Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it was the intention of the staff to produce for testimony this morning a person who is presently serving in the conspiracy as an undercover agent. In view of the combination of circumstances, including the seriousness of the operation, itself, by the process of communication with that person we have decided to defer that testimony. Whether it will come at all during this particular hearing, we are not prepared to say. We, therefore, are proposing to proceed by having identifications made of certain intraparty documents, then having the significance of those documents interpreted by Mrs. Hartle. Then we expect to interrogate certain of the persons who are involved in the pattern of activity revealed by these documents. Then, this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we expect to have at least one friendly witness who has broken from the conspiracy-whose break, incidentally, is known by the conspiracy-to testify and to proceed interrogating other persons respecting the general subject matter. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your approval, we should like to request that Mr. William Wheeler, of the staff, resume the witness chair. He was sworn yesterday. I would like for him to identify certain documents. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. WHEELER-Resumed Mr. ARENS. Mr. Wheeler, you were sworn yesterday? Mr. ARENS. And you identified yourself yesterday on this record as an investigator for the Committee on Un-American Activities! Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. Mr. ARENS. And you gave us your background and experience in this field; is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. Correct, sir. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Wheeler, yesterday you introduced documents which you had acquired in the course of your official duties as an investigator of this committee, certain documents from unimpeachable intelligence sources revealing a course of activity in the recent past within the conspiratorial operation in California. Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. Mr. ARENS. Would you kindly proceed with identification and 3 brief summary description of the documents which were introduced yesterday as Committee Exhibit No. 28? (See App., p. 2330.) Mr. WHEELER. This particular document relates to an intertight in the Communist Party of San Francisco. It refers particularly to the petion known as the AFL Section, American Federation of Labor. This section was composed of members of the Communist Party who were also members of the AFL; the AFL Section of the Communist Party here evidently thought they were entitled to a little Freesproston, to formulate their own policy. The idea they had didn't set well with their leadership of the party in this min, that is, the county committee of the Communist Ey of this Northern District of California, in San Francisco. The position for free expression led to the expulsion of the organof Hoc APT. 24potion, a man by the name of Vern Bown. As a result of his expulsion, the AFL Section was disbanded also and thrown out of the party. In November of last year Mr. ARENS. Mr. Wheeler, so this record may be clear, the AFL as a labor entity, and particularly the head of the AFL, George Meany, are strongly, adamantly, anti-Communist; is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. That is correct, sir. Mr. ARENS. You are speaking now of documents revealing an attempt by the Communists in California to penetrate that organization? Mr. WHEELER. That is correct; yes, sir. In November 1959, the section committee of the AFL Section prepared a document which was presented to the National Convention, CPUSA, New York City, in which they outlined the difficulties they were having with the leadership in northern California. This document appealed to the National Committee, CPUSA, to reestablish the AFL Section, to come to San Francisco and investigate the expulsion of Vern Bown and the disbanding of the section. Nothing was done concerning this at all. The section is still out of the Communist Party, and Mr. Bown is still expelled, as far as we know, at this time. The second section of this document is a report made by the section organizer of the AFL Section in 1959, Mr. Vern Bown. In this document, he outlines the progress of the AFL Section and also claims that they were following the Communist Party line and its objectives and is very disturbed about the expulsion. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Wheeler, will you hesitate there and let me make a statement for the record. You tell me whether or not it is correct. I am trying to interpret what you are saying so that the record will be absolutely clear as to these documents that are before you. The first document you have there is a report, is it not, to the National Committee of the Communist Party, in which the author of the report is complaining to the National Committee of the Communist Party respecting the expulsion from the Communist Party of certain comrades? Is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. Of one comrade. Mr. ARENS. Of one comrade. Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. Mr. ARENS. The second section of the report or of the document which you have, which you have identified, is a report of a section leader of the Communist faction within the AFL in California? Mr. WHEELER. No, the second section is a report of the AFL Section Organizer, Mr. Vern Bown, to a meeting of the party's AFL Section in San Francisco in 1959; the report was also submitted to the party's Executive Committee for the Northern California District. He outlines the progress made by the AFL Section under his direction. Mr. ARENS. When you speak of the AFL Section, you are speaking of a section of the conspiracy which had penetrated the AFL activities; is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. That is correct. Mr. ARENS. Now, tell us what is the third segment of your report. Mr. WHEELER. The third segment is the report made by the section organizer of the AFL Section for the year 1958, Leibel Bergman. All these documents were presented to the National Committee, CPUSA, with an appeal that they come to San Francisco and investigate the reason why Mr. Bown was expelled and the AFL Section disbanded. Mr. ARENS. Does the initial report there, in which the author is complaining to the National Committee respecting the expulsion of one of the comrades who was a leader in the AFL Section of the party does that report complain as to the processes and procedures used by the Communist Party of California as a prerequisite to the expulsion itself? Mr. WHEELER. It certainly does. It is very revealing,. Mr. ARENS. Does the report compare the procedures of the comrades in expelling a comrade to police state methods? Mr. WHEELER. It certainly does. Mr. ARENS. In other words, does the report reveal the comrades in their own trial proceedings hardly follow the patterns of fair play and justice? Mr. WHEELER. That is right. He is entitled to no representation. He is entitled to no witnesses. In fact, they said that the Communist Party cell has conducted trials worse than our Government in Smith Act cases. Mr. ARENS. In other words, that report reveals a Communist complaining to the National Committee that the Communist Party, itself, in the expulsion proceedings of other comrades uses methods which the comrade compares to the Smith Act cases which the party has been complaining about ever since the Government has been trying to imprison the traitors of this country; is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. That is right. They claim that this trial was worse than the Smith Act cases; that the Communists themselves had more freedom of expression and degree of defense in the Smith Act cases than they, themselves, have in their internal Mr. ARENS. Indirectly, then, the comrade is complimenting the Government of the United States on the fair play of our judicial system; is that correct? Mr. WHEELER. Well, I don't know whether they are complimenting or not, Mr. Arens. Mr. ARENS. Is the record clear, Mr. Wheeler, that you have procured these documents which you have in your hand from unimpeachable sources? Mr. WHEELER. That is true. Mr. ARENS. Of known reliability, intelligence sources. Mr. WHEELER. It came from internally, within the Communist Party. I might add one thing. In this complaint-it sets forth a lot of them, which I know Mrs. Hartle is going into it says: All members of the Section are forbidden to associate with the Organizer in any official capacity. Mr. ARENS. In other words, the Communist Party is directing the comrades to not have certain associations? Mr. WHEELER. Not to have any. Mr. ARENS. All right, sir. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that for a few moments, based on her background and experience in the hard-core conspiracy, Mrs. Barbara Hartle resume the stand to give us a word of interpretation of the significance of these documents. TESTIMONY OF BARBARA HARTLE-Resumed Mr. WILLIS. Mrs. Hartle has already been sworn. Mr. ARENS. Mrs. Hartle, in the recent past you have studied the documents, or at least the copies of the documents which Mr. Wheeler has just identified in this record; is that correct? Mrs. HARTLE. Yes. Mr. ARENS. Would you kindly, at your own pace, in an abbreviated form, please, so that we do not consume an undue amount of time, give us a summary of the significance of these documents, and an interpretation of the meaning of these documents, based upon your background and experience in the conspiracy? Mrs. HARTLE. After studying these documents it was pretty clear to me what had happened in the Communist Party here in California, because I had gone through a number of such events in the Communist Party in my long membership in it, and understood it quite easily. What happened was that a leader of a section came into some disagreement with the county and higher leadership. Instead of being able to express his disagreement, the county leadership or the State leadership, probably both in this case, decided that he had to be eliminated, removed--that he wasn't tractable enough for the discipline of the party organization. The comrade in question, apparently, decided to rely on the constitution of the Communist Party, which formally, at least, gives certain hints that there is some democracy in the party, and relied on it, and found to his chagrin, no doubt, that he should never have tried to win his case that way. What happened was that he took the matter to his section and to his club, and he took the stand that if his club approved of him and if his section membership and committee approved of him, and elected him, and there was nothing seriously wrong with him and he showed very well in the report, how well the section had done under his leadership-it had grown, engaged in a lot of activity, and while he didn't brag about it he did think they had done very well-and the section thought so, too, because one document says it comes from the whole section, but that, of course, made no hay with the county or state leadership, apparently, because he says what kind of a situation is it when the state committee leaders go around making speeches that are really charges against him and dignify them with the term "state committee report," or "district committee report." He is pointing out how the technique works, when the top leadership wants to get rid of somebody under their thumb, or straighten them out, their statements and their reports and their activities are fully legal, and they are perfectly all right. But if a subordinate starts disagreeing, then he has to be very careful about what methods he tries to use to justify his disagreement, and everything will be jumped on. Of course, once the leadership has decided to oust the person, it doesn't make much difference what he does or says. In plain words, they will frame him, finally, and they will just oust him, which they did in this case, and apparently did with the section. |