◆ SpookStack

Breen rey Cute Gree + RI aad cs tes x os ph aye oo cm mete car SR er . pig t Aiea anette aml tai mitt peta entitle th tthe acre ae : — im - «aia . = . sh lAsnanelenatnietiamtieemneetmen edad taka RRR aaaEnare ” . ee a D poletatenn ’ eee t Layne eee ’ . eee ae ~ oe wwe: Pian . 2 it . eee Ca aa wht ron piste ser, _ tale tn ete 1040 COMMUN { "ESPIONAGE a case of the Communists claiming as heir own @ perso» whom they considered to be a libera or example, Ie it not sible that they might have referred to Mrs. Roosevelt as being a Communist, or did they refer to, say, Leom Henderson, as being a Communist. Understand, I wish you to point out if there is a difference in the way in which friends of the party were considered, aid (hose under discipline were considered, because I think there is a dintinedion Chere that should be drawn, if there is a distinction. Will . conn pro dates Chad briefly . " Nr. ae There ix a very definite distinction. Neither Mrs. Rousevell, nor Mr, Henderson, incidentally, was ever referred to as a Cotinnint, . Mr. Nixon. Lain sure they were not. . . Mr. unenz. A man secking political office in Indiana once wrote — me thinking Ghat Henderson was a Communist, and trying 30 get a job for him, but 2 disabused hin of that. But there is this difference: . that is, the Communists did refer to those under discipline in a differ- ent manner from the way they do those who are just friendly jo them, and whom they wish to use, and whom they think they can influence. _ Of course, here is a remote possibility that Mr. Hiss’ name might: have been used incorrectly, but I have never found that to happen among Communists. When reporting to themselves, they are always as exact as possible, In fact. sometimes thev are painfully exact. In regard to the relationship of a certain mdividual to the party, and certainly so far as the constant impression on me was concerned, it was that Mr. Hiss was equivalent to a member of the Communist Party. The phrase “Communist Party member” so far as I refer to jt was never used, but that he was under Communist discipline was” used, and he was associated with Nathan Witt and Edwin Smith. Of couse, this impression was strengthened in my mind, im fact—I knew Mr, Smith to be a member of the party: I had met him as such. Mr. Nixon. In other words. this impression was gathered not simply from one casnal_ mention but from several mentions of Mr. Hiss as being ander Communist cliscipline. Mr. Bepenz. That is correct. Mr. Srriruing. When you were a member of the Communist Party, Mr. Budenz, and the managing editor of the Daily Worker, were you ever approached by Jacob NvGolos to make a trip to Washington to see an individual who was employed in the Government ? Mr. Bupenxz. Yes, sir. Mr. Stririine. Who was the Sah he asked you to see? ] discipline, that i( was simply Mr. Bupenz. William Ludwi Imann. Mr. Stwrzrixe. Did you ever see Dilmann? Mr. Bunenz. No, sir. I told Mr. Golos at that time that that was utterly impossible with my duties at the Daily Worker. We were: shart-staffed, and I cond not go on such short natice. Mr. Stripunc. Why did he want you to see Ulimann? Mr. Bunenz. He said that it had to do with work in the Office of Strategic Services. That is all he said: “I want you to see n man by the name of William Ludwig Ullmann in Washington: to go as fast AS ible, in regard to our work in the Office of Strategic Services.” | Mr. Srrirtana. Now, early in your testimony you mentioned that , you knew J. Peters as the head of the underground movement. Could