Communist infiltration of Hollywood motion-picture industry : hearing before the Committee on Un-American activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-second Congress, first session (1951)

428 COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY Mr. Dmytrtk. Simply we were in the forefront of a battle for freedom, and we were on the barricades, and—you know, he wished us luck and success, that we stick to our guns and fight. The other person was Harry Bridges. I don't think he made any speech, but he talked just to—several of these people were his friends. Mr. Tavenner. Did you gain the impression that your group was being encouraged by Lee Pressman and Harry Bridges in the stand that it was taking? Mr. Dmytryk. There was no question about that. Mr. Tavenner. Well, the result of your concerted agreement and action was you would refuse to testify when appearing before the committee; is that correct? Mr. Dmytryk. Yes. It was generally agreed. We were fighting it, as I say—at least this was the only thing we ever talked about; what was in people's minds I can't testify—but we were fighting it purely on the standpoint of civil liberties and the first amendment. The principle was that since we believed the procedures of the com- mittee at that time were not proper, the only way to test it was to take them into court or have them take us into court, which is literally what happened, on a constitutional issue. This is a practice, you know, that is frequently resorted to, as you know, and of course the only way we could do that was to stand on certain constitutional grounds. We were sure, because we knew from previous experiences of other groups, that we would be cited for contempt, and we hoped and sin- cerely believed at the time that on the question of the first amendment we could get at least a Supreme Court decison in our favor. Mr. Tavenner. Now, was there an agreement by all to resort to that general procedure of refusing to testify, or was there difference of opinion, which only after some time was resolved ? Mr. Dmytryk. I don't think there was any real difference of opin- ion. We were very careful not to discuss this in the group. We felt there was some danger that this might constitute conspiracy, and most of the decisions were made—I mean the decisions on how to act before the committee—were made by individual consultation with the at- torneys. Now, the attorneys gave the same advice to everybody. There was disagreement at first to some extent among the attorneys. That didn't always run smoothly. In general I would say that Bob Kenny and Bartley Crum were on the more conservative side, but they were out- voted, and I frankly don't know how strong they were in their private conversations. I am sure Bartley Crum disapproved of the tactics pretty much, but he went along with them. There were other ele- ments that led us to believe that the tactics might be successful. In brief, for awhile the motion picture industry as such— that is, their spokesmen—fought the committee, too. We were led to believe they would support us. Actually they didn't. So that we had many reasons to think that we were following the right course at the time. Mr. Tavenner. When you spoke of the industry encouraging you in the matter, what do you mean ? Mr. Dmytryk. Well, I mean this: There had been several hear- ings into the industry by this committee at that time, and before that, and I think by a senatorial committee. I don't remember exactly which one. I do remember, however, Wendell Willkie defended the