This information came to me through official channels.

The CHAIRMAN. This is an official record? Chief PARKER. That is correct, sir. The report on Wilkinson, dated January 31, 1952, is entitled:

"Wilkinson, Frank B. Wife: Jean Benson Wilkinson. 2019 Rodney Drive, Los Angeles, Calif.

"Former addresses: 5219 Denny Avenue, North Hollywood; 12471 Chandler, North Hollywood; 11327 Kiel St., Los Angeles; 2351 Edgewater Terrace, Los Angeles; 1319 Via Portola, Los Angeles; 300 South Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills.

"Above subject is director of information for the Los Angeles Housing Authority.

"He was born in Michigan. He attended Beverly Hills High from 1928 to 1932; UCLA from 1932 to 1936, majoring in political science, and received his B. A. degree on June 19, 1936. While a student at UCLA, subject was an active member of the American Students Union, a Communist organized and controlled student organization, and at an ASU meeting on April 25, 1936, he and another student, Gilbert Harrison, made a peace action report to the meeting.

"On May 7, 1943, subject attended the Communist Workers School class held at the First Unitarian Church, 2938 West Eighth Street. (Note. This was a Communist school. Communist and front organizations hold meetings regularly at the Unitarian Church. Former pastor was Reverend Caldecott; present pastor is Rev. Stephen Fritchman, member of and very active in Communist-front organizations.)

"On August 28, 1943, subject attended a People's World Party, 2400 Hidalgo Avenue, Los Angeles.

"Subject was a contributor to the American Youth for Democracy. (Note.-Successor to the Young Communist League from 1943 to 1949.)

"On October 26, 1946, subject endorsed an organizational conference of the Congress of American Women (CP front organization) held at the Friday Morning Club." Mr. MCKENNA. IS CP, Communist Party? Chief PARKER. Yes. It is abbreviated. "In 1947 subject was a member of the board of directors of the Council for Civic Unity, a non-Communist but heavily CP infiltrated organization. In 1947 subject was on the mailing list of the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist defense organization.

"In 1947 (February) subject was the principal speaker at a meeting of the Committee of One Thousand Home Buyers, also known as the Veterans Home Buyers Association, held in Los Angeles High School auditorium. These organizations were organized and controlled by the Communist Party. The chairman was Harper W. Poulson, Communist Party, Los Angeles County section; Byron V. Citron, vice chairman; Sam Houston Allen, attorney, law firm of Allen & Steinmetz, both named numerous times as active members of the Communist Party.

"On March 6, 1947, subject was a speaker at a meeting of the United Negro and Allied Veterans, held at 4016 South Central Avenue. Other speakers were Karen Morley, Frances Williams (both members of the Communist Party; Karen Morley is at the present time out of the city, as Federal investigators are attempting to serve her with a subpena for testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee).

"In November 1945 subject was a principal speaker at the Downtown Forum, 2153⁄4 South Spring Street. This forum was organized and controlled by the Communist Party. Weekly meetings were held at the above address.

"Subject was one of the principal speakers at a meeting of the Congress of American Women (a Communist front) held August 14, 1948, at the Alexandria Hotel. Speakers were Peal Fagelson, Virginia Brodine, Frances Williamson, and William B. Esterman, all members of the Communist Party.

"Subject was a delegate to the Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth held at Pepperdine College on September 16, 1950. (NOTE.-This was not a Communist organized conference. The local Communists emphasized the election of delegates to participate in this conference. During the conference, and afterward, Communist functionaries boasted that they had controlled the conference almost in its entirety.)

"Subject attended a meeting sponsored by the Independent Progressive Party and the California Labor School at the home of Beatrice and Stanley Johnson, 10763 Valleyheart Drive, North Hollywood, November 2, 1950. Subject was accompanied by his wife Jean.

"Subject has been an active member of the Communist Party, Los Angeles County section, for many years. He has been assigned to various clubs and is presently a member of the Altgeld Club of the Communist Party. (NOTE.-The Altgeld Clubs are primarily for members employed in or by the Federal Government, State, county, or municipal governments. They are exceptionally cozy clubs. The purpose of this is to protect the Communist Party members.)

"Subject's wife, Jean Benson Wilkinson, is a teacher with the Los Angeles Board of Education and is teaching at the East Los Angeles Girls Vocational High School. Subject joined the Communist Party in 1941; at that time she was a member of the AFL Teachers Local 430. (NOTE. The charter of this local was revoked by the National AFL Council because of Communist leadership in the union.)"

That is the end of the report.

Mr. MCKENNA. Chief, did you also have and at that time furnish reports similar in nature with respect to Adena Williamson? Chief PARKER. I did.

Mr. MCKENNA. And in respect to Sidney Green?

Chief PARKER. I did.

Mr. MCKENNA. What was the nature of those indications?

Chief PARKER. That there was an attempt being made to attempt to locate the undercover operator involved in their meetings and activities.

Mr. MCKENNA. In other words, the source of these reports which had been passed on to the housing authority?

Chief PARKER. That is correct.

Mr. MCKENNA. Were any complaints about any reports or matter originated by the police force filed or made to any of your superiors during the ensuing months by any person in the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles?

Chief PARKER. Not my direct knowledge, but I was informed that Frank Wilkinson was very critical of a report I submitted to the city administrative officer regarding the cost of policing public housing.

Mr. MCKENNA. That complaint was made to one of your superiors?

Chief PARKER. That is my understanding. Mr. MCKENNA. Did you consider at that time that the Communists in the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles might have been attempting to find means and measures of getting even with you?

Chief PARKER. That would be a conclusion. Mr. MCKENNA. But you did have some indications that that was the case, without revealing your sources?

Chief PARKER. At that time I thought there was such a possibility.

The housing authority did not remove, suspend, or even restrict the activities of those alleged Communists until some 9 months later when widespread publicity and a State investigation, following the refusal of one of them on the stand in court to answer whether or not he was a Communist, forced these Communists out.

An important question then, so far as the Los Angeles Housing Authority, which manages tens of millions of dollars of United States Treasury money, is concerned was why these Communists were left in.

I am sure it was not the intention of those Members who voted for public housing-and I did not-that Communists decide which of our citizens should get the benefits of public housing. The head of the Los Angeles Housing Authority testified that Mayor Bowron did not make available to him the detailed information which Chief Parker said he gave to Mayor Bowron, but only a list of names.

Obviously it would be much more difficult for the Los Angeles Housing Authority to take action if it had only a list of names than if it had the very detailed information which Chief Parker said he gave to Mayor Bowron.

This is the testimony of Mr. Holtzendorff to the effect that Mayor Bowron gave him a list of names and nothing

more:

or

Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Holtzendorff, on about the first of February 1952, were you officially advised of the presence of about 10 members of the Communist Party whose names were given you and whose records were given you, in your organization?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. By whom?

Mr. MCKENNA. Were you so advised officially?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. I don't know.

I don't know what he refers to, Mr. Chairman..

Mr. MCKENNA. Were you so advised by the mayor of the city of Los Angeles?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. I was advised by the mayor on or about that date that certain names of people in the authority were suspected of being Communists.

Mr. MCKENNA. Was it a matter of suspicion, or were they reports that were given to you, the official reports of the city police force of the city of Los Angeles?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. I do not know the source of the mayor's information, Mr. McKenna, but he did give me information involving some 11 or 12 employees at about that time, which we promptly turned over to the State committee.

Mr. MCKENNA. But you took no action yourself as to these 11 or 12 employees? Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. We were in no position to take any action.

The CHAIRMAN. No, he didn't ask you that. He asked you whether you took any action. Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. My answer was that I turned the information over to the proper committee.

The CHAIRMAN. What you said was: "We were in no postiion," Mr. Holtzendorff, wasn't it?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. I said we turned it over to the State agency.

Mr. MCKENNA. What was the nature of your information, Mr. Holtzendorff?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. Our information just consisted of a list of names, and that's all. Mr. MCKENNA. Only a list of names? Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. A list of names, that is correct.

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. No.

Mr. MCKENNA. The detailed histories and lives of these people were not given to you? Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. No.

Mr. MCKENNA. A list of organizations to which they belonged, at the time they joined the party, and their activities in the Communist Party, was not such a list then given to you?

Mr. HOLTZENDORFF. No, sir. The names were given to me and I was told these particular people were suspected of being Communists.

When Mayor Bowron voluntarily took the stand then, even though he testified that he had nothing to offer regarding the issues before the committee, it was certainly in order to ask Mayor Bowron whether he had given to the Housing Authority the detailed information that Chief Parker said he gave to him or whether he, Mayor Bowron, had given Mr. Holtzendorff, the head of the Housing Authority, only the list of names as Mr. Holtzendorff has testified.

This is the testimony of Mayor Bowron:

Mayor BowRON. In, I assume, most governmental bodies there is a certain amount of infiltration of Communists. Early during the year of 1952, I think it was probably in February, Chief of Police Parker came to my office and handed me a confidential communication relating to certain individuals who were employed in the housing authority. Most of those names were not familiar to me at all.

I called the executive director, Mr. Holtzendorff, to my office. I said, "This is some information you should have." The document I considered as confidential. However, I read to him the names, and he said, "I have most of those names." I think there were 2 or 3 that he did not have. He made notations of those. He said that he would continue to make investigation as quickly as possible and with whatever facilities were available to him.

Therefore, on 1 or 2 occasions I asked him what the progress of inquiry was. He advised me that he had called these people in and had them, either himself or by others-I have forgotten which-had had them questioned. He stated that all of them had taken the loyalty oath, that is, the oath that is required by State law now in the constitution of the State of California for State employees.

Thereafter he told me that he had gone to the FBI with all the information he had and had given all of the information to the FBI, and had asked that if he would be given information that any of these men were Communists he would see they were discharged at once.

He was informed, so he told me, that that information was not available, but they would be very glad to receive any information that he had for the records. He also told me that a certain employee, whose name I do not know, I do not recall, went to the FBI and gave all of the information

The CHAIRMAN. You are getting into second-degree hearsay now. You are telling what Holtzendorff told you; aren't you? Mayor BowRON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And he told you what somebody else said?

Mayor BowRON. Yes; Yes; certainly. Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Mayor, did you give Mr. Holtzendorff anything more than a list of these names?

Mayor BowRON. No; I did not.

Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Mayor, wouldn't it have been impossible for the housing authority to intelligently question these persons if they

furnished you by the chief of police?

Mayor BowRON. There was no basic information further than, as I recall now, that

Obviously, either the testimony of Mayor Bowron or that of Mr. Holtzendorff, the head of the Los Angeles Hous

meetings.

The CHAIRMAN. Didn't the chief of police give you a statement of what he claimed the record was with reference to these people? Mayor BowRON. He gave me

The CHAIRMAN. Have you read his testimony or had an account of it in the papers? Mayor BowRON. No, I haven't seen an account of it.

The CHAIRMAN. What he gave you, as a matter of fact, was a statement of the record of these people wasn't it?

Mayor BowRON. He gave me a report to him.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he give you that-
Mayor BowRON. I said he gave me a report.
The CHAIRMAN. The report, if it was true,
showed they were Communists, didn't it?

Mayor BowRON. It might or might not.
Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Mayor, when we were

questioning the chief of police we asked him to give us one of these records that he said he handed over to you for the purpose of illustration in the record. One of them was of a man named Wilkinson. He read the record of Mr. Wilkinson and it included a long list of Communist affiliations, including membership in the Communist Party.

Now, if you or I were going to interrogate Mr. Wilkinson, to find out, for purposes of whether or not he should continue in the employment of a public body, whether he was a Communist, certainly, we would need that information, wouldn't we? Otherwise we couldn't intelligently pursue an investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. In truth and in fact, the chief of police gave you a rather complete record of some 10 alleged Communists, didn't he?

Mayor BowRON. I think approximately 10. The CHAIRMAN. All you gave to Mr. Holtzendorff was the names of them? Mayor BowRON. That is——— The CHAIRMAN. Why didn't you give him the rest of it if you wanted to get rid of those Communists?

Mayor BowRON. In the first place— The CHAIRMAN. Answer that one, will you, please?

Mayor BowRON. It was my personal file. I read it to him. He made notes.

Mr. MCKENNA. Did you read the file to him, Mr. Mayor?

Mayor BowRON. I read all of the pertinent portions to him that I considered pertinent. Mr. MCKENNA. You didn't give him more than a list of names?

The CHAIRMAN. You considered pertinent. If you want to get rid of those men that he said were Communists, why didn't you give him a copy of the record as given to you? Mayor BowRON. I gave him allThe CHAIRMAN. No. Did you want to get rid of them? Did you?

Mayor BowRON. I certainly did.

The CHAIRMAN. Why didn't you give him all the information that was available to you, sir?

Mayor BowRON. Because it was my private copy.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes. So, if you had private information that you alone had, for example, that a man was a Communist and was in an official position, you wouldn't disclose it to the man who had authority to fire him? That is what your answer amounts to.

Mayor BowRON. I disclosed everything to him.

Mr. MCKENNA. Then, Mr. Mayor, you did give him more than a list of names?

Mayor BowRON. I read to him the provisions-I read to him, I think, practically in its entirety the report that had been handed to me by Chief of Police Parker.

But it was not an insult to Mayor Bowron to insist on developing that point. It was the duty of the committee.

Because, in my judgment, it will be of value to the Members of the House, I am adding to these remarks the testimony in full of Richard Combs, chief counsel of the California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities: TESTIMONY OF RICHARD COMBS, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE CALIFORNIA SENATE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs, will you identify yourself?

Mr. COMBS. I am Richard Combs, chief counsel for the California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have been such for how long?

Mr. COMBS. About 14 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you give us an outline, as briefly and concisely as possible, of your activities to qualify you as an expert?

Mr. COMBS. The California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities is mandated by the State legislature to investigate subversive activities in California. Since the inception of the committee it has investigated, in addition to Communist activities, the activities such as the Italian Fascist mɔvement in San Francisco, the Ku Klux Klan, the German-American Bund, Japanese groups during the war. Since 1945, almost the entire work of the committee has been devoted to an investigation of Communistfront organizations, the party structure in California, identity of the officers of the party-front organizations, propaganda techniques, educational infiltration, infiltration of the trade-union field; in short, all activities of the party in this State. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever organizations they may attempt to infiltrate or spread their doctrine among?

Mr. COMBS. Yes; as much as we can.

The CHAIRMAN. In the educational field? Mr. COMBS. Particularly the educational institutions.

The CHAIRMAN. Might I ask, if you have achieved any results, what they are? That is, in the way of obtaining information and knowledge and disclosing that to the public authorities?

Mr. COMBS. We have over the period of 14 years, approximately, accumulated compendia of documentary material, propaganda, identity of Communist Party members, activities currently of the party in various parts of the State. We have broken down the State into geographical locations in order to keep track of the changing fluid movement of non-Communist functionaries, from one sector of the State to the other, generally, to keep abreast as much as we are able to with the activities of the party as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN. You work in cooperation with that other organizations throughout the country? With the FBI?

Mr. COMBS. We confer with representatives of the FBI from time to time, yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I assume all the State, local county, organizations which are charged with the enforcement of laws? Mr. COMBS. Yes, all official agencies charged with the investigation of subversive activities in California.

The CHAIRMAN. As a rule you get their cooperation?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, so far as they are permitted to give it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any study of various organizations, no matter under

what name they were operating, to ascertain whether or not they were engaged in subversive activities?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume you keep records for your own information?

Mr. COMES. Yes, we do.

The CHAIRMAN. Confidential records.
Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us any idea of approximately how many legislative, State or Federal, investigations you have had? Mr. COMBS. Well, we have conducted hearings, both in executive session and open session, for the last 14 years. I would have to depend entirely on my memory for the number-several hundred.

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of your time has been devoted to that task? Mr. COMBS. Full time for 14 years. The CHAIRMAN. You have had assistants? Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you give us an idea of how many?

Mr. COMBS. It varies from time to time, Mr. Hoffman. We have permanent office staff that performs almost exclusively clerical work. We subscribe to current Communist publications, both here and from New York.

We take the Cominform bulletin from Bucharest and analyze that-the ideological function of the party political affairs—a monthly magazine. Those publications are read, analyzed and carded as they come out. Of course, the local paper, the Daily People's World, we read and card daily. The same thing is true of the Daily Worker in New York and the Sunday Worker, the Sunday edition. And all other Communist publications we deem pertinent to the purposes of the inquiry; in addition to that we obtain considerable amount of propaganda material from the Communist bookstores in California.

There are three major ones in this State. There is particularly one in San Francisco at 1408 Market Street, the International Book Shop. It supplies the propaganda material for the entire Pacific coast.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not those assistants are experts who have been trained in that particular line of work? Mr. COMBS. Yes, they all are.

The CHAIRMAN. They are people who have no other main source of income?

Mr. COMBS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Their energy is devoted, may I say, exclusively to the task that is assigned by your organization and by you? Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You had something to do with reports of a branch of the California Crime Commission which I think our committee used some years ago.

Mr. COMBS. We had something to do with that.

The CHAIRMAN. That was very valuable to the committees in Congress at that time, I recall.

Do you know the witness who appeared here this morning, Elizabeth Smith?

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you known of her and under what names?

Mr. COMBS. Well, I first saw Elizabeth Smith when she appeared pursuant to a subpena we had served upon her in conjunction with our investigation of Communist infiltration of the Los Angeles Housing Authority in September and October of last year. We conducted two hearings, one following, of course, a preliminary investigation in this

area.

The first hearing was in, I think, September, the 28th of September. I am not sure

about the exact date. The other was early in October, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. During that or any subsequent investigations did you learn something of her history?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you give us that? Mr. COMBS. Well, Elizabeth Smith fell into a rather peculiar status, so far as I was concerned, at least in my own opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. All I am asking you for is your opinion as an expert.

Mr. COMBS. In my opinion as an expert, Elizabeth Smith was at the time we served her with a subpena, and at the time we had her on the stand and interrogated her, a member of the Communist Party.

The CHAIRMAN. Prior to that time do you know of her history?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir. The

CHAIRMAN. Were there any other names she used?

Mr. COMBS. I don't remember the names that she went by, if any others than Elizabeth Smith, but I do recall from my independent recollection that she lived for a while in San Francisco, where she was active in an organization known as Labor's Nonpartisan League, which we knew at that time to be heavily Communist infiltrated. She became an officer of that. I believe she was executive secretary to the director of it in San Francisco.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall the name of the director? It doesn't matter, if you don't know.

Mr. COMES. Not offhand; I am sorry. The CHAIRMAN. I assume your records will show it?

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you continue?

Mr. COMBS. Elizabeth Smith, contrary to most of the other witnesses who were subpenaed on the occasions I have mentioned, came in without counsel and indicated originally she would be happy to cooperate and answer any questions we cared to ask her.

When we interrogated her about her activities in San Francisco and asked her to tell us whether or not she had been a member of the Communist Party, she declined to answer on the ground

The CHAIRMAN. Did she appear then with counsel?

Mr. COMBS. No, she did not. She was one of the few witnesses who appeared without counsel at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Did she afterward appear before you without counsel?

Mr. COMBS. No. She refused to answer the questions and was immediately discharged by the housing authority for that reason.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall anything more that you care to state or are willing to state? I say "care." You were requested to come here and told you would be subpenaed if you didn't.

the Communist Party must mean to the witness that some law exists which would subject him to a penalty, a criminal penalty, if a true answer was given to that question.

Consequently, the witness is placed on the horns of a dilemma, a two-prong dilemma. It is analogous, as I see it, to having a witness before a committee and saying, "Did you hold up the First National Bank last Wednesday afternoon at half past 3?"

The answer is, in effect, that if "I give a true answer to that question I might end up in jail or the penitentiary. Therefore, being convinced of that fact, I refuse to answer the question on the ground a truthful answer would subject me to criminal prosecution." The only alternative is to say that "I invoke the fifth amendment."

The CHAIRMAN. That is if you didn't hold up the bank.

Mr. COMBS. Yes. Two of the necessary ingredients that must exist is, one, the existence of it to legally invoke the fifth amendment, if violated by the witness, would subject that witness to a criminal prosecution.

Secondly, a sincere belief on the part of the witness or advice from his attorney that a true answer to the question in the affirmative would subject the witness to that penalty.

Those ingredients are both completely necessary. If you take either one of them away, the witness is not entitled to invoke the fifth amendment.

To document the position, Secretary Trygve Lie, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, when the subcommittee of the United States Senate began to investigate the incidents of communism infiltration in that organization, sought the assistance of 3 of the finest legal experiences on this and found 1 from England, 1 from the United States, and 1, I think, from Holland. I think they rendered a decision. I have a copy of it here if you would like to have me read the pertinent portion.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is very informative. We would be glad to have you do that. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the situation which arises when the witness does claim that privilege.

Mr. COMBS. The particular analysis, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, deals also with another important corollary point. A witness cannot invoke the fifth amendment merely because he thinks the committee has no business to inquire into his political affiliation. That is no ground for the invoking of the fifth amendment. It must be a sincere conviction that a truthful answer would subject the witness to a criminal prosecution, or to protect the witness from answering any pertinent question asked by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you to be stating that if, for example, you asked me a question, I cannot claim that privilege unless I am convinced in my own mind I have done something which to disclose would subject me to a penalty?

Mr. COMES. Precisely.

The CHAIRMAN. How far do I get if I sayyou ask me a question.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Did you hold up the First National Bank?

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. St. George suggests you ask me, "Did you, Mr. Hoffman, hold up the First National Bank?"

I say, "I decline to answer, because if I do tell the truth about it I will go to jail.” What does that mean to you?

Mr. COMBS. I think in that case you would be perfectly entitled to invoke the fifth amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. What conclusion do you reach as to whether I did or didn't? Mr. COMBS. I think you did it. The CHAIRMAN. Still using a hypothetical question: If I did, I didn't get any money

and if I did get some I spent the money. You, as my counsel, are not going to get any part of it.

Mr. COMBS. I realize that. This is the pertinent portion of the opinion

The CHAIRMAN. I hope the press will get copies of this. There is a great misunderstanding about this claim of a privilege.

Mr. COMBS. (reading):

"The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' This protection may not only be invoked in the actual course of a criminal trial but also in other proceedings which may be precursory of criminal proceedings. For example, this protection may be and has been invoked before the special grand jury referred to above and also before the above-mentioned subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. It is commonly referred to as 'privilege against self-incrimination'—a phrase we have ourselves used above.

"In our opinion, a person who invokes this privilege can only lawfully do so in circumstances where the privilege exists. If in relance upon this privilege a person refuses to answer a question, he is only justified in doing so if he believes or is advised that in answering he would become a witness against himself. In other words, there can be no justification for claiming the privilege unless the person claiming the privilege believes or is advised that his answer would be evidence against himself of the commission of some criminal offense. It follows from this, in our opinion, that a person claiming this privilege cannot thereafter be heard to say that his answer, if it had been given, would not have been selfincriminatory. He is in the dilemna that either his answer would have been self-incriminatory, or if not he has invoked his constitutional privilege without just cause. in our opinion, he cannot be heard to allege the latter, he must by claiming privilege be held to have admitted the former. Moreover, the exercise of his privilege creates so strong a suspicion of guilt that the fact of its exercise must be withheld from a jury in a criminal trial."

As,

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by that last sentence, "must be withheld from consideration of a jury"?

Mr. COMBS. In the event that the witness has invoked the fifth amendment and is thereafter prosecuted for the offense he is alleged to have committed, that in the court of the criminal proceedings the fact he did invoke the fifth amendment cannot be made known to the jury in that case.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, the prosecutor will not be permitted to ask him whether he did not on a certain occasion refuse to answer that question.

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Just assume this situation: A witness has no knowledge of the law, has never been through any of the higher educational institutions, and is, well, just an average American, and he is called in to testify, either in court or before a committee, State or Federal, and is accompanied by an attorney. In your opinion as an expert, under that situation, would you say that an attorney who has a sympathy for or an affiliation with a Communist organization would be more inclined to advise the witness to refuse to answer than, say, the average attorney who has never been affiliated with Communists or been an attorney for them?

Mr. COMBS. Unquestionably it has been my experience that most of the witnesses who, concerning whom we have long records of Communist affiliation, when subpenaed before this committee are accompanied by the same attorneys over and over and over again. That is not true only in this State, but others as well.

The legal arm of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, in the United States, is called the Civil Rights Congress. The Civil Rights Congress has issued numerous pamphlets instructing its attorneys to use the forums of courts and legislative bodies as media for dissemination of Communist propaganda.

The CHAIRMAN. And legislative committees?

Mr. COMBS. Yes. That organization, if I may extend it a little more, was not formed in the United States; it was formed in the Soviet Union. It was a subdivision of the Comintern which was formed in 1919 and known as the MOPR, which was originally the International Red A.

The first American section of that organization was known as the International Labor Defense. And in 1946 it merely changed its name to the Civil Rights Congress; to all intents and purposes it is the same organization, simply under another title.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not it has been and is their custom to furnish attorneys for people who may be, in their opinion, denied their civil rights?

Mr. COMBS. That is their only purpose, to raise funds in their behalf and provide them with legal protection.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume that is a laudable purpose, if properly carried out.

Mr. COMES. Of course, but this particular organization was not started here; it was started in the Soviet Union.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you or have you not noticed in your experience that they rushed to the defense more especially of the individuals who are accused of being Communists or furthering the Communist doctrine?

Mr. COMBS. I have never heard of the Civil Rights Congress espousing the civil liberties of alcoholics or fallen women or the like, who were not affiliated with the Communist Party. If they ever did it, I have never heard of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Or individuals who have lost their job because of a closed shop contract?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you find that or a similar pattern applying to the activities of Communists?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir. There are a group of attorneys in California who specialize in that particular type of work and many of them do nothing else, at least so far as I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen any of them around here, appearing for anyone? Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you name them? Mr. COMBS. Mr. John McTernan has appeared before our committee on many, many occasions representing both individuals and organizations concerning which we have records of communism, that is, Communistdominated organizations and fronts and individuals concerning whom we have Communist records.

The CHAIRMAN. You understand I am not asking this question to deprive them of business or increase their business by giving publicity to the fact that they specialize in certain branches of law.

Mr. COMES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Merely for information, so we will know the pattern back of the whole situation.

Mr. COMES. Mr. Marshall, Mr. Morris-he wasn't here today. His partner, Mr. Kenny, formerly attorney general of California.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Morris was here briefly.

Mr. COMBS. I can't think of any others. Mr. Porter.

The CHAIRMAN. Grover Johnson?
Mr. COMBS. Grover Johnson, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall others? Mr. COMBS. No, I don't recall any others offhand. I might not have been here at the time some of the others were on the stand. If you give me their names I will be glad to testify as to them.

The CHAIRMAN. John Porter?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir. I mentioned him, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Now, as an expert, what is your opinion as to whether those you have named, and all of them, are affiliated with the Communist Party? That is one question. The other one will be, Do they appear publicly, either in courts or before legislative committees in behalf of Communists? Maybe that question isn't clear. Mr. COMBS. I understand it. The obvious conclusion, of course, would be that those particular attorneys have elected to specialize in representing that particular type of client.

Now, from a standpoint, from an expert's standpoint of documenting the subversive affiliation, if any, of those individuals, it would be almost an utter impossibility, because it is a well-known fact to people who have had experience in this field that the higher a person is in the Communist apparatus the less likely it is that individual would ever have, or would ever be given, any formal evidence of affiliation with the Communist Party itself.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean from the party organization?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir. We prefer to regard a matter of that kind on a strictly individual basis. Membership in front organizations and apparent subservient and amenability to party discipline and the carrying forward of the Communist Party current line, whatever it may be, and following through all of its twisting inconsistencies from one era to another.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that line vary from time to time?

Mr. COMBS. Completely, not only that, it contradicts itself completely almost overnight. We had an example here in 1941, in June, which was a most graphic example and humorous example I can think of. It carried a very grim portent.

In August 1935 a nonaggression pact was effected between the Soviet Union and Germany, under Hitler. That continued until June 22, 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union.

During the existence of that the members of the German-American Bund in Los Angeles and the members of the Communist Party of Los Angeles were fraternizing and collaborating with one another.

We started a hearing in Los Angeles shortly before the invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941. At that time we had subpenaed members of the German-American Bund and members of the Communist Party. It was quite obvious to us they were certainly not antagonistic toward each other.

The hearing continued after the invasion of the Soviet Union and we then found the members of the German-American Bund on one side of the hall and the Communists on the other side of the hall, and the hostility between the two was quite obvious and very vicious.

The CHAIRMAN. You say it was quite obvious. As I said to a witness this morning, that is your conclusion.

Mr. COMBS. We had a witness on the stand by the name of F. K. Feranz, a member of the German-American Bund, a propagandist. He was a very antagonistic, hostile witness.

When he walked back to his seat and resumed it he sat right across the aisle from a woman who had identified herself with the Communist section in the hall.

She lit a cigarette and puffed on it until the coal was well developed, and leaned over and tried to jab it in his eye. He jerked his head up and the cigarette hit him on the cheek bone.

The CHAIRMAN. That indicated they ceased to be comrades?

Mr. COMBS. Yes. He then protested loudly, and we had quite a bit of pandemonium for a while. We restored order and called another witness.

He resumed his seat and so did she. He then leaned over and said something to her. I don't know what he said. It couldn't have been very complimentary. She then jumped up and started to protest.

There is a long ramp that slopes down from the back of the hearing hall here in the State building, down to the place where the committee was seated. She had a pair of black patent-leather pumps on at the time.

When she stood in the middle of the ramp protesting to the committee as to what this man (Feranz) had said to her, he stood up and kicked her in the place where no lady should be kicked, and lifted her right out of her patent-leather pumps, which I think is as graphic and eloquent an example of quick change in the Communist Party line. as I have ever seen.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are the facts on which you base the conclusion that they were no longer associated and working together? Mr. COMBS. Yes; it was quite obvious. The CHAIRMAN. Going back, do you know Fay Kovner Mukes?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you known of her record, and will you give us something of it? She appeared here as a witness earlier. Mr. COMBS. I was here while she was on the stand.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard her testimony? Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You know the attorney who appeared with her?

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Marshall, yes. He was also her attorney at the hearing we held in connection with the housing authority. My acquaintance with her personally originated at the time she appeared pursuant to the service of the subpena, that is, our subpena. I had been acquainted with her record for a much longer period of time; I don't know exactly how long, several years.

She also, on advice of her attorney, refused to answer questions concerning her Communist affiliation, on the grounds that a truthful answer to the question would tend to subject her to a criminal prosecution.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's see. She was a secretary to the manager of the base loan housing project in the latter part of 1950,

Mr. COMBS. Yes. Incidentally, she was not an employee of the housing authority at the time we subpenaed her. She had been discharged prior to that time.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will continue with her history and record.

Mr. COMBS. Well, we had a long record consisting of material that we got from the Los Angeles Police Department and other sources, in conjunction with our own records, that convinced us she had been very closely connected with the Communist apparatus in Los Angeles County.

At the hearings we held, the ones in September and October, both of which were held in executive session, we placed in the record all the information we had concerning each of these witnesses, despite the fact they invoked the fifth amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall when she lived at 4253 Fulton Street, Sherman Oaks? Mr. COMBS. I recall that address, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether she lived with individuals who were Communists

at that time, who in your opinion were Communists?

Mr. COMBS. Our records so indicated; yes,

sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know some of the organizations with which she was affiliated, Mr. Combs? Was she a member of the American Youth for Democracy?

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a successor to what organization?

Mr. COMBS. Young Communist League. It now has another name, the Labor Youth League.

The CHAIRMAN. You know her parents' names?

Mr. COMBS. I did. I don't remember them offhand.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this bring to mind anything, Rose-Sam Elfman?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know their status, as to whether they were or were not Communists?

Mr. COMBS. According to our records, they were both members of the Communist Party. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether this witness was active during 1934?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir. I think, if my-I am testifying completely from recollection and I might be mistaken. I want to be as accurate as I can, but my recollection is that she was active in the circulation of petitions in 1934 to qualify the Communist Party for the ballot in California.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not she was the chairman of the Hollywood Communist Club?

Mr. COMBS. According to our record, she was, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Her husband Julius was also a member of the North Hollywood Communist Club?

Mr. COMES. I heard her testify this morning that her brother's name was Julius. I believe that is in accordance with the information we have, Mr. Hoffman. We have no record of her being married to a Julius Kovner.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you know Allan Carson?

Mr. COMBS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us anything about him? As an expert, have you an opinion about the gentleman?

Mr. COMBS. Well, Mr. Carson was employed from time to time by the housing authority. In his capacity as attorney he was not a fulltime employee; compensated, as I recall, on a fee basis.

We placed Mr. Carson on the witness stand at our hearings, one of them, and asked him whether or not he was or had been a member of the Communist Party. He did not at first invoke the protection of the fifth amendment against self-incrimination, but he did invoke his right to refuse to testify on the ground that he would be revealing a confidential relationship that existed between himself, in his capacity as an attorney, and the housing authority in its capacity as his client.

The CHAIRMAN. That was his duty, to invoke that?

Mr. COMBS. Yes. We asked him if he would answer the question, provided we could get a waiver from his client, and he said he would. We called Mr. Holtzendorff in and had him waive the privilege

The CHAIRMAN. Was Mr. Holtzendorff his client?

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Holtzendorff was in his capacity of executive director of the housing authority and simply acted to waive the privilege.

Whereupon, Mr. Carson invoked the fifth amendment and declined to answer the question on the grounds his answer might tend to incriminate him.

The CHAIRMAN. He testified this morning he was not a Communist.

Mr. COMBS. At the present time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I don't know how the others feel. I am always inclined to accept the witness' statement. I give him the benefit of the doubt, if there is any; that is the way I want to be judged.

Then Jack Naiditch?

Mr. COMBS. Our records indicate he was an open and registered member of the Communist Party of Los Angeles County.

The CHAIRMAN. Frank Wilkinson? Mr. COMBS. Frank Wilkinson, according to our information, was the director of the infiltration in the entire housing project. The CHAIRMAN. With what group?

Mr. COMBS. By the Elk Guild Club, No. 1, of the Communist Party of Los Angeles County. In addition to that, there was a liaison between that organization, that segment of the Communist Party, and a trade union in Los Angeles known as the United Public Workers of America, which is merely the local chapter of a national organization, the national president of which has been since 1937 Abraham Flaxner, with whom I think you have had some experience.

The CHAIRMAN. We heard him in 1949. Mr. COMBS. Yes. Mr. Flaxner joined the Communist Party when he was attending New York City College and was one of the founding fathers of an organization known as the State, City, and Municipal Orders of America.

That organization spread its chapters throughout the United States and, through a series of amalgamations, changed its name to United Public Workers of America, which it is today, and in 1948 it was expelled from the CIO for being Communist-dominated.

A subsidiary of the United Public Workers of America in Los Angeles is known as the Los Angeles Federation of Teachers, and a liaison between the Elk Guild Club No. 1, the Los Angeles Federation of Teachers, and the United Public Workers of America was established, at least to our satisfaction, during the process of these hearings under the housing authority I mentioned.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Combs, in most of these instances, would you say that these people were registered Communists or would you say that that was unusual? That as a rule they were simply affiliated without having any records kept?

Mr. COMBS. It is quite unusual. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. To have any records? Mr. COMBS. Yes. There have been no Communist membership cards or books issued since early in 1948 at all, any place in the United States.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. But in the days you referred to, when the bund was on one sid and the Communists on the other, at that time it was a recognized party with lists kept and with card-bearing members, is that correct?

Mr. COMBS. That is correct. And then, as now, the entire party structure was divided into layers. There was a certain group, certain category of Communist Party members who were instructed to be quite open and frank about their Communist affiliation, just as there was an opposite group instructed to have no evidence of Communist affiliation and to work quietly in an underground apparatus. That has always been true with the party.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. In your opinion, all these different organizations we know of under these different names, in our own country, all gradually work back up to the Soviet Union?

Mr. COMBS. Yes, they do.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. There is a definite tieup?
Mr. COMBS. Definitely.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. In every instance?