A Good American Family

by David Maraniss

  23

  * * *

  March 12, 1952

  THE WEATHER IN Detroit was clear and dry, with a high sky. The attention of the American press was elsewhere, mostly in New Hampshire, where, the night before, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the war hero, had defeated Robert Taft, the Ohio senator, in the Republican presidential primary. Ike won without campaigning; he was in Europe, working as supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the Democratic primary, President Harry Truman was defeated by Estes Kefauver, the mob-fighting senator from Tennessee. It was the political beginning for Eisenhower; the beginning of the end for Truman. The Korean War was in its twenty-first month, with fifteen more to go.

  In Room 740 of the Federal Building in downtown Detroit, it was the final day of hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities packed up and returned to Washington. My father was called fifth to last.

  Testimony of Elliott Maraniss, Accompanied by His Counsel, George W. Crockett

  Mr. Tavenner: Mr. Elliott Maraniss.

  Mr. Wood: Will you raise your right hand [to] be sworn, please? You do solemnly swear that the evidence you give this subcommittee will be the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

  Mr. Maraniss: I do.

  Mr. Tavenner: What is your name, please, sir?

  Mr. Maraniss: My name is Elliott Maraniss.

  Mr. Tavenner: Are you represented by counsel?

  Mr. Maraniss: Yes, sir. Mr. Crockett is my counsel.

  Mr. Tavenner: And Mr. Crockett is accompanying you?

  Mr. Maraniss: (No response.)

  Mr. Tavenner: He is sitting beside you? I want the record merely to show he is here.

  Mr. Crockett: My name is George W. Crockett, offices located in the Cadillac Tower, Detroit, Michigan.

  Mr. Tavenner: When and where were you born, please, sir?

  Mr. Maraniss: I was born in Boston, Massachusetts, in February of 1918.

  Mr. Tavenner: Do you now live in Detroit?

  Mr. Maraniss: Yes, I do.

  Mr. Tavenner: How long have you lived in Detroit?

  Mr. Maraniss: I have been a resident of Michigan since 1936 when I entered the University of Michigan. I have been a resident of Detroit since 1941.

  Mr. Tavenner: How have you been employed since 1941?

  Mr. Maraniss: In June of 1941 I was employed at the Detroit Times. I am a newspaperman. I was employed at the Detroit Times from June until about the fourteenth or fifteenth of December 1941, when I enlisted in the Army of the United States and served in the Army of the United States until January of 1946, when I was discharged, honorably discharged, as a captain in the Army of the United States.

  Upon my discharge, I returned to my employment as a newspaperman on the Detroit Times, and was continuously employed at the Detroit Times until February 29, 1952, on which date I received a subpoena from your committee, and was summarily fired from my job.

  Mr. Tavenner: What was the nature of your employment with the newspaper?

  Mr. Maraniss: I am classified as a copy reader on the Detroit Times.

  Mr. Tavenner: Mr. Maraniss, the committee, in the course of its investigation, obtained information that on January 24 or 25, 1948, the Communist Party held a State conference at 2934 Yemans Hall, and that you were present as a delegate to the conference. Is that correct?

  Mr. Maraniss: Upon advice of my counsel, I invoke the privileges under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which was written into the Constitution to prevent forced confessions.

  Mr. Tavenner: You stated that your employment had been practically continuous with the Detroit Times since you came here in 1941 with the exception of the period of your service, which was military service, which was rather extensive.

  Mr. Maraniss: That is correct.

  Mr. Tavenner: During the period of time when you were employed here in Detroit, were you employed by any other newspaper or publication?

  Mr. Crockett: On the basis of my recollection of the testimony—

  Mr. Wood: Mr. Crockett, will you please conform to the rule and confer with your client in an undertone?

  Mr. Maraniss: My counsel advises me to invoke my privileges under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Wood: Do you do that under the advice of counsel?

  Mr. Maraniss: I do.

  Mr. Tavenner: Have you written articles for the Michigan Worker under the name of Oscar Williams?

  Mr. Crockett: May I ask, Mr. Counsel, if the Michigan Worker has been listed as a subversive publication by your committee?

  Mr. Tavenner: No.

  Mr. Crockett: It has not been?

  Mr. Wood: And neither has the witness.

  Mr. Crockett: I didn’t inquire about the witness, Mr. Chairman. I only inquired about the publication.

  Mr. Wood: The question was asked as to what he did, not what the publication did.

  Mr. Crockett: I only asked the question as a basis for advice to my client.

  Mr. Maraniss: I invoke my privilege under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Tavenner: In spite of the answer as to the citation of the publication?

  Mr. Crockett: I think, Mr. Counsel, that the record here at this hearing indicates that the Michigan Worker has been labeled as the Michigan edition of the Daily Worker. Am I right?

  Mr. Tavenner: I wouldn’t attempt to recite the evidence on that.

  Mr. Crockett: Very well.

  Mr. Tavenner: Your answer is still that you refuse to answer the question?

  Mr. Maraniss: I have given my answer.

  Mr. Tavenner: Have you used the name of Oscar Williams in writing, or have you used that name in any other way?

  Mr. Maraniss: I invoke my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.

  Mr. Wood: Well, do you answer then, or not?

  Mr. Maraniss: And I refuse to answer the question.

  Mr. Tavenner: Have you at any time been a member of the professional section of the Communist Party of Detroit?

  Mr. Maraniss: I invoke my privilege under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer that question.

  I wish to make a statement, however, about my views on un-American activities, if the counsel and Mr. Wood would permit.

  Mr. Wood: After you answer the questions. If you answer them, we will be glad to have your explanation of anything you want to make, after you answer the questions.

  Mr. Maraniss: Isn’t the purpose of this inquiry to discover the thinking of people on what constitutes un-American activities, and what activities—

  Mr. Wood: The purpose of this investigation at the moment is to determine first of all what your position is with reference to membership in the Communist Party, which you have refused to enlighten us about. I call your attention to the fact that you sought, at the outset of your testimony, to leave an inference that you had been deprived of your position with the paper here because of the fact that you had been subpoenaed by this committee.

  Mr. Maraniss: That is no inference. That is a fact.

  Mr. Wood: If that is true, we are offering you the best opportunity I know of for you to convince your employers—your previous employers or anybody else, for that matter, that if the committee had subpoenaed you for the purpose of identifying you as a member of the Communist Party and you are not, in fact, so a member, to so state.

  Mr. Maraniss: Mr. Wood, you are not offering me any opportunity, as I see it. You have subpoenaed me and compelled me to come here and answer questions about my political beliefs.

  Mr. Wood: Well, you were subpoenaed. That is true. But now you have been asked the question which you have declined to answer.

  Mr. Crockett: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that you are penalizing this man because he relies on the Fifth Amendment, and, because of that, you refuse to let him make a statement?

  Mr. Wood: If he isn’t a member of the Communist Party, I am seeking to help him. If he is, I think the public is entitled to know it.
>
  Mr. Crockett: The public isn’t entitled to know anything that you may properly claim the privilege from disclosing under the Fifth Amendment.

  Mr. Wood: I grant you the right to claim immunity under the Fifth Amendment.

  Mr. Maraniss: Mr. Chairman, may I read you the constitution about eligibility in the union to which I belong, the union of newspapermen. Under Section 1: “Guild memberships shall be open to every eligible person without discrimination or penalty, nor shall any member be barred from membership or penalized by reason of age, sex, race, national origin, religious or political submission, or anything he writes for publication.”

  I believe that is an unassailable guaranty of freedom of speech and freedom of expression for a newspaperman, and right to indulge in any political activity without fear of penalization.

  Mr. Jackson: What is that from?

  Mr. Maraniss: That is from my constitution of the American Newspaper Guild, CIO, of which I am a member.

  Mr. Jackson: Did you point that out to the board of the CIO Newspaper Guild?

  Mr. Maraniss: I certainly did. I pointed it out to my boss, too.

  Mr. Jackson: Then that is the forum before which you should bring the bylaws and your constitution, not this committee.

  Mr. Maraniss: This is a question of the rights of newspapermen to engage in political activity, freely, to hold opinions and beliefs without being subject to penalization, or being forced to enter into forced confessions before a group like this.

  Mr. Tavenner: Do you take the position that the Communist Party is not a conspiracy?

  Mr. Maraniss: I rely upon the Fifth Amendment’s guaranty and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Tavenner: Do you consider that the Communist Party is nothing more than a political party?

  Mr. Maraniss: I again rely on my constitutional privileges and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Tavenner: If it is nothing more than a political party, we are wasting a lot of time.

  Mr. Wood: Any further questions?

  Mr. Tavenner: On the very day that you say you received a subpoena, did you learn that Mrs. Toby Baldwin testified before this committee and identified you as having been a member of the Communist Party?

  Mr. Maraniss: I rely upon my constitutional privileges under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Tavenner: Didn’t you learn that on the day you were subpoenaed, Mrs. Baldwin testified before this committee?

  Mr. Maraniss: Yes, I learned that.

  Mr. Tavenner: Do you still state, in the light of that information that you were discharged from your position because of being subpoenaed, or was it because of the testimony that was given here before this committee?

  Mr. Maraniss: If I had never been subpoenaed, I would never have been forced to answer that question—I mean the fact would never have made any difference, and I wouldn’t have ever been discharged.

  However, Mr. Tavenner, it is my belief that back in—I believe that the management of the Detroit Times has been looking for a chance to fire me since 1947—because at that time, there was a discharge of about 12 employees of the Detroit Times for reason of economy, and I was one of the members of the Newspaper Guild who was trying to get the union and the men there to get the reinstatement of those men, and many of them were reinstated, and I think they have had it in for me ever since.

  Mr. Tavenner: Were you discharged after the testimony of Mrs. Baldwin, or before her testimony?

  Mr. Maraniss: I was discharged after her testimony.

  Mr. Tavenner: Was her testimony with regard to you true or false?

  Mr. Maraniss: I invoke my privileges under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer that question.

  Mr. Tavenner: I have no further questions.

  Mr. Maraniss: May I read the statement now, Mr. Wood?

  (Wood checks to see if other congressmen have questions.)

  Mr. Wood: We don’t permit statements. If you have one written there, we shall be glad to have it filed with the clerk.

  (Whereupon the statement of Mr. Maraniss was filed.)

  Mr. Jackson: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Maraniss, you were discharged a captain from the armed services, is that correct?

  Mr. Maraniss: That is right.

  Mr. Jackson: Do you hold a commission in the Reserve at the present time?

  Mr. Maraniss: No. I do not.

  Mr. Jackson: That is all.

  Mr. Wood: The witness is excused.

  24

  * * *

  The Whole Pattern of a Life

  IN THE 34 YEARS of my life, in war and peace, I have been a loyal, law-abiding citizen of the United States.

  One week after this nation was attacked at Pearl Harbor in 1941, I enlisted as a private in the Army of the United States and served for more than four years, climaxed by the campaign in Okinawa. I was honorably discharged in January 1946, with the rank of captain.

  Upon my discharge I returned to my job as a newspaperman with the Detroit Times.

  I am a homeowner, taxpayer, and parent, father of two boys and a girl.

  I was taught as a child and in school that the highest responsibility of citizenship is to defend the principles of the U.S. Constitution and to do my part in securing for the American people the blessings of peace, economic well-being, and freedom.

  I have tried to do just that to the very best of my ability.

  And for doing just that—and nothing more—I have been summarily discharged from my job. I have been blacklisted in the newspaper business after 12 years in which my competency and objectivity have never once been questioned.

  I must sell my home, uproot my family and upset the tranquility and security of my three small children in the happy, formative years of their childhood.

  But I would rather have my children miss a meal or two now than have them grow up in the gruesome, fear-ridden future for America projected by the members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

  I don’t like to talk about these personal things. But my Americanism has been questioned and to properly measure a man’s Americanism you must know the whole pattern of a life.

  I feel that nobody has the right to question my Americanism—least of all a committee which itself has been called subversive, un-American and anti-labor by the CIO, of which I am a member, by President Roosevelt and by responsible organizations representing many millions of Americans.

  I view this committee’s attempt to muzzle me and drive me off my job as a direct attack on freedom of the press and the right of newspapermen to participate freely in the political life of the country without fear of reprisal.

  The U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights are not simply musty documents in a library. They have meaning only if they are used.

  To betray and subvert the Bill of Rights is the most un-American act any man or committee can do: for that document was brought into being and maintained throughout our history by men who gave their lives and their blood.

  Every newspaperman knows that history is not a printed page. It is the passion and striving, the struggling and endurance of men and women. These qualities that went into the making of our nation can be discarded only at great peril to ourselves and our children.

  From the time of Peter Zenger, the colonial printer who defied the British crown’s effort to impose censorship in the American colonies, right down to the present, newspapermen have zealously defended the freedom of the press.

  For the First Amendment is not only a guarantee of free speech and a free press: it is also an indispensable part of self-government.

  That’s what makes this committee so dangerous. Ostensibly designed to protect the government against overthrow by force and violence, it proceeds by force, terror and threats to overthrow the rights of the American people.

  A witness has no rights whatever. He is denied the elementary due processes of law. He has no opportunity to confront his accuser, to cross examine witnesses, to call wit
nesses in his own behalf or even to make a statement.

  The committee is so poisoned with bigotry and malice that it is hard indeed to believe that it is indeed a committee of the Congress of the United States. It more resembles a session of the Spanish Inquisition or the witch-hunting trials in Salem in the late Seventeenth Century. If anyone believes this comparison far-fetched, read these words of Cotton Mather instructing the judges in the technique of extracting confessions from suspected witches:

  “Now first a credible confession of the guilty wretches is one of the most hopeful ways at coming at them. I am far from urging the un-English method of torture . . . but whatever hath a tendency to put the witches into confusion is likely to bring them into confession. Here cross and swift questions have their use!”

  Under this technique, as Supreme Court Justice Black has observed, many confessed; some were burned; all were innocent.

  It was precisely to combat this technique, to rule it out forever from American life, that the Fifth Amendment was written into our Bill of Rights.

  This committee reflects no credit on American institutions or ideas.

  Its attempt to enforce conformity of political or economic thought is a long step toward dictatorship that holds the greatest danger to the entire American people.

  In this country we have never acquiesced in the proposition that persons could be punished for their beliefs.

  Back in Jefferson’s time, when the Alien and Sedition laws were passed, countless newspapermen and editors were indicted, and many sent to jail for their fight together with Jefferson to restore the Bill of Rights. In their number Matthew Lyon, John C. Ogden, David Brown, William Duane, James Thomas Callendar, Jedediah Peck, Charles Holt and Thomas Adams.

  These men never stopped fighting. They forced the repeal of the repressive legislation and set the nation on the high road of its future development.