Joint Legislative Committee1 during 1940 and 1941 identified Copstein as a member of the Communist Party and as a member of the executive committee of the Communist Party, U.S.A.'s, City College unit. This witness testified that Copstein, whose party name was "Plaven," taught a course entitled "Principles of Communism" at the New York Workers School and was considered by the Communist Party, U.S.A., to be "a leading authority on political questions." In 1942 Copstein was an instructor at the School for Democracy and in 1947 served as a lecturer for the Jefferson School of Social Science. The New York Workers School, School for Democracy, and the Jefferson School of Social Science were Communist Party educational institutions. The Communist Party, U.S.A., formed the Jefferson School of Social Science in 1944 by merging the New York Workers School and the School for Democracy. Next, Laird Cummings. Laird Cummings is a member of the New York chapter of the National Conference for New Politics, a Communist-infiltrated organization. He was involved in a demonstration against Secretary of State Dean Rusk on November 14, 1967, which was sponsored by the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee, an antiwar group headed by identified Communists, notorious fellow travelers, and pacifists. He subsequently issued a statement charging "police brutality" and claimed that he was physically attacked by police at this demonstration. Cummings was arrested during the Communist-supported "Stop the Draft Week" demonstration in New York City on December 4–8, 1967. Proceed. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry. I did not get the name of the person who was speaking at the table. May I have his name, sir? (At this point Mr. Tuck left the hearing room.) Mr. ICHORD. Mr. James Gallagher. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. No, the person just making this state ment. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chester Smith, the counsel for the committee; he is not testifying. It will be accepted for what it is worth. The gentlemen will please proceed. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. He is not testifying? Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chester Smith. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. He is not testifying; he is not under oath? Mr. ICHORD. That is quite true. Proceed. Mr. GALLAGHER. The National Conference for New Politics, in a full-page ad published in the New York Times December 10, 1967, this one here, stated: If necessary, we are also prepared to help mobilize the largest demonstration this country has ever seen. It would descend upon the National Democratic Convention in Chicago as a final reminder to the delegates of the strength of the opposition. * 1 Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Procedures and Methods of Allocating State Moneys for Public School Purposes and Subversive Activities (Rapp-Coudert Committee). This ad was signed by Dr. Benjamin Spock and James Rollins, a Negro community organizer in St. Louis. Paul Booth, former official of Students for a Democratic Society and also former board member of the National Conference for New Politics, in referring to the demonstration stated, as quoted in an article in the New York Times of the same date: "There's no committee yet, and no call has gone out, but everybody is going on the assumption it will happen," he said. "It's an obvious thing to do." The Times continued: But Mr. Booth was not so certain the demonstration would be a passive one. "That's one of the topics under discussion," he said. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Gallagher, at what point in time did other groups begin their planning organization operation? Mr. GALLAGHER. Concerning the Students for a Democratic Society, it appears that SDS began marshaling its program as early as December 1967 when its national council suggested: "That a member of the NIC" that is their national interim committee be mandated to attend the meetings of the National Mobilization Committee or whatever coalition is ultimately responsible for the call to demonstration at the Democratic Party National Convention; The SMC-the Student Mobilization Committee the following month on January 19, 1968, the staff of the Student Mobilization Committee proposed in a letter to its membership that its national conference discuss "possible action at the Democratic Party national convention in Chicago in August." Jerry Rubin and the Yippies were beginning, it appears, to formulate their plans for Chicago in early winter, as illustrated in a February 3 article in National Guardian entitled "What tactics for Chicago?" Finally, the National Mobilization Committee itself. Although it seems rather certain that the National Mobilization Committee must have had some preliminary meetings prior to the secret, by-invitation-only meeting at a rural camp outside of Chicago, which I briefly touched on before, which is described by the New York Times on March 24 [1968], that date is, at least at this time, the only one we have. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. A point of order. I move that that be stricken. Mr. ICHORD. The witness will suspend. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. This is all hearsay. I don't believe you can accept it. "They must have had the meetings before," that goes beyond what any respectable lawyer can accept. Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman is summarizing the activities of numerous organizations that participated in the planning. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. "They must have had" is not a respectable summary. I move that it be stricken. Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman and his client will be called before the committee at the proper time. The request will have to be denied. The motion will have to be overruled. Proceed. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, that completes the interrogation of this witness. Mr. ICHORD. Are there any questions of the witness? Mr. Ashbrook? Mr. ASHBROOK. I have no questions. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Watson? Mr. WATSON. I have no questions. Mr. ICHORD. The witness may be excused. Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ICHORD. Call your next witness, Mr. Counsel. Mr. SMITH. Lieutenant Joseph Healy and Sergeant Grubisic. Mr. ICHORD. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. HEALY. I do. Mr. GRUBISIC. I do. TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH J. HEALY AND JOSEPH GRUBISIC Mr. SMITH. Will each of you please state your names, starting with Lieutenant Healy. Mr. HEALY. Lieutenant Joseph J. Healy, subversive unit of the Chicago Police Department. Mr. GRUBISIC. My name is Joseph Grubisic. I am sergeant of police, Chicago Police Department, presently assigned to the subversive unit of the intelligence division. Mr. SMITH. Will you please advise the committee of your background and functions in the department, starting with Mr. Healy. Mr. HEALY. I have worked all phases of police work with patrol division, vice control division, narcotics, prostitution. I was appointed commanding officer of the subversive unit in March of this year. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Healy, how long have you been a member of the Chicago Police Department? Mr. HEALY. Since May 1956. I was promoted to sergeant in 1962, lieutenant in 1966. Mr. GRUBISIC. I was appointed to the police department in December 1959. In July of 1965 I was assigned to the subversive unit of the intelligence division, where I am presently. Mr. SMITH. Did you undertake an investigation prior to the Democratic Convention of activities by persons who intended to disrupt the convention? Mr. GRUBISIC. Yes, we did. Mr. SMITH. Would you please outline the information that you developed prior to the convention concerning these disruptive activities? Mr. ICHORD. Counsel, you have both witnesses here at the same time. Will you direct your questions to the particular witness by name? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Grubisic will testify. Lieutenant Healy will assist. Mr. GRUBISIC. The first information we received was during the latter part of 1967. Rennie Davis talked about antiwar, antidraft demonstrations and said that participants of such demonstrations who are not willing to join in direct acts of civil disobedience should at least form circles around others who are engaging in such acts to hinder or prevent arrest. Davis continued speaking on noncooperation and acts of civil disobedience and stated during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago there are going to be a lot of demonstrations that will disrupt the proceedings. Mr. HEALY. Counsel, this matter of these investigations started in the latter part of 1967 and continued on through and including the convention time. There is a great deal of information that we have compiled over this period of time. Mr. ICHORD. Lieutenant Healy, when did the investigation begin? COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for counsel here to understand who is testifying. I understood Mr. Grubisic was testifying. Could the witness who is testifying state his name for the record for our understanding of what is happening? Mr. ICHORD. I believe the gentleman is sitting close enough to the witness chair that he can tell who is testifying. The Chair has directed counsel to name the witness to whom he is directing the question. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. The backs of the witnesses are to me, and I am not in a position to find out who is testifying. I believe two people are testifying, but I am not sure of that. Mr. ICHORD. Will you mention names, Mr. Counsel, so that the counsel can tell who is testifying. When did the investigation begin, Sergeant? Mr. GRUBISIC. In the latter part of 1967. Mr. ICHORD. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. Mr. GRUBISIC. To continue, also we have received information when we became aware that the convention was going to be held in Chicago, there was some talk of gaining entrance into the Amphitheatre where the convention was going to be held. A John Rossen made the following comment regarding union leaders who are going to be given passes. John Rossen stated, "These passes can be duplicated quite easily." Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, is this Mr. Rossen associated with any of the 10 groups that we have named? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ashbrook, I am going to put in some information on this. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record information from the files and published reports concerning Mr. Rossen just mentioned by the sergeant. In connection with the committee's publication, Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week, on page 15, in a discussion concerning the Chicago Peace Council, it is stated that: The building in which it has its headquarters [meaning the Chicago Peace Council] (located at 1608 West Madison Street) is owned by John Rossen, formerly an official of the Communist Party and of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Additionally, in 1957 in testimony before this committee Mr. Rossen availed himself of the fifth amendment when questioned about his Communist Party membership and activities. Further, in a case before the Subversive Activities Control Board, Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Petitioner, versus National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., Respondent, John Rossen is referred to as the executive director of the Chicago chapter, at least as late as 1953, and appears to be the important officer there. He was shown also to be an important member of the Communist Party, with activities which included membership on the Communist Party City of St. Louis Central Committee, membership on the Missouri Continue, Sergeant Grubisic. Mr. GRUBISIC. I have here a copy Mr. ICHORD. What is the question pending, Mr. Counsel? Mr. SMITH. The question pending: Please outline the information you developed prior to the convention concerning these disruptive activities. Mr. GRUBISIC. I have here a copy of THE MOVEMENT dated February 1968. It is entitled "The Democratic Convention, a Challenge to Organizers." Rennie Davis states: I think we can do better than attempting to prevent the convention from taking place, as some have suggested by closing down the city on the first day of preconvention activity. The delegates should be allowed to come to Chicago, so long as they give their support to a policy of ending racism and the war. I favor letting the delegates meet in the International Amphitheater and making our demands and the actions behind those demands escalate in militancy as the Convention proceeds and as the TV's drum into everyone's home that we're moving towards a Johnson-Nixon "choice". I would like to see us be able to carry our incredible, imaginative actions even against Chicago's blanket injunction that will prohibit all demonstrations. Even against the two US Army regiments that will be "protecting" the convention * Also: to release the real power of our many forces in a new and significant way at the time that Johnson is nominated, turning the delegates back into the amphitheater as they attempt to leave, demanding that the American people be given a choice, demanding that they reconsider a decision not in the national interest, a decision that can only lead to the funeral of the democratic policies that support racism and the war, should carry not only us, but thousands of Americans into an active boycott of the elections and giant showdown in Washington to prevent the inauguration next January. Mr. ICHORD. For the record, Mr. Counsel, what is the witness reading from there? Mr. SMITH. He is reading from a publication, THE MOVEMENT. Mr. ICHORD. What is the publication, THE MOVEMENT? What organization publishes THE MOVEMENT? Is the witness aware of what organization publishes it? Mr. SMITH. This is SDS oriented, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASHBROOK. There is no attribution. Mr. SMITH. Nothing official. Mr. ICHORD. I think you can supply that for the record. Let us identify what the papers are and get that into the record before you proceed with the hearing. Let us proceed with the question so that we know what the witness is talking about. COUNSEL FROM AUDIENCE. Mr. Chairman, I was not able to hear the answer of the witness. Mr. ICHORD. I have gotten no identification of it. The record will stand. The gentleman will please be seated. Let us proceed with the questioning. |