Mr. DOYLE. Yes; any person or group of persons that has as part of its program or propaganda the forceful overthrow or teaching of forceful overthrow by force and violence of our form of govern ment Miss JACOBS. No; I do not. Mr. DOYLE. Well, I have not finished my question-When it suits their convenience. Have you any knowledge on your part of any such propaganda activities? Miss JACOBS. No; I do not. Mr. DOYLE. Have you ever attended a Communist Party meeting? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question under the terms of the fifth amendment. Mr. DOYLE. Have you ever heard that subject discussed at any Communist Party meeting, or any Communist cell meeting? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. Mr. DOYLE. Did you ever discuss it with any other citizen of the United States; that subject? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. DOYLE. Well, if you had not discussed it with some other person, you would say no, would you not? How could it incriminate you if your answer was no if it was a truthful answer? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Scherer, of Ohio. Mr. SCHERER. Miss Witness, while you were in Dayton did you know Charles H. Markham? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer whether she knew Charles H. Markham, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question propounded by Mr. Scherer. Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. How long have you known David Mates? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question as to how long she knew David Mates. Mr. MOULDER. The Chair so directs the witness to answer the question. Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. Do you know where he is today? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer that question. Mr. MOULDER. The witness is so directed. Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question. Mr. SCHERER. Is it not a fact that you dined with him in St. Louis last week? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. You know that he is avoiding a subpena by this committee, do you not? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer the question on the same grounds. Mr. SCHERER. I have just 1 or 2 observations to make, Mr. Chairman, before we dismiss this witness. Recalling the Dayton hearings, a witness by the name of Arthur Paul Strunk testified at length. Strunk was a former member of the Communist Party, and during the time that he was a member of the Communist Party he was an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now this morning, the counsel for the committee read from Mr. Strunk's testimony. He read that part of Mr. Strunk's testimony which referred to you and your activities in the Communist Party, and to your other activities within the union. You did not deny that testimony, and in fact you refused to answer all questions with reference to Mr. Strunk, basing your refusal on the fifth amendment. Mr. Strunk is referred to by you Communists as an informer. I have before me an article appearing in the April 10 issue of the Nation. This article is entitled "The Informer" and it is written by your counsel, Mr. Frank J. Donner. In this article I might say it is one of the worst distortions that I have ever seen, full of half-truths and misrepresentations, and I am going to proceed to prove that in a few minutes. In that article there is a vicious attack upon those individuals which the author refers to as informers, such individuals as Mr. Strunk. I am wondering, after he counseled you with reference to your testimony today, whether or not he will write within a short time another similar article attacking Mr. Strunk as witnesses similar to Mr. Strunk were attacked in this article. I particularly refer to the attack that is made upon Leonard Patterson, who testified against another client of Mr. Donner's before this committee some time ago. That client was the Rev. Jack McMichael. The article to which I referred was published after the testimony of Reverend McMichael, before the committee. As I said, Leonard Patterson was one of the witnesses who testified with reference to his client, and he proceeds in this article to attempt to discredit Leonard Patterson, whom he refers to as one of these informers. It is under the heading of "How the Clergy Case was Fabricated." Of course, he infers that it was fabricated with the help of this committee. I read from the article: Another witness was Leonard Patterson, who identified the Rev. Jack McMichael as having been a member of the New York District of the Young Communist League in 1934 and 1935, although in fact, McMichael was enrolled at that time as a freshman at the University in Georgia, Emery University. That paragraph is written, I suppose, in an effort to further discredit Patterson, and to prove that he lied. Now, the testimony-and I have the McMichael testimony-shows very clearly that Reverend McMichael did not deny that he was in New York in the year of 1934 and 1935, and this article does not point out at the conclusion of Reverend McMichael's testimony that it was referred by this committee, by unanimous vote to the Department of Justice for possible perjury prosecution. Now, you get some idea of what I mean by the distortions that appear in such articles as this. I might make this further observation: As I say, the particular paragraph that I read appears under the heading of "How the Clergy Case was Fabricated," and I make this further observation. It was Leonard Patterson who testified that during the time he was active the Communist Party in New York that two young ministers were *nt or came from Union Theological Seminary in New York down to Baltimore and received assignments for work in the Communist Party. He did not remember at that time the names of those two individuals, but subsequent investigation by the staff of this committee determined who those two individuals were. Those two individuals were subpenaed before this committee. One minister admitted that the testimony of Patterson was true: and the other one, not knowing that the other minister had admitted it in executive session, came before this committee and perjured himself. The other minister's testimony was again unanimously referred by this committee to the Department of Justice for perjury prosecution, and the perjury in that case was obvious. There was additional testimony to substantiate the testimony of the first minister. I point out in this attack on Patterson the article does not mention anything about Patterson's testimony in the Novak case, or the Hutchinson case, and the results of those cases. That is all I have to say. Mr. MOULDER. Miss Jacobs, I wish to make one very brief comment. Some accusation has been made and I have read in some newspaper articles where these hearings have been referred to as an effort on the part of the Committee on Un-American Activities to break or bust unions. In defense of all of the members of the committee, including myself, I wish to say that there certainly is no desire on our part to interfere with any union functions or to bust or to break or destroy any labor union. Mr. SCHERER. Except to help them relieve themselves of Communist domination. Miss JACOBS. I am afraid it is having that effect in our election. Mr. MOULDER. My record as well as other members of the committee has been in support of organized labor throughout our careers in Congress. No one believes stronger in organized labor than I do, although I do not represent what you would call a labor-dominated congressional district. But it is our intention and purpose to point out to the public, as well as union members, Communist domination or Communist activities in such unions wherever it may exist. I believe that the public as well as the labor members should be informed of that, because everyone knows that communism will eventually destroy organized labor if it gains control of organized labor. Therefore, I wish to ask you just one or two questions. Assuming that the so-called Communist Party, or the Communist movement is an international conspiracy to dominate the world, as well as our own Government, and particularly their activities or efforts within such labor organizations as you have been employed by, assuming that to be a fact what is your opinion? Do you believe in, or do you approve of known Communists dominating the labor union by which you are employed? Let us take the UE for an example. You are employed by the UE, I understand? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. Is it your opinion, and I am asking you for your opinion, do you approve of the election of Communist officials to dominate and control the affairs and functions of that labor organization? Miss JACOBS. I can't speak for any other union. I can speak for our own. And that is I believe that our union should be run by the rank and file membership. Mr. MOULDER. Do you approve of the election of Communist officers to control the affairs and functions of the union? (Witness conferred with counsel.) Miss JACOBS. No, I believe like I say; I think unions should be run by the rank-and-file membership. Mr. MOULDER. If you know of any Communist who has been elected or in control of the UE, or that is actively employed by and in charge of the affairs and functions of the UE, why do you then refuse to inform this committee of that fact, if it is a fact? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question. Mr. MOULDER. Counsel has a question to ask you. Mr. TAVENNER. The question as presented to you was whether or not you approve of the election to offices in your organization of persons who are members of the Communist Party for the purpose of controlling the affairs of your union. Now, may I limit that question this way by asking you whether or not you advocate the election of anyone to an office in your union who is a member of the Communist Party? (Witness conferred with counsel.) Miss JACOBS. Would you please repeat that question. (Question read by the reporter as above recorded.) Miss JACOBS. I don't believe so. Mr. TAVENNER. Are there any officers in your union, known to you to be members of the Communist Party? Miss JACOBS. Well, I think our union, like all unions which use the Taft-Hartley Board, has signed the non-Communist affidavits. Mr. TAVENNER. Will you answer the question, please? That is not an answer to it. Miss JACOBS. Please repeat it. Mr.TAVENNER. Please read the question. (Question read by the reporter as above recorded.) (Witness conferred with counsel.) Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment. Mr. TAVENNER. I have noticed that one or two of the communications which were presented to you in the course of your testimony were addressed to you as "Sister Julia." I notice, also, that you referred to Mr. Gojack as Brother Gojack. Are those the terms of salutation that are customarily used in union work, in union activity? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. TAVENNER. You never referred to them as Comrade Julia, or Comrade Gojack? Miss JACOBS. No. Mr. TAVENNER. You never do that, do you? Miss JACOBS. No, the term we used is "Brother" and "Sister." Mr. MOULDER. I have just one question in continuation of what Mr. Tavenner said. You said that you would not vote for a candidate for an official position in your union if he was known to be a Com munist to you. I understand you said “I don't believe so"; is that correct? Miss JACOBS. No, I don't think that was the question as I recall. Mr. MOULDER. Do you, or have you voted for anyone who was a member of the Communist Party, as a candidate for an official position in your union? Miss JACOBS. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. (Representative Francis E. Walter entered the room.) Mr. MOULDER. Now, I do not want to interrogate you on this subject, in an attempt to persuade you to divulge any communications or conferences that you have had with your counsel, as a privileged communication; but now as I understand, your attorney, Mr. Donner, resides in New York? Mr. DONNER. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. I am asking the witness. Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. Do you reside in Fort Wayne? Miss JACOBS. I live in St. Joseph, Mich. Mr. MOULDER. Approximately how far is St. Joseph, Mich., from New York? Miss JACOBS. I don't really know; perhaps 900 to 1,000 miles. Mr. MOULDER. In St. Joseph, Mich., they have many attorneys, do they not, who are engaged in the practice of law there? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. But you have the right, of course, and the privilege, to select and employ any attorney you wish to appear here with you in proceedings before this committee. May I ask you where you first met Mr. Donner? (The witness conferred with counsel.) Miss JACOBS. I met him here in Washington. Mr. MOULDER. For the first time? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. This week? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. After you were subpenaed to appear before this committee, did you consult or confer with anyone in St. Joseph as to what action you should take with reference to your appearance here as a witness? Miss JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MOULDER. Not one person? Miss JACOBS. No, I didn't consult with anybody. Mr. MOULDER. Nor discuss? Miss JACOBS. I had conversation with members here and there, but I did not consult with anyone until I saw him. Mr. MOULDER. You did not consult with anyone on the subject of your appearance here before the committee? Miss JACOBS. No. Mr. MOULDER. Then how, and why, did you happen then to employ Mr. Donner, if you met him for the first time this week-If you had not consulted or conferred with someone there in St. Joseph? Miss JACOBS. Well, I did not consult with anyone, but in discussing it with the union, it was handling the thing, and they hired Mr. Donner to handle my case, and Mr. Gojack's case, and Mr. Cover's case as well. |