by Anne Edwards
J. Parnell Thomas, born John Philip Feeney, had been a Democrat for twenty years before he became the Republican representative from New Jersey and HUAC’s chairman. Raised a Catholic, he became an Episcopalian. Flabby and pasty-faced, he was also short and squat, so that when seated he slipped a District of Columbia telephone directory topped by a red-silk pillow beneath his generous buttocks, thereby adding several inches to his presumed height. The hearings were begun on October 20, 1947, a Monday, in the Caucus Room on the second floor of the Old House Office Building in Washington, D.C. The room was large, but still overcrowded. A battery of nine newsreel cameras was lined up on one side of the room. Opposite them were rows of broadcasting equipment, manned by several dozen radio technicians and announcers. Press tables accommodated ninety-four newspaper men and women. An overflow of spectators stood at the back of the room leg to leg with newspaper photographers. Bulbs of high intensity blazed in the massive crystal chandelier and powerful photographic lights had been set up. The illumination was so bright that the room looked like an operating theater. Loudspeakers amplified every sound. Thomas sat in a chair behind the rostrum, his bald pate glistening in the hot glare of the klieg lights. Below him sat the members of his committee, which included John McDowell of Pennsylvania, Richard B. Vail of Illinois and Richard M. Nixon of California.* Robert E. Stripling, tall, lean, gaunt—a Southerner and former FBI man and clerk of the Dies Committee, sat at the end of the committee row, ready to jump to his feet and come around front to point an accusing finger. Nineteen men “†” in the motion-picture industry had been publicly accused of being agents of un-American propaganda. The investigation would last ten days and was a mockery of American justice. Perhaps that is why the American flag was nowhere to be seen throughout.
The friendly witnesses, Reagan among them, were to come first. Then the nineteen would be asked to answer these charges and were expected to name more names to prove their American allegiance.
Jack Warner had secretly testified before the committee on May 15, 1947, as a friendly witness, supplying them with most of the names of the nineteen now cited. Dapper as always, his hair combed sideways to cover his increasing baldness, his moustache trimmed perfectly, he wore a pin-striped suit and black patent shoes on his small, narrow feet, and looked a bit like a song-and-dance man in an English revue. Everyone in the industry knew Warner enjoyed public speaking. He once spoke uninterruptedly for three hours and twenty minutes, after work, to his own employees. In May he had been “a windy and cheerful witness.… In all, he fattened up the record by approximately 57,000 words.” Warner stressed his belief that screenwriters were “injecting Communist stuff” [into scripts] and then added: “Anyone I thought was a Communist or read in the papers that he was, I dismissed at the expiration of his contract.” Stripling asked him how many employees this had involved. He replied six, but named sixteen.*
“Ideological termites have burrowed into many American industries,” he read from an opening statement at his second HUAC hearing on October 20. “Wherever they may be, I say let us dig them out and get rid of them. My brothers and I will be happy to subscribe generously to a pest-removal fund. We are willing to establish such a fund to ship to Russia the people who don’t like our American system of government and prefer the Communistic system to ours.…”
Although he personally still retained the title of colonel (used on memos to and from his staff) he was addressed as Mr. Warner throughout his long morning session (he did not step down until noon).
MR. STRIPLING: Doesn’t it kind of provoke you to pay them [the writers he had named] $1,000 or $2,000 a week and see them on the picket lines and joining all of these organizations and taking your money and trying to tear down a system that provides the money?
MR. WARNER: That is absolutely correct.
Warner was followed at the witness table by Louis B. Mayer and then by Walt Disney.* On Tuesday, Adolphe Menjou appeared right on cue. Nattily attired and wearing a pair of heavy horn-rimmed glasses, he “sauntered jauntily up to the witness stand. As the applause quickened, he turned, bowing and smiling to his expectant audience, maneuvering his profile skillfully in the fuselage of exploding flashbulbs. With forefinger dramatically outstretched, he raised his hand for the oath. To the first identifying question he replied: ‘Motion picture actor, I hope.’“ He then proceeded to call off several names, though he could not guarantee to the committee that they actually carried party cards. Twirling his moustache, mugging for the cameramen, he replied to Stripling’s question of how he spotted “Reds”: “Anyone attending any meeting at which Paul Robeson appears and applauds, can be considered a Communist.”
The next day, Wednesday, the crowds increased and formed even earlier because of the scheduled—and leaked—appearance of the sleekly coiffed, dark-haired, Romanesque-profiled film star Robert Taylor. (The dates and times of appearances of witnesses had been deemed classified information.) He offered much the same cure-all as Warner—”send them back to Russia or some other unpleasant place.” When he had been dismissed and headed for the door, spectators clustered around him, begging for autographs while following him out of the building and to his car.
Not nearly the same clamor met Murphy, Montgomery and Reagan when they arrived at the Old House Office Building on October 25. Reagan, wearing his glasses and a beige gabardine suit that was somewhat large for him, sat earnestly listening to Montgomery and then Murphy. Murphy was asked, “To what extent has Communism infiltrated into the Screen Actors Guild?”
MR. MURPHY: Well, in my opinion there has been a constant irritation from a very small group. The group is constantly changing.… I don’t think they amount to 1 percent of the Guild membership.*
He was then asked: “Do you feel there is any Communism in the motion picture industry?”
MR. MURPHY: Yes… I think that the screen has been very successful in keeping any attempts to propagandize off the screen.… I am an actor. I am not as conversant as some others who have testified.… Once in a while I try to change a line or two or a word or two and maybe add a dance step, but that is about the extent of my business. However, I think there has been definite evidence that there are Communists at work in the picture industry.
Murphy was not called upon to give names and proffered none on his own. Asked whether he had ever been “smeared” by the Communists in Hollywood, he replied:
MR. MURPHY: Well, during the strike there was a routine of handing out throw-aways around the studios and around town every day and they made up three characters that were known as Ronnie, Eddie, and George—Ronald Reagan, Eddie Arnold, and George Murphy.… We were called “producers’ men”… stooges… and I think the proof of whether we are stooges or not is evidenced by the contract that the Screen Actors Guild concluded… with the producers, and I think one of the best labor contracts ever written.
The outside light had dissolved into metal gray, indicating rain, when Reagan moved into the witness chair at 11:10 A.M. The microphone let off a high whistling sound when he replied “I do” to the oath, and he knowledgeably adjusted it before answering the next question.
(Testimony of Ronald Reagan before the House Un-American Activities Committee, October 25, 1947, follows.)
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, will you please state your full name and present address? [Stripling pronounced the name “Ree-gun.”]
MR. REAGAN: [Correcting] Ronald Raygun, 9137 Cordell Drive, Los Angeles, 46, California. [He did not include his middle name, Wilson.]
MR. STRIPLING: When and where were you born, Mr. Raygun?
MR. REAGAN: Tampico, III., February 6, 1911. MR. STRIPLING: What is your present occupation? MR. REAGAN: Motion-picture actor.
MR. STRIPLING: How long have you been engaged in that profession?
MR. REAGAN: Since June, 1937, with a brief interlude of 3‘/2 years—that at the time didn’t seem very brief. MR. STRIPLING: What period was that?
MR. REAGAN: That was during the late war.
&nb
sp; MR. STRIPLING: What branch of the service were you in?
MR. REAGAN: Well, sir, I had been for several years in the Reserve as an officer in the United States Cavalry, but I was assigned to the Air Corps.
MR. STRIPLING: That is kind of typical of the Army, isn’t it?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, sir. The first thing the Air Corps did was loan me to the Signal Corps.
MR. MCDOWELL: You didn’t wear spurs? [Laughter] MR. REAGAN: I did for a short while.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this has little to do with the facts we are seeking. Proceed.
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, are you a member of any guild?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, sir; the Screen Actors Guild.
MR. STRIPLING: Are you the president of the guild at the present time?
MR. REAGAN: Yes sir.
MR. STRIPLING: When were you elected?
MR. REAGAN: That was several months ago. I was elected to replace Mr. Montgomery when he resigned.
MR. STRIPLING: When does your term expire?
MR. REAGAN: The elections come up next month.
MR. STRIPLING: Have you ever held any other position in the Screen Actors Guild?
MR. REAGAN: Yes sir. Just prior to the war I was a member of the board of directors.
MR. STRIPLING: AS a member of the board of directors, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and as an active member, have you at any time observed or noted within the organization a clique of either Communists or Fascists who were attempting to exert influence or pressure on the guild?
MR. REAGAN: Well, sir, my testimony must be very similar to that of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Montgomery. There has been a small group within the Screen Actors Guild which has consistently opposed the policy of the guild board and officers of the guild, as evidenced by the vote on various issues. That small clique referred to has been suspected of more or less following the tactics that we associate with the Communist Party.
MR. STRIPLING: Would you refer to them as a disruptive influence within the guild?
MR. REAGAN: I would say that at times they have attempted to be a disruptive influence.
MR. STRIPLING: You have no knowledge yourself as to whether or not any of them are members of the Communist Party?
MR. REAGAN: No, sir; I have no investigative force, or anything, and I do not know.
MR. STRIPLING: Has it ever been reported to you that certain members of the guild were Communists?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, sir; I have heard different discussions and some of them tagged as Communists.
MR. STRIPLING: Have you ever heard that from any reliable source?
MR. REAGAN: Well, I considered the source as reliable at the time.
MR. STRIPLING: Would you say that this clique has attempted to dominate the guild?
MR. REAGAN: Well, sir, by attempting to put over their own particular views on various issues, I guess in regard to that you would have to say that our side was attempting to dominate, too, because we were fighting just as hard to put over our views, in which we sincerely believed, and I think we were proven correct by the figures—Mr. Murphy gave the figures—and those figures were always approximately the same, an average of 90 percent or better of the Screen Actors Guild voted in favor of those matters now guild policy.*
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, there has been testimony to the effect here that numerous Communist-front organizations have been set up in Hollywood. Have you ever been solicited to join any of those organizations or any organization which you considered to be a Communist-front organization?
MR. REAGAN: Well, sir, I have received literature from an organization called the Committee for a Far-Eastern Democratic Policy. I don’t know whether it is Communist or not. I only know that I didn’t like their views and as a result I didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
MR. STRIPLING: Were you ever solicited to sponsor the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee?
MR. REAGAN: No, sir; I was never solicited to do that, but I found myself misled into being a sponsor on another occasion for a function that was held under the auspices of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee.
MR. STRIPLING: Did you knowingly give your name as a sponsor?
MR. REAGAN: Not knowingly. Could I explain what that occasion was?
MR. STRIPLING: Yes, sir.
MR. REAGAN: I was called several weeks ago. There happened at the time in Hollywood to be a financial drive on to raise money to build a badly needed hospital in a certain section of town, called the All Nations Hospital. I think the purpose of the building is so obvious by the title that it has the support of most of the people of Hollywood—or, of Los Angeles, I should say. Certainly of most of the doctors, because it is very badly needed.
Some time ago I was called to the telephone. A woman introduced herself by name. Knowing that I didn’t know her I didn’t make any particular note of her name and I couldn’t give it now. She told me that there would be a recital held at which Paul Robeson would sing and she said that all the money for the tickets would go to the hospital and asked if she could use my name as one of the sponsors. I hesitated for a moment because I don’t think that Mr. Robeson’s and my political views coincide at all and then I thought I was being a little stupid because, I thought, here is an occasion where Mr. Robeson is perhaps appearing as an artist and certainly the object, raising money, is above any political consideration, it is a hospital supported by everyone. I have contributed money myself. So I felt a little bit as if I had been stuffy for a minute and I said, certainly, you can use my name.
I left town for a couple of weeks and when I returned I was handed a newspaper story that said that this recital was held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles under the auspices of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. The principal speaker was Emil Lustig, Robert Burman took up a collection, and remnants of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were paraded to the platform. I did not in the newspaper story see one word about the hospital. I called the newspaper and said I am not accustomed to writing to editors, but would like to explain my position, and he laughed and said, “You needn’t bother, you are about the fiftieth person that has called with the same idea, including most of the legitimate doctors who had also been listed as sponsors of that affair.”
MR. STRIPLING: Would you say from your observation that that is typical of the tactics or strategy of the Communists, to solicit and use the names of prominent people to either raise money or gain support?
MR. REAGAN: I think it is in keeping with their tactics; yes, sir.
MR. STRIPLING: Do you think there is anything democratic about those tactics?
MR. REAGAN: I do not, sir.
MR. STRIPLING: AS president of the Screen Actors Guild you are familiar with the jurisdictional strike which has been going on in Hollywood for some time?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. STRIPLING: Have you ever had any conferences with any of the labor officials regarding this strike?
MR. REAGAN: Yes, sir. In fact, some 14 days or so before the strike actually took place our guild, feeling that we were representing our actors to the best of our ability, and this being a situation in which the studios might be closed, we met with the producers, met with both factions in the jurisdictional dispute in an attempt to settle that strike. We continued meeting with them separately and together. I believe the Screen Actors Guild committee which put these people in one room and tried to settle the strike perhaps is better informed on the situation and on the jurisdictional strike than any other group in the motion-picture industry.
We met repeatedly and we met continuously for 7 months and then intermittently from that 7 months’ period on. The strike is still continuing.
MR. STRIPLING: Do you know whether the Communists have participated in any way in this strike?
MR. REAGAN: Sir, the first time that this word “Communist” was ever injected into any of the meetings concerning the strike was at a meeting in Chicago with Mr. William Hutch[e]son, president of the carpenters union, who were o
n strike at the time. He asked the Screen Actors Guild to submit terms to Mr. [Richard] Walsh, for Walsh to give in the settling of this strike, and he told us to tell Mr. Walsh that if he would give in on these terms he in turn “would run this Sorrell and the other Commies out”—I am quoting him—and break it up. I might add that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Sorrell were running the strike for Mr. Hutch[e]son in Hollywood.
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the motion-picture industry of any Communist influences, if they are there?
MR. REAGAN: Well, sir, I would like to say, as Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Murphy have indicated, they have done it very well. I have been alarmed by the misapprehension, the feeling around, that it was a minority fighting against a majority on this issue in our business, and I would like in answering that question to reiterate what those gentlemen have said, that rather 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think within the bounds of our democratic rights, and never once stepping over the rights given us by democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people’s activities curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I can certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently successful in preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an organization with a well organized minority.
So that fundamentally I would say in opposing those people that the best thing to do is to make democracy work. In the Screen Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a vote and by keeping everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake.
Whether the party should be outlawed, I agree with the gentlemen that preceded me that that is a matter for the Government to decide. As a citizen I would hesitate, or not like, to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. We have spent 170 years in this country on the basis that democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight against the inroads of any ideology. However if it is proven that an organization is an agent of a power, a foreign power, or in any way not a legitimate political party, and I think the Government is capable of proving that, if the proof is there, then that is another matter.