# Appendix — Gojack v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0284%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 384 U.S. 702 ## 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, “ 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 that was? “A. Yes, I can verify it,” Mr. Donner: I will now read from page 195, recross- examination. “By Mr. Donner: . nner — 96 {fol. 263] “A. Yes, sir. I had the files examined from 1950 through the year 1954 for that information, and I am advised that the files show that reports were furnished to Members of Congress during those years as follows: 1950, one report; 1951, two reports, 1952, one report; 1953, ten reports ; and 1954, two reports. „. Now, with respect to the other matter that I inter- rogated you about, the police agency which turned over to you the letter which appears at page 139 of the hearing involving Mr. Gojack, can you identify that agency? “A. I now know the agency. . Will you tell me what it is, please? “The Witness: If it please the court, I respectfully d de- cline to answer the question on the ground that it is confi- dential information which I am not permitted by the rules of the committee to give out, of an investigative character.” Mr. Donner: Off the record. (A discussion was held off the record.) The Court: On the record: Mr. Donner: I now assert on behalf of the defendant in this trial, that the defendant acquiesces in the claim of privilege that was made in the trial of Mr. Gojack. * * * . * * * [fol. 289] Mr. Donner: No. May I just look at that, please? The Court: Yes, certainly. Mr. Donner: May I now read from the interrogation of Mrs. Jacobs and this appears at page 39 of government exhibit No, 12? Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the document again and state what address appears under the name ‘Julia Jacobs’? “(Witness examining document.) “Miss Jacobs. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 97 “Mr. Tavenner. Will you read into the record, please, what it is? I am not asking you whether it is true or false at this time. “Miss Jacobs. The address is 2303 Florida, Fort Wayne, Ind. “Mr. Doyle. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, under what name that address appears. That is in connection with what name : (fol. 290] “Mr, Tavenner. That address appears under the name of the witness, Julia Jacobs. “Mr. Doyle. Thank you. “Mr, Tavenner. With a notation under the address of ‘Residence address of witness.’ “Have you ever lived at 2303 Florida, Fort Wayne, Ind.! “Miss Jacobs. Yes. “Mr. Tavenner. When did you live there? “Miss Jacobs. I lived there for part of the period when I first went to St. Joe—to Fort Wayne. Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness, did I not just hear you say a minute ago that you did not recall ever living in Fort Wayne: “Miss Jacobs. No. “Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Doyle, if you will permit me to say so, I asked her the question whether she lived there in December 1951. “Mr. Doyle. I see. Mr. Tavenner. What type of residence was 2303 Florida, Fort Wayne, Ind., an apartment house! “Miss Jacobs. Yes. [fol. 291] “Mr. Tavenner. It was not your address on December 12, the date of this application, was it? “Miss Jacobs. It is a little difficult for me to remember exactly. I don't remember the exact date that I resigned as secretary of the local, and then I went to La Porie. I may have gone to Fort Wayne for a short period, a week or something like that. “Mr. Tavenner. I asked you specifically about that be- fore, and you stated you had not. If you were in error in that, I would like you to correct it, if you desire to correct it. Were you living at Fort Wayne at the time of the execu- tion of this document on December 12, 1951? “(The witness conferred with her counsel.) “Miss Jacobs. As I said earlier, I didn’t keep a diary or anything, but during this period of time there might have elapsed a period of week or two that I wasn’t working. I don’t know. I just can’t remember the details. I could have gone from St. Joseph to Fort Wayne, and then to La Porte. “Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a contract of rental for 2303 Florida, Fort Wayne, Ind.? “Miss Jacobs. No. “Mr. Tavenner. What arrangements did you have for rooming quarters, if this were the true address of your residence? [fol. 292] “Miss Jacobs. This is the apartment of the Gojack family. “Mr. Tavenner. You gave Mr. Gojack’s family’s apart- ment as your residence. Why did you do that?” Mr. Donner: That is the portion I was interested in reading into the record and I would like to call the court’s attention to the fact that the interrogation begins on page 20 and that the questioning that I have just read occurs on pages 39 to 40 of the record, and during that period of time, Miss Jacobs was the only witness testifying. Mr. Hitz: That is exactly what I was going to read, Mr. Donner, because it shows that Mr. Gojack heard the testimony of Miss Jacobs. Mr. Donner: It shows that he heard that questioning and answer. It doesn’t show anything more than that. Mr. Hitz: All right. I would now like to read to the court on page 43 of this document, the latter one half about, where it says, “Testi- mony of Julia Jacobs, Accompanied by Her Counsel, Frank J. Donner—resumed” and to read Mr. Doyle’s statement which is the last one on that page. “Mr. Doyle. Miss Jacobs, may I just make this statement [fol. 293] to you preliminary to several questions I wish to ask you: I want to make it clear that none of my ques- tions are intended to go into any political belief by you of any sort. Public Law 601 challenges this committee as a subcommittee to go into subversive activities and propa- ganda. It is expressly so. I want to frankly state that my few questions to you will be directed to you on that basis. That is to see the extent to which you will cooperate with your own United States Congress in ferreting out, uncov- ering, and revealing to Congress and the people any person or group of persons whether they are in the Communist Party or not, who may be subversive. I assume, unless you answer otherwise, that you, being an American citizen are more interested in your American Government than you are in the Communist Party. I also assume in my ques- tion that you, being an employee of a labor union, already know what this committee knows: that American ‘unionism’ and the Communist Party objectives are not the same. J wish also to state for your information that my ques- tions are directed to you because we are interested in find- ing out the extent and through what persons, and how, the Communist Party in your experience has undertaken to influence labor unions wherever you know anything about them. [fol. 294] “I made that frank statement to you so that you will know in advance what I am trying to get at. “I noticed a very good memory in your testimony this morning, dating away back to 1945 and 1946 and 1951; and you remembered right down to the exact month in 2 or 3 places. I want to compliment you on the memory you have, apparently, for dates and incidents away back. I know you will be very helpful to me in my few questions. “May I make this further statement: I am not interested in asking any question or getting you to answer any ques- tion that deliberately or otherwise is intended to hurt any organization which is patriotic and law-abiding. That is 100 whether it is a labor union, or whatever it is, But I am interested, as I stated before, in getting your cooperation if you will give it to us on helping to uncover any person or ahy group of persons who are undertaking to subvert the labor union of which you are secretary or any other group to their own Communist Party objectives, “The purpose of this committee sitting here under Public Law 601 is to get that information, if we can, from you and others, looking toward amendments to or strengthening [fol. 295] of legislation dealing with subversive activities. I say that, contrary to what some of the publicity has been down in your neighborhood to the contrary. “T am referring to this document in which the picture of Mr. Gojack appears. This is the document which you iden- tified as having your address thereon, 2303 Florida. Do you now recall the document that I refer to, or shall I bring it to you?” „ * * „ 5 * * [fol. 322] Direct examination. By Mr. Hitz: Q. Mr. Appell, will you give your full name, please. A. Donald T. Appell. A-p-p-e-l-l. Q. Your occupation, sir? A. I am the chief investigator for the Committee on Un-American Activities, standing committee of the House of Representatives. Q. How long have you been with the Committee? A. Since February 1947. Q. Did you have anything to do with the investigation which resulted in the hearings on February 28, March 1, and April 25, 1955, at which appeared John T. Gojack ! A. I was the investigator in charge of those. Q. Do you see Mr. Gojack here today? A. I do, sir. Q. Unless he stands, will you come down and point him out? 101 The Court: Is there any question? Mr. Donner: No question. By Mr. Hitz: Q. Mr. Appell, did you see Mr. Gojack on February 28, [fol. 323] 19551 A. I did, sir. Q. Was that in Washington, D. C.! A. It was, sir. Q. Where was it? A. In the Old House Office Building, Caucus Room. Q. Was that the room in which the hearings were held at which Mr. Gojack testified? A. They were. It is. Q. Were you present when Mr. Gojack testified? A. I was, Q. On February 28? A. Yes, sir. Q. And again on March 1? A. Yes, sir. Q. Approximately what time of day on February 28 did Mr. Gojack testify? A. I have a hard time approximating it. But I would say eleven-thirty, somewhere around there. Eleven, eleven- thirty. Q. Did you have any duty on that occasion with respect to determining whether the witnesses who appeared ac- tually were present prior to the hearing commencement? (fol. 324] A. As the investigator in charge of the hearing, I ascertained that witnesses under subpoena were present. Q. Can you recall now who the witnesses were who ap- peared that day? A. Well, the first witness was Julia Jacobs. Q. Go ahead. A. Mr. Gojack, and then there was a third witness whose name I do not now recall. Q. Were you present just prior to the commencement of the hearing on that day, February 281 A. Q. Did you s see Mr. Gojack i in the hearing room? A. I did, sir. Q. Did you see him with anyone else? A. As I remember, there was a conversation between r. Gojack and Mr. Jacobs, which— Q 5 A. Miss Jacobs, I am sorry. Which broke up when the Committee was called to order. Q. And would that.be the first call to order of the Com- mittee for the day? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the morning? [fol. 325] A. Yes, sir. Q. I would like to show you Government 12, which is a copy of the Government print of the Investigation of Com- munist Activities in the Fort Wayne, Ind., Area, and ask you if you would turn to the contents page ‘and look at the witnesses who it says there were called, and I would then ask you if you are refreshed on any recollection as to the order in which they appeared after Miss Jacobs. A. No. Of course this refreshes my mind as to the third witness that day, whose name I could not recall. And this is the order in which they were called, according to my recollection. Q. So refreshed, your recollection is they appeared in what order? A. Miss Jacobs, Lawrence Cover, and Mr. Gojack. Q. And that is Julia Jacobs? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I wonder if you would look at page 19, being the first page of that print of those hearings, and tell me can you refresh your recollection therefrom as to the time of day when the hearings commenced on February 28? Mr. Donner: I object to that. I think he ought to be asked without the benefit of the document. 103 (fol. 326] Mr. Hitz: I asked him and he said he couldn’t recall. The Court: Do you recall when the hearings started that day? The Witness: At the exact time, independent of this? The Court: Yes. The Witness: No, I do not. It was called for ten o’clock, so it was shortly thereafter, sir. By Mr. Hitz: Q. Examining page 19 of the hearing, is your recollec- tion refreshed as to a more precise time for the commence- ment of the hearing? A. It is. Q. And what is your recollection refreshed? A. Ten-twenty A.M. Q. Was it prior to 10:20 a.m. that you saw Mr. Gojack and Miss Jacobs talking in the Caucus Room? A. Yes, sir. Q. About how long before 10:20 do you recall that to be? A. It would be the last five minutes. Say, 10:15 to 10 :20, time when I would probably have gotten up to the Caucus [fol. 327] Room. Q. Will you tell us what took place from then on, up until the time and shortly after the Committee called the session to order. A. Well, as I remember, with the Committee being called to order the witnesses took seats and, my memory, Mr. Gojack and Miss Jacobs took a seat in the very front row of the seats in the Caucus Room. As I am seated in the Committee, I am seated facing the audience, which includes the witnesses. Q. Were they seated together or separately? A. They were seated in the same section. Q. Were they next to each other, or were they separated by someone else or chairs? A. I can’t be too sure of this. 104 Q. And were they both seated when the session came to order at 10:20? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then did Mr. Moulder, having brought the session to order, make any statement to the assembly? A. He did, sir. . And thereafter was a witness called? A. Yes, sir. The first witness called was Miss Julia (fol. 328] Jacobs. Q. And she testified? A. Ves, sir. Q. Were you present during her testimony? A. I was, sir. Q. And then followed Mr. Cover? A. Mr. Lawrence Cover, yes, sir. Q. Were you present when he testified? A. I was, sir. . And then Mr. Gojack testified, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Gojack get up and leave the room after he took seat at the calling to order of the assembly that morning? A. I have no recollection of him leaving. Q. Were you present when he was called as a witness! A. I was, sir. Q. Did he respond to the call? A. He did, sir. Q. And testified? A. He did, sir. Mr. Hits: I have no further questions, Your Honor, [fol. 329) Cross examination, By Mr. Donner: Q. Mr. Appell, when was Mr. Gojack first identified to yout A. As an individual? — ————— Q. Yes. A. Oh, years before 1955. Q. Was he identified to you at any time today? A. No, sir. I recognized Mr. Gojack as I came into the Q. He wasn't identified to you by Mr. Hitz or anybody else? A. No, sir. Q. And if you met Mr. Gojack you would recognize him? A. Yes, I think I would. Q. You recall what Julia Jacobs looked like? A. Well, I can roughly give you a description, Q. I asked you if you have a recollection of what she looked like. A. Yes, sir. Q. What did she look like? A. Well, she is, I would say, about five foot six and (fol. 330] a half. Maybe seven. She is dark-haired. She was at that time, I do not know, maybe she was 110, or 115 pounds, That is as close as— Q. Do you recall whether you were in the hearing room during the course of the entire hearing? A. I was, sir. Q. You didn’t leave at any time: A. Not to my memory. Q. You are sure? A. That is my memory, sir. Q. You recall seeing me theret A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, do you recall Mr. Moulder reading a statement at the beginning of the hearing? A. Making a statement, yes, sir. Q. And that was about what time? A. As my memory has been refreshed, 10:20. Q. Are you prepared to testify, Mr. Appell, that you re- member now that Mr. Gojack was in the room when that statement was read? A. No, sir. I testified that Mr. Gojack was in the room 106 when the Committee was called to order. He took a seat and I did not see him leave. [fol. 331] C. But you don’t remember seeing him present, is that right? A. I did see him present. Q. While the statement was read? A. I am not prepared to say this. I did not see him leave. Q. I am asking you whether you saw him there whiic the statement was read. A. Well, I saw him sit down and I didn’t see him leave. Q. When did you see him sit down? A. When the Committee was called to order. Q. Where were you sitting during the course of this hearing? A. Next to counsel. Q. Next to counsel? A. Yes, sir. Q. You weren’t sitting on the dais? You were sitting below the dais? A. Yes, sir. Q. Facing out? A. Facing you, sir. Q. Facing me. Did you ever leave the room to get a [fol. 332] file? A. No, sir. The files were brought with me. Q. You never left the room for any purpose? A. Not to my knowledge, sir. Q. Now, after Mr. Moulder read the statement, when was the next time you saw Mr. Gojack? A. Well, as I say, I don’t remember him leaving after he sat down. But the next time that my attention was again drawn to him, when he was called as a witness and was sitting in a chair prepared to testify. Q. About what time was that? A. Again, I am going to have to guess, but somewhere I would say 11:30 or somewhere around in that hour. It might have been later. I cannot remember specifically. 107 Q. You didn’t remember whether the hearing was called to order at 10:20, did yout A. No, I did not, until my memory was refreshed. Q. Mr. Appell, in 1953, approximately how many wit- nesses were called before the Committee? A. In this— The Court: You mean the entire year? Mr. Donner: Yes, sir. A. In this series of hearings, sir? [fol. 333] By Mr. Donner: Q. All the hearings that were held in 1953, the investi- gative hearings. A. In 537 Q. Yes. A. Oh, my Lord, it must have been roughly forty, fifty, sixty. Q. You remember all of them? A. No, sir. Q. In 1954, how many were called before the Committee? A. I would say, in an approximation, the same number. Q. Forty, fifty, or sixty? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember all of them? A. No, sir. Q. In 1955, how many witnesses were called before the Committee? A. I would give the same approximation. Q. About the same number? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now what day was it? Do you recall the day when this hearing was called to order? A. No, I do not, sir. (fol. 334] Q. You don’t know whether it was a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday? A. I would guess it was a Tuesday, but I am not too certain of that, sir. Q. Now how many of the witnesses who were called in 1955 do you remember, from your own recollection? A. I don’t recall too many of them, sir. Q. Now when Mr. Gojack was called up to testify, did he appear from the same seat where you had last observed him sitting? A. I cannot truthfully recall that, sir. A witness had just been excused. I would probably have walked to the witness that was excused and advised the witness that if he went to the clerk, the clerk would have him sign his voucher and this is probably what I was doing right at the time that Mr. Gojack was called. Q. I was coming to that, Mr. Appell. Now isn’t it a fact that when you are in charge of an investigation, that that is one of your responsibilities, to advise the witness, to make the arrangements with the witness with respect to being paid? A. We have a clerk there. But it is a courtesy, I do it when a witness leaves the stand, either to him directly [fol. 335] or through his counsel. Q. And did you walk over to the witness in the course of this hearing, and advise the witnesses, each, as he con- cluded his testimony, as to the mechanics for claiming his witness fee? A. I might well have, yes, sir. Q. Now, when you do that, your eyes are not focused on the audience, are they? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not there was a luncheon recess that day? A. Oh, I am sure there was. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Gojack testified before or after the luncheon recess? A. I think he testified before. Q. Now I want to show you—this is Government Exhibit 12. This is a record of the hearings. And I want to call your attention to the fact that the hearing was recessed at 1:15. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Hitz: Would you give the page number? Mr. Donner: Yes. Page 43. By Mr. Donner: Q. And after the recess, does it refresh your recoliection (fol. 336] now to read what happened? A. Yes. It was in the afternoon. Q. So are you prepared now to change your testimony? A. Yes, sir. The Court: He has said it did refresh his recollection, that it was in the afternoon. Mr. Donner: Yes. By Mr. Donner: Q. Now, what happens during the luncheon recess? Everybody leaves for lunch? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now when they come back, are there reserved seats in the caucus room? A. You know, Mr, Donner, they are n [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0284%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.