How did HUAC know that some of their witnesses had ties to the Communist Party
|
Show In 1947, at the height of the "Red Scare," more than 40 of Hollywood's highest-profile stars, as well as writers, producers and studio executives, were called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) over allegations of communist infiltration and subversion of the movie industry. The HUAC hearings were widely publicized, and 80% of Americans were aware of them at that time. These Americans were divided over how the hearings were handled, though they were modestly more in sync about punishing those who refused to cooperate with the committee. Americans Divided on Handling of the House Un-American Activities Committee Hollywood Hearings What is your opinion of this investigation (of Hollywood by the congressional committee) -- do you approve or disapprove of the way it was handled?
Members of the HUAC sought to compel those testifying to provide information concerning their own and their associates' political memberships and sympathies. While many of those testifying chose to cooperate, a substantial minority refused or used various methods to avoid questions. Americans familiar with the HUAC hearings were mixed as to whether they approved (37%) or disapproved (36%) of how the hearings were handled. One group called to testify, which became known as the "Hollywood Ten," refused to cooperate with the committee, asserting that their political activities were protected by the First Amendment. When Americans were asked if "Hollywood writers" who refused to say if they were members of the Communist Party should be punished, nearly half (47%) said they should be. Nearly Half of Americans Favored Punishing Those Who Did Not Cooperate With the House Un-American Activities Committee Do you think the Hollywood writers who refused to say whether they were members of the Communist Party should be punished or not?
Support for punishing these individuals was lowest among college-educated Americans, with roughly a third (34%) agreeing that punishment was warranted. Individuals with lower levels of education were substantially more likely to support punishing those who refused to cooperate, including 44% of those with a high school education and 53% of those with a grammar school education. In 1948, each member of the Hollywood Ten was tried on charges of contempt of Congress, convicted and sentenced to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Subsequent appeals of the convictions failed. After they had served their sentences, the Hollywood Ten remained blacklisted and largely unable to secure work in the industry until the 1960s. Read more from the Gallup Vault. Embed from Getty Images Arthur Miller was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956, as HUAC’s power was waning. He was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to identify people who he had met at two communist writers’ meetings. This portion of his testimony is near the end of the proceedings. Richard Arens (counsel for HUAC and a former aide to Senator McCarthy): Do you know a person by the name of Sue Warren? Arthur Miller: I couldn’t recall at this moment. Mr. Arens: Do you know or have you known a person by the name of Arnaud D’Usseau? Mr. Miller: I have met him. Mr. Arens: What has been the nature of your activity in connection with Arnaud D’Usseau? Mr. Miller: Just what is the point? Mr. Arens: Have you been in any Communist Party sessions with Arnaud D’Usseau? Mr. Miller: I was present at meetings of Communist Party writers in 1947, about 5 or 6 meetings. Mr. Arens: Where were those meetings held? Mr. Miller: They were held in someone’s apartment. I don’t know whose it was. Mr. Arens: Were those closed party meetings? Mr. Miller: I wouldn’t be able to tell you that. Mr. Arens: Was anyone there who, to your knowledge, was not a Communist? Mr. Miller: I wouldn’t know that. Mr. Arens: Have you ever made application for membership in the Communist Party? Mr. Miller: In 1939 I believe it was or in 1940 I went to attend a Marxist study course in the vacant store open to the street in my neighborhood in Brooklyn. I there signed some form or another. Mr. Arens: That was an application for membership in the Communist Party, was it not? Mr. Miller: I would not say that. I am here to tell you what I know. Mr. Arens: Tell us what you know. Mr. Miller: This is now 16 years ago. That is half a lifetime away. I don’t recall and I haven’t been able to recall and, if I could, I would tell you the exact nature of that application. I understood then that this was to be, as I have said, a study course. I was there for about 3 to 4 times perhaps. It was of no interest to me and I didn’t return. Mr. Arens: Who invited you to attend? Mr. Miller: I wouldn’t remember. It was a long time ago. Mr. Arens: Tell us, if you please, sir, about these meetings with the Communist Party writers which you said you attended in New York City. Mr. Miller: I was by then a well-known writer. I have written All my Sons, and a novel Focus, and a book of Reportage about Ernie Pyle and my work with him on attempting to make the picture The Story of GI Joe. I did research for that, so that by the time I was quite well known, and I attended these meetings in order to locate my ideas in relation to Marxism because I had been assailed for years by all kinds of interpretations of what communism was, what Marxism was, and I went there to discover where I stood finally and completely, and I listened and said very little, I think, the 4 or 5 times. Mr. Arens: Could I just interject this question so that we have it in the proper chronology? What occasioned your presence? Who invited you there? Mr. Miller: I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know. Mr. Arens: Can you tell us who was there when you walked into the room? Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I understand the philosophy behind this question and I want you to understand mine. When I say this I want you to understand that I am not protecting the Communists or the Communist Party. I am trying to and I will protect my sense of myself. I could not use the name of another person and bring trouble on him. These were writers, poets, as far as I could see, and the life of a writer, despite what it sometimes seems, is pretty tough. I wouldn’t make it any tougher for anybody. I ask you not to ask me that question. (Miller confers with his lawyer) I will tell you anything about myself, as I have. Mr. Arens: These were Communist Party meetings; were they not? Mr. Miller: I will be perfectly frank with you in anything relating to my activities. I take the responsibility for everything I have ever done, but I cannot take responsibility for another human being. Mr. Arens: This record shows, does it not, Mr. Miller, that these were Communist Party meetings? (Miller confers with his lawyer) Is that correct? Mr. Miller: I understood them to be Communist writers who were meeting regularly. Mr. Arens: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question as to who it was that he saw at these meetings. Donald Jackson (HUAC member and former House Representative from California): May I say that moral scruples, however laudable, do not constitute legal reason for refusing to answer the question. I certainly endorse the request for direction. Francis Eugene Walter (Chairman of HUAC from 1955-1963 and former House Representative from Pennsylvania): You are directed to answer the question, Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller: May I confer with my attorney for a moment? (Miller confers with his lawyer) Mr. Walter, could I ask you to postpone this question until the testimony is completed and you can gage for yourself? Mr. Walter: Of course, you can do that, but I understand this is about the end of the hearing. Mr. Arens: This is about the end of the hearing. We have only a few more questions. The record reflects that this witness has identified these meetings as the meetings of the Communist writers. In the jurisdiction of this committee he has been requested to tell this committee who were in attendance at these meetings. Arthur Miller explains his position on Communist thought and the relationship of art to politics Mr. Walter: Mr. Miller, what has this to do – Mr. Miller: I am trying to elucidate my position on the relation of art. Mr. Arens: Was Arnaud D’Usseau chairman? Gordon Scherer (HUAC member and former House Representative from Ohio): Just a minute. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? Mr. Walter: Yes. Mr. Scherer: There is a question before the witness; namely, to give the names of those individuals who were present at the Communist Party meeting of Communist writers. There is a direction on the part of the chairman to answer the question. Now so that the record may be clear, I think we should say to the witness – Witness, would you listen? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Scherer: We do not accept the reasons you gave for refusing to answer the question and that it is the opinion of the committee that, if you do not answer the question, that you areplacing yourself in contempt. That is an admonition that this committee must give you in compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you again direct the witness to answer the question. Mr. Walter: He has been directed to answer the question and he gave us the answer that we just do not accept. Mr. Arens: Was Arnaud D’Usseau chairman of this meeting of Communist Party writers which took place in 1947 at which you were in attendance? Mr. Miller: All I can say, sir, is that my conscience will not permit me to use the name of another person (Miller confers with his lawyer). And that my counsel advises me that there is no relevance between this question and the question of whether I should have a passport or there should be passport legislation in 1956. Mr. Arens: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question as to whether or not Arnaud D’Usseau – A-r-n-a-u-d. The last name is D-‘-U-s-s-e-a-u – was chairman of the meeting of the Communist Party writers in New York City in 1947 at which you were in attendance. Mr. Walter: You are directed to answer the question. Mr. Miller: I have given you my answer, sir. Mr. Arens: I ask you now, sir, whether or not Sue Warren was in attendance at this meeting of the Communist Party writers held in New York City in 1947? Mr. Miller: I have given you my answer. Harold Velde (HUAC member and former House Representative from Illinois): Do you know Sue Warren? Mr. Jackson: Did you decline to answer the question? Mr. Miller: (Miller confers with his lawyer) I tell you, sir, that I have given my answer. Mr. Jackson: I am not satisfied with that. That is entirely too vague. What I want is a positive statement as to whether or not you will answer that question. Mr. Miller: (Miller confers with his lawyer) Sir, I believe I have given you the answer that I must give. The hearing concluded shortly after this, with Miller continuing to refuse to name any names. Why did the HUAC investigate Hollywood?HUAC investigations led to Hollywood blacklists
In 1947 and 1951 it investigated alleged Communist Party influence in Hollywood and the motion picture industry. As a result of these and subsequent hearings, nearly 300 actors and others employed in the movie industry were blacklisted or prevented from working.
What was the famous question that HUAC is associated with asking?The phrase “are you now or have you ever been,” was the question routinely asked of committee witnesses, as HUAC tried to force them into admitting they were members of the Communist Party. The phrase is now a part of American political folklore. HUAC was created on May 26, 1938.
Who were the friendly witnesses HUAC?Of those subpoenaed, there was a group of friendly witnesses and a group of unfriendly witnesses. Friendly witnesses were expected to name names, and included Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan, and Sam Wood. Unfriendly witnesses, made up of motion-picture producers, directors, and screenwriters, included ten individuals.
What happened to the Hollywood Ten after they refused to testify before HUAC?The “Hollywood Ten," as the men were known, are sentenced to one year in jail. The Supreme Court later upheld the contempt charges. The contempt charges stemmed from the refusal of the 10 men to answer questions posed by HUAC as to whether they were or had ever been members of the Communist Party.
|
