated by 
telling us you are not a Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I don't feel that I am incriminating 
myself--wait a minute. Do I think----
    The Chairman. It is not a trick question. You were asked a 
question and we are asking you are you a Communist, and you 
said you are not.
    Mr. Rissland. That is right.
    The Chairman. You said you are not because you are not; 
isn't that right?
    Mr. Rissland. That is right.
    The Chairman. And as long as you told us the truth and said 
you are not a Communist, that couldn't incriminate you, could 
it?
    Mr. Rissland. It couldn't incriminate me, no.
    The Chairman. If you were a Communist, however, then your 
answer incriminates you?
    Mr. Rissland. It could, yes.
    The Chairman. But if someone asks you, using a good 
example, if someone said did you rob a bank in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, and you would say no, because you were not there, 
you could not be incriminated by the truth there, could you? 
Isn't that right? Is there something difficult about that?
    Mr. Rissland. Not in that itself, no, I wasn't nowhere 
connected with that, and there might be other things that would 
enter there.
    The Chairman. Unless you were guilty of something, you 
wouldn't be afraid to answer, would you?
    Mr. Rissland. No, for my own benefit, no, I would not be 
afraid to answer.
    The Chairman. And if someone else was sitting there instead 
of you, if he is asked the question ``Are you engaged in 
espionage today'' and if he were not engaged in espionage, he 
would say no, couldn't he?
    Mr. Rissland. That is right.
    The Chairman. And if he tells the committee ``I can't tell 
you the truth because that might incriminate me,'' you would 
wonder whether or not he was engaging in espionage, wouldn't 
you?
    Mr. Rissland. If he says I can't tell you the truth about 
engaging in espionage?
    The Chairman. Because if I did it might incriminate me, if 
he said that, that would indicate he was engaging in espionage?
    Mr. Rissland. It would make it look like he was, certainly.
    The Chairman. Now, your union put out a very good statement 
today, and you condemned sabotage, and you condemn espionage.
    Mr. Rissland. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I assume you approved of that statement?
    Mr. Rissland. I did approve of it, and membership approved 
it many years ago.
    The Chairman. In other words you consider that a good 
statement, and your union would condemn espionage and sabotage, 
is that right?
    Mr. Rissland. That is right.
    The Chairman. There is no question about that?
    Mr. Rissland. There is no question about it whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Now, if you were to come in here today, which 
you have not, and if you were to come in here today and I were 
to ask you ``Now, are you an espionage agent'' and you would 
say ``I won't tell you because if I told you that might tend to 
incriminate me.'' And if I said to you ``Are you engaged in 
sabotage'' and you said ``I can't tell you because if I told 
you the truth that might incriminate me.'' If I were to say to 
you ``Are you a Communist, as of tonight?'' if, instead of 
answering as you did you were to say ``I can't tell you because 
the answer might tend to incriminate me,'' don't you think that 
you perhaps should be kicked to hell out of the union?
    Mr. Rissland. Because I said--now you have asked me a 
question. On the espionage question----
    The Chairman. Let us take all three of them.
    Mr. Rissland. I don't think that they should be grouped 
together.
    The Chairman. Take one of them alone.
    Mr. Rissland. Espionage and sabotage, most certainly.
    The Chairman. I want to tell you for your information, 
then, that normally we don't tell one witness what another 
witness testifies to, but Mr. Mastriani, who you say is an 
anti-Communist, has so answered in regard to espionage and 
sabotage.
    Mr. Rissland. I don't believe that. If Bill answered that 
he wouldn't--he would stand on his rights and wouldn't answer. 
I don't--if he answered that in relation to sabotage and 
espionage, or spying, or whatever, then he made a mistake and 
you have got a statement out of him that he doesn't mean and 
doesn't believe.
    The Chairman. If he meant it?
    Mr. Rissland. That is my opinion; Bill is not that way.
    The Chairman. Let us assume he meant it, and let us assume 
he was not tricked into it. Would you say that he should be 
booted out of the union and out of the plant?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't think that is a fair question, 
Senator, let us assume. What do you mean? I would never assume 
a thing about that. If you say assume it, and off the record to 
draw a picture, well, you and I are talking friendly, I could 
take that. But I would never, I could never assume that Billy 
would say that.
    The Chairman. Let us not take Mastriani--let us take John 
Jones, anyone besides Mastriani. If he came here and said, ``I 
refuse to tell whether I am engaging in sabotage, or I am 
engaging in espionage, on the ground that if I told the truth, 
it might tend to incriminate me'' do you think that he should 
be kicked out of the UE?
    I am not talking about Mastriani, I am talking about 
someone else, Pete Smith, or Jack Jones.
    Mr. Rissland. I will still say this, that if the man--let 
us take myself--if I refuse to answer you on sabotage and I 
knew that I was doing it that way and I wasn't tricked in some 
way or something, then you have an entirely different picture, 
and what else could you say?
    The Chairman. Do you think that UE is Communist dominated?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. Do you think there are any Communists in the 
UE?
    Mr. Rissland. Well, I would say this: That there are 
apparently. I guess it isn't even apparently; it is a fact that 
there are Communists in practically every organization, so I 
suppose ours has it in like the rest of them. And, in fact, I 
hear that the IUE has quite a few noted ones, too. I don't know 
whether it is so or not, and I am not one; who am I to judge 
whether?
    It is very easy to call someone a Communist and the next 
thing it is very hard for that person to prove that he is not. 
I don't know what he is going to do to prove that he is not a 
Communist. Evidently, they have done such a job that anybody 
can be involved in it.
    The Chairman. Just one or two other questions.
    You understand that the fact that you are called here 
doesn't mean that we think that you are or are not a Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. I should hope not.
    The Chairman. The fact that you are an official of the UE 
doesn't necessarily mean that you are going along with the 
Communist domination of that, but in view of the fact that you 
have been active in the leadership of UE, I would like to ask 
you this question: You, of course, are aware of the fact UE was 
kicked out of the CIO on the ground that it was Communist 
dominated?
    Mr. Rissland. That is not a true statement.
    The Chairman. Well, what would you say? Why were they?
    Mr. Rissland. We were not kicked out of the CIO. We 
withheld the per capita tax from the CIO and the reasoning for 
it was there was difference between actually the CIO isn't a 
union, it is an amalgamation or a heading up a group of unions. 
We were one of the unions in that group and in fact we were a 
union before there was a CIO, I understand.
    But the CIO was dictating policies and practically told 
their nationals that you have to back the Democratic party, and 
other such cases, where I think, I wouldn't want to be quoted. 
I suppose you could have me for perjury, but there was a local, 
I think it was.
    The Chairman. We are not trying to trap you.
    Mr. Rissland. There was an autoworker local where they 
walked in and took over the local and took the officers out, 
and not because of communism, but because of something else 
done by the local.
    We said it was up to the rank and file in our union to 
decide whether we will back the Democratic party, or the 
Republican party, or whatever. We say that we don't back any 
party, in its entirety, because there is good and bad in both 
parties.
    The Chairman. As an actual fact, now, the severance of the 
relations between the UE and CIO was because the officials of 
CIO alleged--I am not asking whether the allegations were true 
or not--but the CIO alleged UE was Communist controlled and 
dominated.
    Mr. Rissland. They said that, that is true, and they had to 
give some reason.
    The Chairman. It was the cause of the severance, wasn't it.
    Mr. Rissland. That is what they used, and they had to use a 
reason for causing the severance, and we as individuals will 
not be dictated to and my local will not be dictated to.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom?
    Mr. Rissland. By anybody, by the national.
    Mr. Cohn. Does your local have any relationship with the 
national?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, it has a relationship.
    Mr. Cohn. Does your local have any relationship with Mr. 
Emspak?
    Mr. Rissland. In what sense, he is an officer?
    Mr. Cohn. In any sense.
    Mr. Rissland. He is an officer in the national.
    Mr. Cohn. He is a Communist party member, do you think?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't have an opinion on that? Isn't that 
pretty important?
    Mr. Rissland. Whether he is a Communist or not, yes, most 
certainly it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know he has been named under oath as a 
member of the governing board of the Communist party of the 
United States, under the name of Conrad Juniper, as one of the 
top figures in the Communist conspiracy in this country; that 
when given a chance to deny that he has consistently stood on 
the Fifth Amendment and refused to deny those charges made by 
people who sat on that national committee of the Communist 
party with him? Don't you know that?
    Mr. Rissland. I know there could be people that were 
possibly after Brother Emspak or trying to do a job on him.
    Mr. Cohn. Trying to do a job on him?
    Mr. Rissland. That could be possible, and I don't know. I 
haven't the facts or the figures that you people have, and if I 
was positive that the man was a Communist, that would be one 
thing. But again today everybody that is independent or 
something, they want to call him a Communist. If I knew that--
--
    Mr. Cohn. Look, don't let us get off the track, let us 
stick to the facts.
    Mr. Emspak has been named by witness after witness as a 
member of the national committee of the Communist party, one of 
the top leaders of the Communist conspiracy in this nation, 
under a false name. He is a high official of a large union, 
with it responsibility.
    When called upon by body after body representing the people 
of the United States, he has consistently said that he couldn't 
give answers to questions concerning his membership on the 
national committee of the Communist party because they would 
show he was guilty of a crime.
    Now, that is one of the men who is running the United 
Electrical Workers.
    Mr. Rissland. He is not running it.
    Mr. Cohn. Does he hold national office in it?
    Mr. Rissland. He does.
    Mr. Cohn. He is an important figure in it?
    Mr. Rissland. He is.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Mr. James Matles? Does he hold national 
office in the union?
    Mr. Rissland. He does.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that, as to Mr. Matles, he, too, has 
been named as a member of the national committee of the party, 
and he, too, has refused to deny the charges and has taken 
refuge in the Fifth Amendment? Do you know that?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I know that he has taken refuge in the 
Fifth Amendment, but he has been named. You can name anybody, 
and I could be called a thief, but I am not a thief.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you stand on the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Rissland. Now, then, again, I am certainly not a lawyer 
or this or that. I don't know what Jim Matles does. He might be 
standing on the Fifth Amendment not to protect himself, but 
maybe to protect the union or to protect somebody he knows or 
something. Evidently.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever asked him?
    Mr. Rissland. Have I ever asked Jim Matles if he was a 
Communist? No, but he signed the affidavit.
    Mr. Cohn. The noncommunist affidavit, and after he signed 
it don't you know he refused to say whether or not he was lying 
when he signed it?
    Mr. Rissland. Personally, I would answer you, but 
personally, I don't know what his line of thinking is. There 
are liberal people and there are lots of people that say ``I 
have it,'' and I could tell you the same thing. I sign the 
affidavit, too; some people believe----
    Mr. Cohn. Let us take this local. Do you know Sidney 
Friedlander?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't know whether he is a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever ask him?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I never have.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know he has invoked the Fifth Amendment 
and has been named as a Communist party member?
    Mr. Rissland. I tell you this, he most likely did. And from 
all of the stories about him, most likely he would have to, but 
as far as I am personally concerned, Sidney Friedlander is not 
running our union and we are running it and we and the rank and 
file.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a member of the executive committee?
    Mr. Rissland. He is one of about thirty-three or I think 
there are thirty-one board members, and there are seven 
officers.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this question: Do you think a 
Communist should work at General Electric?
    Mr. Rissland. Let me answer that this way? So far as has 
been proven, the majority of the things that are proven, 
absolute Communists, or those that were in control of the 
Communist party, this is my opinion again and my thinking, I 
don't think that is really fair as being what a person's 
thinking is, but those people have been proven to be spies and 
if every Communist that belongs to the party is part of that 
belief, then certainly I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. They shouldn't be working at General Electric?
    Mr. Rissland. I would go a little bit further, but there is 
nothing that we as a union can do, and how can we do it?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think Mr. Friedlander should be working at 
General Electric?
    Mr. Rissland. The only way I could answer that is if Mr. 
Friedlander is a Communist, then he would fall in that 
category, but I don't know whether he is; I don't know 
positively whether he is a Communist or isn't and I have no way 
of telling.
    Mr. Cohn. You have said you think if they are absolute 
members of the party and a part of this movement, which we have 
talked about, they shouldn't be there and you can't do anything 
about it. Do you think management can do something about it? Do 
you think they should do something about it, and will you 
support them if they do do something about it?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't think it is the job of management. If 
management did that, management could point to a man like me, 
and say he is a Communist and they could point to a man like 
Billy, because those guys work----
    Mr. Cohn. What do you suggest? You say you are a good 
American, and you are concerned with this and you don't think 
Communists, absolute Communists, should be working at General 
Electric. How do you think they should be gotten out of it?
    Mr. Rissland. Well, we have a democratic form of 
government, and we should have capable, or have got capable 
people, and I think if the job was done fairly, and it 
certainly would be--let me think--if the job could be done 
fairly and honestly and that you would have to say with 
reservations, then why doesn't the government, we will say, 
outlaw the Communist party? I don't know about that, and it 
maybe possibly should come as a referendum before the people.
    Mr. Cohn. You see you have a position of responsibility in 
a union which has employees in one of the most important 
national defense plants in the country, and we have agreed that 
a Communist, an absolute Communist should not be working for 
General Electric.
    Mr. Rissland. I said an absolute Communist if everything 
that is supposedly in the peoples' minds about communism--as 
you talk about communism as we know communism today, it 
evidently is a spy ring, I suppose; as I studied it as a kid in 
school it was a form of government.
    And now there are two different things there, a form of 
government or a spy ring. Suppose it could be socialism. Now a 
guy could be a socialist, and honestly believe in socialism.
    Mr. Cohn. We are talking about the Communist party, and 
members of the Communist party, and whether or not they should 
be employed at General Electric, and you have said you don't 
think that they should if they are absolute Communists, and do 
you want to change that answer?
    Mr. Rissland. If those Communists are traitors, or if the 
Communists are traitors, then I say the party should be 
outlawed.
    Mr. Jones. All Communists receive orders direct from the 
Kremlin, don't they?
    Mr. Rissland. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You believe in our system of justice, don't you? 
The jury system? You believe in our form of government, don't 
you?
    Mr. Rissland. Certainly I do.
    Mr. Cohn. And I assume you believe in the administration of 
justice as administered by the American people, by a jury, is 
that right?
    Mr. Rissland. Trial by jury, I will say sometimes in a 
legal case, for civil action, maybe that isn't as fair; say, in 
a lawsuit, and I don't know whether it could happen.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you, as an American citizen, accept a judgment 
of the highest court of this land?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, that is my form of government.
    Mr. Cohn. This has held that the Communist party is a 
conspiracy doing just what you speak of here. We start on that 
premise. That is the finding of a jury which has been upheld by 
the highest court of the land.
    Mr. Rissland. What are you talking about? I am not well 
versed on this.
    Mr. Cohn. You have a responsibility in this, and you are an 
officer of the union with thousands of employees and in a 
national defense establishment, and with a lot of Communists in 
there. And the question is how to get them out?
    Now, you say, labor can't do it and you say management 
can't do it, and I want to know who can do it?
    Mr. Rissland. I say this: As a labor organization the 
Communists cannot hurt us, or they cannot hurt the company, 
through our organization in any way.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think if a member of your organization 
through membership in your union, gets a job with General 
Electric----
    Mr. Rissland. He doesn't get a job through membership.
    Mr. Cohn. Suppose a person is employed at General Electric 
and he is a member of your union. That is possible, isn't it?
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And it is also possible he can be working on 
classified material, isn't it?
    Mr. Rissland. That is possible, and he also could work on 
it and not belong to our union.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us suppose he works on it, and does belong to 
your union. One of your boys. He belongs to your union and he 
is working.
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In an AO for instance, working on secret or top 
secret guided missiles, or something we are depending on to 
beat off an enemy which is to destroy us.
    Mr. Rissland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And if he steals those secrets and gives them to 
that enemy, and if he does that for the Communist party, don't 
you think he is hurting your union and don't you think he is 
hurting the company?
    Mr. Rissland. Most certainly he is hurting our union, but 
our union, it wasn't our responsibility; it was the 
government's responsibility to clear that guy and our union 
would condone it in no way.
    I see no tie-up there at all. We are on record, and we 
sent, as a matter of fact, I have a copy of the letter we sent 
in the last what do you call it. I would like to give it to you 
to read, our position on the bomb scare in 269.
    We have always been, since I have been in the union our 
position has always been that if you see and it is brought out 
at membership meetings--if you see anybody that you think is 
guilty of spying or espionage, report it right away. I believe 
it and our union believes in it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think you ought to wait until after the 
person is caught stealing or do you think you ought to 
eliminate a member of that spy ring before he gets a chance to 
do it?
    Mr. Rissland. Naturally you lock the barn before the horse 
is stolen, that would be the same, but I don't think it is the 
job of the union and I don't think it is the job of the 
company.
    Mr. Cohn. How is it going to happen? How is such an 
individual going to be eliminated from General Electric? You 
don't think the union should do it and you don't think the 
company should do it. You are an official of the union and I 
would like to have your idea on it.
    Mr. Rissland. I am an official of the union, but I haven't 
got all the brains in the world and I will say again: if it is, 
to my way of thinking, if it is communism, and if that is it, 
and you want to eliminate it, if it was ordinary spies that 
could happen, too, but it would be up to the government to 
screen these Communists and not let them in there; and in fact, 
if all you say is true and as I said I am not that well read 
and I don't follow these cases through particularly----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this question: If the 
management of GE is going to have quite a problem, if it 
develops that there are espionage agents and Communists working 
there, and you appear to be pretty intelligent, and if they are 
to get rid of the Communists they will need the support of men 
like yourself who are active in the union.
    I just wonder how much support they can expect from you. 
This is no trick question and we are just trying to arrive at a 
solution of something which seems to be very bad.
    We have been hearing evidence here of espionage in the UE.
    There are Communists who work there and people refuse to 
say whether they are espionage agents or not, and it is a 
tremendously important problem that management has, and they 
can't solve it unless they have the support of the intelligent 
men in the labor union and we both agree on that.
    I am just wondering what attitude you would take, for 
example, in union meetings if the management decides that they 
will follow Eisenhower's rule, the rule he laid down sometime 
ago, when he said that anyone who takes the Fifth Amendment 
about Communist activity should not work in government.
    Let us say that GE says we will follow the same rule and 
now on, anyone who wants to take the Fifth Amendment as to 
Communistic activities shall not work in a GE plant. Would you 
support them on that? Would you try to get your union to 
support them or would you feel that people who take the Fifth 
Amendment and refuse to tell whether they are committing 
espionage and sabotage could continue to work at secret and top 
secret and confidential work?
    As I say, that is not a trick question.
    Mr. Rissland. It is a very frank question. In the first 
place, that type person would never get in there and he would 
never pass the screening.
    The Chairman. Let us assume that they are in there.
    Mr. Rissland. We again would have no control, and if 
management took that position they were going to move them, 
then I would definitely fight it because management could do 
that to any worker, any worker.
    The Chairman. Let us take the Fifth Amendment cases.
    Mr. Rissland. There might be a time when I have to use the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You would fight as of now the removal from GE 
of people who take the Fifth Amendment as to espionage and 
sabotage, and communism?
    Mr. Rissland. Not to espionage or sabotage, but if a guy 
stood on his Fifth Amendment for a political belief, communism, 
I would fight it, and I would say that.
    The Chairman. I just wanted to know that. I have nothing 
further. I think that that answers it.
    Mr. Rissland. Do you want to take this?
    Mr. Cohn. Sure, we will be glad to take that.
    Mr. Rissland. You probably have seen it before.
    The Chairman. Have we got your title in the UE?
    Mr. Rissland. Assistant recording secretary.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you continue to act as a shop steward?
    Mr. Rissland. No, I haven't been a shop steward since I 
first was officer in the UE the year before last, and this is 
the year '53 and the year '52, and I think in the year '51, in 
steward's elections I ran and decided I won the election and 
decided I would be out of my group so much on grievances that I 
couldn't cover the job sufficiently, and we have to have a 
steward on the job and we can't have one that is not there.
    The Chairman. I think we have nothing further.
    Mr. Rissland. I may have taken it for a week or some days 
temporarily, and I think I did have the last summer for a week, 
while one of the other stewards in the group was gone.
    The Chairman. That is all.
    [Whereupon, the hearing was recessed at 10:15 p.m., 
November 12, 1953 to reconvene the following morning, Friday, 
November 13, 1953.]
















    SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE IN DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRY

    [Editor's note.--None of the witnesses at the executive 
session on November 13, 1953, Lillian Krummel, Dewey Franklin 
Brashear (1910-1972), Arthur George, Higeno Hermida, Paul F. 
Hacko (1909-1963), Alex Henry Klein, Harold S. Rollins, John 
Starling Brooks, testified in public session.]

                       FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                        Albany, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 437 of the Federal Building, Albany, New York, Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; C. George 
Anastos, assistant counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director; 
Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; and Robert Jones, 
research assistant to Senator Potter.
    The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you 
solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee, that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Krummel. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LILLIAN KRUMMEL (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, SCOTT 
                            K. GRAY)

    Mr. Gray. For the record, my name is Scott K. Gray, counsel 
for the witness, 5 First Street, member of the firm of Gray & 
Sibley.
    The Chairman. Would the witness give her full name?
    Mrs. Krummel. Lillian Krummel, K-r-u-m-m-e-l; Mrs. Krummel.
    The Chairman. What was your name before you were married?
    Mrs. Krummel. This is my second marriage.
    Mr. Gray. I wanted to clear that up, Senator. The subpoena 
was issued in the name of Garcia.
    The Chairman. This is Lillian Garcia?
    Mr. Gray. She now has remarried, and is of a different 
name.
    The Chairman. Your name now is Mrs. Krummel?
    Mrs. Krummel. Yes.
    The Chairman. Your husband's first name is what?
    Mrs. Krummel. William.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    Mrs. Krummel. In General Electric Company.
    The Chairman. Do you know what type of clearance he has? Do 
you know what type of badge he wears? Is it confidential, or 
secret, or top secret?
    Mrs. Krummel. I don't want to answer that. It is a 
matrimonial relationship, and I am invoking the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you work for GE?
    Mrs. Krummel. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mrs. Krummel. Yes. I am wearing it.
    The Chairman. Could I see it, please?
    I note that is unclassified. How long have you been working 
at GE?
    Mrs. Krummel. It will be three years, almost three years.
    The Chairman. In what department do you work?
    Mrs. Krummel. The gas turbine, accounting.
    The Chairman. Do you know who the turbines are being made 
for? Is it the Defense Department?
    Mr. Gray. Excuse us just a moment.
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I am sorry, I refuse to answer the question 
on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question. 
There is no way you can be incriminated by an answer to the 
question as to where the turbines are going. You understand you 
can only invoke the Fifth Amendment if you think your answer 
will incriminate you, and we do not allow witnesses to play 
with that here. I asked you if you know where those turbines 
are destined for. Is it the Defense Department or not? You can 
answer that question.
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I have the right to refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. All right, you are informed that you will be 
cited for contempt for it, and your case will go to the grand 
jury.
    Is the Communist party paying your lawyer?
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I am paying him, we are.
    The Chairman. Why don't you sensibly advise your client 
there what she can refuse to answer? If she is following your 
advice, you are giving her awfully bad advice.
    Mr. Gray. That is my responsibility, and I understand that.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been discussing your work with the 
members of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did the Communist party help you get your job 
at GE?
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been engaged in espionage?
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you tell us whether or not you 
are engaged in espionage, that answer might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mrs. Krummel. I stand on the Fifth Amendment, and I refuse 
to answer.
    The Chairman. You have no Fifth Amendment privilege unless 
you tell me that you feel that your answer will tend to 
incriminate you.
    Mrs. Krummel. The Fifth Amendment says that a person may 
not be compelled to act as a witness against himself.
    The Chairman. You have been asked the question whether or 
not you are engaging in espionage against your country. Will 
you listen to me, now. You have been asked a very simple 
question: Whether or not you are engaging in espionage against 
your country. You must answer that unless you think that a 
truthful answer will tend to incriminate you.
    I ask you the question: Do you feel a truthful answer would 
tend to incriminate you? If you think it will tend to 
incriminate you, then you can refuse to answer. Do you 
understand by your refusal you are in effect telling this 
committee and telling the world that you are engaging in 
espionage, because if you are not engaging in espionage, then 
you simply say, ``No, I am not,'' and that can in no way 
incriminate you.
    I now ask you the question: Do you think that an answer to 
that question would tend to incriminate you?
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is your husband engaging in espionage?
    [Whereupon, the witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that 
any information between me and my husband is privileged, and I 
invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. What was your maiden name?
    Mrs. Krummel. Lindenfelser L-i-n-d-e-n-f-e-l-s-e-r.
    The Chairman. How old are you?
    Mrs. Krummel. I am twenty-six.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mrs. Krummel. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What was your first husband's name?
    Mrs. Krummel. Marshall.
    The Chairman. What was his first name?
    Mr. Gray. Marshall is the answer.
    Mrs. Krummel. Garcia.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist before you married 
Marshall Garcia?
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mrs. Krummel. Queens College.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist before you went to 
college?
    Mrs. Krummel. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Are you sure you do not want to tell us 
whether or not you are engaging in espionage as of today?
    Mrs. Krummel. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to.
    That will be all. You will consider yourself under 
subpoena, and we will notify your counsel when you are wanted 
again.
    We will try to give you sufficient notice before we want 
the witness again.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
Do you solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee 
that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Brashear. I do.

              TESTIMONY OF DEWEY FRANKLIN BRASHEAR

    The Chairman. Your name is Dewey Brashear?
    Mr. Brashear. That is correct.
    The Chairman. B-r-a-s-h-e-a-r?
    Mr. Brashear. Dewey Franklin Brashear.
    The Chairman. Where are you working now?
    Mr. Brashear. At General Electric Company.
    The Chairman. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Brashear. Since June 6, 1941.
    The Chairman. What type of work are you doing?
    Mr. Brashear. I am a maintenance man, and I do general 
maintenance work.
    The Chairman. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mr. Brashear. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me see that.
    [Badge handed to the chairman.]
    That is not a cleared badge. Have you ever had security 
clearance?
    Mr. Brashear. Not since the war. During World War II, I did 
when I first went there.
    The Chairman. What is your salary per week or per month 
over there?
    Mr. Brashear. Well, roughly $75 a week.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party now, 
or have you ever been a member?
    Mr. Brashear. I decline to answer that question. I invoke 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You feel that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you, is that correct?
    Mr. Brashear. Senator, I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Before I can decide whether you are entitled 
to the privilege of the Fifth Amendment, I must know from you 
whether or not you think that your answer might tend to 
incriminate you. Otherwise, you will be ordered to answer. Do 
you feel that your answer to that question might tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. Sir, I feel that any answer about my personal 
beliefs or attitudes is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution, which I feel that I can refuse to answer, 
respectfully.
    The Chairman. If that is your ground, then you will be 
ordered to answer the question. You are ordered to answer the 
question.
    Mr. Brashear. Would you repeat the question, please?
    The Chairman. The question is: Are you a member of the 
Communist party today, or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer the question, sir, on the 
grounds stated, namely, the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact you do not have counsel 
here to advise you, we will advise you now that you are not 
entitled to the privilege of the Fifth Amendment unless you 
tell me that you feel that a truthful answer would tend to 
incriminate you. You are not entitled to refuse because perjury 
might incriminate you. The Fifth Amendment does not extend to 
perjury. If you refuse to answer, your case will be submitted 
to the attorney general and the grand jury, and I will ask that 
you be indicted for contempt.
    I just want you to know that, so you cannot claim ignorance 
at some future time as to what is now going on. Now that you 
have been advised, I am going to ask you this question: Do you 
feel that if you were to tell us whether or not you are now or 
ever have been a member of the Communist party, and were to 
tell us the truth, that that truthful answer would tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I respectfully repeat that I do not have to 
testify against myself under the Fifth Amendment of the 
Constitution. That is my answer, sir.
    The Chairman. All right, Mister.
    Mr. Brashear. That is all I have to say.
    The Chairman. You can pile up as many of those counts as 
you want to. You are ordered to answer the question now. Will 
you answer the question of whether or not you are now or ever 
have been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Brashear. Is that another question, sir?
    The Chairman. Will you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
    [The question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer the question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment, and I am invoking the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, under 
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to tell us the 
truth as to whether you have been engaged in espionage, that 
that truthful answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. Sir, I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are ordered, then, to answer the question 
of whether or not you have engaged in espionage.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that the 
witness sits mute and refuses to answer.
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer, sir, on the grounds of 
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will not interrupt me, sir.
    Will you have the record show that the witness has been 
asked a question of whether he is engaged in espionage, and he 
refuses to tell the chair whether or not he feels that his 
answer to that question would tend to incriminate him; and he 
therefore has been ordered to answer the question, because he 
has no Fifth Amendment privilege under the circumstances. And 
have the record show that he continues to refuse to answer the 
question; and that the witness has been informed, in view of 
the fact he does not have counsel, that again this case will be 
submitted to the grand jury and they will be asked to return an 
indictment against him for contempt of a Senate committee.
    Have you been engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
ground of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer to that 
question would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
same grounds, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are ordered, then, to answer the question 
of whether or not you have been engaging in sabotage.
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. How long have you belonged to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Why don't some of you Communists have enough 
guts to come in and stand up for what you believe in? We have 
some respect for a man like Earl Browder who comes in here and 
says, ``Sure, I am a Communist.'' But when you find these 
shrinking creatures who come in and are afraid to tell what 
they stand for--if you are a traitor to your country, why not 
have enough guts to come in and say, ``Of course I am a 
traitor, and here is why I am a traitor.''
    Do you consider yourself a traitor, being a member of the 
Communist party, engaging in espionage?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You have a right to refuse.
    Have you been head of a Communist cell?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on 
the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been ordered by the Communist party 
to obtain classified material from GE and turn it over to 
people known to you to be espionage agents?
    Mr. Brashear. I invoke the Fifth Amendment on that 
question, too, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer to that 
question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I invoke the Fifth Amendment on that, too, 
sir.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question, then, 
as to whether or not you have been obtaining material from GE 
and turning it over to known espionage agents. I assume you 
still refuse.
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. How old are you?
    Mr. Brashear. Forty-three, sir.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Brashear. Sunset, Texas.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Brashear. Dallas, two or three different places. Shall 
I name them all? Dallas mainly.
    The Chairman. Did you attend a meeting of the Communist 
party last night?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did the Communist party send orders to your 
union last night to call a strike today?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you get instructions from the Communist 
party last night as to a strike today?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir. I 
invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel an answer to that question might 
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir.
    The Chairman. You are then ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Brashear. I decline to answer the question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you attend a meeting last night?
    Mr. Brashear. Did I?
    The Chairman. Yes. It is a simple question: Did you attend 
a meeting last night?
    Mr. Brashear. Did I attend a meeting last night?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Brashear. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You did not attend a gathering of any kind?
    Mr. Brashear. I don't recall, sir.
    The Chairman. You do not remember whether you attended a 
gathering or not, last night?
    Mr. Brashear. Well, a gathering could be more than three 
people.
    The Chairman. Do you recall whether you attended a 
gathering?
    Mr. Brashear. I am not trying to hedge on technicalities. I 
am only saying anything is possible.
    The Chairman. Well, did you attend a gathering last night?
    Mr. Brashear. Not that I recall, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you remember if you had?
    Mr. Brashear. I probably would.
    The Chairman. You probably would? You mean as of today you 
do not know whether you attended a gathering last night?
    Mr. Brashear. That would depend on the size of the quorum.
    The Chairman. How large a gathering did you attend?
    Mr. Brashear. I didn't attend any gathering that I 
remember.
    The Chairman. Where were you last night?
    Mr. Brashear. I was at home, I think, most of the night.
    The Chairman. Don't you know? You say you ``think.''
    Mr. Brashear. Well----
    The Chairman. Do you know where you were last night?
    Mr. Brashear. I was at home.
    The Chairman. What time did you get home last night?
    Mr. Brashear. Well, I don't usually time myself, but I 
usually get home about six o'clock or 6:30.
    The Chairman. Was there anyone in your home last night 
except yourself and your immediate family?
    Mr. Brashear. Sir, I think that is an invasion of my 
personal rights, and I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. On what grounds?
    Mr. Brashear. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. On the ground it might tend to incriminate 
you if you told us who was at your home last night?
    Mr. Brashear. I didn't say that, sir.
    The Chairman. I am asking you.
    Mr. Brashear. I don't have to testify against myself. That 
is the way I understand the Fifth Amendment, at least.
    The Chairman. You refuse to tell me whether or not you 
think that that answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. Yes, sir, I do, on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to tell us who was in 
your home last night, and I have reference particularly to 
members of the Communist party.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness still refuses 
to answer.
    Mr. Brashear. I still refuse to answer, on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me, not incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You say it will not?
    Mr. Brashear. Those were your words.
    The Chairman. What were your words?
    Mr. Brashear. I am invoking the Fifth Amendment, 
specifically.
    The Chairman. Did you meet with Friedlander last night?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is Friedlander a member of your Communist 
cell?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is it your opinion that the UE is controlled 
by the Communist party?
    Did you hear the question?
    Mr. Brashear. Yes, sir. I was deliberating for a moment, if 
I may.
    The Chairman. Go ahead, as long as you want to.
    Mr. Brashear. I consider that question an invasion of my 
personal rights as a member of an organization, as a citizen, 
and I refuse to answer it on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that your answer would tend to 
incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
same grounds.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question, 
whether or not you consider the UE Communist-dominated and 
controlled.
    Mr. Brashear. I again refuse on the grounds of the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you gotten directions from the Communist 
party within the past week?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer to that 
question would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brashear. I refuse to answer that one for the same 
reason.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question 
of whether or not you have gotten instructions from the 
Communist party within the last week.
    Mr. Brashear. I am again, sir, invoking the Fifth 
Amendment, in answer to that question.
    The Chairman. Let me tell you again, just so that at future 
legal proceedings you cannot claim ignorance, you cannot claim 
that you were entrapped; let me inform you that you are only 
entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege if you feel that your 
answer will tend to incriminate you. And you have consistently 
refused to tell the chair whether or not you feel the answer 
would tend to incriminate you. Under the circumstances, you are 
not entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege; and again I want 
to tell you for your own information, so that you can hire 
yourself a lawyer if you want to, that each and every case of 
contempt which you build up against yourself will be submitted 
to the grand jury, and we will ask for an indictment on all of 
the counts. I think that you should get a lawyer. Each count 
carries considerable time.
    I believe there is nothing further to be gained by 
proceeding with this witness.
    If you want to go out and talk to a lawyer, I think that 
you should. We will give you half an hour, if you want to 
change your mind and come back in and either answer the 
questions or properly invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    We will have the record show that if the witness asks for 
more time to consult counsel, we will undoubtedly give it to 
him.
    Have the record show that the witness sits mute and does 
not ask for time.
    You may leave.
    Mr. Brashear. Is there a question pending, sir?
    The Chairman. You may leave.
    Mr. Brashear. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In the matter 
now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. George. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR GEORGE

    Mr. Carr. Your name is Arthur George?
    Mr. George. Arthur George.
    Mr. Carr. And your address?
    Mr. George. Rexford, New York.
    Mr. Carr. On Hollister Avenue?
    Mr. George. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Are you presently employed at the General 
Electric Company?
    Mr. George. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. What is your occupation?
    Mr. George. Tool and die worker.
    Mr. Carr. Is that your badge?
    Mr. George. That is our badge to get in with.
    Mr. Carr. Is that a clearance badge, or what is the 
clearance on that?
    Mr. George. It is non-classified.
    Mr. Carr. What type of work do you work on?
    Mr. George. On the regular tool and die work, not 
classified; punch press it is, punch press department.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether or not any of that work is 
government work?
    Mr. George. To my knowledge, it is not. I never heard that 
it was.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man by the name of Friedlander?
    Mr. George. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Sidney Friedlander?
    Mr. George. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Is he a personal friend of yours?
    Mr. George. He is our shop steward.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know him other than through your union 
activities?
    Mr. George. No, that is the only way I know him.
    Mr. Carr. You are a member of the UE?
    Mr. George. Yes. And, of course, you come pretty close to a 
shop steward, if you mean that way.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it true that you have come much closer than 
some of the other men in the shop?
    Mr. George. Oh, no. That is pure gossip. They are much 
closer than I am to him, because my work doesn't require it as 
much as some.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it true that you have supported him in his 
campaigns for elections?
    Mr. George. Yes, that is true. You mean in the shop?
    The Chairman. Did you know he was a Communist while you 
were supporting him?
    Mr. George. No. I still don't. I can't say that I know, and 
I never asked, and he never said he was. But it is common 
knowledge that he is, and that is all I know.
    Mr. Carr. It is common knowledge that he is?
    Mr. George. I have no personal knowledge.
    Mr. Carr. You have no personal knowledge?
    Mr. George. No. He never told me he was.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever ask him?
    Mr. George. I never asked him, and he never volunteered to 
tell me.
    Mr. Carr. Do you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. George. I do.
    Mr. Carr. How long have you subscribed to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. George. I can't say offhand. I think around a year, 
or----
    Mr. Carr. What is your purpose in subscribing to the Daily 
Worker?
    Mr. George. Reading that. I want to know what is going on, 
and I get into trouble doing that. I get everything that I can 
get a hold of.
    Mr. Carr. You want to know what the Communists are doing?
    Mr. George. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. For what purpose?
    Mr. George. Well, I can't conduct myself properly if I 
don't know what they are doing.
    The Chairman. Do you favor the Communist party?
    Mr. George. I can't say that I do.
    The Chairman. Are you against their policies?
    Mr. George. Well, I am not an expert at that. I try to find 
out what they are doing and try to sift it out, what is being 
said, and I am not competent to say.
    The Chairman. Are you for or against communism, or can you 
say?
    Mr. George. I am not for communism.
    The Chairman. Are you against it?
    Mr. George. I can't say that I am for it or against it; and 
I am not concerned with it, only when they tell me things, and 
I probably say things that I shouldn't.
    Mr. Carr. Why, for instance, would you say the Communist 
party will some day be the salvation of this country?
    Mr. George. Why should I say that?
    Mr. Carr. Why would you say that?
    Mr. George. I shouldn't say that.
    Mr. Carr. Is that one of the things that you say which you 
shouldn't say?
    Mr. George. I have never said that, because I don't know 
that much. I am not for advocating any kind of government other 
than our own. I am concerned about our government, and I have 
always said that if we don't know what other governments are 
doing, how are we going to know----
    Mr. Carr. Is that why you read the books of Lenin and Marx?
    Mr. George. Yes, that is right. I haven't read too much of 
that. They give me credit for it.
    Mr. Carr. Where do you get these books concerning Lenin and 
Marx and their writings?
    Mr. George. I don't know that I have had a book 
particularly by Lenin and Marx. It is just a pamphlet.
    Mr. Carr. Where do you pick them up?
    Mr. George. I pick them up at different places. Somebody 
will hand them to me.
    Mr. Carr. On the corner book stand?
    Mr. George. I never got any in a bookstand--yes, I have. I 
did once. What did I get?
    The Chairman. Have you ever joined the Communist party?
    Mr. George. No, positively no.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join?
    Mr. George. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. George. Never.
    The Chairman. You say that even though it is general 
knowledge that Friedlander was a Communist, you still supported 
him in his campaign for election?
    Mr. George. Yes, I did that.
    The Chairman. Do you think that a Communist----
    Mr. George. It is generally accepted he is our shop 
steward, and he is there legally, and he is pretty well liked 
in union circles there.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a Communist can properly 
represent you?
    Mr. George. Well, I am not competent to say about that. His 
duties there in the shop have been aboveboard, as far as I 
could see, and the supervision kept him, and I am nobody and I 
can't sift out any of that knowledge.
    The Chairman. Just a moment. You have had no trouble 
sifting. You told us it is general knowledge he was a 
Communist, and you have nothing to sift there. You said you 
supported him for election.
    Mr. George. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that a man like you who 
campaigns for a man whom you know is a Communist, and tries to 
get him into a position of power in the union, should be doing 
work and drawing money from our government?
    Mr. George. Well, we are in a little different position.
    The Chairman. It is a simple question. Do you think so?
    Mr. George. Here we have a man that is concerned about our 
bread and butter. I am not in a position to know anything above 
that, only what I read. And he is giving it to us and the rest 
of them accept it, and I am not all alone in this.
    The Chairman. You say Friedlander is giving you your bread 
and butter?
    Mr. George. On these grievances and the different things 
that he is fighting for, and I don't know his purpose. Nobody 
asked him his purpose. If a job comes out there and the price 
is wrong, they go to him. You see, it is a different atmosphere 
than I can explain.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you and Sidney Friedlander read various 
publications of the Communist party?
    Mr. George. The Daily Worker.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever read, for example, a book by 
Beria entitled The Soviet Union Builds for Peace?
    Mr. George. No, I never read that.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know whether or not Sidney Friedlander 
is a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. George No, I have no knowledge.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever go with Sidney Friedlander to 
Communist party headquarters in New York City?
    Mr. George. Never. They circulated that around our shop, 
but never; I have no idea where it is.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to New York with him?
    Mr. George. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where did you go in New York?
    Mr. George. Well, I went to the YMCA.
    The Chairman. Did Friedlander go there?
    Mr. George. No, he didn't go there.
    The Chairman. Is that the only place you went to in New 
York with Friedlander?
    Mr. George. Well, let me see. We were looking through a 
music store, and I was looking for music for my choir; and what 
else did I do? Very little. I had very little contact with him 
there.
    The Chairman. What was the purpose of the trip to New York?
    Mr. George. I told him I was going to New York, and he 
said, ``Come along.''
    The Chairman. Did he drive down?
    Mr. George. Yes, he drove down. It seems strange, but that 
is the way it was.
    The Chairman. There is nothing strange about two Communists 
chumming together, nothing strange at all.
    Mr. George. Who is the other Communist?
    The Chairman. It is the usual thing. Does he visit at your 
home?
    Mr. George. He has been there.
    The Chairman. How often?
    Mr. George. Very little. The last time we discussed it, I 
organized a forty-voice choir in our shop.
    The Chairman. I asked you how often he visited at your 
home.
    Mr. George. Very little, and I can't say.
    The Chairman. How often per month?
    Mr. George. Not per month. He might have been there a 
couple of times, or three times.
    The Chairman. Three times a month, or altogether?
    Mr. George. Altogether. It has been very little.
    The Chairman. Do you visit in his home?
    Mr. George. I have been there.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. George. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where?
    Mr. George. In Schenectady.
    The Chairman. And your testimony today is that you have no 
reason to believe that Friedlander is a Communist?
    Mr. George. I said I have no knowledge that he is.
    The Chairman. Have you any reason to believe that he is?
    Mr. George. Well, it looks like it, that is all I can say, 
and I have no knowledge. You wanted to know my knowledge of it. 
I have no knowledge.
    The Chairman. You say it looks as though he is a Communist?
    Mr. George. It does look so, yes.
    The Chairman. You subscribe to the Daily Worker. What other 
papers or magazines do you subscribe to?
    Mr. George. That is all.
    The Chairman. That is all?
    Mr. George. That is all. Of that nature, you mean?
    The Chairman. Of any nature.
    Mr. George. Of any nature? I have several. I get Christian 
Advocate, and Saturday Evening Post, and I get Life.
    The Chairman. You subscribe to Life, Saturday Evening 
Post----
    Mr. George. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman [continuing]. And Christian Advocate. What 
else?
    Mr. George. I think that is all I subscribe to, and I can't 
think of any right now. I pick up different things here and 
there, and I can't think of any I subscribe for.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever sign a petition entitled ``Defeat 
the Mundt-Ferguson-Nixon Attack on Civil Liberties''?
    Mr. George. I have no knowledge of that. I cannot recall.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever sign such a petition, on November 
16, 1950?
    Mr. George. What is that? What did I sign?
    Mr. Anastos. I am asking you a question.
    Mr. George. I don't know. You mean that first question?
    Mr. Anastos. I am asking you if you signed, on November 16, 
1950, a petition entitled ``Defeat the Mundt-Ferguson-Nixon 
Attack on Civil Liberties''?
    Mr. George. I don't recall that, and I honestly don't. I 
don't even remember that pamphlet.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know Gordon Belgrave?
    Mr. George. Yes. He is a toolmaker in my shop.
    Mr. Anastos. Are you very friendly with him?
    Mr. George. Just to meet him in the shop.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. George. I have no knowledge of it.
    Mr. Anastos. Has it ever been reported to you that he was a 
Communist?
    Mr. George. Yes, I have heard that.
    Mr. Anastos. Did Belgrave ever tell you that he was a 
Communist?
    Mr. George. No. I never even discussed it with him.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you and Belgrave ever discuss Communist 
ideology?
    Mr. George. I don't think I have. He is not much on that, 
and I don't recall ever discussing those kind of problems. He 
is not much on that.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know any Communist in the General 
Electric Company?
    Mr. George. No, I don't.
    Mr. Anastos. You don't know any at all?
    Mr. George. I have no knowledge of any.
    Mr. Anastos. Nobody in General Electric has ever told you 
he was a Communist?
    Mr. George. No one ever did.
    The Chairman. You say you have no knowledge of any. Do you 
have any reason to believe that there are Communists in General 
Electric?
    Mr. George. Yes, from what I read and the noise around. 
That is all of the knowledge I have.
    The Chairman. Do you think there are quite a few there?
    Mr. George. Well, it kind of looks so now, but I didn't 
think so.
    The Chairman. But you think there are quite a few now?
    Mr. George. I would say it looks like it, but I have no 
knowledge of it. I have no way of knowing.
    The Chairman. Do you think Communists should be allowed to 
work on government work?
    Mr. George. No.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think the Communists 
should be gotten rid of?
    Mr. George. I can't see why they should, no, not in 
government work.
    The Chairman. You do not see why they should be allowed to 
work on government work?
    Mr. George. I don't think that that is right, no.
    The Chairman. In other words, a man like Friedlander you 
think should not be working on government work?
    Mr. George. I think that they shouldn't be; that is my 
personal opinion.
    The Chairman. Can you tell me why you support Communists, 
why you support a Communist to represent you in a shop doing 
government work? It sounds contradictory to me.
    Mr. George. He is there as our shop steward, and he has 
been elected in there; and it puts us all in a bad light, I 
know, but we are only concerned about our bread and butter, 
that is, mostly people in my position are concerned about that.
    The Chairman. I want to inform you that you are wrong; that 
there are a lot of people in your group who are good, loyal 
Americans, who are willing to fight Communists and not support 
them, and they will not sell out their country for bread and 
butter.
    Mr. George. I don't think that I am in that position.
    The Chairman. I just want you to know----
    Mr. George. I served in the First World War.
    The Chairman [continuing]. You are not properly giving a 
picture of that situation.
    Mr. George. I have strongly defended my country.
    The Chairman. You may leave.
    Mr. George. All right.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hermida. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF HIGENO HERMIDA

    Mr. Carr. Your name is what?
    Mr. Hermida. Higeno Hermida; H-i-g-e-n-o, H-e-r-m-i-d-a.
    Mr. Carr. What is your address?
    Mr. Hermida. 328 Furman Street, Schenectady.
    Mr. Carr. You are employed at the General Electric Company?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. In what capacity?
    Mr. Hermida. Wire department.
    Mr. Carr. What do you do? Are you a machinist or an 
electrician?
    Mr. Hermida. I do grinding.
    Mr. Carr. How long have you been there at GE?
    Mr. Hermida. At GE, thirty-five years.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. In what years?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't know the dates. I think it was in 
1946; around 1946, I think.
    Mr. Carr. In 1946?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Was that in Schenectady?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. How did you happen to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Hermida. Well, I joined the Communist party--I am 
sorry--you know, during the strike in General Electric, they 
were around and everything, and they took us fellows around to 
different places, to help out, and asked for money to support 
the newspaper and the Daily Worker and all of that stuff. I 
wasn't much for that, and I never worked for anybody in 
particular, and I retired from that stuff.
    All I was--I gave my money, and I came with a car once in 
awhile, and they take me to different places, and I meet there, 
and then I quit.
    Mr. Carr. When did you quit?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't know. About 1947, or around in there.
    Mr. Carr. And sometime in 1946 you joined with them?
    Mr. Hermida. I think they give me one card to sign.
    Mr. Carr. One card to sign?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Did you give them some money, say $1, at that 
time?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes. I think that I gave them more than a 
dollar. They usually ask for $2 or $3 or $4, you know, for 
different things.
    Mr. Carr. During this period of approximately a year that 
you were actively with them, you helped them in their 
petitions, in their distributing of the Daily Worker, and in 
distributing pamphlets?
    Mr. Hermida. No, I didn't have time for that.
    Mr. Carr. What did you help them with; just money?
    Mr. Hermida. Just a little money, yes, sir, and that is all 
they wanted from me, and they know where my money went for. One 
time there was a fellow over there from the shop, and they 
talked about discrimination, and there was a special meeting on 
discrimination in the South against the colored people, or 
something like that. I don't like it, and I don't like the way 
they go into that business, and that was the last day I saw 
them.
    Mr. Carr. That is one of the things that helped you to 
decide to get out of it?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, because I thought, you know, it was 
helping something and doing something good; and after I find 
out, I don't like it any more.
    Mr. Carr. While you were in the party--I just want to clear 
this up--while you were in the party working with them, isn't 
it true that you distributed or obtained signatures for a 
Communist party nominating petition?
    Mr. Hermida. No. One time they came to me, and they said 
they wanted to put the party in the voting, and if I wanted to 
sign. They wanted to put the party in the ballot, and ``You 
don't have to vote for the party, or anything; just sign that, 
and the party is going on the ballot.''
    Mr. Carr. And you signed it?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir, I signed it.
    Mr. Carr. Didn't you also take the petitions around and get 
other people to sign?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, no.
    Mr. Carr. Well, now, do you know a man by the name of 
Francisco?
    Mr. Hermida. Francisco, yes.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it true that you had him and other people 
living in his block sign a petition?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, no.
    Mr. Carr. Now, this is just a question of trying to clear 
up your memory. In addition to signing it, you also had other 
people sign it?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, no, I never handled any papers or anything 
like that.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall actually signing the paper?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, I signed one paper; yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall where you signed the paper?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, I recall that. Right.
    Mr. Carr. Where did you sign the paper?
    Mr. Hermida. I think it was someplace on J Street.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall whether you signed the paper at the 
top or the bottom or the middle?
    Mr. Hermida. No. There was a list of people.
    Mr. Carr. You were one of the people in this list?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir, I signed that list.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you this question: If it were shown to 
you that you had signed the paper at the part where it says 
that you were the man who went around and obtained the 
signatures, would that surprise you, or do you think that that 
is possible?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't think it could be possible. They gave 
me the paper to sign.
    Mr. Carr. And then took it back?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, they took it back.
    Mr. Carr. You don't remember asking anybody else to sign 
it, yourself?
    Mr. Hermida. No. They never handed me any paper.
    Mr. Carr. You signed it, and that is all?
    Mr. Hermida. Three times they handed me a pamphlet like 
that, and I don't have time for that.
    Mr. Carr. You didn't do that?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Carr. Who asked you to join the Communist party?
    The Chairman. At this point in the record, I think that we 
should insert the affidavit which he swore to. He swore before 
a notary public that he circulated the paper. We will put it in 
the record.
    Mr. Hermida. They asked me many times, and handed me 
pamphlets, and I never took it. I never took a pamphlet. They 
asked me one time, and I remember, I think it was on J Street, 
one had many names, and they told me it was for putting the 
party in the ballot, if I wanted to sign, and I signed that.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you do not have a 
lawyer, I think we should inform you that we have in the 
possession of the committee an affidavit which you signed and 
swore to before a notary public, and in which you swore that 
you circulated a Communist nominating petition. Today you tell 
us that you never circulated such a petition, and I just want 
to inform you that your testimony under oath today is directly 
contradictory to the oath you signed in the affidavit which is 
in the possession of the committee. So you are either guilty of 
perjury or you were falsely swearing at the time you signed the 
paper. I want you to know that for your own protection.
    Mr. Hermida. I don't quite understand what you are saying, 
what you mean by that.
    The Chairman. The committee has the Communist petition, 
sworn to by you before a notary public, in which you swore that 
you circulated that and you got the names on the petition. If 
that was true then, you are guilty of perjury now. If you are 
telling the truth now, and you never circulated that, you swore 
falsely at the time you went before the notary public.
    Mr. Hermida. Wait a minute. I remember something now about 
something like that. A fellow came to me, and he took me----
    The Chairman. You say you now remember something?
    Mr. Hermida. Wait a minute----
    The Chairman. Do you say that you now suddenly remember it?
    Mr. Hermida. I remember one thing. I am going to tell you 
what happened, that can be possibly mistaken there. A fellow 
came over there and took me to Mechanicville, and he went from 
house to house in Mechanicville, and he signed people over 
there, and I was with him in the car. I don't know how many 
signatures he got over there, but that was for the party, for 
putting the party on the ballot.
    We came back to Schenectady, and he went to three or four 
places, too, and he got some signatures, and I think that I 
signed that paper, too.
    The Chairman. Who was this fellow?
    Mr. Hermida. The fellow's name is--I can't remember. His 
last name is Klein.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Hermida. I think it is K-l, I am no good on spelling.
    The Chairman. Is Klein the name? I am having trouble 
understanding you. Do you say that the name is ``Klein''? Was 
his first name ``Harold''?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, that is right. Harold Klein; that is the 
fellow.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Hermida. I was born in Spain.
    The Chairman. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Hermida. I came to this country in 1916.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Hermida. Sixty-three next May.
    The Chairman. When did you become a citizen?
    Mr. Hermida. In 1940.
    The Chairman. Had you ever been a member of the Communist 
party before 1940?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Who asked you to join the party in 1946?
    Mr. Hermida. There was another fellow before Klein, and I 
don't remember his name. The first name was ``Bob,'' and I 
don't know his second name.
    The Chairman. Did he work at GE?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. He did not work at GE?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    The Chairman. Where did you meet him, then?
    Mr. Hermida. I met him at the union--not in the union, but 
downstairs. And he was over there, you know, in 1946 when the 
strike came, and we went on strike.
    The Chairman. At the time of the strike in 1946, some 
Communist by the name of Bob got you to join the party?
    Mr. Hermida. They don't take me to join the party then. 
They took us to one place on J Street and started to talking to 
us to help here and there, you know, and we really fought for 
that.
    The Chairman. Did they tell you at the time that the 
Communists were calling the strike?
    Mr. Hermida. No, they didn't say that; but, you know, they 
told us the Communist party was helping the strike, and we were 
supposed to help them, and they started taking our money.
    The Chairman. Where was this fellow Bob from, do you know? 
From what city was he?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't know. He was there for a little while 
after Klein appeared.
    The Chairman. This is some outside Communist, and not a 
worker in the GE plant, who came in and helped organize the 
strike; is that the situation?
    Mr. Hermida. He was kind of helping with the strike.
    Mr. Anastos. While you were in the Communist party, what 
persons working in General Electric did you know to be 
Communists?
    Mr. Hermida. I didn't know anybody in General Electric in 
the Communist party. Really, I was not much acquainted with 
them, you know. Sometimes they would come and take me to the 
meetings, and that is all that I knew.
    Mr. Anastos. Which employees of General Electric attended 
these Communist party meetings with you?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't remember anybody.
    Mr. Carr. Don't go halfway with us, now. You come in here 
and you tell us that you had joined the Communist party, and 
you found out it was a mistake and found that instead of 
helping you they succeeded in taking your money away from you, 
and you tell us that you left the party. Now, don't go halfway 
with us. Tell us the rest of the story, and tell us who these 
people were. You say that they really fooled ``us,'' and who 
else did they fool? Have you ever told anybody that you had 
been in the Communist party? Don't go halfway with us on that.
    Mr. Hermida. I don't tell anybody I was in the Communist 
party, because I wasn't a Communist or anything like that. I 
wasn't in the Communist party. I was just in, and I was out.
    Mr. Carr. In the year that you were in the Communist party, 
you never met another Communist, another worker for the 
Communist party as you were, who worked at General Electric?
    Mr. Hermida. Well, there was one fellow. He was the only 
man I saw who worked in the General Electric in these meetings, 
and he came from the army. To be sure, the first meeting I met 
him, he wore the uniform of the army. And after, he started 
working in General Electric. And the name is Rudy Ellis.
    Mr. Carr. Rudy Ellis?
    Mr. Hermida. I think that was the only fellow that I saw in 
that meeting.
    Mr. Carr. He is the only one you have seen at one of these 
meetings who worked at General Electric?
    Mr. Hermida. And I remember him because, you know, he was a 
short guy, and I saw him in uniform, and then I saw him in the 
shop, and finally I saw him in Building No. 1. I go over there, 
and I saw him working over there. And he is the only fellow I 
can tell you that I met in the meetings.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Paul Hacko?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Charley Rivers?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. Gordon Belgrave?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. You say you know Rudy Ellis?
    Mr. Hermida. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. How long have you known Rudy Ellis?
    Mr. Hermida. Well, since 1946. I tell you, he was coming 
from the army.
    Mr. Jones. Is he still a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hermida. What is that?
    Mr. Jones. Is he still a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't know whether he was a member or not, 
but I know he attended meetings.
    Mr. Jones. Did Sidney Friedlander attend those meetings?
    Mr. Hermida. Friedlander?
    Mr. Jones. Sidney Friedlander. He is a shop steward out 
there at the plant.
    Mr. Hermida. I know Friedlander, and I never saw him.
    Mr. Jones. You never saw Friedlander at a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Hermida. I know Friedlander, and he is working in 
Building 17.
    Mr. Jones. Did you ever see him at one of the Communist 
meetings that you went to?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know him to be a Communist?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Robert Northrop?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. Arthur Owens?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Dante De Cesara?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know a Manny Fernandez?
    Mr. Hermida. Fernandez, Emanuel Fernandez, yes, I know him.
    Mr. Jones. Was he a member of the Communist party when you 
were?
    Mr. Hermida. No, I don't think he was here at that time. I 
think he was in the army during that time.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Emery Pesko?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Raymond Watkins?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    Mr. Jones. Lillian Garcia or Lillian Krummel?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir. Lillian Garcia, that is phony, 
because I know all of the Spanish people, and this name is 
Spanish.
    The Chairman. Did you get Fernandez to sign a Communist 
petition?
    Mr. Hermida. Fernandez a petition?
    The Chairman. Did you get Fernandez to sign a Communist 
party petition?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't think so.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Billy Mastriani?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you get Fernandez to sign a Communist 
petition?
    Mr. Hermida. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. How about Francisco?
    Mr. Hermida. Francisco, no.
    The Chairman. You did not?
    Mr. Hermida. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure?
    Mr. Hermida. No, sir.
    The Chairman. What is Francisco's first name?
    Mr. Hermida. Abden.
    The Chairman. And you never got him to sign a Communist 
petition?
    Mr. Hermida. No. Francisco and I were very friendly for a 
long time, and we know each other, but I never asked him to 
sign.
    The Chairman. Then for your protection, I want to again 
tell you that under oath you signed an affidavit to the effect 
that you got Francisco's name on a Communist petition in 1946.
    Mr. Hermida. Francisco?
    The Chairman. Yes, Francisco.
    Mr. Hermida. Petition for what?
    The Chairman. For the Communist party.
    Mr. Carr. The same petition we were talking about before.
    Mr. Hermida. No. You mean for putting the party on the 
ballot? I don't think so. You see, I tell you what happened, 
the fellow who went around. Maybe Francisco signed the 
petition, but not because I presented it to him for that.
    Mr. Jones. You say you know Billy Mastriani?
    Mr. Hermida. Oh, yes, I know him.
    Mr. Jones. Do you know Mastriani to be a Communist?
    Mr. Hermida. No, I don't.
    Mr. Jones. He never attended any Communist meetings when 
you did?
    Mr. Hermida. No. I know him to be a member of the union, 
but not the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Would you be willing to talk to someone from 
the FBI and give them all of the information you have about the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Hermida. The information I have given to you, I would 
give to anybody.
    The Chairman. That is all, and you may go. I thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Hermida. You are welcome.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hacko, will you raise your right hand. Do 
you solemnly swear in this matter now before the committee that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hacko. I do.

                   TESTIMONY OF PAUL F. HACKO

    Mr. Jones. Will you give your full name.
    Mr. Hacko. Pau F. Hacko, H-a-c-k-o.
    Mr. Jones. What is your address?
    Mr. Hacko. 8 Stone Street, Groversville, New Jersey.
    Mr. Jones. How long have you been employed at General 
Electric?
    Mr. Hacko. I have credited service of approximately 
eighteen or nineteen years.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. First of all, before I answer any questions, I 
believe this committee has violated the Constitution's, the 
rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, 
and they have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United 
States, implemented by the Bill of Rights, and this committee 
has stepped into the judiciary processes of law which are 
guaranteed.
    The Chairman. Before we hear any speech from you, you will 
answer the question.
    Mr. Jones. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. I now use my First, Fifth, and implemented by 
the Fourth Amendment.
    Mr. Jones. If somebody said that you were a Communist, 
would they be lying?
    Mr. Hacko. I wish to state that any public statements that 
I have made, publicly acting as a candidate, acting on the 
American Labor party platform, as a congressional candidate, I 
have made all statements openly and publicly. I do not condone 
any action by any individual, group, or any organization that 
would in any way----
    Mr. Jones. Would they be lying if they said you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. They would.
    Mr. Jones. They would be lying?
    Mr. Hacko. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Did you serve in the armed services, Mr. Hacko?
    Mr. Hacko. The time that the National Guard was converted 
into the State Guard was the only service I had. That was 
Company G, 105th Infantry.
    Mr. Jones. What year were you discharged?
    Mr. Hacko. I believe I got out at the time--I think it was 
between 1943 and 1945.
    Mr. Jones. Have you ever belonged to any group or 
organization that advocated a change in our government or the 
violent overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Hacko. It is a very technical question. I have belonged 
to no organization to my knowledge, or any organization, nor 
would I belong to any organization.
    Mr. Jones. Would you oppose any group advocating the 
violent overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Hacko. If the Congress of the United States so----
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Hacko, would you oppose any group advocating 
the overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Hacko. I certainly would.
    Mr. Jones. In other words, you would oppose the Communist 
party which does advocate the overthrow of this government?
    Mr. Hacko. If under those things I believe you are bringing 
in, where the eleven were convicted under the Smith Act, where 
the leaders were supposed to have advocated that, I will again 
reiterate that you have judiciary processes in which any 
organization must be brought before the court of law and it 
stipulates that neither Congress nor a state legislature shall 
deprive a person of life, liberty, or happiness without due 
process of law. Any such statute enacted shall be declared 
null.
    Mr. Anastos. We are not interested in your interpretation 
of the Smith Act. We have the proper--just a moment. We have 
some questions to ask you and we want some answers. We don't 
want any speeches.
    Mr. Hacko. I haven't got the time to myself, but he 
advocated and said he was in favor of continuing the Korean 
War.
    Mr. Anastos. Are you a member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Hacko. I am, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Isn't the American Labor party dominated by 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. I would say not, no, sir.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you have any information of any kind that 
it is dominated by the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. None whatsoever.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever attended any Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. Hacko. I have never attended any meetings, of any sort.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever attended any cell meetings of 
the Communist party recently?
    Mr. Hacko. Any what?
    Mr. Anastos. Any Communist party cell meetings, c-e-l-l.
    Mr. Hacko. Cell meetings?
    Mr. Anastos. Yes.
    Mr. Hacko. I don't understand. I don't understand that.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever attend, within the last month 
have you attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Hacko. I have never attended any Communist meetings, as 
far as I know.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you within the last month--did you attend 
a meeting presided over by members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't even know of any members of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Anastos. Within the last month did you attend a meeting 
composed of people whom you knew to be Communists?
    Mr. Hacko. I have never attended any meeting, and I don't 
know of any meeting that was held or anything else.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. Hacko. I am not, and first of all in answering that 
question----
    The Chairman. Have you ever belonged to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Hacko. I have never belonged.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Jean Arsenault?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know of any persons, and on those things 
I believe my association is----
    The Chairman. Do you know Jean Arsenault?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know him, not to my knowledge. I might 
know a lot of people by sight.
    The Chairman. Do you know Charles Rivers?
    Mr. Hacko. I might not personally, I can't say.
    The Chairman. Do you know Rudy Ellis?
    Mr. Hacko. I did know him in connection with Local 301.
    The Chairman. If Rivers and Ellis both have sworn under 
oath that you were a Communist, would you say they were 
perjuring themselves or were they telling the truth?
    Mr. Hacko. I would answer them face to face in a court of 
law.
    The Chairman. You say that you are not now and never have 
been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hacko. That is correct, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have your badge with you?
    Mr. Hacko. No, sir, I haven't. I was unfortunate this 
morning. The subpoena was not served on me until half past 
seven, and I wondered how I was even going to get here. I had 
to take the bus.
    The Chairman. What kind of a badge do you have?
    Mr. Hacko. First you have a card, and a picture is taken.
    The Chairman. What kind of clearance do you have?
    Mr. Hacko. Confidential. I mean ones before I filed some 
papers.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have a badge which allows 
you to see confidential material?
    Mr. Hacko. I object to that question, confidential 
material.
    The Chairman. I am just asking you the question. Do you 
have a badge that allows you to see confidential material?
    Mr. Hacko. I wouldn't know what confidential material is.
    The Chairman. Is the top of your badge blue?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    The Chairman. Will you describe it to us? What color badge 
do you have?
    Mr. Hacko. I believe it is red borders, red on top, and red 
below.
    The Chairman. That is secret. You have a badge with red on 
top; that would be secret clearance.
    Mr. Hacko. I forget the type of badge. Those badges were 
changed a couple of times, and we went to a different type of 
badge. Then they re-photographed, I was re-photographed, and 
some of the pictures at the General Electric were not very 
good.
    The Chairman. Do you have a badge for your coat?
    Mr. Hacko. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Is there a red bar across the top?
    Mr. Hacko. I can't quite recall.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Ray Watkins?
    Mr. Hacko. I am going to make a statement. I don't know 
him, but I still say that I do not believe my personal 
acquaintances--I might meet somebody casually. I don't know 
what a person is or what they are. I might meet him in the 
union or through political or religious beliefs.
    The Chairman. If you don't know, just tell us you don't 
know. You don't know whether you know him or not, you don't 
recall?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Did you know Lillian Garcia?
    Mr. Hacko. Now, I am going to refuse to cooperate. I have 
cooperated in every way, in any matter, and now at this time I 
use my First and Fifth Amendments.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you told us whether or 
not you know Lillian Garcia that that would tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Hacko. You are not going to put words in my mouth. I 
say this committee is illegal, and we will let the courts of 
the United States decide whether it is.
    The Chairman. You will see whether you think it is illegal 
or not if you refuse to answer. You must state the grounds on 
which you refuse. Now the only ground which the chairman of 
this committee recognizes for refusal is if you feel that your 
answer might tend to incriminate you. If you feel that your 
answer might tend to incriminate you, you will be allowed to 
refuse; otherwise, you will be ordered to answer.
    Mr. Hacko. I will not answer upon those grounds, and you 
may state what you can do or what you can't do.
    The Chairman. I am not arguing with you; you are here 
without a lawyer and I am trying to advise you----
    Mr. Hacko. I think I can well represent myself.
    The Chairman. Look, don't talk while I am talking.
    Mr. Hacko. Proceed.
    The Chairman. You are here without a lawyer and I intend to 
advise you of the grounds upon which you are ordered to answer 
so that at some future legal proceeding you will not be able to 
claim ignorance of the law. You will not be able to claim you 
did not know what was going on. I am going to ask you certain 
questions about your Communist connections, and I will ask you 
about espionage.
    Mr. Hacko. I object, the objection referring to Communist 
grounds. You are stating that I am, and I object.
    The Chairman. Look, mister, you are going to act like a 
gentleman.
    Mr. Hacko. I am a gentleman, and I believe you are not a 
gentleman.
    The Chairman. And you will be quiet while I am asking the 
questions.
    Mr. Hacko. I will leave.
    The Chairman. Marshall, will you stop this witness?
    Mr. Hacko. You were going to bring me to Albany at eight 
o'clock, subpoenaing a man two hours beforetime and he has to 
go clear to Groversville.
    The Chairman. If you want further time to get counsel and 
prepare to testify, I will give you additional time. If you 
feel that you are not ready to testify----
    Mr. Hacko. You are taking away my Thanksgiving turkey.
    The Chairman. Do you want additional time?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't want anything from you. Maybe Mr. Schine 
does.
    The Chairman. We will have the record show that the chair 
has offered the witness additional time if he wants it. He 
states he wants no additional time.
    Do you know Lillian Garcia?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know those names; I don't know. I might 
meet a lot of people. I might see them in the hall, and I don't 
know.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with 
someone whose first name was Lillian?
    Mr. Hacko. I didn't know there was any Communist meetings. 
I have stated that before.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting with anyone 
whose first name was Lillian?
    Mr. Hacko. A meeting, it might be up in the hall, 301, and 
I don't even know if she belongs to Local 301. There might be 
three or four or five hundred people there.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone by the name of Lillian?
    Mr. Hacko. Not offhand, I don't know. But then maybe I can 
identify somebody by a photograph or something.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone by the name of Lillian 
Krummel?
    Mr. Hacko. I can't recall, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Communist party organizer whose 
first name is Lillian?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know Arthur Owens?
    Mr. Hacko. Do I know Arthur? Yes.
    The Chairman. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. I have met him at meetings, but I don't know. I 
don't inquire into religious and political beliefs and 
individual matters.
    The Chairman. We are not talking about religious and 
political beliefs; we are talking about a conspiracy now.
    Mr. Hacko. They haven't been charged with it.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to believe that Arthur 
Owens is a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. I think that is the job of the FBI; and if any 
man is or advocates that, he should be brought up in a proper 
procedure.
    The Chairman. Are you willing to talk to the FBI and give 
them any information you have about communism?
    Mr. Hacko. That is a technical question.
    The Chairman. You say that is a technical question?
    Mr. Hacko. It is very technical.
    The Chairman. The question is, Are you willing to talk to 
the FBI and give them any information which you might have 
about communism? It is a very simple question. Either you are 
or not.
    Mr. Hacko. It is not very simple.
    The Chairman. Are you willing or not?
    Mr. Hacko. You can waive that question.
    The Chairman. I will not waive the question You just told 
me this is a job of the FBI.
    Mr. Hacko. If----
    The Chairman. Would you prefer----
    Mr. Hacko. To the honorable senator----
    The Chairman. Would you prefer giving the information to 
the FBI? I gather you do not like to give it to the committee. 
I asked you a simple question. If I send an FBI in over to see 
you, would you give him the information which you do not want 
to give this committee?
    Mr. Hacko. If there is an open hearing, I will give more 
than this committee wants to hear, involving methods, if that 
is what you want. Or any member here.
    The Chairman. I want an answer to the question now. Are you 
willing to talk to the FBI and give them any information which 
you have about communism?
    Mr. Hacko. I am not going to answer that question to you.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it unless you think 
the answer would tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Hacko. I will not say that it will. I will make an open 
statement. Inasmuch as this hearing is conducted--I will say 
that I have given evidence, and I have been a stoolpigeon for 
the FBI--and that is what I have been--and I will give you 
names. Call up 4344 and call up 4114, the FBI. I refuse to 
testify anymore, inasmuch as you have put it that way. Any man 
that acts in the best interests of this country, as being 
persons, this questioning should all be closed. Now, that is as 
far as I am going to go. I place myself in jeopardy, and now I 
will state it secretly to these reporters what was done and the 
methods employed, if that is what you want. You and the way the 
FBI works.
    The Chairman. You don't like the FBI?
    Mr. Hacko. Me, I wouldn't have cooperated with them in 
certain things. There is my oath of office, and shall I tell 
you who to call to verify those statements? If that is what 
they want, then let us have everything exposed. I was a rat, a 
stool pigeon, for the FBI, at a bad price.
    The Chairman. Do you think that someone who gives 
information to the FBI about traitors is a rat?
    Mr. Hacko. I will place it this way: There are certain 
things which certain committees should not know and which 
members in this chamber perhaps do not even know, and you force 
a man--you cannot even conduct something between yourselves and 
anybody else. Sure they should be told of any underground or 
any method that would down the principles of the United States 
or do anything harmful or detrimental to this country. But here 
is a person, I don't know whether I can trust this one, or that 
person, or anyone here.
    The Chairman. You have been asked some very simple 
questions, and you can answer them. I am going to let you talk 
as much as you want to.
    Mr. Hacko. Inasmuch as the honorable senator asks me, I 
will state them publicly and openly.
    The Chairman. This young man has got to take down 
everything we say, and you understand that. He cannot do that 
if we are both talking at the same time. I am going to let you 
talk as much as you want to, but don't interrupt me when I am 
talking.
    Now I have asked you a very simple question. Are you 
willing to talk to the FBI and to give them any information 
which you have about Communists?
    Mr. Hacko. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. On what grounds?
    Mr. Hacko. Under this form of questioning.
    The Chairman. Well, you just got through telling me this is 
the work of the FBI and not of this committee. If it is the 
work of the FBI, you see they cannot do it. They cannot do the 
work unless people who know about Communists will work with 
them. We have the sworn testimony here that you are a member 
and have been a member of the Communist party. I am asking you 
a very simple question.
    Mr. Hacko. That is a lie.
    The Chairman. If we have an FBI agent call on you, will you 
give them whatever information you have?
    Mr. Hacko. What you have stated is a lie.
    The Chairman. You mean whoever said you were a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. That is right; that is a lie.
    The Chairman. He is lying?
    Mr. Hacko. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, once you said you were a stoolpigeon. 
Did you go through the motions of being a Communist to help out 
some intelligence agency, the FBI, or some other thing?
    Mr. Hacko. You make me sick. I think that you are doing 
more harm to the government of the United States than anyone 
is.
    The Chairman. Can you get over being sick enough to answer 
the question?
    Mr. Hacko. I haven't even had breakfast, and I don't think 
I can. Now you can hold me for contempt, which I will allow you 
to, but I am walking out of here.
    The Chairman. You are not walking out of here.
    Mr. Hacko. Hold me for contempt.
    The Chairman. You are not walking out.
    Mr. Hacko. I refuse to answer any questions. I use the 
First and Fifth Amendments, supplemented by the Fourteenth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Are you an espionage agent of the Communist 
party as of today?
    [No answer.]
    The Chairman. You will have the record show that the 
witness sits mute and refuses to answer that question.
    Mr. Hacko. I use the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth 
Amendments. My acquaintances are none of your business. I have 
stated very plainly that I do not condone any action of any 
organization that would in any way be harmful to the United 
States of America.
    The Chairman. Are you an espionage agent as of today?
    Mr. Hacko. Again I will use my First, Fifth, and Fourteenth 
Amendments.
    The Chairman. Has the Communist party ever ordered you to 
obtain information about the work at GE?
    Mr. Hacko. Objection. I didn't say that. What do you mean, 
Communist party? Who said I belonged to the Communist party?
    The Chairman. The question is, has the Communist party ever 
ordered you to obtain information about the work going on at 
GE?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know who belongs to the Communist party 
or who does not, or who is a Communist and who is not.
    The Chairman. You mean you don't know whether they have 
ever ordered you to do that?
    Mr. Hacko. What do you mean, ordered? I told you that I 
don't know anything about their meetings or anything.
    The Chairman. You mean you don't know whether they have 
ever ordered you to get information?
    Mr. Hacko. Why don't you stop that line?
    The Chairman. It is a very simple question. If they did 
not----
    Mr. Hacko. It is not very simple, what you are talking 
about. I haven't done anything harmful in any way or manner or 
order. What do you mean, orders? I have been under your orders. 
All you need is a swastika and a helmet, and you will be right 
in your place.
    The Chairman. Look, mister, we have got a very important 
job to do here, and it is not pleasant to sit here and listen 
to people like you rant and rave. We are going to do it, get 
information, and you are giving us information by your attitude 
and by your raving and ranting. I have seen them do that 
before. I will see it again. I am going to ask you questions--
and they are very simple questions--and you can refuse to 
answer, and you can give all of the speeches you want.
    The question is, has the Communist party ever ordered you 
to get information as to the work going on at GE and to turn 
that information over to them?
    Mr. Hacko. I have answered that a dozen times, and I don't 
know what you are talking about.
    The Chairman. What is the answer, yes or no; or do you 
refuse to answer?
    Mr. Hacko. What party? Who?
    The Chairman. The Communist party.
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know anything about that. I don't know 
anything. I don't even know what you are talking about. You 
know I wouldn't be here; I would be getting paid $5,000, maybe, 
like the RCA money--who hold the secrets on your 
investigation--when Sarnoff was chairman and he sold the 
patented rights.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the question?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't understand the question.
    The Chairman. I will ask it over again.
    Did the Communist party ever order you to get information 
for them?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't understand what you are talking about.
    The Chairman. Was there anyone known to you as a member of 
the Communist party who ever ordered you to get information for 
him?
    Mr. Hacko. That is a ridiculous question, and I don't know 
of any Communists or anything that you are talking about.
    The Chairman. What is your answer to that question?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know anything. I don't know what you are 
talking about. I don't know. If you ask me if anybody, if a 
Republican or a Democrat has asked me, I would say no, no 
Republican or Democrat or American Labor party member--and I 
don't know anybody else; those are the people I know. I cannot 
conceive--I can conceive of somebody that is in a department, 
in a government department, being asked to give information.
    The Chairman. You have said that no Republican or no 
Democrat or no American Labor party man ever asked you to get 
information for them. Let us go on one step further. Did the 
Communist party ever order you to give them information?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know of any of these people. I have long 
advocated that the party be placed upon the ballot and then we 
shall know all of the names and all of the things that they do, 
and it will be election by the ballot and not by the vote.
    The Chairman. Will you read the question to the witness.
    [The pending question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hacko. I can't conceive of anybody ever asking me to 
give information--and they haven't--and I don't know of what 
people you people are talking about or what the honorable 
senator is implying by the question. I don't know if he is 
trying to implicate me in anything, which I think I very 
definitely stated from the start.
    The Chairman. You will be implicated if you commit perjury 
here. I am asking you a simple question. Did anyone known to 
you to be a member of the Communist party ever ask you to get 
information for them?
    Mr. Hacko. No, sir, they did not, so help me God.
    The Chairman. It took a long time to get that.
    Did you attend a meeting last night?
    Mr. Hacko. Last night? I was home last night.
    The Chairman. You did not attend a meeting last night?
    Mr. Hacko. I was home; no, my daughter was home.
    The Chairman. Do you know, is there a strike being called 
today in GE?
    Mr. Hacko. Not to my knowledge. I don't know what they do I 
mean, first of all, I don't know what they are going to do and 
what they are not going to do.
    The Chairman. Have you heard a strike was being called 
today?
    Mr. Hacko. A strike?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Hacko. I don't think they ever call a strike. They 
might slow down or sit down.
    The Chairman. Maybe you do not call it a strike. Do you 
know if there has been anything called for today, a slow down 
or a sit down?
    Mr. Hacko. Not to my knowledge, sir. I haven't been there 
today, and I just changed my clothes this morning.
    The Chairman. You have heard nothing about that?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to Friedlander last night?
    Mr. Hacko. I was home in my house last night watching part 
of television, and my daughter was there. That is all.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to Friedlander last night?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know. No, I didn't talk to him.
    The Chairman. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. I don't know. You people can ask him. I have 
never questioned whether he was or was not. I believe his 
statements were made public years ago.
    The Chairman. You do not know whether he is a Communist or 
not?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Did he ever tell you he was?
    Mr. Hacko. No. Years ago I imagine when they had it on the 
ballot--I don't know--there was some talk.
    Mr. Anastos. Say within the last year, has Sidney 
Friedlander ever told you that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Has he talked or ever discussed with you the 
Communist aims and principles?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Has any other employee in General Electric 
within the last year discussed with you, or first of all, told 
you he was a Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. No.
    Mr. Anastos. The person talking to you, I mean, was a 
Communist?
    Mr. Hacko. I never discussed what a man was, his personal 
political beliefs.
    The Chairman. Do you think a Communist should be allowed to 
work on government work?
    Mr. Hacko. I think that you will find just as much danger 
in maybe letting a person belonging to the Republican party, 
the Democrat party, the American Labor party, or the Communist 
party; and I believe that those persons, if the employer or 
those people who have the proper authority had any knowledge 
that the man was doing something against the government, should 
be properly taken care of.
    The Chairman. I do not think that you have answered the 
question. Do you think Communists should be allowed to work on 
government work and to draw money from the government?
    Mr. Hacko. By simply belonging to a political party, I 
think we are involving ourselves in an international situation 
which is going to be very harmful all around.
    The Chairman. I don't get you.
    Mr. Hacko. I believe the elimination of any party, the 
gradual elimination of the Communist party and then of the 
Socialist party and then next the Liberal party and the 
American Labor party would do more harm to the government of 
the United States in those things of which we hold and adhere 
to certain principles. I believe we have a situation at the 
present time which is very serious, economic situation, in its 
relationship to trade, and people working for two cents an 
hour.
    The Chairman. Do you hold any title in the UE?
    Mr. Hacko. I was a shop steward, and I resigned.
    The Chairman. When did you resign?
    Mr. Hacko. I can't quite recall.
    The Chairman. Roughly, how long ago?
    Mr. Hacko. It might be six months or seven months.
    The Chairman. Six or seven months ago?
    Mr. Hacko. I can't quite recall; around there. You can 
check that.
    The Chairman. Do you have any title in the UE now?
    Mr. Hacko. No title now, no.
    The Chairman. You say you do not want to tell us whether or 
not you think that a Communist should be allowed to work on 
government work?
    Mr. Hacko. First of all, if we come----
    The Chairman. I am rather curious to know an attitude wait 
until I find--this is not just an academic question. The 
management of UE have quite a problem, I assume, and it is a 
question of how they can get rid of Communists and people who 
refuse to say whether they are espionage agents. For that 
reason I would like to ask you and men like yourself, who are 
active in the union, whether you will oppose it if the 
management tries to get rid of Communists. If they try to get 
rid of people who refuse to say whether or not they are 
espionage agents, would you oppose that or go along and 
cooperate with that?
    Mr. Hacko. I believe that when you have an organization 
such as the UE, or any labor organization, which conforms its 
preamble to the Constitution, the preamble of the United 
States, in certain ways, that taking away the rights of 
individuals would lead gradually to elimination of many 
organizations which is their true purpose as far as labor is 
concerned their economic rights, and upholding the principles 
of the United States. It leads to a dangerous thing.
    The Chairman. Will you oppose it if GE tries to get rid of 
communists and people who refuse to tell whether or not they 
are espionage agents? Would you oppose that?
    Mr. Hacko. I believe Mr. Boulware, appearing before the 
Humphrey committee, made a statement in relationship to what 
unions should be on the ballot or which ones should not be, and 
he said, ``If certain charges were made, I believe you can''--I 
would have to refresh my memory again, but it was up to the 
government to either reaffirm charges against something, and 
let the government either rule them off the ballot or keep them 
on the ballot. I don't agree in certain things.
    The Chairman. Will you read the question to the witness.
    [The pending question was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hacko. I believe if a man--you said espionage, which is 
a very serious word--is charged with espionage, he shall appear 
in a court and he shall apply to judiciary measure of giving 
him ten or twenty years or a life sentence.
    The Chairman. Read the question to the witness.
    [The pending question was reread by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hacko. I would. Wait a minute; strike that out. Again, 
strike out espionage or Communists.
    The Chairman. Strike out nothing, Mr. Reporter.
    Mr. Hacko. I can't answer that.
    The Chairman. Take everything that is said.
    Mr. Hacko. I cannot answer. I am not in the high powers of 
the court. I would go back to Chief Justice Jackson's contest 
in the state of West Virginia against an individual. If there 
is one fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is 
that no official, high or mighty, can prescribe what shall be 
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters 
of opinion, or force any citizen to confess by word or act. I 
can give you a few other cases in Maryland, and some others.
    The Chairman. Will you read the question to the witness 
again. Do you remember the question?
    Mr. Hacko. I remember the question.
    The Chairman. Will you answer the question?
    Mr. Hacko. It has two meanings to me, to the entire thing. 
Again I shall reiterate what shall be done with anybody 
connected with espionage or anything about secret information, 
whether he is a major general or a brigadier general.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Hacko. I cannot answer the question under that form of 
questioning.
    The Chairman. Why can't you answer it? The question is very 
simple: Will you oppose it if the management of GE discharges 
communists or people who refuse to tell whether or not they are 
espionage agents?
    Mr. Hacko. The last part of it, I cannot go along with that 
question. I still would not. I am not a counsel.
    The Chairman. Would you like to have it divided into two 
parts, is that your objection to the question?
    Mr. Hacko. I would say this, again: I would say to Mr. 
Boulware or anyone or any employer that a man should be given a 
fair chance if there is any charge against him.
    The Chairman. Will you oppose it if management discharges 
communists from GE who are handling government work?
    Mr. Hacko. At the present time, according to Mr. Boulware's 
statement and a few others, this is a direct attack upon any 
organization that has done anything for the workers or has 
protested the policies of McCarranism and McCarthyism and 
pending legislation to the Butler Bill.
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that I have 
given the witness an opportunity to answer the question on at 
least six or seven different occasions and that he has refused 
to answer and has stated no grounds for his refusal. The case 
will be referred to the Justice Department and the grand jury 
for citation for contempt.
    Do you think that you have had sufficient opportunity to 
answer the question, or didn't you understand it? If so, you 
can tell me now so that at some future time in a legal 
proceeding you cannot claim you did not understand it.
    Mr. Hacko. Very good. I will use the right afforded to me, 
given by the Honorable Senator McCarthy of this committee.
    The Chairman. What right is that?
    Mr. Hacko. What you just stated.
    The Chairman. I don't think that I follow you. I told you 
if you did not understand the question, then tell me.
    Mr. Hacko. Will you read the last part of Mr. McCarthy's 
statement, the part beginning with the citation.
    [The record was read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hacko. I shall be afforded--wait a minute.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the question?
    Mr. Hacko. It is still a little too deep for me.
    The Chairman. I will ask the question again: Will you 
object--as a member of the UE, would you oppose any attempt on 
the part of the GE management to discharge people working on 
government work who refuse to state whether or not they are 
espionage agents?
    Mr. Hacko. Yes. Espionage agents, yes.
    The Chairman. You will oppose any attempt to get rid of 
them?
    Mr. Hacko. Yes. Any person connected with espionage, yes. 
Surely.
    The Chairman. I am not sure you understand the question.
    Mr. Hacko. I understood it very plainly. You asked me if 
GE--will you repeat the question. You asked me if GE would 
relieve anybody of employment that was guilty of espionage. 
That is a question that is on the record, and the record so 
stands.
    The Chairman. Just so there can be no question about any 
misunderstanding. Will you oppose it if GE attempts to 
discharge people who refuse to tell whether or not they are 
espionage agents? Would you fight such action on the part of GE 
management?
    Mr. Hacko. I will cooperate in any way if anyone is guilty, 
or in any way connected with espionage in a direct sense of the 
word, or in any way that pertains to it; any meaning at all. 
Who wouldn't?
    The Chairman. Let us get back to the question. The question 
is, if they try to get rid of people who refuse to tell whether 
or not they are espionage agents, will you fight that or will 
you cooperate with it?
    Mr. Hacko. I would cooperate with anyone on a matter of 
espionage.
    The Chairman. You think it is all right for GE to fire 
anyone who refuses to tell this committee whether or not they 
are espionage agents?
    Mr. Hacko. First of all, the word ``espionage'' is a very 
serious thing; it is a crime. I think they should be brought 
before the judiciary procedure if the facts warrant it. If a 
man is guilty, naturally he should be prosecuted and not only 
relieved of his employment.
    The Chairman. I am going to give you one more opportunity 
to answer the question. The question is very simple. The 
question is: Do you think that GE should discharge anyone who 
comes before this committee and refuses to state whether he is 
an espionage agent or not?
    Mr. Hacko. Espionage agent?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Hacko. Not before this committee, no. In part, I will 
say that if it is within your power to issue a subpoena to that 
person.
    The Chairman. The witness will step down. He is under 
subpoena, and he will remain here. We will call him back after 
we get through with the other witnesses. It is an imposition on 
the other witnesses to keep them waiting.
    You will wait here in the building, in the other room, 
until you are called.
    Mr. Hacko. This is off the record.
    The Chairman. There is nothing off the record so far as you 
are concerned.
    Mr. Hacko. I have to check, and I don't know how I am going 
to get my pay check if you people keep me here.
    The Chairman. You are not going to keep the other people 
waiting. You will stay in the room and we will call you back.
    Will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in 
this matter now before the committee that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Klein. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF ALEX HENRY KLEIN

    Mr. Anastos. Mr. Klein, what is your full name, please.
    Mr. Klein. Alex Henry Klein.
    Mr. Anastos. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Klein. 1350 Keys Avenue.
    Mr. Anastos. Mr. Klein, we have called you in here to get 
some information from you, if you have any, in connection not 
with your own activities but with those of Morton Sobel. You 
understand that your being called here is no reflection upon 
you?
    Mr. Klein. I understand that.
    Mr. Anastos. We merely want to get whatever information we 
can from you.
    Did you know Morton Sobel?
    Mr. Klein. Just by sight, that is all.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever attend any camera club activities 
of his?
    Mr. Klein. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Anastos. Could you give us the names of any persons who 
did?
    Mr. Klein. I wasn't even familiar with the activity of this 
camera club.
    Mr. Anastos. We had information that you might be able to 
supply us with the names of four individuals who were active 
with Sobel in a camera club that he had promoted.
    Mr. Klein. My only connection with Sobel was due to the 
fact that I was employed by the Aeronautics and Marine Section 
and my job was to design sights and to flight test these 
sights. The only connection I had with the Motion Picture 
Section was that we worked in conjunction with these boys 
photographing sights and computers, and taking pictures from 
the air, and that sort of thing. But I had no connection 
whatsoever with this Sobel, outside the fact that he worked in 
the same department that I worked in.
    The Chairman. Have you made it clear to the witness that he 
is not here because we have any information of a derogatory 
nature about him?
    Mr. Klein. I understand that, sir.
    The Chairman. It is solely because we understood that in 
your work you might be able to have shed some light on this 
Sobel ring.
    Mr. Klein. I cannot give you that information, because I 
had no connection whatsoever with the organization that you are 
referring to.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know Sobel at all?
    Mr. Klein. Just by sight.
    The Chairman. He did not come into your place to have any 
work done or anything like that?
    Mr. Klein. No. You mean in our section at the works?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Klein. No.
    The Chairman. I think that there is nothing further at this 
time.
    Will you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly 
swear in this matter now before the committee that you will 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Rollins. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF HAROLD S. ROLLINS

    Mr. Anastos. What is your full name, please.
    Mr. Rollins. Harold S. Rollins.
    Mr. Anastos. What is your address?
    Mr. Rollins. 30 Henrietta Street, Amsterdam.
    Mr. Anastos. Where do you work at present?
    Mr. Rollins. At GE.
    Mr. Anastos. What type of work do you do there?
    Mr. Rollins. Enamel machine.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you have clearance for any confidential 
work, any classified material?
    Mr. Rollins. No, I am just a piece worker, that is all.
    Mr. Anastos. Are you now a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Rollins. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Rollins. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Are you a member of the American Labor party?
    Mr. Rollins. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Anastos. Is the American Labor party, to your 
knowledge, dominated by the Communist party?
    Mr. Rollins. I wouldn't say so.
    Mr. Anastos. So far as you know, does it take orders from 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Rollins. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you met any Communists within the 
American Labor party?
    Mr. Rollins. I wouldn't know that.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know any Communists at all?
    Mr. Rollins. Not that I know of, no.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know Sidney Friedlander?
    Mr. Rollins. Yes.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you know he is a Communist?
    Mr. Rollins. No, I don't.
    Mr. Anastos. Has he ever told you he was?
    Mr. Rollins. He never told me he was. I have heard that he 
was or may be, but my connection with him has been along the 
lines of----
    Mr. Anastos. I want to tell you that a very reliable person 
has given us information that you have been a member of the 
Communist party; not necessarily a card-carrying member, but a 
Communist.
    Mr. Rollins. I think that reliable party is mistaken.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever attended any Communist party 
meetings?
    Mr. Rollins. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever attended any meetings where 
discussions were held concerning, primarily concerning, the 
Communist party doctrines and principles?
    Mr. Rollins. No.
    Mr. Anastos. How long have you been a member of the 
American Labor party?
    Mr. Rollins. I think about five years. I was a Republican 
before that.
    Mr. Anastos. What is your position in the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Rollins. Nothing now. At one time I was on the county 
board in Schenectady County.
    Mr. Anastos. You were on the county board?
    Mr. Rollins. At one time, yes.
    Mr. Anastos. And had you ever heard, while you were a 
member of the county board of the American Labor party in 
Schenectady, of any instructions being given to your board by 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Rollins. Not to my knowledge, not when I was attending 
a county meeting or anything of that sort.
    Mr. Anastos. Had you ever heard from anybody else within 
the American Labor party that your board was getting 
instructions from the Communist party?
    Mr. Rollins. From anybody within the American Labor party?
    Mr. Anastos. Yes.
    Mr. Rollins. No.
    M. Anastos. You realize, of course, that if you state under 
oath here, as you have, that you have never been a Communist, 
and if it is proven that you have been, that you are subject to 
the penalties of perjury?
    Mr. Rollins. I fail to see how anybody can prove that I am 
a Communist when I am not.
    Mr. Anastos. I have no more questions.
    Mr. Rollins. I never have been.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you are here without 
a lawyer, I think that I should inform you that a witness under 
oath has identified you as a member of the Communist party. 
That does not mean, of course, that you are, you understand. He 
might well be mistaken, and he might have a different Harold 
Rollins in mind, but I think that you should know what the 
testimony about you has been. He identified you and twelve 
other people as part of his Communist cell.
    So before you leave, I would like to ask you this question: 
Do you know another Harold Rollins at GE?
    Mr. Rollins. There is another Harold Rollins, quite a 
respectable sort of guy, and I don't know--I hardly think he is 
a Communist. There is another one in Amsterdam.
    The Chairman. Does he work at GE, also?
    Mr. Rollins. No, he is a milkman. He is one of the big 
shots.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the fact that one witness 
has said you are a Communist does not convince this committee 
one way or the other? We just call you in and let you answer 
that. Your testimony under oath is that you are not a Communist 
and you never have been one, is that right?
    Mr. Rollins. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you never attended Communist meetings?
    Mr. Rollins. That is right.
    The Chairman. What is your clearance? Do you have your 
badge with you?
    Mr. Rollins. No. I have my card.
    The Chairman. That is all right; do not bother with it.
    You will be excused.
    Will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear in 
this matter now before the committee that you will tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Brooks. I do.

               TESTIMONY OF JOHN STARLING BROOKS

    Mr. Anastos. What is your full name?
    Mr. Brooks. John Starling Brooks.
    Mr. Anastos. Where do you live?
    Mr. Brooks. 123 South Church Street.
    Mr. Anastos. Do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Brooks. I do.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I joined the American Labor party once, 
or whatever you call it, and after I found out what it was I 
got out of it.
    Mr. Anastos. You say you joined it once and got out?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    Mr. Anastos. When did you join it?
    Mr. Brooks. In 1949, I think it was.
    Mr. Anastos. When did you leave the American Labor party?
    Mr. Brooks. I think it was in 1952.
    Mr. Anastos. Why did you leave?
    Mr. Brooks. I just didn't like the setup, that is all. 
There was no capital in it for me that I could see.
    Mr. Anastos. What was it about the setup that you didn't 
like?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I just didn't like it, because there was 
no program or nothing to base upon.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you ever meet any Communists there?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, if I did, I didn't know it.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you know any Communists while you were 
attending American Labor party conferences or meetings?
    Mr. Brooks. If I did, I didn't know it. There were mighty 
few meetings I attended, because I work at night all of the 
time.
    Mr. Anastos. Could you give us any explanation or 
information, if you can, as to why somebody should name you as 
a Communist?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I wouldn't know. The only reason why I 
feel they would name me as that would be because I was with the 
American Labor party. That is the only thing I can think of.
    Mr. Anastos. A member of the Communist party, a former 
member of the Communist party, has named you as a Communist.
    Mr. Brooks. They couldn't do that. I don't see how they 
could do that because I haven't been a Communist. In fact, I 
wouldn't know a Communist when I saw one.
    The Chairman. In other words, your testimony today is that 
you are not a Communist?
    Mr. Brooks. I am not.
    The Chairman. And never have been?
    Mr. Brooks. No, and I won't be.
    The Chairman. And you never attended Communist meetings?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    May I say that the fact that you are called here does not 
mean that the committee thinks that you have done anything 
wrong and we do not make any decision on that. If we get 
testimony that a man is a Communist or an espionage agent, we 
call him in and give him a chance to deny that. You are a 
rather convincing witness.
    Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]




















   SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE IN DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRIES

    [Editor's note.--Karl Thomas Mabbshka, James John Walsh, 
Nathaniel Mills (1900-1989), Robert Goodwin, Francis F. 
Peacock, Richmond Wilder, Donald Finlayson, and George Homes 
(1914-1977) did not testify in public. The executive session 
testimonies of Henry Canning Archdeacon, Donald Herbert 
Morrill, Theodore Pappas, Alexander Gregory, Benjamin Alfred, 
and Witulad Pierarsky, were released by the subcommittee and 
published in 1955.]
                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                             Boston, Massachusetts.
    The subcommittee met at 11:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 1226 of the Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
staff director; C. George Anastos, assistant counsel; and 
Donald F. O'Donnell, assistant counsel.
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order. Will you raise 
your right hand and be sworn? In this matter now in hearing 
before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I do.

               TESTIMONY OF KARL THOMAS MABBSHKA

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Karl Thomas Mabbshka.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address?
    Mr. Mabbshka. 20 Becker Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Mabbshka. On the second floor, River Works, General 
Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you worked there?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I worked there since March 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work on any government work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Well, I did do government work before.
    Mr. Cohn. Up until when?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Most of the work we do is government work but 
right now we are working on street lights.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long has that been?
    Mr. Mabbshka. For the last--1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Since 1944 you have been doing no government 
work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work in Building 29?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last time you worked there?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I worked only about three or four months.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working on classified government work 
then?
    Mr. Mabbshka. What is that?
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working on classified government work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You did?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For what, the air force?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I think it was, jet jobs.
    Mr. Cohn. Jet jobs?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I refuse to answer that question on the terms 
that anything I might say might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Mabbshka. The same answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when you 
were working on classified government work in Building 29?
    Mr. Mabbshka. The same answer, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever transmit any classified information 
to any member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I never transmitted any kind of information.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any people who work on government 
work now, any of your friends out at the plant?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Well, like I say , some of the work we do is 
government work, and I work on lighting and rectifier division, 
and some of the work is for government work, and rectifiers 
and----
    Mr. Cohn. Some of the work you, yourself, do?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. For what branch of the government, do you know?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Well, for all branches, I guess; navy, 
mostly.
    Mr. Cohn. Any army?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Some, I guess.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any people who work on classified 
government work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Not in our building, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any of the people who do work, any of 
your friends you have known over the years?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I can't think of any names off-hand. People I 
have worked with in Building 29, that was all classified work.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any of them? Have you continued your 
friendship with any of them?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I haven't continued any friendship, I see 
them once in a while. The fellow I work with, Louis Leger, I 
went to school with him.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attended any meetings of the Communist 
party with people who work with you on government work?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That question I decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any brothers or sisters?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I have one sister in Russia.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she in Russia now?
    Mr. Mabbshka Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you in touch with her?
    Mr. Mabbshka. No, my mother writes letters to her and she 
writes to my mother occasionally.
    Mr. Cohn. You are not in touch with her?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I am not.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I was born in New Hampshire.
    The Chairman. Was your sister born in Russia?
    Mr. Mabbshka. In New Hampshire, also.
    The Chairman. You don't know what she is doing now in 
Russia?
    Mr. Mabbshka. She is a musician, sir.
    The Chairman. In what city in Russia?
    Mr. Mabbshka. Saransk, that is all I know.
    The Chairman. That is the only sister or brother you have?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That is the only sister. I have a younger 
brother, a foot doctor.
    The Chairman. One sister and one brother?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That is right.
    The Chairman. And your brother is not working for the 
government?
    Mr. Mabbshka. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And your mother and father are neither of 
them working for the government?
    Mr. Mabbshka. No, sir, my mother is retired from General 
Electric.
    The Chairman. She had worked at GE?
    Mr. Mabbshka. She worked at GE.
    The Chairman. Has your mother been a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That I refuse to answer, sir.
    The Chairman. How about your father?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That I refuse to answer, the same thing.
    The Chairman. When you refuse to answer, is that on the 
basis of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Mabbshka. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend a Communist school in Hudson?
    Mr. Mabbshka. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Walsh. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF JAMES JOHN WALSH

    The Chairman. Give the reporter your full name.
    Mr. Walsh. James John Walsh. My nickname is ``Pat.'' You 
got me mixed up in the subpoena and I didn't get the subpoena 
until five minutes of nine this morning.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Walsh, you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Walsh. 274 Cambridge Street.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your phone number?
    Mr. Walsh. I have no telephone.
    The Chairman. If any of the witnesses, such as yourself, 
are subpoenaed so late that there is no chance to get a lawyer 
and you want a lawyer, we will give you a short time.
    Mr. Walsh. I don't need a lawyer.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Walsh, how long have you worked for General 
Electric?
    Mr. Walsh. I got there in 4/5/1948.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you now work on any government work?
    Mr. Walsh. Yes, I would say I am tied up pretty near eight 
hours a day as chief steward. I am chief steward in the Evers 
Plant.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked on government work?
    Mr. Walsh. Oh, certainly.
    Mr. Cohn. Through what branch of the service?
    Mr. Walsh. I don't know, it is aircraft gas turbines.
    Mr. Cohn. Has some of that work been classified?
    Mr. Walsh. I imagine so.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you working at Evers now?
    Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You work in the government classified area?
    Mr. Walsh. I imagine so, we have guards and all of that on 
the gate.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Walsh. I am not now and never have been a member of the 
Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever participated in any Communist 
activities?
    Mr. Walsh. Wait a minute, now, I don't believe I ever have, 
and I have attended UE meetings, and if----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that leadership of UE is Communist?
    Mr. Walsh. I don't know, I know Tommy testified he wasn't.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Mr. Matles and Mr. Emspak?
    Mr. Walsh. I don't know, I never have had any close 
association with them.
    Mr. Cohn. What did they testify?
    Mr. Walsh. I don't know what they testified to.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know?
    Mr. Walsh. I think they refused to testify.
    Mr. Cohn. What does that mean to you?
    Mr. Walsh. I don't know what that means to me. I see guys, 
everybody refusing to testify, and Truman refused to testify 
and does that mean he is a Communist?
    Mr. Cohn. Now you know something called the ``Spotlight 
Newsletter''?
    Mr. Walsh. I put that out, I and Bill Wild, another fellow 
that has been subpoenaed, put out the ``Spotlight.''
    Mr. Cohn. Any Communists work on that?
    Mr. Walsh. Well, unless Bill and I are Communists, and I am 
not a Communist and I know Bill isn't.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that you are not now and 
never have been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Walsh. I will go further than that, and I say I never 
will be a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been asked to join the party?
    Mr. Walsh. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. You haven't been asked to go to a party meeting?
    Mr. Walsh. No, sir.
    The Chairman. That is all, we won't want you any further.
    May I tell you that your name will not be given to the 
press or anyone else unless you give it to them.
    Mr. Walsh. I would like to say something on the record, on 
this ``Spotlight.'' That, to us, was our baby, and we put out 
the rank and file and to me it was one of the best things we 
ever did. And I would like to make sure you don't think that I 
am saying it is a bad thing. It is a wonderful thing that we 
did it.
    The Chairman. Your name will not be given to anyone unless 
you give it to them, and if the press meets you and asks 
whether you testified you can tell then whatever you like. Your 
name will not be given to the press.
    Mr. Walsh. I have one other question. When will I get paid?
    The Chairman. Mr. Carr will take care of that.
    Will you raise your right hand?
    Mr. Mills. Before I sit down, Senator, I am demanding that 
this hearing or proceedings be open. We have nothing to hide 
and I feel that you have something to hide and that is the 
reason----
    Mr. Cohn. The witness ought to be sworn.
    Mr. Mills. This is our demand from this one-man committee.
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mills. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL MILLS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                      GABRIEL KANTROVITZ)

    Mr. Cohn. May we get the name of counsel?
    Mr. Kantrovitz. My name is Gabriel Kantrovitz, 294 
Washington Street, Boston. My telephone is Hancock 6-2450.
    Mr. Cohn. You cannot participate in this hearing but your 
client is free to talk to you and you may talk to him, in 
private or here.
    The Chairman. If anything comes up that would suggest that 
you need more time in view of the short period of time between 
the service of the subpoena and the appearance, if you will ask 
for additional time, we will try and arrange that.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name?
    Mr. Mills. Nathaniel Mills.
    Mr. Cohn. Since you have nothing to hide, I will ask you 
right away, are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mills. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
of the First and Fifth Amendments, and I feel it is an invasion 
of my privacy and Constitutional rights; and I feel this is a 
proceeding that threatens the thinking and the activity of the 
American people, as a menace to our democracy.
    The Chairman. You do have something to hide.
    Mr. Mills. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you tell us whether or not you are a member 
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mills. That is none of your business, under the rights 
that my ancestors fought for and died for.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refuse to answer under the Fifth 
Amendment, on the ground your answer might tend to incriminate 
you?
    Mr. Mills. On the whole amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. On the whole Fifth Amendment? There are parts of 
the Fifth Amendment that have no conceivable relevancy to any 
testimony of a witness here.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Mills. Under the Fifth Amendment there are other 
provisions besides incrimination, including due process, and 
provisions which protect an individual citizen from invasion of 
his rights.
    The Chairman. May I tell the witness for his own 
information, that unless you feel that the answer will tend to 
incriminate you, you will be ordered to answer the question. I 
will ask a very simple question and if you feel an answer to 
that question would tend to incriminate you, say so.
    Mr. Mills. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You refuse to tell me whether you think the 
answer would tend to incriminate you?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. May I say, Counsel, in view of the fact you 
have not been before this committee before, that the chair 
takes the position that a witness has a right to invoke the 
Fifth Amendment if he is of the opinion that his answer might 
tend to incriminate him. Otherwise, he is not entitled to the 
Fifth Amendment, and for that reason it has been my custom to 
find out from the witness whether or not they feel the answer 
would incriminate them. If the answer is no, or if they refuse 
to answer that, I order them to answer the original question. 
If they maintain their position then I submit the matter to the 
Senate for contempt citation for a grand jury and I want the 
witness to know that so that he won't be in a position at some 
future time in legal action to be able to plead he did not know 
what was happening, and he was entrapped, and so on.
    You were asked whether or not you are a member of the 
Communist party and you refuse to answer and I ask you whether 
or not you refused because you feel that your answer might tend 
to incriminate you.
    Mr. Mills. I maintain my right to assert my protection 
under the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, with all of 
the provisions, as I understand it, including the right of 
incrimination and the right of due process.
    These laws and these rights are ones that I will fight to 
maintain and the definition of them is to the best of my 
knowledge what I am using to protect myself from your invasion 
of my rights.
    The Chairman. I have asked you a question. Do you feel that 
your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mills. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Let the record show that the chair has given 
the witness the right and the opportunity on several occasions 
to tell the chair whether or not he feels that his answer to 
counsel's question would tend to incriminate him, and he 
refuses--wait until I get through--and he refuses to tell the 
chair whether or not he feels the answer would tend to 
incriminate him. He therefore is ordered to answer counsel's 
question whether or not he is a member of the Communist party, 
because he has no Fifth Amendment privilege unless he feels the 
answer will tend to incriminate him.
    Mr. Mills. Senator, I wish to remind you, I have stated I 
refuse to answer on the grounds that it will tend to 
incriminate me under the Fifth Amendment, including, also, my 
right to maintain the other provisions of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that the witness now says 
he is refusing to answer on the ground the answer might tend to 
incriminate him, he is entitled to the Fifth Amendment 
privilege. So the order that he answer will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, where do you work?
    Mr. Mills. River Works Plant of the General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you worked for General Electric?
    Mr. Mills. Since June of 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any government work of any 
kind?
    Mr. Mills. I am not acquainted with who orders the work, 
the company gives it to me and I turn out my work on a lathe.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever done any classified work for the 
government?
    Mr. Mills. Not to my knowledge, and I certainly am not 
concerned with that. My interest in working is to earn a living 
for my family.
    Mr. Cohn. I just asked you whether you did any classified 
work. Are there any guards at the plant where you work? Do you 
have to wear a badge or show some identification before you go 
in there?
    Mr. Mills. Well, I am not too well acquainted with the GE 
policy, but from what I have observed it has been a badge 
system, in the past at times.
    The Chairman. Do you have a badge?
    Mr. Mills. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any identification?
    Mr. Mills. You mean personal identification?
    Mr. Cohn. When you want to go to work at General Electric, 
do you have to be known before you go in there and go to work?
    Mr. Mills. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Anyone can walk in off the streets and go in 
there?
    Mr. Mills. I doubt it.
    Mr. Cohn. You doubt it?
    Mr. Mills. Yes, I have a job to go to, and I go to it.
    Mr. Cohn. They know who you are and they let you in, is 
that right?
    Mr. Mills. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. But somebody else, a stranger can't just walk in?
    Mr. Mills. I am sorry, I can't answer about that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever seen a stranger come in who was not 
an employee?
    Mr. Mills. I can't say whether there are strangers or 
employees, or anything else.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have to go by any guard to get into the 
building?
    Mr. Mills. There are guards there.
    Mr. Cohn. And you assume they are there for some purpose, 
is that right?
    Mr. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know any people who do work on, or do 
you work in restricted government areas?
    Mr. Mills. Excuse me.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    [Question read by reporter.]
    Mr. Mills. I will refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that the First Amendment, which guarantees me right of 
association with anyone, and under the Fifth Amendment which 
protects me against self-incrimination, and I feel that under 
today's circumstances this can only serve to harm other people 
and create----
    Mr. Cohn. The only ground that the chair has advised you 
which your refusal will be allowed is on the Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination, and we will save a lot of 
time if you want to assert that.
    Mr. Mills. I have asserted that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attended Communist party meetings during 
the last six months with people who do work on classified 
government material?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attended Communist party meetings during 
the last six months with people who work on classified 
government material at GE?
    Mr. Mills. I have answered the question as to my political 
beliefs.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think that you understand the question. 
Yes, no, or you refuse to answer on the ground the answer might 
tend to incriminate, and we will get along a little faster that 
way.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. What is your answer to the question?
    Mr. Mills. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the First 
Amendment and the rights against self incrimination, and I feel 
it is a question which is trying to imply things that are 
invasions of, and loaded to imply that there is something going 
in terms of espionage or spying which is certainly not true.
    I am not and never will spy, or do any espionage, and I 
think that you are aware of that. Whether this can lead to 
saying that I know or not with so and so, it is not something 
that I feel that you have a right----
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mills. I have not.
    The Chairman. You have never engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Mills. No.
    The Chairman. If we were at war with Communist Russia 
today, and the Communist party were to order you to sabotage 
any of the facilities at GE, would you refuse that order from 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Mills. On the part of the question which deals with 
sabotage and espionage, I would absolutely not, and refuse 
anyway to do that.
    The Chairman. You would not follow orders from the 
Communist party to commit espionage or sabotage?
    Mr. Mills. I say you are implying in your question more 
than I will answer.
    The Chairman. I am not implying anything, I am just asking 
you a question. If someone asks me a question whether or not I 
would commit sabotage on orders of the Communist party, I would 
say no. If you don't intend to commit sabotage on the orders of 
the party, you can very simply say no, and I am going to ask 
you the question again. If the Communist party were to order 
you to commit sabotage in case we were at war with Communist 
Russia, would you follow such orders?
    Keep in mind the question does not imply membership in the 
party on your part. It does not imply espionage on your part, 
and it is merely asking you a very simple question.
    Mr. Mills. I will say this: I don't take orders from 
anyone.
    The Chairman. Would you commit sabotage if the Communist 
party ordered you to do that, and we were at war with Communist 
Russia?
    Mr. Mills. I say I don't take orders from anyone.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    Mr. Mills. The answer then would be no.
    The Chairman. Have you ever performed any illegal act in 
connection with anyone known to you to be a Communist, or any 
activities known to you to be Communist activities?
    [Conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. If the conference is going to be in length, 
we will call in a different witness.
    Mr. Kantrovitz. Would you mind repeating the question?
    [Question read by reporter.]
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Mills. My answer to that is that I have not performed 
illegal activities as far as I know in exercising my 
conscience; I certainly have not. But I can't speak for any 
future prosecution about this, and say therefore I am doing no 
illegal activities and my job and my friends and so on. I am 
certainly observing the laws as I know them to the best of my 
ability.
    The Chairman. When you say as far as you know, you did not 
commit any illegal activities in connection with any Communist 
party activities in so far as you know; is that a fact?
    Mr. Mills. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is that a correct answer?
    Mr. Mills. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question 
of whether or not you are a Communist and you have no Fifth 
Amendment privilege unless you have been guilty of some 
violation of law in connection with that membership.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Mills. Pardon me, did you ask a question?
    The Chairman. I order you to answer the question of whether 
or not you are a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Mills. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the First 
and Fifth Amendments, and the protection against self 
incrimination.
    The Chairman. I say just for counsel's benefit so you can 
govern yourself accordingly, his case will be submitted to the 
grand jury for indictment for contempt of the committee.
    Mr. Kantrovitz. May I call your attention that in absence 
of any admission of guilt, and absence of any waiver, he has a 
right to rely on the Fifth, and he has not waived the Fifth 
Amendment, as I understand the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I have been living with this Fifth Amendment 
for some time, and I am not going to argue the point with you. 
I am merely informing you that after the witness says he 
performed no illegal act in connection with his Communist party 
membership--I am just informing your counsel now and I am not 
arguing the point with you--that there is no Fifth Amendment 
privilege because that is only against self incrimination. And 
he cannot be incriminated unless you perform some illegal act. 
I am not going to argue it with you and I haven't the time. And 
I don't want to hear from counsel.
    Mr. Kantrovitz. The privilege is for the innocent and not 
necessarily the guilty.
    The Chairman. We will hear no more.
    Mr. Mills. Are you trying to railroad this thing through, 
because I have been trying to answer the questions as I 
understand them, to the best of my knowledge.
    Now, I take it this is sort of a trick question, because 
you have been working at it from several ways.
    Mr. Kantrovitz. Did you intend to waive your privileges 
under the First Amendment?
    Mr. Mills. No.
    The Chairman. The witness will step down unless he wants to 
come back and answer the question.
    Will you leave? We will call the marshal.
    Will you raise your right hand? In this matter now in 
hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Goodwin. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GOODWIN

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, Mr. Goodwin?
    Mr. Goodwin. Robert Goodwin.
    Mr. Cohn. G-o-o-d-w-i-n?
    Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Goodwin. 44 Hollingsworth Street, Lenox.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you work?
    Mr. Goodwin. River Works, General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Goodwin. It must be going on twelve years now.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you done any government work?
    Mr. Goodwin. Government work?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, any government orders or contracts?
    Mr. Goodwin. Let me see. Yes, I have done some government 
work.
    Mr. Cohn. For what particular branch, do you know?
    Mr. Goodwin. It must be the Air Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. Principally the Air Corps?
    Mr. Goodwin. I imagine it is the Air Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. You are doing some of that now?
    Mr. Goodwin. I am not sure now whether it is the Air Corps 
now or not. During the war it was Air Corps work, during the 
last war.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were doing this Air Corps work, were you 
a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Goodwin. I wish to invoke my privileges under the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer 
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Goodwin. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Exactly what kind of work were you doing for the 
Air Corps?
    Mr. Goodwin. I assemble, they call it assembly work.
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with engines?
    Mr. Goodwin. It is the generators.
    Mr. Cohn. For planes?
    Mr. Goodwin. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party at this 
time?
    Mr. Goodwin. I wish to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there other persons working on government 
work at River Works who are members of the Communist party to 
your knowledge?
    Mr. Goodwin. I wish to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed any of your work with any 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Goodwin. I wish to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Goodwin. No.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mr. Goodwin. No.
    The Chairman. You didn't engage in espionage directly or 
indirectly?
    Mr. Goodwin. Absolutely not.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer counsel's 
question.
    Mr. Goodwin. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer counsel's 
question, and he asked you whether or not you discussed 
classified work with members of the Communist party; you have 
waived the Fifth Amendment as far as this matter is concerned.
    Mr. Goodwin. You asked me on espionage and my answer was 
no.
    The Chairman. Counsel asked you whether or not you ever 
discussed any classified work with anyone known to you to be a 
member of the Communist party and you refused to answer that, 
invoking the Fifth Amendment. And you are now ordered to answer 
that for the reason you have waived the Fifth Amendment in so 
far as the entire subject of espionage is concerned.
    Mr. Goodwin. I feel I haven't waived my privilege under the 
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are still refusing to answer the 
question?
    Mr. Goodwin. I wish to stand on the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Let the record show that the witness has been 
ordered to answer on the ground he has waived the privilege and 
he is still refusing to answer. Counsel is informed that the 
case will be submitted to the grand jury for contempt.
    I think that that is all.
    Mr. Kantrovitz. My home phone is Geneva 6-6332.
    The Chairman. I have one further question.
    If we were at war with Communist Russia, and orders came to 
you from the Communist party ordering you to sabotage 
facilities at GE, would you disobey that order from the 
Communist party or would you obey it? And in answering this you 
understand that you are not being asked to testify whether you 
are a Communist, and are not being asked to testify whether you 
ever have been, and you are not being asked to divulge the 
names of any member of the Communist party. You are just being 
asked as an American citizen this question with no indication 
of any kind or nature.
    Mr. Goodwin. I would absolutely refuse no matter who asked 
me, any proposition.
    The Chairman. Even if the Communist party asked you, you 
would flatly refuse?
    Mr. Goodwin. If anyone asked me.
    The Chairman. I think that that is all.
    [The subcommittee next heard testimony from Henry Canning 
Arcdeacon and Donald Herbert Morrill. That testimony was made 
public on November 17, 1955 and published in Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, Subversion and Espionage in 
Defense Establishments and Industry, 84th Congress, 1st sess. 
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1955), part 10.]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand to be sworn? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Peacock. I do.

                TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS F. PEACOCK

    The Chairman. Your full name is Francis F. Peacock?
    Mr. Peacock. That is right.
    The Chairman. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Peacock. 23 Sunset Road, Stoneham, Massachusetts.
    The Chairman. What is your telephone there?
    Mr. Peacock. Melrose 4-6917.
    The Chairman. Now, do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Peacock. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Peacock. Thirty years, over all.
    The Chairman. You have worked there for thirty years?
    Mr. Peacock. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you worked on any government contracts?
    Mr. Peacock. Well, in World War II I worked on them.
    The Chairman. Since then has any of the work you have 
worked on been government work?
    Mr. Peacock. I had a hearing or I applied for access to 
classified for this line, with all of the other fellows in the 
drafting office, and I was refused in 1949.
    The Chairman. You never had clearance to work on classified 
information?
    Mr. Peacock. That is right.
    The Chairman. Have you worked on any government work?
    Mr. Peacock. No.
    The Chairman. Unclassified?
    Mr. Peacock. No.
    The Chairman. Hasn't any of the work you have been 
connected with while you have been at GE, work being done for 
any branch of the government? I am not talking about classified 
now.
    Mr. Peacock. What period of time?
    The Chairman. Any period of time you have been working for 
General Electric.
    Mr. Peacock. I imagine so, that is I wouldn't know, you 
see.
    The Chairman. Do you know what branches of the service any 
of the work was done for? Did you ever come across any navy 
work or air force?
    Mr. Peacock. No, I wouldn't know. I applied for a navy----
    The Chairman. I am not talking about classified work now; I 
am talking about any kind of work for the government, 
unclassified, making tools or drafting or anything like that, 
on any material.
    Mr. Peacock. No, I wouldn't be in a position to tell that.
    The Chairman. You wouldn't know whether it was government 
or not?
    Mr. Peacock. I am on standard work, standard motors.
    The Chairman. Do any of those motors go to the government?
    Mr. Peacock. I wouldn't know because I never handled 
requisitions.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Peacock. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been?
    Mr. Peacock. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in any Communist 
activity?
    Mr. Peacock. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have not?
    Mr. Peacock. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know any members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Peacock. Not that I personally know.
    The Chairman. Do you know any people you believe to be 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Peacock. Believed to be?
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Mr. Peacock. No.
    The Chairman. You don't know anyone who you believe is a 
Communist?
    Mr. Peacock. From my own personal knowledge?
    The Chairman. Your own personal opinion.
    Mr. Peacock. Well, I know from what I read in the papers. 
All I know is what I see in the papers.
    The Chairman. You won't be needed any further. You are 
released from the subpoena. No one will know that you are here 
unless you tell them yourself, and I hope you understand that 
the fact that you are called doesn't mean that the committee 
has any preconceived opinion of whether you have done something 
improper even remotely. Our job is to call everyone here who 
might shed some light upon the alleged espionage and alleged 
Communist activities, and I repeat the fact that you were 
called does not mean anything, that you are guilty of any 
wrongdoing at all.
    The press will not know that you are here and no one will 
know that you are here unless you, yourself, tell them.
    Mr. Peacock. All right.
    The Chairman. You have a right to tell them if you want to, 
of course.
    Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? In this matter 
now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to 
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Wilder. I do.

              TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM RICHMOND WILDER

    Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name?
    Mr. Wilder. William Richmond Wilder.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Wilder. 145 Belmont Street, Evart.
    Mr. Cohn. You are employed at General Electric?
    Mr. Wilder. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been 
working there?
    Mr. Wilder. Almost six years.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilder. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been?
    Mr. Wilder. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Wilder. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did a man named Robert Goodwin try to recruit you 
into the Communist party in 1950?
    Mr. Wilder. No, he didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Robert Goodwin?
    Mr. Wilder. I know him by sight only.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever spoken to him?
    Mr. Wilder. Not that I recall, except in the anteroom out 
there just now.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists working at GE?
    Mr. Wilder. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any people you believe are 
Communists?
    Mr. Wilder. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know any of them?
    Mr. Wilder. I am in a higher security plant.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know people working in your plant?
    Mr. Wilder. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Wilder. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to?
    Mr. Wilder. No, I haven't.
    [Whereupon, a recess was taken at 12:30 p.m.]

                          AFTER RECESS

    [The hearing was resumed at 2:30 p.m.]
    The Chairman. The hearing will be resumed.
    Will you raise your right hand. In this matter now in 
hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Finlayson. I do.

                TESTIMONY OF DONALD R. FINLAYSON

    The Chairman. Your full name is what?
    Mr. Finlayson. Donald R. Finlayson. Before we start, I 
understand that I can request that my name be withheld from the 
press.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Mr. Finlayson. I make that request.
    The Chairman. Your name will not be given out unless you 
give it out yourself. That is a rule of the committee. The only 
way anyone will know that you have been here today is if you 
will them.
    You are working down at where?
    Mr. Finlayson. Building 43, as a crane operator.
    The Chairman. And how long have you been working there for 
GE?
    Mr. Finlayson. For the company or the building?
    The Chairman. For the company.
    Mr. Finlayson. Thirteen years this month.
    The Chairman. Do you work in any classified government 
work?
    Mr. Finlayson. Well, we have no finished work in my 
building, and the building until recently wasn't under HET.
    The Chairman. Do you have any kind of a badge that you use 
to go into the plant?
    Mr. Finlayson. The badge, it was up until a month or so.
    The Chairman. Anyone can go into the plant?
    Mr. Finlayson. Anyone can go into the building where I 
work. We had a visiting day there recently and it was open to 
the public.
    The Chairman. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Finlayson. I am not now and I never have been a member 
of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. I think in fairness to the witness I should 
say this: Keep in mind that the fact that someone else has 
testified definitely that you were a member of the Communist 
party does not mean that we have got to make a decision one way 
or the other. I just think the witness should know if there has 
been testimony contrary to his.
    Mr. Finlayson. I would like to add to that my political 
background. I was, up until 1946, a member of the Socialist 
Labor party. I am still sympathetic with the Socialist Labor 
party, and I am still active to the extent that I subscribe to 
the weekly People, which is the official organ of the Socialist 
Labor party. Also, I donate money to the Socialist Labor party, 
and whenever I have the opportunity I go around and distribute 
leaflets for the Socialist Labor party.
    Now the reason that I got out of the Socialist Labor party 
in 1946--and since this is a family affair, I hope that this 
particular part will also be kept confidential. In 1946 my 
marriage was just about on the rocks, and that was one of the 
chief obstacles. So to that extent I gave up my membership in 
the Socialist Labor party, but I am still now sympathetic to it 
and I donate money to it. Whenever I have the opportunity, and 
due to family antagonisms I don't spend too much time, but 
whenever I have the opportunity to do so, I do participate in 
activities of the party.
    If you will check the principles of the Socialist Labor 
party, you will find that they are entirely at odds with the 
principles of the Communist party. So I as prepared to swear 
under oath here, now or any time, that I never have been active 
in the Communist party and that I never have been sympathetic 
toward them.
    The Chairman. Is the Socialist Labor party on the ballot in 
Massachusetts?
    Mr. Finlayson. In Massachusetts, yes. It is also on the 
ballot in New Jersey. It is under the name of the Industrial 
Union party there because there is a law in New Jersey which 
forbids two parties appearing on the ballot that have the same 
word in their name. So therefore, when the American Labor party 
was formed--due to the number of signatures they were able to 
get--they won the use of that word on the ballot. Therefore, 
the Socialist Labor party had to run under the name of the 
Industrial Union party.
    The Chairman. And would you say that the Socialist Labor 
party is to any extent Communist dominated?
    Mr. Finlayson. No; positively no. Even during the war when 
Russia was considered an ally, the Socialist Labor party was 
still antagonistic to the Communist party. Somewhere back, I 
believe it was the Third International of the Socialist Labor 
party, the party broke away from all European contacts and 
broke out of the International. It is no longer affiliated with 
the International.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that you are not now and 
you never have been a member of the Communist party and that 
you are not sympathetic toward communism?
    Mr. Finlayson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Finlayson. I beg pardon?
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Finlayson. I never have been asked. I have been asked 
to subscribe to the Daily Worker.
    The Chairman. Did you ever subscribe to that?
    Mr. Finlayson. No. I read a couple of copies, but I wasn't 
interested in subscribing to it because we have our own paper, 
the Weekly People.
    The Chairman. Do any of your co-workers out there subscribe 
to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Finlayson. Not to my knowledge, no.
    The Chairman. Just one other question: The UE was accused 
of being Communist-dominated by the CIO. You have been a member 
of the UE for some time?
    Mr. Finlayson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Would you say that the UE is Communist 
dominated?
    Mr. Finlayson. Not to my knowledge, no. The attitude in the 
shop is that this was what you would call ``red baiting'' or 
some such thing as that. It was used for the purpose of putting 
the UE in a bad light.
    The Chairman. Who are the top leaders of the UE?
    Mr. Finlayson. Charley Newell and Jay Geramby are the local 
leaders, I understand. Charley Newell, I know, is in charge of 
the local office; and I think Geramby is also in the local 
office.
    The Chairman. Who are the national officers?
    Mr. Finlayson. The president is Fitzgerald. He is the 
president, I understand. Antomy is a representative of some 
kind. To my knowledge, the UE is not dominated by any political 
party.
    The Chairman. How about Julius Emspak? Do you have any 
reason to think he is a Communist?
    Mr. Finlayson. Well, I don't really know the man; I have 
never seen him. The only information I have is the information 
that was in the paper, and that doesn't seem to be very 
definite.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this now: You came here and 
you have frankly said you are not a Communist and never have 
been?
    Mr. Finlayson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. You have said that you are not an espionage 
agent?
    Mr. Finlayson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. You did not hide behind any constitutional 
rights there. What do you think about a man who is working for 
the government and doing government work who comes in and when 
he is asked, ``Are you engaged in espionage today?'' he says, 
``I won't answer because my answer might incriminate me''?
    Mr. Finlayson. Speaking of the Fifth Amendment, in my 
estimation I have the objection that if it is used, that that 
implies that there is something to hide.
    The Chairman. The reason I mention that, Julius Emspak has 
taken the Fifth Amendment, and he is one of the leaders and one 
of the top leaders of UE. He took the Fifth Amendment as to 
communism. I do not recall whether he took it as to espionage 
or not.
    Mr. Finlayson. I didn't hear that.
    The Chairman. Emspak, one of the leaders of UE, your 
national officer, took the Fifth Amendment as to communism. I 
do not recall whether he took it as to espionage or not. I 
think that he did.
    I think that we have nothing further. You understand that 
the fact that you were called here does not mean that the 
committee thinks that you have been guilty of any wrongdoings. 
When we have evidence such as we had here, we must naturally 
call you in because we are investigating everything which might 
touch on espionage or communism. I can see where it is entirely 
possible here that there were three witnesses who might have 
been mistaken and confused membership in the Socialist Labor 
party with membership in the Communist party--I don't know. But 
in any event, your name will not be given to anyone by this 
committee. The only way anyone will know that you were here 
will be if you tell then yourself.
    Mr. Carr. The Socialist Labor party, you do not belong to 
it now?
    Mr. Finlayson. But I am still sympathetic to it.
    Mr. Carr. Is that a Marxist party?
    Mr. Finlayson. That is a Marxist party, yes. It is vastly 
different from the Communist party in this way, in this point: 
that since Marx wrote, there has been an addition to the 
science of Marxism in the way concerning how this would be 
applied to a country in which it is already highly defined. It 
points out that in such a country where we have a Constitution 
such as we have, that the thing can only be accomplished in a 
peaceful manner, and that is by a vote of the people on the 
ballot. It is to be settled on the political field by the vote 
of the people in a civilized manner.
    Mr. Carr. Then you believe in Marxism, but you believe in 
attaining it by a peaceful means?
    Mr. Finlayson. It implies a change in the present social 
system. It does not imply such as you know in Russia today; it 
is merely a dictatorship over there and there is no such thing 
as freedom.
    Mr. Carr. You do not believe in the forceful overthrow of 
the government?
    Mr. Finlayson. I don't believe in the forceful overthrow of 
the government, and I don't believe it ever could be 
accomplished forcibly here. The program of the Socialist Labor 
party is that the working class must organize on a political 
field for the purpose of settling the problems which face us, 
in a peaceful manner, and that is by the vote of the majority 
of the people.
    It does not attempt to impose its will on anybody but 
merely leaves it strictly up to the vote of the majority in the 
same manner that an election might be carried on today in a 
change from one party to another, according to whatever the 
people choose.
    The Chairman. There is no question but what you have an 
absolute right to belong to a Marxist party. There is no 
question about that at all. I can't help but have some respect 
for a man who comes in here and when he stands for something 
which is different from what maybe the chairman or the members 
of the committee stand for he has the intelligence and the guts 
to say, ``Here is what I stand for.'' You have a perfect right 
to stand for it.
    As I understand, Karl Marx's Manifesto written in 1948 
differs from the Communist bible of today--if you would call it 
that--in that Marx believed, and in his Manifesto taught, that 
the government in Britain and the government in the United 
States could and should be changed, but by peaceful means. In 
1914 or thereabouts, Lenin changed the Communist bible by re-
writing, in effect, Marx's Manifesto. Lenin's position was that 
while the change which Marx desired was desirable, it could not 
be accomplished by peaceful means and that it should be worked 
for by a bloody revolution.
    I gather you do not subscribe to the so-called Lenin-Marx 
doctrine but you believe that the socialist form of government 
as laid down by Karl Marx would be desirable, but you would not 
advocate that by any revolution.
    Mr. Finlayson. That is correct. There is another detail 
there that Lenin did, of which we have a record of in one of 
our pamphlets, ``Democracy Versus Dictatorship and Despotism,'' 
by Dr. Peterson, our national secretary, where he pointed out 
that Lenin had read some of the works and he agreed with it 
wholeheartedly. But for some reason later on, he did change 
over and accept the violent method. Why, I am not familiar 
with.
    I have read some of Lenin's books and have tried to figure 
out why he made that change, but I haven't found out except 
possibly there was an attempt to assassinate him and perhaps 
from then on he wasn't able to take care of party matters and 
carry out whatever he might have had in mind at that time.
    As I say, that is explained quite in detail in our pamphlet 
known as ``Democracy Versus Dictatorship and Despotism.''
    Mr. Anastos. Mr. Finlayson, you told us that somebody did 
ask you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Finlayson. No, they asked me to subscribe to the Daily 
Worker.
    Mr. Anastos. Previously.
    Mr. Finlayson. There was a fellow who came around to the 
house a couple of times selling the Daily Worker. I bought a 
couple of copies and he asked me to subscribe. I told him that 
I wasn't interested.
    Mr. Anastos. Nobody ever asked you to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Finlayson. No.
    The Chairman. We have nothing further.
    [The subcommittee next heard testimony from Theodore 
Pappas. That testimony was made public on November 17, 1955 and 
published in: Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and 
Industry, 84th Congress, 1st sess. (Washington D.C.: Government 
Printing Office, 1955), part 10.]
    The Chairman. Will you stand up and raise your right hand. 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Homes. I do.

    TESTIMONY OF GEORGE HOMES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                        FREDERICK COHEN)

    The Chairman. Will you give the reporter your full name?
    Mr. Homes. George Homes, H-o-m-e-s.
    The Chairman. And your address?
    Mr. Homes. 5 Charles Street Court, Lynn, Massachusetts.
    The Chairman. And the counsel?
    Mr. Cohen. My name is Frederick Cohen, C-o-h-e-n, an 
attorney at law. I practice law at 294 Washington Street, 
Boston, Massachusetts.
    The Chairman. Would you give your phone number so counsel 
can call you?
    Mr. Cohen. Hancock 6-2450.
    The Chairman. Mr. Homes, in view of the fact that this is 
the first time you and your counsel have appeared before this 
committee, I would like to briefly run over the committee 
rules.
    First, your lawyer is not allowed to take any part in the 
proceedings. However, you can confer with him whenever you want 
to. If at any time he thinks you need his advice, even though 
you don't ask for it, he can tap you on the shoulder and give 
you that advice. If at any time you want a private conference 
with your lawyer, we can arrange a room for that.
    In view of the shortness of time between the time the 
subpoena was served upon you and your appearance here, if at 
any time your counsel feels that you need additional time to 
check the law on any particular phase of your testimony, we 
will try to accommodate you in that respect.
    Feel perfectly free to talk to your lawyer. If you do not 
understand the question, feel perfectly free just to stop and 
make us repeat the question and have it explained to you. Don't 
feel that because you are here before this committee that you 
are accused of any crime. We have had many good, loyal 
Americans here before the committee. Many have been called 
because we think they can give us some information and some 
have been called because false information may have been given 
about them.
    We give them a chance to clear the matter up before they 
are called in public session. We decide whether or not it is 
necessary to call them in public session. We also notify you 
and your lawyer what the nature of the inquiry is so that if 
you are called at a future date you will know why you are being 
called and what type of questions will be asked.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Homes, you work at General Electric, is that 
right?
    Mr. Homes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now long have you been working at General 
Electric?
    Mr. Homes. Nine years now.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you worked on any government work?
    Mr. Homes. Well, the building I am in is Building 42, 
supposed to be the blacksmith shop, and whether it is 
government work or not, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. That is something you don't know?
    Mr. Homes. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked on government work?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You just do not know what the end use of it is?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody ever ask you to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Homes. No, they didn't. No one I ever knew was a member 
of the Communist party except a guy called----
    Mr. Cohn. Bill Goodwin?
    Mr. Homes. Goodwin. We called him Bob. That is all the 
name----
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't he ask you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Homes. He didn't ask me to join. He just was helping me 
out once and we found a leaflet in the front door--one of the 
circulars--at that time. I had a house I was in, and it did not 
have any wire and didn't have any hot water or cold water, no 
bath, and no heat in the cellar. I have been paying eight 
dollars a week for that for quite a while. He said he knew some 
guy could help me out, and we went to Senator Hogan up in the 
square, and he goes to my landlord.
    Mr. Cohn. The only question I asked was, Did Mr. Goodwin or 
anyone else ask you to become a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever become a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. I never have in my life, and I don't know what 
Communists were.
    Mr. Cohn. You never were a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Homes. No, I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Nobody ever asked you to be a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Nobody ever asked you to go to a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    The Chairman. How about Mr. Mills, did he ever ask you to 
join the Communist party?
    Mr. Homes. I don't know anything about a Mr. Mills. The 
only one I know is Bob Goodwin.
    The Chairman. You don't know Mr. Mills at all?
    Mr. Homes. If he were to walk in now, just by knowing the 
name, I wouldn't know him. Bob Goodwin, I would know him.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see Mr. Goodwin this morning?
    Mr. Homes. Yes, he was here this morning.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. I didn't know it.
    Mr. Cohn. You had no way of knowing that?
    Mr. Homes. I had no idea.
    Mr. Cohn. Nothing he ever said to you made you think he was 
a Communist?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    The Chairman. Just for your protection, we have no desire 
to have any more perjury cases. May I give you a bit of advice. 
Witnesses come into this committee time after time, and they 
are guilty of no crime. It is no crime to attend Communist 
party meetings and no crime to have someone attempt to recruit 
you into the party. It is no crime to be a Communist unless you 
work toward the overthrow of this government by force and 
violence. People come in here and make the mistake of thinking 
we picked their names out of a hat. They proceed to lie to the 
committee, and when that is done we have no choice but to 
submit the case to the grand jury.
    I think, for your protection, you should keep in mind that 
your lawyer is here to advise you; that you must tell him the 
whole truth. If you do not tell your lawyer the facts, he 
cannot give you intelligent advice. If he gives you bad advice 
as a result of not knowing what the facts are, and if you lie 
to the committee, you end up in jail.
    The reason you are here is because other witnesses have 
testified under oath that you were recruited into the party and 
that they heard you being asked to join the party. You will be 
excused now, and I suggest you tell your counsel the absolute 
truth. If you want to come back and change your testimony 
today--and not next week or the week after--you had better come 
back and give us the truth today, and we will strike the other 
testimony from the record.
    You go out and tell your lawyer exactly what the facts are 
so that he can advise you, will you?
    Mr. Homes. There is nothing else that I know, because I 
wouldn't know anything my lawyer put on a paper. I can't even 
read or write, and I wouldn't know anything anybody told me 
about anything. I never have been a Communist, I know that.
    The Chairman. Did anyone ever ask you to join the party?
    Mr. Homes. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Homes. They never asked me to join the party.
    The Chairman. Can you think of anything that happened that 
might make someone believe that you have belonged to the party? 
It is hard for us to think that someone would come in and 
deliberately lie about you. I am not saying it is true or not, 
but I am giving you the benefit of what has been testified to.
    Your testimony is that you are not now and never have been 
a member and you were never solicited to join the Communist 
party, is that right?
    Mr. Homes. I never have been one, and I never had no chance 
to be one.
    The Chairman. You do not believe in communism?
    Mr. Homes. No, because I don't know what it is.
    The Chairman. You will be excused. If your lawyer wants to 
talk to you further and you want to add anything, we will be 
leaving at four o'clock.
    Your name will not be given out unless you yourself give it 
out. If you decide to give out your name, you may do that, but 
we do not give out the names of witnesses.
    [The subcommittee next heard testimony from Alexander 
Gregory, Witoutos S. Bolys, Theodore Pappas (recalled), 
Benjamin Alfred, and Witulad Piekarski. That testimony was made 
public on November 17, 1955 and published in Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, Subversion and Espionage in 
Defense Establishments and Industry, 84th Congress, 1st sess. 
(Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1955), part 10.]
    [The hearing adjourned at 4:15 p.m., and reconvened at 8:45 
a.m. the following morning, to permit Witulad Pierkarski to 
have counsel. At 8:45 a.m., Mr. Pierkarski was recalled to the 
stand, and present was his counsel, Lawrence E. Shobow. This 
testimony was also published in 1955.]
    [Whereupon, at 8:55 a.m., on Thursday morning, November 19, 
1953, the hearing was closed.]
















                TRANSFER OF THE SHIP ``GREATER BUFFALO''

    [Editor's note.--Neither Paul D. Page, Jr. nor George J. 
Kolowich (1918-1991) testified in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 2:30 p.m., in room 375 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman of 
the subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, staff director; Thomas W. La 
Venia, assistant counsel, Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. We will proceed. Will you come forward and be 
sworn, please. In this matter now in hearing before the 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Page. I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF PAUL D. PAGE, JR.

    Mr. Carr. Would you give your full name?
    Mr. Page. Paul D. Page, Jr.
    Mr. Carr. And your occupation, sir?
    Mr. Page. Lawyer.
    Mr. Carr. Are you presently practicing law?
    Mr. Page. I am, sir.
    Mr. Carr. You were formerly solicitor for the Maritime 
Commission, is that your correct title?
    Mr. Page. That is my correct title.
    Mr. Carr. For what years, sir?
    Mr. Page. I entered the service on I believe May 1, 1937, 
and I resigned of my own volition effective April 27, 1951.
    Mr. Carr. In order to get right to the point here, Mr. 
Page, you handled the case within the Maritime Commission which 
subsequently went to the court of claims concerning the Detroit 
and Cleveland Navigation Company, the transaction involving 
their ship, the Greater Buffalo?
    Mr. Page. I did, sir.
    Mr. Carr. When did you first begin to handle that case?
    Mr. Page. I should have to refer to the record for that, I 
believe that it was about March, but the year I will have to 
look at in my records.
    Mr. Carr. March of 1948, wasn't it, sir?
    Mr. Page. It was 1948. I assume that I began to handle it 
sometime prior to March 19, 1948.
    Mr. Carr. The history of that case was that a vessel owned 
by this company was taken over by the government during World 
War II?
    Mr. Page. That is true.
    Mr. Carr. Just very briefly would you tell us what happened 
in that case, and who actually took the case over, what 
department.
    Mr. Page. It is my understanding, although this preceded my 
connection with the matter, the Greater Buffalo was 
requisitioned by the War Shipping Administration, but probably 
for the navy's use. It is my understanding that the Greater 
Buffalo was towed out into the Lakes and utilized for practice 
landings and take-offs for navy planes, and that, however, is 
hearsay with me.
    Mr. Carr. The later records, however, substantiate that by 
reference to it as a so-called Baby Flattop used on the Great 
Lakes.
    Mr. Page. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Then you were [not] involved in the acquiring of 
the ship but in the more or less disposal of this ship and the 
government's obligation to the company, at the conclusion of 
hostilities?
    Mr. Page. That is true, the determination of just 
compensation for the ship and the action of the Maritime 
Commission upon the request of her owners that she be returned 
under Public Law 305, 78th Congress.
    Mr. Carr. Under that law, the commission sent word to the 
company that they should do what? And I am thinking of the term 
in 1948 when you sent them word that they should take proper 
action under the law.
    Mr. Page. My memorandum to the commission dated March 19, 
1948 states that on March 10, 1948 the owner's representative 
expressed to me their desire to receive proper advice as to the 
terms on which the Greater Buffalo would be returned to them, 
should they elect to reclaim it and as to the amount which 
would be tendered as just compensation by the Maritime 
Commission.
    In order to put this machinery in motion, on March 17, 
1948, the owners by telegram addressed to me requested the 
commission to tender back the Greater Buffalo, pursuant to 
Public Law 305, 78th Congress, and this request being made 
without prejudice to the company's right to reject the tender.
    Acting upon that request, on March 19, 1948 I made 
recommendation to the commission which was approved.
    The Chairman. You mean a recommendation as to the 
compensation to be paid?
    Mr. Page. And as to her return. I think perhaps it will be 
simplest to state it. My recommendations were, first, that the 
commission find that the sum of $95,000 plus an amount 
representing damages for delay in payment, at the rate of 2\1/
2\ percent annum, on said sum, from the date of taking to the 
date of the commission's approval of this memorandum 
constitutes just compensation for the S.S. Greater Buffalo, 
determined in accordance with Section 902 of the Merchant 
Marine Act of 1936 as amended, and said section is construed by 
applicable decisions of the General Accounting Office, 
including without limitation the comptroller general's opinion 
to the war shipping administrator, dated November 28, 1942.
    I may interpolate that that sum was made up of $60,000 as 
use compensation for the ship, and $35,000 for certain 
furnishings.
    I recommended, second, that the commission determine that 
the allowances for use and restoration permissible under the 
terms of Public Law 305, 78th Congress, equal the sums stated 
in recommendation number one, hereof, as just compensation.
    Three, that the secretary be authorized and directed to 
notify the former owners of the Greater Buffalo, the Detroit 
and Cleveland Navigation Company that upon execution of a 
voucher in the amount above set out as just compensation and 
upon approval of said voucher by the General Accounting Office, 
the Greater Buffalo will be returned without repayment by the 
former owner of any portion of the just compensation paid 
therefor, and further, that should the owner fail within ten 
days after delivery of said voucher, and make arrangements 
satisfactory to the commission for the return of the Greater 
Buffalo within twenty days after mailing delivery of the 
voucher to the commission, the Greater Buffalo will be 
advertised and sold by competitive bids.
    There follow a couple of mechanical recommendations for 
putting that recommendation into effect.
    Mr. Carr. Now, was an offer by the commission accepted?
    Mr. Page. The offer according to a memorandum by me to Mr. 
James L. Kemper, head or chief of the Sales Division, states 
that by letter dated May 17, 1948, Detroit and Cleveland 
Navigation Company advised the Maritime commission that it 
rejected its offer. A copy of its letter was attached to my 
memorandum.
    Mr. Carr. Now, Mr. Page, could you explain how the 
commission arrived at the figure of some $95,000 as a just 
compensation for this, and I understand about the $60,000 and 
the $35,000, but how you arrived at the figure.
    Mr. Page. By reference to my memorandum of March 9, 1948, 
which is eleven pages long, I find that the $35,000 was based 
simply upon our inventory figure. I accepted that since it was 
made by competent people within the employ of the commission.
    Mr. Carr. That was concerning the equipment and the 
furnishings.
    Mr. Page. That is right. The $60,000 figure was determined 
as the scrap value of the Greater Buffalo. I could probably sum 
it up by one paragraph taken from page--I can't find the page--
by my memorandum as follows:

    ``The whole case in my opinion boils down to this: The 
application of glittering formula and the assignment of weight 
to assorted factors, result in building up, almost any figure. 
Such procedure, however, would fly in the face of the fact that 
the Greater Buffalo as an operating unit was a liability, not 
an asset, and that an ordinarily prudent businessman, offered 
the Greater Buffalo on September 9, 1939 or on August 8, 1942 
(the date of taking), would have computed his purchase price 
upon scrap value. The homespun truth is that the Greater 
Buffalo being reasonably worth $60,000''--footnote, for 
accuracy of this figure I rely upon Mr. Stearn's informed 
judgment and I will explain that in a moment--``a private 
purchaser would not have paid more, and the commission (as 
trustee of the taxpayer) should not pay more or less.''

    Mr. Stearn was a professional appraiser, attached to the 
staff of the Maritime Commission, who had appraised the scrap 
value of the Greater Buffalo at $60,000.
    The Chairman. What did you pay for this vessel when you 
took it over?
    Mr. Page. The vessel--well, there was no payment for the 
vessel when she was taken over. The payment would later be 
determined as just compensation, and to determine just 
compensation or purchase price was the purpose of my 
memorandum.
    The Chairman. In other words, you talk about $95,000. You 
are referring to what the commission would pay the owners 
rather than what the owners would pay the commission, is that 
right?
    Mr. Page. That is true, sir.
    In other words, you don't have to pay when you take it. You 
determine what you will pay later.
    The Chairman. And you proposed to pay them in 1949 when the 
vessel was being returned what you considered the scrap vessel 
would be worth in 1948, or in 1942?
    Mr. Page. We were bound by the opinion of the comptroller 
general, which fixed as a critical date September 8, 1939. 
However, in the instance, my recommendation stated that on 
either the date of the taking, which is the customary date for 
the determination of value acquired by eminent domain, or on 
September 8, 1939, the ship was worth scrap, neither more nor 
less.
    The Chairman. Let us see that. I do not quite follow your 
system of payment. What you propose to do is to give the owner 
the value of the vessel when you took it over, and return it to 
him scott free, is that it?
    Mr. Page. That is true, because that, under the provisions 
of Public Law 305----
    The Chairman. Do not explain the law. I am trying to get 
the formula you followed. Was the vessel being used at the time 
you took it over?
    Mr. Page. May I refer to my memorandum?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. I think your record, Mr. Page, will show that the 
commission checked with authorities to determine the vessel's 
capacity and what the vessel had been doing in the way of 
business during the last ten or fifteen years prior to this 
time, and the original price of the vessel. What the senator is 
trying to get at is----
    The Chairman. I do not follow your formula of making 
payment, and I may say I know nothing about this case at all 
except what I heard as I sat here today. You say in effect that 
``We will pay the fair value of the vessel and then we will 
return this vessel,'' and that seems a rather unusual procedure 
if the vessel was worth only $95,000 and the government pays 
the value of the vessel. The question is how does the 
government own the vessel then?
    Mr. Page. That is quite true, and under the normal 
circumstances, the government would not return the vessel. 
However, under this particular loan the owners of particular 
types of vessels of which the Greater Buffalo was one, was 
entitled to make a demand for the return of that vessel, and to 
receive just compensation and in the event that the cost of her 
requisition--I am sorry, I can't give you the formula, Senator. 
I would have to look at Public Law 305 for that.
    However, in either case----
    The Chairman. Let us see if I am right. Public Law 302--is 
that it?
    Mr. Page. No, sir; 305.
    The Chairman. As I recall, the law provides that the 
government must pay, in effect, the fair rental value of the 
vessel, and then return the vessel. I understood that that had 
been interpreted, however, to mean that where you take over the 
vessel and pay the actual value, that then that is owned by the 
commission, by the government. Or am I wrong in that?
    Mr. Page. That is true, and the government did own the 
Greater Buffalo, and since she was not reclaimed under Public 
Law 305 she was eventually sold.
    The Chairman. How much money was given the owners?
    Mr. Page. No money, by us. There was later an agreed 
settlement in the court of claims.
    The Chairman. I may jump some of the gaps in this because I 
have to go to another matter, and counsel is going to continue 
with the hearing. How much did the commission finally pay the 
owners?
    Mr. Page. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the 
commission never paid the owner anything.
    The Chairman. I see. Where is the vessel now?
    Mr. Page. The vessel was sold. I believe she was scrapped 
subsequently. I would have to refer to the records for that.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. In other words, you offered to pay the owners 
$95,000, roughly. That was rejected. The matter went into the 
court of claims and then there was an approved payment of 
roughly $2,700,000?
    Mr. Page. There was a judgment which, in my understanding, 
was entered by agreement between government counsel and counsel 
for the claimant for two million dollars plus a certain amount 
of interest.
    The Chairman. And you consider that far more than the 
vessel is worth?
    Mr. Page. I do.
    The Chairman. If you did not price the vessel on the basis 
of its value as scrap but as an operating ship, what comment 
would you have to make about the figure of $2 million?
    Mr. Page. I did comment to the commission and very 
carefully went over the entire operating history, not only of 
this ship but a fleet. We exhausted those possibilities and 
determined that she was without value as an operating ship. 
Therefore, that her market value on the date of taking could 
only be her value for scrap and not as an operating unit.
    Mr. Carr. Your determination is based on the fact that this 
is the price that a reasonably prudent businessman would pay 
for the ship under the circumstances?
    Mr. Page. A willing buyer would pay a willing seller.
    The Chairman. I have a little difficulty reconciling your 
statement that this was not acceptable as an operating vessel 
when you actually operated from 1942 to 1948.
    Mr. Page. No, sir; we did not operate her. To my 
understanding, and it is hearsay to me, she was towed out to 
the Lakes and utilized there as a take-off for and landing for 
navy planes.
    The Chairman. For take-offs and landings.
    Mr. Page. Yes, sir. She was never operated as a ship.
    The Chairman. Has she ever been operated since the 
commission lost title to it?
    Mr. Page. Not to my knowledge, and I believe she has been 
scrapped.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: You can speak very 
freely on this, you are speaking in executive session. Is it 
your thought that this payment in excess of two million dollars 
could have been the result of just bad judgment, in other 
words, an honest mistake? Or do you think it is that this could 
not have have been an honest mistake?
    Mr. Page. I must assume that it was an honest mistake, 
because there is no evidence before me to justify any other 
assumption.
    The Chairman. No, that is not the question. You are a man 
who has been experienced in this business. I have never seen 
the ship. I know very little about the shipping business. You 
know what you felt should have been paid for it. You know what 
they ultimately paid for it. You are in a position, and you are 
not passing any final judgment on anyone but just for the 
benefit of the committee, whether you think it could have been 
an honest mistake. To make it clear, if I see someone 
representing the government pay a hundred dollars for an item 
that is priced at a dollar, I know it isn't an honest mistake. 
I just wonder how this looks to you.
    Mr. Page. I find in the file a letter addressed to Maritime 
Commission, to my attention, which was some three pages long, 
and dated October 21, 1949, which sets out the reasons why the 
Department of Justice settled the case for the figure at which 
it was settled. Those are all legal arguments which can be 
viewed in different lights by different lawyers.
    The Chairman. And do they make a case here that the vessel 
is worth that much money?
    Mr. Page. To me they did not, and I so stated to the 
department in my letter.
    Mr. Carr. When you arrived at this figure Mr. Page, when I 
say you I mean the Maritime Commission arrived at this figure, 
this was arrived at as, as I said before, as a price which a 
reasonably prudent businessman would pay under the 
circumstances?
    Mr. Page. That is true.
    Mr. Carr. Now, this was arrived at after giving due 
consideration to the interest of the government and the 
interest of the owner, former owner, of the vessel.
    Mr. Page. As I said, it was a price that the government as 
trustee for the taxpayer should not pay more or less. In other 
words, it was fair to both parties.
    Mr. Carr. The records of the Maritime Commission, the file 
that you have before you, so indicates that the Maritime 
Commission took the position throughout this matter that the 
government's interests in this matter should be protected to 
the utmost?
    Mr. Page. That is surely true.
    Mr. Carr. The investigation by the Maritime Commission of 
the vessel's original cost and of its productivity during its 
years that it was in service, reflected what? Do you have that 
before you?
    Mr. Page. Reflected that she had been an operating 
liability rather than an asset, and in our opinion it was no 
part of the determination of just compensation to bail any 
investor out of a losing investment.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Page, did you, yourself, personally, handle 
the bulk of the work on this matter in the Maritime Commission?
    Mr. Page. I was responsible for it. The actual memorandum 
was written in great part by one of my assistants, Mr. Joseph 
A. Klausen.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, you were the supervisor as 
solicitor, and he was one of your legal men?
    Mr. Page. That is true. I signed the recommendation and 
assumed full responsibility for its validity.
    Mr. Carr. Now so that we can speed up a bit here, in 
October of 1949, after several conferences back and forth with 
the Department of Justice and one or two with the former owners 
of the vessel, you, as solicitor, were advised that the 
Department of Justice had received an offer from the company 
setting a deadline of October 31, 1949 in which they offered to 
accept $2 million in settlement of the case?
    Mr. Page. The letter of the Department to the Maritime 
Commission, to my attention, is dated October 21, 1948, and 
says that an offer to compromise and settle the case for the 
sum of $2 million with interest has been made by the 
plaintiff's attorney and is now under consideration in this 
department.
    Mr. Carr. And a reply from your office was requested within 
the time limit of the offer?
    Mr. Page. It said ``We would appreciate your comments and 
suggestions with regard thereto before that date, which is 
October 13,'' stating that unless the offer was accepted by 
October 31, the department was informed that it would be 
withdrawn.
    The department added, ``If we hear nothing from you prior 
to that date, we will construe it to mean that no objection 
will be interposed to the acceptance of this offer.''
    Mr. Carr. So in reply to that letter you wrote to the 
Department of Justice stating what?
    Mr. Page. On October 26, 1949, we replied to that letter.
    Mr. Carr. Your reply was to the effect that if the 
Department of Justice determined that it was in the best 
interest of the country to enter such an agreement, the 
Maritime Commission would pose no objections. However, you 
wished to point out the following items. And I think you 
enumerated three points that they should take into 
consideration.
    Mr. Page. We enumerated, I believe, eight.
    Mr. Carr. Eight points. Could we have those two letters 
made a part of the record?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [The letters referred to were marked for identification and 
filed with the committee.]
    Mr. Carr. Will you tell me what those conditions which 
should be considered by the department as offered by the 
commission were?
    Mr. Page. The letter which was signed by me as solicitor 
for the commission, was dated October 26, 1949, and it stated 
that complying with their request for comments and suggestions, 
we called their attention to eight points. The first point was 
that after full consideration of the relevant factors which 
included the factors advanced by the department in favor of the 
two million dollar settlement, the Maritime Commission had 
reached the value which I previously recounted, and stated that 
the Maritime Commission ``did that by approving comprehensive 
memorandum, copy of which was furnished on February 3, 1949, 
based upon proof that on the date of taking a private purchaser 
would have paid no more for the Greater Buffalo than $60,000, 
and that the commission as trustee for the taxpayers would not 
pay more or less.''
    The second point was that the proposed settlement 
constituted payment, an amount exceeding 2000 percent of the 
administrative determination and invited comparison of that 
figure with the figure of 169 percent of administrative 
determination which figure the Department of Justice had 
repeatedly called to the Maritime Commission's attention as 
typical of court awards of just compensation.
    Mr. Carr. Could I interrupt you for a minute?
    Mr. Page, just to interrupt you for a moment, was this 
figure of 2000 percent of the administrative determination of 
the value an unusual one to you, a man who has had some good 
deal of experience in this line?
    Mr. Page. I do not recall a comparable figure.
    Mr. Carr. In all of the confiscations by the government, 
taking over of ships, and all of the returns of these ships, 
you do not recall a settlement which approached this limit?
    Mr. Page. Up until that time I do not, and I have no 
definite knowledge of any which approached it since, although 
there may have been such settlements.
    Mr. Carr. This is an unusual amount?
    Mr. Page. It is the highest that I remember.
    Mr. Carr. The highest that you remember?
    Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Continue, please.
    The Chairman. I have just one question: Was the final 
settlement made with the owners from whom the vessel was taken 
in 1942?
    Mr. Page. My only knowledge is that it was referred to 
plaintiff's attorneys and it listed as the plaintiff the 
Detroit and Cleveland Navigation Company which I understood 
owned the ship at all times. That is my only knowledge on that 
point, Senator.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Carr. Will you continue, Mr. Page?
    Mr. Page. Our third point referred to two categories of 
evidence which were contained in the letter from the Department 
of Justice, which I stated ``inferentially suggesting that such 
evidence would result in a judgment of the court of claims 
against the government of at least two million dollars.''
    We referred the Department of Justice to two cases, rather 
to a case, Smith Douglas Company, Inc., against United States. 
And to a well known text, Bonbright's The Valuation of 
Property. We pointed out that replacement costs, which was 
relied upon by the Department of Justice in this settlement, 
should be considered only when the appraiser is justified in 
concluding that an owner will rationally replace, and that when 
the property is clearly not worth replacement, and we invited 
attention to the operating history of the Greater Buffalo, such 
replacement cost should be wholly ignored.
    We then sighted United States against Boston CC & NY Canal 
Company, 271 Fed. 877, wherein it is held that replacement 
costs should not be considered in determining value unless a 
reasonably prudent man would purchase or undertake the 
construction of the property at the figure represented by 
replacement cost.
    For a fourth point we referred to a statement by the 
department that plaintiff is well prepared to show that 
mismanagement was the primary cause of the losses rather than 
lack of available traffic. We called attention to pages seven 
and eight of the memorandum approved by the Maritime Commission 
which shows that if efficient management, eliminating excessive 
overhead, be assumed in analyzing the operating history of the 
Greater Buffalo, net dollar losses would still exceed profits 
by almost one hundred percent.
    For a fifth point, we said that the nearest instance of the 
sale of a ship with similar characteristics (the Seeandbee 
fully discussed in data previously furnished) brings out a 
price of $129,000 in 1941, and that reasonably adjusted for 
differences in size and age, a theoretical price results for 
the Greater Buffalo approximately $272,000.
    The Chairman. Can I interrupt there. Do I understand that 
even in the first year of the war when business was booming, as 
I recall, that this ship was sustaining a heavy loss?
    Mr. Page. She has operated at a loss, I believe, at all 
times.
    The Chairman. And you did not take it over until 1942?
    Mr. Page. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And is this a correct assumption, that if you 
could ever make money with a ship, you should have been able to 
make money the first couple of years of the war?
    Mr. Page. I certainly believe that to be true.
    The sixth point referred to insurance carried by the owner, 
which the department's letter stated was $1,750,000. We 
suggested that that represents rather than a purchase price, 
which would be agreed upon by a willing buyer and a willing 
seller, a financial risk which the insurance company was 
willing to assume, considering itself adequately compensated 
for the risk by premium payments. ``With respect to the navy's 
insurance, please refer to my letter of September 27, 1949, 
which points out that this insurance was collision liability 
and P & I insurance, representing the limit of liability the 
underwriters would pay under that form of insurance and has 
nothing to do with the value of the vessel.''
    For the seventh point we said that the proposed settlement 
is 400 percent of the Stearn figure of $500,000. Depreciated 
reproduction costs determined by Mr. Stearn at $2,275,500 is 
subject to the disabilities referred to in the citations 
contained in numbered paragraph 3.
    Eighth was simply with reference to interest and stated 
that the Maritime Commission on May 15, 1948, tendered payment 
of 75 percent of just compensation determined by the Maritime 
Commission, which 75 percent aggregated $81,377.82, which fact 
should be taken into account in any interest computation.
    The point was that their interest could stop running on the 
amount of $81,000 as of the date of the tender if any interest 
were paid later.
    Mr. Carr. This was the only point of your letter which was 
adopted in the settlement, is that correct, the eighth point?
    Mr. Page. I believe that to be true, if my memory is 
correct.
    Mr. Carr. In arriving at your determination of the price 
and in giving consideration to this matter, the Maritime 
commission had no animosity toward the former owners of this 
boat? There had been no disagreement with them? You personally 
handled the case. Had there been any trouble with them, any 
reason why there should be any personalities involved in this?
    Mr. Page. None of which I have any knowledge whatsoever, 
and I certainly do not believe that there were any such.
    Mr. Carr. You were simply trying to protect the government 
interest in this case?
    Mr. Page. We were trying to fix a fair price, fair to the 
government and to the owner.
    Mr. Carr. You mentioned the question of the vessel not 
being worth replacing at that point. It was this part of a 
survey that was made, a study of this case?
    Mr. Page. That is. Having reviewed her entire operating 
history, we concluded that she had no operating future and 
would not be bought by any reasonable person for the purpose of 
operation.
    Mr. Carr. The file reflects, I believe, Mr. Page, that this 
vessel was constructed in 1924. It was constructed in August 
1924?
    Mr. Page. Yes, sir, built in August 1924.
    Mr. Carr. And the original purchase price was $3,409,329?
    Mr. Page. Her original purchase price was $3,409,729, 
betterments were made from 1926 to August 1942, aggregating 
$20,383.88, bringing the ship's total cost as of the date of 
taking to $3,430,112.88.
    Mr. Carr. One of the factors taken into consideration was 
the company's statement that mismanagement had been the cause 
of the vessel's not making any money during the preceding, I 
think, twelve-year period. This was given consideration by the 
commission?
    Mr. Page. I am not--let me see. It was certainly given 
consideration when we responded to the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Carr. I think you will find a memorandum which gives 
that.
    Mr. Page. In my memorandum I know that we placed this on 
the basis of an efficient operation. But whether we 
considered----
    Mr. Carr. I think you said in one of your points to the 
Department of Justice that even if the operation of this boat 
had been efficiently handled, a profit would not have resulted 
during this period?
    Mr. Page. That is true, and I quoted that for the record a 
moment ago.
    Mr. Carr. You also mentioned in your letter to the 
Department of Justice the insurance point. The point there is 
that it didn't matter to the commission or to a prudent man, 
who might possibly buy this vessel, that it had been insured 
for any large sum?
    Mr. Page. In my memorandum to the commission I said that I 
attached little weight to the insured value of the vessel in 
1939 or at the date of taking. This figure of $1,750,000 was of 
a speculative character.
    Mr. Carr. I see. And then the insurance which you 
mentioned, the so-called navy insurance, was insurance on 
liability risk for passengers and that sort of thing?
    Mr. Page. And is not an index of value.
    Mr. Carr. Of value of the ship. The statement in your 
letter to the Department of Justice that the commission would 
not object if the Department of Justice thought it was in the 
best interests of the government, is a statement which is 
made--well, what was the purpose of that statement?
    Mr. Page. The purpose of that statement is simply that if 
the attorney general, acting within the ambit of the authority 
conferred upon him by the law, makes a determination, we would 
not enter into a fight with him about it.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, he and not the commission had the 
authority to make the stipulation?
    Mr. Page. That is true. The commission had no authority.
    Mr. Carr. You went as far as you could go in pointing out 
your objections to it in a form within the prescribed 
administrative form?
    Mr. Page. My letter is inconsistent with any opinion other 
than that I considered a settlement in excess of $95,000, the 
figure of $60,000 being allocable to a ship, to be excessive.
    Mr. Carr. Do you consider that the commission could have 
been exceedingly low in their estimate?
    Mr. Page. No, sir; I do not. I consider that the figure was 
a fair figure.
    Mr. Carr. Had you been, shall we say much more generous in 
your figure, would you have approached the figure of $2 
million?
    Mr. Page. Under no circumstances could I have approached 
that figure.
    The Chairman. May I ask this: Is there anything in the file 
to show in this case where your department thought $95,000 was 
a reasonable amount and finally the Justice Department approved 
a settlement of $2 million, is there anything in the file to 
shed some light on why this was done?
    Mr. Page. I know of nothing, other than the letters to 
which I have referred.
    The Chairman. Of course you have not had access to the 
Justice Department files?
    Mr. Page. No, sir. At that time I could probably have had 
access if I asked for it, but there was no reason for me to do 
so. I am making a point that nobody denied me access to those 
files.
    The Chairman. Did you hear directly or by rumor or any 
other way of any political pressure that was exerted upon any 
one in this case?
    Mr. Page. I can only say this, that there is an amount of 
political pressure in all cases. There was mention of various 
people and distinguished people, and intimations in 
conversations with me. I would say neither more nor less than 
usual.
    The Chairman. I am not referring to a usual phone call by a 
congressman or senator asking for a status of a case. That is 
done often, I know. I am referring to activities on the part of 
any senator or congressman or anyone else in the government to 
induce you to increase your figure of $95,000.
    Mr. Page. No, sir. I recall, and I want this to be very 
clear, at one time and at one conference which, however, was at 
the very outset and before I had determined any figure, a 
gentleman with whom I was acquainted, Maury Maverick, a former 
congressman, came to my office as representing these people. It 
is my recollection there was that one conference with him, 
after which I did not see him, nor did I hear from him.
    The Chairman. He was no longer in Congress at that time?
    Mr. Page. My recollection in that he was not a member. In 
fact, I am quite certain that he was not.
    The Chairman. Mr. Page, we have another matter we are 
taking up here today, so I am going to have Mr. Carr and Mr. 
LaVenia go down with you to the other hearing room downstairs, 
and we will proceed with the other hearing.
    Mr. Kolowich, will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 
In this matter now in hearing before this committee do you 
swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Kolowich. I do.
    The Chairman. We are going to send you downstairs to the 
other hearing room with Mr. Carr and Mr. La Venia.
    [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing in the matter of the 
``Greater Buffalo'' was recessed and reconvened immediately in 
room 101, Senate Office Building.]

                          AFTER RECESS

    Mr. Carr. Mr. Page, what was the purpose of his call?
    Mr. Page. According to the best of my recollection, Mr. 
Maverick stated that he had understood from his client, who I 
understood to be the Detroit Cleveland Navigation Company, that 
they were unable to secure a determination of just compensation 
or the return of their ship, and he was inquiring as to why 
they couldn't get action. I informed him that no action could 
be taken under Public Law 305 until a request for the return of 
the ship had been made, and that Detroit and Cleveland 
Navigation Company had made no such request.
    I believe it was pursuant to that conference that the 
Detroit and Cleveland Navigation Company did send us a telegram 
requesting return of the Greater Buffalo pursuant to the terms 
of Public Law 305.
    Mr. Carr. Do you mean that following the conference with 
this man, in which you explained to him that they had failed to 
do this, they then, without any additional correspondence, took 
this step?
    Mr. Page. That is my recollection of the facts.
    Mr. Carr. Did he recontact you?
    Mr. Page. I do not believe so. I do not recall any instance 
when he contacted me again.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Page, was there a conference held at the 
commission's office attended by Assistant Attorney General Mr. 
Morrison, and Commissioner McKeough, and yourself, and other 
gentlemen, concerning this type of case, depreciation cases, in 
which this case was considered also?
    Mr. Page. There may have been. I have no specific 
recollection on it. It is altogether possible that there was 
such a conference of a general nature. If this vessel was 
considered in such a conference, I do not recall it, though it 
may have been.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. John B. Miller of the claims department, 
Department of Justice, was he the attorney in this case?
    Mr. Page. My recollection is that Mr. Miller--I know that 
he was connected with the case. As to whether he was the 
attorney actively handling the case, or a section head of some 
sort, I don't know. I notice that the letter to us dated 
October 21, 1949, is marked HGM, which means H. G. Morrison, 
JBM, which presumably means John B. Miller. So it was apparent 
that Mr. Miller either prepared or approved the letter which 
was signed by or for Mr. Morrison.
    Mr Carr. Do you recall at one of these general conferences 
attended by Assistant Attorney General Morrison, that he and 
other representatives of the Department of Justice took the 
position that the Maritime Commission was far too rigid in 
these compensation cases?
    Mr. Page. I know that position was taken, and I have now a 
hazy recollection of such a conference as you recall, and I 
believe that your statement is correct. I would have to have my 
memory refreshed to be certain.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall that Commissioner McKeough stated 
that it seemed that no one was taking care of the interests of 
the government in these cases if the Maritime Commission did 
not do such?
    Mr. Page. I don't recall the specific statement, but it 
would be typical of Mr. McKeough.
    Mr. Carr. It was his opinion that the Maritime Commission 
had to rigidly protect the interests of the government in these 
compensation cases?
    Mr. Page. I know that was his opinion. Whether he so 
stated, I can't recall at the moment. I think that probably he 
did in any conference where that question arose.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall his stating that the Department of 
Justice seemed to act as if they were the counsel for the ship 
companies?
    Mr. Page. I don't recall that.
    I wonder if it is possible that I knew something about 
that, that it came up before subcommittee of the Appropriation 
Committee. I may have testified along that line there.
    Mr. Carr. I was just trying to ascertain whether or not you 
recall it at this time.
    Mr. Page. At this time I do not, no, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Then to sum up, briefly, in this case, it is your 
opinion as a man who has spent many years, I think it was from 
1938 to 1951 with the Maritime Commission, that this settlement 
was the largest such settlement that you have ever heard of?
    Mr. Page. Yes, I believe that statement to be true.
    Mr. Carr. And that in your opinion this settlement was way 
out of line with what you considered a just settlement in this 
case?
    Mr. Page. It was many times the amount which I would have 
been willing to pay in settlement of the case.
    Mr. Carr. Once more I would like to ask you if it was not 
your position in this matter that the government's interest be 
best served by the commission's program in connection with 
these cases and by the individual action of the commission and 
your particular department in connection with this particular 
case?
    Mr. Page. That is surely true.
    Mr. Carr. There was never at any time any reason for your 
department to have singled out this case during a determination 
as to the value of the ship which would have been below one 
that would have been drawn otherwise?
    Mr. Page. I know of no such reason. I do not believe any 
such reason existed. It is a fact that the figure given 
represented my wholly impartial judgment as to a fair price for 
the ship, and I construe the commission's approval of my 
recommendation as expressing their opinion that the figure in 
my memorandum represented a fair price for the ship.
    Mr. Carr. You mentioned that the Department of Justice 
seemed to settle on this figure of 169 percent as what the 
courts usually found in claims cases, and that they seemed to 
be, shall we say pushing this figure as a more accurate figure 
than that of the Maritime Commission. They at times seemed to 
indicate that the Maritime Commission's figures in these cases, 
the determination made by the Maritime Commission, was 
exceedingly low. In the light of this, I would like to ask you 
if the Maritime Commission's settlements and figures were 
audited by the comptroller general.
    Mr. Page. I assume that they were.
    Mr. Carr. Have you heard of any other, from the Justice 
Department, than this criticism of the Maritime Commission's 
final figures after computing their ideas to the just amount of 
settlement?
    Mr. Page. Well, other than general gossip from shipowners 
and lawyers, I have heard them criticized as being too low in 
the main.
    Mr. Carr. The procedures of the Maritime Commission have 
never been criticized by any government agency?
    Mr. Page. I would like to limit my reply to that.
    Mr. Carr. Well, only to your knowledge, sir.
    Mr. Page. Yes, but I will have to limit it even a little 
more. It is my recollection that before I began to handle these 
cases, there had been strong criticism of certain valuations 
which I believe were war shipping rather than Maritime 
Commission valuations, as being excessive, primarily by the 
comptroller general. I do not believe that the comptroller 
general at any time criticized a determination by either the 
War Shipping Administration or the Maritime Commission as being 
too low, nor do I at this moment recall any determination made 
upon a recommendation by me or in fact any determination other 
than perhaps one of the maritime, which was in any way 
criticized as being excessive.
    I think perhaps there was one that was criticized, as 
excessive, although I cannot lay my hands on it at this time. 
And then it was a rather close question, I believe.
    Mr. Carr. Let me ask you one additional question, then: 
Regardless of any criticism as to excessiveness or alleged 
excessiveness on the part of the Maritime Commission or the War 
Shipping, such a general criticism would not affect your 
determination in any particular case?
    Mr. Page. Under no circumstances.
    Mr. Carr. As a result of this criticism or alleged 
criticism, there was no effort then to make all of the 
settlements low, all the determinations low?
    Mr. Page. Certainly not. The only attempt made by the 
Maritime Commission was for its determinations of just 
compensation to comply with the statute as interpreted by the 
comptroller general of the United States.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, to be just?
    Mr. Page. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Page, in your procedures for arriving at your 
determination figure, did you follow a practice which was 
approved by the comptroller general?
    Mr. Page. We followed the applicable opinions of the 
comptroller general, one in particular to which I referred in 
my memorandum.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Page, the Department of Justice appears to 
have placed great stock in the reproduction depreciation method 
of arriving at a determination as to the value of these ships, 
whereas the Maritime Commission in its correspondence with the 
department relied heavily on the position that the 
determination should in all fairness to the government be 
determined by the price that a reasonably prudent man with 
reasonable business experience would have paid for a ship under 
the conditions surrounding any particular case, and surrounding 
that case?
    Mr. Page. That is true. But the department would say that 
when a court determines the price which a willing buyer would 
pay a willing seller, that a court in determining that price 
would take as an index of that price the reproduction cost of 
the object depreciated to the date of taking. Our position was 
that the court would do no such thing, because it was not 
authorized to do that, unless it first found that a reasonably 
prudent businessman would have actually reproduced the property 
as of the date of taking, and in our opinion no reasonably 
prudent businessman would have reproduced the Greater Buffalo.

    TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. KOLOWICH, PRESIDENT, DETROIT AND 
           CLEVELAND NAVIGATION COMPANY, DETROIT, MI

    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, just for the record, your first 
name is George and your middle initial is what?
    Mr. Kolowich. Jerome Kolowich.
    Mr. Carr. Senior, that is?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. You are the president of the Detroit and 
Cleveland Navigation Company?
    Mr. Kolowich. I am.
    Mr. Carr. You obtained your office on what date, sir?
    Mr. Kolowich. I am guessing some time in the fall of 1949.
    Mr. Carr. In the fall of 1949 you were elected president of 
the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. I had been a director of the 
company dating back approximately 1945.
    Mr. Carr. Do you own controlling stock in the company or 
controlling shares in the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. I do not.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever own a control of the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. I did not.
    Mr. Carr. The company's other officers are whom, sir?
    Mr. Kolowich. Ralph Wire, who is director; John C. Finan, 
who is director and secretary; John A. Hamilton is vice 
president and director; Ernest Dowd of Cleveland--the other 
gentlemen were all of the city of Detroit--he is a director. We 
have one other gentleman that is an officer in a minor 
capacity. He is assistant secretary and treasurer, a man by the 
name of Milburn.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, you say that you do not own 
controlling stock in this company personally?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. Personally, or my wife.
    Mr. Carr. Or your wife.
    Mr. Kolowich. But we have what you would call a working 
control on the basis that we control approximately 190,000 
shares out of the 455,000 shares.
    Mr. Carr. You have, then, working control of the company, 
either through your own stock or that of your wife?
    Mr. Kolowich. Plus, may I have the record show, that I have 
given away to my grandchildren, children and relatives, the 
difference between 180,000 shares and approximately 60,000 
shares.
    Mr. Carr. So that in effect you, through your family, 
have----
    Mr. Kolowich. We have the control that way, yes.
    Mr. Carr. Is there a voting trust agreement?
    Mr. Kolowich. There is not. There is not, except there is 
an understanding that any of the people that receive stock from 
me annually, if they dispose or sell, it is not a threat but an 
arrangement, they will not participate in the future 
distribution of stock. I distribute approximately $200,000 
worth of stock every year to the grandchildren and children. It 
isn't just D and C, it is my other interests on the same basis.
    Mr. Carr. When did you first obtain this working control of 
the company? Just approximately, the year.
    Mr. Kolowich. On January 5, 1948.
    Mr. Carr. January 5, 1948?
    Mr. Kolowich. I have obtained the large block of stock from 
the McMillans. That gave me the working control. In other words 
prior to that time, over a period of years I have accumulated 
27,000 shares of stock. That means from October 21, 1941 to 
September 31, 1944, which was the last time I obtained or 
accumulated stock, at which time I had 27,000 shares out of 
approximately 500,000 shares. But in 1948, on January 5, 1948 I 
purchased 75,000 shares of stock from the McMillan estate and 
their different interests, which gave me 120,000 shares, and 
from there on I started to accumulate stock for the benefit of 
different companies and different interests that I have, and up 
to the present time I control approximately 180,000 or maybe 
185,000 shares.
    Mr. Carr. To make this brief, in 1940 you first acquired 
some stock in the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. I bought stock as cheap as eighty-five cents 
a share.
    Mr. Carr. You have been a director of the company since 
1945?
    Mr. Kolowich. That or maybe prior. Not very much prior to 
that.
    Mr. Carr. Were you a director of the company at the time 
the Greater Buffalo was taken over by the government in 1942?
    Mr. Kolowich. I was not.
    Mr. Carr. You were a stockholder at that time?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes. I think I was. I haven't connected my 
dates there.
    Mr. Carr. Well, that was 1940, and this was 1942.
    Mr. Kolowich. 1941, and this was 1942, that is right.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, from 1948, I think you said you 
have had control of the company.
    Mr. Kolowich. I would say I had what you call a working 
control. You have to be very careful of the control because I 
took the position before the ICC that I did not have and have 
not the control of D and C, but I have had a working control 
which is one thing, and the actual control is another thing.
    Mr. Carr. When the war had been concluded and the 
government, through the Maritime Commission, started making its 
overtures towards straightening out the shipping problems 
throughout the country, were you at that point involved in the 
arrangements between the company and the government, or was 
that done by Mr. McMillan?
    Mr. Kolowich. That was done by Mr. McMillan. It was done by 
the company's attorneys and was done by Richberg law firm here 
in the City of Washington.
    Mr. Carr. You at that time had not control of the company 
and had only the interest of a director or a stockholder in the 
arrangement?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. I had nothing to do with any 
of the dealings.
    Mr. Carr. However, in 1948 when you assumed this working 
control of the company, and I think it was 1948 you became 
president of the company
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. We are talking of approximate 
periods.
    Mr. Carr. That is right--you then took part in the active 
operation of the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. I did.
    Mr. Carr. You took part in the arrangements and the offer 
back and forth between the company concerning the settlement of 
this claim?
    Mr. Kolowich. I did.
    Mr. Carr. Did you handle that personally, sir? I mean, did 
you take a personal interest in that or was that one of an 
administrative things that you handled through your lawyers?
    Mr. Kolowich. To a certain extent I have handled it myself. 
In other words, I have made a survey of our attorneys which was 
Angell, Turner, Dyar, and Meek, a law firm in Detroit, who were 
the attorneys of D and C, and also of Richberg Company, Mr. 
Landa's company, who is also--I have not too good a memory 
although I know the man very good. We made the survey and 
decided after talking to Mr. Richberg and reviewing the files 
and the correspondence, that we couldn't go very far.
    In other words, they came through with an offer of taking 
the old ship and putting on the value of a million dollars and 
giving us approximately a million and a half dollars in cash. 
At that time the board at that time had discussions pro and con 
and they have turned that deal down. So they have authorized me 
to employ somebody here in Washington to make a survey, which 
we did do, and we came to the conclusion that Richberg's firm 
was to be relieved of their duties, and Angell, Turner, Dyar 
and Meek were to be relieved of their duties, and we came in 
here and we have talked to two different law firms.
    Mr. Carr. When you say ``we,'' that is this was a decision 
of the board of directors?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. That the previous lawyers, both firms, be 
disassociated with this particular claim?
    Mr. Kolowich. Not disassociated, but we took the authority 
of negotiation away from them. They didn't recommend to start 
suit, they wouldn't come up with any satisfactory decision. In 
other words, this all started in 1942, and we are discussing 
approximately in later 1948.
    Mr. Carr. Was this on your motion?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, this was the board of directors and a lot 
of dissatisfied stockholders.
    Mr. Carr. You came to Washington and you say a few of you, 
or a couple of you, came to Washington, to contact some law 
firms.
    Mr. Kolowich. To contact law firms. But in the meantime we 
had a Mr. Blackshear at that time to negotiate with our law 
firms. He made a survey here. I have made a survey myself. And 
after discussing this thing pro and con for, I would say 
approximately a year, we decided on employing a law firm here, 
which was headed at that time by Mr. Louis Johnson.
    Mr. Carr. Is that Steptoe and Johnson?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Here in Washington?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. When you say we, was there a committee to do 
this? Mr. Blackshear was handling some arrangements?
    Mr. Kolowich. He was handling most of it in Washington and 
reporting it to us. And the decision was made after I had one 
session with Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Carr. You talked with Mr. Louis Johnson himself?
    Mr. Kolowich. I did.
    Mr. Carr. When was this, to be sure of the date?
    Mr. Kolowich. I would say prior--of course, if I referred 
to my records, because we have entered into an agreement with 
Mr. Johnson's firm--prior to starting the lawsuit. We started a 
lawsuit and it was started by Steptoe and Johnson.
    Mr. Carr. I want to get the year that you spoke to Mr. 
Johnson. Is that 1948?
    Mr. Kolowich. It may run in early 1949. I would say a month 
or two before the lawsuit was started.
    Mr. Carr. How long a conversation did you have with Mr. 
Johnson?
    Mr. Kolowich. It was on a Sunday morning. I made a plane 
trip of approximately two hours.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, you met with him on Sunday 
morning. You came in especially for that?
    Mr. Kolowich. It was already arranged to retain him. He set 
up his fee and the whole arrangement was made, and I came in 
here to conclude the negotiations.
    Mr. Carr. The concluding of negotiation consisted of what, 
your personal agreement with him?
    Mr. Kolowich. Well, it was my agreement in behalf of the 
company, yes. Nothing personal because the agreement was with 
the company.
    Mr. Carr. What I am getting at is you made this special 
trip to see Mr. Johnson on a Sunday morning. Was there any 
particular purpose in your coming in yourself, flying in, since 
the arrangements had already been made that Mr. Johnson's firm 
would handle the thing?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes, the purpose was for me to see eye to eye 
and to make sure that we understood, because there were certain 
contingencies left open when we asked the other attorney to 
step aside. In other words, the company had other obligations 
to the other law firms, and when we were stepping in, injecting 
another law firm, we wanted to make sure that everything was 
understood if certain things were accomplished.
    Mr. Carr. Did Mr. Johnson give you any assurances in this 
case?
    Mr. Carr. No. At that time his name came to our attention 
because he represented an airline company that applied for some 
rights that no attorney could get, and he was on the verge of 
obtaining that. There may have been two or three other things 
that persuaded us to talk to Mr. Johnson's law firm.
    Mr. Carr. The selection of Mr. Johnson, then, was on the 
basis of this reported legal accomplishment in the field, 
rather than upon the fact that Mr. Johnson had formerly been 
highly placed in the government?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, I don't think he ever was, was he? He 
became highly placed in the government after he took our case.
    Mr. Carr. I see. There was no agreement with Mr. Johnson 
other than that his firm would handle your case and that you 
settled on a fee?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. One fee?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, the fee was set up, and there is a record 
of it, based upon the amount that we would be awarded, and 
percentage wise it would come down. In other words, our first 
amount was, I am guessing now, I think a retainer of ten or 
fifteen thousand dollars, and from there on it depended upon 
the award and the greater the award, percentage wise, he got 
less money. The reason for it was that he didn't think that he 
was going to obtain very much more than what Mr. Richberg's 
firm has indicated that we could obtain.
    Mr. Carr. One more question along the lines of the previous 
questions.
    Your selection of Mr. Johnson had nothing to do with the 
fact that he was prominent in the Democratic party?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, I would say no, except that you are 
retaining an attorney, if you have had any experience, you have 
a reservation that the man isn't just a curbstone attorney.
    Mr. Carr. You retained the attorney whom you thought could 
do you the most good in this situation?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. But you are not saying that his political 
connections were unknown to you?
    Mr. Kolowich. I would say that I didn't know about his 
political connections and I don't know right now other than the 
connections after he had this case for some time. I mean his 
law firm. He stopped out of our picture.
    Mr. Carr. After this first meeting?
    Mr. Kolowich. After our meeting, and after our agreement 
and everything. I was brokenhearted when he was made secretary 
of defense, because we figured that we lost a man that we 
thought could help us.
    Mr. Carr. When you first talked to him, you were in the 
hope that he personally would handle this case within his firm?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. At that point he didn't turn it over, at that 
point of the first meeting, he didn't indicate to you that he 
was going to turn it over to one of his partners or associates?
    Mr. Kolowich. At that time he did not. At that time he was 
to handle the case.
    Mr. Carr. He was to handle the case personally?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. And the fee that he asked of approximately, you 
say twelve or fifteen thousand dollars, was not an exorbitant 
fee at that time?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, because we had already paid other firms 
larger fees and got nothing for it. We were just in the dark 
and taking a gamble.
    Mr. Carr. Now, when Mr. Johnson stepped out of the picture, 
to whom did he turn this over?
    Mr. Kolowich. He turned it over to a gentleman by the name 
of Ailes.
    Mr. Carr. Of his firm?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. In other words, I haven't seen 
Mr. Johnson from the time that I made the deal that their 
company was to represent us up to this second, I haven't seen 
him.
    Mr. Carr. That meeting, was that at his home or at 
breakfast----
    Mr. Kolowich. No, that was in his office.
    Mr. Carr. On a Sunday morning?
    Mr. Kolowich. Sometime Sunday between morning and noon.
    Mr. Carr. Now, in connection with this Greater Buffalo 
case, a stipulation was entered into by the government with 
your firm, resulting in the award which was made. This was 
handled for your firm by Mr. Ailes?
    Mr. Kolowich. By Mr. Ailes and Mr. Blackshear here in 
Washington.
    Mr. Carr. Is Mr. Blackshear associated with Mr. Ailes?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, he was in our employ prior to that. He 
was in our employ for at least a year and a half or two years 
before.
    Mr. Carr. He was one of those who had arranged for you to 
meet Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. But he also represented us in 
other deals here in Washington.
    Mr. Carr. But did he work on this particular case for you 
after the Johnson firm took over?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes, he did. He worked for us with the 
Johnson firm and he is still working for us today.
    Mr. Carr. On this particular case did he work with the 
Johnson firm, other than as a liaison between you and them? Did 
he actually work on the litigation?
    Mr. Kolowich. I think he did a lot of work and helped 
Johnson's law firm.
    Mr. Carr. Now, after the settlement was made, was Mr. 
Johnson paid off for his fee or was Mr. Ailes paid his fee?
    Mr. Kolowich. Well, there was Mr. Blackshear who got a fee 
out of it, Mr. Richberg got an additional fee, Mr. Angell, 
Turner, Dyar and Meek got an additional fee, and Mr. Johnson's 
law firm got a fee.
    Mr. Carr. That would be Mr. Ailes?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, it was Steptoe and Johnson.
    Mr. Carr. His firm?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. How much were these fees?
    Mr. Kolowich. I am guessing right now, but our total costs 
cost us 8 percent, and that isn't just the law fee, it is the 
engineering, the architectural, the appraisal. This thing all 
was--when I state under 8 percent, it started from the first 
retainer that the McMillans paid in this setup. They gave 
Richberg's company ten or fifteen thousand dollars retainer, 
they gave the Angell, Turner, Dyar and Meek a ten thousand 
dollar retainer, a way back in 1942 and '43 and on and on and 
on.
    Mr. Carr. These law firms, Angell, Dyar and Meek, and 
Blackshear, Steptoe and Johnson, they all received some part of 
this?
    Mr. Kolowich. They all came within this 8 percent.
    Mr. Carr. In the case of, say, the Richberg firm, on the 
basis or past work done?
    Mr. Kolowich. They had gotten this retainer and after we 
made this deal they claimed $25,000 and we settled, I am 
guessing, for $15,000. It was either ten or fifteen thousand 
dollars. I know they were holding out for $25,000 in addition 
to their retainer. We wound up with, I would say, approximately 
$15,000 to them.
    Mr. Carr. The payment to the company was as stipulated two 
million dollars plus interest?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Which amounted to----
    Mr. Kolowich. About $600,000.
    Mr. Carr. Around $2.6 million or $2.7 million.
    Mr. Kolowich. $2.6 million or $2,625,000, something like 
that.
    Mr. Carr. What happened to that money? Did it go into the 
company?
    Mr. Kolowich. That went into D and C Navigation Company.
    Mr. Carr. How was that absorbed into the company?
    Mr. Kolowich. As a part of its assets. In other words, that 
replaced the asset. They have had a boat and that just replaced 
the boat. They have the cash there.
    Mr. Carr. At that time no special dividend was declared?
    Mr. Kolowich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did any of that money go into your own personal 
pocket?
    Mr. Kolowich. Not one cent.
    Mr. Carr. No?
    Mr. Kolowich. No fee of any kind.
    Mr. Carr. No fee of any kind went to you as having arranged 
this?
    Mr. Kolowich. I think it is unbelievable, but I have made--
I am responsible for putting the company on the basis that 
their net worth is worth $8 million and upwards, and I haven't 
received one dollar salary from that company.
    Mr. Carr. Then your only----
    Mr. Kolowich. All I have ever received was a very 
reasonable amount of expense account which all total, in all 
these years wouldn't amount to over $5,000.
    Mr. Carr. Did you file tax returns that year in connection 
with D and C?
    Mr. Kolowich. Sure.
    Mr. Carr. I mean your personal tax returns.
    Mr. Kolowich. I did.
    Mr. Carr. Where do you file those, in Detroit?
    Mr. Kolowich. Detroit, that is right.
    Mr. Carr. Is it your practice to file your own personal 
returns in Detroit each year?
    Mr. Kolowich. It is jointly with Mrs. Kolowich and myself, 
George J. Kolowich and Irene Kolowich.
    Mr. Carr. Detroit is your legal residence?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. And you have always filed there?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. I was born there and have 
always filed my return there.
    Mr. Carr. To get back to Mr. Johnson, was there any 
agreement with Mr. Johnson that he would exert some form or any 
form of pressure on either the Maritime Commission or the 
Department of Justice to arrange a settlement in this case?
    Mr. Kolowich. No.
    Mr. Carr. There was no agreement between you and Mr. 
Johnson in that regard?
    Mr. Kolowich. Mr. Johnson and I have discussed generalities 
in part of this case, some of the facts, for an hour and a 
half, and we have never discussed anything to have any 
influence or anything.
    Mr. Carr. There was no agreement, then, between you and any 
other member of Mr. Johnson's firm at any other later date?
    Mr. Kolowich. No. Mr. Ailes and I have had a lot of 
conferences as to the facts, discussing the facts, and the 
negotiations back and forth after that agreement.
    Mr. Carr. If any political or other pressure was exerted in 
this case through Mr. Johnson or his firm, it is not known to 
you?
    Mr. Kolowich. It is not known to me, and I wouldn't believe 
that there is because there couldn't be.
    Mr. Carr. Nor condoned in by you?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. We were unhappy with the last 
offer that we accepted. There was only one reason why we took 
it. That particular year we had a terrific loss, and we took 
that to offset some of the loss that we had that particular 
year in operating the company.
    Mr. Carr. You mean you accepted the stipulation?
    Mr. Kolowich. The stipulated agreement.
    Mr. Carr. It was actually your offer, the company's offer.
    Mr. Kolowich. Well, that is the only way it could come in 
there, but they told us how far they would go and they wouldn't 
go another nickel any more, and we were holding out for a lot 
more. For tax purposes, we submitted this offer and we took it.
    Mr. Carr. You accepted this $2 million plus interest offer?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. I take it, then, it is your opinion that this 
settlement was not out of line with value in this case.
    Mr. Kolowich. Well, at that time I would say it was way 
under the value.
    Mr. Carr. The value of the ship?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. At that time I figured that 
the company got a poor deal there.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, you figured if you had to go out 
on the market and buy a ship to replace this one, you had a 
very poor deal in this?
    Mr. Kolowich. A very, very poor deal.
    Mr. Carr. Would you have gone out in the market and 
replaced this ship?
    Mr. Kolowich. No.
    Mr. Carr. At that time you would not have?
    Mr. Kolowich. I would not, at that time. I claim at the 
time they acquired the ship, the company would have gone out 
and gotten another ship, because there was a period of time 
from 1942 to 1950 that the company prospered fairly well 
because of the demand for that service. But later that service 
started dropping off and today I have ships like that same ship 
that are going to be utilized for one purpose and then if it 
isn't for that purpose--we may operate only two of them--
otherwise we will scrap the rest of the ships.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it true, Mr. Kolowich, that this ship and 
some of your other ships, up to the time of seizure, had been 
operating at a loss?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes and no, depending upon what year. That 
business--one year you would make $500,000 and another year you 
would lose $500,000. It depended upon the season. If it was a 
good season, I mean a good, hot season, your income would 
skyrocket. In a bad season your income would go down.
    Mr. Carr. Well, you have told us that when you took over 
the--I should not say that--when you obtained working control 
of the company, the success of the company has gone up, the 
financial success of the company has gone up. In other words, 
under your, shall we say management, the company has prospered 
more than it has in the past?
    Mr. Kolowich. It has, but not in the boat business.
    Mr. Carr. Not in the boat business?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. This is as this holding company arrangement?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. One year, the first year that 
I stepped in, the company has converted a three or four hundred 
thousand dollar loss into a profit, the first year. The next 
year I was with the company we had a lot of labor problems and 
we lost half million dollars. That was the year I decided to 
fold up the boat business.
    Mr. Carr. You would not, as of 1948 or 1949, November 1949 
and early 1950, have replaced this boat?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. You say that you would have considered replacing 
this boat as of 1942 when it was seized, taken over by the 
government?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is correct, if I was in charge of 
management. I become director after that time and if I was 
active in the management I would say to replace it because the 
ship operated. All ships that we had that remained operated at 
a profit and operated somewhere near capacity.
    Mr. Carr. That would mean that they were operating at a 
profit during 1942 which was, I would say, a peak season for 
such a ship? This was the beginning of the war.
    Mr. Kolowich. First of all, there was a scarcity of cars, 
people didn't drive cars, and there was a scarcity of gas or it 
was rationed. You couldn't use the car so you used the ship 
between Detroit and Cleveland and Detroit and Buffalo.
    Mr. Carr. I think I asked you that if Mr. Johnson's firm 
had exerted any pressure on the government, either the Maritime 
Commission or the Department of Justice, it was unknown to you?
    Mr. Kolowich. It was unknown to me, yes, sir. And I don't 
think that they used pressure. I never suspected any pressure 
because I think if pressure was used we would have gotten a 
bigger offer.
    Mr. Carr. What is your----
    Mr. Kolowich. That is my own opinion. I have no real reason 
for it.
    Mr. Carr. Now, did you obtain or seek to obtain the placing 
of pressure on the Maritime Commission or the Department of 
Justice with any one other than Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Kolowich. Never used any pressure except we were on 
their front doorstep once a month. Our man here, I understand, 
was in there once a week and sometimes every day.
    Mr. Carr. Did you have congressmen and senators and 
government officials contact the Maritime Commission? Did you 
arrange for that?
    Mr. Kolowich. Up to the time that the award was stipulated 
on, up to that time, no. After that, we tried to use some 
pressure to get our money, because after it was stipulated and 
we got the judgment, we couldn't get our money. There was no 
money awarded. I mean, there was no budget or whatever you call 
it.
    Mr. Carr. At that point you were trying to get the money 
that had been agreed upon?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. These same persons had not been contacted by you 
prior to the time of the settlement?
    Mr. Kolowich. They have never been contacted prior, and I 
doubt very much if they were contacted directly after that, 
except that two or three called me and said ``What is this 
thing all about, George?'' I would tell them and they would 
say, ``Hell, you are entitled to your money.''
    I have never asked them to do anything for us. I think, 
looking over the record, my own congressman, who is a Democrat, 
and I am a known Republican, volunteered and called me and 
asked me, ``What is this thing all about?'' That is Congressman 
Rabaut. Congressman Rabaut prior to that time I had never met. 
I still knew him. I was in his district. I have a hotel. I 
control votes, I think, and they are all Republicans and he is 
a Democrat. I think he went off on a tangent to show me that he 
could help me. I didn't ask him to do anything for me, and I 
don't think that he really helped. But the record does show 
that he took a voice in the thing and said it should be 
approved.
    Mr. Carr. Do you actively, and did you during the period 
from 1948 to 1951 actively manage the business? I know you are 
the president, but did you actively manage it?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes. I worked eighteen to twenty-four hours a 
day.
    Mr. Carr. You would have several other interests, though, 
that you were working on?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes, but at that time it was a challenge. It 
was a company that was on the downgrade and it was a challenge 
to me.
    Mr. Carr. Was there anybody else in your company who would 
be authorized by you to make such approaches to persons in a 
position to exert pressure?
    Mr. Kolowich. No. All our top level officials were honorary 
positions and the lower levels were nothing but direct 
employees. I don't think they would know who to approach and 
how to approach or anything.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever meet with Mr. Morrison of the 
Department of Justice?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, I did not.
    Mr. Carr. Did any official of your company ever meet with 
him?
    Mr. Kolowich. To my knowledge, no. Mr. Blackshear may have.
    Mr. Carr. Not your attorney, I mean your company people.
    Mr. Kolowich. No.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know Mr. Morrison?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, I do not.
    Mr. Carr. You never met him?
    Mr. Kolowich. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether or not he has been in 
meetings with anybody from your company, to your own knowledge?
    Mr. Kolowich. I do not.
    Mr. Carr. Besides these settlements with the attorneys 
after you finally received your settlement under the 
stipulation, was any additional money paid out to anybody in 
connection with this settlement? You paid out money to 
attorneys.
    Mr. Kolowich. To attorneys, to naval architects, to 
appraisers, several people that made studies from the insurance 
values and things like that. There was a staff there of about 
thirty people. But they are all, I would say, legitimate 
operating companies.
    Mr. Carr. I am very much bothered by this discrepancy 
between the Maritime Commission's figure or determination on 
the value of the ship and the final payment. I can't see the 
size of the discrepancy. I think that their determination of 
the value of the ship which was roughly $95,000 was based on 
what a prudent man, with reasonable business acumen, would have 
paid for the ship at the time. I am very much disturbed by this 
much larger amount. You see, the Department of Justice says 
that the average payment from a survey of cases which they have 
taken before the court of claims resulted in the court of 
claims being more generous than the Maritime Commission. It 
appears that the court of claims invariably awarded more than 
the determination of the Maritime Commission. However, the 
discrepancy in the amount of the award in no case that has come 
to the attention of the Maritime Commission, appears to be as 
wide as in this case.
    Now, you say it appears to be a loss that your company 
suffered and yet these Maritime Commissioners, their attorneys, 
solicitors, who are honest men, appear to have such a wide 
disagreement in this case. We have also received allegations 
that pressure was put upon not only the Maritime Commission but 
the Department of Justice in this particular case to result in 
a stipulation without having gone to the court of claims for a 
hearing on the thing.
    Mr. Kolowich. I take it you are making this statement of 
your own thinking just from the record?
    Mr. Carr. That is right. I only have the record to go on. 
Now I will conclude that, if you will excuse me, you, of 
course, have arrived at a different viewpoint of the thing from 
your own business. You have been in the business, this is your 
business, you have this ship. I would like to know your opinion 
concerning this discrepancy. It seems to me that it is away out 
of line here.
    Mr. Kolowich. Let me get you straightened out on this.
    Mr. Carr. I would like to have you explain it.
    Mr. Kolowich. I don't know to what extent you are going 
into this, I have an idea, but you will go into it very, very 
thoroughly, and all you should do in justice to this whole 
affair is to come to Detroit and see the sister ship of this 
ship. We have another ship that is a sister ship.
    Mr. Carr. And that is called what?
    Mr. Kolowich. The Greater Detroit, built at the same time. 
We are carrying a million and a half dollars on that ship today 
and the ship is not operating. We can scrap the ship and 
salvage $800,000 out of that ship. The Maritime Commission sold 
the old ship after they demolished the passenger accommodations 
and everything else and got $200,000, I think.
    Mr. Carr. They got $130,000, I think, which is far from the 
$800,000.
    Mr. Kolowich. But the ship at that time was wrecked. The 
American Steamship or the American Shipbuilding Company will 
come in and tell you what that ship was worth at the time it 
was acquired. It isn't what the ship was worth in 1950, it is 
what it was worth in 1942. Eight years has elapsed between the 
time they have acquired the ship and the time they paid us the 
money or we agreed on the amount. We have correspondence which, 
if you want to go into it I will bring in, our records are two 
big files, that the Maritime Commission has indicated that they 
would pay us a million and a half dollars and the old ship. 
Richberg's firm recommended that we take it. We turned it down. 
Richberg's firm is right in this deal right here right now. 
They are the people that are making this complaint, because 
they were fired from this case. They didn't produce. Richberg's 
firm is further in this case.
    Mr. Carr. Well----
    Mr. Kolowich. They are in this Freuhauf deal, they are in 
this Denver-Chicago Truck deal. If all the facts were known to 
you, you would know why it was brought to your attention.
    Mr. Carr. The only thing I want to get straight is the 
discrepancy between the price which we have had witnesses tell 
us was a fair and just price, looking out for the government's 
interest, of $95,000.
    Mr. Kolowich. $108,000.
    Mr. Carr. Had that been increased by a substantial sum in 
accordance with the court of claims, as the Department of 
Justice says is usual practice of increasing the amounts as 
estimated or determined by the Maritime Commission, it would 
still have been well under this two million plus interest 
figure which was arrived at.
    Mr. Kolowich. Have you any records of the Maritime 
Commission?
    Mr. Carr. The Maritime Commission?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Yes.
    Mr. Kolowich. Have you a record where they said that this 
offer is a token offer of $100,000 and interest?
    Mr. Carr. A token offer?
    Mr. Kolowich. A token offer. You search their record and 
you will find that they have decided that their time was 
running out, because we could take some default set up, and 
they paid a token offer of $100,000 and interest.
    Mr. Carr. That is something that I will check into, but as 
the record stands at this point, it doesn't seem to be the 
case.
    Mr. Kolowich. Well, I would like to have you go in much 
deeper and ask us--you see, you haven't been fair to me by 
giving me this subpoena without asking me to bring in my 
records or tell me what it was all about, because I would bring 
in my records which would open your eyes to what is behind this 
deal.
    Mr. Carr. I understand from Mr. La Venia that your lawyer 
was told to bring your records. But be that as it may, we are 
giving you an opportunity at this time to answer these 
questions. I don't wish to get into a hassle with you about 
these things. I am merely trying to arrive at an explanation of 
these differences.
    This seems to me to be a large difference, larger than in 
the ordinary case, larger than in any case known to me and 
known to the previous witnesses in this situation. Now, it is 
also complicated, this situation is also complicated by the 
fact, perhaps true perhaps false, that is what I am trying to 
get at, that pressure was brought to bear upon the Maritime 
Commission to some extent, but to a greater extent upon the 
Department of Justice to cause then to enter into this 
stipulation rather than let the case go before the Court of 
Claims to a hearing. These factors are something that we are 
exploring in this conversation now. These are allegations. I 
don't know that they are true. These are allegations. I am 
primarily trying to give you an opportunity to tell me whether 
or not the allegations concerning the misconduct are true. I am 
trying not to go back into much of this old picture which has 
been covered before, to some extent, in the 1950 hearing, May 
11, 1950 hearing, which got into the question of evaluation of 
the ship, got into the question of the different methods of 
evaluating ships, depreciation, reproduction. I am trying to 
direct this particular inquiry away, to some extent, without 
putting this thing entirely aside, away from that but into this 
question of pressure having been exerted upon the Department of 
Justice primarily, and to some extent, some lesser extent upon 
the Maritime Commission. That is what I am after, and I have 
your statements that you, yourself, had no part in exerting any 
pressure upon them to enter into this stipulation.
    This is not a hearing into the question of the fair price 
on the thing. The reason I bring in the fair price angle of 
this thing is to get upon the record and to get across to you 
and clear in my own mind that there is a question of a 
discrepancy of a large amount between what was offered and what 
was finally settled on, and it points up the situation that 
there is a situation here in which the exertion of pressure 
could have occurred. That is what I am primarily directed 
toward. That is what I want to get from you. I am trying, as 
you may tell from the questioning, to give you an opportunity 
to make a statement concerning your own personal knowledge of 
any such action having taken place. That is what I am trying to 
get at. I don't want to enter into a discussion concerning this 
other matter which you bring up.
    Mr. Kolowich. You mean to say you don't want to bring in 
Mr. Drew Pearson's name in this picture? He is the man who 
brought this case to you.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, I can tell you that Mr. Pearson is 
not the man who brought this to me.
    Mr. Kolowich. He brought it to you. The paper said so.
    Mr. Carr. The paper says one thing. Mr. Kolowich, there is 
one thing I do want to bring into this testimony here and now 
is the fact that your attorney, your attorney, accuses this 
committee of having so-called leaked this information out. I 
can tell you that to my knowledge this committee has not leaked 
this information out and that it appears to me from what your 
attorney said that this information concerning your appearance 
here was very likely leaked out either by you or by your 
attorney. That is a question which----
    Mr. Kolowich. Do you want to know who leaked this thing 
out?
    Mr. Carr. I don't want to know----
    Mr. Kolowich. Lloyd Freuhauff leaked it out last week. He 
gave two parties with Gordon Dean at the Statler Hotel and he 
had around sixty prominent people, including the newspapers, 
and he leaked out the thing because the minute that that leaked 
out they started calling me at my home.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, without getting into an argument on 
this thing----
    Mr. Kolowich. I want the record to show that, and I am 
satisfied from then on.
    Mr. Carr. You are quite welcome to put that on the record, 
that this happened. That has been called to my attention.
    Mr. Kolowich. Mr. Landa told me about this a month before I 
was ever served with a subpoena.
    Mr. Carr. The thing I would like to call to your attention 
is that--I want to be sure that I am correct in this--your 
attorney has stated to a representative of this committee that 
he had been in contact with several people and that it has come 
to our attention that other people had been in contact with 
several personages here in Washington concerning this matter. 
So it is very possible that it could have come through you. I 
don't want to get into the controversy of the leak. I think you 
have every right to put your opinion on the record.
    Mr. Kolowich. Don't you think in fairness to your own 
committee you should know how these leaks take place?
    Mr. Carr. We are trying to determine that, Mr. Kolowich. We 
have a representative of the committee who has made an effort 
to determine whether or not the leak resulted from this 
committee.
    Mr. Kolowich. I can give you the name of the editor.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Kolowich, you have on the record your opinion 
as to this Freuhauff story.
    Mr. Kolowich. No I don't think I will recite it because--
oh, it is just a lot of horseplay, I think.
    Mr. Carr. I want to get back to----
    Mr. Kolowich. Except this: I am calling it to your 
attention so whenever they will come in, or if you subpoena 
them, you will see the motive behind it. You may not see it 
now. This thing involves several million dollars. We bought 
into the Freuhauff Trailer and they have sent word to us that 
we will never be able to perfect our investment in the company. 
I know it is going to be a feud that may go on and on. I do 
know this, that he has gone out as far as getting Drew Pearson 
to announce on the radio, on two different Sundays, that this 
committee is going to investigate me long before I think this 
committee ever knew anything about it, including the ICC. If 
you don't believe that, check the radio announcements.
    Mr. Carr. I would like to get back to the strong point of 
the allegations. I want your statement on the record firmly 
stated that you either did or did not know of this pressure or 
this alleged pressure on the Department of Justice primarily 
and to a lesser extent on the Maritime Commission.
    Mr. Kolowich. I would say there was never any pressure 
brought to bear on anybody except our attorneys and Mr. 
Blackshear. Otherwise, our company has never brought any 
pressure on any individual beyond those two groups. And, of 
course, that is nothing else but common between a client and an 
attorney, the client pushing his attorney to get this thing 
over with.
    Now, I think that in justice to the record, I think you 
should go a little further, if you care to. I can't tell you 
how to run your hearings. I think you should indicate what you 
are thinking about, and I may clear you up. But I doubt very 
much if there is.
    Mr. Carr. When I say pressure, I don't mean the pressure 
that you put on your attorneys to speed up the case. Of course 
it is natural for a client to keep after his attorney to speed 
up the case. It is natural for him to tell his attorney to 
exert every pressure in the sense of legal pressure to handle 
his case to a conclusion. All I am asking you, and I want to be 
sure that I have it straight on the record, is: was there known 
to you to have been any pressure of the sort which might be 
considered illegal brought against the Department of Justice, 
or to a lesser extent against the Maritime Commission, pressure 
in the form of, possible form of, bribery, of payment of money, 
settlement or placement of business with one of the companies 
in the form of obtaining stock in the companies, in the form of 
transferring of stocks in this company or any other company, to 
any member of the Department of Justice or any member of the 
Maritime Commission.
    Mr. Kolowich. There has never been any pressure by myself 
or to my knowledge by any officer of Detroit and Cleveland 
Navigation Company. That is pretty broad.
    Mr. Carr. Or Detroit-Cleveland Navigation Company?
    Mr. Kolowich. That is right. That is very broad, and I am 
99.9 percent sure.
    Mr. Carr. Is Mr. Blackshear your local attorney? Would he 
represent you?
    Mr. Kolowich. Yes, he does represent more so other 
companies now because D and C Navigation has no business here 
in Washington. But he does represent the D-C trucking company. 
That is the Denver-Chicago Trucking Company.
    Mr. Carr. Could we contact him in order to get in touch 
with you now?
    Mr. Kolowich. Very well. You can contact him any time on 
the phone. If you want me to come back with any records, I will 
be glad to come in any time. Give me some reasonable time. In 
other words, you have changed this hearing from New York to 
here. I had the telephone call Saturday and I came in.
    Mr. Carr. All right, sir. Then we can contact Mr. 
Blackshear if we want to get in touch with you again.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Kolowich. Very well.
    [Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m. the committee was recessed subject 
to call.]















       PERSONNEL PRACTICES IN GOVERNMENT--CASE OF TELFORD TAYLOR

    [Editor's note.--In a speech to the West Point Debate 
Council and Forum on November 27, 1953, Telford Taylor, a 
brigadier general during World War II and chief Allied 
prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, denounced the 
subcommittee's probe of the Army Signal Corps facility at Fort 
Monmouth as a ``shameful abuse of congressional investigating 
power'' that posed a threat ``to the morale and efficiency of 
the Army.'' Senator McCarthy responded on December 5 by showing 
reporters a photograph of Taylor's confidential Civil Service 
form, indicating that it had been flagged for an ``unresolved 
question of loyalty.'' The senator also released a letter he 
wrote to the superintendent of the military academy demanding 
to know who was responsible for having Taylor address West 
Point cadets. Neither Taylor (1908-1998) nor Philip Young, 
chairman of the Civil Service Commission, were called to 
testify in public. Telford Taylor later published a critical 
analysis of congressional investigative procedures, Grand 
Inquest: The Story of Congressional Investigations (New York: 
Simon and Schuster, 1955).]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1953

                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 3:30 p.m., in room 357 of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman of 
the subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: David A. Surine, assistant counsel; Ruth 
Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Mr. Young, it is the procedure of the subcommittee to swear 
all witnesses who come before it. Will you raise your right 
hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear, in this matter now 
before the subcommittee that you will tell the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Young. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF PHILIP YOUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE 
                           COMMISSION

    The Chairman. I have asked you to come over for two 
reasons, Mr. Young, and I hate very much to disturb you 
gentlemen whom I know are extremely busy in your jobs. One of 
the matters I would like to have your department give some 
thought to--and you may not be able to comment on this at the 
moment--is a question of legislation that should be introduced 
early in the next session. We have been discussing this matter 
back and forth in our Committee on Government Operations, and 
there is one suggestion which has been made which seems to have 
considerable merit, and I would like to get your comment on it.
    That question is whether or not it would be wise to 
introduce legislation giving the president the power to 
determine which jobs are policy jobs, and whether once such a 
determination has been made, he would have the right to hire or 
fire at will, in other words disregard the Civil Service 
Commission regulations in so far as those jobs are concerned. 
Number two, whether or not such legislation should not provide 
that where a previous president has blanketed certain personnel 
into Civil Service without going through the usual procedure, 
the president who happens to be in office, whether it is 
Eisenhower as it is now or someone else in the future, should 
not have the power to in effect unblanket that personnel.
    We have had the complaint here constantly--whether there is 
merit or not I do not know--the complaint that a great number 
of what have been referred to as political hacks have been 
blanketed in under Civil Service and foisted upon the new 
administration.
    In fact, one of the assistants to a cabinet member last 
night complained because he said even his personnel officer is 
under Civil Service, and he cannot even select his own 
personnel officer.
    I just wonder whether you would care to make any comment on 
that today or whether you would like to give it some study and 
come back and discuss that with us at some later time.
    Mr. Young. All I can say today would only be in a very 
preliminary way.
    As to your first question, of course, the president and the 
Civil Service Commission now have the authority to transfer 
positions into what we call Schedule C, which is to all intents 
and purposes the policy determining category of jobs, together 
with the confidential assistant type jobs that go along with 
those, and that is what we have been doing over the last few 
months.
    The Chairman. Who, incidentally, in your department and I 
know that you make the final determination--but as with the 
head of every department you always have some people upon whose 
judgment you must rely, and who to the individual or who is the 
group of individuals who make the determination as to whether a 
certain person will be transferred into Schedule C?
    Mr. Young. Those requests coming from the head of a 
department or agency come to the Civil Service Commission, 
where they are processed by a section not up specifically for 
that purpose within the commission. That section has the 
function of determining whether or not the supporting data is 
along with the request. In terms of job specification sheets, 
organization charts, delegations of authority, or any other 
pertinent information which would tend to support the case.
    Then those are processed directly right up the line of 
command through the executive director to the three 
commissioners who pass on each request either individually or 
collectively, or sometimes both, depending upon how difficult a 
decision it may be. On the basis of the material which is 
submitted, that is done.
    The Chairman. Is there any appeal by an employee from the 
decision made?
    Mr. Young. Not unless that procedure has been set up within 
each agency. One of the things that has worried me about the 
Schedule C operation is the question as to whether or not the 
employee is fully aware of his rights, or privileges if he is 
moved with a position from the executive service into Schedule 
C. We find that agency-wide the practice varies a great deal at 
the present time.
    In some places he is very carefully notified as to what the 
situation is on that kind of a move, and in another instance I 
believe he has to sign a written statement, and in some other 
instances nothing is said to him at all.
    The Chairman. Let us say I am working over in any of the 
departments, and the department head requests that my job be 
transferred to Schedule C, which in effect takes it out from 
under Civil Service. Let us assume that I strongly feel my job 
is not a policy-making job, and this is just a ruse to get rid 
of me.
    Let us assume that your department agrees that it should be 
transferred to Schedule C. What, if any, remedy would I have to 
contest that? Would I have any remedy?
    Mr. Young. Well, I would assume that the employee could 
always raise the question with the commission. There is no 
regular form of appeal which has been established for that type 
of thing.
    The Chairman. In other words, your hands are not tied at 
all by the employee or anyone else if you feel that it is a 
policy-making job and the head of the department asks you to 
transfer it to Schedule C; you can go ahead and transfer it?
    Mr. Young. The employee is usually not consulted so far as 
I know.
    The Chairman. Who is the executive director?
    Mr. Young. Mr. John W. Macy, Jr.
    The Chairman. And is he pretty much the final word on this 
question of who will be transferred to Schedule C?
    Mr. Young. No, the commission itself is.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, aside from yourself, who is on 
the commission?
    Mr. Young. Mr. George Moore is the other Republican member, 
and Mr. Frederick Lawton is the minority party member.
    The Chairman. And you have been the chairman for how long?
    Mr. Young. I was sworn in the last week of March of this 
year.
    The Chairman. You had no connection with the commission 
before that?
    Mr. Young. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, I should know this, but what 
was your occupation before you came down here?
    Mr. Young. I was five years the dean of the Graduate School 
of Business at Columbia University in New York. Do you want to 
go back further than that?
    The Chairman. No. How about the situation in which the 
previous president blanketed mass numbers of people into Civil 
Service by an executive order? Is it the position of the 
commission that unless some law is passed taking them out from 
under Civil Service, they remain there?
    Mr. Young. It is my understanding that the president can 
issue an executive order to blanket in personnel as long as 
they meet standards and requirements set up by the Civil 
Service Commission, and they still have to meet standards and 
requirements although, to be sure, I assume that those 
standards have varied some in the past.
    But it is also my understanding that the law makes no 
provision for the unblanketing by executive order, and it only 
works one way.
    The Chairman. For the time being, shifting over to another 
subject, and I wish you would give this some thought because we 
have about four senators on our committee who are drafting 
different types of legislation, and we would like to get the 
thought of the commission on it, if we can; but shifting to 
another subject, last week I commented upon a man, Telford 
Taylor, who is not with the government and has not been with 
the government since the new administration took over. I 
pointed out that I have long had information that his loyalty 
files have been flagged, that we have been considering calling 
him in for some time but have not gotten around to it, and I 
believe that is public knowledge.
    Nevertheless, someone at West Point called this man over to 
indoctrinate or speak to the cadets. You were quoted as saying 
at the time that nothing had arisen since you took over in 
regard to Taylor's loyalty and I assume that that is a correct 
quote. Was that a correct quote?
    Mr. Young. Yes, I think that is a correct quote.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Would there be any 
occasion for anything to arise concerning his loyalty, he no 
longer being in the government, unless he applied for a job?
    Mr. Young. If he applied for a job, then we would check 
back, of course, on his service records and so forth. The only 
other way in which it might possibly come up is if he were 
being considered for a job with an international organization 
in which our international organizations' employees board would 
have jurisdiction.
    The Chairman. So there would be no occasion for that matter 
to come up before your commission, since you took over, as far 
as you know?
    Mr. Young. No, I would not think so.
    The Chairman. Did you check Taylor's files, since we called 
you today?
    Mr. Young. I looked at his service record this morning to 
find out where he had been and what positions he had held.
    The Chairman. Is that file flagged for loyalty?
    Mr. Young. That file is flagged for loyalty, although that 
is something, of course, that we do not ordinarily reveal 
publicly.
    The Chairman. I understand if he were a current employee, 
under the Truman order it would not be allowed to reveal it, 
but being a past employee, I assume that that would not apply.
    I know myself, but just for the record, what is the 
significance of a flag in the file on the basis of disloyalty?
    Mr. Young. A flag is purely a warning notice that if such a 
person ever re-applies or applies for government employment, 
that a careful check would be made of his record.
    The Chairman. But it means, does it not, that the question 
of loyalty has come up in connection with his employment, and 
if he resigns while that question of his loyalty is pending, 
the file is flagged so he cannot move into a different 
department, is not that the principal purpose of it?
    Mr. Young. Well, in this instance, it was flagged after be 
resigned, I believe, from the government.
    The Chairman. Is not that the practice? If John Jones is 
working for one of the departments, and the question of his 
loyalty comes up, and he becomes aware of that and decides he 
does not want to go through a loyalty hearing or if he is 
afraid of the investigation, and afraid of the results, you 
would constantly have a situation in which those individuals 
resign and then after they resign, of course, your commission 
has no further power to proceed; and then the only function you 
have is to flag the file so that they cannot resign from one 
department under loyalty investigation and shift over to 
another one?
    Mr. Young. Yes, the flag itself may not mean that the 
individual was disloyal.
    The Chairman. It means he was under investigation?
    Mr. Young. It is merely a warning to check on the man's 
record.
    The Chairman. Well, it means he was under investigation, 
does it not?
    Mr. Young. No, sir, it may not mean so.
    The Chairman. You mean that you put flags in even though a 
man is not under investigation?
    Mr. Young. He might have been investigated in the past by 
some other department or agency.
    The Chairman. If he had been investigated and cleared, it 
would not be flagged. As an actual matter, it means that he is 
under investigation, and he has not been cleared, is not that 
what the flag means? In other words, some of your employees----
    Mr. Young. The investigation might have been completed, and 
the investigation did not have to be going on at the time 
necessarily.
    The Chairman. But it means that there was an investigation 
showing derogatory material bearing upon his loyalty, and that 
there was never any final determination by a loyalty board as 
to whether he was disloyal or not.
    Mr. Young. I think that that would be a correct statement, 
sir.
    The Chairman. I think that that is all for the time being. 
Senators Mundt and Potter wanted to be here when we discussed 
with you the general subject of how to expedite requests for 
information concerning people who are no longer in government, 
and I understand that where they are in government you have no 
authority but to follow the old Truman order until that is 
revised, and I understand that that is in the process of being 
revised now. But until it is, you have got no authority but to 
simply follow it.
    However, we want to discuss with you, and they want to be 
present, a method whereby we can expedite getting information 
on previous employees of the government whom we are 
investigation in connection with other work. But we will not 
take your time on that at all today, and I will wait until 
Senator Mundt and Senator Potter are here.
    Mr. Young. I will make a note of that and see if we can 
come up with some information.
    The Chairman. I wish you would give it some thought, and 
whenever we ask you to come down, Mr. Young, we know that you 
are busy, and I will have some member of the staff call up and 
see if you are available. Understand that these requests are 
not for a specific day, and if you are busy that day, why, we 
will always try to arrange these things.
    Mr. Young. I am very glad to be available.
    The Chairman. I want to thank you, Mr. Young.
    Incidentally, so you will not be caught by surprise, the 
press always sees whoever comes in and out of here, and I 
always give the press a resume of what has occurred in 
executive session. The reason for that is, otherwise a leak 
comes from one member of the committee or one reporter or 
someone else, and they get a very distorted picture. So I 
always give a resume. As to your testimony, I will merely tell 
them we discussed pending legislation and asked that your 
department go over the various suggestions that have been made 
in regard to what can be done to untie the hands of some of the 
department heads who feel they are tied down too much with 
certain employees, and that I also asked you about the Taylor 
case and determined the fact that his case had been flagged on 
the grounds of loyalty.
    The subcommittee will adjourn.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
