Mr. KOLOVETZ. I don't need one. What do I need a lawyer for? I am not ashamed of anything I did. I don't have to have anybody defend anything I did.

Mr. DOYLE. I have never talked with you and do not know what your answer will be of course, but because my boy fought for it I am also interested in knowing if there was an American flag in the Communist Party headquarters.

Mr. KOLOVETZ. Never.

Mr. DOYLE. Never?

Mr. KOLOVETZ. I have never seen one.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. DeAquino testified that they put up a Russian flag in the Communist Party headquarters. Did you see that same Russian flag in Communist Party headquarters?

Mr. KOLOVETZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOYLE. Here in Newark?

Mr. KOLOVETZ. I also saw a picture of President Roosevelt hanging near the latrine. I have seen Lenin's and Stalin's picture at headquarters hanging right in the meeting room.

Mr. DOYLE. In other words, the picture of Stalin of Russia was given the favorite place in the Communist Party headquarters. Mr. KOLOVETZ. Över our President.

Mr. DOYLE. And the picture of that great American, Franklin D. Roosevelt was put as close as it could be to the gentlemen's latrine? Mr. KOLOVETZ. That is right.

Mr. DOYLE. That is in keeping with the Communist Party philosophy because I heard and you heard one of their present UE leaders typify this Government as a tyranny yesterday.

I want to thank you, too, sir, and wish you and wish your family well and extend you the congratulations and appreciation of all of the House of Representatives because I know that when we report your cooperation they would also like to thank you if they could. I do it in their behalf.

The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I recall Mr. DeAquino for 1 or 2 questions?

Mr. DOYLE. While Mr. DeAquino is coming. I want to renew the same offer and invitation I made when Mr. DeAquino left the stand, and while he was in the courtroom. I again renew my offer to you UE leaders, former UE leaders or any one present in the courtroom if you want to take the stand and deny under oath the testimony of either of these two gentlemen and submit to questioning by the committee, rise and give us your name. In fact, we will stay in during the noon hour to hear you. We won't even go to lunch, so that you will not lose time.

Mr. SCHERER. Under the rules of the committee anyone who wants to dispute any testimony given before this committee or any one who feels he has been harmed has the right to come before this committee, and ask for an opportunity to explain, deny, or affirm any testimony given. Of all of the thousands of identifications made by witnesses before this committee how many have taken advantage of these provisions in the rules or such offers as made by Mr. Doyle? Mr. TAVENNER. I believe maybe 1 or 2.

Mr. SCHERER. I would say 3 or 4 and I know 1 or 2 have been sent to the Department of Justice for determination as to perjury.

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DeAQUINO-Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. DeAquino, can you recall any instances when money belonging to the local union was used for Communist Party things which it was endeavoring to get your union to use?

Mr. DEAQUINO. I am glad you brought it up because evidently a lot of people don't understand some of the ways that they actually take up the collections.

As I said before, most of these donations and collections supposed to be taken up for any specific person they desired to do so for, were actually taken up, first it was brought up in the party. Like, for instance I will give you a real highlight of what I mean.

For instance, the trouble that Eisler-his first name was Gerhardt. I think in the party they resent it very much because the United States Government was chasing after him whereby he-I don't know, he sneaked out of the country somehow-I know he wasn't deported. But whatever that was, something happened to that effect. They drew a big rally in Newark and from the Communist Party they actually endeavored to get as much money as possible to actually furnish him, furnish counsel for him and everything else and things of that nature.

Does that answer your question?

Lots-if it was first any collection that was supposed to be taken for any specific purpose whatsoever and any of the ones that were actually drafted up from the Communist Party were for people who had some Communist affiliation or some way or another had been or still are Commies.

Mr. TAVENNER. How were the collections taken by the Communist Party?

Mr. DEAQUINO. It would come to stewards council and executive board of the union and from there would be to the membership where these guys would ballyhoo this thing up that poor Eisler was going to get killed in this country, that more or less the people in this country were dragging him all over the streets and he had to have all kinds of funds to protect him, a place to live, something to eat, give him money to live on. They created hysteria on everything that had to be done on anything to be done to help any Communist cause.

Mr. TAVENNER. When the matter was taken to the rank and file members were they asked to contribute individually, take it out of their own pocket?

Mr. DEAQUINO. Sure, a lot of them was asked individually and they would go to the executive board and ask for a special donation that would come out of the union funds.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is what I wanted to find out. Was money paid out of the union funds also for that purpose ?

Mr. DEAQUINO. Definitely. Money was paid out of that union fund for a lot of things. I would like to say this: In conjunction with Gerhardt Eisler I recall another instance.

A gentleman by the name of Marzani got in trouble with the United States Government and they poured a lot of money into that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who put a lot of money into that?

Mr. DEAQUINO. The Communist Party played that up big-they actually got people to donate money right from within the Communist Party down into the rank and file member of each UE local.

Mr. SCHERER. Wasn't Marzani one of the Communists who infiltrated Government agencies?

Mr. TAVENNER. He was tried on the charge of perjury and convicted.

Mr. SCHERER. He was convicted because he denied he had been a member of the Communist Party while a Government employee. So Communist infiltration not only takes place in the labor unions but also in the Government.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were any of the union funds used for that particular purpose?

Mr. DEAQUINO. Well, as I said before, they would come before the executive board and make a special plea for additional $200 for that purpose or $300 or $500 or $600 or any amount of dollars. In other words, in order to find out more about that I imagine I would have to get certain records to find out whether or not whatever I am telling you is the truth.

But I do know for a positive fact they would make a plea before the stewards council, the membership for Eisler or Marzani and they did it for the Trenton Six. In fact, the Trenton Six practically bankrupted the union members. The guys were getting so used to the Trenton Six when they saw one of us trying to collect money for them some of the people resented it so much they refused to give after that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Members of the union paying the money out of their own pockets is one thing. They had a right to do that. We would like to know if money was taken from the treasury of the local's fund for causes of that kind?

Mr. DEAQUINO. Let me say this, Mr. Tavenner. None of us had access to the union treasury. Even after and more or less in any treasury I don't care what organization you belong to unless it is an honestly run organization by honest-to-goodness people, where there is money in the treasury, for any sum of money when they actually tabulate the report of expenses and things of that nature, they have in it so many miscellaneous uses without anybody asking as to what miscellaneous cost was.

You understand what I mean and how much those miscellaneous uses actually amount to by item. They could jack up the miscellaneous cost to any amount and could divide it and give some to Marzani, some to Eisler, some to the Communist Party and some to anybody because we weren't there every minute of the day.

If they had been honest with the people instead of telling them the awful things they do say, and the way they slander the people and the way they do a character assassination job on the people, don't you think they would actually stoop down to dig into the pot of gold to fill their own needs? They certainly would.

Mr. TAVENNER. I want to be sure that the record is clear. Do you personally know that the union funds were used for such purposes? Mr. DEAQUINO. Yes. They were used.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is the basis for your knowledge? How do

you know?

Mr. DEAQUINO. The reason for it is this: I know for a positive fact where there is some statements that can actually prove where a good deal of the union treasury went to. I know that I sat in many executive board meetings where they made appeals to the executive board to be recommended to the membership to allow the officers of the union and the financial treasurer to actually make an additional donation to the Eisler committee or to the Kuschner committee or to the Marzani committee and right down the line, but they wouldn'tonce I asked that question and they told me, "Sit down, we will talk to you later about this." I asked them why they couldn't take up some benefit or collection for Marzani shop by shop, or Cardinal Mindszenty, held a captive in Russia because of the fact they claimed he was for sabotage purposes or spying. They told me they don't engage in religious stuff like that, that Catholic faith would take care of him and he soon would be free.

He didn't get free until just lately, I think if he ain't dead. They wouldn't help everybody. They only helped the people they wanted to help. And you have to come from the Communist Party or be a strong sympathizer to get anything from them.

Mr. TAVENNER. You stated you have information which would substantiate what you have told us about use of local funds for Communist purposes. Is that information in the form of checks?

Mr. DEAQUINO. Yes, we have some

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you give the staff the information as to where those checks are?

Mr. DEAQUINO. I sure will.

Mr. TAVENNER. Not in the open session.

Mr. DEAQUINO. You don't want to know now?

Mr. TAVENNER. No. Will you make that information available to the staff?

Mr. DEAQUINO. I will make it available to anybody. I guess that would be the thing we mostly need in order to substantiate what I say. Mr. DOYLE. Have you been offered, promised, or paid any money to testify before this committee?

Mr. DEAQUINO. No. This is a fight between me and them for years. Nobody could buy this junk. This has to come to a real showdown. Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION, MAY 18, 1955

Mr. DOYLE. Let the committee be in order, and let the record show that a quorum of the subcommittee is present, Representative Scherer of Ohio, and Representative Doyle of California, chairman.

This noon there was handed to me a copy of the American Bar Journal for April 1955, volume 41, No. 4, and beginning on page 307, is a very interesting treatise by John F. O'Connor of the New York bar, and the subject is the "Fifth Amendment, Should a Good Friend Be Abused?" I will not have time to read it all.

However, I want to read several pertinent paragraphs beginning at page 307:

The right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination in the course of congressional investigations as well as in judicial proceedings is sanctioned by long usage and direct decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Its preservation should not be jeopardized either by permitting its assertion by those who claim it under admittedly false pretenses or by permitting those who rightfully use it to deny the obvious consequences of their acts. It is doubtful whether the privilege against self-incrimination has ever been so much more abused as it is currently by those who assert it under oath that to state whether or not they are Communist would tend to incriminate them, and yet the demand that the public accept their statements not under oath that they are not Communists.

A very practical problem is raised as to whether such abuse is not encouraged by those who would accept such inconsistent statements permitting those who make them to retain positions for which it is generally recognized that Communists or perjurers are not qualified.

Somewhere not in the center of the controversy over this problem lies the question of whether under the Smith Act and the Internal Security Act of 1950 membership in the Communist Party is or is not an incriminating factor. If, as the Smith Act provides, it is a criminal act to advocate the overthrow by unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States, why is it not a crime per se and the Internal Security Act says it is not, to be an officer or a member of a party which the Subversive Activities Control Board has found to advocate such overthrow?

That is all I will take time to read. I thought it would be pertinent to put it into the record for the guidance of Congress and also for the information of members of the bar who are here in the court room.

May I again remind members of the bar who appear with their witnesses this afternoon our rules prohibit any counsel for a witness putting words in the mouth of the witness. It limits the right of counsel to appear with his client before this committee and to advise him of his constitutional rights.

I hope that it will not be necessary for the Chair to hear any lawyer this afternoon or tomorrow advising his client except on the question of the client's constitutional rights. It is very embarrassing sometimes to find a lawyer putting the very testimony in the mouth of his client, and naturally as a lawyer I dislike very much to say that I have heard what the lawyer is telling his client, which violates the rules of the committee, and yet we sit so close to the witness table here that we can hear almost everything that is said.

I am telling the lawyers in the room that because we don't want to hear what you tell your client. But we do ask you to strictly observe the rules of the committee.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, before I call the first witness I would like to make a statement at this time for the benefit of the record and the committee.

The witness, Mr. Anthony DeAquino, who was on the witness stand just before the close of the morning session, identified a person by the name of Anthony Zinna, Z-i-n-n-a, as having been a member of this same group of the Communist Party of which he was a member while a member of local 447 of the UE. He made reference to the fact that Mr. Zinna was currently employed in some department of the city government as an employee. I think the only fair thing is to state as a matter of public record at this time that since the staff has been work