Hughes, a committed communist, testified before the HUAC in 1953. This is his work resume from 1953 until 1959.
Poetry
Selected Poems of Langston Hughes, 1958
Other
Works
Simple Takes a Wife, 1953
Sweet Flypaper of Life, photographs by Roy DeCarava. 1955
Simple Stakes a Claim, 1957
Tambourines to Glory, 1958
Simple Takes a Wife, 1953
Sweet Flypaper of Life, photographs by Roy DeCarava. 1955
Simple Stakes a Claim, 1957
Tambourines to Glory, 1958
The Langston Hughes Reader, New York: Braziller, 1958.
1954: Hughes won the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award.
Children’s
books
The First Book of Jazz, 1954
Marian Anderson: Famous Concert Singer, with Steven C. Tracy,
1954
The First Book of Rhythms, 1954
The First Book of the West Indies, 1956
Stage
Play
Tambourines to Glory, 1956 (Stage play)
Simply Heavenly, 1957 (stage play)
TV
Play of the Week (TV Series) (novel: Simple Takes a Wife - 1
episode)
- Simply Heavenly (1959) ... (novel: Simple Takes a Wife)
The Subject Is Jazz (TV Series)
- Jazz and Other Arts (1958) ... Himself
When it comes to testifying, the side stepping Langston Hughes could have given lessons on being a weasel;
Testimony
of Langston Hughes (accompanied by his counsel, Frank D. Reeves) before the
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government
Operations, Tuesday, March 24, 1953:
Senator Dirksen. Will you identify yourself for the record,
please?
Mr. Reeves. My name is Frank D. Reeves.
Senator Dirksen. You are here as counsel to Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Reeves. That is right.
Senator Dirksen. Where do you reside?
Mr. Reeves. In the District of Columbia, 1901 11th Street.
Senator Dirksen. And you are an attorney at law, and a member
of the District Bar?
Mr. Reeves. That is correct.
Senator Dirksen. Has this always been your home?
Mr. Reeves. For the last twenty years or more.
Senator Dirksen. And you came originally from where?
Mr. Reeves. I was originally born in Montreal, Canada.
Senator Dirksen. So since that time you have been here?
Mr. Reeves. Yes, and I was naturalized.
Senator Dirksen. How long have you been a member of the
District Bar?
Mr. Reeves. Since 1943.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, will you state your name for the
record?
Mr. Hughes. James Langston Hughes.
Senator Dirksen. Do you always use that name, James Langston
Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. In writing I use simply Langston Hughes, but
friends know both names.
Senator Dirksen. Where were you born?
Mr. Hughes. Joplin, Missouri.
Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal, how old are you
now?
Mr. Hughes. 51; I was born in 1902.
Senator Dirksen. Is Missouri still your home?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, New York City is my home.
Senator Dirksen. How long have you been residing in New York
City?
Mr. Hughes. I would say with any regularity for ten years, but
I have been going in and out of New York for the last twenty-five.
Senator Dirksen. I assume you travel and lecture?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do.
Senator Dirksen. From coast to coast?
Mr. Hughes. In fact, I first came to New York in 1921, but off
and on I have not lived there.
Senator Dirksen. You have a family?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I don't.
Senator Dirksen. You are a single man?
Mr. Hughes. I am.
Senator Dirksen. Have you done college work at any time?
Mr. Hughes. I did a year at Columbia, and I finished my
college at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, and graduated in 1929.
Senator Dirksen. You hold a degree?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do. I have also an honorary degree.
Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, have you had some kind of
occupation or profession?
Mr. Hughes. No, not with any regularity. I have been a
lecturer, of course, all the forms of writing. I had one Hollywood job years
ago.
Senator Dirksen. Are you attached to the faculty of any school
or any university?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not, but I was about to tell you
that I have been a writer in residence at the University and at Chicago
Laboratory School.
Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, you do not pursue any
other occupation?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Senator Dirksen. That is your occupation?
Mr. Hughes. Not with any degree of regularity, no.
Senator Dirksen. Have you ever worked for the government of
the United States?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not so far as I know, unless you would
consider--I don't think one would consider USO appearances during the war----
Senator Dirksen. Did you appear for the USO?
Mr. Hughes. Yes. Or writing scripts, but those were unpaid.
Senator Dirksen. Did you lecture for the USO?
Mr. Hughes. I made a number of USO appearances, yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. In this country or abroad?
Mr. Hughes. In this country.
Senator Dirksen. And have you lectured abroad?
Mr. Hughes. I have, but not under any government auspices.
Senator Dirksen. No, I mean privately.
Mr. Hughes. Privately I have. I would not say professionally
really, but I have been asked to give speeches abroad, or have spoken or read
my poems, usually my poems.
Senator Dirksen. Now, with respect to your travels have you
traveled recently in the last ten or fifteen years?
Mr. Hughes. In the country?
Senator Dirksen. Outside.
Mr. Hughes. No, sir. I have not been out of the country if my
memory is correct since 1938 or 1939.
Senator Dirksen. Would you care to tell us whether you have
traveled to the Soviet Union?
Mr. Hughes. I have, sir, yes.
Senator Dirksen. For an extended period?
Mr. Hughes. I was there for about a year.
Senator Dirksen. Just there, or were you lecturing or writing?
Mr. Hughes. Well, I went to make a movie, or to work on a
movie, rather. I should not say make, myself. I went to work on a picture. The
picture was not made, and I remained as a writer and journalist, and came back
around the world.
Senator Dirksen. That I assume was a Soviet-made movie.
Mr. Hughes. It was to have been. It was not made.
Senator Dirksen. As I recall, all movies in the Soviet Union
are government products, really, are they not?
Mr. Hughes. This was a disputed point at that time. But I
would think so. At any rate, the film company was called Meschrabpom Film.
Senator Dirksen. How do you spell that?
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry I can not tell you. I don't read
Russian.
Senator Dirksen. Your chief reputation lies in the fact that
you were a poet. Would that be a correct statement?
Mr. Hughes. I think in most people's minds that would be
correct, although I have written many other kinds of things, yes, stories, and
plays as well.
Senator Dirksen. This will be a direct question, of course,
but first I think I should explain to you the purpose of this hearing, because
I believe witnesses are entitled to know.
Mr. Hughes. I would appreciate it, sir.
Senator Dirksen. You see, last year Congress appropriated
$86,000,000 against an original request of $160,000,000 for the purpose of
propagandizing the free world, the free system, and I think you get the general
idea of what I mean, the American system. In that $86,000,000, about
$21,000,000 was allocated to the Voice of America. Some was allocated to the
motion pictures. Some funds were used.
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I did not understand that.
Senator Dirksen. Motion pictures and the Voice of America, did
you get that?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
Senator Dirksen. And then some funds were used to purchase
books to equip libraries in many sections of the world, the idea being, of
course, that if people in those countries have access to American books, which
allegedly delineate American objectives and American culture, that it would be
useful in propagandizing our way of life and our system. The books of a number
of authors have found their way into those libraries. They were purchased, of
course. The question is whether or not they subserve the basic purpose we had
in mind in the first instance when we appropriated money or whether they reveal
a wholly contrary idea. There is some interest, of course, in your writings,
because volumes of poems done by you have been acquired, and they have been
placed in these libraries, ostensibly by the State Department, more
particularly, I suppose I should say, by the International Information
Administration. So we are exploring that matter, because it does involve the
use of public funds to require that kind of literature, and the question is, is
it an efficacious use of funds, does it go to the ideal that we assert, and can
it logically be justified.
So we have encountered quite a number of your works, and I
would be less than frank with you, sir, if I did not say that there is a
question in the minds of the committee, and in the minds of a good many people,
concerning the general objective of some of those poems, whether they strike a
Communist, rather than an anti-Communist note.
So now at this point, I think probably Mr. Cohn, our counsel,
has some questions he would like to ask.
Mr. Hughes. Could I ask you, sir, which books of mine are in
the libraries?
Senator Dirksen. They are here, and I think we will probably
refer to a number of them.
Mr. Hughes. I see, because I could not quite know otherwise.
Mr. Cohn. We will refer you from time to time to specific
ones. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been a Communist?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not. I presume by that you mean a
Communist party member, do you not?
Mr. Cohn. I mean a Communist.
Mr. Hughes. I would have to know what you mean by your
definition of communism.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in communism?
Mr. Hughes. I have never been a believer in communism or a
Communist party member.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in socialism?
Mr. Hughes. My feeling, sir, is that I
have believed in the entire philosophies of the left at one period in my life,
including socialism, communism, Trotskyism. All isms have influenced me one way
or another, and I can not answer to any specific ism, because I am not familiar
with the details of them and have not read their literature.
Mr. Cohn. Are you not being a little modest?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Mr. Cohn. You mean to say you have no familiarity
with communism?
Mr. Hughes. No, I would not say that, sir. I would
simply say that I do not have a complete familiarity with it. I have not read
the Marxist volumes. I have not read beyond the introduction of the Communist
Manifesto.
Mr. Cohn. Let us see if we can get an answer to
this: Have you ever believed in communism?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would have to know what you mean
by communism to answer that truthfully, and honestly, and according to the
oath.
Mr. Cohn. Interpret it as broadly as you want. Have
you ever believed that there is a form of government better than the one under
which this country operates today?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Cohn. You have never believed that?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Mr. Cohn. That is your testimony under oath?
Mr. Hughes. That is right.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party
meeting?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Cohn. And if witnesses said you did, they would
be lying?
Mr. Hughes. They would be lying, and as far as I
know, I was never to a Communist meeting.
Mr. Cohn. Could it happen that you have been?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it could not.
Mr. Cohn. You would know if you were at a Communist party
meeting?
Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily.
Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at any meeting about which you have
doubt now that it might have been a Communist meeting?
Mr. Hughes. That is why I would like a definition of what you
mean by communism, and also what you would call a Communist party meeting. As
you know, one may go to a Baptist church and not be a Baptist.
Mr. Cohn. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether or not
you ever attended a Communist party meeting. I did not say if you were a
Communist party member attending a Communist party meeting. So your analogy
about a Baptist does not hold water. The only question now is: Have you ever
attended a Communist party meeting.
Mr. Hughes. As far as I know, not. That is the best I can say.
Mr. Cohn. Were there any meetings you now think might have
been Communist party meetings?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, there are not.
Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a believer in socialism?
Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I would say no. If you mean socialism
by the volumes that are written about socialism and what it actually means, I
couldn't tell you. I would say no.
Mr. Cohn. You would say no?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I would say no.
Mr. Cohn. You want to tell us you have never been a believer
in anything except our form of government?
Mr. Hughes. As far as government goes, I have not.
Mr. Cohn. What do you mean, as far as government goes?
Mr. Hughes. I mean to answer to your question.
Mr. Cohn. Do you have some reservation about it?
Mr. Hughes. No, I have not. Would you repeat your question for
me?
Mr. Hughes. Let us do it this way. Did you write something
called Scottsboro Limited?
(Langston Hughes, Scottsboro Limited: Four Poems and a Play in
Verse -- New York: The Golden Stair Press, 1932)
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that follows the Communist party
line very well?
Mr. Hughes. It very well might have done so, although I am not
sure I ever knew wh
at the Communist party line was since it very often changed.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, when you wrote Scottsboro Limited, did you believe in
what you were saying in that poem?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not entirely, because I was writing in
characters.
Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony you were writing in character
and what was said did not represent your beliefs?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir. You cannot say I don't believe, if I may
clarify my feeling about creative writing, that when you make a character, a
Klansman, for example, as I have in some of my poems, I do not, sir.
Mr. Cohn. How about Scottsboro Limited, specifically. Do you
believe in the message carried by that work?
Mr. Hughes. I believe that some people did believe in it at
the time.
Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in it?
Mr. Hughes. Did I?
Mr. Cohn. Did you personally believe? You can answer
that. Let me read you, "Rise, workers and fight, audience, fight, fight,
fight, fight, the curtain is a great red flag rising to the strains of the
Internationale." That is pretty plain, is it not?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, indeed it is.
Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in that message when you
wrote, it?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Mr. Cohn. You did not believe it?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Mr. Cohn. It was contrary to your beliefs, is that
right?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't think you can get a yes or
no answer entirely to any literary question, so I give you----
Mr. Cohn. I am trying, Mr. Hughes, because I think
you have gone pretty far in some of these things, and I think you know pretty
well what you did. When you wrote something called "Ballads of
Lenin," did you believe that when you wrote it?
Mr. Hughes. Believe what, sir?
Mr. Cohn. Comrade Lenin of Russia speaks from
marble:
On guard with the workers forever-- The world is our
room!
Mr. Hughes. That is a poem. One can not state one
believes every word of a poem.
Mr. Cohn. I do not know what one can say. I am asking you
specifically do you believe in the message carried and conveyed in this poem?
Mr. Hughes. It would demand a great deal of discussion. You
can not say yes or no.
Mr. Cohn. You can not say yes or no?
Mr. Hughes. One can if one wants to confuse one's opinions.
Mr. Cohn. You wrote it, Mr. Hughes, and we would like an
answer. This is very important. Did you or didn't you?
Mr. Hughes. May I confer with counsel, sir?
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Hughes. Would you ask me the question again, sir?
[Question read by the reporter.]
Mr. Hughes. My feeling is that one can not give a yes or no
answer to such a question, because the Bible, for example, means many things to
different people. That poem would mean many things to different people.
Mr. Cohn. How did you intend it to mean?
Mr. Hughes. I would have to read and study it and go back
twenty years to tell you that.
Mr. Cohn. Read it right now. Is it your testimony that you can
not recall it?
Mr. Hughes. I could not recite it to you, no, sir. I can not.
That, sir, in my opinion is a poem symbolizing what I felt at
that time Lenin as a symbol might mean to workers in various parts of the
world. The Spanish Negro in the cane fields, the Chinese in Shanghai, and so
on.
Mr. Cohn. Is that what it meant to you at that time?
Mr. Hughes. That is what it meant to me at that time.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let me ask, are you familiar with
an organization known as the International Union of Revolutionary Writers?
Mr. Hughes. Yes. If I am not mistaken that was the
international format to which the League of American Writers was affiliated.
Senator Dirksen. That was a Soviet organization, I take it,
was it not?
Mr. Hughes. My understanding of it, sir, was that it was an
international organization.
Senator Dirksen. Did it have its headquarters in the Soviet
Union?
Mr. Hughes. That, sir, I am sorry I can't tell you. I don't
know.
Senator Dirksen. This goes back now to 1940, and I am not
unmindful of course that one does not always have a pinpoint recollection of
things that happened a long time ago. But in November 1940, you did recite one
or more of your poems at the Hotel Vista de la Royal in Pasadena, California.
Does that occur to you?
Mr. Hughes. Could you tell me more about it?
Senator Dirksen. It was known as an author's luncheon, and it
was the Vista de la Royal Hotel in Pasadena, California. On the same program
was one George Palmer Putnam.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I remember that. I was prevented from
reading my poems there by a picket line thrown around the hotel by Amy Semple
McPherson.
Senator Dirksen. They referred to you as author of the poem
and member of the American section of Moscow's International Union of
Revolutionary Writers. I presume you were familiar with the hand bill
advertising it and that it also carried one of your poems?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would be inclined to say perhaps that was
the handbill put out by the picket line, rather than the sponsors of the
luncheon.
Senator Dirksen. Is that statement correct that you were a
part of the American section of Moscow's International Union of Revolutionary
Writers?
Mr. Hughes. I would say with the word "Moscow"
eliminated it would be correct. I was a member of the League of American
Writers which was affiliated with the international.
Senator Dirksen. Was that an organization that required dues
of its members? Did you pay dues at all?
Mr. Hughes. I do not believe so, sir. I had been at that
period in my life very often a kind of honorary member or a member that they
just had.
Senator Dirksen. Are you fifty-three now?
Mr. Hughes. I am fifty-one, sir. I was born in 1902.
Senator Dirksen. Fifty-one?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. That was thirteen years ago, so you were 38
years old, and that would doubtless be the age of discretion, certainly, would
it not?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would say, sir, that I certainly was a
member of the League of American Writers, but I have no recollection of paying
any regular dues.
Senator Dirksen. You know, Mr. Hughes, I was very curious when
you asked, "Do you put your hand on the book" in taking the oath, and
the reason for the curiosity was that poem that you wrote at that time, and that
you read at that meeting in Pasadena, and its title is "Goodbye,
Christ."
In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McCarthy inserted
the entire text of "Goodbye Christ" in the record and added: "As
far as I know, this was not in any of the books purchased by the information
program. This is merely included in the record on request, to show the type of
thinking of Mr. Hughes at that time, the type of writings which were being
purchased." Mr. Hughes. There are misstatements in your statement. The
poem was not written at that time. It was not read at that meeting, and I can't
quite remember what the other was, but I think you have three wrong statements.
Senator Dirksen. My statement may be an inaccuracy, but I have
before me here the Saturday Evening Post for December 21, 1940, and here is
what it recites: "Here is a photograph of a circular distributed here
early in November."
Mr. Hughes. Distributed where?
Senator Dirksen. In Pasadena. And in a box where it is boldly
set out, and it is photographed, the first line is, "Attention
Christians" with two exclamation points. "Be sure to attend the book
and author luncheon at Vista de la Royal Hotel, Pasadena, California." Can
you hear me?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I can hear you.
Senator Dirksen. "Friday, November 15, 1940, at 12:15
promptly. Hear the distinguished young Negro poet, Langston Hughes, author of
the following poem, and member of the American Section of Moscow's
International Union of Revolutionary Writers," and the title is
"Goodbye, Christ."
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. The reason I was curious about your asking
for the book on which to hold your hand and may I say, sir, from my familiarity
with the Negro people for a long time that they are innately a very devout and
religious people--this is the first paragraph of the poem:
Listen, Christ, you did all right in your day, I
reckon
But that day is gone now.
They ghosted you up a swell story, too,
And called it the Bible, but it is dead now.
The popes and the preachers have made too much
money from
it. They have sold you to too many.
Do you think that Book is dead?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not. That poem, like that handbill,
is an ironical and satirical poem.
Senator Dirksen. It was not so accepted, I fancy, by the
American people.
Mr. Hughes. It was accepted by a large portion of them and
some ministers and bishops understood the poem and defended it.
Senator Dirksen. I know many who accepted the words for what
they seem to convey.
Mr. Hughes. That is exactly what I meant to say in answer to
the other gentleman's question, that poetry may mean many things to many
people.
Senator Dirksen. We will put all of it in the record, of
course, but I will read you the third stanza.
Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord of Jehovah,
Beat it on away from here now
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all,
A real guy named Marx communism, Lenin Peasant, Stalin worker,
me.
How do you think the average reader would take that?
Mr. Hughes. Sir; the average reader is very likely to take
poetry, if they take it at all, and they usually don't take it at all, they are
very likely often not to understand it, sir. I have found it very difficult
myself to understand a great many poems that one had to study in school. If you
will permit me, I will explain that poem to you from my viewpoint.
Senator Dirksen. Of course, when all is said and done a poem
like this must necessarily speak for itself, because notwithstanding what may
have been in your mind, what inhibitions, whether you crossed your fingers on
some of those words when you wrote them, its impact on the thinking of the
people is finally what counts.
May I ask, do you write poetry merely for the amusement and
the spiritual and emotional ecstacy that it develops, or do you write it for a
purpose?
Mr. Hughes. You write it out of your soul and you write it for
your own individual feeling of expression.
First, sir, it does not come from yourself in the first place.
It comes from something beyond oneself, in my opinion.
Senator Dirksen. You think this is a providential force?
Mr. Hughes. There is something more than myself in the
creation of everything that I do. I believe that is in every creation, sir.
Senator Dirksen. So you have no objective in writing poetry.
It is not a message that you seek to convey to somebody? You just sit down and
the rather ethereal thoughts suddenly come upon you?
Mr. Hughes. I have often written poetry in that way, and there
are on occasions times when I have a message that I wish to express directly
and that I want to get to people.
Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether this poem was reprinted
in quantities and used as propaganda leaflets by the Communist party?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it was not. It was reprinted in
quantities as far as I know, and used as a propaganda leaflet by the
organizations of Gerald L. K. Smith and the organization of extreme anti-Negro
forces in our country, and I have attempted to recall that poem. I have denied
permission for its publication over the years. I have explained the poem for
twenty-two years, I believe, or twenty years, in my writings in the press, and
my talks as being a satirical poem, which I think a great pity that anyone
should think of the Christian religion in those terms, and great pity that
sometimes we have permitted the church to be disgraced by people who have used
it as a racketeering force. That poem is merely the story of racketeering in
religion and misuse of religion as might have been seen through the eyes at
that time of a young Soviet citizen who felt very cocky and said to the whole
world, "See what people do for religion. We don't do that." I write a
character piece sometimes as in a play. I sometimes have in a play a villain. I
do not believe in that villain myself.
Senator Dirksen. Do you think that any twelve-year-old boy
could misunderstand that language, "Goodbye Christ, beat it away from here
now"?
Mr. Hughes. You cannot take one line.
Senator Dirksen. We will read all of it.
Mr. Hughes. If you read the twelve-year-old the whole poem, I
hope he would be shocked into thinking about the real things of religion,
because with some of my poems that is what I have tried to do, to shock people
into thinking and finding the real meaning themselves. Certainly I have written
many religious poems, many poems about Christ, and prayers and my own feeling
is not what I believe you seem to think that poem as meaning.
Senator Dirksen. I do not want to be captious about it, and I
want to be entirely fair, but it seems to me that this could mean only one
thing to the person who read it.
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry. There is a thousand interpretations of
Shakespeare's Sonata.
Senator Dirksen. Was this ever set to music?
Mr. Hughes. No.
Senator Dirksen. Do you know Paul Robeson?
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. Do you know him well?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not, not at this period in our
lives.
Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know him well? You say "not at
this period of my life." Was there ever a period in your life when you
knew Paul Robeson well?
Mr. Hughes. Before he became famous when we were all young in
Harlem, I knew him fairly well, and at that time he was quite unknown and so
was I. Since his rise to fame, I have not seen him very often.
Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist when you knew him
very well?
Mr. Hughes. I would not be able to say if he ever was a
Communist.
Mr. Cohn. You still do not know he is a Communist?
Mr. Hughes. I still do not.
Mr. Cohn. Are you a little bit suspicious?
Mr. Hughes. I don't know what you mean by suspicious.
Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you are entitled to interpret your
poems in any way you want to, and others will interpret your poems in the way
they want to.
Mr. Hughes. That is true.
Mr. Schine. I also should say that you should be entitled to
consider the seriousness of not telling the truth before this committee.
Mr. Hughes. I certainly do, sir. The truth in matters of
opinion is as Anatole France said, like the spokes of a wheel, and my opinions
are my own, sir.
Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you know many witnesses come before a
committee, and they are not guilty of a crime, and then to avoid embarrassment
or for reasons that they may not understand themselves, they do not tell the
truth. They are entitled to refuse to answer on the grounds of self
incrimination, but sometimes they do not take that privilege, and when they
have left the room they are guilty of perjury. I think you should reconsider
what you have said here today on matters of fact before you leave this room,
because perjury is a very serious charge.
Mr. Hughes. I am certainly aware of that, sir.
Mr. Schine. You do not wish to change any of your testimony?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, is it not a fact now that this poem here
did represent your views and it could only mean one thing, that the
"Ballads to Lenin" did represent your views? You have told us that
all of these things did, that you have been a consistent supporter of Communist
movements and you have been a consistent and undeviating follower of the
Communist party line up through and including recent times. Is that not a fact?
Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Cohn. Can you answer my question?
Mr. Hughes. May I ask the chairman of the committee if it is
possible to break that question down into specific and component parts?
Mr. Cohn. Surely. I personally do not think it is necessary.
You say you do not understand the question?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not say I do not understand the
question. It is not a question. It is a series of questions.
Mr. Cohn. Let us do it this way: Is it not a fact that you
have been a consistent follower of the Communist line?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Cohn. Tell me in one respect in which you have differed
from the Communist line up through 1949.
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Cohn. Sir?
Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I have forgotten your last question.
Mr. Cohn. The last question was, tell us one respect in which
you differed from the Communist line through the year 1949.
Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't know what the Communist line was in
1949.
Mr. Cohn. Did you know what it was when you came out and urged
the election of the Communist party ticket in 1932?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I did not know what it was.
Mr. Cohn. Why did you come out and do it that way?
Mr. Hughes. Just as a lot of people urged the election of the
Democrats without knowing what the platform was.
Mr. Cohn. Did you know what you were doing on February 7,
1949, when you gave a statement to the Daily Worker defending the Communist
leaders on trial and saying that the Negro people too are being tried?
Mr. Hughes. Could I see that statement, sir?
Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of something called the Chicago
Defender?
Mr. Hughes. I certainly have.
Mr. Cohn. Did you write in the Chicago Defender, "If the
12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to
jail simply for being Negroes, and to concentration camps just for being
colored."
Mr. Hughes. Could I see it?
Mr. Cohn. My first question is did you say it?
Mr. Hughes. I don't know.
Mr. Cohn. Could you have said it? That is a pretty serious
thing to say in 1949. Do you have to look at it to see if you said something in
that substance?
Mr. Hughes. I would have to see it to see if it is in context.
Mr. Cohn. I do not have the original. I will get the original
for you.
Mr. Hughes. Please do.
Mr. Cohn. In the meantime I would like to know whether or not
you can tell us whether you said it.
Mr. Hughes. I do not know whether I said it or not.
Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in 1949, "If the 12 Communists
are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to jail simply for
being Negroes, and to concentration camps just for being colored." Did you
say that?
Mr. Hughes. The----
Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
Mr. Hughes. Sir, I do not believe in any kind of literary work
or writing you can take a thing out of context. Whatever the whole thing is, if
I wrote it, of course I did write it.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let us get at it this way. Have
you at any time contributed to the Chicago Defender?
Mr. Hughes. I do a regular weekly column for it.
Senator Dirksen. Is it likely that you did a column or article
for the Defender in 1949?
Mr. Hughes. I have been writing for the Defender for, I think,
sir, about ten years.
Senator Dirksen. So it is fair to assume that in 1949 which is
within the last ten years, you probably did one or more articles for the
Chicago Defender.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did more nearly fifty-two articles a year.
Senator Dirksen. Do you have in mind a reasonably clear
picture of that period when the Communist leaders were on trial in New York?
You remember generally, I think, do you not, that they were on trial?
Mr. Hughes. I remember some of them were on trial according to
the papers, yes.
Senator Dirksen. If you know it no other way, you probably saw
it in the newspapers, like I did, because I did not attend the trial, but there
was every reason to believe from the press dispatches they were on trial. So
you probably had an idea they were on trial. You probably had an idea they were
on trial back in 1949.
Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I can not say the date or time, but if
you are correct, I would say yes.
Senator Dirksen. That is four years ago.
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Senator Dirksen. Surely you would have a recollection as to
whether or not you made some written comment in the course of your column on
the Communist trial.
Mr. Hughes. I very well may have, sir.
Senator Dirksen. Would you not be reasonably sure whether you
had?
Mr. Hughes. I would like to see the column, sir.
Senator Dirksen. You would have to see the column?
Mr. Hughes. I would have to see the column and the context,
because if it is quoted from some other source, it very well may be misquoted.
Mr. Cohn. Let us forget what that says. I want to know whether
that was your belief.
Mr. Hughes. I have forgotten now what you read.
Mr. Cohn. What I asked was if the quote that appears in the
Daily Worker from your article is a statement by you, "If the 12
Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to jail
simply for being Negroes, and to concentration camps just for being
colored." Did you believe that in February 1949?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, the entire article and the entire column-- --
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think
you are fencing.
Mr. Hughes. One can not take anything out of context.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think
the chairman is very patient. I think you are being evasive and unresponsive
when being confronted with things which you yourself wrote. I want to know, did
you believe that statement in 1949.
Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel?
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Hughes. If that statement is from a column of mine, as I
presume it probably is, I would say that I believed the entire context of the
article in which it is included.
Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that today?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I would not necessarily believe that
today.
Mr. Cohn. When did you change your views?
Mr. Hughes. It is impossible to say exactly when one changes
one's views. One's views change gradually, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written any attack on communism?
Mr. Hughes. I don't believe I have ever written anything you
would consider an attack, no, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Are you pretty much familiar with the investigations
of the un-American activities by congressional committees?
Mr. Hughes. No, I am not, sir.
Mr. Cohn. You have written on the subject, have you not?
Mr. Hughes. I have written from what I have read in the
newspapers.
Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I have written as other columnists do from
what one reads in a newspaper.
Mr. Cohn. You wrote something that is called, "When One
Sees Red."
Mr. Hughes. I remember.
Mr. Cohn. Do you remember that part called "When One Sees
Red"? I think it appeared first in the New Republic.
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, you are wrong.
Mr. Cohn. Yes?
Mr. Hughes. It would have appeared first in the Chicago
Defender.
Mr. Cohn. You do recall the piece?
Mr. Hughes. I recall the title. If you read a portion of the
piece----
Mr. Cohn. Do you remember writing this: "Good morning,
Revolution. You are the very best friend I ever had. We are going to pal around
together from now on."
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
Mr. Cohn. Did you write this, "Put one more 'S' in the
USA to make it Soviet. The USA when we take control will be the USSA
then."
In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McClellan asked:
"May I inquire of counsel if you are quoting from books or works of the author
that are now in the library?"
Mr. Cohn. No; this one poem I quoted, "Put Another 'S' in
the USA to make it Soviet" is as far as we know not in any poems in the
collection in the information centers.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
Mr. Cohn. Were you kidding when you wrote those things? What
did you mean by those?
Mr. Hughes. Would you like me to give you an interpretation of
that?
Mr. Cohn. I would be most interested.
Mr. Hughes. Very well. Will you permit me to give a full
interpretation of it?
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
Mr. Hughes. All right, sir. To give a full interpretation of
any piece of literary work one has to consider not only when and how it was
written, but what brought it into being. The emotional and physical background
that brought it into being. I, sir, was born in Joplin, Missouri. I was born a
Negro. From my very earliest childhood memories, I have encountered very
serious and very hurtful problems. One of my earliest childhood memories was
going to the movies in Lawrence, Kansas, where we lived, and there was one
motion picture theater, and I went every afternoon. It was a nickelodeon, and I
had a nickel to go. One afternoon I put my nickel down and the woman pushed it
back and she pointed to a sign. I was about seven years old.
Mr. Cohn. I do not want to interrupt you. I do want to say
this. I want to save time here. I want to concede very fully that you encounter
oppression and denial of civil rights. Let us assume that, because I assume
that will be the substance of what you are about to say. To save us time, what
we are interested in determining for our purpose is this: Was the solution to
which you turned that of the Soviet form of government?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, you said you would permit me to give a full
explanation.
Mr. Cohn. I was wondering if we could not save a little time
because I want to concede the background which you wrote it from was the
background you wanted to describe.
Mr. Hughes. I would much rather preserve my reputation and
freedom than to save time.
Mr. Cohn. Take as long as you want.
Mr. Hughes. The woman pushed my nickel back and pointed to a
sign beside the box office, and the sign said something, in effect,
"Colored not admitted." It was my first revelation of the division
between the American citizens. My playmates who were white and lived next door
to me could go to that motion picture and I could not. I could never see a film
in Lawrence again, and I lived there until I was twelve years old.
When I went to school, in the first grade, my mother moved to
Topeka for a time, and my mother worked for a lawyer, and she lived in the
downtown area, and she got ready for school, being a working woman naturally
she wanted to send me to the nearest school, and she did, and they would not
let me go to the school. There were no Negro children there. My mother had to
take days off from her work, had to appeal to her employer, had to go to the
school board and finally after the school year had been open for some time she
got me into the school.
I had been there only a few days when the teacher made
unpleasant and derogatory remarks about Negroes and specifically seemingly
pointed at myself. Some of my schoolmates stoned me on the way home from
school. One of my schoolmates (and there were no other Negro children in the
school), a little white boy, protected me, and I have never in all my writing
career or speech career as far as I know said anything to create a division
among humans, or between whites or Negroes, because I have never forgotten this
kid standing up for me against these other first graders who were throwing
stones at me. I have always felt from that time on--I guess that was the basis
of it--that there are white people in America who can be your friend, and will
be your friend, and who do not believe in the kind of things that almost every
Negro who has lived in our country has experienced.
I do not want to take forever to tell you these things, but I
must tell you that they have very deep emotional roots in one's childhood and
one's beginnings, as I am sure any psychologist or teacher of English or
student of poetry will say about any creative work. My father and my mother
were not together. When I got old enough to learn why they were not together,
again it was the same thing. My father as a young man, shortly after I was
born, I understand, had studied law by correspondence. He applied for
permission to take examination for the Bar in the state of Oklahoma where he
lived, and they would not permit him. A Negro evidently could not take the
examinations. You could not be a lawyer at that time in the state of Oklahoma.
You know that has continued in a way right up to recent years, that we had to
go all the way to the Supreme Court to get Negroes into the law school a few
years ago to study law. Now you may study law and be a lawyer there.
Those things affected my childhood very much and very deeply.
I missed my father. I learned he had gone away to another country because of
prejudice here. When I finally met my father at the age of seventeen, he said
"Never go back to the United States. Negroes are fools to live
there." I didn't believe that. I loved the country I had grown up in. I
was concerned with the problems and I came back here. My father wanted me to
live in Mexico or Europe. I did not. I went here and went to college and my
whole career has been built here.
As I grew older, I went to high school in Cleveland. I went to
a high school in a very poor neighborhood and we were very poor people. My
friends and associates were very poor children and many of them were of
European parentage or some of them had been brought here in steerage themselves
from Europe, and many of these students in the Central High School in Cleveland
-- and this story is told, sir, parts of it, not as fully as I want to tell you
some things, in my book, The Deep Sea, my autobiography -- in the Central High
School, many of these pupils began to tell me about Eugene Debs, and about the
new nation and the new republic. Some of them brought them to school. I became
interested in whatever I could read that Debs had written or spoken about. I
never read the theoretical books of socialism or communism or the Democratic or
Republican party for that matter, and so my interest in whatever may be
considered political has been non-theoretical, non-sectarian, and largely
really emotional and born out of my own need to find some kind of way of
thinking about this whole problem of myself, segregated, poor, colored, and how
I can adjust to this whole problem of helping to build America when sometimes I
can not even get into a school or a lecture or a concert or in the south go to
the library and get a book out. So that has been a very large portion of the
emotional background of my work, which I think is essential to one's
understanding.
(Langston Hughes, The Big Sea -- New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1940)
When I was graduated from high school, I went to live with my
father for a time in Mexico, and in my father I encountered the kind of bitterness,
the kind of utter psychiatric, you might say, frustration that has been
expressed in some Negro novels, not in those I have written myself, I don't
believe. A man who was rabidly anti-American, anti-United States. I did not
sympathize with that viewpoint on the part of my own father. My feeling was
this is my country, I want to live here. I want to come back here I want to
make my country as beautiful as I can, as wonderful a country as I can, because
I love it myself. So I went back after a year in Mexico, and I went to
Columbia.
At Columbia University in New York City where I had never been
before, but where I heard there was practically no prejudice, by that time
wanting to be a writer and having published some papers in Negro magazines in
this country, I applied for a position on the staff of the Spectator newspaper,
I think that they had at the time, and I think they still do. Our freshman
counselor told us the various things that freshmen could apply for and do on
the Columbia campus, and I wanted to do some kind of writing, and I went to the
newspaper office. I was the only Negro young man or woman in the group. I can
not help but think that it was due to colored prejudice that of all the kinds
of assignments, and there were various assignments, sports, theater, classroom
activities, debating, of all the various assignments they could pick out to
assign me to cover was society news. They very well knew I could not go to
dances and parties, being colored, and therefore I could bring no news, and after
a short period, I was counted out of the Spectator group at my college.
When I went into the dormitory my first day there, I had a
reservation for a room. It had been paid for in the dormitory-- the correct
portion was paid for -- it was Fardley Hall. I was not given the room. They
could not find the reservation. I had to take all of that day and a large
portion of the next one to get into the dormitory. I was told later I was the
first to achieve that. In other words simple little things like getting a room
in a university in our country, one has to devote extraordinary methods even to
this day in our country in some parts.
I am thinking of the early 1920's. I did not stay at Columbia
longer than a year due in part to the various kinds of little racial prejudices
that I encountered.
Senator Dirksen. I think, Mr. Hughes, that would be adequate
emotional background.
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, that would not explain it all, how I
arrive at the point that Mr. Cohn, I believe, has asked me about.
Mr. Cohn. Could you make it briefer, please?
Senator Dirksen. Do you think we need more background to tell
what you meant by USSA?
Mr. Hughes. I think you do, sir. Because a critical work goes
out of a very deep background, it does not come in a moment. I am perfectly
willing to come back and give it to you later, if you are tired.
Mr. Cohn. No, we will sit here as long as you want to go on.
But you are missing the point completely. What we want to determine is whether
or not you meant those words when you said them.
Mr. Hughes. Sir, whether or not I meant them depends on what
they came from and out of.
Mr. Cohn. Did you desire to make the United States Soviet, put
one more "S" in the USA to make it Soviet. "The USA, when we
take control, will be the USSA."
Mr. Hughes. When I left Columbia, I had no money. I had $13.
Mr. Cohn. Did you mean those words when you spoke them? We
know the background. I want to know now, did you mean the words when you spoke
them? I am not saying you should not have meant them. I am asking you----
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, and you gave me the permission to give
the background.
Senator Dirksen. That answers the question.
Mr. Hughes. I did not say "Yes" to your question. I
said you gave me the chance to give you the background to the point.
Senator Dirksen. We have had enough background.
Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us whether or not you meant those
words?
Mr. Hughes. What words, sir?
Mr. Cohn. "Put one more `S' in the USA to make it Soviet.
The USA, when we take control, will be USSA then."
Mr. Hughes. Will you read me the whole poem?
Mr. Cohn. I do not have the whole poem. Do you claim these
words are out of context?
Mr. Hughes. It is a portion of a poem.
Mr. Cohn. Do you claim that these words distort the meaning?
Mr. Hughes. That is a portion of a poem and a bar of music out
of context does not give you the idea of the whole thing.
Mr. Cohn. At any time in your life did you desire to make the
United States of America Soviet?
Mr. Hughes. Not by violent means, sir.
Mr. Cohn. By any means.
Mr. Hughes. By the power of the ballot, I thought it might be
a possibility at one time.
Mr. Cohn. Did you want to do it? Did you desire that by the
ballot, not by violent means? Would you give us a yes or no answer to that?
Mr. Hughes, you say you have changed your views. You say you
no longer feel the way you did in 1949 when you made that statement in defense
of the Communist leaders, and said the things we read you. Will you give us
some evidence of that and be frank with this committee?
Mr. Hughes. Evidence of what, sir?
Mr. Cohn. Will you be frank with this committee and give us
some straightforward answers? Did you ever in your life desire the Soviet form
of government over here? That is a very simple question, Mr. Hughes, for a man
who wrote the things you did, and we have just started.
Mr. Hughes. You asked me about the poem, and I would like to
hear it all.
Mr. Cohn. I would like to know right now whether you ever
desired the Soviet form of government in this country, and I would like it
answered.
Mr. Hughes. Would you permit me to think about it?
Mr. Cohn. Pardon me? Mr. Hughes, you have belonged to a list
of Communist organizations a mile long. You have urged the election to public
office of official candidates of the Communist party. You have signed statements
to the effect that the purge trials in the Soviet Union were justified and
sound and democratic. You have signed statements denying that the Soviet Union
is totalitarian. You have defended the current leaders of the Communist party.
You have written poems which are an invitation to revolution. You have called
for the setting up of a Soviet government in this country. You have been named
in statements before us as a Communist, and a member of the Communist party.
Mr. Hughes, you can surely tell us simply whether or not you
ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
Mr. Cohn. The answer is yes. I think if you were a little more
candid with some of these things, we would get along a little better, because I
think I know enough about the subject so I am not going to sit here for six
days and be kidded along. I will be very much impressed if you would give us a
lot of straightforward answers. It would save us a lot of time. I know you do
not want to waste it any more than we do. We know every man is entitled to his
views and opinions. We are trying to find out which of these works should be
used in the State Department in its information program.
In the course of finding that out, we want to know whether you
ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country. I believe you have
said just a minute ago your answer to that is yes, is that right?
Mr. Hughes. I did desire it, and would desire----
Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. That is what we want. I believe
your statement before was that you desired it, but not by violent means, is
that right?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. That would be correct.
Mr. Cohn. What did you mean when you said "Good morning,
Revolution, you are the very best friend I ever had. We are going to pal around
together from now on."
Does not revolution imply violent means?
Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily, sir. I think it means a change
like the industrial revolution.
Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. When you used the word
"revolution" you were using it in a very broad sense, and meaning a
change, is that right?
Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
Mr. Cohn. When did you stop desiring the Soviet form of
government for this country? When did you come to the conclusion that was not
the solution.
Mr. Hughes. As I grew older, at that point I think I was about
twenty years old, possibly, I began to see not only an increasing awareness of
the seriousness of our racial situation in America on the part of many
people----
Mr. Cohn. Could you fix a time for us?
Mr. Hughes. Sir?
Mr. Cohn. Could you fix an approximate time? You cannot tell
the exact date, or maybe not even the exact year, but can you fix the
approximate time when you changed your view?
Mr. Hughes. Yes. When I began to see social progress
accelerating itself more rapidly, Supreme Court decisions, FEPC.
Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
Mr. Hughes. I would say certainly about the early 1940s and
from that point on.
Mr. Cohn. What were your views in 1949 when you said, "If
the 12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to
jail simply for being Negroes and to concentration camps just for being
colored." You have told us you do not feel that way today. When did you change
that particular view?
Mr. Hughes. You asked two questions. sir. That view point I
think grew out of what I had read about Germany, how they began with the
Communists, and they went on to Jews, and they went on to Negroes, and we had
Hitlerism, and that has been a general feeling on the part of some people.
Mr. Cohn. You say you changed, that view. When did you change
that view. This was February 1949. You say you do not feel that way today.
Mr. Hughes. The view that Negroes may be sent to jail if
Communists are?
Mr. Cohn. Yes. As a consequence of the conviction of the
Communist party leaders. In other words, a chain set off by the conviction of
the Communist party leaders.
Mr. Hughes. Well, it has not happened as yet, and therefore my
hope is and my belief is that we can keep it from happening.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, this is very important now that we have
had witnesses down here under oath: Are you sure that you were never a member
of the Communist party?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting? I
ask this again because perjury is a very serious crime.
Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever knowingly participated in any
Communist party activities?
Mr. Hughes. Just a moment, please.
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Hughes. Could you be specific about the activity?
Mr. Cohn. No.
Mr. Hughes. No.
Mr. Cohn. I asked you a question. I would like an answer.
Could we have the question read?
[Question read by the reporter.]
Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge in any activities that were
exclusively and solely and wholly Communist party activities, no, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this before we leave this point.
During that period of time, say up to the 1940s when you thought the Soviet
form of government was desirable, until you came to change your views, you say,
because you saw progress was being made under our form of government, do you think it is a wise thing for the State Department
Information Program, trying to carry a true picture of the American way of
life, to use your early writings, such as this "Ballad to Lenin" and
the Scottsboro thing, and the curtain in the form of the red flag, and the
singing of the Internationale, to use that in the information centers of
foreign countries, and put on the shelves for people, who expect to get a view
of American life, to read today?
Mr. Hughes. I doubt very much, sir, they are there.
Mr. Cohn. I am telling you for a fact they are there. Do you
think it is a good thing to have them there?
Mr. Hughes. I would think, sir, that it would be a good thing
for anyone to know all about the literature of any country written in all forms
so they can really judge it.
Mr. Cohn. You changed the views you expressed then. Are you
particularly proud of the views you expressed then?
Mr. Hughes. The word "proud" disturbs me because one
cannot go back and change anything one has done in the past.
Mr. Cohn. I think one can admit one was wrong.
Mr. Hughes. One can admit one was wrong. One can say "I
think differently now."
Mr. Cohn. Saying as you do that you think differently now, and
have been candid about that, do you think that those of your works which should
be used are those representing this period prior to your change of views? Do
you think that is helpful to this country?
Mr. Hughes. The works which you have named, sir, are not very
representative of my literary career.
Mr. Cohn. Without fencing, do you think if you were going to
make a selection of works to give a true picture of American way of life, would
you place in there the Scottsboro thing and this poem, "Ballad to
Lenin"?
Mr. Hughes. If I were a librarian doing it, I would place in
there----
Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about a librarian. This is not done
by librarians. This is done under a specific program of the State Department to
give people in foreign countries a true view as to the American way of life,
and the objectives we seek to achieve in this country.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They certainly should have a view of the
objectives we seek racially, and therefore they should know something about
the----
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, we are not talking on the same plane at
all. Certainly they might have a view as to what we seek racially and all that.
But the question is, should they have poems which call for the Soviet form of
government, poems which idealize Lenin, a poem which calls for everybody to get
up and sing the Internationale?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I think they should, because it
indicates freedom of press in our country, which is a thing we are proud of.
Mr. Cohn. I do not think you understand it at all. Those are
not in there to indicate freedom of the press in our country. Those are in
there because people in those countries depend on what is given to them for an
accurate picture of the objectives which this country seeks to achieve in its
fight against Communists.
Mr. Hughes. Yes. You want them to know we have freedom of the
press.
Mr. Cohn. No. These poems are not in there to illustrate the
fact we have freedom of press. They are put in there as part of a program to
show the objectives of this country, and to show our beliefs in the fight
against communism. Do you think something which calls for an espousal of the
Soviet form of government aids us in fighting communism? Think before you
answer that question, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes. I have answered your first question, have I not?
The other one has been answered, yes, indicating freedom of press. My answer
would be yes.
Mr. Cohn. You think it is a good thing.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, to show we have a very wide range of opinion
in our country, yes, I do.
Mr. Cohn. We have an awful lot of your writings we want to go
over. Just let me ask you about this one thing here. You are concerned about
minority rights in this country, is that right?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am.
Mr. Cohn. You are concerned about the rights of Jews as well
as the rights of Negroes?
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Did you write a poem called "Hard Luck"?
"When hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing for you to do,
When hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing to do, Gather up your
fine clothes and sell them to the Jew." Did you write that?
Mr. Hughes. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Do you think that is respectful of the rights of the
minority known as the Jews?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Cohn. In what respect?
Mr. Hughes. Because in common parlance among a certain poorer
class of Negroes--at least when that poem was written-- on a Monday morning
when they were broke and had to pawn something, it was a part of the slang with
no disrespect meant on their part certainly, to say, "I will take my coat
to Uncle or my clock to the Jew," and the racial connotation was not
disrespectful there.
Mr. Cohn. As much concern as you have on the rights of
Negroes, do you think this is a good poem to have in foreign information
centers?
Mr. Hughes. I think the title of the book is bad. I think the
poem is a good poem to have anywhere. Mr. Cohn. How about the poem,
"Goodbye Christ," that is a good poem to have anywhere?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, from my interpretation.
Mr. Cohn. How about the book, "Put One 'S' in USA?"
Do you think that is a good book against communism?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, because I think people would see it is
absurd.
Mr. Cohn. You do not think you are a Communist today?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. Cohn. When did you stop being a Soviet believer?
Mr. Reeves. That is like the question, "When did you stop
beating your wife?"
Mr. Cohn. Do you want to testify?
Mr. Reeves. No, I don't.
Mr. Cohn. Under the rules of the committee, the witness can
consult with you, but you are not here to testify, because if you were, you
would have to be sworn and give testimony. Mr. Hughes is free to consult with
you--and the chairman can correct me if I am wrong--the rule of the committee
is that the witness is free to consult with you any time he wishes, but you are
not here to give testimony.
Mr. Reeves. May I ask a question of the chairman?
Mr. Cohn. Certainly.
Mr. Reeves. My only concern was that the rapid fire process of
these questions frequently does not even permit of an answer, and that
particular question, as a lawyer, is of the type that in a rapid fire
questioning -- as I said, I am interested in protecting the rights of my client
-- it may very well be he might not have the opportunity in that series to
answer.
Mr. Cohn. If the questions are given too rapidly, I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that he turn to his counsel and his counsel can advise him, and
the witness can tell us that I am going too fast, and "I did not understand
the question" and we will stop. But I do not think counsel ought to
testify.
Mr. Hughes. May I say if we agree on the principle of
communism as meaning the Communist party, I will answer once and for all I have
never been a member of the Communist party.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist without having
formally joined the party?
Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Cohn. Do you think it is possible to desire the Soviet
form of government in this country and not be a Communist?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Cohn. How do you make the distinction?
Mr. Hughes. That requires of course a definition of Communist,
and my definition of it is the Communist party.
Mr. Cohn. I am saying disregard the formal membership in the
Communist party. I am talking about a change in our form of government, and a
substitution of the form of government that is in the Soviet Union, the Soviet
form of government.
Mr. Hughes. Your question was how can one believe that and not
be a Communist, and we have to agree upon what you mean by Communist.
Mr. Cohn. You have said it is possible. Now, you tell me what
a Communist means to you.
Mr. Hughes. A Communist means to me a member of the Communist
party who accepts the discipline of the Communist party and follows the various
changes of party line.
Mr. Cohn. Good. Now, you take my definition of a Communist as
one who is a believer in communism, a believer in the Soviet form of
government, and tell me whether or not you have ever been a Communist.
Mr. Hughes. A believer in the Soviet form of government?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hughes. For the Soviets or for whom?
Mr. Cohn. A believer in the Soviet form of government for
everybody.
Mr. Hughes. From my point it doesn't matter what the form of
government is if the rights of the minorities and the poor people are
respected, and if they have a chance to advance equally--
Mr. Cohn. What I want to know is this: You have conceded here
that you desired the Soviet form of government in this country.
Mr. Hughes. Not desire, sir.
Mr. Cohn. That you have desired the Soviet form of government.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Was that not your testimony here?
Mr. Hughes. In the past, yes, sir.
Mr. Cohn. I think you said up to the early 1940s. I want to
know how it is possible to desire the Soviet form of government and not believe
in communism?
Mr. Hughes. One can desire a Christian world and not be a
Baptist or Catholic.
Mr. Cohn. You were a non-Communist who nevertheless desired
the Soviet form of government for this country?
Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
Mr. Cohn. In what respect did you not believe in communism
during that period that you desired a Soviet form of government for this
country?
Mr. Hughes. In several respects, sir.
Mr. Cohn. What?
Mr. Hughes. I will again answer your question, if I may have
the time to answer it, in my own way.
Mr. Cohn. I think you might just outline to us briefly point
by point the points of difference between you and communism at the period of
time when you wanted a Soviet government in the United States.
Mr. Hughes. Again I repeat, sir, that communism to me did not
mean the rule book or Manifesto or the laws of the Soviet Union, which I have
never read, and my knowledge of it certainly came possibly from very shallow
sources, largely from reading magazines and newspapers. My disagreement with
what I read about them, which is in force now, too, and has been since I began
to think about it at all seriously, maybe twelve or more years ago, or fifteen
years ago, or even longer than that, to tell the truth, has been first that the
literary artist or an artist of any kind cannot accept outside discipline in
regard to his work or outside force or suggestions and my understanding was
that Communist party writers accepted the dictates of the party in regard to
their work.
Mr. Cohn. Under the Soviet form of government, is not that
true? You will agree that as to the Soviet form of government as it existed in
the Soviet Union at the time you wrote this, the Communist party was certainly
in control?
Mr. Hughes. The Communist party was in control and that is one
point I would disagree with the Communist party.
Mr. Cohn. In other words, when you desired the Soviet form of
government in this country, you desired it with certain modifications?
Mr. Hughes. With many modifications.
Mr. Cohn. You express that in any place in writing?
Mr. Hughes. I have not finished your question.
Mr. Cohn. I want to know whether you have expressed that in
writing.
Mr. Hughes. You said in different ways.
Mr. Cohn. You have given the first way. Have you expressed in
writing any place your disagreement with the Soviet form of government as to
that one point which you just made?
Mr. Hughes. Of that I can not be sure. I have certainly
expressed it verbally.
Mr. Cohn. To whom?
Mr. Hughes. Ivy Litvinov.
Mr. Cohn. To whom?
Mr. Hughes. To Mrs. Litvinov in Russia. We had a lot of
arguments.
Mr. Cohn. I do not think the Litvinovs are available. To
anybody in the United States?
Mr. Hughes. My relatives who heard me talk on the subject.
Mr. Cohn. You have not written anything on it?
Mr. Hughes. I may have. I would have to search and see.
Mr. Cohn. Will you go to point two?
Mr. Hughes. You do not desire me to answer other points where
I disagree?
Mr. Cohn. I have just asked you that.
Mr. Hughes. Yes. I gathered from shortly after I returned from
the Soviet Union and therefore was a bit more interested in what the actual
programs for the Negro in America of the Communist party was that they had a
program for the self determination of the Black Belt. As nearly as I could ever
understand it, it meant a separate Negro state or states. I did not agree with
that, and have in all my writing, as far as I know, if you take it in its
entire context and each piece as a whole, urged and suggested the complete
unification of the Negro people with all the other people in America. So I
never went along with that program.
Mr. Cohn. Point three.
Mr. Hughes. Yes. I am getting up to it.
Mr. Cohn. Very well.
Mr. Hughes. I don't suppose this is part of the Communist
party program, but the Communist party press, that is, the Masses and the more
literary portions of the press that I read rather intensively at one time in my
life, had a way of attacking Negro leadership, and also a way at one period of
attacking the church in general, both Negro and white, and I did not and have
never gone along with those attacks on Negro leaders of prominence, and I have
never myself repeated them or taken part in them, and I have opposed them at
times, and have written very favorably myself about people under attack
sometimes by the party press.
Mr. Cohn. While they were under attack?
Mr. Hughes. While they were under attack. I have also written
any number of poems and articles expressing sympathy and interest and
encouragement to religious groups and to religion in general with which many
people more left than myself have disagreed with, and asked me, "Why do
you write about the church, and write poems, `At the Feet of Jesus,' sung by
Marian Anderson, at the time they were antireligious."
Mr. Cohn. Would you call this poem, "Goodbye Christ"
a sympathetic dealing with religion?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would. I could site other poems but I think
that is sufficient to show you that I could not over a long period of years,
and never agree with some of the presumed main points of what I understand to
have been Communist party programs.
Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that a reasonable person reading
this poem, "Goodbye Christ" would not share your interpretation of
it?
Mr. Hughes. Sir, a poem may be interpreted in many ways and
many people have not understood that poem, and many people have chosen not to
understand it deliberately to sell it to foment race discord and hatred.
Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, I think it is only fair to reemphasize
to you the danger that you face if you do not tell the truth to this committee,
and to ask you to reconsider as to whether you wish to change any of your
testimony here. Do you wish to change it?
Mr. Hughes. No. sir, I do not. I have never been a member of
the Communist party, and I wish so to state under oath.
Mr. Schine. I am not just talking about that testimony. I am talking
about your entire testimony before this committee.
Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
[Witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Hughes. The truth of the matter is, sir, that the rapidity
with which I have been questioned, I don't fully recollect everything that I
might have said here. If a complete review of the testimony were given me, it
might be possible that I would want to change or correct some.
Mr. Schine. Let me ask you a question. Will you give the
committee at this time the names of some Communist party member whom you know?
Mr. Hughes. I do not know anyone to be a member of the
Communist party, sir. I have never seen anyone's party card.
Mr. Schine. You have never talked with anyone who is a member
of the Communist party?
Mr. Hughes. I wouldn't say that. I say I do not know who is a
Communist party----
Mr. Schine. You are quite sure of that?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am quite sure of that, sir.
Mr. Schine. Do you think Mrs. Litvinov is a member of the
Communist party?
Mr. Hughes. I rather think she was not from what they said
about her in Moscow.
Mr. Schine. What about Mr. Litvinov?
Mr. Hughes. I think perhaps he was.
Mr. Schine. Did you talk with him?
Mr. Hughes. No, I did not. I never met him.
Mr. Schine. You were in Russia?
Mr. Hughes. I was in Russia.
Mr. Schine. And you do not think that you talked to any
members of the Communist party while you were in Russia? Mr. Hughes. I would
certainly think I must have, but I do not ask people even in Russia whether
they are.
Mr. Schine. Do you not think it is important when you are
asked a question concerning your conversations with Communist party members
that you try to be accurate?
Mr. Hughes. I am trying to be as accurate as I know how, sir.
May I consult with counsel?
Mr. Schine. Certainly.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, I think we will suspend for the
evening, and could you oblige by returning at 10:15 on Thursday morning? The
hearing will be an open public hearing.
Mr. Hughes. Would you tell me, sir, about expenses?
Senator Dirksen. About expenses?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They are covered by the committee while
I am here?
Senator Dirksen. Under the rule the transportation is paid and
there is an allowance of $9 a day while you are here.
Mr. Hughes. From whom do I get it here?
Senator Dirksen. From the Treasury. The committee will be in
recess until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.
[Thereupon at 5:10 p.m., a recess was taken until Wednesday,
March 25, 1953, at 2:00 p.m.]
