Mr. O’Connell (reading):
I understand him to be one also, or at least so sympathetic as to make no actual difference.
Mr. Willis. Well, if she had used the words “so indifferent,” it would have been pretty close to my frank analysis of your testimony.
Mr. Velde. Let me say I concur with your statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Willis. If she had substituted the word “indifferent,” it would have been a close analysis of our appreciation of your testimony up to now. I look forward, however, to your contest with Mr. Budenz in that lawsuit that you mentioned.
Mr. O’Connell. I want to assure you that there is a difference. One can be a sincere American liberal and still fight for the political rights and civil rights of Communists. I can be non-Communist and yet not anti-Communist, just like I can be a Democrat and yet not an anti-Republican.
Mr. Willis. Yes, but you still have not given us a standard. It is hard to put in words—I do not know how to describe it—as to what is my standard, of what is a Communist. I would say that after a trial by all our courts, including a refusal of relief from the Supreme Court, refusal of appeals to two Presidents, with all the pressure brought on them, the courts and executive officers (I suppose they must have reviewed the record; they all seemed satisfied) but still you are not satisfied. So that makes it indifferent to me as to what your standard could be.
Mr. O’Connell. I do not want to go into all of the evidence as I understand it, but as an attorney I am completely suspicious of the testimony given by David Greenglass. He had real motives. He had everything to gain by what he was doing. During the pleas for clemency and since that time there has been other evidence produced that in my mind raises a real question, the positions taken by Dr. Harold Urey and by other scientists as to whether or not the so-called secret which was transferred or alleged to have been transferred and so on was a secret at all. These are the things that make me wonder about it. I am not satisfied.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you of course, noted from the testimony that I read that Barbara Hartle, who has been qualified as an expert in this field, stated that the Communist Party furnished the top leadership in the State of Washington for the Progressive Party. She also stated that the policy of the Progressive Party in that State was controlled by the Communist Party.
Now in that connection I want to follow a little further along with her testimony to support the extent to which the Communist Party was in a position to control the Progressive Party. I made this statement to Mrs. Hartle on page 6216:
Mrs. Hartle, the committee staff has procured from the secretary of state of the State of Washington a photostatic copy of the reports required to be made by law of the proceedings of the nominating convention for the year 1952—
that was the nominating convention of the Progressive Party—
It is noted that the certificate is signed by Thomas C. Rabbitt, permanent secretary of the Progressive Party. You have heretofore identified him as a member of the Communist Party, have you not?
Mrs. Hartle. Yes, I have.
Mr. Tavenner. The document referred to contains a certificate of attendance at the nominating convention of the Progressive Party held on the 9th day of September 1952. Will you please examine the list and read into the record the names of those appearing thereon who are known to you to have been members of the Communist Party?
(The witness then proceeded to read the names of those she had identified.)
Mr. Tavenner. Will you now count the number of those whose signatures appear on the list?
Mrs. Hartle. Yes; 33.
Mr. Tavenner. I have kept a record of the number of those identified by you as members of the Communist Party. Out of the total list of 33 names, you have identified 19.
Mrs. Hartle further testified that while she was in the underground of the Communist Party, which meant after 1950——
Mr. O’Connell. Where is that?
Mr. Tavenner. It is on the same page.
I received a brief description of what this Independent Party was. I was told that it had been impossible to place candidates for the Communist Party on the election ballot and that steps were taken then to put Communist candidates on an Independent Party ticket and take this means of bringing the Communist program into the election campaign.
The result was that we furnished to Mrs. Hartle a list of 49 persons certified by an affidavit to have attended the nominating convention of the Independent Party. Mrs. Hartle was asked to examine that list. Of the 49 persons appearing on the list, she identified 36 as known to her to be members of the Communist Party.
Mr. O’Connell. That list, of course, is all 1952 with reference to the Progressive Party in 1950, with reference to the so-called Independent Party?
Mr. Tavenner. That is right.
Mr. O’Connell. My testimony is that I left the State of Washington in October 1949.
Mr. Tavenner. That is correct.
Mr. O’Connell. I could distinguish if we had the time, as far as these people were concerned, with reference to the Progressive Party as it existed when I was there.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
(The committee members present when the hearing reconvened were Messrs. Willis and Velde.)
Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order.
Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you told us a few minutes ago that Hugh DeLacy had not been connected with your organization; that is, the Progressive Party.
Mr. O’Connell. No; I did not say that he——
Mr. Tavenner. You said he was not in an executive position.
Mr. O’Connell. He was not in an executive position.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he an organizer employed by you?
Mr. O’Connell. I do not remember whether he was there during the period when the party was actually organized, but he was there for a period of a few weeks.
Mr. Tavenner. That was in 1948, was it not?
Mr. O’Connell. In 1948 when the organization work was being done. Then he later went on to the position with the national office of the Progressive Party.
Mr. Tavenner. He finally became the head of the Progressive Party for the State of Ohio?
Mr. O’Connell. I think that is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. According to his testimony, he was employed as a State organizer for the Progressive Party in Washington from sometime around February or March, perhaps even later, of 1948, up to somewhere around June of the same year.
Mr. O’Connell. I think that is comparatively correct. My remembrance of it is that the provisional committee operated from about March, I would say around March 23 of 1948, and we actually had the founding convention of the rest of the party in the State of Washington the latter part of May.
Mr. Tavenner. DeLacy was a paid functionary for the Progressive Party during the period he indicated, was he not?
Mr. O’Connell. He was a paid organizer during that period.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you employ him?
Mr. O’Connell. I could not say strictly that I employed him. I think that there was an executive committee group that was set up at the time.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you his superior?
Mr. O’Connell. I was his superior; yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Now you indicated that you desired an opportunity to explain the testimony that Mr. Louis Budenz——
Mr. Willis. Before you come to that, you started to say 3 or 4 times that you had fired Mr. Rabbitt.
Mr. O’Connell. I fired Mr. Rabbitt; I removed him from the staff. Is that what you mean?
Mr. Willis. Yes. Why did you fire him?
Mr. O’Connell. I explained he was organizing in southern King County and he was supercritical of the work of a man by the name of Belden who was organizing clubs in what we call the 30th Legislative District of King County. The party was being attacked as being Communist or Communist-controlled or Red, and Belden was trying to explain as an ordinary individual that it was not Communist-controlled and was not Red. In the course of his explanation, at least, left anti-Communist inference; Rabbitt was critical of it.
Mr. Tavenner. It appears from the certificate made under law to the State of Washington that he was secretary of the Progressive Party in 1952—that Rabbitt was secretary.
Mr. O’Connell. In 1952?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. I, of course, of my own knowledge would not know if that is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he remain on the executive committee of the Progressive Party after the time you say you discharged him from his paid position?
Mr. O’Connell. No, not as long as I was there. When I left in October of 1949, as I understand, in the early part of December a resolution was passed by the State board of the Progressive Party declaring my office vacant because I had not returned from the State of Montana. Either at that meeting or shortly after, Rabbitt was named by the executive committee. I think, first, the original title given to him was coordinator. Later I think he was made executive secretary. I know these things from what people have told me, but not of my own knowledge.
Mr. Tavenner. I am not sure that you have answered specifically my question relating to the testimony of Barbara Hartle insofar as it referred to you. Barbara Hartle testified that you attended Communist Party meetings in which she was present where all the persons present were members of the Communist Party. Did you attend any such meeting or meetings?
Mr. O’Connell I think my explanation of that was that if I sat in a Communist Party meeting or what she considered to be a Communist Party meeting where all present were Communists, I had no knowledge that they were Communists or it was a Communist Party meeting. Since I read the testimony yesterday, I tried to recall all the meetings out there where there would be a possibility she was present. I just cannot recall the occasions I saw Barbara Hartle out there—usually on the street or something of that kind—and I cannot recall any meeting that she sat in that I was in. I just cannot remember any single meeting that she sat in there where at least I knew she was there. She might have been in another room or some other place, but she was not visible to me anywhere.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party during the period of time you were in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. I was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time while in the State of Washington, that is, between 1944 and 1949, affiliated in any way with the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I am not now and I have never been a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. You stated a desire to explain the testimony of Mr. Louis Budenz given at the Canwell hearings.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. At the Canwell hearings, Mr. Budenz—I think to save time, and I want to save time, Mr. Budenz testified that—I think the substance of his testimony was that he did not know whether or not I was a Communist, very much like Mrs. Hartle does. I think it is significant that she was the second top Communist in the State of Washington; and yet if I were the leading Communist that she says I was out there, she still is not sure whether I was or not. I think that is quite significant.
Likewise with Budenz. He was not sure whether I was Communist, but he had heard some discussion about me in the Communist Party headquarters in New York. As far as he knew, in meetings that he had heard, I was supposed to be all right and I was a person they could get along with. He made many statements of that kind. Then he went into the statement about the assassination of Leon Trotsky, which to the press in the State of Washington, left the impression that particularly somehow or other I was involved. So I sued Mr. Budenz in a civil suit in the Superior Court of King County the very next day.
Mr. Willis. In New York?
Mr. O’Connell. No; in the State of Washington—Seattle, Wash. I sued him for libel for the statements that he made about me. I fixed the sum of damages at $1,500,000. He was served with subpena, legally served with a summons, rather, in that suit, and through his attorneys defended the suit by taking advantage of his immunity as a legislative witness before the State legislative committee. He did not defend it.
Mr. Willis. What do you mean, he did not defend it?
Mr. O’Connell. I mean instead of letting the thing come to trial, instead of letting the issue come to trial on facts, to be tried on the facts, and so on, he and his attorneys hid behind his legislative immunity that he was in the State of Washington by virtue of a subpena to appear before the legislative committee of the State of Washington and under the laws of the State could not be legally served with a summons and sued in the State. The case was dismissed on that ground.
Mr. Tavenner. Was this the testimony to which you referred:
I will ask you, Professor, Do you know a former Congressman from Montana by the name of Jerry O’Connell?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether or not Mr. O’Connell was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Budenz. Not that specific. I know that he was one whom the party felt it must take care of because of his agreement constantly with the party line. This came up in the case of Congressman John T. Bernard, of Minnesota, and Congressman O’Connell. The discussion came up in the national headquarters of the Communist Party in the committee headed by William Winant about how to take care of these Congressmen because they agreed with the party line. And it was agreed that Bernard and O’Connell both would get jobs with the International Workers Order, this Communist-controlled front to which I have referred.
Now, it is my impression that—well, I know that Bernard got it, and it is my impression that Mr. O’Connell temporarily also received that cynosure through the cooperation of the party. I heard the discussion in the party circles first, and later on I heard that it was to be accomplished.
That is the testimony to which you refer?
Mr. O’Connell. That is the testimony to which I refer.
Mr. Tavenner. You were employed by the International Workers Order, were you not?
Mr. O’Connell. In order not to prolong it—Congressman Willis did not hear this, but yesterday I testified about my connections with the International Workers Order. The original contact, as I remember, was made by Peter Shipka to advise the local Serbs and Croats which existed in the city of Butte. It was, as I remember, during a period when I think Hitler had already invaded Yugoslavia and it was a question of whether they were supporting Milhailovich or Pavlich. There was a lot of dissension going on between the Serbs and Croats. I was asked to go down and advise with them and help with them. Many of them I knew because of my political candidacies for legislature and for the railroad and public service commission and for Congress there.
Mr. Tavenner. That is all in the record.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. Then I was sent on a specific job to do with reference to these coal miners at Steamboat Springs who were applying for citizenship and were members of the International Workers Order.
Mr. Tavenner. You were employed to go on speaking tours over the country for which you were paid $200 a month and your expenses?
Mr. O’Connell. I made only one speaking tour on the plan for plenty. The plan for plenty we had was an improved social security, called for improvement of the social security system as it existed at that time. I made some speeches. You asked me what I got, how much compensation I had received. I said in my opinion it would average about $200 a month.
Mr. Tavenner. And your expenses?
Mr. O’Connell. And my expenses, yes. I knew nothing about Mr. Budenz’ discussion with the Communist Party headquarters or anything. I got a call from Mr. Shipka. I am sure it was Mr. Shipka, the treasurer of the organization, who asked me first to do these two specific jobs which I did within a short time. Then later he called me to make these speeches on a plan for plenty.
Mr. Tavenner. Now I have before me an excerpt from the May 29, 1941, issue of Montana Labor News. The title is, “IWO Names O’Connell Rocky Mountain Director.” It is datelined New York, May 10. I will read it:
“Former Representative Jerry J. O’Connell, labor’s fighting Congressman from Montana, has been appointed regional director for the International Workers Order in the Rocky Mountain area, Herbert Benjamin, executive secretary of that organization, announced today. “Mr. O’Connell will be able to continue his effort on behalf of the labor movement on a much broader scale in his new post,” Herbert Benjamin declared, “since the IWO is labor’s foremost and largest fraternal benefit society. Our national membership of 155,000 supports the trade-union movement and its individual members on many fronts; providing insurance, sickness, and accident benefits at low rates, a rounded program of club and fraternal social life, plus a nationwide campaign for improving living standards, and social security embodied in our plan for plenty.”
Mr. O’Connell. That is the first I knew—nobody told me that I was to be regional director of the IWO. As far as I can remember, as far as their clubs were concerned out in the Rocky Mountain area, they had one in Butte, which was the only one they had in the whole State of Montana. I think they had one down in this town called Steamboat Springs, Col. Those were the only two clubs that I know of in the Rocky Mountain area. There were certainly no—at least on my part, there was no idea I was to be regional director, because the first 2 assignments that I got were first to go down to advise this club in Butte and the other to go down to this Steamboat Springs, in Colorado, and clear up the question that the judge and the examiner were raising there. The judge at the time thought that the IWO and the IWW were one and the same. I brought Mr. Charles Cunningham, I think his name was, commissioner of insurance of the State of Colorado, to the judge to point out that the IWO was a fraternal benefit organization.
Mr. Tavenner. You have explained all that in exactly the same detail.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, but the concept that I was a regional director——
Mr. Willis. I am not so sure I followed you on the reason for the dismissal of the suit you filed.
Mr. O’Connell. I did not dismiss the suit.
Mr. Willis. I do not think I caught the point. Was it a jurisdictional question? Specifically, what was it?
Mr. O’Connell. It was a motion to quash. Actually, it arose on the motion to quash the service of the summons.
Mr. Willis. On what grounds?
Mr. O’Connell. On the grounds that Mr. Budenz had immunity as a legislative witness before the State legislative committee that he was appearing before in the State of Washington.
Mr. Willis. He was not from Washington—not a resident of the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. No; he was a resident of New York.
Mr. Willis. You filed suit against him in Washington at a time while he happened to be there?
Mr. O’Connell. While he happened to be there.
Mr. Willis. But he was there on State legislative business?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Willis. And therefore was immune from service, and that was the basis for his motion to quash?
Mr. O’Connell. We served the summons on him. My desire was to get a test and a trial on the factual merits.
Mr. Willis. Was it filed in the State or Federal court?
Mr. O’Connell. In the superior court of King County.
Mr. Willis. His motion to quash was based on the fact he was served with the papers while he happened to be in the State of Washington on State legislative business and therefore was not subject to service process?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Willis. And his motion came up before the court and the court dismissed the action?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Willis. Did you sue him elsewhere?
Mr. O’Connell. And I did not pursue it elsewhere.
Mr. Willis. You did not file suit elsewhere against him?
Mr. O’Connell. By the time that was done he was gone.
Mr. Willis. I am not talking about that. You could have sued him. Anybody is subject to suit somewhere, and his domicile is the real place. I say did you not pursue him, upon dismissal of the suit in Washington and file another suit elsewhere?
Mr. O’Connell. You mean go to New York and file a suit against him?
Mr. Willis. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. No; certainly not.
Mr. Willis. Or in the Federal court or in any court?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I would have to go to New York. If he was a resident of New York, I would have to go to New York in order to get service; but I had him out in the State of Washington where I did get service on him.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the photostatic copy of the news article from the Montana Labor News and ask that it be marked as “O’Connell Exhibit No. 7” for identification purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. I would like the record to show at this point that the International Workers Order was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 4, 1947, and again on September 21, 1948, and that it was cited by Attorney General Francis Biddle on September 24, 1942, as one of the strongest Communist organizations. It has also been cited by other committees, including this committee.
Were you acquainted with its secretary, Herbert Benjamin?
Mr. O’Connell. I knew Herbert Benjamin. I am pretty sure he is the same Herbert Benjamin who was an officer in the Workers Alliance during WPA days, when I was in Congress. But I have actually had no contact with Benjamin in the IWO. In fact, this is the first I knew he had any connection with the IWO. But I knew him; I am sure he was lobbying here on the Hill with a man by the name of David Lasser while I was in Congress. I think he was with the Workers Alliance.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Louis Budenz prior to the time he appeared as a witness at the Canwell hearings in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was not acquainted with him. Shortly before he left the Communist Party he wrote me a letter asking me to write a series of articles for the Daily Worker about Senator Wheeler, which I refused, which I rejected. That is the only contact I ever had. I never met Budenz, never saw him or anything, until he was out in the State of Washington.
Mr. Velde. Did he want you to write articles favorable to Senator Wheeler?
Mr. O’Connell. No, he wanted me to write anti-Wheeler articles. Senator Wheeler and I became tangled politically out there. I was going to run against Senator Wheeler for the Senate in 1940, and Senator Wheeler of course took care of me in 1938. So I did not get to run. I mean the fight, there were people who were anxious to defeat Wheeler from 1940 on down until he was actually defeated in 1946.
He wrote that letter to me, I would say, just shortly before he left the Communist Party.
Mr. Willis. Those articles were to appear in the Daily Worker?
Mr. O’Connell. In the Daily Worker; yes.
Mr. Willis. Would an unfavorable article appearing in the Daily Worker be harmful to one’s political life in those days in Montana?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I mean——
Mr. Willis. You did not want to inject yourself in it?
Mr. O’Connell. I did not want to write the articles, that is all.
Mr. Willis. I would say the best compliment to me in my district would be for the Daily Worker to say that I was a rotter.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I think that would be true today. You would be surprised if you went out to the State of Montana and went into some of the mining camps and taverns and what not. For instance, we have a character in Butte by the name of Paddy King. Paddy sells the Daily Worker. He has silicosis. He is a real character around there. He goes all around the town. Everybody buys the Daily Worker from Paddy. They do not think much of it. Some of them read it, some of them throw it away, and so on.
Mr. Velde. Do you still read it?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I do not. Of course, I do not live in Butte any longer. I actually do not think I have seen the Daily Worker since they used to be delivered to our doors here in Washington.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Alexander Bittelman?
Mr. O’Connell. No. Who is he?
Mr. Tavenner. Alexander Bittelman has been identified in testimony as a functionary of the Communist Party in the city of New York.
Mr. O’Connell. I do not know any Alexander Bittelman.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Velde. I have no questions to ask the witness. It is apparent from his testimony, that Mr. O’Connell has a great deal of knowledge about Communist Party activities which he has refused to give this committee. That does not disturb me as much as the fact that it appears that he is still ideologically favorable to the Communist Party of the United States. It is very regrettable, but apparently every person, including those favorable to the Communist Party, has a right to express his opinion in this country. I want to say this: I hope that Mr. O’Connell will think this matter over in the future and give us the benefit of the knowledge that he possesses about the activities of the Communist Party in the United States.
Mr. O’Connell. Congressman, I have done my very best. I have talked to you. I do not want to argue. I do say that I appreciate all the consideration which the committee has given me, particularly on the two instances when I asked for continuations because of my illness. I appreciate the fairness with which the committee has treated me throughout the hearings. I just want to say that, as far as I am concerned—that is, the best way I can describe it honestly and sincerely, is that from my environment, from the poverty since my birth and the things that happened to me as a child and as a young man, and so on, I grew up in a very, very liberal tradition where people were certainly tolerant of all the various shades and hues of political opinion as we saw them. I think I could best describe myself, I am just an old-fashioned American liberal. I want to assure you that I have had no training——
Mr. Tavenner. I do not want to prolong the discussion. At the beginning of the hearing you mentioned the fact that you had passed the bar in Montana, and that you are now a practicing lawyer, and you intended to forget about any type of political activity. I just wonder whether you consider the Communist Party activity as being political.
Mr. O’Connell. I think you asked me that question before.
Mr. Tavenner. I do not think I did.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, somebody asked me it before. As far as I am concerned, I am not engaged in any Communist Party activity in the State of Montana or any party activity, Progressive, or Democrat, or anything. I have been asked by the Progressive Party in 1950 to run for the United States Senate and I refused. I have been asked by the press in Montana—I am not being braggadocio or conceited—by the various newspapers, the Great Falls Tribune, the Lewistown Daily News, and many others, whether I was going to come back into the political life of the State. I have always told them, and told them constantly, that I wanted to be a lawyer; I wanted to be, if I could, the best lawyer that Montana ever had. That was the desire that I had. I have been practicing law to the very best of my ability. When a man starts to practice law, as I did, when he is about 40 years of age, he has a lot to learn. There are many—well, I am sure, Mr. Willis, as an attorney you know the best teacher, of course, is experience. I have been trying to keep my nose clean and hewing to the line. I have been practicing law. That is what I have been doing. I think in my work out there I have earned the respect and consideration of all the people in the kind of job I have been doing.
We do not have any integrated bar in the State of Montana. The Montana Supreme Court regulates and supervises the bar out there. I am sure that the members of the supreme court will tell you the things I have said here today about my friend and all that are true.
Mr. Velde. Do you not think you are a bit gullible or naive when you say that you did not know there was a Soviet espionage ring operating in this country? Tell the committee the truth.
Mr. O’Connell. Now listen. I think I have set forth my position. I do not know that that is actually true. I do not know that it is true. I do not know it. I have never met a Soviet spy that I know of.
Mr. Velde. It is just unbelievable to me. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Mr. O’Connell. You are in a different position than I am.
Mr. Velde. With all your connections that have been brought out here with the various front groups, with all of your connections with well-known Communists, not to realize that there has been an espionage ring operating in this country is amazing to me. You are an intelligent man.
Mr. O’Connell. Any of those groups or any of the individuals that have been mentioned here can be tied down to specific programs or purposes or things of that kind, but certainly nothing along the line of espionage.
Mr. Willis. Would it surprise you if they were?
Mr. O’Connell. No, it would not surprise me; but what I am saying is that I do not know.
Mr. Willis. The committee is adjourned and the witness is dismissed.
Mr. O’Connell. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p. m., the hearing in the above matter was concluded and the committee recessed to the call of the Chair.)