Mr. DOYLE. Would you please raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MATES. I do.

Mr. DOYLE. Will you be seated then.

Mr. POLLITT. Might we have no photographs during the testimony, please?

Mr. TAVENNER. That is the rule of the committee and it will be abided by.

Mr. DOYLE. The photographers always cooperate with us and desist taking pictures when we begin the testimony.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MATES, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, BASIL R. POLLITT

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name, please, sir?

Mr. MATES. David Mates, M-a-t-e-s.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. Would counsel please identify himself for the record?

Mr. POLLITT. David Scribner and Basil R. Pollitt, 11 East 55th Street, New York 22, N. Y.

Mr. TAVENNER. When and where were you born, Mr. Mates?

Mr. MATES. I was born in Vilna, Lithuania, April 13, 1907.
Mr. TAVENNER. When did you come to this country?

Mr. MATES. I was brought here at the age of 5.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you a naturalized American citizen?

Mr. MATES. I am a citizen by virtue of derivative citizenship, and my father having become a citizen shortly after his arrival in this country.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date on which your father was naturalized, and where?

Mr. MATES. He was naturalized in the city of New York, Federal district court, in 1918, I believe.

Mr. TAVENNER. Under what name was he naturalized?

Mr. MATES. Under the name of Metropolitan.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was his first name?

Mr. MATES. Morris.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then your name would have been Metropolitan unless you have changed it by law. Have you done so?

Mr. MATES. I have changed my name, I consider lawfully, and I have used the name for some 30 years, and married under that name, bore children under that name, and voted under that name.

Mr. TAVENNER. So you are generally known as David Mates? Mr. MATES. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have your name changed legally?

Mr. MATES. I was advised that under Illinois statutes, when a citizen resides in that State for 5 years and uses a name legally, that is recognized by Illinois law as the legitimate name.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have used the name of David Mates then since about 1925 ?

Mr. MATES. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly what your formal educational training has been?

Mr. MATES. Eight grades publie school.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you now reside?

Mr. MATES. I reside in the city of Detroit, Mich.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your occupation?

Mr. MATES. I am the international representative of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long have you been the international representative of the UE?

Mr. MATES. I have worked for the UE for some 12 years.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then what would be the approximate date when you first became international representative?

Mr. MATES. Well, I started as a field organizer in July of 1943. Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what your official positions have been with the UE from your first position?

Mr. MATES. I was field organizer since 1943; for about a year I was business agent of district council 9. That would be about 3 years ago. For the last 2 years or so I have been international representative. Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to 1943, how were you employed?

Mr. MATES. I was employed at the B. & G. Gage Co. as a machinetool operator.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long were you employed there?

Mr. MATES. Some 7 or 8 months.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you give the committee, please, your record of employment from 1930 up to the employment that you just mentioned?

Mr. MATES. That is quite a job, and I don't see how that relates to any legislative purpose, to go back some 25 or 30 years and remember all of the jobs that I had, or didn't have, and all of the periods of depression and unemployment.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was your employment in 1930?

Mr. MATES. I feel that the question is not a proper one and I will claim the privilege of the fifth amendment not to be a witness against myself.

Mr. SCHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question of counsel as to his employment in 1930.

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I think it goes to the point of identification of the witness, and I instruct the witness to answer the question.

(Witness conferred with counsel.)

Mr. MATES. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the answer is one that has no legislative purpose, and it is simply a violation of every basic right of the first amendment, and it is prying into the private life, and it has nothing to do with my activities in the UE, which in the sense of being discussed in this hearing, and on the basis of that I vote the right under the first amendment and the available right under the fifth not to be a witness against myself, and therefore, I decline to answer the question.

Mr. DOYLE. I instruct the witness again to answer, and in doing so, of course, the committee recognizes the right of a witness when he conscientiously believes to invoke his constitutional privilege.

But again, I wish to say, Mr. Mates, that we feel as a committee that. we always have the right to go into the question of identification of a witness, who he is, and where he has been, and what he has been doing. That, of course, goes in part to the question of the extent of the activities of the Communist Party, possibly in different fields of endeavor. What you were doing in 1930, and what work you

were

engaged in goes to the point of identification among other things, of your own activities during that period of time.

Mr. MATES. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that this committee, because the chairman of this very committee has made a public statement on the floor of Congress that he is out to destroy my union, an act or statement which I think is completely lawless and has no basis in law. in fact, in Public Act 601, and if there are any powers granted to this committee to break unions, I would like to be informed of that right. In view of the fact that members of this committee, and I have black and white statements, said that when they have a witness before them they can always go to the woodshed and get a big stick and get a man on perjury or contempt or both, I don't see why I should waive my constitutional rights and not use the fifth amendment, which is granted to protect people against testifying against themselves.

Mr. DOYLE. May I say to the witness that whatever statements you refer to as having read or heard being made by members of this committee, were not made by any member of the subcommittee that is here this morning. We are a subcommittee of a committee of Congress, and I can say very truthfully that I, as a member of this committee, and I am sure none of the members of this subcommittee, are out to break any union; we are to break up, though, if we can, any Communist Party controls or efforts to control either your union or any other union. That is in line with our legislative assignment.. That is, to find the activities or the extent of the activities of the Communist Party at any level of American life, whether it happens to be in the union of which you are international representative, or any other union. I wish you, sir, as one of the foremost leaders of American organized labor to get that distinction. I sort of feel that you have the distinction in mind, even though you made the statement that you did.

This committee is not out to break any union. It never has been.. We are out to find the extent to which subversive activities are present in any union, or in any level of American life.

Proceed Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. How were you employed in 1936?

Mr. MATES. For the same reason already stated, I decline to answer the question.

Mr. SCHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question as to the nature of his employment in 1936.

Mr. DOYLE. For the same reasons, I instruct the witness to answer the question.

Mr. MATES. As I indicated, while the Chair indicates this subcommittee has no intention of breaking my union or any other union, this committee did in fact act as a strikebreaker for the Square D management in 1954, which is the basis of this hearing, and I came to testify about the Square D strike and the extent of subversives, if any, and there was direct participation by this committee in the face of a strike supported by the entire labor movement of Detroit, including the UAW, and AFL, and everybody, and Kit Clardy, the defeated Member of Congress from this district, insisted it was a Communist-led strike, and a push-button strike, and you say you are not out to break unions.

For these reasons, I still invoke my right and privilege under the fifth amendment not to answer the question.

Mr. DOYLE. Of course, Mr. Mates, again it is my duty to simply state that this committee is never out to break a union, but we are out to break the Communist control of a union, or the ambition of the Communist Party to get control of a union. Now that you have made your talk on that point, let us proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Mates, you were subpenaed to appear before this committee on December 6, 1954, and your appearance was postponed for your convenience or for that of your counsel, and you were directed to appear on December 15. That was in 1954. But you failed to appear. What was the reason for your failure to appear? Mr. MATES. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I don't remember any December 15 date, but I have all of the correspondence. I have been under subpena for a long, long, time. My original subpena was issued by Mr. Harold Velde, November 19, 1953, requiring me to appear in the Federal Building in Detroit on January 23, 1954. I received a telegram telling me that the January 23 hearing was postponed and was set up for February 22.

I got a subsequent telegram dated February 23, telling me that the February 22 hearing was postponed to March 31.

I got another telegram telling me that the hearing was postponed from March 31 to May 5. I appeared on May 5, and at great harassment to my union set through three days of 5th, 6th, and 7th, in room 859, Federal Building, and I was never called.

Then on November 11, in a manner which I consider strictly illegal, and an invasion of my right as a citizen, a marshal entered a private hearing of an arbitration case involving the discharge of 27 employees by the Square D Co., and in the fact of the admonition of the impartial arbitrator, Gabriel N. Alexander, that this was a private meeting and was closed to the public, the marshal insisted on coming in and handing me this subpena, ordering me to appear on November 17 in the city of Washington at 9:30 a. m.

I called my general counsel, my counsel, Mr. Scribner, and told him about the subpena, and he said he was trying a Federal court case in the city of Washington and for me to get a hold of the chairman, Mr. Velde, and see if I could get a postponement.

Mr. TAVENNER. And the postponement was given you?

Mr. MATES. I don't know of my own knowledge. I called Mr. Velde in Washington and he wasn't here. I called him in Peoria, and when I couldn't get him I talked to some gentleman of the committee offices, and he said he would contact my counsel.

Subsequently, I did get these following telegrams from my counsel. Advised by committee your hearing set for Monday.

No, the first one was dated November 15, and said:

Advised by subcommittee representative that your appearance tentatively set for next Monday. But specific information will not be known before this WedLesday. Will check committee Wednesday morning and will advise you adjourned date.

Signed, "David Scribner."

Then on November 19, I received this wire:

Advised by committee your hearing set for Monday, December 6, at 10:30 a. m., in Washington.

DAVID SCRIBNER.

And that is the extent of my knowledge of the hearing.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then on December 1, 1954, you were wired that the hearing was being postponed from December 6 to December 15, and you had counsel appear here on December 15, but you were not here. Why weren't you here?

Mr. MATES. Just the one point, I did not receive a copy of the wire and I don't dispute the facts otherwise. I did not appear on December 15, if that be the date, for the reason that I was indisposed and was ill at home under a doctor's care, and my counsel was properly advised of the fact. He was asked to so advise this committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you first consult a physician with regard to your illness, because I understand that your physician sent a statement here regarding your condition of health?

Mr. MATES. I first consulted my family doctor on December 3, 1954. Mr. TAVENNER. What was his name?

Mr. MATES. His name is Dr. Eugene Shafarman.

Mr. SCHERER. Was that before or after you were subpenaed that you consulted your physician?

Mr. MATES. Mr. Scherer, I just told you I have been under a subpena practically 16 months, so obviously it was during the time I was under subpena.

Mr. SCHERER. I understood all of your explanations. My question is whether or not you consulted your doctor before or after you were subpenaed to appear here the last time.

Mr. MATES. I still don't get the question, and he asked me if I consulted a doctor after having received a subpena, and I told him I have been under subpena since December of 1953.

Mr. DOYLE. May I ask the reporter to read, please, Mr. Scherer's last question?

(Mr. Scherer's question read by reporter.)

Mr. MATES. As I recall, since I do not have the telegram for the final date, except the telegrams I gave, my answer would be that I consulted the doctor without knowing any specific date for a hearing. I consulted my doctor, as I testified here, on December 3, and at that time I was not aware of any definite date.

Mr. TAVENNER. You state you consulted your doctor on December 3. What was the next occasion on which you consulted him, if any, prior to December 15?

Mr. MATES. I was brought back the following day, December 4, for continued examination. I was given what they call a stigma, microscopic test, and I had to have a preliminary preparation the night before for it.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the next occasion on which you saw the doctor?

Mr. MATES. The next occasion was December 8, when I reported to find the findings of the various tests that he had made.

Mr. TAVENNER. In the meantime, what were you doing?

Mr. MATES. In the meantime I was confined to bed, as per orders of the doctor.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you see the doctor again after December 8? Mr. MATES. I saw him several times at my home.

Mr. TAVENNER. How often do you think?

Mr. MATES. I think the dates were December 13, 14, and 17, in that period.

Mr. TAVENNER. But you did not consult him after the 17th?