Appendix — Gojack v. United States
Supreme Court brief1966
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1965
No. 594
JOHN T. GOJACK, PETITIONER,
vs.
UNITED STATES.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
INDEX
Original Print
Record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia
Indictment A 1
Motion to dismiss indictment D 3
Motion for bill of particulars G 5
Motion fer hearing on qualifications of grand
jurors H 6
Order denying motion to dismiss indictment, mo-
tion for bill of particulars and motion for hear-
ing on qualifications of grand juror J 7
Judgment K 8
Transcript of trial proceedings, October 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1963 1 9
Appearances 1 9
Colloquy between counsel re offers in evidence 10 9
Reading of testimony of Frank S. Tavenner
d from the Supreme Court Record No. 128,
October Term, 1961 91 13
Portions of testimony of Mrs. Dorothy K.
Funn read into record 112 26
Recorp Press, Printers, NEw York, N. V., January 27, 1966
Record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia—Continued
Transcript of trial proceedings, October 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1963—Continued
Reading of testimony of Frank S. Tavenner
from the Supreme Court Record No. 128,
October Term, 1961—Continued
Portions of testimony of John T. Gojack
read into record
Reading of testimony of Frank S. Tavenner
from the Supreme Court Record, No. 128,
October Term, 1961— —
(resumed) —...._._._..
Portions of testimony of John Thomas Go-
jack read into record
Portions of testimony of Russell Nixon read
into reer i’
Portions o cestimony of John T. Gojack
read into record
Reading of testimony of Frank S. Tavenner—
cross examination from the Supreme Court
Record No. 128, October Term, 1961—
(resumed ) 3
recross
Portions of testimony of Julia Jacobs read
into record
Testimony of Donald T. Appell—
direct
eross
Court’s statement on motion of the defendant
for judgment of acquittal
Reading of testimony of Robert Elliott Thomp-
son from the Supreme Court Record No. 128,
October Term, 1961 into record—
direct
eross he
recross
redirect
Original Print
122 32
139 42
145 44
218 74
222 76
232 83
262 95
289 96
322 100
329 104
340 109
343 111
347 114
357 120
INDEX ii
Record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia—Continued
Transcript of trial proceedings, October 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1963—Continued
Reading of testimony of Frank 8. Tavenner
from the Supreme Court Record No. 128,
October Term, 1961 into record—
— ee ME 363 123
Colloquy between court and counsel re Govern-
ment's Exhibits Nos. ö and 7 375 131
Reading of testimony of George David Me-
Claren from the Supreme Court Record No.
128, Oetober Term, 1961 into record
MN sc ˙ es
Colloquy between Court and counsel re Defen-
dant’s Exhibits Nos. 3 and PA ait
Reading of testimony of George David Me-
Claren from the Supreme Court Record No.
128, Oetober Term, 1961 into record
(resumed) ) 393 14}
Reading of excerpts from various sources into
record from the Supreme Court Record No.
128, October Term, 1961. n 395 142
Extracts from The Congressional Record for
Honorable H. R. Gross, Subject: Herman F.
Reissig, dated May 24, 1954 from the Su-
preme Court Record No. 128, October Term,
1961 read into the record d 446 170
Defendant’s Exhibit 6—Statements in the
Press attributed to Representative Harold H.
Velde, former Chairman of the House Un-
American Activities Committee, ete. 456 177
Reading of testimony of Thomas I. Emerson
from the Supreme Court Record No. 454,
October Term, 1961 into record and colloquy
thereon — 461 18)
8
134
K
137
Iv INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia—Continued
Transcript of trial proceedings, October 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1963—Continued
GovERNMENT’sS EXHIBITS:
No. 4—Excerpts from the minutes of an ex-
ecutive meeting of the Committee on Un-
American Activities held January 20, 1955
with Certification by the Recording Clerk
No. 5—Excerpts from the minutes of an ex-
ecutive meeting or the Committee on Un-
American Activities held February 9, 1955
with Certification by the Recording Clerk
No. 7—Excerpts from the minutes of an ex-
ecutive meeting of the Committee on Un-
American Activities held February 23,
1955 with Certification by the Recording
Clerk
No. 12—Investigation of Communist Activ-
ities in the Fort Wayne, Ind., Area, Febru-
ary 28, March 1 and April 25, 1955 (ex-
cerpts)—Hearings before the Committee
on Un-American Activities, House of
Representatives, Eighty-Fourth Congress,
First Session
Testimony of Julia Jacobs, Accompanied
by her Counsel, Frank J. Donner—
resumed
Testimony of Lawrence Cover, Accom-
panied by his Counsel, Frank J. Donner
Testimony of John Thomas Gojack, Ac-
companied by his Counsel, Frank Don-
ner
Testimony of David Mates, Accompanied
by his Counsel, Basil R. Pollitt —
Testimony of Eugene Maurice Shafarman,
Accompanied by his Counsel, David
Rein
Original Print
513 209
516 211
519 213
522 216
527 221
534 227
544 241
630 381
643 395
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia—Continued
Transcript of trial Proceedings, October 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1963—Continned
GOVERN MEN?T’s Exuisits—Continued
Nos. 14 & 14A—Correspondence between
William S. Hitz and David Rein, dated
April 30 and May 16, 1963 re Stipulations
agreed upon for the trial, ete.
DEFENDANT’s Exursrts:
No. 1—Statement of Objections to hearing
and motion to vacate subpoenas submitted
by Frank J. Donner with attachments
Newspaper clipping from February 15,
1955 issue of Fort Wayne Journal-
Gazette, of article by Robert E. Thomp-
son with heading “House Un-American
Committee Wants UE ‘Out of Busi-
Ress’ Be a
Newspaper clipping from February 21,
1955 issue of The Herald-Press, St.
Joseph, Michigan of article headed “Red
Probe May Upset UE WO —
No. 3— Information from the Files of the
Committee on Un-American Activities,
—
John Thomas Gojack, dated May 5, 1953
No. 4— Information from the Files of the
Committee on U American Activities,
U.S. House of Representatives, Subject,
John T. Gojack for Honorable Homer
Ferguson, dated August 20,1953
ings in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
Opinion, Per Curiam
Opinion, concurring in the result, Burger, J.
Judgment
— ee
649 401
658 405
655
656
657
407
vi
Petition for rehearing
Order denying petition for rehearing ......----—----
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing
Order extending time to file petition for writ of
certiorari
Order allowing certiorari -
[fol. A]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury sworn in on September 4, 1962
Criminal No. 821-62
Grand Jury Original
2 U.S.C. 192
Unrrep States or AMERICA,
v.
Joun T. Gogack.
INDICTuENT— September 4, 1962
Introduction
The Committee on Un-American Activities of the House
of Representatives, created and authorized by the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946, Section 121(q), (60
Stat. 828), and by H. Res. 5, 84th Congress, at a meeting
on February 9, 1955, by motion agreed to, authorized de-
fendant Gojack to be subpoenaed to appear before a Sub-
committee of the Committee in open hearing at Fort Wayne,
Indiana. The subject of these hearings was Communist
Party activities within the field of labor, being a subject
and question of inquiry within the scope of the authority
of the Committee. On February 9, 1955, the Chairman of
the Committee, pursuant to his authority granted by Com-
mittee resolution of January 20, 1955, appointed a Subcom-
mittee to conduct the aforesaid hearings and set the time
at February 21, 1955. Upon the request of the defendant
herein for a postponement, the Chairman, on February 18,
1955, continued the aforesaid hearings until February 28,
1955, in Washington, D. C., which rescheduling was ap-
proved by the Committee on Febiuary 23, 1955.
[fol. B! On February 28 and Marvh 1, 1955, in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the last aforesaid Subcommittee was con-
ducting hearings under the appointment and authorizations,
and upon the subject and question of inquiry, set forth
above, and, then and there, defendant John T. Gojack
appeared as a witness before that Subcommittee and was
asked certain questions pertinent to the above subject and
question under inquiry, which pertinent questions he de-
liberately and intentionally refused to answer.
The allegations of this Introduction are adopted and in-
corporated into the Counts of this Indictment which follow,
each of which Counts will in addition merely set forth the
particular date and pertinent question which was asked
of the defendant and which he so refused to answer.
Count One
On February 23, 1955. Question:
Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Count Two
On March 1, 1955. Question:
You have left us under the impression at this point that
by reading the newspapers you knew that Johnson was
chairman of the Communist Party of Indiana and I am ask-
ing you if that is the only way you knew Johnson.
Count Three
On March 1, 1955. Question:
Mr. Gojack, did Mr. Elmer Johnson or Mr. Aron ever
appear and address a group of people when you were
present?
7 :
[fol. C] Count Four
On March 1, 1955. Question:
May I ask the witness, do you know whether or not Rus-
sell Nixon is a member of the Communist Party?
Count Five
On March 1, 1955. Question:
Did you take active part in the peace pilgrimage to Wash-
ington which was organized by one of the “front” organiza-
tions known as the American Peace Crusade?
Count Six
On March 1, 1955. Question:
What method was used to get you as an original sponsor?
(That is, original sponsor of the American Peace Crusade. ]
„United States Attorney in and
for the District of Columbia.
A True Bill:
, Foreman.
[fol. D]
Ix tHe Unrrep States Districr Court
For tHe District or CoLuMBIA
[Title omitted]
Motion To Dismiss INDICTMENT
The defendant moves that the indictment be dismissed on
the following grounds:
1. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 Section
121(q), 60 Stat. 828 and House Resolution 5, 85th Congress,
purport to authorize the House Committee on Un-American
Activities to conduct investigations into the exercise of the
a
+
freedom of belief, speech, press and assembly, as to which
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States provides that “Congress shall make no law” and such
resolution and statute are therefore unconstitutional.
2. The statute and resolution referred to above are
vague and indefinite and the Committee’s inquiry there-
under may not be a basis for indictment by reason of the
requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the
Constitution.
3. The statute and resolution referred to above authorize
investigations without a legislative purpose in violation
of the principle of the separation of powers.
4, The questions set forth in the indictment constitute
an inquiry into defendant’s personal and private affairs
and associations and into his political beliefs and associa-
tions which are subjects beyond the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Un-American Activities under the First
[fol. E] and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution and
under the statute and resolution above referred to.
5. The questions set forth on its face cannot be per-
tinent or material to any subject under the jurisdiction of
the House Committee on Un-American Activities within the
statute and resolution above referred to.
6. The questions set forth are on its face not pertinent
to the questions under inquiry set out in the indictment.
7. The indictment fails to set forth the basis or the
matter in which the question is alleged to be pertinent to
the subject under inquiry set out in the indictment.
8. The indictment fails to allege a state of mind requisite
for guilt under Title 2, Section 192.
9. The indictment does not state facts sufficient to
constitute an offense against the United States.
10. The indictment was not found by a sufficient number
of qualified and unbiased grand jurors.
5
11. The indictment was returned more than five years
after the alleged offense and is accordingly barred by the
statute of limitations.
12. The indictment subjects the defendant twice to be
put in jeopardy for the same offense.
13. The indictment denies the defendant the right to a
speedy and public trial.
Frank J. Donner, David Rein, Attorneys for De-
fendant.
[fol. F] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. G]
In tHe Unrtep States District Count
For toe District or CotumBia
[Title omitted]
Morton ror Bru or PaRTICULARS
The defendant moves that the Court order the United
States to file a bill of particulars setting forth the fol-
lowing:
1. The manner in which the questions set forth in the
indictment is alleged to be pertinent to the subject under
inquiry set out in the indictment.
2. When, where and how the defendant was advised of
the pertinency to the subject matter of the indictment of
the questions set forth in the indictment.
Frank J. Donner, David Rein, Attorneys for De-
fendant.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
6
[fol. H]
In tHe Unrrep States Distaicr Court
For TRR District or CotumBia
[Title omitted]
Motion ron Hearine on Quauirications or GRAND Jurors
The defendant moves that a hearing be held for the pur-
pose of inquiring into the qualifications of the members of
the grand jury which returned the indictment herein. As
grounds for this motion defendant states:
1. Eleven of the twenty-three members of the grand jury
were government employees and others who are listed as
retired may have been government employees and still
other members may have been spouses, children or parents
of government employees. Among the government em-
ployees on the grand jury are employees of sensitive
agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the De-
partment of Navy, and the Atomic Energy Commission.
2. Defendant desires the opportunity to establish at
the hearing that the grand jurors referred to were, by rea-
son of their governmental connections, unsuitable as grand
jurors personally and as a class, and that as a result of
their presence, the grand jury was not an independent
body for the purpose of determining whether to indict the
defendant but instead was for that purpose under the
domination and control of the prosecution.
If the hearing sought is denied, defendant moves for a
hearing for the purpose of interrogating the government
[fol. I] employees on the grand jury to determine whether
they were personally biased against the defendant and un-
able to exercise an independent judgment in this case.
In support of this motion, defendant refers to the an-
nexed list of the members of the grand jury which returned
the indictment herein and to the following material:
—
7
An article written Drs. Jahoda and Cook, Security Meas-
ures and Freedom of Thought, 61 Yale L. J. 295, and the
affidavits filed by Dr. Cook, Joseph Fanelli, Murray Gor-
don, and Gerhard P. Van Arkel in the case of United States
v. Martin Popper, Criminal No. 1053-59 and which are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Frank J. Donner, David Rein, Attorneys for De-
fendant.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. J]
Ix tHe Unrrep States Distraicr Court
For TRR Disrrict or CotumBia
{Title omitted]
Onůonn Denyine Motion to Dismiss InvICTMENT, Motion
ron Bu or Particutars anp Motion ror HEARING oN
Qua.iFicaTions or Granp Jurors—J anuary 25, 1963
Upon consideration of the motions and the oral arguments
made thereon, it is by the Court this 25th day of January,
1963,
Ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss the indict-
ment, motion for hearing on the qualifications of grand
jurors, and motion for a bill of particulars be denied.
George L. Hart, Jr., Judge.
No objection as to form, David Rein, attorney for de-
fendant.
8
[fol. K]
In TRR Unrrep Srates Disrnior Court
For tHe District or CoLtumsia
Criminal No. 821-62
Unrrep States or AMERICA,
v.
Joun T. Gogack.
Judy December 13, 1963
On this 13th day of December, 1963, came the attorney
for the government and the defendant appeared in person
and by counsel, David Rein, Esquire.
It Is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted
upon his plea of not guilty and a finding of guilty of the
offense of
ContTeMPT oF CONGRESS
Violation of Section 192, Title 2, U.S. Code
as charged
and the court having asked the defendant whether he has
anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced,
and no sufficient cause to the contrary being shown or
appearing to the Court,
It Is Adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged
and convicted.
It Is Adjudged that the defendant is hereby committed
to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized
representative for imprisonment for a period of
Three (3) Months and to pay a fine of Two Hundred
($200.00) Dollars.
It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of
this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar-
shal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as
the commitment of the defendant.
Richmond B. Keech, United States District Judge.
, Clerk.
—
[fol. 1]
In tHe Unrrep Srares Distaior Count
For tHe Disrrict or CoLuNBIA
Criminal Case No. 821-62
Unirep Stares or AMznica,
vs.
Joun T. Gosacx.
Transcript of Trial
October 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18, 1968
Washington, D. C.
10:30 a.m.
Before the Honorable Richmond B. Keech, United States
District Judge, Trial before the Court.
APPEARANCES :
William Hitz, Esq., on behalf of the Government.
David Rein, Esq., and Frank Donner, Esq., for the de-
fendant.
(fol.10] Mr. Hitz: I might say it is the practice of the
Un-American Activity and has been since its creation, that
unless there is a proper quorum of the full committee sit-
ting, that it will sit in sub-committees,
10
I may say, by way of illustration, that is not what occurs
in the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee doing sim-
ilar work. They sit in a short quorum, if need be, of the
full sub-committee. They don’t appoint a sub-committee
of the sub-committee.
[fol. 74] Mr. Donner: No objection to this exhibit but
well, there is an apparent—there is a statement that this
reference to a subcommittee—the committee on Internal
Securities in the resolution, Your Honor, and I don’t know
what that is about but I have no objection to the exhibit
otherwise. That is No. 5.
[fol. 78] Mr. Hitz: I next pass to the court government
exhibit five in evidence and that is excerpts of the minutes
of February 9, 1955, of the Executive meeting of the
Un-American Activities Committee which states that there
were seven members present and I will read this.
[fol.79] Mr. Donner: Read it slowly.
Mr. Hitz: “Mr. Scherer moved that David Mates and
John Gojack be subpoenaed to appear before a subcom-
mittee of the committee on Internal Security in open hearing
at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and that a Dr. Sharpman be sub-
poenaed to appear in the Executive Session at Fort Wayne,
Indiana,
“The Chairman designated Mr. Moulder, Mr. Dole and
Mr. Scherer as a subcommittee to conduct the hearings in
Fort Wayne, Indiana, and set the time at February 21,
55. ”
I have read the body of the excerpt.
It might be helpful to the court, although—yes, it might
be helpful to the court if I point out that it is relevant
and material to several of the allegations of Paragraph 1
of the Introduction of the indictment.
ll
(fol.80} Mr. Hitz: Next I pass to the court government
exhibit No. 7 in evidence and that being excerpts from the
minutes of the Executive Meeting of the Committee on
February 23, which is rather brief and I will read it rather
than characterize it.
It notes that there are five members of the Committee
present and the body of this excerpt is as follows: “The
hearings scheduled to be held at Fort Wayne, Indiana, were
discussed. The chairman stated that upon learning that
a National Labor Board election was to be held in Fort
Wayne, Indiana on February 24, he continued the hear-
ings until February 28 and set the place for the hearings
in Washington, D. C.
“Mr. Scherer moved that the Committee hold hearings at
a subsequent date in Fort Wayne. The motion died for
want of a second,
“The Committee agreed that after the hearings on Feb-
ruary 28, it would then be determined whether further hear-
ings in Fort Wayne would be necessary.”
That is the end of the body of the excerpts from the
minutes.
* * * * * 8 *
fol. 82] Mr. Donner: Excuse me. Don't you think it
would be well for us to file with the court the stipulation
that was entered into about the—the record will be made
(fol. 83] on the basis of the record made in the old case
with the reservations to be made in the stipulation?
Mr. Hitz: I have no feeling either way. We can do it
if you want to. This is the appropriate time in my case
to do it.
Do you have a copy that oan be filed?
Mr. Donner: We have a copy that can be filed together
with a copy of your response.
Mr. Hitz: I am agreeable to that and in fact, since it is
my case, I will mark it.
Mr. Donner: All right.
Mr. Hitz: Give it No. 14 for identification.
12
(Government’s exhibit No. 14 was marked for identifica-
tion.)
Mr. Hitz: Also 14-A, Your Honor, which is my reply by
way of letter.
(Government’s exhibit 14-A was marked for identifica-
tion.)
Mr. Hitz: I take it, since the request was made by Mr.
Donner, that there is no objection and I ask it to be re-
ceived.
The Court: I understand there is not and 14 and 14-A
are received.
(Government exhibits 14 and 14-A were received in evi-
dence. )
[fol. 84] The Court: What is the date of those letters?
Mr. Hitz: Mr. Rein’s to me is April 30, 63 and my reply
to him is May 16, 63.
Might I ask Mr. Donner if he thinks anything significant
in here should be read to the court and the record at this
time?
Mr. Donner: In your reply, Mr. Hitz, that is, 14-A, there
is a reference, I believe, to Mr. Tavenner’s testimony which
you are about to—perhaps you ought to read that.
Mr. Hitz: I will be glad to. In fact, I will read my whole
letter, Your Honor. I am rather pleased with it.
The Court: I must say, you are one of the few people that
are ever pleased the next day with a letter once written.
Mr. Hitz: I wrote it so long ago that I have forgotten
what is wrong with it, perhaps, but I will read it and it
is addressed to Mr. Rein in his Washington office.
“Dear Mr. Rein:
“Your letter of April 30, 1963, stating proposed stipula-
tions with reference to the impending trial of the above
case, is agreeable to me except with respect to “A”, and the
Herald press clipping referred to therein.”
The Court: I did not hear you, sir.
13
(fol. 851 Mr. Hitz: I should tell the court that Mr. Rein's
proposal for a stipulation contained in several numbered
paragraphs and some lettered paragraphs underneath—
The Court: Except what, sir?
Mr. Hitz: Except “A”, Herald press clipping referred
to therein.
As to that, “the government stipulates that it will not
question the accuracy of the clipping, rather than that, the
government agrees to the accuracy of it.
“With respect to “H”, other like documents are to be
covered thereby” and now this is what I think Mr. Donner
had in mind but I thought I would read it all. “Further,
the government stipulates that the testimony of Frank S.
Tavenner, Jr., will be admissible as it was given in the
previous trial.
“It is understood that neither the government nor the
defendant agrees to be limited to only such evidence as
is covered by this stipulation.”
(fol.91] Mr. Hitz: “Thereupon, Frank S. Tavenner, was
called as a witness by counsel for the Government and.
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
“Direct examination.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, your full name, please?
“A. Frank S. Tavenner, T-A-V-E-N-N-E-R, Jr.
„. Your occupation, Mr. Tavenner?
“A. Attorney.
“Q. And with whom?
“A. I am counsel for the Committee on Un-American
Activities of the House of Representatives.”
(fol. 92] “Q. How long have you been connected with the
legal staff of the committee?
14
“A. Since May 1, 1949.
. Mr. Tavenner, in 1955, how many Members of the
House were on the Un-American Activities Committee?
“A. Nine.
“Q. Are you familiar with the fact that John Gojack was
supoenaed to appear before the Un-American Activities
Committee in the year 1955?
“A. Yes, I am.
“Q. Was he so subpoenaed?
„A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 93] “Q. Was he subpoenaed to appear more than
once—
„A. Yes, he was.
“Q. —in the year?
“Will you tell us on what date, for which date he was
first subpoenaed to appear?
„A. On February 15th he was subpoenaed to attend a
hearing of the committee on February the 21st at Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
“Q. At that time, was Mr. Gojack represented by an at-
torney, to your information?
“A. Yes, he was.
“Q. Who was that?
“A. Mr. David Scribner.
“Q. Did you receive a communication from Mr. Scribner
subsequent to the issuance of the subpoena for Mr. Gojack?
“A. Yes, sir, I did.
“Q. Will you just tell us what it related to?
„A. Well, I first received a— Well, first there was re-
ceived by the committee a telegram from Mr. Scribner in
which he asked that a continuance be granted for the ap-
pearance of Mr. Gojack as a witness. That telegram bore
date of February 16th. He asked for the hearings to be
postponed ‘to any time after next week,’ because of his
[fol. 94] extremely heavy schedule, and also because of
NLRB election at Magnavox Company.
“Q. That is, for an extension beyond the week of the 21st?
“A. Yes, sir.
.Was that extension granted, Mr. Tavenner?
“A. Well, on February 17th, the clerk of the committee
replied by telegram, advising Mr. Scribner that his ap-
plication for a continuance would be denied, or was denied.
Later on that day, Mr. Scribner called me, and after mak-
ing some investigation, I found out the situation regarding
the proposed election at Magnavox, and I went to the floor
of the House and got the chairman of the committee, Mr.
Francis E. Walter, from the floor of the House, and after
explaining the situation to him, Mr. Walter agreed that
the hearings be postponed. I came back to my office and
telephoned Mr. Scribner, or maybe I advised him by wire,
I am not certain, that the hearings would be continued.
“Q. At that time, did you give Mr. Scribner a date to
which they were continued, or merely to tell him that they
were continued beyond the week that he wished to be free?
“A. My recollection is that I got word to him in some
manner that the hearings would be continued.
[fol. 95] „. Subsequently, did you inform Mr. Scribner
of the exact date to which they were continued?
“A. Yes, sir. On the same day, February 17, Mr. Scrib-
ner wrote me, thanking me for giving favorable considera-
tion to his request for postponement. In this letter he says
he confirms
our telephone conversation this afternoon, wherein you
so advised me and wherein I advised you that Mr. Gojack,
who has been subpoenaed, will appear when the hearing is
rescheduled.’
“Quoting further from the letter, he states:
I assume that you will give me reasonable advance no-
tice of any new scheduled date for the appearance of Mr.
Gojack.’
“Q. Did you give notice of the new scheduled date of
appearance?
“A. Yes, sir. On the following day I succeeded in having
a definite date fixed for the postponed hearing, and I so
advised Mr. Scribner by letter; that is, of February 18th. In
—
16 *
that letter I acknowledged receipt of the letter of February
17th from Mr. Scribner, in which, quoting from the letter:
Jou confirm our telephone conversation that you would
have Mr. Gojack appear when the hearing is rescheduled
[fol. 96] and in which you ask that reasonable advance no-
tice be given you of any new scheduled date for Mr. Go-
jack’s appearance.’
“Continuing to quote from the letter:
At the direction of the chairman, I am advising you
that the hearing is rescheduled to take place on Monday,
February 28, 1955, in Room 225, Old House Office Building,
Washington, D. C., at 10:30 a. m.“
* 5 * „ * * *
[fol. 971 “Q. Did that end the matter, or was a subpoena
issued for the date arrived at?
“A. I decided that inasmuch as the original hearings had
been set for Fort Wayne, and that we were now having the
hearing in the city of Washington, that I should issue a
new subpoena, which I did. That subpoena was issued, I
believe, on the 18th of February, and served—the subpoena
was issued on the 23rd of February and was served that
day, or at least, service of the subpoena was on the 23rd
day of February, for Mr. Gojack’s appearance in Washing-
ton on the 28th day of February.
“Q. All right, sir. Then, he did appear, did he, on the
28th?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Where did he appear before the committee?
“A. In the Old House Office Building in Washington,
D.C.
[fol. 98] “By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, in calling Mr. Gojack as a witness,
what field was the committee engaged in investigating at
that time?
17
“A. The committee had been engaged intermittently in
the investigation of Communist Party Activities on the
part of officials of the United Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers of America, from August 1949 until the
date of this hearing, and later. The committee had heard
testimony in July 1951 from a former president of District
7, comprising the States of Ohio and Kentucky, in which—
“The Court: District 7 of what?
“The Witness: Of the United Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers of America.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. What did that— First, will you name that witness?
“A. Mr. Decavitch.
“Q. Will you spell it for the record, please?
“A. D-E-C-A-V-I-T-C-H.
“Q. When Mr. Decavitch gave his testimony—and you
say it was in 1951?
[fol. 991 “A. Yes, sir.
“Q. (Continuing) —had he been a member of the UE
union?
“A. Yes, sir, he had been president of District 7 for a
number of successive terms.
“Q. Had he been a member of the Communist Party—
“A. Yes.
“Q. —according to his testimony?
“A. Les.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, did Mr. Decavitch give any testimony
with reference to his opinion as to the extent of the infiltra-
tion of the UE by the Communist Party? Just answer that
he gave an estimate or he did not.
“A. He did.
„. Now, don’t answer this until there is time for an
objection to be made if they care to make it. In what way
did he characterize the extent of the infiltration ! Will you
answer—
„A. As being 99.9 per cent pur Communist Party mem-
bers.
“Q. Did you at a subsequent time receive further testi-
(fol. 100] mony from anyone concerning the extent of Com-
munist infiltration of this particular UB, this union?
„A. Yes, sir, There was a witness by the name of Jack
Davis who testified before the committee in July 1953 in
Albany, New York, He had been an organizer of the Com-
munist Party for that district—excuse me, an organizer for
the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers for that
district, which was District Number 3, comprising the area
in the State of New York north of Yonkers.
“Q. Was it public testimony? N
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. According to his testimony, had he ever been a mem-
ber of the Communist Party, sir:
“A. Yes, sir, he so testified,
„. Did he give any estimate of his opinion of the
extent of Communist infiltration of the UE? Just answer
he gave an estimate or he did not.
“A, He did.
„. Would you be good enough to tell us what that esti-
mate was, if you can recall?
“A. He stated that all of the organizers for the United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers who attended the
fol. 101] meetings of the UE, consisting of twelve, averag-
ing twelve to twenty, were members of. the Communist
Party.
„. Was this a meeting of districts of what type of a
meeting? '
“A, These were meetings of organizers of the UB, held
intermittently at various places in District 3. He testified
there were at least five of such meetings.
“The Court: What was the date of his testimony?
“The Witness: July 1953.
“A. (Continuing) He further testified as to—
“The Court: Well, there is no question pending.
“The Witness: Excuse me.
“By Mr. Hits:
“Q. What else did he testify tot
“A. He testified as to his experience at Lynn, Massa-
chusetts, while still an organizer of the UB.
. Did he give testimony concerning that aspect of it
with respect to infiltration by the Communist Party?
“A. He did, but he did not attempt to describe the number
of those engaged or the percentage of the employees of UE
who he knew to be members of the Communist Party.
. Did he say whether there was infiltration by the Com-
(fol, 102) munist Party at that time
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. When Mr. Gojack was subpoenaed to appear before
the committee, was he or was he not known to be an officer
of the UE uniont
“A. Yes, sir, he was.
„. In what capacity?
“A. I believe—the information that the committee had
was that he was a vice president of the national union and
a president of his district.
“Q. District what, if you recall?
“A. I believe it was District 9, ;
. Is that the same national UE union that Mr. Deca-
vitch had testified about, and that Mr. Davis had testified
about?
“A. Yes, sir, that is the abbreviation for the United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.
“Q. Before Mr. Gojack gave his testimony, to your knowl-
edge was the committee possessed of information concerning
any possible subversive activities of one Henry Aron,
A-R-O-Nt
“A. Yes, sir.
20
“By Mr. Hitz:
[fol. 103] “Q. All right, Mr. Tavenner, would you be—
“A. There is sworn testimony—excuse me, sir.
“Q. Go ahead. There is sworn testimony?
„A. There is sworn testimony in regard to it, but I do
not have it with me.
“The Court: Will you bring it down in the morning?
„Mr. Hitz: I have it here. (Handing book to witness)
“The Court: Oh.
“By Mr. Hitz:
. By whom was it given, Mr. Tavenner?
“A. By Mr. Walter Stelle.
“Q. Under oath? |
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Public hearing?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Of this committee?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What year?
“ A. 1947.
. What did he say? Will you turn to it and read it?
“A. This was a list of officers of the Communist Party,
[fol. 104] United States of America, introduced in evidence
by Mr. Walter Steele in the course of his testimony before
the Committee on Un-American Activities on July 21, 1947.
“Q. In what city? Did you tell us it was Washington,
or—?
„A. Washington, D. C., in the House of Representatives.
“District of Indiana, State of Indiana, Chairman’—Ex-
cuse me, what name did you ask me for?
“Q. Henry Aron.
“A. ‘Secretary, Henry Aron.’
“Q. That is, secretary of the Communist Party for that
district?
“A. Yes, sir.
21
“Q. Did the committee, to your knowledge, have any in-
formation concerning subversive activities of Elmer John-
son at the time that Mr. Gojack gave his testimony that is
in question here?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Was it received in a session before the committee?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Under oath?
“A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 105] Q. Who gave it?
A. Mr. Walter Steele.
“Q. The same man who talked about Aron?
“A. Yes, sir.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. What information did the committee receive from
Mr. Steele on the question of subversive activities of Elmer
Johnson, at the time you have indicated?
“A. Mr. Elmer Johnson was chairman of the district of
Indiana, Communist Party.
“Q. What year?
“A. That testimony was given in 1947.
“Q. No, I mean, that Johnson was chairman of the In-
diana Communist Party for what year.
“A. (Inspecting document.)
“Q. Was it the same year that Aron was—
“A. Yes, it was.
“Q. —named as secretary?
“A. (Still inspecting document) I would have to read
considerable testimony to fix the exact year.
“Q. Would you endeavor to do that?
[fol. 106] “A. You mean for me to do it now?
“Q. Yes, please.
“Mr. Donner: What is the pending question?
“Mr. Hitz: For what year did Mr. Steele give his testi-
mony concerning Elmer Johnson?
“Mr. Donner: All right.
22
“The Court: I thought he said 1947.
“Mr. Hitz: He gave it to—Mr. Steele gave the testimony
in 1947, but I wanted to find out to what year it related
with respect to—
“The Court: That is another matter.
“A. (After inspecting document further) The testimony
does not refer to any year, but it speaks in the present tense,
in this sense. It refers to the positions—Mr. Steele referred
to the positions that the individuals ‘hold’ in the Party.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. All right, sir.
“A. And the addresses of the national and state head-
quarters thereof.
“Q. When Mr. Gojack testified before the committee at
the time in question here, was the committee, to your
[fol. 107] knowledge, possessed of any information concern-
ing subversive activities by the American Peace Crusade?
“A. Yes.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, in what fashion was the American
Peace Crusade listed in the document of the committee that
you have already referred to?
“A. It is listed in the guide to subversive organizations
of the committee as a Communist front organization. I am
not certain that I have the exact language.
. Is that in the guide?
“A. Yes, sir.
. Here is it. (Handing pamphlet to witness)
“A. It is cited by the congressional committee on Un-
American Activities on February 19, 1951, as an organiza-
tion which the Communists established as a new instrument
for peace offensive in the United States, and which was
heralded by the Daily Worker with the usual bold headlines
‘reserved for projects in line with Communist objectives.’
That was the citation.
“Q. Now, under what subject of that particular publica-
tion, the guide, under what subject is the American Peace
[fol. 108] Crusade listed?
“A. It is listed as one of the front organizations.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Now, what is a front organization? What did it then
mean to the committee?
“A. A front organization—
A. A front organization means an organization in the
United States other than a Communist action organization,
which is substantially directed, dominated or controlled by
a Communist action organization, and is primarily operated
for the purpose of giving aid and support to a Communist
action organization, a Communist foreign government, or
the world Communist movement. (Reading)
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Now, is it your testimony that the committee was
possessed of information that the Communist Peace Cru-
sade was or was not such an organization?
“Mr. Donner: I believe you meant American Peace Cru-
sade, isn’t that correct?
[fol. 109] “Mr. Hitz: What did I say?
“Mr. Donner: Communist.
“Mr. Hitz: I’m sorry.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. (Continuing) —that the American Peace Crusade
was or was not such an organization?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. That it was which?
“A. That it was such an organization.
“Q. Before Mr. Gojack’s testimony was given?
“A. Yes, sir.
* oe * * 9 5 0
By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, I think we had gotten to the point where
we were discussing what information was in the hands of
the committee, to your knowledge, concerning the American
Peace Crusade, and I think you had testified that it was
listed in a publication of the committee published prior
to the testimony of Mr. Gojack, which publications was en-
titled, ‘A Guide to Subversive Organizations,’ as a Com-
munist front organization. Is that right, sir?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And then you had read the definition that is contained
[fol. 110] in that document of what a Communist front
organization is.
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. With that background, I wonder if you would tell
us what information the committee had of public record,
to your knowledge, concerning a connection if any between
Mr. Gojack and that organization. And I would like to
hand you the volume containing the reports of the hearings,
of part of them, for the year 1951 and ask you to refer to
House Report 378 and tell us whether in that report there is
any factual matter concerning a possible connection between
Mr. Gojack and the American Peace Crusade. Just answer
yes or no.
“A. Yes, there is.
“Q. Would you be good enough to give us the name and
the date of the report?
“A. The name of Mr. John Gojack—
“Q. No, the name and the date of the report.
“A. Oh, of the report.
[fol. 1111 “(Continuing) This is ‘Report on the Com-
munist “Peace” Offensive—A Campaign to Disarm and
Defeat the United States.’
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. And the date?
“A. The date is April 1, 1951.
“Q. And that was by the Un-American Activities Com-
mittee, was it, sir?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. To the full house?
“A. Yes, sir.
„. Will you refer to page 135 of that and tell us what
information it states that the committee had concerning
Mr. Gojack’s connection with the American Peace Crusade?
“A. The name of Mr. Gojack appeared as an initial spon-
sor on a letterhead dated February 1951, of American
Peace Crusade, 1186 Broadway, New York 1, New York.
“Q. Along with other people?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Will you turn to pages 136 and 137 of that report
and tell us whether that indicates that the committee had
information, additional information concerning his connec-
tion with that organization?
[fol. 112 “A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What is that?
“A. Excuse me, is this the same report?
“Q. Yes, it is.
“A. The name of John Gojack appears as one of the
signatories to a leaflet entitled, ‘Let the People Speak for
Peace,’ published by the American Peace Crusade, entitled,
‘The Washington Program,“ and the subtitle of which is
Bring Our Boys Home from Korea. Make Peace with
China Now.’
“Q. All right, sir.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Did the Committee, Mr. Tavenner, hear testimony
from a lady named Dorothy Funn, F-U-N-N?
A. Yes, sir.
“By Mr. Hitz:
. Would you be good enough to turn to Miss Funn’s
testimony of May 4, 1953, page 1195, and read it, read all
of it, Mr. Tavenner?
“A. ‘Testimony of Mrs. Dorothy K. Funn, accompanied
by her counsel.’
[fol. 1131 “A. (Continuing) ‘Mr. Kunzig. Where are you
presently employed, Mrs. Funn?
„Mrs. Funn. At the present time, I am a teacher in
Public School 129, 604 Quincy Street, Brooklyn.’
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. I’m sorry, I can’t follow that on the page. Will you
tell us if it is on 11951
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Where is it?
“A, About the upper quarter of the page.
“Q. All right, sir. Now, will you read further.
„A. Mr. Kunzig. In what position?
„Mrs. Funn. I am an upper grade teacher, seventh and
eighth year.
Mr. Kunzig. How long have you been so employed,
Mrs. Funn?
“‘Mrs. Funn. Well, I was employed by the City of
New York from 1923 to 1943, at which time I resigned. I
went back into the school system in 1947 and have so re-
mained in that job.
„Mr. Kunzig. Where were you employed from 1943 on,
when you said you left the school system?
27
Mrs. Funn. In several capacities. One, as the admin-
[fol. 114] istrative secretary for the Negro Labor Victory
Committee; another, as legislative representative for the
National Negro Congress, with offices. in Washington; an-
other, as representative for the New York State CIO Po-
litical Action Committee during the 1944 presidential cam-
paign, after which I went back to the previous job of
legislative representative; and somewhere in between I
also acted as the executive secretary for a Committee on
Unity, made up of representatives of organizations and
individuals interested in eliminating the cause that had
made the riots in Harlem possible, about that time.’
“Q. Now will you please stop there a moment to see if
there is some we can omit. (Looking at document. )
“I don’t think there is enough at the moment to omit to
make it worthwhile to break the continuity. Will you con-
tinue, please, sir?
“A. ‘Mr. Kunzig. Mrs. Funn, the next question you
specifically wanted me to ask you, Are you a Negro, Mrs.
Funn;
„Mrs. Funn. I am.
„Mr. Kunzig. Did you maintain your residence in New
York during the period you were out of the school system?
Mrs. Funn. No, not all of the time. I was what you
might term a commuter for part of the time. Then I did
(fol. 115] establish residence in Washington, D. C., for, oh,
I would say about two years, permanent residence for
about two years,
Mr. Kunzig. I see. Where was that residence?
„Mrs. Funn. 3100 Water Street, Northwest, Washing-
ton, D. C.
Mr. Kunzig. You left Washington in what year?
Mrs. Funn. I left Washington in late 1946, I should
say about December, and came back to Brooklyn.
Mr. Kunzig. To teach?
Mrs. Funn. That is right.
Mr. Kunzig. And now you are still teaching?
“ ‘Mrs. Funn. That is right.
„Mr. Kunzig. Mrs. Funn, when and where were you
born?
Mrs. Funn. I was born in Brooklyn, New York, June
7, 1903.
„Mr. Kunzig. Are you now a member of the Communist
Party?
„Mrs. Funn. No, I am not. .
„Mr. Kunzig. Have you ever been a member of the Com-
munist Party?
“Mrs. Funn. Yes, I have.
Mr. Kunzig. When did you become a member?
[fol. 116] „Mrs. Funn. I joined the Communist Party in
May 1939.
„Mr. Kunzig: And according to your recollection, when
did you leave the party?
Mrs. Funn. Actually, about June 1946. Ideologically, 1
would say that I had left it many months prior to that.’
“Q. Now, I think there is something we can omit there,
Mr. Tavenner. Will you now turn to page 1205. Is that still
the testimony of Mrs. Funn on the same occasion before
the committee?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And although I think I may have stated it, I would
like to have you state it, because you are the witness; the
date and year of this testimony.
„A. This testimony was taken on the 4th day of May
1953.
* : * * * 0 * *
By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Will you read on 1205 now, from Mrs. Funn, about
the middle of the page,
“ ‘Did you attend,’ etc.
„A. Yes, sir.
„Mr. Kunzig. Did you attend Communist Party meet-
ings in Washington, D. C.!
[fol. 1171 Mrs. Funn. I attended a few of those when I
was in town.
„Mr. Kunzig. To your knowledge were the individuals
attending those meetings members of the Communist
Party?
“‘Mrs. Funn. Well, I must repeat again, any of these
meetings, Communist Party meetings of a club or a group,
were attended only by members of the party. No outsiders
were allowed into those ineetings, and those that I attended
of the group in Washington had to be members of the Com-
munist Party.
„Mr. Kunzig. Well, now, you yourself, you said, were a
legislative representative.
“ ‘Mrs. Funn. That is right.
Mr. Kunzig. That is what is generally known, I be-
lieve, to the public, as a lobbyist. Would that be correct?
Mrs. Funn. Yes, yes.
„Mr. Kunzig. Now, as a lobbyist, I presume you came
in contact with other lobbyists?
“ ‘Mrs. Funn. I did.
„Mr. Kunzig. Did you come in contact—and I want you
to think very seriously over this question—with any other
legislative representatives or lobbyists whom you knew to
(fol. 118] be members of the Communist Party?
„Mrs. Funn. I came in contact with a great number of
legislative representatives, some whom I found later were
members of the party, because they met with me in the
group in the Communist Party there in Washington. There
were regular meetings of the legislative representatives,
regular Communist Party meetings of the legislative rep-
resentatives in Washington.
Mr. Kunzig. You mean—?
Mrs. Funn. Yes.
„Mr. Kunzig. I want to get that straight.
Mrs. Funn. Ves.
„Mr. Kunzig. You mean the Communist Party held
meetings of Communist Party members who were also
legislative representatives,—
*
30
Mrs. Funn. That is right. N
Mr. Kunzig. (Continuing) —and they met as Com-
munist Party members together?
Mrs. Funn. That is right.
„Mr. Kunzig. Now, were they furthering the cause of
the groups they were representing in the legislature or
were they attempting to further the cause of the Communist
Party?
Mrs. Funn. Well, I might say in all Communist Party
[fol. 119] meetings the basic idea was to give full attention
and study to Marxism, Leninism, and furthering the cause
of the rey ion.
„Mr. Kunzig. Well, now, Mrs. Funn—
„Mrs. Funn. You see, come the revolution, some of them
were going to be commissars of this, that or the other
thing. That is a quote.
Mr. Velde. May I ask Mrs. Funn whether these people
were registered as lobbyists, any of them?
Mrs. Funn. No, I don’t. At that time, this was—there
was no law to that effect. This was back in 1933, 1934—
Nr. Velde. I see.
“Mrs. Funn. —1935. And they were the legislative
representatives of their duly constituted organizations,
whether it was the United Auto Workers or the Food and
Tobacco Workers or the Maritime Union or the Interna-
tional Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union—those
types of organizations plus others like the National Negro
Congress and National Federation for Constitutional Lib-
erties. That is the way it was. But there was no regis-
tration.’
“Q. All right, sir, I think we can omit until a passage on
1208 of the same testimony, Mr. Tavenner. Will you pick
up about the middle of the page, where Mr. Kunzig said;
[fol. 120] “ ‘Did you know Russell Nixon?’
“A. Yes. After having identified some of the members of
this group, the following questions were asked and answers
given:
31
Mr. Kunzig. Did you know a Russell A. Nixon?
Mrs. Funn. Yes, I knew him. He was originally with
the, I think he was originally with the CIO, but I know he
joined the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America as their representative.
Ar. Kunzig. Did you know him to be a member of the
Communist Party?
“Mrs. Funn. He met with the group.
„Ar. Kunzig. Could you keep your voice up, Mrs. Funn.
Mrs. Funn. I’m sorry.
„Mr. Kunzig. I know it is difficult,—
Mrs. Funn. Yes.
„Mr. Kunzig. (Continuing) —but if you will speak as
clearly as you can.
Mrs. Funn. Yes.
“*Mr. Clardy. I would like to ask you a question there.
You said he met with the group. I think counsel’s question
was, did you know Nixon as a member of the Communist
Party.
[fol. 1211 “‘Mrs. Funn. Yes, that is the answer.
Mr. Kunzig. I think sir, it is already on the record
that all of those people who met with this group, as I un-
derstand it,—
“Mrs. Funn. That is right.
Mr. Kunzig. (Continuing) —were members of the
party. Is that correct?
“‘Mrs. Funn. I tried to make that very clear, that no
one who was not a member of the party could attend these
specific meetings.
Mr. Kunzig. So that any other names you mention
trom now on that met with you in the group, you mean
are members?
Mrs. Funn. Are members.
Mr. Kunzig. Or you know them as members of the
Communist Party?
Mrs. Funn. As members of the Communist Party; that
is correct.
“*Mr. Velde. In what capacity was Mr. Nixon acting?
32
Mrs. Funn. Legislative representative of the United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.
„Mr. Carney. He still is, isn’t he?
[fol. 1221 „Mrs. Funn. I don't know.’
“Q. Thank you, sir. ;
“Now, Mr. Kunzig, with further reference—
“A. Tavenner.
“Q. —or Mr. Tavenner, with further reference to Mr.
Nixon’s pertinency, would you turn to the hearings entitled,
‘Fort Wayne, Indiana,
“By Mr. Hitz:
. On page 139, there is a quotation from a letter which
is purported to be signed, ‘Russ Nixon.’ Would you please
be good enough to tell us the background of that letter so
far as the committee is concerned, whether you had it be-
fore Mr. Gojack testified, and where it was received from,
in a general way?
“A. The committee had procured from a police agency
the letter referred to, written by Mr. Nixon, addressed to
John Gojack, John T. Gojack, attached to which was an
enclosure referred to in that letter, which emanated from
France.
„ * * * a * *
“By Mr. Hits:
“Q. Would you be good enough, Mr. Tavenner, to read
[fol. 123] that portion of the testimony of Mr. Gojack and
your questioning of him that concerns this letter from
Nixon to Gojack, reading the letter, and the letter from
Paris, France, as well, and tell us where you are reading
from?
“A. Yes, sir. I believe if you begin at the first question
asked at the bottom—the last question asked at the bottom
of page 138,—
“Q. All right, sir.
“A. ‘Mr, Tavenner. I was asking you about Mr. Russell
Nixon. Did he attend the executive board meetings that
you said you atiended in March 1951 and in December or
January preceding?
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t recall, sir, I would like to explain
that as legislative representative of our union, we invited
Mr. Nixon upon occasion to address district council meet-
ings. He never attended a district board meeting, but he
might have attended a district council meeting. Whether
or not he was there that year, I don’t recall.
„Mr. Tavenner, I hand you a letter bearing date of
March 27, 1951, on the stationery of United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, addressed to Mr.
John T. Gojack, and over the signature of Russ Nixon.
(fol. 124] Will you examine it, please, and state whether
or not you recall having received it?
Mr. Gojack. Now that you show me this letter, I recall
having received some such letter from Brother Nixon.
„Mr. Tavenner. Will you read it into the record, please?
Mr. Gojack. (Reading)
Last week we received, addressed to the Interna-
tional Union, a letter from the Metal Workers Union of.
ficials in Paris, copy of translation of which is attached.
“*“Although I have not had a chance to talk with any-
oue here in the international union about this, since this is
a general communication and you indicated an interest in
some such contacts at the last general executive board
meeting, I am informally sending this to you for whatever
consideration you think it might justify in your district.
“*“Fraternally yours,
„Russ Nixon.’ “
Mr. Tavenner. You have previously told us that vou
had no interest whatever in the Metal Workers Trade Un-
ion of Paris and bad no desire to make any contact with
that organization. Will you explain that testimony in light
[fol. 125] of the statement by Mr. Nixon that you had at
the very previous meeting of the executive board indicated
such an interest?
Mr. Gojack. Yes, I will be glad to, sir. The interest
I indicated at the January executive board meeting was
not with reference to contacting the Metal Workers Union
officials in Paris or any other specific organization, As I
recall, some time prior to then we had discussed on a num-
ber of occasions the possibility of officers of our Union—
at one time I remember strongly advocating that the presi-
dent of our union take a trip to Europe and that we see
for ourselves what was happening over there in the trade-
union movement, because we had been getting reports from
other trade unionists, from people who were sent over
there by the State Department, and I specifically remem-
ber posing the question that we ought to have some of our
own officials go over to get firsthand reports on what was
happening.
„Mr. Tavenner. Is that the reason you were applying
for a passport to go to Europe?
„Mr. Gojack. No. As a matter of fact, I advocated in
our general executive board that we establish contacts with
unions with whom we had relations. I gave the examples
that I recalled here, Wayne Pump and Burroughs Adding
Machine, having plants. I remember as a result of my dis-
[fol. 126] cussion in the general executive board meeting,
for example, sir, that one of the other general vice presi-
dents gave me the address of a union in England from
which I could get some information on the Burroughs
Adding Machine Co. there, some wage-rate information
which we could use in our organizing efforts in the Detroit
plant of Burroughs which was then and is today unor-
ganized. I have been a strong advocate of this; and I re-
member also distinctly that in the course of one of these
discussions at our general executive board meeting, hav-
ing a clipping from either the Wall Street Journal or the
New York Times from some official in General Motors or
Ford, one of the bigger auto firms, suggesting that a way
E
to ease the cold war might be an exchange, a broad ex-
change of many people between here and Europe
Mr. Tavenner. And you desired to make an exchange
with the Metal Workers Union, a trade union in Paris?
Vr. Gojack. No specifically; no. Just the general ques-
tion of international trade unions.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon says it is a matter you were
interested in and had inquired about, and he thought it
important to send you a document from that organization.
Doesn’t that mean that you were interested in exchange
with that very organization?
(fol. 127] „Mr. Gojack. No; it means nothing of the sort.
As a matter of fact, he says in this letter that since this is
a general communication—
„Mr. Tavenner. A general communication from the
Metal Workers Trade Union.
“‘Mr. Gojack. Right. I indicated an interest in some
such contacts, plural. I don’t recall any inference here that
I was seeking contact with the Metal Workers Union but
quite the opposite, contacts with any possible union, all
possible unions.
Mr. Tavenner. It was a trade union which you knew
to be a Communist outfit, didn’t you?
Mr. Gojack. Which union?
Mr. Tavenner. The Metal Workers Trade Union.
Mr. Scherer. Of Paris.
Mr. Gojack. I don’t know what it is today, to be very
honest about it. I don’t know what it is.
„Mr. Tavenner. You read the document that Mr. Nixon
sent you, didn’t you? .
„Mr. Gojack. I believe I did, but I haven't the slightest
recollection of what it was.
Ar. Tavenner. I am going to give it to you in a moment
[fol. 128] and ask you whether or not, in your judgment, it
is a communist document.
“Mr. Gojack. I will be happy to read it, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the letter again and
see whether or not the letter sent you was a copy made by
Mr. Nixon in which your address is filled in in original
type!
Mr. Gojack. Ves, sir.
_ “Mr. Tavenner. What does that indicate to you?
„Mr. Gojack. It indicates clearly to me that this com-
munication was sent to a number of other people, also.
„Mr. Tavenner. Do you know how many vice presidents
of your organization received a copy of that letter?
„Mr. Gojack. I haven't the slightest, sir. Very fre-
quently, Brother Nixon sends information that comes
across his desk in New York or here in Washington, to all
of the district presidents. It has been a custom of his
down through the years. We get detailed information from
him that it isn’t practical to send out to every local union.
It is sent to the district offices.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall more definitely now about
the subject of conversation in your executive board meet-
ing that Mr. Nixon is referring to in that letter when you
[fol. 129] said you were interested in similar contacts?
„Mr. Gojack. He uses the language some such con-
tacts” '. I testified here, and I will repeat, that I raised this
question in many board meetings, and I would like to con-
sider myself a champion of the cause for greater exchange
between people throughout the world, I think it would help
to bring about a little more stable peace if the common
people of the various countries would get together a little
more than they do.
„We may learn something about them, and they may
learn something about us.
„Mr. Scherer. In view of these letters and the subse-
quent testimony, Witness, do you say that your contem-
plated trip to Europe, for which you were denied a pass-
port, was still a pleasure trip, a vacation?
„Mr. Gojack. Mr. Scherer, this communication was in
March of 1951, and I would respectfully suggest that I—
„Mr. Scherer. You can say it was not. You can say no.
„Mr. Gojack. No, it has no connection. I will explain
why. I can show you communications from all kinds of
unions all over, in any given year that you want to. We
don’t keep a file of all of them. We keep a file of some of
them. To suggest the communication of March 27 has some
(fol. 130] relationship to my deciding in December or No-
vember that I wanted to take a vacation, and to imply
something evil, I think is stretching the point.
Mr. Doyle. Was it not about this time that you were
approaching the State Department? What months were
you at the State Department?
Mr. Tavenner. 1952.
Mr. Doyle. 1952, a year later.
Mr. Moulder. Let's proceed and hurry along as ex-
peditiously as possible. |
„Nr. Tavenner. I desire to offer Mr. Nixon’s letter in
evidence, and ask that it be marked “Gojack Exhibit No. 8,”
for identification purposes only, and to be made a part of
the committee files.
Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered.
„Mr. Tavenner. Attached to the letter which has been
introduced in evidence is the following enclosure. In paren-
theses there appears at the top:
* „Following is translation of a letter received by UE
International Office from French trade unionists in the
metal manufacturing field:
Paris, February 9, 1951.
[fol. 1311 „ Dear Brother: I am sending you attached
a copy of a letter sent on to the smelter workers which was
sent by the Paris metalworkers to their American brothers.
T ask you to do all you can to make this letter known
to the American metalworkers in order to rebuild the lines
of international solidarity between the workers of our two
countries.
“* “You have, dear brother, our fraternal greetings,
„H. Jourdain.’ ”
FP
38
„And here is the letter:
paris, February 9, 1951.
“*“Paris Metal Workers to American Metal Workers.
„ear Brothers: Meeting in conference on February
3 and 4, 1951, the Paris metal workers send you their
fraternal and friendly greetings.
„They request that you be the bearer of their senti-
ments to all the metalworkers in New York.
„At this time when the capitalists wish to push the
people into a new war, the Parisian metalworkers address
themselves to their American brothers and call upon them
to lead together the struggle against the warmakers.
„They have learned with pleasure that their Ameri-
[fol. 132] can brothers in the electrical workers union are
leading, like themselves, the same battle for peace and well-
being.
„The Parisian metalworkers who have known on their
own soil 3 wars in 75 years and the consequences which
have resulted from these wars, the millions of dead, in-
jured, widows and orphans, the piles of ruins which are
not yet cleaned up, know well all the consequences which
the policy of war threatens to their country.
The increase in taxes, high cost of living, depression,
freezing of wages, increased speedup, poverty, are already
for them (the Parisian metalworkers) the consequences of
this policy.
„The Parisian metalworkers know that like them-
selves, the American metalworkers are profoundly devoted
to peace and do not confuse them with their capitalist gov-
ernment.
he Parisian metalworkers remember the tremen-
dous sacrifices of the Soviet Union in the struggle against
Hitlerism and are in agreement with the peaceful proposi-
tions formulated by her at Lake Success.
“* “Conscious that the forces of peace are the strongest
in the world, forces of which a part is the Soviet Union and
the popular democracies as well as the people of the capi-
talist countries and the colonial countries, the Parisian
[fol. 133] metalworkers know that the war is not inevitable,
that one can and one must prevent it.
„he millions of signatures received by the Stockholm
appeal condemning atomic arms have shown everyone the
strength which is represented by the people desiring peace.
„American metalworkers, the millionaires that make
of your country an immense arsenal, source of materials of
war, of death, would make of you the accomplices of their
crime and the associates of the Nazis whom you have fought
with us.
„The Parisian metalworkers struggle with all their
strength against the preparations for war, against the war-
makers, against the rearmament of Germany, for the end-
ing of the war in Vietnam and the return of the expedi-
tionary corps as you fight for the return to the United
States of the American Army in Korea.
„The Parisian metalworkers associate themselves with
the grief and suffering of the American mothers whose
children are dead in Korea, and will struggle with all their
force in order that their country will not know the horrors
which those valorous people now struggling for their in-
dependence know (in Korea). Pleven, provisional chief of
[fol. 134] the government of France, in the course of his
conversations with Truman, conspired behind our backs
the stepping up of the preparations of war and the increas-
ing of the policy of poverty which expresses itself already
amongst us by the wage freeze.
No people threaten peace, it is why the Parisian
metalworkers call you over the frontiers to make, with
them and the other workers of the world, the call for peace.
„General Eisenhower, whom the Parisian people have
applauded in 1944 with the Allied armies having struggled
40
against Hitlerism, has received in 1951, in our capital an
entirely different welcome. The people of Paris do not want
the rearmament of Germany nor an Atlantic army, nor a
foreign commander in chief. It is why they have said to
Eisenhower, ‘Go home and stay there.“
ln the other capitals of Europe the reception of the
people was the same.
Brother American metalworkers, those of you who
wish peace as we do from the depths of your heart, the se-
curity of your firesides, who do not wish to know on your
land the horrors of war which we have known, let us estab-
lish amongst us the lines of brotherhood and comrade-
ship—’ ”
“ ¢ “and comradeship’ ” is stricken out—
[fol. 135] „let us exchange experiences, let us learn to
know each other better, let us unite our efforts in order to
put a stop to the policy of war and poverty of our respec-
tive governments.
„Brother American metalworkers, the Paris metal-
workers send you their fraternal trade-union greetings.
For the Conference.
„The Secretariat of the Seine Metal Workers Union.
“*¢“ Andre Lunet,
“<«“Secretaire General’”
And the names of eight other members of the union.
„That is the document which Mr. Nixon transmitted
to you and, as you say, no doubt to other vice presidents
of your districts. Have you read any stronger propaganda
document emanating from abroad than that, contrary to
and against the interest of this country and the foreign
poliey of this country ?
„Mr. Gojack. Have I read any stronger?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Do you know of any document
emanating from abroad of a more propagandist nature
than that document?
41
Mr. Gojack. The most accurate answer I can give to
that is, of course, in the New York Times I read the debates
of people in the United Nations, and I read stronger denun-
ciations of our foreign policy than that in some of the
[fol. 136] speeches in the U.N.
Mr. Tavenner. Is there any doubt in your mind now,
after having heard that letter read, as to the Communist
character of the organization known as the Seine Metal
Workers Union or the Metal Workers Union of Paris?
„Mr. Gojack. Sir, I couldn’t answer that question with
a simple “Yes” or “No” answer, for the reason that, as I
testified earlier, I don’t know what the organization is. I
don’t know whether it is a Catholic union, a Communist
union, or the so-called third force that they have there, for
example, that Eisenhower got elected on. He got elected—
at least he got the votes out our way based upon his strong
stand against the Korean war.
“*Mr. Tavenner. Do you support the statement contained
in that letter?
Mr. Gojack. Sir, I couldn't say that I support the
statements in this letter, because there is general language
in here, there are things in here like the reference to in-
crease in taxes and the high cost of living and the freezing
of wages—
„Mr. Tavenner. What about the Stockholm peace ap-
peal? —
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t know anything about the Stock-
[fol. 137] holm peace appeal, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. You never participated in that?
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t know anything about it. I know it
has been condemned.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you engage in the movement to
bring the troops back from Korea?
“Mr. Gojack. Did I engage in the movement?
„Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Did you advocate it?
Nr. Gojack. Oh, long before a lot of other people said
that the Korean war was an error and that other things
should have been done about it, I spoke out for peace and
against useless killing. I believe strongly that that par-
ticular war, as it was settled ultimately by negotiations,
should have been averted, if necessary by the same tech-
niques,
Jam against war, yam for peace. Is it a crime to be
for peace in this country?’
. Mr, Taveaner, thank you. I think that is enough of
it.
fol. 139] “By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. There is a little bit, Mr. Tavenner, that we want in
evidence here which is not contained in the report, but is
part of the full hearings from which you have recently been
reading, being government No. 8.“
I am interrupting the reading to advise the court that
government eight in the first trial is now government 12.
Tam reading again without omission.
“Will you turn to page 19 of government 8 and tell us if
that is the commencement of the hearings at which Mr.
(fol. 140] Gojack subsequently testified?
“A. Yes, sir, it is.
“Q. And they were held on what day and at what place?
“A. February 28, 1955, in the Old House Office Building,
House of Representatives.
“Q. In the city, sir!
“A, In Washington, D. C.
“Q. Now, would you be good enough to read page 19, and
on page 20 until I ask you to stop?
“A. Yes, sir.
Publie Hearing
»The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American
Activities met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a. m., in the
caucus room, 362, Old House Office Building, Washington,
D. C., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.
“Committee members present: Representatives Morgan
M. Moulder (chairman), Clyde Doyle, and Gordon H.
Scherer.
Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., coun-
sel; Donald T. Appell, investigator; and Thomas W. Beale,
Sr., chief clerk.
Mr. Moulder, The committee will be in order.
The subcommittee was appointed pursuant to the rules
(fol. 141] of the House as ordered by Francis E. Walter,
chairman of the full committee, and it is composed of three
members, the Hon. Clyde Doyle of California, on my right,
the Hon. Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio, and myself as chair-
man of the subcommittee. Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, is absent
and will be present within the next few minutes.
„There will be considered at this hearing testimony re-
lating to Communist Party activities within the field of
labor, the methods used by the Communist Party to infil-
trate labor organizations, and the dissemination of Com-
munist Party propaganda.
“*We had expected to hear at this time the testimony of
David Mates, an international representative of the United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. His
appearance before this committee was continued twice at
his own request. At this time the inability of the United
States marshal to effect service of process strongly in-
dicates an effort on the part of Mr. Mates to evade service.
This matter will be investigated and, if the facts warrant,
the House of Representatives will be requested to cause
the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and production be-
fore this committee as a witness.
[fol. 142] In the course of the investigation conducted
by this committee at Dayton in September 1954, informa-
tion was obtained indicating that one or more of the wit-
nesses to be heard today should have firsthand knowledge
of Communist Party activities in this area of Dayton and
elsewhere,
Mr. Tavenner, are you ready to proceed:
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
Mx. Moulder. Call your first witness,
Mr. Tavenner. Julia Jacobs, will you come forward,
please?
44
Mr. Donner. My name is Frank Donner. I am counsel
for Miss Jacobs and two other witnesses who have been
subpoenaed today. Before Miss Jacobs is sworn in, may I
file with the committee foi incorporation in the record a
motion addressed as to the jurisdiction of the committee to
proceed.
Mr. Moulder. You may file the motion; and then what-
ever action the committee desires to take upon it, we will
take.
Mr. Donner. Will it be physically incorporated in the
record, sir?
„Mr. Moulder. We will decide that question after we
[fol. 143] have examined the motion.
Mr. Donner. I will file two copies with the committee.
„Mr. Moulder. Let the reeord show that the motion by
counsel is duly filed.’
“Q. That is enough, thank you, sir.
[fol. 145] “Q. Now, would you turn to the report, which
is Government 4, Mr. Tavenner, and would you be good
[fol. 146] enough to turn to page 3 of the report, and com-
mence to read at the top, the testimony beginning with
Mr. Moulder’s statement of ‘call your next witness.’ Will
you commence reading there, please.
“A. Yes, sir.
„Mr. Moulder. Call your next witness.
„Mr. Tavenner. Mr. John T. Gojack, will you come for-
ward, please, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
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. Gojack. I do.
“ ‘Testimony of John Thomas Gojack, Accompanied
by Counsel, Frank Donner
Mr. Moulder. Are you accompanied by counsel?
„Mr. Gojack. Yes.
“ ‘Mr. Moulder. Counsel state your name.
Mr. Donner. My name is Frank Donner, 342 Madison
Avenue, New York City.
Nr. Tavenner. Please state your name.
Mx. Gojack. John Thomas Gojack.
a * a * * oe *
[fol. 1471 Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you
born, Mr. Gojack?
Ar. Gojack. I was born in Dayton, Ohio, August 15,
1916.
“I think I should have noted that there is an omission be-
tween the last question asked and the question before.
“Q. Yes, I think that would be helpful if you would do
it each time.
“A. ‘Mr. Tavenner, Where do you now reside?
„Mr. Gojack. I reside in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
„Ar. Tavenner. What is your address in Fort Wayne?
“*Mr. Gojack. My address is 2303 Florida Drive.
[fol. 158] “By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Now, would you turn to the report, which is Govern-
ment 4, Mr. Tavenner, and would you be good enough to
turn to page 3 of the report, and commence to read at the
top, the testimony beginning with Mr. Mouller’s statement
of ‘Call your next witness.“ Will you commence reading
there, please?”
“A. Yes, sir.
„Mr. Moulder. Call your next witness.
“‘Mr, Tavenner. Mr. John T. Gojack, will you come for-
ward, please, sir.
Nr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
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?
46
[fol. 159] „Mr. Gojack. I do.
“*Testimony of John Thomas Gojack, accompanied
by counsel, Frank Donner.
Mr. Moulder. Are you accompanied by counsel?
Mr. Gojack. Yes.
„Mr. Moulder. Counsel, state your name.
Nr. Donner. My name is Frank Donner, 342 Madison
Avenue, New York City.
„Mr. Tavenner. Please state your name.
Mr. Gojack. John Thomas Gojack.“
[fol. 161] The asterisks then are supplied by the follow-
ing:
“Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr.
Gojack? :
“Mr. Gojack. Mr. Congressman before I answer any
more questions I want it clearly understood in the record
that I am protesting my appearance, my subpena before
this committee, because this committee is not engaged in—
“Mr. Moulder. Mr. Gojack, under the rules of the com-
mittee, you are not permitted to make an opening state-
ment preceding the testimony which you are about to give.
If you have a statement we will be happy to receive it and
file it.
“Mr. Gojack. Mr. Congressman, I was subpenaed to come
here, I am protesting my appearance here and before I
answer any questions I want to state my protest and the
grounds of my protest.
“Mr. Moulder. You can file your protest as part of the
proceedings. It will be received and filed. But the com-
mittee’s rules prohibit your making a statement denouncing
the committee and the conduct of the hearings or subpena
under which you are appearing here.
“Mr. Gojack. I haven’t denounced the committee yet.
“Mr. Moulder. I assume you are about to, apparently.
[fol. 162] “Mr. Gojack. No, I am going to state my posi-
tion before this committee if you will permit me to explain
my position,
a eames PRR HH IOS Ca aS Te RCN sag HO
47
“Mr. Moulder. After you have been interrogated, then,
if you want to make an explanation concerning any of the
testimony or matter brought out by the testimony, you
will probably be permitted to make a short statement if it
is relevant to the questions and subject matter.
“Mr. Gojack. If I know this is a union-busting venture
and not a—
“Mr. Moulder. That is not tolerated. Such conduct on
your part, or statement, is not tolerated by the committee.
“Mr. Gojack. I can prove it.
“Mr. Moulder. Proceed with your questioning, Mr.
Tavenner.”
Mr. Hitz: I have now supplied from government 12 the
material indicated by the asterisks on page 63 of the Su-
preme Court Record, and in fact, I have gone one question
beyond it.
(Mr. Hitz reading again from the Supreme Court Record)
Mr. Gojack replies: “I was born in Dayton, Ohio, August
15, 1916. :
[fol. 163] “A. ‘Mr. Tavenner. Where do you reside now?
„Vr. Gojack. I reside in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your address in Fort Wayne?
„Mr. Gojack. My address is 2303 Florida Drive.“
“Mr. Gojack. My address is 2303 Florida Drive. Right
here I would like to express some resentment against the
way in which insinuations were made in questioning the
previous witness, who happened to be a guest of my wife
in my home. N
“Mr. Tavenner. Since you raised that question, how long
had you known Julia Jacobs?
“Mr. Gojack. Before I answer that question I want to
explain that this is not a legislative investigation for a
bona fide legislative purpose.
“Mr. Doyle. I submit the witness is reading a statement.”
48
[fol. 164] “‘Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee,
please, what your present occupation is?
„Mr. Gojack. My present occupation is in the capacity
as general vice president and district president of the
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America,
union organization that your chairman announced in the
press he was out to put out of business. That is part of
the reason why I think this whole investigation is a union-
busting venture and not legitimate investigation.
„Mr. Tavenner. Are you an officer of District No. 97
„Mr. Gojack. Yes.
[fol. 165] „Mr. Tavenner. What is that office?
„Mr. Gojack. I stated in answer to your first question,
president of district 9.
„Mr. Tavenner. A district president. You didn’t state
what district.
Mr. Gojack. I happen to be elected president of district
council 9.’ ”
[fol. 170] “Mr. Gojack. I had had the experience of nego-
tiating a number of agreements in plants in Dayton, Ohio,
such as the Simons, Wood and White Co., such as the
Harold Seabold Pottery Co., a number of other plants in
that city and I organized the plant that this hearing is set
up to try to help the corporation get the union out of, the
Whirlpool Corp., in St. Joseph, Mich.
“Mr. Doyle. We are not interested in you or anyone
else attacking the committee on that. It is not true, a
voluntary statement growing out of a myth of your mind.
If you will answer the questions, it will save your own time
and you will get back on the job much quicker, and so will
we.
“Mr. Gojack. Mr. Doyle, if I may explain my answer,
3 days before this committee was scheduled to come to
Fort Wayne—
“Mr. Doyle. I am not interested in sitting here hearing
you give expression to your bitterness against any company,
nor any person, nor any group of persons. If you will
49
answer that you will get home on the job much quicker,
and so will we.
“Mr. Gojack. I am only bitter at those people who seek
[fol. 171] to bust unions and when an industrial relations
manager like MClaren of Magnavox announced 3 days be-
fore anyone else knew it he was bringing the committee to
Fort Wayne, I say that is union-busting.
“Mr. Doyle. If you will tell us the truth and the facts
about the extent to which there are Communists in your
union, that will be helpful.
“Mr. Gojack. Mr. Doyle, I respectfully submit this hear-
ing is not for the purpose of investigating my political
beliefs or affiliations.
“Mr. Doyle. We want to know if you are a Communist
and the extent to which you have been.
“Mr. Gojack. I submit, sir, that you are not, for this
reason—
“Mr. Doyle. We are not interested in your political
registration at all. We want to know if you are part and
party to the international Communist conspiracy. Are you
or are you not?
“Mr. Gojack. Mr. Doyle, I respectfully submit that this
hearing is not called for that purpose, for this reason: That
you yourself said that this was a hearing called to investi-
gate the Square D strike, a continuation of it.
[fol. 1721 “Mr. Doyle. I said nothing of the sort.
“Mr. Gojack. One of the other Congressmen did.
“Mr. Doyle. Don’t say I did because I didn’t.
“Mr. Gojack. One of the Congressmen said this was
called to complete some work of last year and had reference
to the Square D strike. I was in that strike, helped lead
that strike, and wasn’t subpenaed last year, so that the
timing of this hearing—you could have subpenaed me last
year—proves this is set up only to—
“Mr. Moulder. You did not answer Mr. Doyle’s question.
He asked you if you were a member of the Communist
Party and the conspiracy.
“Mr. Doyle. That is right.”
50
[fol. 174) “‘Mr. Tavenner. I think now I shall ask the
question that the Congressman asked you a few moments
ago: Have you been a member of the Communist Party
at any time while occupying any of the positions you have
enumerated in the union?
„Mr. Gojack. In 1949 and 1950 and 1951 and 1952 and
1953 and 1954, on August 24, 1954, I signed an affidavit which
said:
am a responsible officer of the union named below,
the UE, I am not a member of the Communist Party or
affiliated with such party, I do not believe in—”’”’
2 * 2 * * . —
[fol. 1751 Mr. Hitz: I will now read from page 68, the
answer.
„that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the
United States Government by force or by an illegal or un-
constitutional methods.“
I will now turn to page 93 of the Supreme Court Record
and read as follows:
“Mr. Hitz: The stipulation that the Government enters
into at the request of the defendant is that there was filed
with the National Labor Relations Board affidavits for the
years 1949, 50, 51, 52, and 54, by Mr. Gojack in which he
made the oath, with respect to non-Communist activities,
to characterize it.
“The Court: All right.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Now, Mr. Tavenner, would you continue to read from
the report without omission, which would mean you pick
up with Mr. Scherer’s—
“Mr. Donner: Excuse me, Mr. Hitz. Would you add to
that, that that is in the form as required by Section 9(h)
of the Taft-Hartley Act?
[fol. 176] “The Court: You mean the affidavit?
“Mr. Donner: Yes, sir.
“Mr. Hitz: Might I ask the witness a question on that
— —
51
subject? I am not familiar with that enough to make that
stipulation.
“The Court: All right.
“By Mr. Hits:
“Q. Is that the statute that is being complied with when
such an affidavit is filed that we are stipulating about?
“A. Yes, sir, that is.
“Mr. Hitz: We stipulate, Your Honor.
“The Court: Very well.
“Portions of Testimony of John T. Gojack Read Into
Record.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Now, will you continue.
“A. Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness
be directed to answer Mr. Tavenner’s question, because
obviously his answer was not responsive to the question.
Nr. Moulder. That is correct. The witness is directed
to give a direct answer to the question propounded by
counsel. As I recall, he asked you whether or not at any
time while you have been employed by the UE in any
(fol. 177] official capacity, were you at any time a member
of the Communist Party.
„Mr. Gojack. Mr. Moulder, I don’t believe that this
committee has any right to investigate my political beliefs
or affiliations, especially so when its purpose is union-bust-
Mr. Tavenner. The answer is not responsive to the
question.
„Mr. Gojack. I will explain why. If you want to know
my political beliefs, you can check the records in Allen
County, Ind.
Mr. Moulder. The fact that you refuse to answer that
question truthfully—would that have the effect of busting
the union?
Mr. Gojack. Every time I cast a ballot in the primary
election I have had to register my party preference and
52
those records are available to you and that convinces me
you are not interested in my political affiliation.
„Mr. Moulder. You were asked a very simple question
as to whether or not you had ever been a member of the
Communist Party while you were employed by or actively
engaged in any official capacity for the UE.
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t believe that Public Law 601—
[fol. 178] Mr. Moulder. You can answer that.
„Mr. Gojack. Gives this committee the right to inquire
into my—
„Mr. Doyle. I do not mean to interrupt you again, but
you are proceeding again to read that prepared statement.
Why don’t you come out for the right and give us a forth-
right answer, an honest-to-God answer, and answer the
question promptly and quickly?
“You know very well whether or not you have been a
member of the Communist Party. That is our question.
Mr. Gojack. My forthright answer is this:
„Mr. Doyle. You have taken about 3 minutes already
trying to get out of answering that question.
„Mr. Gojack. I haven't been hedging. You Congressmen
have been taking the floor.
„Mr. Moulder. You said 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953,
and 1954—
Mr. Doyle. Down to August 24, 1954.
„Mr. Moulder. In 1948 were you a member of the
Communist Party?
„Mr. Gojack. This affidavit is still on file. I don’t believe
the resolution which put you up in business, under the
First amendment to the Constitution, gives you the right to
[fol. 179] inquire into my political beliefs.
Mr. Moulder. You have no hesitancy in answering
the question as to 1949. That was after the law compelled
you to sign this affidavit. Prior to that time, say 6 months
prior to 1948, were you then a member of the Communist
Party?
„Mr. Gojack. Mr. Congressman, because these hear-
ings were set up to interfere in labor board elections in
Magnavox and Whirlpool—
— _e LE
53
„Ar. Moulder. Do you refuse to answer the question?
Mr. Gojack. No, if you let me answer the question I
will answer it. I will give you the answer in my own way.
„Mr. Moulder. Were you a member of the Communist
Party in the year 1948? ;
„Nr. Gojack. Look—it is not a simple question. When
you have got paid liars like Matusow around here and you
had a fellow from Ohio that was a lunatic that testified in
one case, and this committee—
„Mr. Moulder. You can tell the truth.
“Mr. Gojack. This committee took the word of a lunatic
and tried to frame some people, and Cecil Scott and Rep-
resentative Walter—
“Mr. Tavenner. Cecil Scott never testified.
(fol. 180] „Mr. Gojack. The chairman of the committee
said Cecil Scott was a lunatic and altered a document before
this committee and Walter said he would recommend the
matter be referred to the United States Attorney.
Mr. Tavenner. That doesn’t excuse you from telling
the truth. What is the truth? Were you a member of the
Communist Party at any time before you became a UE
employee or since?
“Mr. Gojack. When you have a paid liar like Matusow—
„Mr. Tavenner. He is not testifying about you.
Mr. Gojack. Matusow tells in his revelations about
going into Dayton, Ohio, and meeting with the personnel
manager
„Ar. Scherer. I ask that this diatribe be stopped, Mr.
Chairman. I don’t have to take that from you even if the
chairman—it is a simple question.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you direct him to answer
the question. May I ask a question?
Were you ever a member of the Communist Party?
Let’s get the record straight because I want to get this
record just right. Were you ever a member of the Com-
munist Party?
„Mr. Gojack. I am going to answer that question in
[fol. 181] my own way.
„Mr. Moulder. The question calls for a civil answer.
Mr. Gojack. Not while you have paid liars like Matu-
sow and Strunk, who said this lad was running a strike in
a guided missile plant in Detroit. I was involved in that
strike. It is not a guided missile plant, in the first place.
I tried to break that strike on that paid liar’s testimony.
„Mr. Scherer. I am directing you to quit talking and
answer the question, and if you don’t you are in contempt.
Po you understand?
Mr. Gojack. I think it is up to the courts to decide
who is in contempt, not you. We haven’t reached a stage in
this country where a Moulder or a Scherer can tell who is
in contempt. I have some faith in the courts of this land
yet. f
„Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer the
question propounded to you by Mr, Scherer. You have not
answered the question, I understand.
„Mr. Tavenner. Let's get together on the question be-
cause that is important.
„Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor?
„Mr. Moulder. Yes.
„Mr. Scherer. Were you ever a member of the Com-
munist Party?
[fol. 182] “A. ‘My answer to that question is that since
1949 I have signed these affidavits, one on file now. Mc-
Carthy had an investigation, which the Department of
Justice said—
Mr. Scherer. Just a minute.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you direct him to answer
my question. 5
„Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer the
question.
Mr. Gojack. I am going to answer your question if you
will be patient.
Mr. Moulder. When?
„Mr. Gojack. If you will stop interrupting and let me
answer, I will.
„Mr. Moulder. How long do you think it will take you
to answer?
Mr. Gojack. I think I can do it in about a minute
and a half.
““Mr. Moulder. That question calls for a simple ‘yes’
or ‘No.’
Mr. Gojack. Not when you have paid liars like Matusow
around who frame these hearings.
„Mr. Moulder. That is enough.
[fol. 183] „Mr. Gojack. I think the first amendment to
the Constitution protects me in my right to challenge this
committee asking me any questions about my political
affiliation or beliefs and especially when it is used for
union-busting.
“Mr. Moulder. Do you claim the privilege under the
fifth amendment now?
Mr. Gojack. No; I have not.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer the
question: Were you ever a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. Gojack. I am saying the first amendment to the
United States Constitution gives me the right to challenge
your committee using this hearing for “union-busting and
for strike breaking as in the case of this paid liar, Strunk,
who lied about the Square D strike.
“Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer the question?
Nr. Gojack. I will answer the question my own way.
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer the question
for the reasons you have just stated?
Mr. Gojack. For the reason that the first amendment—
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer for the reason
of the first amendment; is that right?
Mr. Gojack. No; for the reason that the first amend-
[fol. 184] ment of the United States Constitution
„Mr. Moulder. That is enough. Proceed.
„Mr. Gojack. I want to give my explanation.
„Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I insist that you ask
counsel to proceed now.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed. However, I want to
Mr. Gojack. You are not permitting me to give my
explanation of the answer.
Mr. Moulder, You have not attempted to answer the
question. You have been making a speech like an ordinary
soapbox Communist orator.
Mr. Gojack. I haven't had the opportunity to vote
myself a $10,000 raise,
Vr. Moulder. Let us
Mr. Gojack. I want the record to show I have not been
given an opportunity to make an explanation.
Mr. Moulder. Are you refusing to answer the ques-
tion because Congress voted itself a $10,000 raise?
Mr. Gojack. No; but I resent—and not with bitter-
ness against my Government because I love my Government,
although I dislike some of the people currently in control
of it from Charlie Wilson on down.
[fol. 185] “‘Mr. Moulder. Can you—
Mr. Gojack. Some of these other corporation people
here are here for the sole purpose of using this hearing to
bust our union.
Mr. Doyle. You have made a speech, so your members
will know what you have said before the committee.
Mr. Moulder. I want to resubmit the question whether
or not you were a member of the Communist Party in the
year 1948 or at any time prior to the time you signed the
first affidavit referred to in your testimony.
Mr. Gojack. My answer to that is—
Mr. Moulder. You answered the question as to 1949,
1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954.
Mr. Doyle. No, he has not. All he said was he swore
to an affidavit. I do not take cognizance that the affidavit
is an answer to the question.
Vr. Moulder. Were you then a member of the Com-
munist Party in 1948, at any time during the year 19487
(Continuing) Mr. Gojack. The purpose of this hear-
ing clearly in my mind is not legislative in character.
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer?
[fol. 186] „Mr. Gojack. This hearing is designed to in-
fluence an election, designed to smear me. You have no
right as a committee—
57
Mr. Moulder. You are arguing with us. You have not
answered the question, you have declined to answar it.
Vr. Gojack. My answer to the question is when you
have paid liars like Matusow, paid liars like Strunk, and
paid liars like this lunatic, Cecil Scott, around
Mr. Doyle. That is the fourth time you have given
those as your reasons.
Mr. Gojack. There may be others.
Mr. Doyle. Don’t repeat those same reasons. Start
in on some new ones, if you have them.
Mr. Gojack. I think my reason is about the best one
I can think of because I love the United States Constitution
and I think that the first amendment ought to protect me,
particularly insofar as the first amendment doesn’t give
or rather guards against the kind of an operation this
witch-hunting committee is engaged in.
Mr. Moulder. Do you claim the privilege under that
amendment and decline to answer? Do you decline to
answer by claiming the privilege under the first amendment?
[fol. 187] Mr. Gojack. Yes.
Mr. Scherer. Let's go to the next question.
Mr. Moulder. All right.
Mr. Doyle. It is 4:30, Mr. Chairman. We talked about
_ adjourning.
Mr. Gojack. May I finish my explanation? I haven't
finished yet. I mean in regard to this paid liar Matusow,
this liar Strunk, Cecil Scott
„Mr. Scherer. I ask that we proceed with the next
question. Matusow was a Communist.
Mx. Gojack. Also a union buster. He was your boy
then. You loved him then. :
Mr. Moulder. I want to ask yor one question: Are
you now a member of the Communist Party?’ ”
Mr. Hitz: I am interrupting to point out that is count 1
in this indictment.
“A. (Continuing) “‘Mr. Gojack. I have this affidavit on
file and that affidavit speaks for itself.
Mr. Scherer. Wait a minute. I ask that you direct the
witness to answer your question. Let’s keep this record
1
straight. I am going to make a motion to cite him for
contempt.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer the
[fol. 188] question “Yes” or “No”: Are you now a member
of the Communist Party?
“Tt is a very ample question calling for a very simple
answer.
Mr. Gojack. I swore to an affidavit.
Mr. Moulder. What was the date of the affidavit?
Mr. Gojack. August 24, 1954.
Mr. Moulder. I am referring to this date.
„Mr. Gojack. This covers this date. This — is
still on file.
„Mr. Doyle. It does not.
Mr. Gojack. It does.
„Mr. Doyle. The chairman asked you whether or not
you are a member of the Communist Party today, the date
you are sitting in that chuir.
Mr. Gojack. I am telling you this affidavit is on file
here in Washington and this affidavit, signed and notarized
says I am not a member of the Communist Party or affiliate
with such party and it also has the reference in there to
not believing in or not being a member of nor supporting
any organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow
of the United States by force or by any illegal or uncon-
stitutional methods. That affidavit is on file and in effect.
[fol. 189] „Mr. Scherer. Who do you think you are fool-
ing? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that you direct him to
answer the question.
„Mr. Moulder. The Chair requests that you answer the
question as to whether or not you are now a member of
the Communist Party.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I submit it is not a matter
of requesting, that you as chairman under the law and
under your assignment are directing him to answer the
question.
„Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer.
Mr. Gojack. Under the first amendment to the Con-
stitution you have no right to even have this hearing.
Mr. Doyle. That is your opinion.
Mr. Gojack. Yes, and I am entitled to my opinion in
this country still, though we are getting dangerously close
to the point when Representative Walter can tell people
how to vote in an election. ;
„Mr. Doyle. Why do you decline to give an honest
answer? You don’t suppose we will take that affidavit as
the answer to this question, do yout
„Mr. Gojack. I am not going to cooperate with union
[fol. 190] busters. My union is on record as the UAO-
WAC, not a bad union, to fight back against McCarthys,
MeCarrans, Jenners and Veldes.
Mr. Moulder. Do you want to answer or do you decline
to answer the question that has been asked? Are you now
a member of the Communist Party?
“ “Mr. Gojack. I am letting the record speak for itself.’ ”
(fol. 193] Mr. Tavenner. While you were residing in
Fort Wayne, was there a strike conducted in General
Electric by a local of the UE?
„Mr. Gojack. Yes, sir; there was.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the number of the local?
„Mr. Gojack. It was at that time UE local 901.
Mr. Tavenner. Did the Communist Party participate
in any manner in the conduct of that strike?
„Mr. Gojack. That strike was voted by the member-
ship of local 901. The membership voted upon a plan of
strike action which included the establishment of commit-
tees for various activities in the conduct of the strike.
„Fach chairman of the various strike committees made
up what was known as a strike strategy committee. That
strike strategy committee met every morning in the office
of UE local 901. The entire conduct of that strike was in
the hands of that strike strategy committee, the various
stewards and picket captains meetings that were called
and also the special membership meetings that were called.
(fol. 194] „Mr. Tavenner. Who was the secretary of
local 901 at that time?
60
„Mr. Gojack. If I remember correctly, Miss Bertha
Scott.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the strike
committee ?
„Mr. Gojack. No, sir; I was a member of another GE
local at the time, but I served in a helpful capacity assist-
ing the local in the conduct of the strike.
„Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend its meetings?
„Mr. Gojack. Some of them, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall attending a meeting on
January 16, 1946, at which you presented a letter that had
been written to you by the secretary of the Communist
Party?
Nr. Gojack. I don’t recall presenting a letter myself.
J recall one incident in this strike, two, as a matter
of fact; one in which the local had received a communica-
tion with an offer from someone to give them copies of
this paper or to furnish them to people active in the strike.
There was quite a discussion about this. At one strike
strategy committee meeting, as I recall, as a matter of
fact, a heated discussion. The strike strategy committee
[fol. 195] took a vote on it. It was not a party to the
vote. I was not a party to the discussion other than I
was asked a question about this paper and as a matter of
fact, I recall this very clearly. Someone raised the ques-
tion about does reading this so-called Communist paper,
I believe it was the Worker, or the Daily Worker, does
that make you a Communist. I remember in response to
a question saying that, well, I read the Wall Street Journal
and that didn’t make me a capitalist, and that I personally
read everything I could. I only had seven grades of formal
schooling and I gave myself an education after that by
reading a lot.
„ have read a lot. I am sorry to say that there are
certain things in this country that since the rise of Mc-
Carthy are now forbidden reading material and I think
that is a sad thing for this country.
„Mr. Moulder. I don’t think you need to apologize about
your education. You are a very brilliant man.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not the com-
munication with respect to the making available of the
Daily Worker to your strike committee was addressed to
you?
“Mr. Gojack. Sir, I don’t recall that at all and I might
say this: That the lady who took those minutes of that
[fol. 196] meeting didn’t like me at all and on many
occasions I found that the minutes she took completely
distorted my position in meetings. As a matter of fact,
the closest supporter of this woman, one Dallas Smith, who
was involved in another incident where some Communists
gave them coffee for the strike, and I will be glad to give
you the details on this use of Communist coffee in the strike,
that this. Dallas Smith later went on to break this union
and later was engaged by the General Electric Co. and is
today an employee in the personnel office: paid off for
helping to break that union. oe ae
That union in that plant happens to be in a very
weakened position with less than 500 members out of 9,000
workers in that shop, paying dues into the union.
„It was the activities of people like Dallas Smith who
was paid off by the company and this woman who distorted
the minutes who are responsible for that..
Ar. Scherer. Was this woman who you say distorted
the minutes a fellow union member at the time?
Mr. Gojack. She never worked in the shop. She was
hired as a secretary. She was then elected to secretary.
„Mr. Scherer. Of the union?!
„Mr. Gojack. Of the union. ae :
[fol. 197] Mr. Scherer. You claim she was an em-
ployer’s stooge for the purpose of sabotaging you?
Mr. Gojack. 1 have no evidence to that effect. I merely
stated my belief, my knowledge, that she never passed up
an opportunity to do a job on me and how she colored
her minutes. N
“Mr. Tavenner. Now, you have charged Miss Scott with
altering the minutes or improperly reporting them because
you see before me a typewritten statement. Is that the
reason you are doing it? You are anticipating that I am
going to read you the minutes of that meeting?
m— — — ——ÿ
62
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t know how many paid liars you
have working for you. I know of three of my own knowl-
„Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question?
“Mr, Gojack. As to what?
Mr. Tavenner. As to whether or not the reason for
your attacking Miss Scott is that you see that I have before
me what appears to be a copy of the minutes?
„Nr. Gojack. I don’t see what you have before you.
You have all kinds of papers before you.
„Mr. Tavenner. You have told us that the matter was
presented to a meeting, and that the account of it was im-
properly stated by Miss Scott—before I have given you
any facts in regard to it at all. Have you seen it before?
[fol. 198] „Mr. Gojack. I know it from other reasons.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you seen it before?
Mr. Gojack. No, I know this because Mr. Dallas Smith
and the group with him who are members of the IUE-CIO,
the only McCarthyite union in America, a union that co-
operates with you, you had material here yesterday that
the IUE-CIO stole from our union office. You are using
material stolen by a rival union. This same union, this
same clique, Dallas Smith, who is now working for General
Electric as a boss, have used and distorted what happened
during this strike.
„Mr. Scherer. What union did you call a McCarthyite
union?
„Mr. Gojack. IUE-CIO.
„Mr. Tavenner. Let's proceed.
„Mr. Gojack. I haven't finished my answer.
„Mr. Tavenner. You are not answering the question.
You are arguing extraneous matters.
„Mr. Gojack. I am explaining that I know of this
distortion because the IUE-CIO and Dallas Smith had used
this in their attempts to wreck the union in 1949 and sub-
sequent to
[fol. 1 r. Tavenner. You are saying the statement
, e before you have heard me make any reference
to it.
Ar. Gojack. I am saying it is false because the IUE-
CIO have used this repeatedly.
Mr. Tavenner. You have stated you have never seen
it before.
“Mr. Gojack. I never have— .
„Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you are swearing some-
thing false which you haven’t seen and as to which I have
not yet asked you a question.
Jet me ask you the question and see hether you say
it is false: According to the minutes of January 16, 1946,
which I quote: f ;
A letter was read addressed to Brother Gojack from
the secretary of the Communist Party stating that they
would like to donate 100 copies of the Worker, weekly
paper of the Communist Party.’ ” :
Is that true or false? ;
“Mr. Gojack. As I recall that meeting—
„Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question, please,
and then you may explain your answer. Is it true or false?
Mr. Gojack. I don’t recall whether I read the state-
[fol. 200] ment. The secretary read the letter first, as I
remember. she
„Ar. Tavenner. That isn’t an answer to the question.
Mr. Gojack. They asked me if I had a communication.
It so happened that I had received one. — —
“Mr. Tavenner. You had received it. That is the ques-
tion I have been trying to get you to answer. From whom
did you receive it?
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t know.
„Mr. Tavenner. Wasn't it from the secretary of the
Communist Party? :
„Nr. Gojack. I don’t know.
„Mr. Tavenner. Who was the secretary of the Com-
munist Party of the State of Indiana at that time?
Mr. Gojack. I don’t know.
„Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Elmer John-
son?
Mr. Gojack. Let me explain my other answer don’t
know.
64
Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Elmer John-
son?
„Mr. Gojack. I will get to that later. I am going to
explain my other answer. The reason I don’t know whether
this communication came from any Communist, I have
received communications from the IUE-CIO and I have
[fol. 201] seen this McCarthyite union forge communica-
tions allegedly from the Communist Party for just such
purposes as this.
Mr. Scherer. You are charging another union with
forgery now?
„Mr. Gojack. Just the same kind of forgery your lunatic
Cecil Scott used.
„Mr. Scherer. He has mentioned Cecil Scott. Cecil
Scott testified before this committee I think four years
before I became a Member of Congress, but it so happens
I must say in defense of Cecil Scott, that what he said in
that executive testimony has been corroborated over and
over again by many competent witnesses. And the testi-
mony of Cecil Scott was never released by this committee.
T have to say that.
„Mr. Tavenner. You made an explanation as to the
IUE forging documents. IUE was not in existence in 1946,
was it?
„Mr. Gojack. No; but people who later created this
McCarthyite outfit were active in 1946 laying the ground-
work for it. Dallas Smith and Bertha Scott were some of
those people.
„Mr. Scherer. In view of your taking the first amend-
[fol. 202] ment as to whether you were a Communist or
not, I would be in sympathy with those people who were
trying to get rid of your influence in union activities. I
really would.
„Mr. Gojack. I read into this record my affidavits that
are on file and I read them twice. My objection on the
ground of the first amendment was to the entire hearing
m
here. Vou people have no right, this committee has a right
to operate only for the legislative purposes.
“*You are not operating for a legislative purpose now.
You are acting as prosecutor, court and jury—and my
understanding of the American system—and despite my
inadequate education I think I know more about American
history and American traditions and the Constitution than
some people in the room; it is quite different from the way
this committee is operating.
don't think you have the right to ask me these ques-
tions about how I think and feel, for if you do, the next
step will be your hands over my shoulder in the polling
booth and I don’t think we want come to that.
When I referred to the first amendment I was referring
[fol. 203] to that fundamental objection to this hearing.“
„Ar. Moulder. Your education is not inadequate for
the line of work that you are doing. In fact, as I said a
while ago, you are plenty sharp and smart.
„Mr. Scherer. Too much so.
„Mr. Tavenner. Let us get back to the question.
Mr. Gojack. I resent your remark, Mr. Scherer. When
he said I was plenty sharp and smart you said “too much
so.” Is it wrong to try to educate oneself in this country?
Is it wrong for a labor union to try to be as smart as
management?
Mr. Moulder. Proceed.’”
Worker. I find this. paragraph in the minutes:
A general discussion as held on this matter at which
time opposition was expressed to such a donation and also
those in favor of accepting expressed that people can get
considerable information from this paper that they cannot
get from any other labor or daily paper in the way of
labor news.“
“Is there anything false about that statement in the
report in the minutes?
[fol. 204] “‘Mr. Gojack. There was a very lengthy dis-
cussion, as I recall, and that paragraph describes part of
that discussion, yes.
„Mr. Tavenner. And accurately; doesn't it?
„Mr. Gojack. Not completely. Accurate insofar as it
goes, yes.
„Mr. Tavenner. Wasn't the report also accurate in that
it stated the letter which was presented was a letter ad-
dressed to Brother Gojack from the secretary of the Com-
munist Party?
„Mr. Gojack. I am not sure of that because if a letter
had been addressed to me in my capacity as UE district
council president without some reference to the GE strike,
as I recall it, there was something on the envelope and
I don’t know where it came from about GE strike committee,
something like that. That was my reason for taking my
letter along there. As I remember, other people, someone
in the local, received a similar letter.
Mr. Tavenner. Who was it?
„Mr. Gojeck. I don’t recall. If I remember correctly,
it was addressed to the district local.
„Mr. Tavenner. The minute says the document was ad-
dressed to Brother Gojack. There isn't a reference to any
[fol. 205] other person. Was the vote finally that of 10 in
favor and 7 against 3 this type of assistance from
the Communist Pa
„Mr. Gojack. 281 recall, I don’t remember the exact
vote; as I recall the strike strategy committee--I was not a
member of it—after a very long debate voted to accept a
contribution from anybody, and if the Wall Street Journal
would have sent out a bundle of their papers they would
have accepted that.
„Mr. Tavenner. Did you at the time, at this meeting,
January 16, 1946, know the leaders of the Communist Party
in the State of Indiana? That is the chairman and the
State secretary?
„Mr. Gojack. I don’t even know what the Sore rep-
resent, I don’t know.
67
Ar. Tavenner. You did not know who the chairman was
and who the State secretary was?
Mr. Gojack. Mr. Tavenner—
Mr. Scherer. I ask that you direct the witness to answer
the question.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to make a direct
answer to the question.
(fol. 206} „Mr. Donner. Will you repeat the question?
“‘Mr. Tavenner. Repeat the question, please.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
“ ‘Mr. Gojack. I am not at all certain who the chairman
and secretary was at a given time, I could answer that by
saying, and truthfully, that—
Mr. Scherer. We assume it is truthfully. You are under
oath. ;
“ “Mr. Moulder. Proceed.
Mr. Tavenner. Proceed, please.
Mr. Moulder. What period of time are you referring
to as to who the chairman and secretary was?
Ar. Tavenner. January 16, 1946.
„Mr. Gojack. As I started to say before I was inter-
rupted by that snide remark from Congressman Scherer,
I could answer that question truthfully by saying that I read
the press, and the Indiana press often reported accounts of
activities of the Communist Party, officials of it would issue
—teleases or get in the press. I might have khown at that
time who these officials were. But when I start answering
those kinds of questions, I feel that we are getting to the
heart of the fundamental objective to this committee in
its operation here. I don’t believe that this committee has
a right to ask me who I know, what my political beliefs
[fol. 207] are.
„Mr. Moulder. He did not ask you that question. He
just asked you if you know who was serving in the official
capacity, and as you have stated, you may have acquired
that knowledge by reading the papers.
Mr. Gojack. I don't think they have a right to ask
me if I knew Wendell Willkie, whom I knew in Indiana.
I don’t think you have a right to ask me questions relating
to any political connections I may have, any friends I may
have, I think we are getting into the heart of my dispute
with the committee here. I don’t think you have a right
to go into any of this.
„Mr. Moulder. He is not asking you about your political
affiliation. He is asking you if you knew who was serving—
Mr. Gojack. Here is what he is doing. He is trying
to convict me on a guilt-by-association basis, and I don’t
think this committee has a right to indict me, let alone
convict me. I think that is a job for the courts in this
land.
think here this committee is getting too far afield
from what Public Law 601 has laid out for it. You are
doing the job of the courts here and I think you are usurp-
ing the rights of the court.
[fol. 208] (The witness conferred with his counsel.)
„Mr. Scherer. There are only two things this committee
can do and that is cite you for contempt if you are guilty of
contempt, and secondly, if you would commit perjury or
any witness commits perjury, refer the testimony to the
Department of Justice. That is all this committee can do.
It cannot do anything else. It cannot convict anybody.
„Mr. Donner. Is the reporter recording the fact that
I consulted with my client?
„Mr. Moulder. Les.
Mr. Donner. May I object to that, please?
„Mr. Moulder. The record will show your objection. As
I understand the question, it has nothing to do with your
association, political association, or any objection you have
raised. The question is merely do you know who was serving
in that period of time in a certain official capacity. Is that
right?
„Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
„Mr. Gojack. Since Mr. Tavenner has mentioned this
name of—what was it—Johnson? I recall knowing from
newspapers or discussions that name of Johnson as some
—
Communist official in Indiana. I don’t know his position and
I don’t know when he was an official, and don’t know the
time.
(fol. 209] „Mr. Scherer. Is that the only way you know
Johnson, because you read it in the newspaper? Is that
the only way you know Johnson? Is that what you are
telling us?
„Mr. Gojack. No, that is not the only way.
„Ar. Scherer. Tell us how well vou knew Johnson.
Ar. Gojack. I didn’t know J ohnson well.
Mr. Scherer. Or how slightly you knew him. You have
left us under the impression at this point that by reading
the newspapers you knew that Johnson was chairman of
the Communist Party of Indiana and I am asking you if
that is the only way that you knew Johnson.’”
Mr. Hitz: Your Honor, I will interrupt the reading to
comment that is count 2 of the indictment.
I will resume the readin without omission from the
Supreme Court Record at 112.
“A. (Continuing) “(The witness conferred with his
counsel. )
Mr. Donner. I want to renew my objection if the record
continues to show consultation.
Mr. Moulder. Well, also have the record show that the
witness has a perfect right to confer and consult with you
at any time.
(fol. 210] „Mr. Donner. I understand.
The witness conferred with his counsel. )
„Ar. Gojack. I want to decline to answer that question
on the following grounds: It is here where in this area of
questioning that I grow fearful of the use of a paid liar
like Matusow, a paid liar like Strunk, and a paid lunatic
and convicted forger like Cecil Scott and any other paid
informers that you may have, and because I feel as
strongly—
Mr. Scherer, Sounds like the article your counsel wrote
for the Nation Magazine, | remember reading those things
in that magazine.
woe e ee
70
„Mr. Gojack. If you will be patient I will give you my
next comment.
Mr. Scherer. I am very patient.
Mr. Gojack. I agree with the Baltimore Sun and Time
magazine which said that the Matusow case reminds us
that stoolpigeons are as a class to be despised and not to
be trusted—
Mr. Moulder. Those are the reasons that you—
Mr. Gojack. I haven't finished my reasons.
Mr. Moulder. You wish to list some more reasons for
refusing to answer the question?
[fol. 211] Nr. Gojack. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. How long do you think it will take?
Mr. Gojack. About a half minute.
Mr. Moulder. All right.
Mr. Gojack. Because I fear the use of such paid in-
formers who as a class are to be despised, I fear to answer
that question and therefore I invoke the protection afforded
by the first amendment to the United States Constitution
and I reiterate my basic objection that the first amendment
to the Constitution does not give this committee the right
to inquire into any of my beliefs, any of my connections,
any ideas I may have.
Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you direct the
witness to answer my question. The first amendment is no
basis for refusal to answer that question.
Mr. Moulder. Is it your question?
„Mr. Scherer. My question is—
„Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer
the question propounded by Mr. Scherer. As I understand
it, you refuse to answer for the reasons stated.
„Mr. Gojack. Yes.
“te * „ * * * *
[fol. 2121 Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with
Henry Aron, A-R-O-N?
„Mr. Gojack. To this and to every other question you
ask me along these lines for the reasons I have stated
earlier, I don’t know what paid liar you have here to do a
Matusow job on me.
71
„Mr. Moulder. We do not have any paid liars, neither
has the committee ever employed any witness to testify or
compensated any witness for his testimony any more than
you are going to be other than for your mileage and attend-
ance before the committee,
Ar. Gojack. You had a Matusow who has said quite
different, from what I have read.
Mr. Scherer. We have heard about Matusow from
you all day yesterday and all day today. He came from the
Communist—
“*Mr. Gojack. I don’t know Strunk but I know he is a liar.
“Mr. Scherer. He came from the same Communist Party
that you refuse to say under the first amendment whether
you were a member of or not.
„Mr. Gojack. When you cite testimony here as the
counsel for the committee did yesterday from a so-called
(fol. 213] underground agent, Strunk, that is so fantas-
tically a lie as that this woman who was 200 miles away
ran a strike at Bay City when Bay City is a long way from
Detroit, and that the strike was at a guided missile plant
where Square D never made guided missiles, and when
Congressman Clardy used that paid liar’s testimony to try
to break that strike.
Mr. Scherer. We are getting away from the question.
The question was did he know this man Aron. He is
dancing around. Do you know Aron’ That is the only ques-
tion.
„Mr. Gojack. I have already declined, Aren’t you with
us?
„Mr. Moulder. On the ground of the first amendment?
„Mr. Gojack. Ves, sir; for the reasons stated, and all
of the fundamental objections that I have on the ground
the first amendment doesn’t give you the right to even hold
this hearings, let alone ask me these questions.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed,’ ”
“te * * 4 . * eo»
Mr. Hitz: For the record, Your Honor, this is count 3
of the instant indictment.
72
I will now continue to read from the Supreme Court
Record without omission.
„Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Gojack, did Mr. Elmer Johnson or
[fol. 214) Mr. Aron ever appear and address a group of
people when you were present?
Mr. Gojack. To that question and to every other ques-
tion like it, I repeat my basic objection that this committee
has no right to ask me this question, the first amendment
to the Constitution prohibits your inquiring into my po-
litical beliefs, what meetings I went to. My goodness, if
you are allowed—
„Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, we have heard this speech
a dozen times.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Gojack, you have no right to object
to a question being propounded to you during the proceed-
ings of this hearing. You can decline to answer for legal
reasons if you wish to do so. Why don’t you give a direct
answer, a direct response, rather, by answering the ques-
tion or declining to answer instead of objecting to the com-
mittee even existing or the act of Congress creating it,
and answer the questions propounded by counsel?
We understand your opposition to the committee, your
bitterness against the committee functions. You have
clearly expressed yourself along that line, but I don’t think
you should proceed to make that statement every time you
are asked a question.
Ar. Gojack. Mr. Moulder, this goes to the heart of my
[fol. 215] objections because
Mr. Moulder. Then decline to answer for the reasons
previously stated on the first amendment to the Constitu-
tion, as provided by the first amendment to the Constitution
if that is your reason.
Vr. Gojack. I will do that, but I would like to finish
my reply to this one. If this committee can ask me those
questions, then you can ask me questions about meetings at
which I attended with other trade unionists, A. F. of L. and
CIO, Republican Labor Club, then some Democratic com-
mittee or itself ean declare somebody being involved in 20
vears of treason.
V
“‘Mr. Scherer. We are only asking you about Com-
munist meetings. That is all we are interested in.
“Mr. Gojack. To some people like your friend McCarthy,
being active in another political party involves treason, and
my point is that this goes to my basic objection. You have
no right to ask me the question.
“Mr. Scherer. Direct the witness to answer the question.
„Mr. Gojack. I decline to answer on the ground pre-
viously stated.
„ 6 * + * * * * e999
[fol. 217] Afternoon Session
1:45 p.m.
The Court: You may proceed, Mr. Hitz.
Mr. Hitz: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record,
Your Honor, the court will note that after the reading of the
last answer by Mr. Gojack there are asterisks and then Mr.
Tavenner says: Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with
Russell Nixon?’ ”
Ar. Gojack. Yes, I know Russ Nixon.
Mr. Hitz: Then Mr. Tavenner was interrupted by my
questioning him as follows:
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, may I interrupt you a moment. Mr.
Tavenner, you read some of the testimony of Miss Dorothy
Funn before the committee, given in—”
The Court: What page?
Mr. Hitz: Page 116 of the Supreme Court Record.
I will continue to read without omission.
“By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Do you recall the testimony to which I refer?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Now, after that, and before the testimony of Mr.
(fol. 218] Gojack, did the committee call before it Mr.
Nixon? > 3 a
74
“A. Yes, sir, it did.
“Q. Will you tell me whether or r not the committee asked
Mr. Nixon questions concerning his own Communist Party
activity?
“A. It did.
* * 5 * * e *
By Mr. Hitz:
“Q. Have you got it, sir?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Will you give us the date and place of it, and then
read that portion of it?
“A. Mr. Nixon was subpoenaed before the Committee on
Un-American Activities and testified on June the 9th, 1953.
He was interrogated about numerous matters.
“Did you ask me to read the pertinent parts?
“Q. Yes, sir.
“Portions of Testimony of Russell Nixon Read Into
Record.
“A. I read from page 1,675 of Volume 11 of the 1953
hearings of the committee.
“Q. And will you give the more precise title of that
particular part of the hearings?
[fol. 219] “A. “Communist Infiltration—Government and
Labor.’
„Mr. Tavenner. Did other labor organizations have
legislative representatives in Washington?
„Mr. Nixon. At what time, Mr. Tavenner?
Mr. Tavenner. During the time that you held that
position.
„Mr. Nixon. Oh, yes.
„Mr. Tavenner. Was there any means of cooperation
developed between you as the legislative representative of
your union and the representatives of other labor organiza-
tions?
Mr. Nixon. During the period that we were in the CIO
we have the CIO legislative committee, which generally co-
75
ordinated its activity and programs in Washington in the
legislative field.
Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, did you
become acquainted with Mrs. Dorothy K. Funn, who was the
legislative representative holdi g a similar position to that
of yours, except that she represented the National Negro
Congress?
„Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question on the
grounds already stated.“
“Q. What were those grounds, sir?
(fol. 220] “A. It included the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution.
“Q. I see.
“A. Mrs. Funn testified in a hearing recently conducted
in New York City on May 4, 1953; the following questions
and answers occurred during that hearing.
“Do you desire that I read those? It is the same testimony
that I read into evidence this morning from Mrs. Funn’s
testimony.
“Q: Perhaps we can omit that, if you are permitted to
answer this question: On that occasion did Mr. N ixon state
to the committee whether or not he had been a member of
the Communist Party?
“A. After confronting Mr. Nixon with the testimony of
Mrs. Funn, which I read into the record this morning, this
question was asked Mr. Nixon:
„Now, Mr. Nixon, was Mrs. Funn correct in identify-
ing you as having attended Comm ist Party meetings com-
posed of legislative representatives of various organizations
here in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Nixon. As I have made abundantly clear, I de-
cline to answer that question for reasons already stated.
Ar. Tavenner. Did you ever sit in a Communist Party
(fol. 221] meeting with Mrs. Funn?
“Mr. Nixon. The answer is the same, Mr. Tavenner.
“‘Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a member of the Com-
76
Mr. Nixon. For the reasons I have already made clear
to you, I decline to answer that question.“
“Q. All right, Mr. Tavenner, did he subsequently answer
those questions to the committee?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Has he ever?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Till the time that these questions were asked Mr.
Gojack concerning Mr. Nixon?
“A. That is right.
“Q. Does the committee now know whether Mr. Nixon
was a member of the Communist Party from any testimony
of his own?
“A. No, sir. The committee has not been able to get
any.
“Q. From testimony of his own?
“A. Has not been able to get any testimony from Mr.
Nixon regarding his alleged Communist Party activities
[fol. 222] in this country or abroad.
“Portions of Testimony of John T. Gojack Read Into
Record.
“Q. Now, will you read the rest of the questions that were
asked of Mr. Gojack on this subject, the Nixon subject?
“A. ‘Mr. Tavenner. Was he known to you to be a member
of the Communist Party?
„Mr. Gojack. Russ Nixon is known to me to be a
Washington representative, legislative representative of
our union.
„Mr. Tavenner. Yes, we know that. Will you answer
the question, please?
„Mr. Gojack. To this question, sir, and any question
about any other individuals regarding political beliefs or
affiliations, sir, I respectfully decline to reply on the grounds
on which I am challenging the jurisdiction of this commit-
tee.
Mr. Moulder. Do you not realize that the courts have
77
held that the Communist Party is not a political organiza-
tion, that it is not a political party?
Mr. Gojack. Frankly, I don’t know what it is in terms
of the court decisions. I read the other day where a fellow
[fol. 223] was convicted in Chicago for 5 years for being a
member of it, under the Smith Act. I am not keeping pace
with these court decisions.
“‘Mr. Scherer. Then it would not be a political party
if you could be convicte and sentenced for 5 years for be-
longing to it. It is a criminal conspiracy as much as any
other conspiracy on the Federal criminal statutes. ~
„Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer, may I supplement your ob-
servation by saying, assuming that the finding of the Fed-
eral court was according to the evidence and law, it would
mean that this committee could not possibly be inquiring
into your political affiliations when we are asking you
whether or not you are a member of i
because the court has held that the Communist Party is
not a legitimate political party, as I understand Mr.
Scherer’s observation.
Mr. Gojack. Sir, I am neither a lawyer nor a Govern-
ment expert on this question. I remember reading in the
New York Times the other day where a Multer, one of your .
fellow Congressmen from Brooklyn, said that under this
new law to outlaw Communists, the Communist Control
Act of 1954, the one that Humphrey tacked some amend-
ments onto—according to that one, he stated President
Eisenhower could be proven a Communist. I don’t know
what the legal—
(fol. 224] „Mr. Doyle. May I just sincerely observe, Mr.
Gojack, you may not be a lawyer, but you are a very able
and very well read young man, apparently. You are a very
well informed labor union leader. I say that because that is
my impression from your testimony. You do not need to
apologize for not being well read and well informed, because
manifestly you are, and you are a very able witness, very,
very well informed in all the areas in which you are being
questioned, 5. nt
a
*
78
Mr. Gojack. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Scherer. The question still is—
Mr. Moulder. May I ask the witness, do you know
whether or not Russell Nixon is a member of the Com-
munist Party? I am just asking whether or not you know
that.’ ”
Mr. Hitz: I am interrupting the reading and stating to
the court and for the record that that is count 4 in this
indictment.
“A. ‘Mr. Gojack. Sir—
Mr. Moulder. Do you or do you not know? I am not
asking you to state whether or not he is, but whether or not
you know.
Mr. Gojack. Sir, I respectfully submit that that ques-
tion cannot be propounded to me by this committee because
[fol. 225] it seeks to expose someone, and I don’t think that
the law under which this committee operates was set up for
exposure purposes. My understanding is that that is what
the courts are for, to expose people.
„Mr. Scherer. Their job is to judge, not to expose.
It is the job of this committee to expose Communists. That
is one of its primary duties, to expose communists and the
nature of the infiltration of the Communist conspiracy in
every activity and agency of American life, which includes
labor unions.
„Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer that question?
„Mr. Gojack. Yes, sir, on the grounds previously
stated. :
„Mr. Tavenner. May I suggest that he be directed to
answer.
„Mr. Doyle. I move he be directed to answer, Mr.
Chairman. ome i
„Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the ques-
tion.
„Mr. Gojack. Sir, I respectfully decline on the grounds
previously stated.
“se * * eT
7 ĩͤ 0 Rm xtc
79
(fol. 226] „Mr. Tavenner. You have volunteered that you
engaged in many meetings in what you have termed in be-
half of peace. You are familiar with the Communist
Party line, I suppose, with regard to the Stockholm peace
appeal and various others that followed it; are you not?
You are not?
„Mr. Gojack. I am not even sure what you mean by the
question.
„Mr. Tavenner. Did you take an active part in the
peace pilgrimage to Washington which was organized by
one of the “front” organizations known as the American
Peace Crusade?’ ” '
Mr. Hitz: Your Honor, I am interrupting the reading
to note that is count five of this indictment.
I will now continue to read without omission.
“A. (Continuing) ‘The witness conferred with his coun-
sel.)
„Mr. Gojack. Sir, on this and all other questions that
deal with my activity in any organizations, political or
otherwise, what I think, how I feel, what I did about peace,
whether I went on a specific delegation or not, and with
whom—to all such questions I must respectfully decline
to answer on the ground that the first amendment to the
Constitution does not give the committee the right to pry
into my beliefs.
(fol. 227] „Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to
direct the witness to answer.
„Mr. Moulder. Yes, Mr. Gojack, you are directed to an-
swer the question.
Mr. Gojack. I respectfully decline to answer for the
reasons stated.
“‘Mr. Tavenner. I want to make it clear, Mr. Gojack,
that I am not interested at all in what your beliefs or opin-
ions were about those matters. What I am interested in is
the extent to which the Communist Party was engaged in
manipulating peace moves in this country in behalf of a for-
— eign power. That is what Jam interested in. My question
80
of you is to determine what knowledge or information you
had on the subject.
Mr. Moulder. May I say, Mr. Tavenner, in connection
with your statement, that the so-called peace moves on the
part of the Soviet Union were being instigated over here
as propaganda so as to prevent any opposition to their
aggression and domination of the free world.
„Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, may I add to those two fine
statements that I am also interested in knowing what the
witness knows about the extent to which the American
Communist Party, in connection with these peace moves or
[fol. 228] otherwise, was using the leadership of American
labor unions, especially any labor union that the witness
might have been a member of at that time or had any
connection with. The question is the extent to which
the Communist Party had infiltrated American labor unions,
if you know anything about it, the extent to which they were
using it then and are using it now for their conspiratorial
purposes.
That is all, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Tavenner. The documents which I handed you
have dates which are very significant. The letter from Mr.
Nixon was on March 27, which was after the so-called
peace pilgrimage to Washington, which occurred on March
15; but the letter which he enclosed from the Communist-
dominated outfit in Paris was dated February 16, 1951.
Normally it would have been expected to have been dis-
seminated before your peace pilgrimage here.
“‘May I ask you whether or not that letter had any
influence upon your action then or later?
„Mr. Gojack. Which letter are you referring to?
„Mr. Tavenner. The letter from Mr. Nixon.
„Mr. Gojack. The letter from Mr. Nixon had no in-
fluence on any actions I took with regard to peace. I have
acted on my own initiative on that question—letters to the
editor at home, and delegations, and many activities.
[fol. 229] Mr. Tavenner. If you have disseminated
among all your unions, representing thousands of members,
81
this propaganda document from Paris, then you were per-
forming a substantial chore for the Communist Party;
weren’t you?
„Mr. Gojack. Sir, I didn't testify that I circulated that.
I testified that I remember vaguely that on one such com-
munication from some trade union in Europe, which I
showed around to people whom I met in my work, someone
asked me if they could have extra copies of that. I re-
member mimeographing that, I am not at all certain—I
didn’t testify that it was this thing here, and it wouldn’t
have been circulated to thousands, sir. If it were a matter
of something that came from our Washington office or our
national office and didn’t go directly to the locals, we sent
it to about 25 local unions. Then the local unions them-
selves decided what to do with it, whether to file it, read
it at a meeting, or throw it in a waste basket.
“se * * * * * 9 7 *
Mr. Tavenner. Now, I hand you the February 1, 1951,
issue of the Daily Worker, at least a photostatic copy of it.
It relates to the American Peace Crusade. It gives the
names of those who were the initial sponsors of it. I will
ask you to state whether or not there appears among the
list of sponsors the name of John Gojack, international
[fol. 230] vice president, UERMWA, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Document handed to the witness. )
„Mr. Gojack. This document appears to be a photostat
of the paper you described, with the notation that 65 no-
tables
„Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question, please.
Your statement is not responsive to my question.
Mr. Gojack. I am sorry.
Mr. Tavenner. The question is: Will you examine to
see whether or not your name is listed as one of the original
sponsors of that organization?
„Mr. Gojack. On this paper you show me, this photo-
stat, rather, my name is listed down there.
Mr. Tavenner. Does there not appear above your name
the statement, “other original sponsors include”?
Mr. Gojack. After a listing of Thomas Mann, the Nobel
Prize winner, four Protestant bishops and leading scien-
tists, writers, Negro leaders, and trade unionists, the lan-
guage appears whic’ you read on the paper you handed
me: “Other initial sponsors include.”
„Mr. Tavenner. Does your name appear among those
included as original sponsors?
[fol. 231] Mr. Gojack. Yes; on this document here, my
name appears along with some A. F. of L. and CIO leaders,
also
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I know. That is a voluntary state-
ment by you. What I want to find out is, Who solicited
you as one of the original sponsors?
Mr. Gojack. On that question, sir, I respectfully de-
cline to answer on the grounds previously stated.
„Mr. Tavenner. What method was used to get you as
an original sponsor.’ ”
Mr. Hitz: Your Honor, I am interrupting the reading
to advise you that the question: “What method was used
to get you as an original sponsor,” is count No. 6.
I will now continue to read without omission.
„Mr. Gojack. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, for
the reasons previously stated.
„Mr. Scherer. I ask that you direct the witness to an-
swer the last question.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the
question.“
[fol. 232] Mr. Hitz: Mr. Donner at this time will read
the eross- examination of Frank Tavenner.
Mr. Donner: My name is Frank Donner. I am now going
to read from the record dealing with the eross- examination
of Frank S. Tavenner. This is from the Supreme Court
Record, page 137.
“Cross Examination.
“By Mr. Donner.
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, you were counsel at the hearing at
(fol. 233] which Mr. Gojack testified, is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. In connection with that hearing, was there a motion
filed on behalf of Mr. Gojack?
“A. Yes, there was.”
Mr. Donner: May the reporter mark for identification a
document, defendant’s No. 1, statement of objections to
hearing and motion to vacate subpoenas together with
two newspaper clippings attached thereto?
The Court: Yes, sir.
(Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identifica-
tion.)
“Q. Now, I show you a document headed, ‘Statement of
Objections to Hearing and Motion to Vacate Subpoenes,’
and two attachments, and ask you whether that is a copy
of the motion which was filed.
“A. I do not know, sir. I have never seen the motion.
“The Court: Oh, that was the basis for your offering
the motion?
“Mr. Donner: Yes.
“The Court: I thought it was a motion you were just
making to me at the beginning of the case.
“Mr. Donner: No, Your Honor.
[fol. 234] “The Court: You read it to me at the n
of the case.
Mr. Donner: I read it to you just to indicate what the
issues were.
The Court: Oh, I see.
84
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. You have not seen the motion?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Do you know whether a copy of the motion is in the
files of the committee?
“A. I know that the motion was filed. I have never ac-
tually seen it, either it or a copy of it.
“Mr. Donner: Well, Your Honor, we subpoenaed the
motion and assumed that Mr. Tavenner would bring it with
him.
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. Do you have a copy of it here?
“A. I do not.
“Mr. Rein: Mr. Hitz does.
“Mr. Hitz: I have a copy. If you will let me see yours
I can see whether this is the same as the one I have in
the file.
“The Court: You ought to use the original.
[fol. 235] “Mr. Donner: Do you have the original?
“Mr. Hitz: No, it is a copy.
“Mr. Rein: Your Honor, the committee didn’t have the
original of the motion, but just a copy that they had made.
I don’t know why, but that is all they had in the committee
files.
“(Paper produced by Mr. Hitz.)
“Mr. Hitz: Did you have a question pending?
“Mr. Donner: No, I don’t.
“Mr. Hitz, is this a copy of a motion which was filed
with the committee?
“Mr. Hitz: I will concede that it is an accurate copy of
the motion filed.
85
(fol. 236] “Mr. Donner: Will Mr. Hitz concede that this
motion and the clippings are a copy of the motion which we
filed with the committee? :
“Mr. Hitz: I would like to do it this way: I won’t object
to their authenticity or accuracy, so that I don’t affirma-
tively concede anything, but I won't object to them on that
ground. That will accomplish his purpose. I will have an
objection, perhaps, to their relevancy and materiality, when
that time comes.
(fol. 237] Mr. Donner: Now, there is argument that goes
on to page 149 and I see no point in repeating it for this
record but I do now offer that motion in this case, together
with the attachments as defendant’s No, 1 and I should add,
(fol. 238] Your Honor, that the motion is subject to the
same kind of stipulation with respect to the accuracy of
the attachment as was made in the original case and I
guess that is government exhibit No. 14, isn’t it? It is
a joint exhibit.
Mr. Hitz: It relates to it, yes,
The Court: Now, Mr. Hitz, you heard the statemert
Mr. Donner just made and is that agreeable to you, sir?
Mr. Hitz: Except to the last, I don’t know what that
means about it being a joint exhibit.
Mr. Donner: I was simply describing the motion as
covered in part by the stipulation that we filed with the
court and which is government exhibit No. 14.
Mr. Hitz: I agree.
The Court: Now, 1 am understanding there is no objec-
tion to the motion nor the attachments thereto insofar as
the authenticity or accuracy thereof be concerned but he
does reserve the right to challenge the materiality and
relevancy of it as recited therein?
Mr. Hitz: Yes. K
The Court: I will receive it under those stated conditions.
* + „ * * * 7
(fol. 242] Mr. Hitz: Although we objected at the first trial
of this case on the grounds of relevancy and materiality of
E
that motion against the subpoenas directed to the commit-
tee and the attachments, Judge Pine, nevertheless, admitted
it and I think in view of later developments in the case law,
it would be unwise for us now to object on those or any
other grounds and, therefore, we do not,
The Court: Then they are received, sir.
(Defendant's exhibit No. 1 waz received in evidence.)
Mr. Donner: Before I read defendant's exhibit No. 1,
may I offer for the record of this trial page 153 and—ex-
cerpts from page 153 of government exhibit 12 which is the
statement of Mr. Moulder purporting to rule on the motion?
The Court: Statement of Mr. Moulder doing what, sir!
Mr. Donner: Purporting to rule on the motion, defen-
[fol. 243] dant's exhibit No. 1 now in evidence.
That is the motion, Your Honor, which comprises the
statement of objections to the hearings and to quash the
subpoenas that were filed at the House Committee hear.
ings and is now in evidence in this case.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Hits: I have 153 of 12.
Mr. Donner: May I see it?
Mr. Hits: Yes, I wish you would.
Mr. Donner: I am reading now from page 153 of gov-
ernment exhibit 12.
“Mr, Moulder. Mr. Tavenner, at the beginning of the
hearings, counsel for John T. Gojack, Julia Jacobs, and
Lawrence Cover, filed a statement of objections to hearings
and a motion to vacate the subpenas, At that time the mem-
bers of the subcommittee unanimously voted to overrule
the objections and the motion to vacate the subpenas,
Therefore, I want the record to show that at that time, nunc
pro tune, the objections and motion to vacate subpenas are
overruled,
„Mr. Donner. May the motion be incorporated in the
record, sir?
“Mr, Moulder, It is filed. It will be marked ‘filed’.”
87
(fol. 245] “By Mr. Donner:
“Q. Mr. Tavenner, taking you back again to the tran-
script, page 20,—
“Mr. Hits. Is that the report or the full transcript?
Mr. Donner. I am sorry, Mr. Hits; that is the full
transcript.
“By Mr. Donner.
“Q. (Continuing) —you will recall that Mr. Moulder
says: ‘You may file the motion.’
“Now do you recall whether 1 physically handed you
that motion :
“A. Yes, sir, I do. You handed me the motion and I
handed it up to the chairman.
. And you don't know what happened to it after that?
“A. Yes, I know that during the progress of the hear.
ing the chairman made some announcement in regard to it.
My recollection is that he announced that the committee
had considered it and denied it.
Were you present when the committee considered it? |
“A. J was present, but took no part in it, as this hap-
pened while the committee was in session, and during the
(fol. 246] period that I was either examining a witness or
preparing to examine one.
“Q. Now, calling your attention to the annual report of
the conunittee, Government Exhibit 10—”
In this case it is now government exhibit 13.
Eat page 1,—that is the annual report for 1955,—
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. (Continuing) —do you see, about five lines or six
lines from the bottem, at the opening of each public hear.
ing, the presiding chairman clearly outlined the purpose
of the investigation and hearing?
“The Court; Is this page 10?
“Mr. Donner: This is page 1, Your Honor of government
Exhibit 10,”
V
Mr. Donner: It was 10 in the old record and 13 in this
case.
„A. Yes, Sir. a j
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. That practice, of course, governed the hearing in
which Mr. Gojack was involved; isn’t that correct?
“A. Yes.
[fol. 247] . Is that practice pursuant to some rule that
has been adopted by the committee?
“A. No, there has been no rule adopted by the commit-
tee.”
May this former defendant’s exhibit 4 be marked for
identification as defendant’s exhibit 2.
The Court: Yes, sir.
(Defendant’s exhibit No. 2 was marked for identifica-
tion. )
The Court: Is that a pamphlet of the rules?
Mr. Donner: Yes, it is. I happen to have another one
and would you like to have it?
The Court: Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Donner: I will now continue to read.
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. I show you defendant’s exhibit 4 for identification—”
this is now defendant’s exhibit 2—“and ask you what that
is
“A. This is a set of printed rules of the Committee on
Un-American Activities.
“Q. Will you tell me when that was adopted?
“A. In July 1953.
“Q. Did that govern the hearings in this case?
“A. Yes, it did.
“Mr. Donner: I offer this, Your Honor.
[fol. 248] “Mr. Hitz: No objection.”
(Apne ere meerar rer emercunpena zener
Mr. Donner: I would like now to read from defendant’s
exhibit 2, Rules 1 and 2.
Mr. Hitz: Mr. Donner, excuse me. I don’t think you
offered that in evidence.
Mr. Donner: I am sorry. I now offer that in evidence.
The Court: Is there objection?
Mr. Hitz: May I see that?
Mr. Donner: Yes, this is the one that is the original that
was offered in evidence.
Mr. Hitz: No objection.
The Court: It is received.
(Defendant’s exhibit No. 2 was received in evidence. )
The Court: What are you going to read, sir?
Mr. Donner: 1 and 2, Your Honor. I am not positive
that the copy I offered you conforms in all respects to this.
The Court: I will check it with you as you read it.
Mr. Hitz: I think the way to determine it, would be to
look on the inside front cover and if it says printed July
15, 53, that is what you have.
Mr. Donner: Yes, that is right.
(fol. 249] The Court: That is what this is.
Mr. Donner: Very well. “Rules of Procedure: 1, Initi-
ation of Investigations: No major investigation shall be
initiated without approval of a majority of the Committee.
Preliminary inquiries, however, may be initiated by the
Committee’s staff with the approval of the Chairman of the
Committee.
“Rule 2, Subjects of Investigation: The subject of any
investigation in connection with which witnesses are sum-
moned or shall otherwise appear shall be announced in an
opening statement to the Committee before the commence-
ment of any hearings; and the information sought to be
elicited at the hearings shall be relevant and germane to
the subject as so stated.”
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. Now, the committee’s annual report in 1954—that is
government exhibit—” that is government exhibit 11—
“and the annual report in 1955, government exhibit—” in
this trial 13—“both make reference, do they not, to a file
and reference service?
[fol. 250] “A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The committee maintains a service dealing with
people in whom it is interested; is that correct? That is, its
files contain dossiers or records of people in whom it is
interested?
“A. Well, I don’t know what you mean by ‘in whom it
is interested.’ It maintains a considerable file of informa-
tion relating to so-called un-American activities and other
matters.
„. And it has a file covering individuals, isn’t that
correct?
“A. Individuals are referred to in the files.
“Q. How many individuals are covered in those files?
“A. [have no idea,
Can you approximate it?
“A. No.
. Would you say there were five thousand?
“A. Oh, I assume it is a very large number, much larger
than that.
“Q. Does the committee, on request, make available ma-
terial in these files to people who inquire about it?
“A. No, not generally.
“Q. Well, to whom does it make this material available!
Fol. 251] »A. It makes it available to all investigative
agencies of the Federal and the State governments, and to
members of Congress.
“Q. It I wrote to the committee and asked for informe
tion on John Jones, whether you have any information as
to whether he has a subversive background, would you send
me a reply?
“A. No, sir.
91
. If I wrote to my Congressman and asked him to get
the information about John Jones—
“A. If the Congressman advised the committee that he
desired information, the Congressman would be furnished
certain information from the public records and files of
the committee, not investigative information.”
Mr. Donner: Would the reporter please mark this defen-
dant’s exhibit No. 3 for identification?
(Defendant's exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification. )
Mr. Donner: Would you mark this as defendant’s exhibit
No. 4, please.
(Defendant's exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification. )
Mr. Donner: I will now continue to read.
[fol. 252 “By Mr. Donner:
“Q. I show you defendant’s exhibit 5—” in this trial
defendant's exhibit 3—“and ask you what this is, Mr. Taven-
ner.
“A. This appears to be a report made by the committee
on UIn-American Activities. You asked me to look into it
on the first day of my appearance here, and I find that on
May och, 1953, this information was given to a member of
Congress.
Do you know what members of Congress it was given
to?
“A. No, I do not.
“Q. By the way, who was the subject of that report?
“A. John Thomas Gojack.
“Q. Can you tell me how many requests you have for
information in your files about Mr. Gojack :
“A. No, sir.
. Does the committee keep a record of that? 3
“A. It keeps a record of the requests that it obtains, yes,
“Q. Can you find that out without too much trouble?
“A. Well, I think I can.
“Q. Very well; I would like you to do that.
“Now, then, this is a copy of a document drawn from the
files of the committee; is that right?
[fol. 253] “A. I recognize that this is a document prepared
by the staff of the Committee on Un-American Activiti2s.
“Q. How many pages does it contain?
“A. Three pages.
“Q. I show you defendant’s exhibit 6 for identification—”
this is now defendant’s exhibit No. 4—“and ask you what
that is—ignoring, of course, the underlining.
“A. Yes, I am paying no attention to that.
“Yes, sir, I can identify this as apparently a copy of a
document or report prepared by the Committee on Un-
American Activities,
“Q. Is the second document, that is, defendant’s exhibit
4 for identification, larger, does it contain more information
than 3?
“A. It does not.
“Q. Does it contain the same amount of information?
“A. The only difference—”
Mr. Donner: I think it will save time to interpose the
new numbers?
The Court: I understand you.
Mr. Hitz: Yes, indeed, that is fine.
Mr. Donner: “Does it contain the same amount of in-
[fol. 254] formation?
“A. The only difference between the two reports is that
the second report, the one you have just now handed to me,
bearing date of August 20, 1963, contains a paragraph—
the first paragraph, which is not contained in the earlier
report of May 5th. I may explain that by this statement:
that this paragraph referred to says that the documents
were obtained from the public records and files and pub-
lications of the committee; that it is not construed as repre-
senting the results of an investigation by the committee,
nor findings of the committee; it should be noted that the
individual referred to is not necessarily Communist, a Com-
——— oe
93
munist sympathizer, or a fellow traveler, unless otherwise
indicated.
“This type of a description prior to the middle of 1953
was usually contained in the letter forwarding the report
to the Congressman, but in 1953, the practice was adopted
of making this a part of the report itself.
“Q. And since then, that practice has been abandoned,
is that it? It is now included in a covering letter; is that
right?
“A. It is now included in the report instead of in a
covering letter.
(fol. 255] . Isee.
“A. That is the only difference, with the exception of the
language in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
“Q. Now, does the committee— Of course, the committee
constantly adds to the information in its files; is that cor-
rect?
“A. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.
“Q. Whenever information becomes available?
“A. It depends entirely upon the character of the in-
formation.
“Q. In other words, it would be possible now for some
Congressman to request the committee to give him material
on Mr. Gojack which would be larger in volume than what
you have here?
“A. There would be a reference now to his testimony
before the committee.
. Is the caption of these two exhibits a caption which
is from the committee’s stationery, information from the
files :
“A. Yes.
“Q. Would you say that is a reproduction, a physical re-
production of what was transmitted to the person who re-
quested the information?
(fol. 256] “A. I am not certain. I am certain as to Exhibit
No. 4. I believe it to be as to Exhibit Ne. 5.
94
“Mr. Donner: I would like to offer these, Your Honor,
of course, without the underscoring.”
Mr. Donner: I would at this time like to offer these two
documents that were discussed in that passage I read by
Mr. Tavenner. That is defendant’s exhibits 3 and 4. May
I hand them up? Have you seen these?
* * * * * * *
[fol. 260] The Court: Certainly not when you have won
your point, sir.
I will receive them, and I think we all agree that the
probative value and how material they may be, will be a
matter of evaluation and you Gentlemen will doubtless
make use of the opportunity at the time of argument.
I do understand, in addition to what Mr. Hitz has said,
that the mere fact that the committee may be vested of
information, such as it may acquire at an executive session,
does not constitute a bar to a re-hearing and I think sev-
eral of the court’s have said that but we do not have to
debate this now.
“By Mr. Donner:
“Q. Now, Mr. Tavenner, you referred yesterday to the
fact that the committee issued a release stating that the
committee would hold hearings in Fort Wayne. Is that
correct?
“A. I do not believe I described it that way. The com-
[fol. 261] mittee did not issue a release, but we found a
newspaper clipping quoting a statement made by the chair-
man with regard to the matter. There was no committee
release prepared that I am able to find or learn anything
about.
“Q. That statement was made on February 9th. Was the
paper dated February 9th?
“A. That I do not recall.
“Q. I think you testified yesterday that it was dated
February 9th.
“Now, when was Mr. Gojack subpoenaed?
A. The subpoena was dated February 10th. Service was
obtained on February 15th.
“Q. Is it a practice of the committee to announce in ad-
vance that people will be subpoenaed before they receive the
subpoena?
“A. It is not the practice. It has occurred.”
Mr. Donner: Now, turning to the next page—well, page
156.
“By Mr. Donner:
(fol. 262] „. You remember yesterday you testified about
a letter which you read into the record, dealing with the
Paris metal worker’s union. You recall that?
“A. Yes, I do.
“Q. You said that that letter was turned over to the
committee by a police agency?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Can you tell me what police agency turned that letter
over?
“A. I do not know just which it was. I do not know what
city.
“Q. You mean it was a local police agency in some city?
“A. That is the information that I had, yes.
“Q. Can you verify what city th
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.