◆ SpookStack

OPAGANDA ACTIVITIES - hat one a moment ago, did you not? py of the leaflet brought out by the vague # i shibit. The at this be marked as an ex ea Being Scuttled? Are We Beat he People Do ABout It? A Stateme . +B] mist Leagne. 4 Harvard scholarship, ‘Namipue OF petits aL v ve any communications relating fo Ms lisagreed sharply with you as te Its i ously issued. , with one previously Js . hove was marked “Exhibit No. 1.”) respondents take issue With you on ; ad them. letters there: you can read Te volar ly even if the gentlemen who _ations. ny. - letter nddrexsed to Pat O'Dea, Box 23, ated March 5, 1940. Did you receive y on this communication is the fol- wht: I just asked the question, . ant in, and this was the answer; & Co} : o New York, and this was the anser: S“Comradely yours.” and also - «tL oConiradely y ; o ns the national conunittee, does it not! ‘ead as follows: a fer the copies of the Harv we x ative one avd shad prove te be ane onan jextianed is the reference MW Raney Ye ~ on degishative furthering of New ier if nh is correct, the expression “New ie vi ie “Pe oNew Deal” is se com ne aeenitinice might mien accept n A. x D at today ix certainly not some ae ‘se have been advisable to speu wn ae ew anti-imperialst, anticwar purey er Toe aid dh PUEDE Oe is you recall it? i rs of the from the national headquarters of iticl a ‘ement or a criticism of the ete « Communist League, which 7 . . q randa, 1s it not § nse ti : answer at a little length, been mt rage leaflet, and if the gentlem i hat it deals with a gre# they will see that 31 aes ‘lfincrimination. If said that, for eXamipie, the committee had no “tht to delve into matters th “* not relevant to the inv “ube of the investigation UN-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES 7561 deal of material, and that Jetter takes one little specific instance, and it is a criticism in the same form that a book review is a literary criticism, and it is not an instruction by any means. Mr. Marrnews. When you bring out your next piece of literature, or when you make Speeches, you will make a point to follow the criticism contained in this letter, will you not ¢ Mr, O'Des, I do not know; I cannot answer that right now, Mr. Marrnews. Until you get some further indication of the wishes of the national headquarters, you will carry out. those instructions, will vou not? Mr. O'Dea. T do not know. I cannot say What I will say when FE fo out; I do think that the criticism is a currect one. My own per- sonal opinion is that I think it is a correct one, if that is the question, Mr. Matrirews. So therefore since you look upen it as correct, you do adopt it as your present viewpoint? Mr. O'Dea. It was my viewpoint before. Mr. Cony. Will you offer the original leaflet in evidence? Mr, Matruews, J have. T will offer the letter of March 5 in evidence as exhibit No, 2, (The document above referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 2.) Mr. Matrrnews. Who is the secretary of the Harvard Young Com- munist League ? , Mr, O'Des. 1 yefuse to answer that question because I believe that hv answering that question I will expose this pers on to economic per- secuntion. He will be unable to get a job, and getting a job is the only way he will be able to live, and I think under the fourteenth amend- nent. that is due pracess, his only property will be his scholarship and his job, and he will lose that. The Cuamaanx. Then you dectine to answer? Mr. Lyxen. I think that that should be stricke dl of the witness's stateme wewer, on the ground th n from the record, nt except the statement that he refuses to at it 1s entirely inminaterial. The only nieht het he has to refuse to answer is one, that bis answer might tend to rindinate him: and if he objects on that ground why, of course, ‘hat ts all right, but otherwise he has absolutely no right to refuse. Mr. Coux, T think that is an incorrect statement of the law handed lown by the United States Pupeie Const in the case of Sinclair amst the Caited States and other cases, Tthink that the objection f the witness is well taken. Mr. Casey. What is the Sinclair ease ? Mr, Conn, In that case the Sy + said that the witness \ other rights to object in addition to t ve one, 1 the privilege against hit ; ut Were personal or private matters Tecting the witness, and other cases held that the committee may ‘ly ask questions, and the witness has the right to refuse to answer ‘estions which are not material to the investigation. questions that estigation, questions that are not within the The committee is limited by those decisions of the United States in addition to the constitutional provision agaiust J nenrimination, May I further say that it is my belief that the witness has a full ‘At to explain his r ao oe his refusal to answer, et