McCarthyism
May. 13th, 2003 11:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quislibetOn the classics list someone pointed out this link to a 2.3 MB text file including testimony from various literary and academic figures in 1953 McCarthy hearings. The main draw for classicists was Naphtali Lewis, a papyrologist, but the file also contains the testimony of, e.g., Dashiell Hammett and Langston Hughes; that file and four more volumes of testimony can be found on the Government Print Office website.
As you have to load the whole file and then use a search function to find specific witnesses, I came upon the testimony of Helen Goldfrank, who under a pen-name had written a children's book called "Apple Pie for Lewis." Her general attitude can only be described as non-cooperative, and it makes for long, if entertaining, reading.
For those of you who don't want to load that whole page you can read Goldfrank's testimony right here in my livejournal. It's long, though; a printout is about 10 pages.
For example:
Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of
privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged
communication?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were
married to him.
11:33: I've highlighted in bold some sections, so you can get the "good parts" version fairly easily.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN GOLDFRANK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
CHARLES E. FORD)
Senator Mundt. Give your name and address for the record,
please.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank, Thornwood, New York.
Mr. Cohn. Could we have counsel's name for the record?
Mr. Ford. Charles E. Ford, 416 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Cohn. Your name is Helen Goldfrank?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe I must stand on my rights of
special privilege as provided under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution, and I can not answer that question as it may tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. You decline to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you, and you exercise your privilege
under the Fifth Amendment?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. As to whether you have ever been known by another
name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation--Is it Mrs. Goldfrank?
Mrs. Goldfrank. My occupation is Mrs. Goldfrank.
Mr. Cohn. Do you do any writing?
Senator Mundt. I did not hear a word she said.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Housewife.
Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of
privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged
communication?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were
married to him.
Mr. Cohn. Was your husband a member of the national
committee of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must repeat that I regret that I must
decline to answer your questions on the basis of personal
privilege as the answer may tend to incriminate me and I seek
the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and
secondly, under the Constitution, the status of the family is a
privileged communication, and under that I refuse to answer.
Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Ford. May the record show she gave two grounds? You
stated one.
Senator Mundt. The record will show everything she says
loudly enough to be heard, and nothing else.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry but my voice is not very loud.
Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Have you ever written any
books?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again regretfully refuse to answer
on the rights of special privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution that any answer I give you will tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard of a book called Apple Pie
for Lewis? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Helen Kay, Apple Pie for Lewis (New York: Aladdin Books, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me under the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Senator McClellan. Have you honestly been telling the truth
when you say you are afraid it will incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am honest in telling the truth.
Mr. Cohn. I do not understand how it could incriminate you
to say that you have heard of a certain book.
Mr. Ford. May I address the committee on that? I believe
our courts have ruled that if a witness after asserting the
right is called upon to explain how the right would be
affected, they are waiving the privilege.
Senator Mundt. I believe the courts have also held that a
witness is in contempt if there is no valid ground for
incrimination.
Mr. Ford. Only if the senators decide to cite him in your
judgment.
Senator Mundt. I think the witness should be apprized of
that fact. If she invokes the right when it does not exist, she
could be cited.
Mr. Ford. I believe to save you time she realizes when she
declines you all intend to say she should answer so that will
cover the question.
Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is a matter of intention. The
privilege can only be exercised if it is exercised in complete
good faith with the sincere good belief that if an answer is
given, it might result in incrimination.
Mr. Ford. Correct.
Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony, Mrs. Goldfrank, that if you
say you have heard of a book known as Apple Pie for Lewis, that
that answer, if you answered truthfully, might tend to show you
are guilty of a crime, it might tend to incriminate you. That
is what the privilege is.
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is my answer.
Mr. Schine. Have you heard of the book Gone With the Wind?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my lawyer. May I
have the privilege of speaking with my lawyer?
Mr. Schine. Certainly.
[Witness consults with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. That book has no relationship to me and is
innocuous, and I have naturally heard of it.
Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony then that this book, Apple
Pie for Lewis is not innocuous?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on the
ground of possible self incrimination.
Mr. Cohn. Do you know that this book of yours, Apple Pie
for Lewis and another book of yours are being widely used by
the State Department information program?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I cannot answer that on the basis of
possible self incrimination.
Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment and my right of
personal privilege that any answer I may give may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party at
any time over the last twenty years?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again repeat, I respectfully decline
to answer your question on my constitutional right under the
Fifth Amendment that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party in 1951?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I respectfully decline to answer
your question as my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. You have told us you are a housewife. Do you have
any outside source of income, any moneys other than those given
you by your husband?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe two factors would be involved
there. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me, and the second
would be the privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. My question is whether or not you, forgetting
about your husband, have earned any moneys other than those
which your husband has given you. It does not involve your
husband at all. The only question is, have you received any
moneys other than those given you by your husband?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again----
Mr. Cohn. I will tell you right now I will recommend to the
chairman that there is no possible question of husband and wife
privilege on that. We are addressing ourselves here to whether
or not you received any other moneys.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question within my rights under the Fifth Amendment as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan [presiding]. Does the chair understand
that you think if you gave testimony as to your own personal
income from sources other than through your husband that that
would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I can only answer in the same way, sir.
Senator McClellan. I am asking you if you think that it
would tend to incriminate you. That is what I am asking you. If
you gave the committee information regarding your income,
income that is independent from that of your husband, your own
personal income, are you stating to the committee that you
think that to give such testimony truthfully would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer your
question as I believe----
Senator McClellan. You decline to answer whether you think
it would tend to incriminate you, do you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan. That is what I asked you and you decline
to answer on constitutional grounds. I asked you if you think
to give such testimony regarding yourself, independent of your
husband, you think it would tend to incriminate you.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, I repeat that any answer--I
must stand on special privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
Senator McClellan. You do not have that very well
memorized. I am asking you if you think it would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan. You think it would tend to incriminate
you to answer that question?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator McClellan. To answer the question that you think it
would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. So then you are unwilling to tell the
committee, are you, that you believe honestly that it would
tend to incriminate you if you answered these questions?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe once again----
Senator McClellan. I cannot understand you. I am sorry.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry, too, sir. Would you repeat your
question?
Senator McClellan. Do you tell the committee that you think
that it would tend to incriminate you if you answered the
question whether you honestly believe if you answered the
question regarding your separate and independent income that
that would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
Mr. Schine. Where were you born?
Mrs. Goldfrank. New York City.
Mr. Schine. And where did you go to school?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Excuse me. May I consult with my attorney?
Mr. Cohn. You may consult with counsel.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would stand on my right of special
privilege and feel that answering that question would tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. You do not wish to tell the committee where you
went to school?
Mrs. Goldfrank. No.
Mr. Schine. You feel honestly if you did it would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
Mr. Schine. In the school that you went to, did you ever
hear the pledge of allegiance to the American flag?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Mr. Schine. You did. Did that pledge of allegiance mean
anything to you before you got involved in this trouble, or
before you got mixed up?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again repeat that I cannot
answer your question on the basis that it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Are you now involved in espionage against the
United States government?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I stand on my constitutional right of
refusing to answer that question as that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Did you carry money from Moscow to Germany for
the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again stand on my constitutional
right of personal privilege and refuse to answer that question
on the basis of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as the
answer to that question may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Have you been in Moscow?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must refuse to answer your
question as that answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Do you regret that you are unable to tell the
committee whether you are now or have ever been a member of the
Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I regret on the basis of special privilege
that I cannot answer your questions within my rights under the
Fifth Amendment as any answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. You misunderstood the question. Do you regret
that you cannot answer the question, are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
Mr. Schine. Yes.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must stand on my rights of
special privilege and refuse to answer that question because
under the Fifth Amendment I have the right to plead that that
answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Do you honestly believe in the overthrow by
force and violence of the United States government?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as that
question may tend to incriminate me under the rights of special
privilege.
Mr. Schine. I have no more questions.
Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Did you testify before a
federal grand jury in New York recently?
Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me and I stand on the
special privilege of my rights under the Constitution.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the
witness be considered in contempt of the committee for not
answering. Not answering a question of that character is
absurd.
Senator McClellan. May I ask one other question. Are you an
American citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am, and I am proud of it, sir.
Senator McClellan. You are an American citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator McClellan. You do not think that incriminates you,
do you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, as an American citizen, sir, I
stand on my right under the Constitution of special privilege--
--
Senator McClellan. Is there anything in America that you
are proud of except that constitutional right you invoke so
freely and so insistently? Can you mention anything else you
are proud of about America except this right that you claim to
be invoking at this time? Do you think it will incriminate you
to answer that?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my attorney.
Senator McClellan. All right, consult him.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am proud of the entire Constitution of
the United States, and on the basis of the Constitution I seek
special privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States, which you now say you are
proud of?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again plead special privilege--
--
Senator McClellan. If you are proud of it, why do you think
it intimidates you, after you say you are proud of it, to say
that you do not believe in the overthrow of it?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must plead special privilege
Senator McClellan. You have said that you are proud of all
of the Constitution of the United States. Do you now insist
that it might incriminate you to answer the question whether
you believe in the overthrow of that Constitution, which you
now say you are proud of? Do you still insist that that might
tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think my answer to that question would
tend to incriminate me.
Senator Symington. Have you ever acted as a spy for a
foreign country?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question.
Senator Symington. On the ground it might incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is right.
Senator Dirksen [presiding]. Mrs. Goldfrank, when you
stated that you are a citizen, are you a native born citizen or
a naturalized citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe in the first question, I was born
in New York City.
Senator Dirksen. You are then native born.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. And you are how old, if that is not too
personal?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am forty years old.
Senator Dirksen. What was your answer?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Forty.
Senator Dirksen. You are forty?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. And you have lived continuously in the
United States, I suppose, except for any excursions you may
have made abroad since that time?
Mrs. Goldfrank. My residence has been in the United States.
Senator Dirksen. What is your regular occupation, if you
have any? Is it authoring works such as appear here before the
committee, or do you have a profession, or are you associated
with some company?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, I must plead the point, the wife's
special privilege, and refuse to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give you might tend to incriminate me.
Senator Dirksen. I think for the purposes of the record I
should advise you that I doubt very much whether you can take
refuge in the Fifth Amendment on a question of that kind. I do
not believe it involves your liberty at all.
Mr. Ford. May I address the senator?
Senator Dirksen. Yes, I would be glad to hear you.
Mr. Ford. I believe that question has appeared in many of
the cases tried in our district court here, what is your
occupation. I know of several. These grew out of the Kefauver
committee hearings, and the question was asked, ``What is your
occupation,'' and the people refused, and they were sustained
in our court when they did refuse on the constitutional ground.
Senator Dirksen. They did not have to divulge what their
occupations were?
Mr. Ford. That is right. The courts have held it is the
next questions that they may lead to, and they may involve the
question of income tax returns and things of that kind, because
those questions are asked in the returns in the federal law. So
I respectfully call that to your attention that they have ruled
that. One was Fischetti case and the other was Guzik, in
Chicago. There were several of them where that particular
question was made the count of the indictment and passed upon.
Senator Dirksen. I think we ought to make the record
reasonably full here.
Mr. Ford. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. Are you associated with any school or
college in New York in a teaching capacity or any other
capacity?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must plead special privilege once again,
Senator, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
Senator Dirksen. Have you authored many books or a few
books or one book?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That question also is----
Senator Dirksen. I am not asking what kind of books. I am
asking you whether you have authored----
Mrs. Goldfrank. I plead that the answer to that question
may tend to incriminate me.
Senator Dirksen. I have grave doubts about your answer but
we will let it stand for the moment until we can determine
that. Have you made any trips abroad?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must refuse to answer that question on my
right----
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dirksen. Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. I am not a lawyer. I do not think we are
really talking to the witness. I think we are talking to the
witness' counsel. I think the witness thinks this is all pretty
much of a good joke. I respectfully again request, from my
knowledge as an American citizen, that this witness be held in
contempt of this committee.
Senator Dirksen. Your question is very proper and should be
considered very shortly after this hearing terminates in a
strictly executive session.
Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Goldfrank, were you ever associated with the
Communist Internationale?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Mr. Cohn is your name?
Mr. Cohn. Yes.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer your
question on the basis of personal privilege.
Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that as a representative of the
Communist Internationale you carried a sum of money from Moscow
to the German Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of personal privilege and within my
rights under the Constitution.
Mr. Cohn. Within the last year, have you been subpoenaed to
testify before a federal grand jury in New York?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I must----
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to ask
her counsel how he advises her to answer that question.
Mr. Cohn. I was going to ask the chair to direct her to
answer the last question. There is no privilege whatsoever
whether a witness was in fact subpoenaed to appear before a
grand jury.
Mr. Ford. I will be glad to answer Senator Symington.
Senator Dirksen. The committee will be glad to hear
counsel.
Mr. Ford. That would cover the question, and I think the
courts have held, with respect to identity. It is not only that
particular question, Senator, that is involved, because our
courts have held that if a witness does answer that question,
then they are bound to go on and answer the other questions
which would follow, which would be did you appear and what did
you testify, which would be natural questions to flow from the
key question. So I think our courts have held that you must
assert the right to the main question because it is the
subsequent questions that may involve her. That by itself would
be different. For instance, I remember Senator Welker had a
client of mine that was in this position before, and he said to
the witness, ``I don't think that those questions about your
sister and others here (the witness' name was Warring) would
involve you,'' and Warring said, ``Senator, as I understand, if
I answer that key question, I must go on,'' and Senator Welker
said, ``Oh, yes, I intended to follow it up with questions
until I hit,'' and may I use his expression ``pay dirt.'' So
that is why it is applied to that particular one.
Senator Symington. I think your explanation is clear.
Mr. Ford. For my own information, I think Mr. Cohn was
present when she did testify on two occasions. In fact, I think
she answered questions at that time.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, accepting counsel's
exposition of the law as just stated for the record, I asked
the witness a few moments ago if there is anything she was
proud of in the Constitution of the United States except the
Fifth Amendment provision which she was invoking as a matter of
special privilege in this hearing, and she answered, as the
record will show, that she is proud of all of the Constitution
of the United States.
Having answered then, Mr. Chairman, I asked the witness the
question if she believed in the overthrow of the Constitution
of the United States, and she again invoked her special
privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on the
grounds that it might tend to incriminate her.
Having answered that she is proud of all of the
Constitution, Mr. Chairman, I believe she should now be
required to answer the question whether she believes in the
overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, and I most
respectfully ask the chairman to order the witness to answer.
Senator Dirksen. I think it is a very proper question which
does not incriminate or put the witness in jeopardy, and I
believe the question should be answered.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline, Senator, on the basis of
special privilege.
Senator Dirksen. I think the witness may step down. I would
like to ask counsel one question, however.
Mr. Ford. I would be glad to answer.
Senator Dirksen. It is not meant to be an invidious
question at all.
Mr. Ford. Not at all.
Senator Dirksen. And you can decline to answer if you like.
Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
Senator Dirksen. And we can strike it from the record if
you like.
Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
Senator Dirksen. I am wondering if because of comparable
situations we have had before, whether you have advised the
witness in advance on certain basic things that are the key for
an answer or no answer. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Ford. Not at all. I consulted with this witness
yesterday afternoon in my office. I have known this witness
since she was a little girl. For myself I opened up Scott
Field, at Belleville, Illinois, at eighteen as a flier in the
first war. I am an Elk in good standing, and a Roman Catholic
of which I am proud, and I love every part of this country and
everything it does and says, and I am proud of the courts.
However, that same country told me that when a client comes to
me in my office, I should give them the best advice provided I
do not violate any of our laws, and that I did, and I
thoroughly explain to them what it was and what our courts have
held, because as a business proposition some years ago I found
it worthwhile to acquaint myself with this law as it was
becoming quite invoked all over the United States.
I have appeared in Chicago in front of the Kefauver
committee, and I assure you that I merely gave this lady the
advice which I would give to anyone, because it was
conscientious and honest under our law.
Senator Dirksen. Both the committee and the law recognize
the responsibility of an attorney's advocate to client when he
assumes that responsibility.
Mr. Ford. In fact, Senator, I just came back from Hot
Springs yesterday, and last year I think I had the privilege of
laying beside you in the Majestic Hotel in the baths. You did
not know who I was, but I recognized you.
Senator Dirksen. We also recognize the confidential
relationship between attorney and client.
Mr. Ford. As far as myself or anything about me, I will
answer any question anywhere or at any time.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask you a question, and
I am not a lawyer. If somebody comes to you whom you believe
has been interested in a conspiracy or member of an
organization conspiring to overthrow the United States, is it
worth your while to advocate their interest?
Mr. Ford. Is it worth my while?
Senator Symington. Yes.
Mr. Ford. I think my profession requires me to advocate
their interest with certain limitations. First, that I in no
way by word of mouth, suggestion or action become in any way
part of that, that I keep myself completely detached, and by
completely, I do not mean any quibble about it. If the question
came up, if it was a close question, I must resolve in favor of
my government and not myself. Yes, I have that positive
philosophy, and I hope I die with it when the time comes.
As you have to load the whole file and then use a search function to find specific witnesses, I came upon the testimony of Helen Goldfrank, who under a pen-name had written a children's book called "Apple Pie for Lewis." Her general attitude can only be described as non-cooperative, and it makes for long, if entertaining, reading.
For those of you who don't want to load that whole page you can read Goldfrank's testimony right here in my livejournal. It's long, though; a printout is about 10 pages.
For example:
Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of
privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged
communication?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were
married to him.
11:33: I've highlighted in bold some sections, so you can get the "good parts" version fairly easily.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN GOLDFRANK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
CHARLES E. FORD)
Senator Mundt. Give your name and address for the record,
please.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank, Thornwood, New York.
Mr. Cohn. Could we have counsel's name for the record?
Mr. Ford. Charles E. Ford, 416 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Cohn. Your name is Helen Goldfrank?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe I must stand on my rights of
special privilege as provided under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution, and I can not answer that question as it may tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. You decline to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you, and you exercise your privilege
under the Fifth Amendment?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. As to whether you have ever been known by another
name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation--Is it Mrs. Goldfrank?
Mrs. Goldfrank. My occupation is Mrs. Goldfrank.
Mr. Cohn. Do you do any writing?
Senator Mundt. I did not hear a word she said.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Housewife.
Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of
privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged
communication?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were
married to him.
Mr. Cohn. Was your husband a member of the national
committee of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must repeat that I regret that I must
decline to answer your questions on the basis of personal
privilege as the answer may tend to incriminate me and I seek
the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and
secondly, under the Constitution, the status of the family is a
privileged communication, and under that I refuse to answer.
Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
Mr. Ford. May the record show she gave two grounds? You
stated one.
Senator Mundt. The record will show everything she says
loudly enough to be heard, and nothing else.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry but my voice is not very loud.
Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Have you ever written any
books?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again regretfully refuse to answer
on the rights of special privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution that any answer I give you will tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard of a book called Apple Pie
for Lewis? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Helen Kay, Apple Pie for Lewis (New York: Aladdin Books, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me under the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Senator McClellan. Have you honestly been telling the truth
when you say you are afraid it will incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am honest in telling the truth.
Mr. Cohn. I do not understand how it could incriminate you
to say that you have heard of a certain book.
Mr. Ford. May I address the committee on that? I believe
our courts have ruled that if a witness after asserting the
right is called upon to explain how the right would be
affected, they are waiving the privilege.
Senator Mundt. I believe the courts have also held that a
witness is in contempt if there is no valid ground for
incrimination.
Mr. Ford. Only if the senators decide to cite him in your
judgment.
Senator Mundt. I think the witness should be apprized of
that fact. If she invokes the right when it does not exist, she
could be cited.
Mr. Ford. I believe to save you time she realizes when she
declines you all intend to say she should answer so that will
cover the question.
Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is a matter of intention. The
privilege can only be exercised if it is exercised in complete
good faith with the sincere good belief that if an answer is
given, it might result in incrimination.
Mr. Ford. Correct.
Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony, Mrs. Goldfrank, that if you
say you have heard of a book known as Apple Pie for Lewis, that
that answer, if you answered truthfully, might tend to show you
are guilty of a crime, it might tend to incriminate you. That
is what the privilege is.
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is my answer.
Mr. Schine. Have you heard of the book Gone With the Wind?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my lawyer. May I
have the privilege of speaking with my lawyer?
Mr. Schine. Certainly.
[Witness consults with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. That book has no relationship to me and is
innocuous, and I have naturally heard of it.
Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony then that this book, Apple
Pie for Lewis is not innocuous?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on the
ground of possible self incrimination.
Mr. Cohn. Do you know that this book of yours, Apple Pie
for Lewis and another book of yours are being widely used by
the State Department information program?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I cannot answer that on the basis of
possible self incrimination.
Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment and my right of
personal privilege that any answer I may give may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party at
any time over the last twenty years?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again repeat, I respectfully decline
to answer your question on my constitutional right under the
Fifth Amendment that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party in 1951?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I respectfully decline to answer
your question as my answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Cohn. You have told us you are a housewife. Do you have
any outside source of income, any moneys other than those given
you by your husband?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe two factors would be involved
there. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me, and the second
would be the privileged communication between husband and wife.
Mr. Cohn. My question is whether or not you, forgetting
about your husband, have earned any moneys other than those
which your husband has given you. It does not involve your
husband at all. The only question is, have you received any
moneys other than those given you by your husband?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again----
Mr. Cohn. I will tell you right now I will recommend to the
chairman that there is no possible question of husband and wife
privilege on that. We are addressing ourselves here to whether
or not you received any other moneys.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question within my rights under the Fifth Amendment as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan [presiding]. Does the chair understand
that you think if you gave testimony as to your own personal
income from sources other than through your husband that that
would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I can only answer in the same way, sir.
Senator McClellan. I am asking you if you think that it
would tend to incriminate you. That is what I am asking you. If
you gave the committee information regarding your income,
income that is independent from that of your husband, your own
personal income, are you stating to the committee that you
think that to give such testimony truthfully would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer your
question as I believe----
Senator McClellan. You decline to answer whether you think
it would tend to incriminate you, do you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan. That is what I asked you and you decline
to answer on constitutional grounds. I asked you if you think
to give such testimony regarding yourself, independent of your
husband, you think it would tend to incriminate you.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, I repeat that any answer--I
must stand on special privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
Senator McClellan. You do not have that very well
memorized. I am asking you if you think it would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
Senator McClellan. You think it would tend to incriminate
you to answer that question?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator McClellan. To answer the question that you think it
would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. So then you are unwilling to tell the
committee, are you, that you believe honestly that it would
tend to incriminate you if you answered these questions?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe once again----
Senator McClellan. I cannot understand you. I am sorry.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry, too, sir. Would you repeat your
question?
Senator McClellan. Do you tell the committee that you think
that it would tend to incriminate you if you answered the
question whether you honestly believe if you answered the
question regarding your separate and independent income that
that would tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
Mr. Schine. Where were you born?
Mrs. Goldfrank. New York City.
Mr. Schine. And where did you go to school?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Excuse me. May I consult with my attorney?
Mr. Cohn. You may consult with counsel.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would stand on my right of special
privilege and feel that answering that question would tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. You do not wish to tell the committee where you
went to school?
Mrs. Goldfrank. No.
Mr. Schine. You feel honestly if you did it would tend to
incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
Mr. Schine. In the school that you went to, did you ever
hear the pledge of allegiance to the American flag?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Mr. Schine. You did. Did that pledge of allegiance mean
anything to you before you got involved in this trouble, or
before you got mixed up?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again repeat that I cannot
answer your question on the basis that it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Are you now involved in espionage against the
United States government?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I stand on my constitutional right of
refusing to answer that question as that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Did you carry money from Moscow to Germany for
the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again stand on my constitutional
right of personal privilege and refuse to answer that question
on the basis of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as the
answer to that question may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Have you been in Moscow?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must refuse to answer your
question as that answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Do you regret that you are unable to tell the
committee whether you are now or have ever been a member of the
Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I regret on the basis of special privilege
that I cannot answer your questions within my rights under the
Fifth Amendment as any answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. You misunderstood the question. Do you regret
that you cannot answer the question, are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
Mr. Schine. Yes.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must stand on my rights of
special privilege and refuse to answer that question because
under the Fifth Amendment I have the right to plead that that
answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Schine. Do you honestly believe in the overthrow by
force and violence of the United States government?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as that
question may tend to incriminate me under the rights of special
privilege.
Mr. Schine. I have no more questions.
Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Did you testify before a
federal grand jury in New York recently?
Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me and I stand on the
special privilege of my rights under the Constitution.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the
witness be considered in contempt of the committee for not
answering. Not answering a question of that character is
absurd.
Senator McClellan. May I ask one other question. Are you an
American citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am, and I am proud of it, sir.
Senator McClellan. You are an American citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator McClellan. You do not think that incriminates you,
do you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, as an American citizen, sir, I
stand on my right under the Constitution of special privilege--
--
Senator McClellan. Is there anything in America that you
are proud of except that constitutional right you invoke so
freely and so insistently? Can you mention anything else you
are proud of about America except this right that you claim to
be invoking at this time? Do you think it will incriminate you
to answer that?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my attorney.
Senator McClellan. All right, consult him.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am proud of the entire Constitution of
the United States, and on the basis of the Constitution I seek
special privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States, which you now say you are
proud of?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again plead special privilege--
--
Senator McClellan. If you are proud of it, why do you think
it intimidates you, after you say you are proud of it, to say
that you do not believe in the overthrow of it?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must plead special privilege
Senator McClellan. You have said that you are proud of all
of the Constitution of the United States. Do you now insist
that it might incriminate you to answer the question whether
you believe in the overthrow of that Constitution, which you
now say you are proud of? Do you still insist that that might
tend to incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I think my answer to that question would
tend to incriminate me.
Senator Symington. Have you ever acted as a spy for a
foreign country?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question.
Senator Symington. On the ground it might incriminate you?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That is right.
Senator Dirksen [presiding]. Mrs. Goldfrank, when you
stated that you are a citizen, are you a native born citizen or
a naturalized citizen?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe in the first question, I was born
in New York City.
Senator Dirksen. You are then native born.
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. And you are how old, if that is not too
personal?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I am forty years old.
Senator Dirksen. What was your answer?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Forty.
Senator Dirksen. You are forty?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. And you have lived continuously in the
United States, I suppose, except for any excursions you may
have made abroad since that time?
Mrs. Goldfrank. My residence has been in the United States.
Senator Dirksen. What is your regular occupation, if you
have any? Is it authoring works such as appear here before the
committee, or do you have a profession, or are you associated
with some company?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, I must plead the point, the wife's
special privilege, and refuse to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give you might tend to incriminate me.
Senator Dirksen. I think for the purposes of the record I
should advise you that I doubt very much whether you can take
refuge in the Fifth Amendment on a question of that kind. I do
not believe it involves your liberty at all.
Mr. Ford. May I address the senator?
Senator Dirksen. Yes, I would be glad to hear you.
Mr. Ford. I believe that question has appeared in many of
the cases tried in our district court here, what is your
occupation. I know of several. These grew out of the Kefauver
committee hearings, and the question was asked, ``What is your
occupation,'' and the people refused, and they were sustained
in our court when they did refuse on the constitutional ground.
Senator Dirksen. They did not have to divulge what their
occupations were?
Mr. Ford. That is right. The courts have held it is the
next questions that they may lead to, and they may involve the
question of income tax returns and things of that kind, because
those questions are asked in the returns in the federal law. So
I respectfully call that to your attention that they have ruled
that. One was Fischetti case and the other was Guzik, in
Chicago. There were several of them where that particular
question was made the count of the indictment and passed upon.
Senator Dirksen. I think we ought to make the record
reasonably full here.
Mr. Ford. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. Are you associated with any school or
college in New York in a teaching capacity or any other
capacity?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must plead special privilege once again,
Senator, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
Senator Dirksen. Have you authored many books or a few
books or one book?
Mrs. Goldfrank. That question also is----
Senator Dirksen. I am not asking what kind of books. I am
asking you whether you have authored----
Mrs. Goldfrank. I plead that the answer to that question
may tend to incriminate me.
Senator Dirksen. I have grave doubts about your answer but
we will let it stand for the moment until we can determine
that. Have you made any trips abroad?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must refuse to answer that question on my
right----
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dirksen. Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. I am not a lawyer. I do not think we are
really talking to the witness. I think we are talking to the
witness' counsel. I think the witness thinks this is all pretty
much of a good joke. I respectfully again request, from my
knowledge as an American citizen, that this witness be held in
contempt of this committee.
Senator Dirksen. Your question is very proper and should be
considered very shortly after this hearing terminates in a
strictly executive session.
Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Goldfrank, were you ever associated with the
Communist Internationale?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Mr. Cohn is your name?
Mr. Cohn. Yes.
Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer your
question on the basis of personal privilege.
Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that as a representative of the
Communist Internationale you carried a sum of money from Moscow
to the German Communist party?
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of personal privilege and within my
rights under the Constitution.
Mr. Cohn. Within the last year, have you been subpoenaed to
testify before a federal grand jury in New York?
Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I must----
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to ask
her counsel how he advises her to answer that question.
Mr. Cohn. I was going to ask the chair to direct her to
answer the last question. There is no privilege whatsoever
whether a witness was in fact subpoenaed to appear before a
grand jury.
Mr. Ford. I will be glad to answer Senator Symington.
Senator Dirksen. The committee will be glad to hear
counsel.
Mr. Ford. That would cover the question, and I think the
courts have held, with respect to identity. It is not only that
particular question, Senator, that is involved, because our
courts have held that if a witness does answer that question,
then they are bound to go on and answer the other questions
which would follow, which would be did you appear and what did
you testify, which would be natural questions to flow from the
key question. So I think our courts have held that you must
assert the right to the main question because it is the
subsequent questions that may involve her. That by itself would
be different. For instance, I remember Senator Welker had a
client of mine that was in this position before, and he said to
the witness, ``I don't think that those questions about your
sister and others here (the witness' name was Warring) would
involve you,'' and Warring said, ``Senator, as I understand, if
I answer that key question, I must go on,'' and Senator Welker
said, ``Oh, yes, I intended to follow it up with questions
until I hit,'' and may I use his expression ``pay dirt.'' So
that is why it is applied to that particular one.
Senator Symington. I think your explanation is clear.
Mr. Ford. For my own information, I think Mr. Cohn was
present when she did testify on two occasions. In fact, I think
she answered questions at that time.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, accepting counsel's
exposition of the law as just stated for the record, I asked
the witness a few moments ago if there is anything she was
proud of in the Constitution of the United States except the
Fifth Amendment provision which she was invoking as a matter of
special privilege in this hearing, and she answered, as the
record will show, that she is proud of all of the Constitution
of the United States.
Having answered then, Mr. Chairman, I asked the witness the
question if she believed in the overthrow of the Constitution
of the United States, and she again invoked her special
privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on the
grounds that it might tend to incriminate her.
Having answered that she is proud of all of the
Constitution, Mr. Chairman, I believe she should now be
required to answer the question whether she believes in the
overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, and I most
respectfully ask the chairman to order the witness to answer.
Senator Dirksen. I think it is a very proper question which
does not incriminate or put the witness in jeopardy, and I
believe the question should be answered.
[Witness conferred with her counsel.]
Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline, Senator, on the basis of
special privilege.
Senator Dirksen. I think the witness may step down. I would
like to ask counsel one question, however.
Mr. Ford. I would be glad to answer.
Senator Dirksen. It is not meant to be an invidious
question at all.
Mr. Ford. Not at all.
Senator Dirksen. And you can decline to answer if you like.
Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
Senator Dirksen. And we can strike it from the record if
you like.
Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
Senator Dirksen. I am wondering if because of comparable
situations we have had before, whether you have advised the
witness in advance on certain basic things that are the key for
an answer or no answer. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Ford. Not at all. I consulted with this witness
yesterday afternoon in my office. I have known this witness
since she was a little girl. For myself I opened up Scott
Field, at Belleville, Illinois, at eighteen as a flier in the
first war. I am an Elk in good standing, and a Roman Catholic
of which I am proud, and I love every part of this country and
everything it does and says, and I am proud of the courts.
However, that same country told me that when a client comes to
me in my office, I should give them the best advice provided I
do not violate any of our laws, and that I did, and I
thoroughly explain to them what it was and what our courts have
held, because as a business proposition some years ago I found
it worthwhile to acquaint myself with this law as it was
becoming quite invoked all over the United States.
I have appeared in Chicago in front of the Kefauver
committee, and I assure you that I merely gave this lady the
advice which I would give to anyone, because it was
conscientious and honest under our law.
Senator Dirksen. Both the committee and the law recognize
the responsibility of an attorney's advocate to client when he
assumes that responsibility.
Mr. Ford. In fact, Senator, I just came back from Hot
Springs yesterday, and last year I think I had the privilege of
laying beside you in the Majestic Hotel in the baths. You did
not know who I was, but I recognized you.
Senator Dirksen. We also recognize the confidential
relationship between attorney and client.
Mr. Ford. As far as myself or anything about me, I will
answer any question anywhere or at any time.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask you a question, and
I am not a lawyer. If somebody comes to you whom you believe
has been interested in a conspiracy or member of an
organization conspiring to overthrow the United States, is it
worth your while to advocate their interest?
Mr. Ford. Is it worth my while?
Senator Symington. Yes.
Mr. Ford. I think my profession requires me to advocate
their interest with certain limitations. First, that I in no
way by word of mouth, suggestion or action become in any way
part of that, that I keep myself completely detached, and by
completely, I do not mean any quibble about it. If the question
came up, if it was a close question, I must resolve in favor of
my government and not myself. Yes, I have that positive
philosophy, and I hope I die with it when the time comes.
