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

COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY 437 On the other hand, they intimate that anybody who is a Communist should be fired from his job, should not have a position of trust. Now, if the Communist Party is a legal party, every Communist who is a member of that party should certainly have the legal protec- tion of the Government of the United States. He should have the right to do what he wishes. What is really happening is that there is being encouraged in this country a kind of mild lynch law or law by vigilance committee. Groups are out to say, "This man is a Com- munist. Therefore, fire him." I do believe, as I have indicated clearly here today, I think the Communist Party is conspiratorial, subversive, and even in certain cases treasonable. I think for that reason there is no question in my mind—and there is certainly no question in these days of present danger—that the Communist Party should be outlawed, and you will remove the American people from a great contradiction in doing things that really aren't in the best interests of the American Government. Mr. Jackson. One more question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. AVhat would 3'ou call the final test of credibility of a witness purporting to be a former Communist who has changed his opinions in the period which has intervened between his membership and the present time, and who appears before a committee of this kind ? As one who is very familiar with the Communist Party and with people who were in it, what would you say the test of credibility should be? Mr. Dmytryk. Well, I don't know. I sit here in a kind of prejudiced position right now. I am not sure I can answer that question. Mr. Jackson. Let me put it this way. Would you say the test of credibility certainly would have to be primarily the willingness to name names, places, and circumstances surrounding such membership ? Mr. Dmytryk. I personally believe so. That is why I am doing it. I think if a man says that he is convinced that the Communist Party is a subversive or criminal organization, that he certainly shouldn't mind giving names. I know that there have been comments—I don't mean by the Com- munists but even among certain progressives and liberals—that people who talk are in effect informers. I heard that so much that I went to the dictionary and looked up the word. An informer, roughly speaking, is a man who informs against colleagues or former col- leagues, who are engaged in criminal activity. I think the Communists, by using this word against people, are in effect admitting they are engaged in criminal activity. I never heard of anybody informing on the Boy Scouts. Mr. Jackson. One last question, Mr. Chairman. A great many witnesses have appeared here in the past, and unquestionably there will be more in the future, who will appear and take their refuge under the protection of certain provisions of the Constitution, specifically the first and fifth amendments. Nobody questions that right. What is your opinion of the sincerity or devotion to American ideals or principles of those witnesses who refuse to answer any questions posed by the committee which touch upon membership in the Communist Party or Communist-front organizations?